Wearables In The Courtroom: Let's Educate, Not Knee Jerk - Above the Law

Courts are issuing orders restricting smart glasses with recording capability in courthouses and offices. A Philadelphia court banned smart, Meta, or AI glasses with prescription or nonprescription recording capability, while reiterating that unauthorized recording or photography can lead to sanctions. The order allows use with prior written authorization from the court, potentially for improved ability to see or hear. Similar restrictions have appeared from other Pennsylvania judges and a federal court in Wisconsin, though mobile phones were treated differently. The main concern is perceived secret recording of courtroom proceedings. These actions reflect uncertainty about what smart glasses are and how they function, creating definition problems and inconsistent regulation.

"The judiciary, technology, and the courtroom. It's a relationship that has to be handled through education and understanding. Not by knee-jerk orders out of fear of perceived risks by those unfamiliar with the technology and the marketplace. It's not orders for orders' sake. We have already seen courts blanket banning AI without a clear understanding of what it is and can do. Now we may be seeing it with so-called smart glasses."

"It was recently reported that a Philadelphia Court banned "Smart/Meta/AI glasses-prescription or nonprescription-with any recording capability" from all courthouses and offices. The Order reiterates existing orders that any unauthorized recording or photography in the courtroom could result in sanctions. The Order does have a provision that would allow such glasses with prior written authorization from the court. So presumably if someone needed the glasses to better see or hear (capabilities most of the glasses have), they would have an option."

"More recently, another Pennsylvania judge entered a similar Order. And Pennsylvania courts aren't alone in trying to make rules for smart glasses. A federal court in Wisconsin did the same in February. Although somewhat inconsistently, the Order specifically allowed mobile phones. No doubt more orders will come. The concern triggering all this is apparently the perceived ability of these devices to secretly record courtroom proceedings."

"As with most knee-jerk rule-making efforts, there is a definition problem with these recent orders. What exactly are "smart glasses"? Presumably the word "Meta" in the orders refers to the Ray-Ban glasses that are sold by Meta although Meta also offers glasse"

Read at Above the Law