11 ms·
Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week
- Octoth0rpe 6mo agoCool. 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.
- Leon8090 6mo ago[dead]
- SilverElfin 6mo agoAll public transit and workplaces next.
- martythemaniak 6mo agoThere'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.
- serious_angel 6mo agoI 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-waveguide-tech-inside-metas-800-ar-glasses-but-dont-count-on-fixing-them https://www.ifixit.com/News/113543/theres-groundbreaking-wav...
- verandaguy 6mo agoIt 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.
- discordance 6mo agoI also feel for the unfortunate Kenyan annotators drawing and tagging rectangles of people using the toilet - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/workers-report-watching-ray-ban-meta-shot-footage-of-people-using-the-bathroom/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/workers-report-watch...
- theshrike79 6mo agoAs 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 6mo agoIt’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 6mo agoA company offering private smart glasses would have to offer them with an unlocked bootloader.
- 6mo ago
- wpm 6mo agoThey 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 6mo agoOne 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 6mo agoAlso 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).
- bryan0 6mo agoSerious 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.
- kelseyfrog 6mo ago[flagged]
- fooker 6mo agoYou're arguing for government enforced de-anonymization while at the same time using an anonymous internet account :)
- dfansteel 6mo agoYou’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 6mo ago[flagged]
- denkmoon 6mo agois this some kind of performance art?
- kelseyfrog 6mo agoCompletely serious
- steanne 6mo agosounds like an expensive way to get disqualified from jury duty.
- lokinork 6mo ago[dead]
- rorylawless 6mo agoQuote 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 6mo agoJurors?
- qha34h 6mo agoI 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.
- dataflow 6mo agoAre all commercial uses illegal or only those that display your likeness?
- shagie 6mo agoA 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. https://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf 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 https://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm ) 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.
- sebmellen 6mo agoIs 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.
- recursivecaveat 6mo agoAre 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.
- dankwizard 6mo agoIt's why I use the classic camera-in-the-pen-in-the-shirt-pocket.
- plorg 6mo agoMy 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.
- pilingual 6mo agohttps://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-judge-bars-use-of-fbis-secret-hidden-microphone-recordings-in-bid-rigging-case/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-judg... 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.
- theturtletalks 6mo agoEven 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 6mo agoIt 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.
- nozzlegear 6mo agoAre 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.
- danpalmer 6mo ago
- zmmmmm 6mo agoI 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.
- simonw 6mo agoI 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.
- garbawarb 6mo agoIt sounds like OP is talking about having this extra pair with them where they go, not just having a pair in general.
- tdeck 6mo agoWhich 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.
- kstrauser 6mo agoI’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.”
- k310 6mo agoNearby 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.nearbyglasses&pli=1 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.ne...
- Kuinox 6mo agoNever managed to make it work in background.
- kittikitti 6mo agoThis 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 6mo agoFlorida 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.
- imsohotness 6mo agoI wonder if these items could be banned from college/lecture halls
- pseingatl 6mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- KennyBlanken 6mo agoSmart 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 6mo agoWhich state bans photography in public? I'm sure quite a few 1a auditors would be interested in travelling there.
- shagie 6mo agoI suspect you're referring to Massachusetts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... Massachusetts (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception. Despite having a 1968 law imposing general bans on taping wire and oral communications, it was later ruled to violate the First Amendment in the conditions espoused in a case filed by Project Veritas in 2018.) The case mentioned was https://web.archive.org/web/20211110033315/https://apnews.com/article/james-okeefe-archive-massachusetts-f2d98abcd59a8094158f4e181960a628 https://web.archive.org/web/20211110033315/https://apnews.co... This also be more related to recording phone calls and specific conversations. https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law It appears to be more nuanced than "you can't walk around with a camera recording in Massachusetts."
- kettlecorn 6mo agoSide note: OP's account is named "Philadelphia" and this appears to be the first Philly related thing they've posted since 2013.
- Xylakant 6mo agoPhiladelphia is a cheese brand in Germany, maybe they just like that. Or the movie.
- rsstack 6mo agoPhiladelphia cheese brand is from New York. Presumably, the German market licenses the brand but produces locally in Europe and doesn't import from the US (New York and Wisconsin).
- badc0ffee 6mo agoThis is most likely true. I can confirm that Canadian Philadelphia cheese is made in Canada.
- simonbarker87 6mo agoI 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 6mo agoWhen I need to get new glasses my first requirement is that the store doesn't sell Meta Creep Glasses
- AlecSchueler 6mo 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 6mo agoI 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.
- justkys 6mo ago[dead]
- kstrauser 6mo ago[dead]
- internet_points 6mo agoOh, I thought it was in all of Philadelphia, but it's just inside courtrooms :(
- miki123211 6mo agoWe 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 6mo agoIs 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.
- HWR_14 6mo agoNo, we really need blind assistance devices that don't store data and process it locally. Those devices are already not banned.
- miki123211 6mo agoLocal models just aren't good enough for this. Not in a device that has to be energy-efficient, fit in a pocket and conserve its storage for other things the user may want to do with it. Unless you have a homelab (which is just cloud under a different name), there's no way of doing a reasonable job here without sending your data to a third party. In this case, preserving privacy and anti-discrimination are goals that you just can't reconcile.
- HWR_14 6mo agoWhat use case can't be accomplished by a local model. They can read things out loud and identify what you're about to walk into.
- giantg2 6mo agoOnce the glasses become popular, so will jammers. By jammers I mean audio and visual disruption to make the recordings unusable, or nearly so.
- pickleglitch 6mo agoHeck, I'd buy a jammer now if one were available at a reasonable price.
- deltoidmaximus 6mo agoWhat are you jamming here? The wireless connection? Wouldn't the recorded data just be cached on device until out of the jamming range?
- giantg2 6mo agoYou would be jamming the audio and video, not the wireless (that is generally illegal). They have some devices to do this already with different noise generators and overloading the camera sensors to cause unidentifiable images (especially with IR night vision).
- foodevl 6mo agoMy 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.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- imglorp 6mo agoThere are glasses that do only captions, no recording or camera. The article says "any eyewear with video and audio recording capability" which makes sense. Although even that is unreasonably specific and should just say "recording or transmission device" to ban the activity and not the item.
- randallsquared 6mo agoPretty sure any device which subtitles audio could be used to record that audio.
- shimman 6mo agoThen it's up to the company to make a compliant device if they want it to be used in a courtroom.
- 1718627440 6mo agoWhich is not the problem when the device has no interface to get the data out and no storage media to store it.
- sandworm101 6mo agoThis is a courthouse. Judges still have king-like powers in their rooms. Anyone with a real problem will certainly be able to request and be granted an exemption. That said, get caught misusing such an exemption and you will be hauled in for direct contempt. No big trial. No witnesses. Just the judge ordering you into 30 days custody.
- randallsquared 6mo agoThe 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.
- pixxel 6mo ago[dead]
- wongarsu 6mo agoThe original assumption behind CCTV was that it's recorded but realistically never seen, or maybe seen by one person staring at a bunch of screens at once. That's what made it acceptable. Of course this has changed drastically, but CCTV basically got grandfathered in in most people's minds.
- kjkjadksj 6mo agoCCTV also writes over itself over time.
- ProllyInfamous 6mo agoFor $650, I just purchased a consumer-level CCTV (writes locally, on a loop) which can auto-detect all humans, vehicles, and pets — creating montages of visitors (for later review). This is entirely offline, eight camera, just over two weeks retention at 12MP (configurable to months with dual SATA slots and video setting changes). What cloud recording is capable of determining... is absolutely limitless. I think this is what makes Flock so scary / "different."
- veunes 6mo agoA fixed security camera is visible, scoped to a specific area, and (in theory) governed by policy, retention limits, audits, etc. Smart glasses are much harder to notice and can record anywhere
- expedition32 6mo ago
- fortran77 6mo agoI 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.
- veunes 6mo agoCurious how they'll handle accessibility/prescription edge cases (especially if someone relies on assistive features built into these devices)
- HWR_14 6mo agoThe ruling makes an exception for assistive devices that are designed not to persist data. And if you need a prescription, you should have a pair of dumb glasses
- Ir0nMan 6mo agohttps://archive.is/XMmas https://archive.is/XMmas
- acd 6mo agoThe problem is when people wear "smart" aka dumb privacy glasses in public restrooms. Should be banned or geofenced