Submitted 19 hours ago by monica_b1998@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-glasses/
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.
There’s no law anymore.
pretty sure when held in contempt at a judicial hearing you literally cannot leave the room unless you’re in custody.
good luck fighting that with your billions of dollars.
Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!
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.
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.
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.
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
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.
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.
The Judge also ordered them to dispose of anything they had already recorded.
No way of actually checking that they did delete anything, but the possibility of footage or photos being leaked by a disgruntled worker, etc would be a massive liability for those two idiots.
Yep. They should have been arrested.
No charges?
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
As much as I’d love to see it, 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
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.
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can recors videos un the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment was allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
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.
Don’t be obtuse.
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies.
The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice.
The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.
Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive
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.
Guerilla marketing?
HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!
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
Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.
Why would ape want Meta glasses?
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…
Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.
He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
The sales of the glasses have been better than their VR headset which has really made them double down on the glasses as they see big potential. That said, I really think that it is a false hope as I suspect the market that is ok wearing Facebook glasses are small, but loyal.
These things should not be protected property. If you assault my privacy, I should be allowed to attack back.
yahknow, if it wern’t for the fact that i know they’re a scummy company, i’d try them.
just wait patiently for valve to make some
I’ve seen some amazing POV footage from them, because the lens is actually in line with your eye level.
So, a lot of the market would be people who would otherwise use a GoPro.
Ngl, I can see an use for AI assistant glasses.
If it weren’t for the payload.
The return of the glassholes
Step one being “make the judge mad” is a bad idea.
Yea, he better watch out or he’s gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.
I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? Seems worth it.
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.
Get ‘em, Judge!
Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?
For those who don’t know, Bari Weiss founded Free Press and is current editor-in-chief of CBS news.
That’ll teach him.
Alternative to CBS.
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.
Zuckerberg was in court to testify as part of a trial over whether Meta and Alphabet-owned YouTube deliberately designed their social media platforms to encourage compulsive usage by young people.
Ironically I think rather than them wearing them for nefarious reasons, they’ve just been encouraged to use them for so long, that they are actually addicted to them as well.
Like, if you were forced to use your employers product at work for 10-12 hrs a day and try to come up with way to monetize it in your off hours, you may start to rely on it eventually.
Our brains are wired to always take the easiest path, that’s actually the reason for technological advancement in the first place.
They probably just don’t even realize they’re wearing them, it’s just a (mostly useless and completely impractical) part of their bodies now.
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a good marketing opportunity.
Don’t stick up for the zuck, he’s got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
They knew what they were doing, as if ignorance would be an excuse. No one wears camera glasses to court just forgetting about it.
As if they wear the things on their own time, they probably wouldn’t be caught dead wearing that garbage in their free time outside of hyping the product at work. They would have custom made something.
First of all you can’t use them for 10-12 hours a day because the battery only lasts like 2 hours. Which is a bit silly for glasses.
Zucc’s ‘product’ is probably the worst imo. At least Amazon gets you stuff at your doorstep. Zucc is just slop peddler m
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.
A lit of these products used to be good. 25 years ago, Outlook was the only option for mail and calendar because they worked well and nothing else was as simple or integrated. Windows XP brought an enterprise-class OS with true multitasking to the consumer. MSN messenger didn’t have all the features of Teams, but it was a serious contender in the IM space. And now, I have Outlook every now and then telling me I have new mail but I cant see it until I restart the app, Windows gets shittier and more intrusive every day, and Teams on Android cant send me a notification about an upcoming meeting until the meeting actually starts, if I get a notification at all. I also wonder how they ended up this way given they were class leaders just decades ago.
Now if we can get alternatives that don’t have all the problems of Microsoft at its heyday, let alone now, that would be amazing. I already have my console alternative, just a few more pieces.
Never pass up an opportunity for getting in the news. Free advertising
They said “Sorry.”
Now that they were scolded, much will change.
Piece of shit post.
Good call judge!
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn’t this televised?
Read the article.
Judge ordered no cameras in the court, and even if they were allowed, why would a judge allow one party to bring their own cameras that have facial recognition capabilities?
Camera in courtrooms are for transparency with the public, not for the defense to get facial scans of jurors and witnesses.
All it said was. Cameras not allowed unless the judge says so. not that this judge didn’t allow. And a judge being petty as a way of letting a billionaire get away with anything they want is pretty on point for the American justice system.
Schmuckerburger
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 minutes ago
The face he makes here…
Image