A Los Angeles judge ordered Meta officials to remove their AI glasses at a trial over the impact of social media on users.
  • eleijeep@piefed.socialEnglish
    206·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • PhoenixDog@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      6 days ago

      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.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      46·
      6 days ago

      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.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        5 days ago

        The judge controls when the jury is in the room. So the jury enters last, only after the judge orders them in. And the judge can order them out at any time to have discussions outside their presence, too.

    • hesh@quokk.auEnglish
      49·
      6 days ago

      A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.

      • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
        31·
        6 days ago

        It does matter who they are!

        The judge said not to bring something in and they clearly ignored the judge’s directions and it is their job to comply with the judge’s directions. They are not some random person off the street.

        • hesh@quokk.auEnglish
          3·
          6 days ago

          I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they’ve done already… But what’s supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.

          • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
            31·
            6 days ago

            Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street.

            A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge’s orders.

            • hesh@quokk.auEnglish
              9·
              6 days ago

              Fair enough. Just let me know when it’s guillotine time, thats what I’m here for.

    • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      4·
      6 days ago

      You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies.

      The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice.

      The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.

      • Devolution@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        6 days ago

        I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.

        This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    52·
    6 days ago

    Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…

    • matlag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      Pretty sure they won’t care except if it ends with a multi-billions$ fine. The intent is that by the time, their “smart-glasses” are everywhere and banning them no longer seems reasonable.

      So they’ll settle for “privacy settings by default”, meaning they commit to not record anything except if the user expilicitly activate it, and it should be very visible for people around.

      They’ll wait a good 6 months before an update introduces back a silent auto-record of some kind, because that company never gave a flying fuck about the law, its users or basic decency.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    24·
    5 days ago

    Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!

    It’s a feature.

  • ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    52·
    6 days ago

    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.

      • Sturgist@lemmy.caEnglish
        14·
        6 days ago

        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…

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
          12·
          5 days ago

          These glasses cams are small enough to no longer be visible as a camera.

          I’m all for freedom to record outside but this is a step too far as this is not me making a video for me, this is Facebook using idiots to record the world 24/7 for them.

          I’m fine with humans recording humans, immnot fine with companies recording me

        • entwine@programming.devEnglish
          11·
          6 days ago

          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.

          • Sturgist@lemmy.caEnglish
            15·
            6 days ago

            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.

            • teft@piefed.socialEnglish
              7·
              5 days ago

              Agreed. My friend has a pair of the meta glasses and i didn’t even realize they were meta glasses until he told me. The camera isn’t very noticeable unless you know what you’re looking for.

      • Zexks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        You have no assumed privacy in a public space. How long is it going to take people to learn this.

        • smeenz@lemmy.nzEnglish
          3·
          5 days ago

          Depends where you are.

          Germany, for example, has laws that make it illegal to record people in public doing things that could embarrass or demean them.

          Japan made google throw out their original streetview data and do it again with a shorter pole so that it didn’t look over people’s fences.

          Different countries have different laws.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      6 days ago

      I’ve seen some amazing POV footage from them, because the lens is actually in line with your eye level.

      So, a lot of the market would be people who would otherwise use a GoPro.

    • Smaile@lemmy.caEnglish
      6·
      6 days ago

      yahknow, if it wern’t for the fact that i know they’re a scummy company, i’d try them.

        • Smaile@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          What’s the different between that and everyone having their phone’s out all the time, those little guys are already able to spy on, you know they do stuff other then record stuff right, they get text readout on the lenses and stuff right? Also can you not read, I specificly wrote I wouldn’t getting because of their bad reputation.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      Let’s just hope pissing off the judge on mïnute 1 may get them uncomfortable about the rest of the trial.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    47·
    5 days ago

    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

      • stoly@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        6 days ago

        These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.

  • BurgerBaron@piefed.socialEnglish
    19·
    6 days ago

    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~

    • v_krishna@lemmy.mlEnglish
      13·
      6 days ago

      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.