alt Hacker NewsPhilly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week
Comments
The vibe around smart glasses is so weird: Governments and businesses can record in public, which is right and proper, but if an individual person records what they see, that's wrong and creepy.
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.
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.
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...
// https://www.ifixit.com/News/113543/theres-groundbreaking-wav...
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.
Nearby Glasses for Android [0] tries to detect smart glasses.
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...
Oh, I thought it was in all of Philadelphia, but it's just inside courtrooms :(
The problem is when people wear "smart" aka dumb privacy glasses in public restrooms. Should be banned or geofenced
Curious how they'll handle accessibility/prescription edge cases (especially if someone relies on assistive features built into these devices)
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
Side note: OP's account is named "Philadelphia" and this appears to be the first Philly related thing they've posted since 2013.
It's why I use the classic camera-in-the-pen-in-the-shirt-pocket.
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.
I wonder if these items could be banned from college/lecture halls
I would think that most people in a courtroom (defendants, jurors, lawyers, members of the public) would be prohibitied from filming most court proceedings with any sort of audio/video recording device. So this "ban" is really just a clarification.
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.
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.
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.
[flagged]
All public transit and workplaces next.
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.
Once the glasses become popular, so will jammers. By jammers I mean audio and visual disruption to make the recordings unusable, or nearly so.
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.
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.