Rendered at 13:07:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
foodevl 6 minutes ago [-]
My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.
clcaev 3 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps courts may eventually provide devices for the hearing impaired. At some point this becomes an accessibility issue and once commercially viable, a necessity like a handicap ramp.
plorg 11 hours ago [-]
My local county is currently in a dispute with the local bar association because they want to upgrade the courthouse security cameras and the sheriff wants to add audio capabilities. This includes to parts of the building just outside the courtroom that counsel will frequently use for brief asides with their clients (due to lack of other private rooms). The county seems to favor adding the microphones and pinky swearing they won't use them and that public records requests won't be used to listen in on privileged communication, but it's obvious how difficult that would be to trust. They keep putting off a decision because they don't want to piss off the lawyers.
giantg2 25 minutes ago [-]
There should be no safety reason to require audio. The only reason for audio is later use for prosecution.
It's not just that they don't want to piss off the lawyers. If they don't provide a private location, then they may be forced to take continuances and recesses so those conversations can happen elsewhere as a condition of not infringing on the constitutional right to effective counsel.
theturtletalks 10 hours ago [-]
Even if what they hear is inadmissible in court, parallel construction is a real thing and they will find a way to work backwards.
shevy-java 3 hours ago [-]
It is basically an unfair advantage, even if inadmissible in court. The state can find more facts even in illegal ways; and this assuming the government is fair rather than criminal. I have a hard time trusting governments who mistrust the public.
PunchyHamster 1 hours ago [-]
Surely as a compromise the police dept can put cameras with audio livestreaming from every room in police dept ?
autoexec 8 hours ago [-]
What's the security reason they need this? How many times has a security camera failed to do its job because it didn't have audio? What crimes do they thing they are going to solve? Are people breaking into the courthouse wearing masks but screaming their own names?
b112 6 hours ago [-]
I think one problem is, almost all security cameras are sold with audio these days. If the cameras have a mic, telling people "Oh, we turned the mic off in each camera" or "We don't record the audio" isn't very helpful.
FinnKuhn 4 hours ago [-]
Just cut the cable for the microphone?
wolvoleo 4 hours ago [-]
It's often on the board as a MEMS microphone.
But yes I've done this with all my ring cameras, they were still the old type. One of them was a bitch to open up though (the indoor one IIRC)
05 2 hours ago [-]
There’s another problem with this because a camera with a mic cable cut would look from the outside exactly like a camera with mic cable intact, and maintenance is a thing, so eventually it’s bound to be replaced by a camera with a working mic either by mistake or “by mistake” on purpose. There’s a trust issue here since people who would be affected by the presence of a mic won’t be able to easily visually verify that it’s disabled.
eks391 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
danpalmer 8 hours ago [-]
I assume the sheriff would be totally fine with putting up signs in that area saying "audio and video recording in progress" then right? That would somewhat address the issue, and should be entirely uncontroversial to both sides.
0xbadcafebee 7 hours ago [-]
That doesn't sound like a good compromise at all. First practically speaking, you can't just leave the court building to discuss with your client if they're in chains, and it's super inconvenient based on the layout of many courts. Second, this becomes the excuse for adding audio and video surveillance everywhere, with the excuse that you know about it, so it's okay. Third, considering audio can pick up things like jokes, irrational things said in anger, or just one's mumblings to oneself, it very quickly becomes the excuse to haul in anyone you don't like by misconstruing their words. The fact that it was brought by law enforcement tells you they are looking to use it against people.
Terr_ 3 hours ago [-]
> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
-- Structured to Cardinal Richelieu
ohhman11 3 hours ago [-]
It's so fundamentally terrifying that someone would consider that "totally fine".
Prosecutors will take breaks in their offices within the same building while the defense has to leave the building in order to have a private conversation, that sounds totally fair and reasonable.
plorg 7 hours ago [-]
The whole point of contention is that one of the spaces is, effectively, the only convenient places to have a quick, heretofore private, conversation. No one is confused over where the things are.
wood_spirit 4 hours ago [-]
There should be rooms assigned for these private conversations.
But I imagine even these rooms are cammed, and lip reading is a thing
linkregister 7 hours ago [-]
There is an asymmetric impact to the defense. In our adversarial legal system, we must not disadvantage one of the sides unilaterally.
WillAdams 2 hours ago [-]
There are times when I want to argue that the solution is to make the question one of truth rather than guilt or innocence, but any solution runs up against human nature, my first experience of which was when playing sports and being told by my team mates that I should state that the ball fell on the side of the line which was advantageous to the team, rather than where it actually fell.
Never willingly played a team sport again.
nozzlegear 9 hours ago [-]
Are you in Iowa, by chance? A neighboring county where I live wants to do this exact thing. Last I read they had voted to go forward with it.
gib444 48 minutes ago [-]
CCTV with audio is a line that should not be crossed, but as there tech is there, they just can't resist
There's no leadership to curtail asinine behavior. Instead of forces of nature to strengthen the status quo of freedom, we get lowly politicians. Judges end up having to do all the work.
giantg2 12 minutes ago [-]
Once the glasses become popular, so will jammers. By jammers I mean audio and visual disruption to make the recordings unusable, or nearly so.
bryan0 11 hours ago [-]
Serious question: what will happen when people start getting implants? They’ll probably require some sort of off mode, but not sure how that would be enforced.
paxys 11 hours ago [-]
It's already impossible to stop someone from recording if they are really determined. Pen cameras, button cameras and all sorts of miniature devices exist and can be snuck through very easily. You enforce the restriction by prosecuting people who upload the footage.
Suzuran 27 minutes ago [-]
The problem is punishing the uploader doesn't remove the upload. Once the public has it, it has it forever. It doesn't un-contaminate a jury pool, and there's no later retraction if whatever that was uploaded is found to be lacking context, false, or outright fabricated. Once that kind of damage is done, it can't be un-done.
megabless123 27 minutes ago [-]
> You enforce the restriction by prosecuting people who upload the footage.
but this is impossible to guarantee as well
hau 3 hours ago [-]
On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. State, municipal, border and patrol random checks for proper attestation of implants. Of course manufacture and installation of such implants is licensed and tightly regulated. Think of children.
It's not very different from smartphone. But now instead of modem you have nn "firmware" with broad capabilities to warn privacy and ethics police when you are out of line. Recording in the wrong place, or looking at a crime and not reporting. "Off mode" won't fly for a gun, and your implant threatens children, so I don't believe this could be delegated to the user.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
> On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious.
This module is formally called "conscience" and fortunately, at this time, is securely sandboxed to not directly communicate with any device or service outside of the body.
hau 23 minutes ago [-]
This is dangerous terrorist version you are talking about. People can not be trusted with choosing their own conscience, that's how you get terrorists and pedophiles. Remotely attested module is trusted by democratic authority, not using it is basically admiting intention to hurt fellow citizens.
TeMPOraL 20 minutes ago [-]
Drop the democratic, and you just invented crypto-church.
guzfip 42 minutes ago [-]
Thankfully Silicon Valley discovered you can be so much more productive by removing the conscience as well as the soul.
Traubenfuchs 2 hours ago [-]
Look how that worked out for whatever‘s your favorite mass genocide in history.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think networking it with powers-that-be will help, though.
_trampeltier 8 hours ago [-]
For ex. in a lot factorys, is is forbidden to make pictures (and movies). So maybe you just don't have access to such areas. In Switzerland pen cameras etc. are just forbidden.
ghaff 3 hours ago [-]
In fact, pre smartphones more or less, bringing cameras into even an office workplace was generally pretty controlled. Still is under some circumstances.
root_axis 11 hours ago [-]
That's so far into the future that we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
theshrike79 7 hours ago [-]
You really need to look into what people are doing with prosthetic eyes.
And I'm pretty sure I saw one who added a laser to theirs for raves, but can't find the link :)
You can buy very very tiny cameras today off the shelf, the main problem would be just packaging either a storage medium or wireless transfer capability + power inside the eye. With government-level budgets it's doable, possibly even by a skilled maker with resources.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
It's so far into the future that it overflows the temporal coordinates and is actually a few years into the past now.
pinkmuffinere 8 hours ago [-]
> so far into the future
Idk, I think this is like, maybe 5 years in the future
emptybits 9 hours ago [-]
On the audio side, it's not a stretch to imagine cochlear implants (or hearing aids) having an undetectable recording ability.
TeMPOraL 25 minutes ago [-]
AFAIK some wireless buds can work as better hearing aids, they just don't have the medical device label to officially perform that function.
stainablesteel 51 minutes ago [-]
what will happen is people will get away with it, unfettered, until someday someone ends up in a courtroom for it. they'll be punished, then if it happens frequently enough more people will chime in on wanting a way to inhibit it, maybe people would start wearing those anti-paparazzi-clothes that somehow ruin the footage
steanne 11 hours ago [-]
sounds like an expensive way to get disqualified from jury duty.
inetknght 10 hours ago [-]
The easiest way to get out of jury duty is to ask about jury nullification during voir dire.
But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties?
b00ty4breakfast 3 hours ago [-]
>But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties?
because jury duty pays like 2 dollars an hour and I gotta eat. I know lots of folks on this website are relatively well off, but the entire country doesn't make 6 figures
ghaff 3 hours ago [-]
Meanwhile you’re probably paying for parking, gas, etc.
Also grand jury duty can be something like six months (may not be every day depending on jurisdiction. Federal may be even longer. Probably no company will keep paying you for that length of time even if you squeeze in some work nights and weekends.
Suzuran 13 minutes ago [-]
The company doesn't get the choice. If they fire you or cut your pay over jury service, or even just threaten to to do so, and you can prove it, they can be arrested immediately. I have personally witnessed a judge issue a bench warrant for the arrest of a retail manager who told an employee that if she failed to get out of jury duty before her shift started that she would be fired. When the manager was brought in and questioned by the judge he tried to argue that it was his right to deny jury service by his employees. He was given 90 days in jail for contempt of court.
limagnolia 8 hours ago [-]
Or you could just write to the court and ask to be excused, so you don't even have to show up. Most judges will excuse you for any reason if you ask.
pseingatl 8 hours ago [-]
In Miami, writing "No English" on the summons does the trick. Or, tell them that you do not consent to be searched (courthouse searches are deemed to be "consent" searches) so please have someone escort you inside without being searched. A quick note saying, "only God can judge" gets you off the hook. They'll hustle you right out of there if you mention jury nullification. Announcing that "the defendant must be guilty because the police arrested him," or "plaintiff lawyers exaggerate injuries to get more money" usually work. "I'm prejudiced against [fill in the blank] people" works too. If this doesn't work immediately, serve up a stereotype in response to the judge's question. "Everyone knows that most crimes are committed by black people" will earn you an a quick excusal. I could go on. "I can't pay attention because I'm worried about..." "Maybe this case is important to these people but I've got my own problems and I can't concentrate on their while I'm worried about my own."
mystraline 15 minutes ago [-]
"Your honor, it is my ethical framework that I first must determine if the law should even be the law, and secondly if the defendant did it if the law is worthy. I will find the defendant not guilty even if they claim in ourn court they did it, but the law is bad."
(Basis and justification of jury nullification.)
kstrauser 8 hours ago [-]
Not on my last summons! I had to go to a side room with the judge and show him that I already had personal, not work-sponsored, travel during the scheduled dates. He was clear with our instructions that work travel was not an excuse; that was the employer’s problem, not the employee’s. I showed him my airfare receipts and he thanked me for coming, and sent me home. I was one of like 5 people who got to leave.
ghaff 3 hours ago [-]
I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t just let you reschedule. As I recall when I got a grand jury summons I kicked the can down the road as far as I could and then avoided being empaneled.
lotsofpulp 5 hours ago [-]
We had a 2 or 3 month old and my wife didn’t get dismissed due needing to breastfeed the baby every couple hours. They gave her a room to feed in, so I also had to take time off to take the baby to her.
lotsofpulp 5 hours ago [-]
>But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties?
Because jury duty does not pay enough to put a roof over one’s head and food on the table?
mystraline 9 minutes ago [-]
Supposedly, for what amounts to an "extremely important civic duty", pays to what amounts illegal under-minimum wage for compelled work. Its usually $60/day which is barely $7.50/hr. Then you have to pay for parking and overly expensive food downtown.
And the only reason people even care about being on a jury is because we are threatened with state violence if we dont. Its not like they have to pay people fairly - they just threaten you with contempt of court and jail.
Money wouldn't solve everything, sure. But being paid $50/hr would greatly alleviate many problems.
Dban1 8 hours ago [-]
EMP wave.
kelseyfrog 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
fooker 10 hours ago [-]
You're arguing for government enforced de-anonymization while at the same time using an anonymous internet account :)
dfansteel 10 hours ago [-]
You’ll notice their specific example, the Cybertruck, is easy to identify on any road. And, as far as I can tell, not being mandated by any government for purchase.
kelseyfrog 10 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
denkmoon 9 hours ago [-]
is this some kind of performance art?
serious_angel 11 hours ago [-]
I am not into Facebook/Meta nowadays, bet the technology is so lovely freaking magnificent... Back in the days, these were in Sci-Fi and dreams only...
It can be simultaneously true that smart glasses are a technological marvel and a privacy nightmare.
It's also important to consider that while many places have some legal framework along the lines of "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces," there's a social-psychological gap between that and the presumption of being constantly recorded, be it by other private individuals or governments.
Because of this, my view on this technology is that it's a net negative in society, and generally unhealthy.
theshrike79 7 hours ago [-]
As a full-time glasses-wearer and sci-fi nerd, I want smart glasses SO BAD. Just running the equivalent of YOLOv8 on your glasses identifying objects in your view real time would be very very cool.
But as a privacy-conscious developer, I want exactly zero connection to any FAANG cloud service in my smart classes.
So until someone releases a pair of smart glasses I can get with my prescription and, for example, use my phone for "local" compute with no forced cloud access, I'm going to skip the whole category.
whiplash451 6 hours ago [-]
It’s worse than this. A company offering “private” smart glasses could slip into FB mode on its own or get acquired. So it’s a hard no from any company really.
stavros 2 hours ago [-]
A company offering private smart glasses would have to offer them with an unlocked bootloader.
Terr_ 3 hours ago [-]
IMO much of the "no reasonable expectation" stuff is simply wrong, or treats things as an unreasonable binary.
For example, there's no reasonable expectation that singing to myself in public won't be recorded.
But almost everyone in public does reasonably-assume that their every step isn't being permanently logged by a stalking drone swarm.
verandaguy 2 hours ago [-]
Right, that's actually a fair framing. I get to enjoy a walking commute in my city, and or the most part, I feel very anonymous on my walk into the office.
Blending into rush hour foot traffic is easy, and I never feel like I stand out enough to attract attention... though in the back of my head, I know that most commercial and government properties have some form of video surveillance, probably backed by some kind of (hopefully coarse) AI subject tagging.
discordance 8 hours ago [-]
I also feel for the unfortunate Kenyan annotators drawing and tagging rectangles of people using the toilet -
They were better off being left in dreams, because there you never have to actually think of the consequences.
Like Star Trek holodecks. They seem amazing at first, but only because the weirdest it ever got was a sweaty Lt. Barclay, a creepy Cmdr. LaForge, and a safe-for-TV sleazeball named Quark.
In reality, if you could "jack in" to a self-controlled Matrix, or walk onto a holodeck and make anything you wanted feel real, it would be 24/7, 100% the unhealthiest invention since the nuclear weapon.
expedition32 5 hours ago [-]
One thing people don't get right about Star Trek is that the Federation is not supposed to be "us but with a post scarcity economy".
The entire society in Star Trek has moved beyond greed and sadism.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
Also Starfleet is the hypercompetent overachieving side of the Federation, and the show itself is aspirational to the core of its DNA, so this kind of biases the sample. It's not supposed to be us today, but rather what we could plausibly become as people (even subtracting the post-scarcity / scifi bits).
internet_points 4 hours ago [-]
Oh, I thought it was in all of Philadelphia, but it's just inside courtrooms :(
k310 10 hours ago [-]
Nearby Glasses for Android [0] tries to detect smart glasses.
Before the court makes you shut off your Android device.
I had my first interaction with someone wearing Meta(I assume) glasses and it was very disconcerting. Ironically I was collecting my new (non-smart) glasses and it was the employee I was interacting with. I really wanted to ask for someone else to deal with me but since there has been no furore this time around (my how times have changed since Goggle Glass) I decided not to risk a scene
AlecSchueler 2 hours ago [-]
> I really wanted to ask for someone else to deal with me but since there has been no furore this time around (my how times have changed since Goggle Glass) I decided not to risk a scene
Isn't it fair to stand to your own principles even if others are moving in a different direction?
collinmcnulty 1 hours ago [-]
I think social pressure is the best weapon we have against these. The people who use them want to seem cool, so make it seem like these are weird, dorky, and creepy and they won’t take off.
sheiyei 6 hours ago [-]
When I need to get new glasses my first requirement is that the store doesn't sell Meta Creep Glasses
justkys 44 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
qha34h 11 hours ago [-]
I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not. For example, you cannot just use public material with recognizable people in advertisements without their consent.
Meta is likely to use material from these spy devices to build real world networks and use it commercially.
These "glasses" should be outlawed. The only useful purpose is to immediately identify the wearer as an asshole.
sebmellen 11 hours ago [-]
Is it really true that commercial use of film taken from public places is not allowed without consent? Is there a case law or a specific statute on this? Would love to read more.
What if people are recognizable but more in the background? Isn't that fair use?
recursivecaveat 10 hours ago [-]
Are far as I can tell: people in the footage can collect damages as long as they're identifiable. Meaning that you could easily tell afterwards that the complainant is the one in the footage used. So a shot of a sports crowd is probably okay, though I imagine they have people sign off on some kind of T&C that covers that anyway. On the other hand walking-down-the-street footage you would need releases from those people.
repiret 10 hours ago [-]
Assuming you mean in the United Stares, can you cite a specific law or court case to support your position?
It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.
mminer237 2 minutes ago [-]
It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.
recursivecaveat 7 hours ago [-]
Not federal, but this: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344/ To be clear by 'commercial purposes', it's advertising/promotion/marketing. Paparazzi photos would be alright by that bar. I presume the idea is to avoid any implied endorsement by those photographed.
bluefirebrand 9 hours ago [-]
Paparazzi get sued for crossing lines all the time. Good ones know exactly how far they can push the boundary and are careful to stay close to it
DoneWithAllThat 53 minutes ago [-]
> I don't see how these glasses are legal at all. While filming in public places is allowed in the US, commercial use of that material is not
As a general statement about the law this is not correct. And that’s even before we get to the next paragraph where you just wildly speculate and use that as buttressing the already false premise.
paxys 11 hours ago [-]
So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?
neya 7 hours ago [-]
Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?
0xbadcafebee 7 hours ago [-]
If you're a TikToker, absolutely
probably_wrong 4 hours ago [-]
I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1].
He was definitely filming everyone without our consent.
TikTokers aren't exactly the gold standards of society nor is being a TikToker a free card to violate people's privacy though. What's to say if someone confronts and requests the TikToker to stop recording them without their permission?
Ylpertnodi 5 hours ago [-]
Public photography is not a crime.
* a negative is: the opportunities to enjoy oneself have sadly diminished...do one 'strange' thing in public, and you're on the web.
neya 4 hours ago [-]
Public photography isn't a crime, but then again it's very nuanced. If I'm taking a portrait of a park, where people are having picnics, it seems "less targeted", if you know what I mean. Whereas walking with a phone or camera in your hand pointing directly at people's faces feels not really right.
The best way to do this would be how Google solved this with street view. Capture your public photos, blur out people's faces - better yet, respect their privacy if someone requests to not film them. Eg. Google Street view will blur out complete homes if you decide to opt out.
mr_toad 3 hours ago [-]
It’s practically impossible to take pictures of a famous monument without having other people in the frame (usually they’re posing for photos themselves). AI can remove them, with varying degrees of success.
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
Ironically, it would probably be easier for the AI to generate the photo of the monument without the people. I mean, for famous monuments, whatever photo you're about to take, you could find 10 better ones already on-line, taken from the same point and perspective, and uploaded to Flickr or Instagram or wherenot.
dataflow 11 hours ago [-]
Are all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?
shagie 10 hours ago [-]
A news broadcast for a commercially run news network does not need releases nor does it need to compensate people who walk through the background.
Likewise, journalistic photographs (for commercial use) are legal and don't require releases or compensation for people who are part of the scene.
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
justkys 41 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
kettlecorn 6 hours ago [-]
Side note: OP's account is named "Philadelphia" and this appears to be the first Philly related thing they've posted since 2013.
Xylakant 6 hours ago [-]
Philadelphia is a cheese brand in Germany, maybe they just like that. Or the movie.
miki123211 4 hours ago [-]
We really need a disability exception for things like this.
Meta Glasses are a hit in the blind community (for obvious reasons). Things will really come to a head when we finally get working face recognition tech.
I wonder if this law could be challenged on ADA reasonable accommodation grounds.
siruwastaken 3 hours ago [-]
Is this from the standpoint if a defendant in a court case being allowed to wear smartglasses or in general any visitor having that privilege. Because in general it seems that the restrictions on video cameras imposed in court rooms should simply extend to smartglasses as well. Just because it is in the form of glasses shouldn't suddenly make taking video cameras everywhere acceptable. And I fear to think that there could be a backdoor added to the software that shares all the videos with Meta.
dankwizard 11 hours ago [-]
It's why I use the classic camera-in-the-pen-in-the-shirt-pocket.
Dban1 8 hours ago [-]
4k 144fps?
TeMPOraL 2 hours ago [-]
Phones exist, tho.
imsohotness 9 hours ago [-]
I wonder if these items could be banned from college/lecture halls
martythemaniak 11 hours ago [-]
There's hardly a worse advertisement for those than Zuckerberg wearing them. The idea was always that Google glass failed because it made you look like a dork because the glasses looked weird, so if the glasses looked normal they'd sell. But now you have a creep with a camera always pointed at you, so it'll go the same way.
KennyBlanken 7 hours ago [-]
Smart eyeglasses are illegal in my state, unquestionably.
The law mandates that any "secret" recording is illegal. This is different from the usual standard, which is whether someone is recording people who are in a place where they have an expectation of privacy or not.
It doesn't matter if you're on the street, in someone's home, a courtroom. A tiny little LED doesn't rectify that. Nobody expects someone's eyeglasses to be recording them.
Ylpertnodi 5 hours ago [-]
Which state bans photography in public? I'm sure quite a few 1a auditors would be interested in travelling there.
kittikitti 9 hours ago [-]
This is a great rule and I hope to hear about other courts implement it. Smart eyeglasses are an invasion of privacy and inside a courtroom they're certainly a threat. Especially because the tech monopolies and their surveillance technologies have proven to be incredible privacy liabilities.
pseingatl 8 hours ago [-]
Florida allows cameras in the courtroom, as do other, but not all, States. You have no expectation of privacy in a Florida courtroom during a public trial. Trials are supposed to be public. Thanks to Doc Shepherd (Ohio, 1954) cameras are banned in federal courts, but the trials themselves are public. There's nothing stopping you from entering and memorializing a proceeding using a court reporter.
7 hours ago [-]
lokinork 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rorylawless 11 hours ago [-]
Quote from the article subheading:
"The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania said the rule is designed to protect witnesses and jurors from intimidation."
It seems like a perfectly reasonable motivation to ban any device from courts.
paulv 11 hours ago [-]
Jurors?
HDBaseT 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
pseingatl 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
SilverElfin 11 hours ago [-]
All public transit and workplaces next.
Octoth0rpe 11 hours ago [-]
Cool. Now do all government offices / properties of any kind please (and also go national with the policy).
Absolutely fuck these things and anyone who advocates for them. No exceptions.
> reasonably affordable and available smart glasses have finally begun catching on within the last year.
Also, no they haven't.
zmmmmm 11 hours ago [-]
I couldn't read the article but am curious what the definition of "smart" is. Because if that is the exact wording then it seems to be extremely broad and probably capture some unintended cases.
These kind of blanket bans are going to pose some real problems for the tech because people who wear prescription glasses will often get their prescription built in. So you can't take them off - you need them to see. And then there is another subset of blind and deaf users who are even more dependent on them. What are these people going to do once there are a non-trivial amount of places banning you from wearing them at all?
I think the tech industry is far behind the eight ball on this. To their credit Meta actually did a half decent job out of the gate designing sensor-gated recording lights into the Raybans. But it's not enough. There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording. Then maybe you have a chance of this category not becoming Google Glass 2.0. Otherwise I'm struggling to see how this ship won't sink.
aiiane 10 hours ago [-]
The important part of the article:
> From then on, any eyewear with video and audio recording capability will be forbidden in all of the First Judicial District buildings, courthouses, or offices, even for people who have a prescription. Other devices with recording capabilities like cell phones and laptops continue to be allowed inside courtrooms but must be powered off and stowed away.
It's defined as having recording capability, which is quite a reasonable restriction to make, IMO.
zmmmmm 7 hours ago [-]
That's actually not too bad - it leaves space for devices that do have cameras or microphones for other reasons, as long as they don't persist the output. So you could do real time recognition for assistive devices etc.
simonw 10 hours ago [-]
I think it's a very bad idea for a prescription glasses wearer to have only a single pair of glasses where that single pair has a built in camera.
zmmmmm 7 hours ago [-]
It's not just "having" them though, it's carrying them everywhere and constantly swapping over to your dumb glasses as you walk in and out of places that don't like the smart ones.
Which is sort of my point: when main purpose is convenience, if you have to do something inconvenient to use it then you killed the thing altogether. So if manufacturers want this to fly, they need to sort out the privacy question before there's a sign on every public place saying "no recording glasses". If I was in Meta's position, i'd be going to regulators to ban glasses without an externally controlled hard shutoff mechanism.
It might seem a trivial thing currently, but some of these factors will be the ultimate determinants of exactly how much utility humans can get out of AI. If it can't see what you can see, it can't help you with that.
simoncion 7 hours ago [-]
> [W]hen main purpose is convenience, if you have to do something inconvenient to use it then you killed the thing altogether.
Funny. Because UV-activated darkening lenses inevitably fail in a half-darkened state, I have a pair of always-dark prescription sunglasses and prescription -er- clearglasses. I can tell you from personal experience that it's inconvenient to carry both and swap between the two as my location and the time of day changes, and yet... somehow there's still a solid market for always-dark prescription eyeglasses.
Weird, innit?
kstrauser 8 hours ago [-]
I’ve thought about that before. On one hand: “I need these to see.” Other: “No, you need some glasses to see. Picking these as your only pair was bad decision making.”
garbawarb 10 hours ago [-]
It sounds like OP is talking about having this extra pair with them where they go, not just having a pair in general.
tdeck 10 hours ago [-]
Which is a fair expectation IMO. There are plenty of places where it's not appropriate to record that they might encounter in the course of a normal day.
qmr 6 hours ago [-]
If they can afford stupid "smart" glasses they can afford dumb glasses.
> There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording.
Yes, this is a great idea. Hardware hackers can then quickly clone these beacons and spam $5 glass hole blockers everywhere.
It's not just that they don't want to piss off the lawyers. If they don't provide a private location, then they may be forced to take continuances and recesses so those conversations can happen elsewhere as a condition of not infringing on the constitutional right to effective counsel.
But yes I've done this with all my ring cameras, they were still the old type. One of them was a bitch to open up though (the indoor one IIRC)
-- Structured to Cardinal Richelieu
Prosecutors will take breaks in their offices within the same building while the defense has to leave the building in order to have a private conversation, that sounds totally fair and reasonable.
But I imagine even these rooms are cammed, and lip reading is a thing
Never willingly played a team sport again.
There's no leadership to curtail asinine behavior. Instead of forces of nature to strengthen the status quo of freedom, we get lowly politicians. Judges end up having to do all the work.
but this is impossible to guarantee as well
It's not very different from smartphone. But now instead of modem you have nn "firmware" with broad capabilities to warn privacy and ethics police when you are out of line. Recording in the wrong place, or looking at a crime and not reporting. "Off mode" won't fly for a gun, and your implant threatens children, so I don't believe this could be delegated to the user.
This module is formally called "conscience" and fortunately, at this time, is securely sandboxed to not directly communicate with any device or service outside of the body.
Here's a dude from 3 years ago adding a flashlight: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/yblzi4/g...
And I'm pretty sure I saw one who added a laser to theirs for raves, but can't find the link :)
You can buy very very tiny cameras today off the shelf, the main problem would be just packaging either a storage medium or wireless transfer capability + power inside the eye. With government-level budgets it's doable, possibly even by a skilled maker with resources.
Idk, I think this is like, maybe 5 years in the future
But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties?
because jury duty pays like 2 dollars an hour and I gotta eat. I know lots of folks on this website are relatively well off, but the entire country doesn't make 6 figures
Also grand jury duty can be something like six months (may not be every day depending on jurisdiction. Federal may be even longer. Probably no company will keep paying you for that length of time even if you squeeze in some work nights and weekends.
(Basis and justification of jury nullification.)
Because jury duty does not pay enough to put a roof over one’s head and food on the table?
And the only reason people even care about being on a jury is because we are threatened with state violence if we dont. Its not like they have to pay people fairly - they just threaten you with contempt of court and jail.
Money wouldn't solve everything, sure. But being paid $50/hr would greatly alleviate many problems.
// https://www.ifixit.com/News/113543/theres-groundbreaking-wav...
It's also important to consider that while many places have some legal framework along the lines of "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces," there's a social-psychological gap between that and the presumption of being constantly recorded, be it by other private individuals or governments.
Because of this, my view on this technology is that it's a net negative in society, and generally unhealthy.
But as a privacy-conscious developer, I want exactly zero connection to any FAANG cloud service in my smart classes.
So until someone releases a pair of smart glasses I can get with my prescription and, for example, use my phone for "local" compute with no forced cloud access, I'm going to skip the whole category.
For example, there's no reasonable expectation that singing to myself in public won't be recorded.
But almost everyone in public does reasonably-assume that their every step isn't being permanently logged by a stalking drone swarm.
Blending into rush hour foot traffic is easy, and I never feel like I stand out enough to attract attention... though in the back of my head, I know that most commercial and government properties have some form of video surveillance, probably backed by some kind of (hopefully coarse) AI subject tagging.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/workers-report-watch...
Like Star Trek holodecks. They seem amazing at first, but only because the weirdest it ever got was a sweaty Lt. Barclay, a creepy Cmdr. LaForge, and a safe-for-TV sleazeball named Quark.
In reality, if you could "jack in" to a self-controlled Matrix, or walk onto a holodeck and make anything you wanted feel real, it would be 24/7, 100% the unhealthiest invention since the nuclear weapon.
The entire society in Star Trek has moved beyond greed and sadism.
Before the court makes you shut off your Android device.
An ios BT detector might also work.
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.ne...
Isn't it fair to stand to your own principles even if others are moving in a different direction?
Meta is likely to use material from these spy devices to build real world networks and use it commercially.
These "glasses" should be outlawed. The only useful purpose is to immediately identify the wearer as an asshole.
It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.
As a general statement about the law this is not correct. And that’s even before we get to the next paragraph where you just wildly speculate and use that as buttressing the already false premise.
He was definitely filming everyone without our consent.
[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol
* a negative is: the opportunities to enjoy oneself have sadly diminished...do one 'strange' thing in public, and you're on the web.
The best way to do this would be how Google solved this with street view. Capture your public photos, blur out people's faces - better yet, respect their privacy if someone requests to not film them. Eg. Google Street view will blur out complete homes if you decide to opt out.
Likewise, journalistic photographs (for commercial use) are legal and don't require releases or compensation for people who are part of the scene.
https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf (note the credentials in the lower right corner - and if you want to know more I'd suggest https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm )
Meta Glasses are a hit in the blind community (for obvious reasons). Things will really come to a head when we finally get working face recognition tech.
I wonder if this law could be challenged on ADA reasonable accommodation grounds.
The law mandates that any "secret" recording is illegal. This is different from the usual standard, which is whether someone is recording people who are in a place where they have an expectation of privacy or not.
It doesn't matter if you're on the street, in someone's home, a courtroom. A tiny little LED doesn't rectify that. Nobody expects someone's eyeglasses to be recording them.
"The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania said the rule is designed to protect witnesses and jurors from intimidation."
It seems like a perfectly reasonable motivation to ban any device from courts.
Absolutely fuck these things and anyone who advocates for them. No exceptions.
> reasonably affordable and available smart glasses have finally begun catching on within the last year.
Also, no they haven't.
These kind of blanket bans are going to pose some real problems for the tech because people who wear prescription glasses will often get their prescription built in. So you can't take them off - you need them to see. And then there is another subset of blind and deaf users who are even more dependent on them. What are these people going to do once there are a non-trivial amount of places banning you from wearing them at all?
I think the tech industry is far behind the eight ball on this. To their credit Meta actually did a half decent job out of the gate designing sensor-gated recording lights into the Raybans. But it's not enough. There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording. Then maybe you have a chance of this category not becoming Google Glass 2.0. Otherwise I'm struggling to see how this ship won't sink.
> From then on, any eyewear with video and audio recording capability will be forbidden in all of the First Judicial District buildings, courthouses, or offices, even for people who have a prescription. Other devices with recording capabilities like cell phones and laptops continue to be allowed inside courtrooms but must be powered off and stowed away.
It's defined as having recording capability, which is quite a reasonable restriction to make, IMO.
Which is sort of my point: when main purpose is convenience, if you have to do something inconvenient to use it then you killed the thing altogether. So if manufacturers want this to fly, they need to sort out the privacy question before there's a sign on every public place saying "no recording glasses". If I was in Meta's position, i'd be going to regulators to ban glasses without an externally controlled hard shutoff mechanism.
It might seem a trivial thing currently, but some of these factors will be the ultimate determinants of exactly how much utility humans can get out of AI. If it can't see what you can see, it can't help you with that.
Funny. Because UV-activated darkening lenses inevitably fail in a half-darkened state, I have a pair of always-dark prescription sunglasses and prescription -er- clearglasses. I can tell you from personal experience that it's inconvenient to carry both and swap between the two as my location and the time of day changes, and yet... somehow there's still a solid market for always-dark prescription eyeglasses.
Weird, innit?
> There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording.
Yes, this is a great idea. Hardware hackers can then quickly clone these beacons and spam $5 glass hole blockers everywhere.