this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
1040 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

81757 readers
4221 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago

Social media platforms can now also offer witness intimidation/jury nullification services!

It's a feature.

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gee, maybe there might be some practical, social and legal problems with always recording camera glasses…

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day 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.

[–] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Scolds? That'll teach 'em...?

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Let's just hope pissing off the judge on mïnute 1 may get them uncomfortable about the rest of the trial.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 272 points 3 days 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.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 defendant having even one frame of video with a jurors face in it.

Instead, he got free viral marketing.

What a fucking clownshow.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 145 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Holy shit.

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

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 69 points 3 days 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 59 points 3 days ago (3 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.

[–] RhondaSandTits 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hector@lemmy.today 242 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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 127 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

There's no law anymore. These people have already gotten away with things much worse.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 61 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] devolution@lemmy.world 310 points 3 days ago (28 children)

Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 139 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hesh@quokk.au 67 points 3 days ago (10 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[–] ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works 61 points 3 days ago (43 children)

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 33 points 2 days ago (5 children)

These things should not be protected property. If you assault my privacy, I should be allowed to attack back.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago (8 children)

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....

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

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

[–] entwine@programming.dev 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] teft@piefed.social 9 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[–] Reygle@lemmy.world 129 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] whelk@retrolemmy.com 45 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Good grief. This is such a goofy time to be alive

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The face he makes here...

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 54 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (14 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 46 points 3 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 3 days 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

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 34 points 3 days ago

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

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 30 points 3 days ago

He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?

The return of the glassholes

load more comments
view more: next ›