This is a courthouse. Judges still have king-like powers in their rooms. Anyone with a real problem will certainly be able to request and be granted an exemption. That said, get caught misusing such an exemption and you will be hauled in for direct contempt. No big trial. No witnesses. Just the judge ordering you into 30 days custody.
Courts also tend to have existing accessibility setups for these scenarios.
And they are all poorly maintained and/or not functioning. If anyone walks in with their own solution, they will be accomidated. (Metaphor approaching) No judge is going to yank away a blind man's walking stick because it isnt the approved walking stick.
Courts also tend to have existing accessibility setups for these scenarios.
And they are all poorly maintained and/or not functioning. If anyone walks in with their own solution, they will be accomidated. (Metaphor approaching) No judge is going to yank away a blind man's walking stick because it isnt the approved walking stick.
A walking stick isn't the same as a recording device.
If your walking stick has a sword in it like the old spy movies, you won't be getting accommodated either. You'll be getting a loaner or a wheelchair.
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 externa…
If you perform nearly any work at all in a given week you're entitled to your salary, and they can't fire you. They might be able to take away the $15/day stipend from your pay, and there are obvious additional negatives (6 months with limited context and practice of your craft will reduce your performance when you get back too), but that 2-week cap is a lawsuit waiting to happen unless they also forbid you from doing any work while on jury duty.
The vibe around smart glasses is so weird: Governments and businesses can record in public, which is right and proper, but if an individual person records what they see, that's wrong and creepy.
The original assumption behind CCTV was that it's recorded but realistically never seen, or maybe seen by one person staring at a bunch of screens at once. That's what made it acceptable.
Of course this has changed drastically, but CCTV basically got grandfathered in in most people's minds.
Curious how they'll handle accessibility/prescription edge cases (especially if someone relies on assistive features built into these devices)
The ruling makes an exception for assistive devices that are designed not to persist data. And if you need a prescription, you should have a pair of dumb glasses
It's already impossible to stop someone from recording if they are really determined. Pen cameras, button cameras and all sorts of miniature devices exist and can be snuck through very easily. You enforce the restriction by prosecuting people who upload the footage.
The problem is punishing the uploader doesn't remove the upload. Once the public has it, it has it forever. It doesn't un-contaminate a jury pool, and there's no later retraction if whatever that was uploaded is found to be lacking context, false, or outright fabricated. Once that kind of damage is done, it can't be un-done.
Yeah, that's unfortunate. But the same is true of lots of other crimes. No way to unstab someone. Usually we account for that by setting a higher punishment
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…
Yeah, "we promise not to use it" is about the weakest possible control in a situation like that
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.
Yet I get why courts are nervous about anything with a hidden camera/mic
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.
Pretty sure any device which subtitles audio could be used to record that audio.
Then it's up to the company to make a compliant device if they want it to be used in a courtroom.