this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
936 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

81653 readers
4445 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 252 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 135 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Holy shit.

Kudos to this judge for knowing their shit and acting on it. I love it.

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean.... That's their job... But yes!

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s their job

Is it though? In Donald's America?

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

Oh sorry... I guess I was projecting...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day 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.

[–] PokerChips@programming.dev 5 points 16 hours ago

No charges?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 day ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 27 points 20 hours ago

He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 31 points 21 hours ago

The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 286 points 1 day ago (27 children)

Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 130 points 1 day ago (1 children)

a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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

[–] hesh@quokk.au 66 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (11 children)

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.

Edit: I'm not changing it. The responses to my mistake are too funny

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 23 hours 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 22 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Reygle@lemmy.world 123 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The return of the glassholes

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Step one being "make the judge mad" is a bad idea.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yea, he better watch out or he's gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 16 points 1 day 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.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›