I couldn't read the article but am curious what the definition of "smart" is. Because if that is the exact wording then it seems to be extremely broad and probably capture some unintended cases.

These kind of blanket bans are going to pose some real problems for the tech because people who wear prescription glasses will often get their prescription built in. So you can't take them off - you need them to see. And then there is another subset of blind and deaf users who are even more dependent on them. What are these people going to do once there are a non-trivial amount of places banning you from wearing them at all?

I think the tech industry is far behind the eight ball on this. To their credit Meta actually did a half decent job out of the gate designing sensor-gated recording lights into the Raybans. But it's not enough. There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording. Then maybe you have a chance of this category not becoming Google Glass 2.0. Otherwise I'm struggling to see how this ship won't sink.

▲

aiiane 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The important part of the article:

> From then on, any eyewear with video and audio recording capability will be forbidden in all of the First Judicial District buildings, courthouses, or offices, even for people who have a prescription. Other devices with recording capabilities like cell phones and laptops continue to be allowed inside courtrooms but must be powered off and stowed away.

It's defined as having recording capability, which is quite a reasonable restriction to make, IMO.

▲

zmmmmm 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's actually not too bad - it leaves space for devices that do have cameras or microphones for other reasons, as long as they don't persist the output. So you could do real time recognition for assistive devices etc.

	▲	macintux 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		What about facial recognition? Even without persistence that’s a big deal for juries.

▲

simonw 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's a very bad idea for a prescription glasses wearer to have only a single pair of glasses where that single pair has a built in camera.

▲

zmmmmm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's not just "having" them though, it's carrying them everywhere and constantly swapping over to your dumb glasses as you walk in and out of places that don't like the smart ones.

Which is sort of my point: when main purpose is convenience, if you have to do something inconvenient to use it then you killed the thing altogether. So if manufacturers want this to fly, they need to sort out the privacy question before there's a sign on every public place saying "no recording glasses". If I was in Meta's position, i'd be going to regulators to ban glasses without an externally controlled hard shutoff mechanism.

It might seem a trivial thing currently, but some of these factors will be the ultimate determinants of exactly how much utility humans can get out of AI. If it can't see what you can see, it can't help you with that.

	▲	simoncion 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> [W]hen main purpose is convenience, if you have to do something inconvenient to use it then you killed the thing altogether. Funny. Because UV-activated darkening lenses inevitably fail in a half-darkened state, I have a pair of always-dark prescription sunglasses and prescription -er- clearglasses. I can tell you from personal experience that it's inconvenient to carry both and swap between the two as my location and the time of day changes, and yet... somehow there's still a solid market for always-dark prescription eyeglasses. Weird, innit?

▲

kstrauser 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve thought about that before. On one hand: “I need these to see.” Other: “No, you need some glasses to see. Picking these as your only pair was bad decision making.”

▲

garbawarb 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It sounds like OP is talking about having this extra pair with them where they go, not just having a pair in general.

	▲	tdeck 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Which is a fair expectation IMO. There are plenty of places where it's not appropriate to record that they might encounter in the course of a normal day.

▲

qmr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If they can afford stupid "smart" glasses they can afford dumb glasses.

> There needs to be an industry wide agreement on a standard where something like a bluetooth beacon can shut off recording.

Yes, this is a great idea. Hardware hackers can then quickly clone these beacons and spam $5 glass hole blockers everywhere.