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.
theturtletalks 4 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.
danpalmer 3 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 1 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.
linkregister 1 hours ago [-]
There is an asymmetric impact to the defense. In our adversarial legal system, we must not disadvantage one of the sides unilaterally.
plorg 1 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.
autoexec 2 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?
eks391 1 hours ago [-]
Your questions imply that you believe that audio doesn't help solve crimes. Legal evidence doesn't need to include audio recordings, because audio doesn't provide useful information. Maybe sometimes, but so few cases would be impacted that you wouldn't notice a difference, since video is the real deal breaker. In fact, more high fidelity camera feeds would help with cases, because some types of information are just better than others, and not case-dependant, but always.
I cannot agree with the above lines of thought. How many cases is enough for you? More (relevant) information when determining fault is better for the jury, always. Why settle for camera only, when audio with footage technology exists?
nozzlegear 3 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.
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.
simonbarker87 26 minutes ago [-]
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
sheiyei 15 minutes ago [-]
When I need to get new glasses my first requirement is that the store doesn't sell Meta Creep Glasses
serious_angel 5 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 55 minutes 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 34 minutes 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.
discordance 3 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.
bryan0 5 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 5 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.
_trampeltier 2 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.
root_axis 5 hours ago [-]
That's so far into the future that we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
theshrike79 51 minutes 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.
pinkmuffinere 2 hours ago [-]
> so far into the future
Idk, I think this is like, maybe 5 years in the future
emptybits 3 hours ago [-]
On the audio side, it's not a stretch to imagine cochlear implants (or hearing aids) having an undetectable recording ability.
steanne 5 hours ago [-]
sounds like an expensive way to get disqualified from jury duty.
inetknght 4 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?
limagnolia 2 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 2 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."
kstrauser 2 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.
Dban1 3 hours ago [-]
EMP wave.
kelseyfrog 5 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
fooker 4 hours ago [-]
You're arguing for government enforced de-anonymization while at the same time using an anonymous internet account :)
dfansteel 4 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 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
denkmoon 3 hours ago [-]
is this some kind of performance art?
kettlecorn 36 minutes 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 31 minutes ago [-]
Philadelphia is a cheese brand in Germany, maybe they just like that. Or the movie.
zmmmmm 5 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 5 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 1 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 5 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 1 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 1 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 2 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 5 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 4 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.
k310 4 hours ago [-]
Nearby Glasses for Android [0] tries to detect smart glasses.
Before the court makes you shut off your Android device.
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.
dankwizard 5 hours ago [-]
It's why I use the classic camera-in-the-pen-in-the-shirt-pocket.
Dban1 3 hours ago [-]
4k 144fps?
qha34h 5 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 5 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.
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 4 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.
recursivecaveat 2 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 3 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
paxys 5 hours ago [-]
So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?
neya 1 hours ago [-]
Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?
0xbadcafebee 1 hours ago [-]
If you're a TikToker, absolutely
dataflow 5 hours ago [-]
Are all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?
shagie 4 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.
imsohotness 3 hours ago [-]
I wonder if these items could be banned from college/lecture halls
kittikitti 4 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 2 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.
martythemaniak 5 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.
Octoth0rpe 5 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.
2 hours ago [-]
SilverElfin 5 hours ago [-]
All public transit and workplaces next.
pseingatl 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lokinork 5 hours ago [-]
What’s to hide?
rorylawless 5 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 5 hours ago [-]
Jurors?
HDBaseT 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Rendered at 07:20:48 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I cannot agree with the above lines of thought. How many cases is enough for you? More (relevant) information when determining fault is better for the jury, always. Why settle for camera only, when audio with footage technology exists?
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.
// 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.
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.
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?
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?
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...
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.
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.
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 )
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.
"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.