Judge scolds Mark Zuckerberg's team for wearing Meta glasses to social media trial
6 months ago by monica_b1998 to c/technology
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 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.
I dont disagree, and I think they should face punishment for what they've done already.. But what's supposed to happen here? Jail time specifically for bringing a camera? I dont get it.
Yes, they should get jail time for being in contempt of court because they are professionals and should be held to a higher standard than people off the street.
A person off the street should get a warning. Professionals should be expected to follow a judge's orders.
It's not even a slap on the wrist.
Yeah exactly. It's a scolding. Something certain types have learned to ignore in their teens.
Sorry for unsolicited advice, but:
It's usually about consequences. At that age, they react to actions much more than to words.
And more generally, they need to learn that words have meaning, too. There's way too many parents who just lazily shout "KEVIIIN, STOP THAT!" without any sort of follow-up. Not saying you do that though.
You sound like someone who has never experienced court outside of tv or movies.
The courts process is entirely pragmatic. The entire point is to remove all emotions. The judge is not going to presume malice.
The person most at risk here is their council. It they were aware of this stunt they could cause themselves serious damage.
I work with courts routinely. You sound very naive.
This face is doable for the elites if actual consequences occur.
The judge made it clear no cameras or recording equipment were allowed in the session and they brought wearable cameras that have facial recognition capabilities. That is the definition of contempt of court.
Defying a judge's order, in a way that would allow the mega corporation to identify jurors, and influence them through proxies, is quite serious. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so, and would get away with it if they did in all likelihood at most paying a settlement of cash.
Don't be obtuse.
How much jail time was spent in 2025 by inmates held for contempt of court?
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.
But we can't tell the difference between the "far left" and far right. The one is threatening to fix elections and have a madman in absolute power to use dishonest arguments to eliminate half the population and enslave developing countries, and the other wants not pay more money for less in by private trusts overcharging us, and doesn't think working people should get screwed without their consent, and wants equal rights for people, and believes in the tenants of the Bill of Rights. /s
Can't tell you guys apart!
Whereas I prefer an organized rules-based justice system over anarchy and vigilantism. Because who knows when you or I might end up being in the "disliked" category?
Calling them "glasses" is such a weasel word. No one cares at all that they are wearing glasses, they are wearing CAMERAS in a place where recording is strictly prohibited.
I sincerely hope that you are going out of your way to troll, and don't actually have thoughts that are this small and poorly formed.
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.
That’s their job
Is it though? In Donald's America?
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.
Acting on it? I mean, I guess opening and closing your mouth is technically action.
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.
The judge controls when the jury is in the room. So the jury enters last, only after the judge orders them in. And the judge can order them out at any time to have discussions outside their presence, too.
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.
No charges?
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.
No one needs this spelled out, not even you...
pretty sure when held in contempt at a judicial hearing you literally cannot leave the room unless you're in custody.
good luck fighting that with your billions of dollars.
Speaking of that, MORE EPSTEIN FILES PLEASE!
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.
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.
I spent a few sessions in court last year and they disallow all phone use except for the attorneys and other officials.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
I've seen some amazing POV footage from them, because the lens is actually in line with your eye level.
So, a lot of the market would be people who would otherwise use a GoPro.
Mostly people riding bicycles off the side of mountains.
... 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....
I agree with you, but I get where the rabid fanboyism is coming from. The lack of competition in tech due to a variety of bullshit reasons (mostly corruption, look what Biden's FTC was trying to do compared to Trump 2's mask-off approach) have people pissed off and angry at the monopolists. Valve just so happens to be the least-bad monopolist in tech, so people like them.
People need to get competition-pilled, so they realize that Valve isn't our savior, and are in fact part of the problem too. They might be considered "good" today, but that's because our standards have never been so low.
Things can be, and should be better.
i can see why you are banned, posting misinformation/disinformation with nothing to back it uo with.
How are they shitty. You can't claim their bad without explaining why, I think you just don't like the fact some people actually respect a company rather then hate on them like the rest.
I get why people like Valve so much (I like some of their services too) but there's too much deification. It's like "oh mighty Gabe!". I get some of it was tongue-in-cheek a bit initially but it seems so many people take it seriously.
They're a company that provides some services I like but the gambling shit is bad especially when you see people on YT talking about how they were lured in when they young and how much money was lost and how many streamers were running scam companies. It's not good.
(I'm guessing the two downvoters love teenagers gambling SO much)
Why? Are they useful for anything other than proping up surveillance state?
That actually sounds badass if there was an option to not connect to anything else and also made by an ethical company.
What's the different between that and everyone having their phone's out all the time, those little guys are already able to spy on, you know they do stuff other then record stuff right, they get text readout on the lenses and stuff right? Also can you not read, I specificly wrote I wouldn't getting because of their bad reputation.
Ngl, I can see an use for AI assistant glasses.
If it weren't for the payload.
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
Guerilla marketing?
HA! yes. I knew I spelled it wrong just to lazy to edit my post - thanks!
I'm down for this, but not Meta shades. Professionals have standards.
Why would apes want Meta glasses?
I don't know if it was intentional marketing but it does have that effect and was kinda pointless. I assume people have camera phones in the courtroom with them too but possessing a device that can record doesn't mean you intend to do it and I doubt Meta has tampered with their glasses so if they were to do that it would be noticeable thanks to the recording LED...
I know where I live you can't even take a phone into the courthouse; they have signs on the door and will turn you around at the metal detectors for having one. The fact that they got those glasses into the courtroom at all is a security fail at best, and feels more like a contempt of court charge.
and do the released facts say here someone was pointing a camera at the jury and the scolding happened as a result of that or are you just inventing a hypothetical with nothing to do with what is being discussed?
Choads. All of them.
The return of the glassholes
Yea, he better watch out or he's gonna get a $6000 fine instead of $5000.
The fucking hubris. I’m so sick of it.
He put them in jail, right? RIGHT?
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~
When google glass came out (2012 or 13) it was absolutely hilarious living in the bay and regularly riding muni (public bus) in the mission. I saw multiple people run into the door/poles/etc and also multiple people get their glasses ripped off their face and stomped on. Bus driver just shrugged, bus patrons applauded. I'm no luddite and all for technology but even more for consent.
Scolds? That'll teach 'em...?
For those who don’t know, Bari Weiss founded Free Press and is current editor-in-chief of CBS news.
Alternative to CBS.
It always amazes me how Microsoft is though. Stuff like Threads, Instagram, Facebook is incredibly evil but they still work?! I can at least understand why the majority of people who don't care are there. Microsofts products don't even work to begin with though. Everything they touch be it Xbox, Teams or Windows is just so bad i wonder how we even ended up here.
A lot of these products used to be good. 25 years ago, Outlook was the only option for mail and calendar because they worked well and nothing else was as simple or integrated. Windows XP brought an enterprise-class OS with true multitasking to the consumer. MSN messenger didn't have all the features of Teams, but it was a serious contender in the IM space. And now, I have Outlook every now and then telling me I have new mail but I cant see it until I restart the app, Windows gets shittier and more intrusive every day, and Teams on Android cant send me a notification about an upcoming meeting until the meeting actually starts, if I get a notification at all. I also wonder how they ended up this way given they were class leaders just decades ago.
Now if we can get alternatives that don't have all the problems of Microsoft at its heyday, let alone now, that would be amazing. I already have my console alternative, just a few more pieces.
Oh yea you are right. XP was a joy to use. They have been slacking since they got that monopoly though. I am forced to use Outlook because of the company. And am always amazed how many redirects you can do for a simple authentication. Every service looks completely different and the audio in teams is so broken it cuts off for a couple of seconds and switches from mono to stereo for no apparent reason. Everything just feels like its extra work.
Switching to Linux on my private devices actually reminded me of the old windows. I just wish the UI UX of some software would be on par as well. LibreOffice and GIMP is just not fun to use.
The face he makes here...
So I need to preemptively wear anti facial recognition makeup if ever called for jury duty. Gotcha.
It seems somewhat realistic to expect an actual punishment for this, even if not properly scaled. It's worth fighting for. But being prepared alongside that is important.
Never pass up an opportunity for getting in the news. Free advertising
Wow, they are all in on this psycho bullshit aren't they
Zuckerberg was in court to testify as part of a trial over whether Meta and Alphabet-owned YouTube deliberately designed their social media platforms to encourage compulsive usage by young people.
Ironically I think rather than them wearing them for nefarious reasons, they've just been encouraged to use them for so long, that they are actually addicted to them as well.
Like, if you were forced to use your employers product at work for 10-12 hrs a day and try to come up with way to monetize it in your off hours, you may start to rely on it eventually.
Our brains are wired to always take the easiest path, that's actually the reason for technological advancement in the first place.
They probably just don't even realize they're wearing them, it's just a (mostly useless and completely impractical) part of their bodies now.
Don't stick up for the zuck, he's got fucking billions to pour into other people doing it for him.
They knew what they were doing, as if ignorance would be an excuse. No one wears camera glasses to court just forgetting about it.
As if they wear the things on their own time, they probably wouldn't be caught dead wearing that garbage in their free time outside of hyping the product at work. They would have custom made something.
They said "Sorry."
Good call judge!
Now that they were scolded, much will change.
Piece of shit post.
Wait, sorry for my ignorance. But wasn't this televised?
Read the article.
Judge ordered no cameras in the court, and even if they were allowed, why would a judge allow one party to bring their own cameras that have facial recognition capabilities?
Camera in courtrooms are for transparency with the public, not for the defense to get facial scans of jurors and witnesses.
All it said was. Cameras not allowed unless the judge says so. not that this judge didn't allow. And a judge being petty as a way of letting a billionaire get away with anything they want is pretty on point for the American justice system.
The use of recording devices and cameras is generally banned in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Directly from the article.
"Judicial officers have the discretion to place limitations on video recording and photography in their courtroom,"
Generally, and discretion. And also... Performative... Has been the usual kid gloves these techbro douchebag have been "disciplined" by the courts. So I was wondering if this was the case. The article wasn't clear. And using meta glasses wouldn't stop these guys from just grabbing all the cell phone data and cross reference with the massive database they all possess.
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
Scolding without jailtime = slap on wrist.
save