This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!
It's a feature.
Scolds? That'll teach 'em...?
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
The face he makes here...
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.
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....
These glasses cams are small enough to no longer be visible as a camera.
I'm all for freedom to record outside but this is a step too far as this is not me making a video for me, this is Facebook using idiots to record the world 24/7 for them.
I'm fine with humans recording humans, immnot fine with companies recording me
Not my country and i doubt most of the EU.
There's a difference between walking by a film crew and some rando filming you whithout you even knowing.
Not in my country.
Coolies, care to elaborate
I'm not the original commenter, but in Germany, you can record in public, but can not record individuals specifically. People walking past in the background while you record something else is fine. Recording someone specifically is not.
That's the baseline, at least. Exceptions may apply (public figures, public interest, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Germany
A succinct statement of the German law can be found in the following judicial statement from the Marlene Dietrich case: the general right of personality has been recognised in the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice since 1954 as a basic right constitutionally guaranteed by Articles 1 and 2 of the Basic Law and at the same time as an "other right" protected in civil law under § 823 (1) of the BGB (established case law since BGHZ 13, 334, 338—readers' letters). It guarantees as against all the world the protection of human dignity and the right to free development of the personality. Special forms of manifestation of the general right of personality are the right to one's own picture (§§ 22 ff. of the KUG [de]) and the right to one's name (§ 12 of the BGB). They guarantee protection of the personality for the sphere regulated by them.
I disagree. Secretly recording someone with a phone is much easier than doing it with one of these. It's the same issue people had with Google Glass back in the day.
I think the reason it feels creepier is because, if you're talking with someone that's wearing them, it feels like they're sticking a camera in your face.
But like I could turn on my phone camera, leave it sticking out of my pocket, and record everyone taking a piss in a public restroom with nobody noticing. If I tried to do that with glasses, I'd have to turn my head towards everyone's cock, one at a time. The neck pain alone makes it not worth the effort.
But to be clear, fuck Meta. These glasses should be banned for many other reasons.
Agree with you for the most part.
Though your example of a public toilet is a bit flawed, since there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Google Glass was waaaaaaaaaay more obvious.
Where the meta ones are a little less so.
Depending on lighting, and distance from the Glasshole, could be really hard to spot the Meta ones.
Agreed. My friend has a pair of the meta glasses and i didn’t even realize they were meta glasses until he told me. The camera isn’t very noticeable unless you know what you’re looking for.
Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive
Self-hug
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.
I spent a few sessions in court last year and they disallow all phone use except for the attorneys and other officials.
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.
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 defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.
Instead, he got free viral marketing.
What a fucking clownshow.
