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).

Comments

"gang activity"?!?

[El]

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?

Judges tick me off

[vudufixit]

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?

"Reserve the right" is a myth

[pauljlucas]

I reserve the right to throw anybody out of the store I want.

You can't reserve a right you never had in the first place. In California in particular, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code, section 51) prohibits all forms of arbitrary discrimination (as affirmed by several sourt cases since: I have the citations available). You can't throw people out because you don't like they way they look or dress. If they are engaged in the business of the establishment (in your case, playing video games as opposed to loitering) and are not making a disturbance, there's little you can do about it.

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.