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

161–170 of 226 posts

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

#161

Post by nkrisc »

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…

Imagine if everyone did this. Then when you’re in court for a crime you didn’t commit the only people on the jury would be those too stupid to have failed to be dismissed from jury duty.

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

#162

Post by veunes »

randallsquared wrote: post #142

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.

A fixed security camera is visible, scoped to a specific area, and (in theory) governed by policy, retention limits, audits, etc. Smart glasses are much harder to notice and can record anywhere

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

#163

Post by veunes »

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.

You can ask someone to take off glasses or power down a phone, but you can't really "check" an implant in the same way

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

#164

Post by dpoloncsak »

b112 wrote: post #79
autoexec wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the security reason they need this? How many times has a security camera failed to do its job because it didn't have audio? What crimes do they thing they are going to solve? Are people breaking into the courthouse wearing masks but screaming their own names?

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.

Don't most of those dome/bubble cameras come without mics?

I saw them advertised "With microphone" or something recently, which led me to assume that was a 'feature' of this model...but you know advertising

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

#165

Post by HWR_14 »

miki123211 wrote: post #89

We really need a disability exception for things like this. Meta Glasses are a hit in the blind community (for obvious reasons). Things will really come to a head when we finally get working face recognition tech. I wonder if this law could be challenged on ADA reasonable accommodation grounds.

No, we really need blind assistance devices that don't store data and process it locally.

Those devices are already not banned.

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

#166

Post by shagie »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #72

Smart eyeglasses are illegal in my state, unquestionably. The law mandates that any "secret" recording is illegal. This is different from the usual standard, which is whether someone is recording people who are in a place where they have an expectation of privacy or not. It doesn't matter if you're on the street, in someone's home, a courtroom. A tiny little LED doesn't rectify that. Nobody expects someone's eyeglass…

I suspect you're referring to Massachusetts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...

    Massachusetts (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception. Despite having a 1968 law imposing general bans on taping wire and oral communications, it was later ruled to violate the First Amendment in the conditions espoused in a case filed by Project Veritas in 2018.)
The case mentioned was https://web.archive.org/web/20211110033315/https://apnews.co...

This also be more related to recording phone calls and specific conversations.

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

It appears to be more nuanced than "you can't walk around with a camera recording in Massachusetts."

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

#167

Post by wan23 »

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…

The last time I was on jury duty in New York, any time someone tried any of these, the judge just reassigned the person to the jury pool for civil cases which, he claimed, are usually longer trials and likely to be more of an inconvenience.

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

#168

Post by onionisafruit »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #117
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…

Surely as a compromise the police dept can put cameras with audio livestreaming from every room in police dept ?

Or a compromise where defendants also have the same access to the camera feeds and pinky swear not to use the audio.

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

#169

Post by lstodd »

theshrike79 wrote: post #71
root_axis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You really need to look into what people are doing with prosthetic eyes. Here's a dude from 3 years ago adding a flashlight: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/yblzi4/g... And I'm pretty sure I saw one who added a laser to theirs for raves, but can't find the link :) You can buy very very tiny cameras today off the shelf, the main problem would be just packaging either a storage medium or wireless tr…

AirPods knockoffs are mass-produced. They contain power and RF comms in a package that's significantly smaller than an eye. The only problem with prosthetic eye camera I as a half-skilled home-lab owner would have is how to not ruin the source prostetic. Which is trivial - just buy a dozen and practice.

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

#170

Post by kstrauser »

ghaff wrote: post #101
kstrauser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was some big federal case that was scheduled for like 3 weeks. There were 60 or so of us in that batch of juror candidates, and they weren’t letting anyone go without a short list of excuses. That was a first for me, too.
Post reply on HN