Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.
"This is very serious," she said.
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
I mean.... That's their job... But yes!
That’s their job
Is it though? In Donald's America?
Oh sorry... I guess I was projecting...
Each and every individual should have been arrested then and there. Imagine walking into a major criminal trial with a film camera on your shoulder.
Isn't it usual procedure that everyone else enters the courtroom and takes their places before the judge walks in? So the team would have had ample opportunity to film, record and facially-recognize the jury before Judge Kuhl made them take off the spyglasses.
The Judge also ordered them to dispose of anything they had already recorded.
No way of actually checking that they did delete anything, but the possibility of footage or photos being leaked by a disgruntled worker, etc would be a massive liability for those two idiots.
noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned
For that reason alone, she should have held them in contempt and declared a mistrial before wasting anyone else's time.
Zuck and his crew should've been arrested on-site for such an egregious breach of privacy and mockery of the justice system. And the next set of jurors should've been immediately informed of why there was a mistrial, and the very obvious danger of the defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.
Instead, he got free viral marketing.
What a fucking clownshow.
It's illegal to take photos and video in many courts, including all federal courts? Definitely one would need permission and can't do it surrepticiously.
This is a slap in the face to the judge, and the courts, to flout their rules as if they were above them. And they were above them apparently, they didn't get held in contempt.
There's no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.
It's because they know that they ARE above the law. They've gotten away with things that would spell life in prison for you or I. They have the head of the America regime cozied up to. They were all at several dinner parties on Little St. James Island.
They know any contempt findings by the judge would be overturned by higher courts, or cancelled by the president as well, as long as they are up to date on their protection money and pay the deductible on their plan.
And they think the judge wouldn't dare in the first place, and would probably retaliate against the judge in secret ways if she did do something, and get away with it.
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
The sales of the glasses have been better than their VR headset which has really made them double down on the glasses as they see big potential. That said, I really think that it is a false hope as I suspect the market that is ok wearing Facebook glasses are small, but loyal.
These things should not be protected property. If you assault my privacy, I should be allowed to attack back.
Most countries it's legal to record in public, as there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. Though these are a bit different than say someone with a phone or camera, as unless you pay close attention the glasses are easy to miss....
I disagree. Secretly recording someone with a phone is much easier than doing it with one of these. It's the same issue people had with Google Glass back in the day.
I think the reason it feels creepier is because, if you're talking with someone that's wearing them, it feels like they're sticking a camera in your face.
But like I could turn on my phone camera, leave it sticking out of my pocket, and record everyone taking a piss in a public restroom with nobody noticing. If I tried to do that with glasses, I'd have to turn my head towards everyone's cock, one at a time. The neck pain alone makes it not worth the effort.
But to be clear, fuck Meta. These glasses should be banned for many other reasons.
Agree with you for the most part.
Though your example of a public toilet is a bit flawed, since there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Google Glass was waaaaaaaaaay more obvious.
Where the meta ones are a little less so.
Depending on lighting, and distance from the Glasshole, could be really hard to spot the Meta ones.
This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses.
Edit: I'm not changing it. The responses to my mistake are too funny
Guerilla marketing?
HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!
I like it better your way.
Meta's glasses, retail for between $299 and $799, are equipped with a camera that can take photos and record video.
CBS is definitely involved in this gorilla scheme
Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.
The return of the glassholes
Step one being "make the judge mad" is a bad idea.
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? I'm less sure than ever.
I mean, I think I should be legally allowed to punch people in the face breaking the glasses just for wearing them, but this isn't a just world~
When google glass came out (2012 or 13) it was absolutely hilarious living in the bay and regularly riding muni (public bus) in the mission. I saw multiple people run into the door/poles/etc and also multiple people get their glasses ripped off their face and stomped on. Bus driver just shrugged, bus patrons applauded. I'm no luddite and all for technology but even more for consent.
Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!
It's a feature.
That'll teach him.
Get ‘em, Judge!
Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?
The face he makes here...
So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha.
It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It's worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
