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

131–140 of 226 posts

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

#131

Post by mystraline »

pseingatl wrote: post #52
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.

In Miami, writing "No English" on the summons does the trick. Or, tell them that you do not consent to be searched (courthouse searches are deemed to be "consent" searches) so please have someone escort you inside without being searched. A quick note saying, "only God can judge" gets you off the hook. They'll hustle you right out of there if you mention jury nullification. Announcing that "the defendant must be guilt…

"Your honor, it is my ethical framework that I first must determine if the law should even be the law, and secondly if the defendant did it if the law is worthy. I will find the defendant not guilty even if they claim in open court they did it, but the law is bad."

(Basis and justification of jury nullification.)

Edit: Seriously, -1's? Given how many bad laws there are, judging the law first, then the defendant should be a given.

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

#132

Post by Suzuran »

ghaff wrote: post #96
b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties? because jury duty pays like 2 dollars an hour and I gotta eat. I know lots of folks on this website are relatively well off, but the entire country doesn't make 6 figures

Meanwhile you’re probably paying for parking, gas, etc. Also grand jury duty can be something like six months (may not be every day depending on jurisdiction. Federal may be even longer. Probably no company will keep paying you for that length of time even if you squeeze in some work nights and weekends.

The company doesn't get the choice. If they fire you or cut your pay over jury service, or even just threaten to to do so, and you can prove it, they can be arrested immediately. I have personally witnessed a judge issue a bench warrant for the arrest of a retail manager who told an employee that if she failed to get out of jury duty before her shift started that she would be fired. When the manager was brought in and questioned by the judge he tried to argue that it was his right to deny jury service by his employees. He was given 90 days in jail for contempt of court.

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

#134

Post by mystraline »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #81
inetknght wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>But the bigger thing is: why would you want to get disqualified from one of your biggest civic duties? Because jury duty does not pay enough to put a roof over one’s head and food on the table?

Supposedly, for what amounts to an "extremely important civic duty", pays to what amounts illegal under-minimum wage for compelled work. Its usually $60/day which is barely $7.50/hr. Then you have to pay for parking and overly expensive food downtown.

And the only reason people even care about being on a jury is because we are threatened with state violence if we dont. Its not like they have to pay people fairly - they just threaten you with contempt of court and jail.

Money wouldn't solve everything, sure. But being paid $50/hr would greatly alleviate many problems.

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

#135

Post by foodevl »

My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.

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

#136

Post by [deleted] »

foodevl wrote: post #135

My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.

[deleted]

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

#137

Post by mminer237 »

repiret wrote: post #29
recursivecaveat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's called the right of publicity. Basically the idea that you're entitled to compensation to for commercial use of your likeness. AFAIK, you always have to be recognizable to sue over it as you have to see your likeness, and damages would be pretty minor if you're not famous or an actor anyway. It depends on the state but generally it does have to be in advertising.

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

#138

Post by ghaff »

Suzuran wrote: post #132
ghaff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile you’re probably paying for parking, gas, etc. Also grand jury duty can be something like six months (may not be every day depending on jurisdiction. Federal may be even longer. Probably no company will keep paying you for that length of time even if you squeeze in some work nights and weekends.

The company doesn't get the choice. If they fire you or cut your pay over jury service, or even just threaten to to do so, and you can prove it, they can be arrested immediately. I have personally witnessed a judge issue a bench warrant for the arrest of a retail manager who told an employee that if she failed to get out of jury duty before her shift started that she would be fired. When the manager was brought in an…

I don’t know. Maybe I could worked with HR for more but our employee manual said they would pay for two weeks and this was a company that was generally pretty understanding about personal matters. Certainly an hourly employee or someone self employed is probably not getting any sort of a deal.

I wouldn’t have been fired (which seems a different case) but being largely unable to, say, make sales calls or other external activities for 6 months I would expect to have consequences even if just as simple as underforming my peers. Maybe a manager would understand and take it into account but I wouldn’t count on it. It doesn’t have to be blatant as in your example.

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

#140

Post by imglorp »

foodevl wrote: post #135

My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.

There are glasses that do only captions, no recording or camera.

The article says "any eyewear with video and audio recording capability" which makes sense. Although even that is unreasonably specific and should just say "recording or transmission device" to ban the activity and not the item.

Post reply on HN