Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!
It’s a feature.
Scolds? That’ll teach 'em…?
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
The face he makes here…
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…
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
Not my country and i doubt most of the EU.
There’s a difference between walking by a film crew and some rando filming you whithout you even knowing.Not in my country.
Coolies, care to elaborate
I’m not the original commenter, but in Germany, you can record in public, but can not record individuals specifically. People walking past in the background while you record something else is fine. Recording someone specifically is not.
That’s the baseline, at least. Exceptions may apply (public figures, public interest, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany
A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case: the general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an “other right” protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (established case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338—readers’ letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one’s own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG [de]) and the right to one’s name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them.
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.
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.
yahknow, if it wern’t for the fact that i know they’re a scummy company, i’d try them.
Why? Are they useful for anything other than proping up surveillance state?
Like a gopro for sports
Nope
just wait patiently for valve to make some
… Spoiler for you, but Valve is a shitty company.
Edit: whoosh the fanbois are out there! We don’t share the same value if you think it’s ok for 10 years old to become gambling addicts because of Valve’s practices.
I deleted my Reddit account because it is increasingly becoming an echo chamber cesspool of extreme centrism. I was hoping Lemmy would be somehow better with people more prone to discuss. Ho, well
Maybe just maybe it’s because it’s not as black or white as you make it seem? Especially talking about a company that did so much for Linux and looking at what their competition is doing…
So it’s ok for you to have 10 years old developing a gambling habit and potentially ruining their live, because hey they are pushing Linux in gaming?
Sounds to me like a parenting issue, not a valve issue.
The only parental failure I’m seeing here is you. You do not deserve to take part into an adult discussion.
I feel like you’re straw-manning here.
I never said it’s okay. All I’m saying is that a mega-corporation can simultaneously exploit psychological loopholes for profit (loot boxes) while actively pushing open-source ecosystems (Linux), providing great value to consumers and fighting other pc gaming monopolies (Microsoft). Look at the whole picture.
Do you consider that it is morally acceptable to push thousands of kids into gambling addiction because you are doing more than Microsoft for Linux in the gaming world?
deleted by creator
Did valve create the gambling games you mention?
Yes.
I agree with you, but I get where the rabid fanboyism is coming from. The lack of competition in tech due to a variety of bullshit reasons (mostly corruption, look what Biden’s FTC was trying to do compared to Trump 2’s mask-off approach) have people pissed off and angry at the monopolists. Valve just so happens to be the least-bad monopolist in tech, so people like them.
People need to get competition-pilled, so they realize that Valve isn’t our savior, and are in fact part of the problem too. They might be considered “good” today, but that’s because our standards have never been so low.
Things can be, and should be better.
name your top 5 good companies
I imagine you’re focused on for-profit companies
Irrelevant.
I get why people like Valve so much (I like some of their services too) but there’s too much deification. It’s like “oh mighty Gabe!”. I get some of it was tongue-in-cheek a bit initially but it seems so many people take it seriously.
They’re a company that provides some services I like but the gambling shit is bad especially when you see people on YT talking about how they were lured in when they young and how much money was lost and how many streamers were running scam companies. It’s not good.
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.
Ngl, I can see an use for AI assistant glasses.
If it weren’t for the payload.
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.
I spent a few sessions in court last year and they disallow all phone use except for the attorneys and other officials.
There’s no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.
Nature’s laws remain.
deleted by creator
No one needs this spelled out, not even you…
pretty sure when held in contempt at a judicial hearing you literally cannot leave the room unless you’re in custody.
good luck fighting that with your billions of dollars.
Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!
Curiously people seem much more privacy aware with these
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.
Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive
Self-hug
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.
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.
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
She didn’t do anything though. Each and every individual should have been immediately charged and arrested. It’s a felony to film in a court room without permission. Every dipshit wearing those glasses should spend a month in a cell before the trial continues.
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 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.
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.No way of actually checking that they did delete anything
Not a random individual, but I would expect a court to be able to do so. Hold them, get an expert, verify.
Yep. They should have been arrested.
No charges?
He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
As much as I’d love to see it, even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can’t buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore.
* depends on the amount of course
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. Just let me know when it’s guillotine time, thats what I’m here for.
I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.
To be clear I want to behead these assholes.
There is middle ground, we just passed it a long time ago with these chucklefucks and we’re waiting for the rest of y’all to realize that.
It’s not even a slap on the wrist.
Yeah exactly. It’s a scolding. Something certain types have learned to ignore in their teens.
My 6-year old is way ahead of the game then.
I’ve got a tough decade ahead of me…
deleted by creator
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.
I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.
This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can recors videos un the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment were allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
Defying a judge’s order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.
Don’t be obtuse.
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
But don’t you see? We don’t like these particular people, so they should suffer the maximum possible penalties under every circumstance.
If we liked them then punishing them for wearing glasses would of course be a travesty.
Calling them “glasses” is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.
I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don’t actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.
Sure, sure, everything can be simplified down to people just not “liking” them. That’s what this is all about. That’s what all this is about. We simply don’t like people. No, it’s not the fact that these assholes are the ones behind the 21st century rise of cyber-fascism. We just don’t like 'em. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, zeah they’re all really decent people inside, it’s us that’s the problem. /s
Sick and tired of useless fucking people that style themselves as “rational” and “middle of the road” in a world that is literally starting to threaten my very existence. The time for that shit is long past us, sorry.
But we can’t tell the difference between the “far left” and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn’t think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s
Can’t tell you guys apart!
Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the “disliked” category?
A rules based system works when every player follows the rules. One side is actively dismantling and abandoning the rules. Do we still keep playing with our hands tied behind our backs?
You are essentially saying the crowd has to do its own justice.
It’s a courtroom, not a voting booth.
Do…do you know how a jury works?
No, we fight to ensure that the rules are followed. In this case they are, the judge has discretion here.
Would you rather there were “mandatory minimum” laws when it came to this as well?
No one is even making the arguments that you are arguing against other than you…
A judge holding a defendant in contempt of court for violating a serious order to not bring recording equipment into the courtroom, is neither “anarchy” nor “vigilantism.”
In an “organized rules-based justice system,” a defendant who violated a court order by bringing recording equipment into the courtroom would be held in contempt, and depending on the severity, may face jail time (such as perhaps if that recording equipment has facial recognition technology).
This isn’t about whether or not we “dislike” him. But just because he’s widely disliked doesn’t make him immune to prosecution.
What the fuck are you smoking?
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
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
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
Guerilla marketing?
HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!
Meta Glasses on for Harambe.
I like it better your way.
Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.
Shades on for Harambe?
I’m down for this, but not Meta shades. Professionals have standards.
Why would apes want Meta glasses?
I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…
Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.
I know where I live you can’t even take a phone into the courthouse; they have signs on the door and will turn you around at the metal detectors for having one. The fact that they got those glasses into the courtroom at all is a security fail at best, and feels more like a contempt of court charge.
and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?
They were wearing glasses with the camera literally built into them. Anywhere they look they are pointing a camera.
You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.
Doubt
If I were to walk into the courtroom with a go-pro strapped to my head, would I be clear because the camera is off and probably not recording?
These glasses are never advertised for how good the glasses aspect of the product is, but for their ability to record hands free image and video. The product is primarily for filming, and Facebook knows this.
The return of the glassholes
Step one being “make the judge mad” is a bad idea.
Yea, he better watch out or he’s gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.
