Philly courts will ban all smart eyeglasses starting next week

General reaction to the Philly courts ban

• Many see banning smart glasses with recording capability in courts as sensible and largely a clarification of existing “no recording” norms for trials.
• Some wish the rule applied more broadly (all government properties, workplaces, public transit), viewing the devices as inherently invasive.
• A minority worries about overly broad wording if “smart” isn’t clearly defined, especially as prescriptions and assistive features become common.

Privacy, legality, and public recording

• Strong concerns that always-on or unobtrusive cameras normalize constant surveillance and chill everyday behavior.
• Debate over legality:
  • Several commenters note that recording in public is generally lawful in the US, and commercial use is often allowed, especially for news or non-advertising uses.
  • Others reference “right of publicity” and state laws that restrict using recognizable likenesses in advertising without consent.
  • Some states reportedly criminalize “secret” recording regardless of location.
• There is tension between legal doctrines (“no expectation of privacy in public”) and social expectations of not being persistently logged.

Assistive tech and accessibility concerns

• Smart glasses are described as valuable for blind and deaf users (e.g., object recognition, live captioning).
• Multiple commenters argue bans need explicit exemptions or alternatives, and that ADA-based challenges or courtroom-provided captioning/assistive tools may become necessary.
• Others counter that assistive devices should be designed to process locally and not store/transmit data; those could remain allowed.

Future tech: implants and covert recording

• Discussion extends to implants, prosthetic eyes, cochlear-style devices, and tiny hidden cameras.
• Enforcement is seen as very hard once recording is embedded in the body; proposals include legal deterrence (punishing uploaders) and, more speculatively, technical “moral” NN modules or jamming/disruption tech.
• Some think implants are still distant; others argue they’re effectively here already.

Courtroom surveillance and audio recording

• Parallel concern about expanding courthouse CCTV with audio, especially in semi-public spaces where lawyers confer with clients.
• Many see audio-enabled CCTV as crossing a line, giving the state an unfair advantage and inviting misuse or “parallel construction,” even if recordings are formally inadmissible.

Social norms and pushback

• Several advocate cultural stigma and social pressure (refusing service, calling devices creepy) as a key check on adoption.
• Others note how quickly norms have softened since the backlash to Google Glass, making individual pushback feel riskier.