44
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eleijeep@piefed.social 19 points 1 month ago

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 13 points 1 month ago

Holy shit.

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

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

That’s their job

Is it though? In Donald's America?

[-] Eximius@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

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 (1 replies)
[-] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hector@lemmy.today 18 points 1 month ago

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 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!

[-] 7101334@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Nature's laws remain.

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

They know any contempt findings by the judge would be overturned by higher courts, or cancelled by the president as well, as long as they are up to date on their protection money and pay the deductible on their plan.

And they think the judge wouldn't dare in the first place, and would probably retaliate against the judge in secret ways if she did do something, and get away with it.

[-] devolution@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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

[-] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 4 points 1 month ago

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 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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 (6 replies)
[-] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 month ago

It's not even a slap on the wrist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

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

[-] whelk@retrolemmy.com 5 points 1 month ago

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

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago

He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?

[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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 6 points 1 month ago
[-] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!

[-] axexrx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I like it better your way.

[-] narinciye@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago

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 (7 replies)
[-] rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

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

[-] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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~

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Reygle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

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

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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

[-] simulacra_procession@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

The return of the glassholes

[-] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
44 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

83695 readers
1265 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