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.
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.
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