• hector@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s illegal to take photos and video in many courts, including all federal courts? Definitely one would need permission and can’t do it surrepticiously.

    This is a slap in the face to the judge, and the courts, to flout their rules as if they were above them. And they were above them apparently, they didn’t get held in contempt.

    • Tryenjer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      There’s no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 hours ago

      It’s because they know that they ARE above the law. They’ve gotten away with things that would spell life in prison for you or I. They have the head of the America regime cozied up to. They were all at several dinner parties on Little St. James Island.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        They know any contempt findings by the judge would be overturned by higher courts, or cancelled by the president as well, as long as they are up to date on their protection money and pay the deductible on their plan.

        And they think the judge wouldn’t dare in the first place, and would probably retaliate against the judge in secret ways if she did do something, and get away with it.

  • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 hours ago

    This feels like gorilla marketing to me. They knew the judge would tell them to take them off and it would be just enough of a sensational story to make it to press. Now more people know that Meta has these glasses.

    • narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      Meta’s glasses, retail for between $299 and $799, are equipped with a camera that can take photos and record video.

      CBS is definitely involved in this gorilla scheme

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.

    • 73ms@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I don’t know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn’t mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED…

  • eleijeep@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.

    “This is very serious,” she said.

    • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Each and every individual should have been arrested then and there. Imagine walking into a major criminal trial with a film camera on your shoulder.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Isn’t it usual procedure that everyone else enters the courtroom and takes their places before the judge walks in? So the team would have had ample opportunity to film, record and facially-recognize the jury before Judge Kuhl made them take off the spyglasses.

  • BurgerBaron@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? I’m less sure than ever.

    I mean, I think I should be legally allowed to punch people in the face breaking the glasses just for wearing them, but this isn’t a just world~

    • v_krishna@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      When google glass came out (2012 or 13) it was absolutely hilarious living in the bay and regularly riding muni (public bus) in the mission. I saw multiple people run into the door/poles/etc and also multiple people get their glasses ripped off their face and stomped on. Bus driver just shrugged, bus patrons applauded. I’m no luddite and all for technology but even more for consent.

  • new_world_odor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 hours ago

    So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha.

    It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It’s worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.

    • hesh@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      A demand for removal and threat of being held in contempt seems like the appropriate response to bringing a camera in, no matter who you are.

      • [deleted]@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        It does matter who they are!

        The judge said not to bring something in and they clearly ignored the judge’s directions and it is their job to comply with the judge’s directions. They are not some random person off the street.

        • hesh@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they’ve done already… But what’s supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street.

            A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge’s orders.

            • hesh@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              Fair enough. Just let me know when it’s guillotine time, thats what I’m here for.

              • [deleted]@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I must have forgotten that there is literally no middle ground between a verbal warning and execution.

                • ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  There is middle ground, we just passed it a long time ago with these chucklefucks and we’re waiting for the rest of y’all to realize that.

      • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I think even a small jailtime would be pretty serious. Provided he can’t buy himself out. A fine would be a slap on the wrist*. A scolding is just that - something certain people have learned very early to ignore.

        * depends on the amount of course

    • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Jailtime for wearing glasses that can record videos in the courtroom?

      Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Defying a judge’s order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.

      • RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment were allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        6 hours ago

        But don’t you see? We don’t like these particular people, so they should suffer the maximum possible penalties under every circumstance.

        If we liked them then punishing them for wearing glasses would of course be a travesty.

        • Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Calling them “glasses” is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.

          I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don’t actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Sure, sure, everything can be simplified down to people just not “liking” them. That’s what this is all about. That’s what all this is about. We simply don’t like people. No, it’s not the fact that these assholes are the ones behind the 21st century rise of cyber-fascism. We just don’t like 'em. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, yeah they’re all really decent people inside, it’s us that’s the problem. /s

          Sick and tired of useless fucking people that style themselves as “rational” and “middle of the road” in a world that is literally starting to threaten my very existence. The time for that shit is long past us, sorry.

          • hector@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            But we can’t tell the difference between the “far left” and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn’t think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s

            Can’t tell you guys apart!

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            25
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the “disliked” category?

            • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              5 hours ago

              A rules based system works when every player follows the rules. One side is actively dismantling and abandoning the rules. Do we still keep playing with our hands tied behind our backs?

              • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                5 hours ago

                You are essentially saying the crowd has to do its own justice.

                It’s a courtroom, not a voting booth.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                5 hours ago

                No, we fight to ensure that the rules are followed. In this case they are, the judge has discretion here.

                Would you rather there were “mandatory minimum” laws when it came to this as well?

    • Vogi@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It always amazes me how Microsoft is though. Stuff like Threads, Instagram, Facebook is incredibly evil but they still work?! I can at least understand why the majority of people who don’t care are there. Microsofts products don’t even work to begin with though. Everything they touch be it Xbox, Teams or Windows is just so bad i wonder how we even ended up here.