My dad wears smart glasses because he's nearly deaf and the classes show captions for the person he's talking to. They're great. He doesn't use or care at all about the camera. Having the captions would be very useful to him in a courtroom setting. Collateral damage I guess.

▲

InitialLastName 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Putting aside that judges can make exceptions when circumstances warrant, one would think that this function (providing live captioning of the proceedings) would be a reasonable accommodation that courts should be able to provide. Especially now that every courtroom is (or can be) equipped for sound and video to support remote operation, it shouldn't be too difficult to support a display with the captioning via the court IT system and alleviate any concerns about surreptitious recording.

▲

jprjr_ 3 days ago | parent [-]

There's already a stenographer recording the proceeding, right? I'd think you could project what they're recording onto a display somewhere.

	▲	barbazoo 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You'd have to translate what the stenographer wrote, whichever system they used, into plaintext first. A layperson won't be able to understand that. I'd imagine already if not soon we'll have small speech-to-text models that can run in realtime.

▲

imglorp 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are glasses that do only captions, no recording or camera.

The article says "any eyewear with video and audio recording capability" which makes sense. Although even that is unreasonably specific and should just say "recording or transmission device" to ban the activity and not the item.

▲

randallsquared 3 days ago | parent [-]

Pretty sure any device which subtitles audio could be used to record that audio.

	▲	shimman 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Then it's up to the company to make a compliant device if they want it to be used in a courtroom.
	▲	1718627440 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Which is not the problem when the device has no interface to get the data out and no storage media to store it.

▲

sandworm101 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a courthouse. Judges still have king-like powers in their rooms. Anyone with a real problem will certainly be able to request and be granted an exemption.

That said, get caught misusing such an exemption and you will be hauled in for direct contempt. No big trial. No witnesses. Just the judge ordering you into 30 days custody.

▲

ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Courts also tend to have existing accessibility setups for these scenarios.

▲

sandworm101 3 days ago | parent [-]

And they are all poorly maintained and/or not functioning. If anyone walks in with their own solution, they will be accomidated. (Metaphor approaching) No judge is going to yank away a blind man's walking stick because it isnt the approved walking stick.

	▲	ceejayoz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		A walking stick isn't the same as a recording device. If your walking stick has a sword in it like the old spy movies, you won't be getting accommodated either. You'll be getting a loaner or a wheelchair.

▲

Anonbrit 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He can apply to the court for special permission - and probably use ADA to guide permission

▲

shrx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow that's amazing. Which glasses can do this?

▲

veunes 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yet I get why courts are nervous about anything with a hidden camera/mic

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]