Smart Glasses in Court Pose Significant Privacy Challenges
Smart glasses have emerged as a significant concern in courtrooms, raising privacy and surveillance issues. Recently, Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg appeared in court wearing Ray-Ban smart glasses with recording capabilities, prompting a strong reaction from Judge Carolyn Kuhl.
Privacy Concerns in Court
Judge Kuhl expressed her concern about the potential misuse of smart glasses. She warned, “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” Her order required all attendees wearing AI smart glasses to remove them immediately.
Despite the warning, instances of individuals wearing these glasses have been reported in courtroom hallways. This raises concerns about privacy violations and unauthorized recording of court proceedings.
Legal Developments and State Actions
Recently, some states have begun to address the risks posed by smart glasses in courthouses. A few jurisdictions, including:
- US District Courts for the District of Hawaii
- Western District of Wisconsin
- Forsyth County Court, North Carolina
These courts have implemented bans on smart glasses. Additionally, Colorado’s District Court is currently considering a similar prohibition.
Historical Context of Recording Bans
Restrictions on recording devices in court are not new. Since 1946, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 has prohibited recording criminal proceedings in federal courts. In 1972, a broader ban was adopted that extended to civil cases too. An exception was made during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing teleconferencing, but this ended in 2023.
State laws concerning courtroom recording vary, with most allowing some level of recording. Common restrictions include requiring judicial approval and prohibiting recording certain trial aspects.
Challenges Posed by Smart Glasses
Concerns regarding smart glasses extend beyond privacy. Courts fear they could also intimidate witnesses and jurors. With high-profile cases, the stakes increase, prompting fears about witness behavior under surveillance. In particular, cases involving minors raise serious issues of anonymity and protection.
Darío Maestro from the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project emphasized that smart glasses deserve scrutiny akin to traditional recording devices. Courts have a long-standing rationale for restricting recording: to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.
The Future of Smart Glasses in Legal Settings
With the growing popularity of smart glasses, the challenge of enforcing bans becomes significant. Meta has already sold millions of pairs, with competitors like Apple planning to release their versions by 2027. Concerns have also been raised about additional invasive features, such as potential facial recognition technology.
Despite the rarity of outright bans on smart glasses in U.S. courts, the approach taken by Judge Kuhl reflects increasing awareness and vigilance against potential privacy violations in legal settings.
Alan Butler from the Electronic Privacy Information Center noted that judges are likely to take similar actions when faced with improper recording attempts. The response to smart glasses in court illustrates the ongoing tension between technological advancement and safeguarding privacy and legal integrity.
