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.
Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial
Submitted 3 weeks ago by monica_b1998@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-glasses/
Comments
eleijeep@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Holy shit.
Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
She didn’t do anything though. Each and every individual should have been immediately charged and arrested. It’s a felony to film in a court room without permission. Every dipshit wearing those glasses should spend a month in a cell before the trial continues.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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.
RhondaSandTits@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
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.kureta@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Yep. They should have been arrested.
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The judge controls when the jury is in the room. So the jury enters last, only after the judge orders them in. And the judge can order them out at any time to have discussions outside their presence, too.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned
For that reason alone, she should have held them in contempt and declared a mistrial before wasting anyone else’s time.
Zuck and his crew should’ve been arrested on-site for such an egregious breach of privacy and mockery of the justice system. And the next set of jurors should’ve been immediately informed of why there was a mistrial, and the very obvious danger of the plantiff having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.
Instead, he got free viral marketing.
What a fucking clownshow.
PokerChips@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
No charges?
hector@lemmy.today 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
There’s no law anymore.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
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.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!
PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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.
dirthawker0@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I spent a few sessions in court last year and they disallow all phone use except for the attorneys and other officials.
megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Pretty sure they won’t care except if it ends with a multi-billions$ fine. The intent is that by the time, their “smart-glasses” are everywhere and banning them no longer seems reasonable.
So they’ll settle for “privacy settings by default”, meaning they commit to not record anything except if the user expilicitly activate it, and it should be very visible for people around.
They’ll wait a good 6 months before an update introduces back a silent auto-record of some kind, because that company never gave a flying fuck about the law, its users or basic decency.
ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
PokerChips@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
These things should not be protected property. If you assault my privacy, I should be allowed to attack back.
Sturgist@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Most countries it’s legal to record in public, as there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy. Though these are a bit different than say someone with a phone or camera, as unless you pay close attention the glasses are easy to miss…
Zexks@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You have no assumed privacy in a public space. How long is it going to take people to learn this.
Smaile@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
yahknow, if it wern’t for the fact that i know they’re a scummy company, i’d try them.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
just wait patiently for valve to make some
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Why? Are they useful for anything other than proping up surveillance state?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
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.
brognak@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
…your talking about what I’m thinking right? I’m not just a massive pervert right? Please 😅
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Ngl, I can see an use for AI assistant glasses.
If it weren’t for the payload.
GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Guerilla marketing?
GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!
narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
Gorilla marketing, when you charge at someone and stop right before you fuck them up and then offer to sell them something.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Why would ape want Meta glasses?
73ms@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks 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…
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.
simulacra_procession@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
The return of the glassholes
stoly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Step one being “make the judge mad” is a bad idea.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yea, he better watch out or he’s gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
stoly@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
These people are not in danger. Any harm to them is reputational. Reputation is the only thing they have in life.
anon_8675309@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?
Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!
It’s a feature.
BurgerBaron@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I always looked down on two party consent states, but now with the spyware glasses freaks? Seems worth it.
v_krishna@lemmy.ml 2 weeks 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.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
seen one guy wearing it once, then never saw after the hype died down. people are going to assume yuo are a creep, or watching porn on it.
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Scolds? That’ll teach 'em…?
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Let’s just hope pissing off the judge on mïnute 1 may get them uncomfortable about the rest of the trial.
h54@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
That’ll teach him.
mracton@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Get ‘em, Judge!
Eww. CBS is linking to Free Press articles. What next ABC News and Epoch News?!?
iga_no_ika@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
For those who don’t know, Bari Weiss founded Free Press and is current editor-in-chief of CBS news.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
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.
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by a good marketing opportunity.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Don’t stick up for the zuck, he’s got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Alternative to CBS.
TheBat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Zucc’s ‘product’ is probably the worst imo. At least Amazon gets you stuff at your doorstep. Zucc is just slop peddler m
new_world_odor@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Never pass up an opportunity for getting in the news. Free advertising
NachBarcelona@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Now that they were scolded, much will change.
Piece of shit post.
Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
They said “Sorry.”
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Good call judge!
totesmygoat@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn’t this televised?
grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 3 weeks ago
Schmuckerburger
devolution@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
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
hesh@quokk.au 3 weeks 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.
snooggums@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
It does matter who they are!
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can recors videos un the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
RipLemmDotEE@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
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.
hector@lemmy.today 2 weeks 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.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Don’t be obtuse.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
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.
devolution@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.
Image
This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.