Slashdot Mirror
CA Court Rules Cyber Cafe Cameras Constitutional
mbstone writes: "A California appellate court has upheld [PDF link], 2-1, a Garden Grove, California ordinance requiring so-called 'cyber cafes' to impose a curfew, hire security guards, and install video surveillance cameras capable of identifying patrons. The opinion is a must-read; the dissenting judge called the law 'Orwellian,' and pointed out that 'even the government of Malaysia' was 'too ashamed to enforce' a similar proposal." It appears that the ordinances were enacted in part due to crime involving "gang activity" and to curtail school-children from using the facilities during school hours (unless accompanied by a guardian).
I'm curious as to what this actually is... online crack sales? Drive-by DDoSing? Are the Crips and Bloods sending out spam now? Or are they putting together Powerpoint presentations to recruit new members? Seriously, what are "gangs" using (easily tracable and most likely monitored) cybercafe computers for?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I used to HATE this shit. When I was a kid and would go to the mall, video arcade or movie theater, adults (especially security) would harass me about not being in school.
Of course, I was like "fuck you - I go to a private year-round school and we get a week off every other month you stupid shit".
People really need to be responsible for THEMSELVES and stop trying to be fucking mommy/daddy/big brother.
From the opinion,
The most recent incident, occurring the day before the memorandum was written, was the murder of a 20- year-old male while he was standing in front of a CyberCafe.In other words, the first specific act mentioned wasn't even in the cafe. Does Garden Grove require or advocate similar monitoring inside each and every establishment that is in the same business as one in which a murder was ever committed in front of? How far in front of?
From the opinion:
The CyberCafe ordinance defines a "CyberCafe" as an establishment that provides Internet access to fee paying customers.Sounds like all ISPs are CyberCafes in Garden Grove. Are those ISPs similarly required to monitor their customers? Even if it's not interpreted that widely, how about libraries that charge for access, say, beyond 1 hour?
This is legislation designed to make up for incompetent busniess owners.
I own and run a gaming center and have zero problems with students skipping class and violence in or near the store. How?
1) I'm only open when the high school is closed. This means I open at 3pm on weekdays (noon on weekends and holidays). This may sound like a big deal, but it's not - 85% of my business comes from local high and jr. high schools (and most of the other are adults who work during the day).
2) I reserve the right to throw anybody out of the store I want. And I do, but only when someone gets out of hand (forgets that it's just a game). I set a tone of "have fun and be respectful" and my customers pick up on this.
No, I'm not in southern cal where there are more gangs, but still - this is not rocket science.
just my experience.
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
7 or 8 years ago, I attended El Camino Community College which is next door to Garden Grove as far as municipalies go.
Garden Grove is a beautiful suburban city with virtually no manufactoring and no high density commercial zones, just acre after acre of homes, generous yards, parks, strip malls, and the occasional car dealership or big box store (such as Target).
They also have a very large number of kids ranging from 14 to 23 years old. When I was a student in the area, there was virtually nothing to do but take the bus down the road to Manhattan Beach Mall. By the time I graduated, there were already fears and concerns that these bored kids might be tempted to join a gang.
I believe a cyber-cafe is a better diversion than joining a gang, but let's be honest here - those cafes do cost money, and people do loose their tempers, get addicted, or otherwise develop an unhealthy fixtation to playing video games all day.
I think Garden Grove has gone too far, but I really can't think of a better, less costly solution to what they perceive as a problem. The ideal situation is, of course, to give all those kids something socially-acceptable to do, but what?
Get a job? In this economy?
Go to school and get training? You did know Califonia has a budget crisis and is drastically cutting Community College offerings?
Learn to sing and dance and join the worldwide touring production of "Up With People?" Puh-leeze.
But don't you have video-surveillance (and possibly even security guards, presumably out of sight) in large department stores?
Yeah it's a shame they had to pass a local odrinance but there things aren't taken lightly.
Obviously there's been MAJOR ISSUES and equally as obviously the owners of the CyberCafes apparently weren't doing enough to deal with the issue.
READ THE PDF people, criminal activity, gang activity, a guy was MURDERED, and schoolies were goofing off on the web during school hours. At a minimum, the last shows a dereliction of duty on the part of the operator of said CyberCafe.
The only thing I see *really* wrong in this is where the comment was made "Polisar also reported that patrol officers were finding school aged children at these establishments during school hours, and he expressed concern about minors being able to access inappropriate and dangerous web sites"
Are you expecting all CyberCafes to censor the internet for you?
Government mandated censorship is always, absolutely and unconditionally a bad thing.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Hmm... when I lived in Manhattan Beach, we used to go the the beach, smoke dope, drink beer and surf (waves, not the 'net). Whatdaya mean, there's nothing to do?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
And not just with their actual decisions. I don't understand why Supreme Court judges can turn away or decide cases "without comment." What the hell gives them that right? Why don't they have to provide their reasonings in a public statement.
Another wonderful one are the stories I've heard of people who've written to judges expressing anger over decisions they've made, and gotten slapped with contempt of court! Doesn't that violate due process?
The fallacy is that the "Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal myth: you have no such right. Unfortunately, not enough people sue business owners to assert their civil rights. Civil rights trump business owners' private property rights (and rightfully so).
If you want absolute dominion over who can be in your business, then don't have it open to the general public: have paid membership requirements or by "by appointment only" and be a private club instead.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Regardless of the typical slashdot knee-jerk OMG its 1984 reaction, the fact of the matter is that there is a REAL gang problem in Garden Grove and many surrounding communities. Predominantly Vietnamese gangs in that area, typically involved in violent crime, drug trafficking and movement of stolen goods (mostly electronics).
Garden Grove ranked #210 on a recent national survey of violent crime by city. Its not that big of a city.
from http://asia.internet.com/news/article.php/1564001
"On Monday, Dec. 30, Los Angeles police reported a PC game-related dispute outside a cyber cafe called NetStreet in the Northridge area of the city that involved several teens using chairs and steel pipes as weapons. One teen was shot in the leg and another teen suffered a head wound, police said. Some reports said the brawl involved nearly 100 people"
Garden Grove clearly has reason to fear a link between gathering kids to play violent video games, and the possibility of resulting REAL violence.
It exists to make its owners money.
One way to do this is to "serve the community".
I know about the prejudice angle; I addressed it in my next paragraph.
Potential patrons can vote with their pocketbooks.
If the owner of a business wants to exclude someone based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc., let him/her.
Such a business will not be as successful as the one down the street that doesn't engage in such behavior, because many people (such as I) will boycott a business that engages in discrimination.
There were several examples of this during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, e.g., bus boycotts, etc.Business owners have no power without customers.
Let individual people decide.
It's not wrong to let a person run his/her business the way he/she wants (barring public safety/nuisance issues, etc.).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
A business exists to benefit BOTH the owner and the community (consumers)! One cannot exist without the other. It takes two to complete a transaction.
/. reader.
I believe in voting with your pocketbook. But obviously, it is not practical in most cases, especially with small businesses unless they distress the majority.
(a) The victims of civil rights are likely to be minorities in the community. Since this can be very local, even a white person could be discriminated in a black neighborhood. Ironically, everyone is a minority in some sense. And in just about every case where you are likely to be discriminated against, you are likely to be a minority. If you attend a city hall meeting, you will be a minority if you claim to be a
(b) Most people will not have knowledge that discrimination occurred, thus making them uninformed pocketbook voters. If you enter a store 10 minutes of each week, you are unlikely to witness discrimination. If you happen to be among the minority that does witness it, you may not know the motives of the owner or be able to correctly interpret the facts before you. He could have good reason for booting Joe Hippie, or he could just be prejudice against the political views Joe expresses on his shirt. Without investigative power, you are unlikely to uncover the truth.
Thus we have civil rights laws to protect minorities. We have law enforcement to ensure that violations that only take a small percentage of a business' open hours (e.g., less than 1%) are still held accountable. A majority rule vote with pocketbooks solution is not likely to address this.
Of course, you can cite exceptions to this. I am merely describing probability... the reality at most business establishments.
All this is very fascinating, really. But nothing changes (or will change) the fact that people are asked to leave my place who are under the influence of drugs/alchohol, show any form of physical violence, or continue to swear or cuss after being reminded there are kids around. This is in no way discriminates against the public and is completly within my power as a business owner.
And yes, the original incedent occured outside the gaming center, but the owner still had some control over that. Most cities have anti-loitering ordinences just for that purpose.
All I'm saying is that if the owner decides to create a safe place for people to play video games, then it will be a safe place.
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
[A slight OT diversion, in answer] I don't know if GG's charges or not (a quick search didn't say). But mine has time limits and charges for printing Web pages (and doesn't charge for printing catalog entries). And a quick search discloses some public libraries that charge for any services beyond basic browsing (e-mail, chat), or any Internet access by non-residents. Any of these (particularly the last) could easily be interpreted as providing "Internet access for paying customers".
[Back on topic] My concern here is that the opinion bundles in an extremely broad definition of a CyberCafe, well beyond a reasonable person's definition of one, I think. Perhaps GG's ordinances limit the definition to something more restricted. But even if they do, the opinion's inclusion of its own, broad definition suggests that the city is fully covered if it defines, or has defined, a similarly broad definition of CyberCafe. And that seems dangerous to me.
All businesses (except maybe charities and other NPOs) exist to make money for their owners, even if their owners are just one person.That's what publicity is for.
That's what picket lines (on the street outside the business's property), etc., are for.
For example, there is an insurance company from which I won't buy insurance because of some of the things that they practice (not discrimination, but the idea is similar).
Similarly, there are some brands of food that I won't buy.
I'm sure that there are people who have stopped buying Michael Jackson records because of his recent alleged activities.
You don't have to witness things first-hand.
If a business discriminates against some class of people, the people discriminated against can take their case to the press.
In addition, there are parts of this country where people are proud to be bigots.
These are the types that would put "for whites only" or "no homos" or similar signs on their front doors.
This would make it much easier for people like me to avoid patronizing such establishments.
Oh, and I have experienced discrimination first-hand.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Do you "get it" yet?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Where are the other two?
(And "generally" is not the same as "exclusively".)
If a small business (i.e., single shop) discriminates, then word will get around the neighborhood, and the shop will lose business, even if the people discriminated against don't go to the press.So you're saying that a person who won't go to the media to report discrimination will go to the state's AG or hire a lawyer to sue?
My guess is that a person who won't go to one won't go to the other, either, meaning that the discrimination would go unreported in either case.
I have never reported discrimination (in my case, it was done by Canadian border guards), but I would guess that it would be easier for me to call up the local TV station to report discrimination than it would be to fill out a bunch of forms to report it to the state, or to spend my money on a lawyer.
There are advocate groups for many minorities, and they can take action and make a big stink even if the individual discriminated against doesn't want to go public.
For good examples of this, look up the garbage and bus boycotts of the 1960s.
For more recent examples, look at Nike et al, who no longer (or at least, less frequently) engage in child abuse in the manufacture of their products.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Who'da thunk? He really is a Fascist...
www.actsofgord.com/Wrath/chapter01.html
So the bottom link is wrong too.
They probably do, but they have no corporate responsibility to do so: they don't have to answer to shareholders, trustees, or a board of directors. They can do it just for fun if they please.
But even in the case of 'doing it for fun', there is no implied debt to the community. A business is there to do whatever they want (within the law), not serve the community. Businesses live or die based on their patronage, so it is in their best interest to please their customers. A Government, however, takes its revenues by force and therefore is required by law to act to the benefit of its community, since they'll get our money whether or not we're pleased with them.
If you're discriminated against at a business, the easier option is to go elsewhere. It takes the right kind of person to fight back.
That *IS* fighting back. Taking your money elsewhere helps their competition and hurts them. That's the most effective way to fight a business you disagree with: vote with your dollars. This is the truth whether it's a Mom & Pop shop or a Multinational Corporation. Neither survives without customers, and if anything the Mom & Pop is harder hit by customers going elsewhere.
I don't know where you get your ideas that a business owes you something due to its very existance but the thought that someone like you may be in a position of power to affect my own business someday in the future is scary.
My business owes the community nothing. They should be happy that I pay my taxes.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
If a business is open to the general public, then, by definition, it exists to serve the community.
By who's definition!? We can keep going in circles here forever: A business exists to make money. If they choose to serve the public in their pursuit of money, that's their choice. NO private company by law exists to serve the community. The Government exists to serve the community. No matter how hard you try, your belief does not make true the idea that businesses owe you something.
Take Walmart for example.
But you kept fussing at others for using Big Businesses as an example and telling them to look at Mom & Pops... Make up your mind... Even Wal Mart can have problems. Look at K-Mart, they used to be the largest retailer in the US and now they're struggling out of bankruptcy. Yes Wal Mart will not miss a few individual customers, but if customers begin migrating to what they feel is a better store they can fall like a house of cards as well.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
K-mart died because people took their money elsewhere. The reason it was taken elsewhere is inconsequential.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
take a quick peek at his home page at mac.com. the write-up and picture under the personal section should explain why he takes discrimination so personally. he feels the whole world is against him, based on prejudices. he can't understand that the same US Constitution that allows him to make decisions in his life protects people who have decided they don't like him.
sadly, i can't blame him directly, because i'm sure the illogical mumbo-jumbo he's spewing is nothing more than the propaganda he is fed by his activist friends. that's why he can't make a definite argument without contradicting himself. he has never thought out the entire play of events, to make his own decisions. i've met his kind before, as i'm sure you have.