Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

inquirer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 226 posts

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#21

Post by simonw »

zmmmmm wrote: post #20

I 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…

I 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.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#22

Post by recursivecaveat »

sebmellen wrote: post #15
qha34h wrote: post #8

I 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 purp…

Is 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.

Are 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.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#23

Post by garbawarb »

simonw wrote: post #21
zmmmmm wrote: post #20

I 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…

I 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.

It sounds like OP is talking about having this extra pair with them where they go, not just having a pair in general.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#24

Post by aiiane »

zmmmmm wrote: post #20

I 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…

The important part of the article:

> From then on, any eyewear with video and audio recording capability will be forbidden in all of the First Judicial District buildings, courthouses, or offices, even for people who have a prescription. Other devices with recording capabilities like cell phones and laptops continue to be allowed inside courtrooms but must be powered off and stowed away.

It's defined as having recording capability, which is quite a reasonable restriction to make, IMO.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#25

Post by tdeck »

garbawarb wrote: post #23
simonw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 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.

It sounds like OP is talking about having this extra pair with them where they go, not just having a pair in general.

Which 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.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#26

Post by inetknght »

steanne wrote: post #13
bryan0 wrote: post #6

Serious 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.

sounds like an expensive way to get disqualified from jury duty.

The easiest way to get out of jury duty is to ask about jury nullification during voir dire.

But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties?

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#27

Post by pilingual »

plorg wrote: post #16

My 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 swear…

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.

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#28

Post by fooker »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #10
bryan0 wrote: post #6

Serious 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.

[flagged]

You're arguing for government enforced de-anonymization while at the same time using an anonymous internet account :)

Re: Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

#29

Post by repiret »

recursivecaveat wrote: post #22
sebmellen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 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.

Are 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 peop…

Assuming you mean in the United Stares, can you cite a specific law or court case to support your position?

It occurs to me that the existence of paparazzi seems to be evidence against your position.

Post reply on HN