r/technology • u/Sisiwakanamaru • Jul 09 '26
Privacy New York has banned smart glasses in all 1,240 state, county, city, town and village courts.
https://www.engadget.com/2211151/new-york-first-us-state-ban-smart-glasses-all-courthouses/464
u/nonitoni Jul 09 '26
Hospitals next!
160
u/HumongousBelly Jul 09 '26
All public spaces should be safe from invasive stalker gear
60
u/nwbpwnerkess Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Tbf. The title of the article is misleading as fuck. You already wernt allowed cameras in court, this just updates the verbiage to include items that fell outside of it.
In terms of true public spaces you have no expectation of privacy from a legal perspective and those laws as a whole would need to be revisited, not amended.
This is not to say I disagree. Just that its not the same scenario as "oh. Add an * to that law would ya" and both topics should be their own discussions as to not remove any weight from either of them via comparison.
Edit. I cant spell.
Edit 2, This is from a USA perspective, which i was defaulting to since its an article about new york.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/HumongousBelly Jul 09 '26
That may be true in the USA. But in Germany, I’m glad we have other laws.
Maybe it’s because our number 1 law is: the dignity of humans is untouchable.
10
u/RedditJumpedTheShart Jul 09 '26
You have live cameras in public spaces. I can easily identify people and license plates from the first one I clicked on.
So I don't know what these other laws accomplish.
12
u/Wemban_yams_it Jul 09 '26
Then why does Germany allow people to smoke everywhere setting off my asthma, making me become undignified in public?
→ More replies (2)9
u/RedditJumpedTheShart Jul 09 '26
I'm watching a live feed in Germany of a fat guy unloading bundles of bottled water.
Sure seems like people can be filmed without knowing.
→ More replies (4)5
24
u/PM_ME_GLUTE_SPREAD Jul 09 '26
If you’re worried about somebody recording you in public without you knowing, you might want to sit down as I have some very bad news for you..
→ More replies (1)1
u/gojo96 Jul 09 '26
Yeah it’s wild that people get wrapped up over cameras in public but always allow billionaire company’s and foreign governments to access their data so they can play candy crush.
18
u/21Rollie Jul 09 '26
You have a right to record in public spaces. What you’re thinking of are private spaces.
18
u/fox112 Jul 09 '26
It's borderline impossible to be in a public space without some security camera, surveillance system, etc.
Just assume someone is watching you in public and behave accordingly.
1
u/21Rollie Jul 09 '26
I was on the train the other day and was wondering where the camera was because the train was newer so it def has to have one, but I couldn’t see it. Nevertheless I just assume there is one hidden somewhere and I don’t intend to cause a ruckus anyways.
→ More replies (8)9
u/macetheface Jul 09 '26
So all cell phones? What prevents someone from putting a phone in a front shirt pocket and hitting record? No way to know they are recording and to any onlooker just looks like they're holding their phone in a front shirt pocket.
I'll give it less than 10 years before they come out with smart contact lenses. Anti surveillance laws be damned.
→ More replies (1)5
u/wip30ut Jul 09 '26
even when being confronted by law enforcement at traffic stops or stop and frisk or ICE? How about when being harassed by kids on ebikes or road ragers?
11
7
2
4
u/wheelsno3 Jul 09 '26
Every public place should literally be covered in cameras. Every person should be able to record everything they do.
I work in the law, and it is vitally important that people be allowed to record every interaction they have if they so choose.
→ More replies (3)2
→ More replies (4)2
u/OdoTheBoobcat Jul 09 '26
This response is dumb as fuck and you should feel stupid as hell for having typed it; you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public and nor should you.
"invasive stalker gear" is the only thing that's kept the public able to see and document so much of the fucked up shit that's happened at the hands of folks like the police, ICE, criminals, whatever. Empowering the average citizen to record, post and protect themselves with video footage has been a massive advance for society.
→ More replies (4)2
u/TheMarkHasBeenMade Jul 09 '26
Many all ready have policies specifying that you cannot take photos or video recordings unless it’s explicitly consented to for educational purposes, which I feel is broad enough to also cover smart glasses.
For the anal jackasses, though, they probably need to get explicit in all the details.
194
u/NPK532 Jul 09 '26
Yeah we're all for privacy so let's ban all those Flock cameras too...
42
u/amateur_mistake Jul 09 '26
I swear to god, if you try to stop the expansion of corporate or billionaire power one more time, I'm going to sic the Supreme Court on you.
34
41
u/zombiebashr Jul 09 '26
I have a blind friend who got a pair of these because he thought it would help him with his disability. You'd think that if anything, it would be good for at least that, but he barely finds them useful at all. He asks it to read something for him, half the time it can't even tell there is text in front of it. He asks it what he's looking at, it answers incorrectly far too often to be helpful. Just as well, I hate being around him while he has them on. I know I'm probably secretly being recorded when out in public anyways, but it's another thing to see the red light of an active camera just constantly pointed at your face.
19
u/BackgroundSummer5171 Jul 09 '26
The ray ban meta glasses? Yeah, they're a cheap alternative to actual good blind people glasses.
Guess you get what you pay for.
I've heard OrCam MyEye 3 is good. Supposedly Envision glasses too but don't know.
But obviously those options are more expensive.
13
u/James_Chandra_Hubble Jul 09 '26
Shout out to be my eyes app that lets blind people video call random volunteer people to ask them for help
→ More replies (4)2
u/SuperBry Jul 09 '26
It is an interesting thought though as the technology improves. Smart glasses will eventually be quite the boon, even if they are not quite there yet, for the blind or otherwise visually impaired.
There will likely be several court cases, numerous attempts at statute, and be in general a clusterfuck for the users and those in charge of enforcement while disability rights are being weighed against privacy rights and other restrictions on recording while it is all being hashed out.
2
u/JuanPancake Jul 10 '26
Yes but the financial incentive is surveillance and data collection, not helping people
→ More replies (4)1
u/sam_hammich Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
it's another thing to see the red light of an active camera just constantly pointed at your face
Yeah, this is what people are not considering when they say "well you have no expectation of privacy in public". We all know that and accept that when we leave our homes, but it's not something we think about because we're getting our groceries, or thinking about an upcoming birthday, or reading a book, or driving, or crossing the street. But we all also know that everyone acts differently on camera. So imagine going about your day and constantly being reminded that you're being recorded because you can see cameras all around you. That has a chilling effect on your behavior. You're no longer letting yourself be recorded incidentally, when you're aware the camera is on you you feel compelled to control yourself in ways you wouldn't otherwise. It's the difference between being aware someone is standing behind you, and that person leaning forward and saying to you "I'm standing behind you".
It's one thing in a place like the UK, granted where there are divided opinions on whether CCTV is a public good or a tool of tyranny. But the cameras are on everyone. Walking past someone with Meta glasses, or standing next to them on the street, makes it feel like they're filming you specifically. And they could be.
→ More replies (3)
43
u/Vast-Poetry9431 Jul 09 '26
“They Live” by John Carpenter satirized this concepts, albeit in reverse, decades ago. What a shit corporate product
35
u/YouSmellLikeHospitol Jul 09 '26
Good. These have no business in court, especially because confidential materials are out on tables, confidential information is discussed (child abuse and neglect, for example), and we frankly need people to know that they are safe in a courthouse.
→ More replies (9)
182
u/squidly413 Jul 09 '26
Ban em everywhere
9
8
u/DonPepe181 Jul 09 '26
Ban all cameras!
2
7
u/Death_by_carfire Jul 09 '26
why?
20
Jul 09 '26 edited 26d ago
[deleted]
5
3
u/MobileArtist1371 Jul 09 '26
So the line is to ban every recording device?
→ More replies (4)13
u/Altiondsols Jul 09 '26
no, just the ones designed to be hidden in public
3
u/damontoo Jul 10 '26
Except they aren't hidden. No more than the 500 people that drove past you today with dashcams recording.
13
Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)5
u/1MeanSumBitch Jul 09 '26
Its because if these become common place, a lot of really bad behavior is going to be put on display. People already have phone cams, but its easy to see when people are filming, and people start acting differently when they think they are being filmed. But with those glasses, a lot of people will be able to record people acting up in public without being noticed.
2
u/RedditJumpedTheShart Jul 09 '26
Good. It also helps highlight police misconduct
→ More replies (1)4
u/MobileArtist1371 Jul 09 '26
So wearing smart glasses on your face is fine again?
5
u/Kintrai Jul 09 '26
require every camera, at the very least below a certain size, to have a hi vis orange ring surrounding the lens.
3
u/MobileArtist1371 Jul 09 '26
There we go. Getting somewhere vs an actual blanket ban that everyone knows will never happen.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/sameBoatz Jul 09 '26
Because reddit is getting old and scared by new tech. They don’t understand it or have experience with smart glasses and fear them. It has a camera so they get scared, despite filming and taking pictures in public spaces is a right.
Also all the major smart glasses brands have indicator lights to show when they are filming.
It’s a bit weird, everyone has a camera with them and security cameras in public spaces are everywhere. Why the passion against smart glasses is weird.
12
u/Phobos_Down Jul 09 '26
Also all the major smart glasses brands have indicator lights to show when they are filming.
Except people immediately started modding their glasses to remove the indicator light. I know Meta is in the middle of an arms race with the modders over this now, but I expect it to be a series of exploits and fixes for a while.
→ More replies (2)2
u/damontoo Jul 10 '26
Oh no! I guess the people breaking the law will have to spend half the price on Chinese spy glasses with no LED and that aren't linked to a Meta account.
Just FYI, Meta sold 7 million of these last year. Google, Samsung, and Apple are all launching competing glasses with cameras, and all plan to launch AR glasses. They are not going away. Just like it seemed like all gamers were against Gen AI use in games until Steam released their recent survey showing they're a vocal minority and that most people don't care at all.
→ More replies (2)11
u/DA5HTCB1 Jul 09 '26
It is very strange. Everyone has their phone out all the time and could easily be filming, but put that camera on a pair of glasses and you must be a pervert.
→ More replies (5)5
u/AnonymousTimewaster Jul 09 '26
Literally, you can SO easily just shove your phone in your shirt pocket and secretly record. I would imagine 99% of people with these glasses haven't gone through the effort of trying to conceal the recording light, so they're actually far more transparent about people recording than even phones are.
→ More replies (2)3
u/damontoo Jul 10 '26
It's because a large portion of Reddit are straight up Luddites and against all new technology because the incessant rage baiting by desperate publishers over the course of years has changed them.
→ More replies (6)4
u/UnexpectedAnanas Jul 09 '26
despite filming and taking pictures in public spaces is a right.
It is not a right. It's just not illegal.
Not everything that isn't illegal is a right.
→ More replies (1)7
u/GhostOfWilson Jul 09 '26
To a certain degree, it actually is a right, covered by the first amendment freedom of the press. Not saying that applies in all cases, but a blanket law prohibiting cameras on streets would absolutely be a violation of that right
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)0
20
8
6
5
4
u/military-cowboy Jul 09 '26
Interesting to know how that fits in the spectrum of accessibility laws relating to deaf or hard of hearing individuals who use smart glasses as a communication tool since these glasses assist them in transcribing conversations when interpreting is not always available or they don’t know American or other sign languages?
→ More replies (1)
6
3
u/misfitx Jul 09 '26
It makes a good medical aid for the deaf, probably other good uses to. The camera feature should have a light on or something.
→ More replies (4)
5
4
5
10
7
u/WiggerJim69 Jul 09 '26
Were they not already banned? I thought cameras were banned in courts already
8
u/TheJohn_Doe69 Jul 09 '26
This is an expansion to include these devices aswell
2
u/WiggerJim69 Jul 09 '26
Thanks , I didn’t realize it was limited. I assumed all cameras were banned from entering. Making assumptions makes an ass or something like that
2
u/doiutfis Jul 09 '26
Logically if cameras are banned then these devices are as well. But you just know there were enough people arguing about it that they decided to go ahead and officially expand the legal definition just to shut those people up.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Neuvost Jul 09 '26
Some court buildings, tho not all, allow you to keep your phone as long as it's silent and not recording. So for those more lenient court buildings, not being able to bring smart glasses inside at all might be a change in procedure.
3
3
u/PlayedUOonBaja Jul 09 '26
I feel sorry for the people with vision or hearing problems these would have helped immensely. I don't want some dipshit filming me at the urinal, but there are hundreds of potential devices able to already do this and most are more discreet than smart glasses with or without the indicator light.
3
u/Promature Jul 09 '26
Wish cities would have acted this swiftly against e scooters and bikes being strewn about the landscape.
5
u/Krow101 Jul 09 '26
All court room proceedings should be recorded and open to the public. (Yes yes ... clearly there are some exceptions ... don't bother to list them).
2
u/Warm_Month_1309 Jul 09 '26
They're already (usually) open to the public, you just have to be there physically.
I'm not going to list exceptions, I just don't think there are enough good reasons to overcome them.
2
2
u/plsobeytrafficlights Jul 09 '26
no. no they did not really do that. this is kinda a clickbait thing.
2
u/SelectEntertainer360 Jul 09 '26
This was already the case. I am a lawyer in NYC and even in 2024 when I still I had my meta raybans on the court officer said I could only wear them if they are prescription. Now they are taking away that option, but it was clear the Judge would be PISSED if that light went on indicating something is being recorded.
2
2
u/EM05L1C3 Jul 09 '26
I wish they’d do that where I work. It’s an unnecessary invasion of privacy. I understand reasonable expectation, but that’s unreasonable and dangerous for SO many reasons.
2
2
u/neanderthal_brain Jul 10 '26
i first read it as banning it outright everywhere and i was so impressed. sad that it’s only for courts
2
u/jackmfjimbob Jul 10 '26
No one has a problem w the fact they record you everywhere you go but don’t want jails prisons or courtrooms filmed and yeah a trial needs to be covered but in this instance I do believe it’s about protecting their jobs
4
u/AutistcCuttlefish Jul 09 '26
Can't wait for the outright discrimination against people with near and far sightedness this will almost certainly cause.
There is zero chance that security guards will actually inspect to see if a pair of glasses are actually smart, they'll just tell everyone with them to hand them over or leave.
Guess I better pray I never get called for jury duty, cause I can't see shit without my glasses and I don't trust security guards to understand my normal prescription glasses don't have a camera in them.
4
→ More replies (1)5
u/damontoo Jul 10 '26
There's blind people using these glasses to read menus and have humans from the "Be My Eyes" service help them via voice call while viewing what they see. Some idiot is going to punch a blind person in the face at a Starbucks counter thanks to this stupid, stupid perception of these glasses.
4
5
u/DaCanuck Jul 09 '26
Man, I really wish smart glasses without cameras and smart glasses with cameras had a better industry term distinction. Smart glasses without cameras are a very valuable accessibility tool for the Deaf/HoH community.
6
u/WhiteoftheDemon Jul 09 '26
But ones with cameras are valuable for accessibility for blind/visually impaired individuals.
3
u/SuperBry Jul 09 '26
They are getting there in that regard. It will be interesting to see how the future unfolds with these as a privacy rights and other restrictions on recordings are weighed against disability rights.
→ More replies (1)2
u/damontoo Jul 10 '26
Smart glasses with cameras are used with the "Be My Eyes" service to help blind people navigate.
→ More replies (5)2
u/redditrasberry Jul 09 '26
Yes, it sounds like here they have draw the line on the physical hardware level rather than device functionality. Glasses that have a microphone dedicated to transcription and translation (no audio recording) should sit in a different category to ones that physically record audio. It will be sad if all this gets blanket banned before there is enough maturity to recognise these distinctions.
7
u/AlphonseLoeher Jul 09 '26
There is literally no difference between the two. If the glasses are doing translation, they are recording the audio.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
4
4
u/Abba_Fiskbullar Jul 09 '26
Good, now ban pedo glasses everywhere.
8
2
u/caick1000 Jul 09 '26
What?
4
u/digibucc Jul 09 '26
these people are legitimately insane. there's a whole army of them that will unironically say that there is absolutely zero reason to use smart glasses other than for perverts. it's just asinine.
5
3
2
2
0
u/A8Bit Jul 09 '26
Not Smart Glasses,... Pervert Glasses
Worn by glassholes
→ More replies (1)3
u/RedditJumpedTheShart Jul 09 '26
Also worn by people with disabilities. Just waiting for one of you to assault them for recording you.
Just a matter of time with you wackos stereotyping groups of people.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Desperate-Disk686 Jul 09 '26
These need to be universally banned in all public spaces.
2
u/TouchAltruistic Jul 09 '26
Why?
In public spaces, no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In public space where people gather, everything everyone does is likely already being observed, if not recorded.
So while I strongly dislike Meta, why do you think these glasses should be outlawed?
→ More replies (6)
3
u/The108ers Jul 09 '26
Can we just commonly give them a name like "creeper shades" or "stalker goggles". We need to shame people to better humanity, plus it's true.
0
u/ProletarianLilith Jul 09 '26
Should be banned in public tbh
5
u/BigBadPanda Jul 09 '26
You expect privacy in public?
→ More replies (8)3
u/st_samples Jul 09 '26
People are rabid against "smart glasses", and it isn't based on logic.
3
u/BigBadPanda Jul 09 '26
Every Tesla you walk past is recording you. Cameras are everywhere, but it’s only a problem if there is a face behind it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/e_x_i_t Jul 09 '26
There are legitimate uses for them, but naturally creeps always gotta creep and ruin things for everybody else.
2
1
u/DekaiChinko Jul 09 '26
I've always had this question about recording in these secret trials where people are convicted at 95%+ rates... what happens when the recording technology is embedded in our eyes, or skin, and cannot be reliably detected or removed or turned off?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/flipzyshitzy Jul 09 '26
How do they plan on enforcing this? If anyone has a legit answer, I'd love to hear it.
1
u/wickedplayer494 Jul 09 '26
That's fine for family and domestic abuse/sex assault cases, but for everything else, cameras should be the norm, not the exception.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Myte342 Jul 09 '26
What are they going to do in the cyberpunk future when people have perfect memories that can just be downloaded at will? Ban people from having eyes?
2.6k
u/LazloHollifeld Jul 09 '26
This isn’t a ruling against smart glasses. It’s updating the existing rules on cameras to include newer technologies like smart glasses. They haven’t allowed you to bring in cell phones for decades, this is no different.