• hector@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      There’s no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 hours 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.

    • narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      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

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      48 minutes ago

      Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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…

  • eleijeep@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    4 hours 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 hours 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.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 hours 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.

  • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours 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.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours 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.

  • new_world_odor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • Vogi@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It always amazes me how Microsoft is though. Stuff like Threads, Instagram, Facebook is incredibly evil but they still work?! I can at least understand why the majority of people who don’t care are there. Microsofts products don’t even work to begin with though. Everything they touch be it Xbox, Teams or Windows is just so bad i wonder how we even ended up here.