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

101–110 of 226 posts

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

#101

Post by ghaff »

kstrauser wrote: post #53
limagnolia wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you could just write to the court and ask to be excused, so you don't even have to show up. Most judges will excuse you for any reason if you ask.

Not on my last summons! I had to go to a side room with the judge and show him that I already had personal, not work-sponsored, travel during the scheduled dates. He was clear with our instructions that work travel was not an excuse; that was the employer’s problem, not the employee’s. I showed him my airfare receipts and he thanked me for coming, and sent me home. I was one of like 5 people who got to leave.

I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t just let you reschedule. As I recall when I got a grand jury summons I kicked the can down the road as far as I could and then avoided being empaneled.

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

#102

Post by Terr_ »

verandaguy wrote: post #36
serious_angel wrote: post #5

I 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-wav...

It 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 th…

IMO much of the "no reasonable expectation" stuff is simply wrong, or treats things as an unreasonable binary.

For example, there's no reasonable expectation that singing to myself in public won't be recorded.

But almost everyone in public does reasonably-assume that their every step isn't being permanently logged by a stalking drone swarm.

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

#103

Post by ghaff »

_trampeltier wrote: post #49
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.

For ex. in a lot factorys, is is forbidden to make pictures (and movies). So maybe you just don't have access to such areas. In Switzerland pen cameras etc. are just forbidden.

In fact, pre smartphones more or less, bringing cameras into even an office workplace was generally pretty controlled. Still is under some circumstances.

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

#104

Post by mr_toad »

neya wrote: post #91
Ylpertnodi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public photography is not a crime. * a negative is: the opportunities to enjoy oneself have sadly diminished...do one 'strange' thing in public, and you're on the web.

Public photography isn't a crime, but then again it's very nuanced. If I'm taking a portrait of a park, where people are having picnics, it seems "less targeted", if you know what I mean. Whereas walking with a phone or camera in your hand pointing directly at people's faces feels not really right. The best way to do this would be how Google solved this with street view. Capture your public photos, blur out people's…

It’s practically impossible to take pictures of a famous monument without having other people in the frame (usually they’re posing for photos themselves). AI can remove them, with varying degrees of success.

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

#105

Post by WillAdams »

linkregister wrote: post #61
danpalmer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume the sheriff would be totally fine with putting up signs in that area saying "audio and video recording in progress" then right? That would somewhat address the issue, and should be entirely uncontroversial to both sides.

There is an asymmetric impact to the defense. In our adversarial legal system, we must not disadvantage one of the sides unilaterally.

There are times when I want to argue that the solution is to make the question one of truth rather than guilt or innocence, but any solution runs up against human nature, my first experience of which was when playing sports and being told by my team mates that I should state that the ball fell on the side of the line which was advantageous to the team, rather than where it actually fell.

Never willingly played a team sport again.

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

#106

Post by TeMPOraL »

hau wrote: post #99
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.

On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. State, municipal, border and patrol random checks for proper attestation of implants. Of course manufacture and installation of such implants is licensed and tightly regulated. Think of children. It's not very different from smartphone…

> On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious.

This module is formally called "conscience" and fortunately, at this time, is securely sandboxed to not directly communicate with any device or service outside of the body.

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

#107

Post by TeMPOraL »

root_axis wrote: post #18
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.

That's so far into the future that we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

It's so far into the future that it overflows the temporal coordinates and is actually a few years into the past now.

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

#108

Post by Traubenfuchs »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #106
hau wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. State, municipal, border and patrol random checks for proper attestation of implants. Of course manufacture and installation of such implants is licensed and tightly regulated. Think of children. It's not very different from smartphone…

> On-board NN moderates all interactions. Moral NN core must be updated montlhy to support latest moral and legal checks by NN. This core reports when you are doing something suspicious. This module is formally called "conscience" and fortunately, at this time, is securely sandboxed to not directly communicate with any device or service outside of the body.

Look how that worked out for whatever‘s your favorite mass genocide in history.

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

#109

Post by 05 »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #90
b112 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one problem is, almost all security cameras are sold with audio these days. If the cameras have a mic, telling people "Oh, we turned the mic off in each camera" or "We don't record the audio" isn't very helpful.

Just cut the cable for the microphone?

There’s another problem with this because a camera with a mic cable cut would look from the outside exactly like a camera with mic cable intact, and maintenance is a thing, so eventually it’s bound to be replaced by a camera with a working mic either by mistake or “by mistake” on purpose. There’s a trust issue here since people who would be affected by the presence of a mic won’t be able to easily visually verify that it’s disabled.

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

#110

Post by TeMPOraL »

expedition32 wrote: post #80
wpm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 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…

One 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.

Also 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).
Post reply on HN