New York becomes the first state to ban smart glasses in courtrooms

[Shawn Knight]

What we know so far: New York is set to become the first state to issue a blanket ban on smart glasses inside the courtroom. Effective July 20, headwear and eyewear containing cameras / microphones or other recording technology will be prohibited in more than 1,240 state, county, city, town, and village courts across the state.

According to a memo from the Office of Court Administration that was seen by Syracuse.com, the ban applies to all types of glasses and headsets with recording technology – even those with prescription lenses. Furthermore, it applies to everyone coming into the building including court staff and attorneys.

Signs regarding the ban are already in place at the entrance of some courts in the state. Those entering the building are encouraged to bring a set of regular glasses if prescription eyewear is needed.

Per the memo, the goal of the ban is to prevent people from covertly recording court proceedings – an activity that is in violation of both state law and local court regulations. Doing so could, for example, accidentally (or intentionally) reveal the identity of jury members.

Smart glasses remain among the most controversial categories of consumer technology. When the first wave of devices from Google hit the scene in the early 2010s, the backlash was fierce – so strong, in fact, that Google discontinued its headset shortly after.

Now roughly a decade later, companies like Meta have brought smart glasses back to the forefront of consumer technology, arguing that the ability to record content hands-free can outweigh privacy concerns so long as guardrails are implemented.

While consumers and manufacturers alike seem more prepared this time around, privacy advocates still are not happy with the prospect of hands-free recording devices becoming the norm. Some headsets, like the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, feature a capture LED that lights up when the wearable is recording. Any attempt to cover or disable the capture LED will automatically disable the camera, Meta noted in a recent release.

Image credit: Anne Hayes, Syracuse.com

Permalink to story:

New York becomes the first state to ban smart glasses in courtrooms

 

[yRaz]

I don't understand why they have to ban them. They're so ugly I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy them.....

Well, a quality clown costume is expensive and these will get the job done for less. I hope that image is AI generated because the model looks like she has enough Botox in her lips to win a pole dancing competition.

 

[VitalyT]

This is a pointless ban. If someone really wants to record a court hearing, it is easy to do without glasses.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

So is it just glasses/headwear with recording devices that are banned? So I am still good to put a small camera in my shirt pocket, with the lens disguised as a button, right? Or maybe build a camera/microphone into a binder with some random papers inside.

More seriously though, it seems odd that they would not just do a more general rule that prohibits/restricts all sorts of recording devices. Or maybe they already had a more general rule and this memo is just clarifying that yes smart glasses are included, not clear from the article.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

I don't understand why they have to ban them. They're so ugly I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy them.....

Well, a quality clown costume is expensive and these will get the job done for less. I hope that image is AI generated because the model looks like she has enough Botox in her lips to win a pole dancing competition.

While those Facebook ones remind me of the old military "BCG" headware, it would be silly to expect them to stay that ugly forever. Between tech getting better and designers getting more familiar with the form factor I expect it to be really difficult to tell smart glasses from normal ones in ~5-10 years.

 

[Hexic]

So is it just glasses/headwear with recording devices that are banned? So I am still good to put a small camera in my shirt pocket, with the lens disguised as a button, right? Or maybe build a camera/microphone into a binder with some random papers inside.

More seriously though, it seems odd that they would not just do a more general rule that prohibits/restricts all sorts of recording devices. Or maybe they already had a more general rule and this memo is just clarifying that yes smart glasses are included, not clear from the article.

You get searched and have to pass through metal detectors in court houses in the US… so I’d imagine that this, along with anything else that could be considered “a problem” would be dealt with at the point of entry.

The only people I typically have to worry about recording in a court room are the media or one of my officers… which hasn’t happened unauthorized without my knowledge in at the least the last 15 years I’ve been around. This is really a non-issue if handled consistently.

 

[m4a4]

Yeah... this just sounds like one of those redundant "look constituents, I look like I'm doing something!" bans that's already covered under existing "no recording in a courtroom unless authorized" bans.

 

[yRaz]

While those Facebook ones remind me of the old military "BCG" headware, it would be silly to expect them to stay that ugly forever. Between tech getting better and designers getting more familiar with the form factor I expect it to be really difficult to tell smart glasses from normal ones in ~5-10 years.

Unfortunately, this is one of the times where the laws of physics get in the way. We can only make cameras so small without sacrificing image quality, it does alot of things meaning the SOCs can only get so small with sacrificing functionality and, finally, we are reaching the theoretical limits of battery capacity. Most of the size of these things is the battery and running wires through the frames connecting the electronics

 

[Endymio]

Unfortunately, this is one of the times where the laws of physics get in the way. We can only make cameras so small without sacrificing image quality,

The applicable law of physics is the Rayleigh criteria, which allows pinhole spy cameras to be much smaller than a grain of rice, for surveillance of objects within a few meters.

In practice, civilian-available cameras are larger, about 1mm in diameter, but that figure continues to shrink.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yeah... this just sounds like one of those redundant "look constituents, I look like I'm doing something!" bans that's already covered under existing "no recording in a courtroom unless authorized" bans.

But that's not the only potential violation - https://www.techspot.com/news/111710-london-judge-witness-coached-real-time-through-smart.html

 

[axiomatic13]

So we can ban video glasses in courtrooms but not ICE? Make it make sense?

 

[sreams]

But that's not the only potential violation - https://www.techspot.com/news/111710-london-judge-witness-coached-real-time-through-smart.html

So... witnesses can't wear them.

 

[Hexic]

So we can ban video glasses in courtrooms but not ICE? Make it make sense?

I’m having trouble making sense of your comparison to begin with.

 

[NumberNine]

They're banned because they know the data goes directly to social media servers, even if the wearers don't.

 

[RudyBob]

That's one scary chick and I think we should have AI judges

 

[p51d007]

Meta (Facebook) has these stupid AI glasses that can record. They say that you can't disable the blinking light to let others know you are being recorded. They also issued this statement. "Meta points out that phones and action cameras never bothered to add anything like this, but its glasses have had the light since day one."
Well gee! You mean if someone points a camera or phone at you, they should have a blinking light too because you aren't smart enough to know that when someone points a camera at you, the expectation is you are being recorded? Gee thanks Meta

 

[scoffer]

So we can ban video glasses in courtrooms but not ICE? Make it make sense?

I've never seen an internal combustion engine inside a courtroom...........but I guess anything is possible.
/s

 

[scoffer]

That's one scary chick and I think we should have AI judges

Techspot should be sued for frightening the kids!

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Yeah... this just sounds like one of those redundant "look constituents, I look like I'm doing something!" bans that's already covered under existing "no recording in a courtroom unless authorized" bans.

You may send thank to that herd of liars .. ehm .. lawyers searching any and all loopholes in the wording of the law to go the "spirit" of the law.

Bailiff: Take off your smart glasses. No recording device is allowed here.
Lawyer: It is not recording device. It only sends a stream.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

I've never seen an internal combustion engine inside a courtroom..

Why not?
In some patent infringement case used as "corpus delicti"

 

[Endymio]

Well gee! You mean if someone points a camera or phone at you, they should have a blinking light too because you aren't smart enough to know that when someone points a camera at you, the expectation is you are being recorded? Gee thanks Meta

Was that a joke or have you never actually seen a person holding a smart phone before? If they're looking at the phone and the back happens to be facing your general direction, how do you determine they're recording you, rather than merely using it?

 

[p51d007]

Was that a joke or have you never actually seen a person holding a smart phone before? If they're looking at the phone and the back happens to be facing your general direction, how do you determine they're recording you, rather than merely using it?

Yes, that was a JOKE.