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

81–90 of 226 posts

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

#81

Post by lotsofpulp »

inetknght wrote: post #26
steanne wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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?

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

#82

Post by lotsofpulp »

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.

We had a 2 or 3 month old and my wife didn’t get dismissed due needing to breastfeed the baby every couple hours. They gave her a room to feed in, so I also had to take time off to take the baby to her.

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

#83

Post by Ylpertnodi »

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…

Which state bans photography in public? I'm sure quite a few 1a auditors would be interested in travelling there.

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

#84

Post by Ylpertnodi »

neya wrote: post #64
paxys wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?

Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?

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.

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

#85

Post by probably_wrong »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #68
neya wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?

If you're a TikToker, absolutely

I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1].

He was definitely filming everyone without our consent.

[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshol

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

#86

Post by amelius »

hackingonempty wrote: post #57
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.

True, in California, for advertising or sales purposes. Probably other states too. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... .

What if people are recognizable but more in the background? Isn't that fair use?

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

#88

Post by neya »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #68
neya wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?

If you're a TikToker, absolutely

TikTokers aren't exactly the gold standards of society nor is being a TikToker a free card to violate people's privacy though. What's to say if someone confronts and requests the TikToker to stop recording them without their permission?

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

#89

Post by miki123211 »

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.

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

#90

Post by FinnKuhn »

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.

Just cut the cable for the microphone?
Post reply on HN