Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
a small amount of jailtime is a slap on the wrist. A scolding is nothing.
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
It’s not even a slap on the wrist.
Jailtime for wearing glasses that can record videos in the courtroom?
Maybe the death penalty while you are at it?
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.
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.
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.
Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scolds? That’ll teach 'em…?
Choads. All of them.
These guys went full techbro.
Never go full techbro.
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…
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.
You have no assumed privacy in a public space. How long is it going to take people to learn this.
can I touch every inch of your body with my eyes in public? stand still please
Depends where you are.
Germany, for example, has laws that make it illegal to record people in public doing things that could embarrass or demean them.
Japan made google throw out their original streetview data and do it again with a shorter pole so that it didn’t look over people’s fences.
Different countries have different laws.
hold still sir I am not done recording your luscious lips
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
… Spoiler for you, but Valve is a shitty company.
Edit: whoosh the fanbois are out there! We don’t share the same value if you think it’s ok for 10 years old to become gambling addicts because of Valve’s practices.
I deleted my Reddit account because it is increasingly becoming an echo chamber cesspool of extreme centrism. I was hoping Lemmy would be somehow better with people more prone to discuss. Ho, well
Maybe just maybe it’s because it’s not as black or white as you make it seem? Especially talking about a company that did so much for Linux and looking at what their competition is doing…
So it’s ok for you to have 10 years old developing a gambling habit and potentially ruining their live, because hey they are pushing Linux in gaming?
I feel like you’re straw-manning here.
I never said it’s okay. All I’m saying is that a mega-corporation can simultaneously exploit psychological loopholes for profit (loot boxes) while actively pushing open-source ecosystems (Linux), providing great value to consumers and fighting other pc gaming monopolies (Microsoft). Look at the whole picture.
Do you consider that it is morally acceptable to push thousands of kids into gambling addiction because you are doing more than Microsoft for Linux in the gaming world?
Why? Are they useful for anything other than proping up surveillance state?
Like a gopro for sports
That actually sounds badass if there was an option to not connect to anything else and also made by an ethical company.
