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

91–100 of 226 posts

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

#91

Post by neya »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #84
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?

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 faces - better yet, respect their privacy if someone requests to not film them. Eg. Google Street view will blur out complete homes if you decide to opt out.

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

#92

Post by wolvoleo »

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?

It's often on the board as a MEMS microphone.

But yes I've done this with all my ring cameras, they were still the old type. One of them was a bitch to open up though (the indoor one IIRC)

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

#93

Post by wood_spirit »

plorg wrote: post #67
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.

The whole point of contention is that one of the spaces is, effectively, the only convenient places to have a quick, heretofore private, conversation. No one is confused over where the things are.

There should be rooms assigned for these private conversations.

But I imagine even these rooms are cammed, and lip reading is a thing

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

#94

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

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 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

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

#95

Post by shevy-java »

theturtletalks wrote: post #32
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…

Even if what they hear is inadmissible in court, parallel construction is a real thing and they will find a way to work backwards.

It is basically an unfair advantage, even if inadmissible in court. The state can find more facts even in illegal ways; and this assuming the government is fair rather than criminal. I have a hard time trusting governments who mistrust the public.

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

#96

Post by ghaff »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #94
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 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.

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

#97

Post by ohhman11 »

danpalmer wrote: post #46
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…

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.

It's so fundamentally terrifying that someone would consider that "totally fine".

Prosecutors will take breaks in their offices within the same building while the defense has to leave the building in order to have a private conversation, that sounds totally fair and reasonable.

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

#98

Post by siruwastaken »

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.

Is this from the standpoint if a defendant in a court case being allowed to wear smartglasses or in general any visitor having that privilege. Because in general it seems that the restrictions on video cameras imposed in court rooms should simply extend to smartglasses as well. Just because it is in the form of glasses shouldn't suddenly make taking video cameras everywhere acceptable. And I fear to think that there could be a backdoor added to the software that shares all the videos with Meta.

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

#99

Post by hau »

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. But now instead of modem you have nn "firmware" with broad capabilities to warn privacy and ethics police when you are out of line. Recording in the wrong place, or looking at a crime and not reporting. "Off mode" won't fly for a gun, and your implant threatens children, so I don't believe this could be delegated to the user.

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

#100

Post by Terr_ »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #66
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.

That doesn't sound like a good compromise at all. First practically speaking, you can't just leave the court building to discuss with your client if they're in chains, and it's super inconvenient based on the layout of many courts. Second, this becomes the excuse for adding audio and video surveillance everywhere , with the excuse that you know about it, so it's okay. Third, considering audio can pick up things like…

> If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

-- Structured to Cardinal Richelieu

Post reply on HN