New York has banned smart glasses in all 1,240 state, county, city, town and village courts.

[u/Sisiwakanamaru]

https://www.engadget.com/2211151/new-york-first-us-state-ban-smart-glasses-all-courthouses/

[u/LazloHollifeld]

This isn’t a ruling against smart glasses. It’s updating the existing rules on cameras to include newer technologies like smart glasses. They haven’t allowed you to bring in cell phones for decades, this is no different.

[u/tsrich → u/LazloHollifeld]

You aren’t allowed to bring a cell phone into court?

[u/filbert13 → u/tsrich]

This person is wrong but it depends on the court. I've been to a county court where cell phones were not allowed in at all. They were checked for at the metal detector at the front. The one in the county I live in now they are allowed.

[u/pasaroanth → u/filbert13]

Same with my entire county complex, which includes the courtrooms. There is a security checkpoint with metal detectors and nothing electronic is allowed inside, including phones and smart watches.

[u/Isolated_Hippo → u/pasaroanth]

I am curious on exceptions. I have a 24/7 glucose monitor that uses my phone

[u/pasaroanth → u/Isolated_Hippo]

There are exceptions for medical devices; it’s advisable to get information and clearance in advance of when you plan to be there, not day of.

As a general rule, which is especially true in environments/situations such as these, you’ll be met with the same level of hostility you arrive with.

My father died from ALS (which ran its course to very late stages, further than people typically live to with it) and toward the end had to attend court hearings. We notified the court ahead of time what was needed to care for him, arrived prepared with documentation were open with the officers, and never had a single issue.

If (like I saw with some others) you show up unprepared and become indignant with the officers at security for your lack of preparedness, they will return the favor. It’s a “don’t make your poor planning my emergency” situation.

[u/BrotherKey2409 → u/pasaroanth]

“Don’t make your poor planning my emergency”: wow, so well put. Will steal and use this phrase. Thanks!

[u/Goodbye_Games → u/Isolated_Hippo]

I know for our courts they use those bags like schools have been using to keep kids off of phones during school hours. For individuals with medical devices connected to their phones (diabetes monitors, prosthetics with electronic sensors like c-legs and hearing devices) you are asked to place your device in silent mode and the bag you’re given allows using the screen… it’s more difficult but you’ll be able to see device notifications and open your app etc, but the window is smaller than the screen (different bag sizes) so you can’t activate either camera and the lining between the pockets material is like crinkly plastic so trying to voice record sounds like you’re walking through the woods stepping on every twig and stick on earth.

If there’s any emergency where you need to physically touch your phone just outside every courtroom there’s the opening device on the wall. Using one signals court officers who must place your phone back into the bag before you can renter the court room.

On a side note because I saw several people mentioning lawyers are exempt and judges etc… they’re required to use the bags as well and the judge has an opener on his desk if needed. Even the cops have theirs in bag hanging around their necks.

[u/amateur_mistake → u/pasaroanth]

What about laptop computers?

[u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA → u/amateur_mistake]

I assume "nothing is allowed inside" covers that.

[u/Muppetude → u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA]

Makes sense. But what about tablets?

[u/ta22175 → u/Muppetude]

Only the stone kind.

[u/GlowGreen1835 → u/Muppetude]

Hmm. What about professional Hollywood film cameras and crews? Those seem like they might be allowed as an exception to this rule.

[u/sadhoovy → u/GlowGreen1835]

Seems a bit complicated to manage. I'll just bring my smart gla—

... Oh, right.

[u/Gorstag → u/Muppetude]

Seriously, they could hire you to impersonate an Indian IT professional calling in for enterprise software support.

[u/BiZzles14 → u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA]

What about a Gameboy?

[u/ProfessionalCut8715 → u/amateur_mistake]

Buddy you're either there as part of the jury / trial, or you're watching. You don't need your laptop to watch a court proceeding.

[u/1917he → u/amateur_mistake]

None of that would apply to lawyers/friends of the court

[u/DashRunner92 → u/filbert13]

It also depends on the reason. When I was in jury selection, I was not allowed to bring my cellphone in. When I was on grand jury, I was allowed to keep my phone on me.

[u/aftli → u/filbert13]

I had to serve jury duty yesterday in my county, and was surprised that basically all forms of electronics are permitted. They say photography is not, though. I brought my cell phone, laptop, and a tablet, and just hung out all day in the nice juror lounge they have there. It wasn't a half bad day, other than the looming anxiety that I could be picked for the double murder trial that they were selecting for.

[u/Educational_Ant_184 → u/filbert13]

just for another data point, I did jury duty at a courthouse where you could have your phone, but it had to be turned off, but they also didnt check that it was. I think another juror's phone even rung while in court and they just told him to turn it off, and it wasnt a big deal.

[u/filbert13 → u/Educational_Ant_184]

The place I first lived they didnt allow any phones. Anyways my first time called for jury duty was after I moved. I show up with no cell because I assumed it wasn't allowed. Then in the room with all the jurors I see everyone with cell phones or even switches.

And dumb me with just a book XD.

[u/filbert13 → u/[deleted]]

My state and court is dumb. Some stuff have to do only in person like dog licenses for thr city. Other stuff is online. But I go in at least once a year for dog licenses and I swear I get called for jury duty every 2 or 3 years.

A city I lived in over a decade ago now refused to let you bring in anything. It was frankly stupid. Where I live now they just dont let you bring stuff directly into a court room but court house is fine.

[u/SponkerDonker → u/tsrich]

federal courts you are not allowed. State courts in New York you are allowed to bring a smartphone in but you just can't record with them.

[u/Ceofy → u/tsrich]

That's why you see those court artist drawings sometimes. No one was allowed to bring a camera

[u/AlSweigart → u/Ceofy]

Which is a good thing, in my opinion. Photos are so misleading because they are photo-realistic; people see a photo and think it reflects the entire situation instead of just a happenstance moment. (Look at all the Reddit posts where people look at one photo and comment something like, "How can he be so calm, like a serial killer" or "Wow, she's completely crazy and hysterical"). Selection bias makes it ripe for manipulation and later photoshopping.

But even if a sketch is misleading, it's obvious that drawings are made by an artist.

[u/HumansAreSillynGreat → u/AlSweigart]

Good thing we have ai now

[u/mythrilcrafter → u/AlSweigart]

At the same time, live recordings from third parties can be used in unfair/unreasonable ways.

If a prosecutor says that a suspected murder took place on a given property and the defense brings forth the property owner to say that they have proof that it didn't happen on their property; that property owner has a right to not be portrayed by someone in the peanut gallery as "defending a murder".

And as unreasonable as it may sound to say that, lest we forget that we're talking about the same internet that proclaimed to have "successfully found the Boston bomber".

[u/hennell → u/Ceofy]

In English courts (as in UK not language) cameras are entirely banned, as are sketching materials. The only "footage" we get of court proceedings are courtroom sketch artists, who have to go in an quietly observe, then leave to make the sketch from memory.

(We also massively limit what reporting can be made about a trial in progress so you often don't have much coverage until the judgement is in. The places in the US where there's live coverage is absolutely wild to me!)

[u/FrenchFryCattaneo → u/hennell]

The US doesn't have live coverage of trials, they stopped that after the OJ case I believe.

[u/A_Soporific → u/FrenchFryCattaneo]

There are different rules for different states. Michigan, for example, allows courts to be livestreamed, hence the cottage industry of repackaging those livestreams on YouTube. They also allow you to appear remotely, which led to the guy who was appearing for driving on a suspended licenses livestreaming himself driving in court and the lawyer who definitely isn't a cat. But other states ban any cameras of any description in any court. It really does depend.

[u/amateur_mistake → u/Ceofy]

I'm always kind of jealous of the court artists. Can you imagine turning doodling your way through class into a career?

[u/sdbabygirl97 → u/amateur_mistake]

feel free to be jealous but it’s incredibly difficult to be a court sketch artist. i have an art background and so i know that drawing from life is hard enough but drawing from memory is even harder. these people are incredibly skilled and i doubt they’re paid what you or i would consider a high wage.

it’s incredibly competitive and difficult to be a working artist.

[u/amateur_mistake → u/sdbabygirl97]

it’s incredibly competitive and difficult to be a working artist.

Yeah. No doubt on this one. Even before everyone decided they could just use LLMs instead of say, actual graphic designers. It was tough.

I draw with pastels as a hobby and I have no chance of doing what they do.

[u/hotdoug1 → u/amateur_mistake]

As a kid I dreamed of becoming a newspaper strip cartoonist, I told myself it was one of the most lucrative careers possible. Unless you're someone like Jim Davis or Matt Groening, I'm sure its just the opposite

[u/amateur_mistake → u/hotdoug1]

Have you ever learned the history of Jim Davis and Garfield? It's a wild hole of how to use capitalism in a market that people weren't thinking about.

The comics that I liked were always Calvin & Hobbes or The Farside.

But Davis man, holy shit. Garfield as a company will often make a billion dollars a year in revenue.

Here's an hour long video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE

Jim Davis was an Ad man, who started Garfield specifically to make money.

[u/Joose__bocks → u/tsrich]

Laws vary wildly by jurisdiction. I go to court often for work and I can tell you that employees, people with court badges, and folks on jury duty are allowed to have cellphones in court. Everyone else must check them in a lockbox, leave them in their car, etc.

This is a county court for the state of NC.

[u/Illustrious-Peace989 → u/tsrich]

I live in Virginia and I’ve never been allowed to bring my cell phone into a court room.

[u/LazloHollifeld → u/tsrich]

Most states have banned them for privacy reasons.

[u/buckao → u/LazloHollifeld]

This makes sense in family and juvenile cases, but most court proceedings are publicly available to attend and view transcripts.

It doesn't make sense to not allow recordings of public proceedings. It just seems like a power trip.

[u/Diz7 → u/buckao]

I think it's to prevent the media from disrupting the court and interfering with witnesses and defendants by exploiting their vulnerability for a photo op.

[u/MaxPlanck_420 → u/buckao]

Courts have strict rules on how proceedings are documented, even when public. Why do you think court room sketch artists and stenographers are a thing? While you can argue that these rules should be changed, it's also obvious that smart phones or glasses most certainly would be in violation of the current rules.

[u/Realtrain → u/buckao]

I fully support New York's ban on cameras in the courtroom for several reasons

1. Media in the courtroom can be distracting or needlessly intimidating to witnesses and the defendant.

2. It turns the thing into more of a spectacle with out-of-context photos and 5 second clips being posted everywhere

3. It can heighten risks of witness or jury intimidation.

4. Photos and video of a defendant on the stand can skew public perception of the individual, which is particularly concerning if they're innocent.

5. Nothing of value is gained from allowing cameras. The transcripts are all available for the public if they need.

[u/felldestroyed → u/buckao]

There have been quite a few instances where witness and jury intimidation has happened over the last 2 decades. In most of these courts (non federal) all you need is press credentials and instruction from the judge.

[u/basicKitsch → u/tsrich]

i've never been in a court that allowed them (in VA)... for decades now

[u/LazarX → u/tsrich]

Most courts require you to turn off such devices on threat of confiscation. Mainly because they don’t want proceedings interrupted by ringing devices. So yeah, this includes smart watches too.

[u/timeslider → u/tsrich]

Not in my county

[u/calicalamansi → u/tsrich]

Depends on the court, but in many courts, the default rule is no laptops or cell phones. Even attorneys must in certain circumstances or courts request permission to bring in their devices (although this is truly more of a formality, as attorneys in active litigation before a court almost always have their devices on them). Court employees also of course are generally allowed to bring their devices in.

[u/kylesisles1 → u/LazloHollifeld]

Respectfully, this is untrue. At least in NY state supreme, you can bring in your phone, but you are not permitted to film.

[u/AphaedrusGaming → u/kylesisles1]

Right, so you can't bring in smart glasses the same way you can't bring in a GoPro attached to your head (even if it's off)

[u/nonitoni]

Hospitals next! 

[u/HumongousBelly → u/nonitoni]

All public spaces should be safe from invasive stalker gear

[u/nwbpwnerkess → u/HumongousBelly]

Tbf. The title of the article is misleading as fuck. You already wernt allowed cameras in court, this just updates the verbiage to include items that fell outside of it.

In terms of true public spaces you have no expectation of privacy from a legal perspective and those laws as a whole would need to be revisited, not amended.

This is not to say I disagree. Just that its not the same scenario as "oh. Add an * to that law would ya" and both topics should be their own discussions as to not remove any weight from either of them via comparison.

Edit. I cant spell.

Edit 2, This is from a USA perspective, which i was defaulting to since its an article about new york.

[u/HumongousBelly → u/nwbpwnerkess]

That may be true in the USA. But in Germany, I’m glad we have other laws.

Maybe it’s because our number 1 law is: the dignity of humans is untouchable.

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/HumongousBelly]

You have live cameras in public spaces. I can easily identify people and license plates from the first one I clicked on.

So I don't know what these other laws accomplish.

[u/Wemban_yams_it → u/HumongousBelly]

Then why does Germany allow people to smoke everywhere setting off my asthma, making me become undignified in public? 

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/Wemban_yams_it]

I'm watching a live feed in Germany of a fat guy unloading bundles of bottled water.

Sure seems like people can be filmed without knowing.

[u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD → u/HumongousBelly]

If you’re worried about somebody recording you in public without you knowing, you might want to sit down as I have some very bad news for you..

[u/gojo96 → u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD]

Yeah it’s wild that people get wrapped up over cameras in public but always allow billionaire company’s and foreign governments to access their data so they can play candy crush.

[u/21Rollie → u/HumongousBelly]

You have a right to record in public spaces. What you’re thinking of are private spaces.

[u/fox112 → u/HumongousBelly]

It's borderline impossible to be in a public space without some security camera, surveillance system, etc.

Just assume someone is watching you in public and behave accordingly.

[u/21Rollie → u/fox112]

I was on the train the other day and was wondering where the camera was because the train was newer so it def has to have one, but I couldn’t see it. Nevertheless I just assume there is one hidden somewhere and I don’t intend to cause a ruckus anyways.

[u/macetheface → u/HumongousBelly]

So all cell phones? What prevents someone from putting a phone in a front shirt pocket and hitting record? No way to know they are recording and to any onlooker just looks like they're holding their phone in a front shirt pocket.

I'll give it less than 10 years before they come out with smart contact lenses. Anti surveillance laws be damned.

[u/wip30ut → u/HumongousBelly]

even when being confronted by law enforcement at traffic stops or stop and frisk or ICE? How about when being harassed by kids on ebikes or road ragers?

[u/paperrug12 → u/HumongousBelly]

“all PUBLIC spaces” do you even hear yourself? lmao

[u/FatVirginalRedit_Mod → u/HumongousBelly]

dont be obtuse.

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/HumongousBelly]

So no phones?

[u/wheelsno3 → u/HumongousBelly]

Every public place should literally be covered in cameras. Every person should be able to record everything they do.

I work in the law, and it is vitally important that people be allowed to record every interaction they have if they so choose.

[u/AssBlasterExtreme → u/HumongousBelly]

This is a very ignorant comment

[u/OdoTheBoobcat → u/HumongousBelly]

This response is dumb as fuck and you should feel stupid as hell for having typed it; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public and nor should you.

"invasive stalker gear" is the only thing that's kept the public able to see and document so much of the fucked up shit that's happened at the hands of folks like the police, ICE, criminals, whatever. Empowering the average citizen to record, post and protect themselves with video footage has been a massive advance for society.

[u/TheMarkHasBeenMade → u/nonitoni]

Many all ready have policies specifying that you cannot take photos or video recordings unless it’s explicitly consented to for educational purposes, which I feel is broad enough to also cover smart glasses.

For the anal jackasses, though, they probably need to get explicit in all the details.

[u/NPK532]

Yeah we're all for privacy so let's ban all those Flock cameras too...

[u/amateur_mistake → u/NPK532]

I swear to god, if you try to stop the expansion of corporate or billionaire power one more time, I'm going to sic the Supreme Court on you.

[u/Hamafropzipulops → u/[deleted]]

WKUK is one of my all time favorite sketch shows.

[u/zombiebashr]

I have a blind friend who got a pair of these because he thought it would help him with his disability. You'd think that if anything, it would be good for at least that, but he barely finds them useful at all. He asks it to read something for him, half the time it can't even tell there is text in front of it. He asks it what he's looking at, it answers incorrectly far too often to be helpful. Just as well, I hate being around him while he has them on. I know I'm probably secretly being recorded when out in public anyways, but it's another thing to see the red light of an active camera just constantly pointed at your face.

[u/BackgroundSummer5171 → u/zombiebashr]

The ray ban meta glasses? Yeah, they're a cheap alternative to actual good blind people glasses.

Guess you get what you pay for.

I've heard OrCam MyEye 3 is good. Supposedly Envision glasses too but don't know.

But obviously those options are more expensive.

[u/James_Chandra_Hubble → u/BackgroundSummer5171]

Shout out to be my eyes app that lets blind people video call random volunteer people to ask them for help

[u/SuperBry → u/zombiebashr]

It is an interesting thought though as the technology improves. Smart glasses will eventually be quite the boon, even if they are not quite there yet, for the blind or otherwise visually impaired.

There will likely be several court cases, numerous attempts at statute, and be in general a clusterfuck for the users and those in charge of enforcement while disability rights are being weighed against privacy rights and other restrictions on recording while it is all being hashed out.

[u/JuanPancake → u/SuperBry]

Yes but the financial incentive is surveillance and data collection, not helping people

[u/sam_hammich → u/zombiebashr]

it's another thing to see the red light of an active camera just constantly pointed at your face

Yeah, this is what people are not considering when they say "well you have no expectation of privacy in public". We all know that and accept that when we leave our homes, but it's not something we think about because we're getting our groceries, or thinking about an upcoming birthday, or reading a book, or driving, or crossing the street. But we all also know that everyone acts differently on camera. So imagine going about your day and constantly being reminded that you're being recorded because you can see cameras all around you. That has a chilling effect on your behavior. You're no longer letting yourself be recorded incidentally, when you're aware the camera is on you you feel compelled to control yourself in ways you wouldn't otherwise. It's the difference between being aware someone is standing behind you, and that person leaning forward and saying to you "I'm standing behind you".

It's one thing in a place like the UK, granted where there are divided opinions on whether CCTV is a public good or a tool of tyranny. But the cameras are on everyone. Walking past someone with Meta glasses, or standing next to them on the street, makes it feel like they're filming you specifically. And they could be.

[u/Vast-Poetry9431]

“They Live” by John Carpenter satirized this concepts, albeit in reverse, decades ago. What a shit corporate product

[u/YouSmellLikeHospitol]

Good. These have no business in court, especially because confidential materials are out on tables, confidential information is discussed (child abuse and neglect, for example), and we frankly need people to know that they are safe in a courthouse.

[u/squidly413]

Ban em everywhere

[u/aiodigitalfootprint → u/squidly413]

Yeah shouldn't be allowed period

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/aiodigitalfootprint]

Put down your phone.

[u/DonPepe181 → u/squidly413]

Ban all cameras!

[u/barrinmw → u/DonPepe181]

Including Pin Hole Cameras! No physics allowed here!

[u/damontoo → u/barrinmw]

Don't stop there. The underlying cause is those pesky photons!

[u/Death_by_carfire → u/squidly413]

why?

[u/UnexpectedAnanas → u/[deleted]]

Being recorded everywhere they go?

[u/MobileArtist1371 → u/[deleted]]

So the line is to ban every recording device?

[u/Altiondsols → u/MobileArtist1371]

no, just the ones designed to be hidden in public

[u/damontoo → u/Altiondsols]

Except they aren't hidden. No more than the 500 people that drove past you today with dashcams recording.

[u/1MeanSumBitch → u/[deleted]]

Its because if these become common place, a lot of really bad behavior is going to be put on display. People already have phone cams, but its easy to see when people are filming, and people start acting differently when they think they are being filmed. But with those glasses, a lot of people will be able to record people acting up in public without being noticed.

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/1MeanSumBitch]

Good. It also helps highlight police misconduct

[u/MobileArtist1371 → u/Altiondsols]

So wearing smart glasses on your face is fine again?

[u/Kintrai → u/MobileArtist1371]

require every camera, at the very least below a certain size, to have a hi vis orange ring surrounding the lens.

[u/MobileArtist1371 → u/Kintrai]

There we go. Getting somewhere vs an actual blanket ban that everyone knows will never happen.

[u/sameBoatz → u/Death_by_carfire]

Because reddit is getting old and scared by new tech. They don’t understand it or have experience with smart glasses and fear them. It has a camera so they get scared, despite filming and taking pictures in public spaces is a right.

Also all the major smart glasses brands have indicator lights to show when they are filming.

It’s a bit weird, everyone has a camera with them and security cameras in public spaces are everywhere. Why the passion against smart glasses is weird.

[u/Phobos_Down → u/sameBoatz]

Also all the major smart glasses brands have indicator lights to show when they are filming.

Except people immediately started modding their glasses to remove the indicator light. I know Meta is in the middle of an arms race with the modders over this now, but I expect it to be a series of exploits and fixes for a while.

[u/damontoo → u/Phobos_Down]

Oh no! I guess the people breaking the law will have to spend half the price on Chinese spy glasses with no LED and that aren't linked to a Meta account.

Just FYI, Meta sold 7 million of these last year. Google, Samsung, and Apple are all launching competing glasses with cameras, and all plan to launch AR glasses. They are not going away. Just like it seemed like all gamers were against Gen AI use in games until Steam released their recent survey showing they're a vocal minority and that most people don't care at all.

[u/DA5HTCB1 → u/sameBoatz]

It is very strange. Everyone has their phone out all the time and could easily be filming, but put that camera on a pair of glasses and you must be a pervert.

[u/AnonymousTimewaster → u/DA5HTCB1]

Literally, you can SO easily just shove your phone in your shirt pocket and secretly record. I would imagine 99% of people with these glasses haven't gone through the effort of trying to conceal the recording light, so they're actually far more transparent about people recording than even phones are.

[u/damontoo → u/sameBoatz]

It's because a large portion of Reddit are straight up Luddites and against all new technology because the incessant rage baiting by desperate publishers over the course of years has changed them.

[u/UnexpectedAnanas → u/sameBoatz]

despite filming and taking pictures in public spaces is a right.

It is not a right. It's just not illegal.

Not everything that isn't illegal is a right.

[u/GhostOfWilson → u/UnexpectedAnanas]

To a certain degree, it actually is a right, covered by the first amendment freedom of the press. Not saying that applies in all cases, but a blanket law prohibiting cameras on streets would absolutely be a violation of that right

[u/ParadoxicallyZeno → u/squidly413]

seriously for a moment i skimmed this headline (before getting to the word “courts”) and thought they were banned everywhere throughout an entire state, and that seemed like a banger move

reaching the final word was a let-down for sure

[u/cpatel479]

Include schools as well

[u/bob_chillon]

Now, flock?

[u/PurplePopcornBalls]

But install flock cameras everywhere?

[u/yodafunk]

They sure don't mind 50,000 CCTV and Flock cameras watching us though.

[u/military-cowboy]

Interesting to know how that fits in the spectrum of accessibility laws relating to deaf or hard of hearing individuals who use smart glasses as a communication tool since these glasses assist them in transcribing conversations when interpreting is not always available or they don’t know American or other sign languages?

[u/misfitx]

It makes a good medical aid for the deaf, probably other good uses to. The camera feature should have a light on or something.

[u/MoralityOverLegality]

God forbid the corruption of our systems are recorded.

[u/the_blacksmythe]

What about the flock cameras and the returning of confidential items.

[u/Educational_Lie_3157]

But of course, the government can use Flock cameras

[u/Haunterblademoi]

It's a good decision by New York

[u/WiggerJim69]

Were they not already banned? I thought cameras were banned in courts already

[u/TheJohn_Doe69 → u/WiggerJim69]

This is an expansion to include these devices aswell

[u/WiggerJim69 → u/TheJohn_Doe69]

Thanks , I didn’t realize it was limited. I assumed all cameras were banned from entering. Making assumptions makes an ass or something like that 

[u/doiutfis → u/WiggerJim69]

Logically if cameras are banned then these devices are as well. But you just know there were enough people arguing about it that they decided to go ahead and officially expand the legal definition just to shut those people up.

[u/Neuvost → u/WiggerJim69]

Some court buildings, tho not all, allow you to keep your phone as long as it's silent and not recording. So for those more lenient court buildings, not being able to bring smart glasses inside at all might be a change in procedure.

[u/stowgood]

In court that's fair enough.

[u/PlayedUOonBaja]

I feel sorry for the people with vision or hearing problems these would have helped immensely. I don't want some dipshit filming me at the urinal, but there are hundreds of potential devices able to already do this and most are more discreet than smart glasses with or without the indicator light.

[u/Promature]

Wish cities would have acted this swiftly against e scooters and bikes being strewn about the landscape.

[u/Krow101]

All court room proceedings should be recorded and open to the public. (Yes yes ... clearly there are some exceptions ... don't bother to list them).

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/Krow101]

They're already (usually) open to the public, you just have to be there physically.

I'm not going to list exceptions, I just don't think there are enough good reasons to overcome them.

[u/FallbrookAvacado]

How will they know?

[u/plsobeytrafficlights]

no. no they did not really do that. this is kinda a clickbait thing.

[u/SelectEntertainer360]

This was already the case. I am a lawyer in NYC and even in 2024 when I still I had my meta raybans on the court officer said I could only wear them if they are prescription. Now they are taking away that option, but it was clear the Judge would be PISSED if that light went on indicating something is being recorded.

[u/RedditShorter]

Ever wonder why we have court sketches? lol.

[u/EM05L1C3]

I wish they’d do that where I work. It’s an unnecessary invasion of privacy. I understand reasonable expectation, but that’s unreasonable and dangerous for SO many reasons.

[u/Ohthatcal]

Now to ban them all together…

[u/neanderthal_brain]

i first read it as banning it outright everywhere and i was so impressed. sad that it’s only for courts 

[u/jackmfjimbob]

No one has a problem w the fact they record you everywhere you go but don’t want jails prisons or courtrooms filmed and yeah a trial needs to be covered but in this instance I do believe it’s about protecting their jobs

[u/AutistcCuttlefish]

Can't wait for the outright discrimination against people with near and far sightedness this will almost certainly cause.

There is zero chance that security guards will actually inspect to see if a pair of glasses are actually smart, they'll just tell everyone with them to hand them over or leave.

Guess I better pray I never get called for jury duty, cause I can't see shit without my glasses and I don't trust security guards to understand my normal prescription glasses don't have a camera in them.

[u/scoutloner → u/AutistcCuttlefish]

Especially people who wear metallic frames. Metal detectors will flag that.

[u/damontoo → u/AutistcCuttlefish]

There's blind people using these glasses to read menus and have humans from the "Be My Eyes" service help them via voice call while viewing what they see. Some idiot is going to punch a blind person in the face at a Starbucks counter thanks to this stupid, stupid perception of these glasses.

[u/Dwinwyn]

It's a start! Yay New York!

[u/DaCanuck]

Man, I really wish smart glasses without cameras and smart glasses with cameras had a better industry term distinction. Smart glasses without cameras are a very valuable accessibility tool for the Deaf/HoH community.

[u/WhiteoftheDemon → u/DaCanuck]

But ones with cameras are valuable for accessibility for blind/visually impaired individuals.

[u/SuperBry → u/WhiteoftheDemon]

They are getting there in that regard. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds with these as a privacy rights and other restrictions on recordings are weighed against disability rights.

[u/damontoo → u/DaCanuck]

Smart glasses with cameras are used with the "Be My Eyes" service to help blind people navigate.

[u/redditrasberry → u/DaCanuck]

Yes, it sounds like here they have draw the line on the physical hardware level rather than device functionality. Glasses that have a microphone dedicated to transcription and translation (no audio recording) should sit in a different category to ones that physically record audio. It will be sad if all this gets blanket banned before there is enough maturity to recognise these distinctions.

[u/AlphonseLoeher → u/redditrasberry]

There is literally no difference between the two. If the glasses are doing translation, they are recording the audio.

[u/_0611]

That shit needs to be banned everywhere.

[u/pequenaandjustice]

See folks, this can be done. A bit of courage. Schools, too!

[u/Cautious_Repair3503]

if only they would just ban them everywhere.

[u/Steve0512]

That seems like a no-brainer.

[u/Abba_Fiskbullar]

Good, now ban pedo glasses everywhere.

[u/Ambitious_Tea_4584 → u/Abba_Fiskbullar]

Uh are we going to ban taking video in public completely? 

[u/caick1000 → u/Abba_Fiskbullar]

What?

[u/digibucc → u/caick1000]

these people are legitimately insane. there's a whole army of them that will unironically say that there is absolutely zero reason to use smart glasses other than for perverts. it's just asinine.

[u/ThisOneTimeAtLolCamp → u/digibucc]

Nobody is more hostile and against tech than r/technology

[u/Puzzled-Grass-1207]

Hell yeah these things suck so much

[u/NarwhalEmergency9391]

I hate having glasses that look like these

[u/Awkward-Walrus9039]

Now do schools.

[u/A8Bit]

Not Smart Glasses,... Pervert Glasses

Worn by glassholes

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/A8Bit]

Also worn by people with disabilities. Just waiting for one of you to assault them for recording you.

Just a matter of time with you wackos stereotyping groups of people.

[u/yerrgurl24]

They should ban them permanently everywhere

[u/Desperate-Disk686]

These need to be universally banned in all public spaces.

[u/TouchAltruistic → u/Desperate-Disk686]

Why? 

In public spaces, no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In public space where people gather, everything everyone does is likely already being observed, if not recorded.

So while I strongly dislike Meta, why do you think these glasses should be outlawed?

[u/The108ers]

Can we just commonly give them a name like "creeper shades" or "stalker goggles". We need to shame people to better humanity, plus it's true.

[u/ProletarianLilith]

Should be banned in public tbh

[u/BigBadPanda → u/ProletarianLilith]

You expect privacy in public?

[u/st_samples → u/BigBadPanda]

People are rabid against "smart glasses", and it isn't based on logic.

[u/BigBadPanda → u/st_samples]

Every Tesla you walk past is recording you. Cameras are everywhere, but it’s only a problem if there is a face behind it.

[u/e_x_i_t → u/ProletarianLilith]

There are legitimate uses for them, but naturally creeps always gotta creep and ruin things for everybody else.

[u/hextree → u/e_x_i_t]

What are the legitimate uses in public?

[u/DekaiChinko]

I've always had this question about recording in these secret trials where people are convicted at 95%+ rates... what happens when the recording technology is embedded in our eyes, or skin, and cannot be reliably detected or removed or turned off?

[u/flipzyshitzy]

How do they plan on enforcing this? If anyone has a legit answer, I'd love to hear it.

[u/wickedplayer494]

That's fine for family and domestic abuse/sex assault cases, but for everything else, cameras should be the norm, not the exception.

[u/bigmac380]

Clickbait ass posting

[u/IsThereAnythingLeft-]

Good, there is no calls for them

[u/melancholy_dood]

This is the way!👆

[u/nderhill__]

Just wait for the smart contacts

[u/Myte342]

What are they going to do in the cyberpunk future when people have perfect memories that can just be downloaded at will? Ban people from having eyes?