this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
266 points (95.9% liked)

Canada

12187 readers
1009 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To no one’s surprise, women and girls are disproportionately targeted, making image-based abuse not just a technology issue but a gendered form of violence rooted in misogyny and power. In fact, in Laura Bates’ book “The New Age of Sexism”, she cites research that says that of the 96% of deepfakes that are non-consensual sexually explicit images, 99% of those depict women. In fact, most of the apps, bots and websites that will create deepfake explicit images don’t even work on pictures of men.

Deepfakes can be used to humiliate, silence, intimidate, or punish women for speaking publicly, participating online, or simply existing in digital spaces.

In the UK, women have reported being filmed by men wearing smart glasses while being approached in public spaces, with recordings subsequently uploaded to social media attracting sexualised and other gross comments. Similar “pickup” content has emerged in the US, where men have used smart glasses to record interactions with women in airports, gyms, and other public spaces, often turning those encounters into viral online content.

Last year, an Auckland man used the Ray-Ban Smart Glasses to covertly record a sex worker without her consent while she was naked. The recording was detected only because the woman noticed him activating the device (by touching the side of the glasses). He pleaded guilty to attempting to make an intimate visual recording, but was discharged without conviction - to the dismay of the brothel owner.

This is particularly concerning because wearable devices are designed to blend into everyday life. A child may not recognise that a pair of ordinary-looking sunglasses contains a camera. They may not realise they are being recorded, and will have little ability to control what happens to that image/footage afterwards.

Consent becomes much harder to meaningfully give or refuse when recording devices are hidden inside objects that look completely ordinary.

Too often, we're told that women and girls should simply be more careful, more alert, and more aware of their surroundings, remain vigilant, and constantly assess whether they are being recorded, instead of placing responsibility on those who design, deploy, and profit from technologies with foreseeable risks of misuse. The same is true for children and young people, who should not need levels of technological awareness beyond their developmental capacity simply to protect themselves from covert recording.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That's just it though, your consent is entering a public space.

People are recorded on dozens of cameras every day unbeknownst to them.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't know exactly what the laws on this are in Canada, but where I'm from at least (Europe) that's not entirely the case.

Anywhere with CCTV has to have a legible sign declaring the camera on the premises - and the CCTV camera has to be reasonably obvious. And the scope of what those cameras can be used for is limited by law.

Sure, in most circumstances you'll have no choice but to walk through the range of at least some cameras and be recorded - but at least you have the opportunity to be aware of them and their purported purpose (even if most people won't care to).

And that's true for companies or private individuals looking to film public areas too. They have to have obvious signage nearby the area they're recording, and their equipment has to be visible - to give people the opportunity to avoid the area being filmed.


Which is to say that both of those are different to being unknowingly recorded by a private individual with a discreet/hidden camera for a completely unknown purpose.

And no matter the legality, I'd still morally disagree with you. People should always have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to be recorded or not, and unilaterally deciding to take that away is gross.

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol -2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes Europe's laws on this are very different. Europens in the US often get upset when someone is filming on the street and haven't asked anyone for consent. Sometimes they throw a fit about it - threaten violence, or call the police. But it's perfectly legal and they can publish it even if you specifically say you don't give consent. A lot of that content ends up getting tons of views, so people going up to the camera to say I don't want to be on camera is kind of a running joke in the first amendment community. If they had just ignored the camera no one would have ever seen video of them.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 3 points 21 hours ago

While I understand for incidental filming, should being in public automatically give people consent to film you specifically? And in ways that are potentially a gross violation of your own personal space?

While I wouldn't necessarily advocate for violence, I'm surprised that you're perfectly okay with, and even justifying, the overriding of your own freedom of expression with someone else's because of the space that you're in.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

In any region intent matters.

No, you cannot leer at women in public with a camera.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Not exactly. You can't be victim of upskirt cameras because you wear a skirt in public.

And good luck to anyone wandering into a children's park wearing these.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not sure what you are saying? But in USA upskirt suits have been thrown out due to it being public space

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Couldn't find a conviction for the USA guy. As shit as it is, many of those have been thrown out due to no law preventing public photos.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

gonna need to see evidence of this, got links?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Texas I really don't expect better for, but that's disappointing for oregon.

Here we have explicit anti-voyeurism laws -

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1801

also, can't see why these federal statutes don't count for your examples even if the states are lagging.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The defense lawyer would argue that part 5 B

area would not be visible to the public,

Doesn't apply if the area was visible to the public.

I think the ones I read about were cases of overhead walkway and play dome equipment, both where underwear were clearly visible to public.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

see that's odd because I've seen specific cases where stairs and escalators were used to gain an angle downshirt and the creeps were charged.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

And they should be, But I think making it stick becomes the hard part.

[–] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

As much as I think this shouldn't be true, it demonstrably is