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?
You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.
If I were to walk into the courtroom with a go-pro strapped to my head, would I be clear because the camera is off and probably not recording?
These glasses are never advertised for how good the glasses aspect of the product is, but for their ability to record hands free image and video. The product is primarily for filming, and Facebook knows this.
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…
Go onto a court room and hold up your phone, pointing at the jury. Report back on how that goes for you.
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?
They were wearing glasses with the camera literally built into them. Anywhere they look they are pointing a camera.
You can say that but it’s entirely different from bringing up deliberately pointing the camera of a device at the jury. And again, there was nothing about them looking at something in particular or anything suggesting the intent to film. As I said it is also very easy to know if the camera is activated.
If I were to walk into the courtroom with a go-pro strapped to my head, would I be clear because the camera is off and probably not recording?
These glasses are never advertised for how good the glasses aspect of the product is, but for their ability to record hands free image and video. The product is primarily for filming, and Facebook knows this.