Slashdot Mirror
California Cybercafe Regulation Decision Released
The Importance of writes "The California Court of Appeals decided an important cybercafe regulation case last week. Read the decision [PDF]. The court decided that cybercafes are deserving of First Amendment protection. and that the zoning regulations used to regulate them in the City of Garden Grove were unconstitutional. However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok. Read more on the decision here and here."
Happy Trails,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
Only people who can afford their own computers should be allowed to look at porn.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What's wrong with that part of the decision? You can't expect to use a "public" computer AND have complete privacy. You want privacy, do it in your own home.
Wear an oversized novelty sombrero hat when using a computer in these cafes. California has a lot of mexican restaurants, geeks in sombrero hats will fit in very easily.
On another note, a 42 page legalese PDF isn't really my idea of News For Nerds but page 36 says:
"Some considerable space is devoted to refuting the idea that the city has required the video cameras to be pointed at the screens. Well, thankfully, even this majority understands that that would be too much. But then the majority go on to approve of the requirement that there be video cameras at the cybercafes with the ipse dixit that video surveillance is narrow tailoring."
So, it's not as bas as "The Importance of" makes it out to seem.
In a public place?
Maybe. Methinks that this is more of a "cover your butt" issue so that they can track down people who are using their computers for generating spam, or stalking, rather than what particular porn site you're looking at.
OF course, if everyone's looking at the same porn site that would be good investment information and might constitute insider trading...
If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.
If I own a cybercafe, my house, my rules. Why would it be even remotely considered illegal to put up a few security cams?
sulli
RTFJ.
If Pee Wee Herman used the station before you came in... It's probably not glue on the keyboards...
"There he is, the tall goofy looking one, always on that subversive website, writing critiques of party and patriotic goverment policy. How dare he abuse constitutional right!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
OK, now this is what I call "a really fucking stupid idea". This is like monitoring library patrons while they're reading books on security cameras to see which books they read and which bits they read.
FloodMT: crapflood Movab
However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.
How is this different from video monitoring ATMs, Banks, Gas Stations and the like? I don't think this is a terrible privacy decision at all! You have the right to go where you want to go and when, and if you want to not be monitored using the Internet, go somewhere else... perhaps in the privacy of your own home. I'm sure there are other cafes that don't have cameras all about...
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
I mean, video surveillance might have its good points.
CafeGrrrl69: "Heya, stud."
BigMan: "Hi there."
CafeGrrrl69: "I'm an 18-year old DD blonde. Wanna have some fun?"
BigMan: "No you're not. You're a 40-year old balding man in a ketchup-stained track suit."
CafeGrrrl69: "Shit." NO CARRIER
their First Amendment rights be searched, videotaped, audiotaped? Why shouldn't people exercising their First Amendment rights be forced to provide blood, tissue, and other fluid samples? Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights have every word they read or write be marked down and poured over by government agents? Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights be forced to prove their loyalty to the current administration and be detained indefinitely if they are incapable of expressing the proper amount of shock and awe? What, do you have something to HIDE?!?
Security guards and video surveillance? Yeah, because everyone knows that gangstas are huge on their geekish activities. "Yo homie, I installed mah new Slackwares!" "Fo sheezy mah nigga!" It dosen't seem to me like it's the cafe's problem as much as anywhere in the city, whether it be malls, coffee shops, or parks. Do we need surveillance everywhere else as well to stop these "gang violences" and whatnot? I guess that this all just circulates around the whole idea that Americans are doing everything to curb the problem except attacking the problem itself.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Is this all just about porn? What about the 1 copy of counter strike per 40 machines or the 40 copies on 40 machines that aren't supposed to be resold or used for commerical purposes?
Things will change when they start seeing cyber cafes as arcades.
Just the other day I was pumping gas, and there were cameras watching me! The nerve! Where's my right to privacy while pumping gas?? I went in to pay, more cameras!! I went to the bank, and I couldn't believe it. Cameras everywhere in there! Beware all! Big Bro is watching you!
I recently built a crappy little search engine for the karaoke bar I work at. (Our stuff runs all on PC) anyways the search engine was a simple PII333 64 megs of ram, running IIS and activeperl. It searches a text file database using a little perl script.
For the most part, when I put it in I thought it was fairly secure, and I also thought that the bar patrons wouldn't destroy it either. I came back one day after putting it in and noticed THE FUCKING ENTER KEY WAS PEELED OFF!
Jesus... What kind of lamer asshole did that?
Anyways, I could see this as the main reason cybercafe's would HAVE to use videocamera's in thier shops. Here I am crying about 1 enter key ripped off the keyboard, when those cybercafe's probably lose 10-20 enter keys a week. They probably have to maintain an inventory of enter keys just to keep up with the theft that occurs.
God, I wish I had it on tape, just so I could rip off the arm of the guy that ripped off my enter key and beat them with it.
This isn't a case where the cafes wanted to use guards and cameras, but where the city council mandated that each cafe use guards and cameras.
That is damn scary.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Most of them I have seen require you to pay for time which is limited by some stupid windows thing that runs in the background. Most of them also restrict you to certain applications - MS office and internet explorer. Most even restrict viewing of the source code of pages and viewing properties of elements. Thus, you never know which site you are at, since IE handily has the spoofing bug. Have you seen any internet cafes that let you do more without restriction, and use something like Ghost or ramdisks to keep things from being messed up? Do any include "alternative" software such as OOo, Mozilla, etc? Some might even run an alternative OS, but I have yet to see one.
"However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok"
Terrible decision? I think this is highly appropriate. I'm certain the cyber-cafe owners want to know what is going on with THEIR computers. You are in public. Not your home, so therefore, you have no privacy.
Y'know, after reading the ruling, it's really tough to share this sky-is-falling sentiment. They basically ruled that requiring video monitoring in cafes (with a 72-hour recording log) is OK, but that the city cannot do more than verify the system is operational without a warrant to inspect the tapes. Their rationale is that this is little different from having adult supervision or a security guard on premesis. Furthermore, the video need only be capable of showing "the activity and physical features of persons or areas within the premises." The cafes aren't required to set them up so that Eye-In-The-Sky can read what your screen says; IMHO, this is even better than having a security guard prowling the cafe at eye level.
Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with the court on this one. A video system designed for security surveillance would be far less suited for snooping than human supervision. Which do you find more invasive--a grainy, black-and-white security recording from 20 feet away that's going to be wiped in 72 hours, or Bob the Security Guy, who has watched you every day for three months because he has a funny feeling that you're out to cause trouble?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I know of a system currently in development where the users' keystrokes are monitored and checked against a black list. If a word typed matches one in the black list, the computer/desk at which this "alarm" occured is actively and automatically monitored by the CCTV system.
Well public cyber damn dont do that for many years know but everyone knows that privacy on those computers... well... right? ahha But since somemany things the gov is watching so well just one more. If it is to ban some script kiddies etc.. dont know but "they are spying everywhere"
It might help to note that this event was discussed earlier before the decision was made. here
While your blood, tissue, and fluid samples are obviously over the edge, first amendment rights guarantee your right to expression.
They don't guarantee you the right to pick who gets to listen. If you're going to express yourself, the government listening in and recording it is fair game.
paintball
I remember reading a while aback that you can temporarily blind CCD cameras by shining a laser pointer into the lens. Apparently you can do this from quite a distance. What we need now are glasses with tiny lasers embedded in them that identify and disable cameras that may be pointed at you.
I wonder how long it would be before the legality of thwarting observation by wearing such devices would be decided by the supreme court.
if they use the usual security cameras along with ordinary flouresent strip lighting there should be no problem, you will not even be able to see what is on the screen sa the refreshrates will interfere so as to make it unreadable.
To hell with the karma. I say it's a dupe!
"If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
If I own a cyber cafe, I can put a camera on the premise for security. The ruling is sensible, since it prevents the city from over stepping their bounds.
By the way, most stores use 200-500$ cameras that the resolution isn't good enough to see an on screen password, nor even read the screen. Especially because of non equal refresh rates, go home with even a good tape recorder and record your monitor from 10' away with a wide angle lens, and see if you can read slashdot.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
Interestingly, the concept of having video survelience on our faces or the general area of a cyber-cafe computer doesn't phase me. If it would, then i would want a seperate room and a seperate enterance to the computer terminal so patrons and employees of the coffee shop couldn't ID me as i used _their_ publically available computer.
What matters most to me would be the use of those tapes and who gets access to them. Would any law official be allowed to just willy-nilly peak at those video logs? How about employees? Are they stored in a safe location, or could someone go in, alter the tapes, then report so-and-so and base the proof for illegal activity on hacked tapes?
Ben, you've become an UberGeek! Take me as your padawan!!!
It's not something we abuse, it's a tool for us to maintain our business. Signs are posted, informing customers that we can monitor what they are doing, and we also inform first time customers of our policy. So if Mr. A hears and sees all of these warnings, and proceeds to view transgender pornography, I would say at that point it's no longer a privacy issue--if he had wanted to keep his preferences private, he would not have chosen a public venue to satisfy them. Especially considering the warnings he's been given!
I do understand that there is potential for abuse when monitoring customers, and therefore an invasion of privacy. However, with my job and business at stake, I can only applaud this decision.
You know, I'm as privacy-sensitive as anybody, but I find it all that shocking or really that it's a "terrible privacy decision" to allow owners of cyber cafe's to video-monitor their patrons. I have no right to privacy while sitting in a business establishment owned by somebody else. Ethically (and maybe legally, I'm not familiar with local ordinances) the business owners should probably notify people they're being surveilled, but otherwise they're fair game. Inform them and let them decide if they'd like to be video-taped...if I were a proprietor of one of these cafe's it would be nice to lessen the chances of somebody unleashing something malicious using my service.
If however it's for the city government to watch...well, mayor Broadwater, I hope you have a significant nest egg for that retirement.
This sig no verb.
It's their property; they have every right to install video monitors throughout the building if they wish. If you don't like it, don't go.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
"What was the talking point again? I'm not retarded yet."
Ads are broken.
While the 1st amendment aspects of this decision suck, what really jumped out at me was the claim that gang bangers are using cyber cafes. What's next, the crips and the bloods being replaced by the opt(eron)s and the xeons? Will new rap songs brag about "dual 64s" instead of dual 9mms?
No story has been posted to Slashdot today concerning the legality of individuals chosing to video their own private property. If you're under the impression such a story has been posted, you may possibly want to learn English.
This is the similar issue with forcing the hand of liquour stores to ID, they used to not, because they sold more product and they wouldn't get in any trouble for it till there was a law. Similarly, an internet cafe, offering anonymous connections wouldn't be held responsible for illegal things happening, because the computers were open to the public and anyone could have done it. This way getting in lots of people such as, hackers, pedaphiles, flamers(meaning people writing crude or harassing emails), and other such people. Anyone that wanted to do anything illegal on the net would come to these cafe's by forcing the video on them, then it cuts down on that kind of anonymous crime. Law abiding citizens don't care if they're being monitored. If you want to look at porn, go ahead and do it, anything your ashamed of people knowing your doing, you probably shouldn't do, or at least shouldn't do in public.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
That is if you consider shooting the patrons a crime.
Note that while kicking, beating, clubing or otherwise injuring a patron is allowed, the NRA feels very strongly that any shooting should include the staff as well. Shoot fair....shoot often.
Now first, for a bit of a disclaimer, I happen to be one of the sort of people who would have run a cyber cafe there myself if I could, and when my internet connection wasn't available for three months here in Colorado, the local Cyber Cafe was a savior. And I happen to like my privacy too.
However, let's go back in time a bit. It got to the point where cybercafes became literally gang hangouts and even resulted in deaths.
But it was NOT because they were geeky, or because they had computers, or because they had violent video games. (In fact, bear in mind that the Cybercafes there are really NOT all that useful for doing work or such at. They're 99% CounterStrike and UT, and if you ask the workers for SSH or a VPN tunnel, they'll look at you funny ) It was simply because they had "Fun things for bored teens to do, and were open until 4 am.". So they got slapped with restrictions in an attempt to cull the gang activity... and these restrictions also really hurt the cybercafe as a whole.
Now, bear in mind, there's nothing quite as unpleasant as going past the cyber cafe at the end of the street and finding literally 20 police cars there, lights flashing enough to give a blind man a convulsion, however, at the same time, that police response also netted 4 people who had outstanding warrants out for various violent acts.
So, really, it was a point of "The cafes didn't do enough to protect folks, so the city came in and overreacted."
I just hope that sometime, some folks can find a happy medium.
@Whee
They certainly can. That is if you consider shooting the patrons a crime.
There have been several instances of violence at Night Club's, mainly from playing makeout games.
One instance that happened here at a local club:
Club A is at one physical address, Club B at another.
Player at A kisses player at B's girlfriend.
Player B gets P.O.'d and finds where the other player is partying nightly.
Player B then looks up who owns the club, and finds Club A's address.
Player B drives to Club A and asks manager where player "A" is.
Player B lies in wait in the parking lot and frags Player A (for real) when he leaves.
----------
So explain to me again how cyber cafe's *cause* crime?
Personally, I'd love to send in the military and wipe the gangs from the face of the Earth, but, well, other than that all we can do is monitor because the morons of the world don't want to discomfort the poor gang children. We might damage their self esteem.
So to everyone who's saying "so what? my shop, my rules" : NO. Your shop, Government rules. This is a literal Big Brother situation.
So "drug dealers" buy disposable pre-paid cell phones, use encrypted e-mail, runners, latch into any of a bazillion home wireless networks, or, lord forbid, conduct dealings face-to-face. (Not like it isn't a business based on occasional face-to-face contact, one would seemingly need same to, um, exchange tangible goods.)
"Freedom" doesn't mean you have only "it" because they don't yet have technical means to remove "it" from you.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 3M Privacy Filters for laptops. You can read the screen perfectly when you're sitting right in front of it, but the image rapidly goes to black as you move off to either side.
I've used these on most of my laptops (all except Apple, with the extra-wide screens) for years and it does a great job of killing shoulder-surfing, even when the surfer is a nosy jerk in the next seat in coach class. (I was glad to have one when I was taking a break on an internatiopnal flight back and the attempted shoulder surfer was a teenager with a "What Would Jesus Do" wristband. -- I was writing erotica and didn't want to cope with the potential hassles.)
I would get the funniest looks from people at conferences too -- these do such a good job of blanking the screen that other people would ask why I was typing into a machine that wasn't even turned on.
>in a terrible privacy decision
you've got to be kidding.
The article even says "Given the well-demonstrated criminal activity observed at cybercafes, and their tendency to attract gang members,". That seems like reason enough to want video surveillance to keep cyber cafes safe. This whole "big brother" paranoia and loss of privacy bs is getting ridiculous.
God forbid we ever do anything to curb gang violence!
I live in Garden Grove and have been following this one for quite some time. The mayor of Garden Grove (actually, an acquaintance of mine) is, sadly, like most other politicians... he wants to push privatization and expand corporate control as much as possible to ensure more tax dollars flow into the city's coffers. For example, he has tried to use zoning and eminent domain laws to, in essence, give the city control of a large chunk of land so that Garden Grove can... wait for it... build a Theme Park (*boggles*).
That's right, Garden Grove, which is literally next-door to Disneyland, and has a booming hotel industry in that corner of the city (did I mention he was party to forcing small businesses out to throw up tax-producing hotels?) and is just ten minutes' walk away from Knott's Berry Farm is trying to create a theme park (never mind that the abysmal failure of Disney's California Adventure tells us that the area surrounding Garden Grove is over-saturated with theme parks with Six Flags Magic Mountain, Legoland, Universal Studios Hollywood, Sea World, and probably even more parks I forgot within an hour or two drive).
I tell you this, and it may seem like meandering, because the mayor and city council are somewhat control freaks and are ESPECIALLY trying to cast the city in a "safe, friendly" light so that tourists will stop there.
The problem, of course, is that Garden Grove had two or three gang-related shootings at cyber-cafes a couple of years ago. So, in typical bureaucratic/control freak fashion, the city council cracked down on cybercafes instead of gangs (the mayor and the city council are not exactly wise in the ways of technology - remember, he's an acquaintance so I know this firsthand - heck, CBs and Ham Radios are almost too much for him, never mind computers).
The problem is that this is STANDARD PRACTICE for the City of Garden Grove... they use draconian interpretations of zoning and eminent domain laws, react in a very bizarre way to things that threaten their (imagined, in some cases) tourism industry, and in general, are much more "Big Brother" than I would like.
The regulations for cybercafes are mostly jeered by the residents here - we aren't complicit, we're lobbying and complaining, but of course, the "paternal government" knows better than the ignorant masses. After all, "look, now that we have armed guards and police patrols at cybercafes, gang violence there is down" (never mind that gang violence is UP at their "newer" hangouts - and residential areas - since they ditched the cybercafes concurrent with the increased police presence - it WASN'T the cameras et al). In other words, what the city doesn't get is that their regulations in cybercafes don't STOP crime; they just MOVE the crime elsewhere (within the city, it's worth noting).
Fortunately (I guess), the mayor has of late turned his crusade away from cybercafes and is devoting his energy to widening the 22 Freeway (some would say to the point of insanity).
Check out ocregister.com (the local newspaper) and especially the editorial and opinion section and you'll find out that everyone around here pretty much considers the City of Garden Grove as the most flagrant example of "how government gets WAY too intrusive, abuses laws, and in general tries to bully those it should be protecting."
This hits close to home for me, but having seen this in action for YEARS, I can't say it's news. Take Garden Grove (and neighbor city, Cypress, the same city that re-zoned land belonging to a local church "out from underneath it" in order to keep it from building a church on a parcel of land -- because the city wanted a Costco on that parcel instead). This is NOT a federal problem exclusively - it happens on state and local levels, too - and the more "career politicians" we have in office - and the more entitlements we as citizens expect, the worse things are going to get. We're fighting to take back Garden Grove; make sure you don't LOSE control of your city!
--AC
If this is such a bad decision (video monitoring), then I suppose we should get rid of cameras in banks, gas stations, ATMs, daycare centers, and stores too, right? This isn't an issue of privacy here. If the cameras were in the bedroom, bathroom, dressing room, or hotel room, that would be different. See where I'm going with this?
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
Last time I checked, if you leave your house and elect to go to an business establishment of sorts, you're entering someone else's private property. And if I recall correctly, it's always been legal to videotape persons on your premises (eg: convenience stores, gas stations, banks). You're also aware in advance of the monitoring situation. If these were not the cases, and the monitoring was covert or just unmentioned, or this was the first and only case of people being recorded in public, maybe I'd be worried.
So many dont get it. City ordinance _requires_ Cyber Cafes to hire private police and install video surveillance in their premises.
ChaChing! 30-60k added to the cost of your business.
ChaChing! Lost Customers -- Who wants to go to a prison ward to explore the internet.
The point made by the dissenting judge is that there is as much (or more) evidence of illegal activities in restaurants but we dont mandate Gestapo there.
A minority of Cyber Cafe's have some unsavoury clientele so the city wants to make each cafe a small internment camp. Hope they don't target your group next.
ls
I'm involved with an "Internet Center" in Temple, Texas. The city itself is pretty tame, so as far as gang problems, most parents will be about 5 times as worried about sending their kids to the local high school than they will to this internet cafe / LAN gaming center. We need parents to trust us if we are going to make any money, so we go out of our way to care....
The biggest problem with the submission of the story to slashdot is the saying something is "video is O-TAY!" is NOT the same as "the local government forced the cafe to videotape their patrons". I'm not entirely sure there is a government privacy issue here, because not only would videotaping have to be enforced, but there would also have to be a provision forcing businesses to hand over such videotape. The problem I see is not privacy, but rather with forcing only certain businesses to implement such security measures.
As far as privacy goes, forget it. When you sign up for an account with us, that right is signed away, and we can view your desktop from the register at any time to make sure you aren't surfing pornography or using our internet connection to break the law. They aren't your computers, not your connection, not your liability, no right to privacy. Of course, we don't really care about what you do, as long as it is within the guidlelines.
In case you guys are wondering, the vast majority of the time when we check people acting suspicious (standing in front of monitors, cranking the monitor over to the wall), it's just people visiting homosexual dating services.
I think it is an interesting question to ask why Vietanmese youth gangs have latched onto cybercafes as places to meet and get into trouble. Thats not a typical gang venue.
Background: Garden Grove, Orange County, California has the highest concentration of Vietnamese immigrants in the USA, with the Silicon Valley area second place. Garden Grove is above 1/3 Viet, 1/3 Hispanic and 1/4 Anglo. Ethnic groups in the US has often have disaffected youth groups to socialize and/or make easy money.
Cybercafes havent really caught on with Anglo youth because they access at home and school. Cybercafes are quite popular in most non-US countries, perhaps due to the lesser InterNet availability in the school and home. Parents probably sanction these as places for kids to hang out because they seem "educational" and not as naughty as bars, malls or ordinary cafes.
So I guess the youth in Garden Grove starting socializing in cybercafes. More opened in each strip mall to fuel the popularity. Then they became "teritories". Then they became places of making easy money by either computer scamming or other means. It takes a fair amount of money to equip a cycbercafe, so these become big-cash businesses of interest in themselves.
Cyber cafes are still in their infancy; however, since you can run just about any type of business you want in the guise of a cyber cafe, the cyber cafe will be under a great deal of scrutiny. As cyber cafes can be anything, the worst scenario is that they can quickly become the source of everything illegal in a community.
One of the obvious uses of cyber cafe's is for conducting ecommerce. The cyber cafe could easily be used as a place for ordering and even shipping items. In this regards, cyber cafe/mail center combo could be a great service to the homeless or to travelers.
With a good screen and sound system, the cyber cafe can quickly become a quasi theatre where the owners are essentially selling tickets to whatever is displayed on the 72" plasma display.
Imagine a cyber cafe promoting an adult dating service...where you essentially order from the women waiting in the back room of the cafe.
I've checked out cyber cafes dedicated 100% to gaming. This cafe was essentially an arcade game. The ease with which cyber cafes can quickly drift into other forms of business brings up questions beyond an individual wanting to browse porn in public.
Of course, public accessible computers aren't just limited to cafes. Stores of all sorts are starting to have publicly accessible computers that do things like price checks, allow for customized products, etc..
I think these cases and rulings are simply part of the evolution of a new type of business. Unfortunately, since a cyber cafe can be anything, there needs to be public scrutiny and debate.
You have to note -- these are cybercafes. This isn't your home machine where you run Gentoo or Slackware. This isn't the place where you find a lot of people in dire need of GCC.
This is a cybercafe -- a public place with an Internet connection. You're talking about a mixed group of people. Maybe you'll find a traveler away from his/her home machine once in a while who's just out to check e-mail. Those are rare. You're more likely to get people who have no Internet connection at home...if they have a computer at all.
They're not there to learn about Linux or submit a kernel patch to Linus. They check mail, surf for the latest Fifty Cent song, and play Counterstrike if you offer it. That's where the tech scene hits the arcade scene...and you've got a slew of users who just want to show off their skillz.
You'll have vandals that deface equipment -- from gum and sharpies to carving out shtuff on keyboards and monitors. Things I'm sure computer savvy slashdotters wouldn't do...BUT THIS ISN'T THAT CROWD. If nothing else, this acts as a minor deterrant. Surveillance in a public place? If it means it protects equipment from dumbasses who have no respect then so be it.
Comprehend anything you read lately? Obviously you haven't tried it today.
That's why you three favor federal regulation of contraception, favor federal regulations concerning private sexual matters between married couples in the privacy of their own homes. Silly Mr. Bork.
Bullshit! This is no invasion of privacy... First, you are in a public space, so getting taped is no big deal. Second, there has been at least one gang-related shooting in a cyber-cafe in Garden Grove, so you WANT everyone to get taped. In fact, all this is due to Asian gangs and the fact they gather(ed) at a Garden Grove cyber-cafe and just loitered and eventually someone got shot.
Bottom line: If you are in a public space, you can legally get taped. Deal with it.
I mean, one is heavy-handed governmental actions that could have a chilling effect on speech, and the other is non-governmental and, even if it were, has no impact on speech (gas, groceries, are not speech.)
Your comment doesn't make any sense. Nobody who is arguing against this kind of intrusive governmental monitoring is arguing that cameras are inherently bad in all circumstances, otherwise we wouldn't have to wait for this kind of decision to be made before there's an outcry. It seems a little unfair for you to come up with this kind of extreme straw man. What gives?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Next time some script kiddy walks into a cybercafe and uploads MyDoom.C to the net it will be on video and they can be arrested. Bubba in cell block D will make their life the same hell that ISP admins who have to clean up their shit is. Fuck I'm even Pro-mandatory anal rapings for people who are convicted of global virus creation/release. Don't like it? Don't do it.
"However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok."
Fine with me as long as they dont mind watching me look at a mirrored goatse.
My comments concerned the governments attempts to chill free speech. I said nothing about forcing people to carry a message or forcing people to listen to a message or about abusing private facilities. I didn't realize my post was so long that you couldn't be bothered with actually reading it.
...from ISPs having to keep IP/timestamp pairs. Using these security cameras, law enforcement can within 72 hours request to know who was at any one specific machine.
Now I rarely use cybercafes, but the last time I did I didn't show any ID, no security cams, nothing except pay the bill. Now say I did something bad like uploading the latest MyDoom worm or post up kiddie porn. What would they have to go on?
Nothing. A cybercafe worker that see lots and lots of new faces each day. He probably wouldn't remember which person had that specific machine, and even so wouldn't remember enough to give a decent ID.
Compared to them keeping an ID database, I'd much rather have some mandetory security cams. For one, it doesn't build a history of access there. Much less chance of abuse. While still giving them *something* to go on.
Your right to privacy ends when a warrant. They can get a warrant to search your house, wiretap your phone, so why not a warrant for the security cam of the Cybercafe? This is just one of many laws securing that there *is* evidence that can be subpoenaed.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Read the article.
Nobody has every stopped someone from taping in their own establishment. This is a law that *requires* cafe owners to tape their clients.
Your stupidity has now officially given me a headache.
Why anybody thinks that they have any expectation of privacy in a public environment is beyond me. Yes, it's nice if they put up a sign indicating that your activity is being monitored by video surveilance, and in some locales it is mandates by law that they do. But if you think about it, the expectation to privacy was never meant to apply to a public setting. How else is it possible to have a free and unrestricted press?
How many politicians would not "consent" to having their pictures taken at certain times, or having their words recorded in any media if they could claim a right to privacy. Don't even get started on the sort of crap that your average corporate officer would pull. Think about the terrifying implications of a world where Bush and Ashcroft got to have the final say over exactly what sound bites could be played. On the somewhat less extremist end, it's bad enough that companies are trying to claim that their company memos are intellectual property, but if there was a legal precedent for a right to privacy in public, I have a feeling that most of us wuoldn't have heard of Diebold. Hell, we might not even have heard of the collapse of Enron, or the tragi-comical machinations of SCO. They would, after all, have an expectation of privacy in a public settings, and even liberally interpretted, "privacy" could be defined as communication only between directly involved parties. If you aren't comfortable with having your browsing activity recorded, than you should be doing your browsng at home, where you do have an expectation of privacy.
Let the modding-down commence!
So if you have a free access point, it's OK, but if you charge, you're a "CyberCafe", and have to have a security guard and video surveillance.
Now find every WAP in Garden Grove that bills, and insist on strict enforcement.
For those not familiar with "Garden Grove" (aka "Garbage Grove :-), the Cybercafe's are not used for email, homework, or recreation. They are gathering places for Latino Gangs. There's frequent problems with fights, stabbings, and drug dealing. I wouldn't go to these places if I had to. I think some people there actually do use a computer sometimes.
Yes. In the wrong direction.
This wasn't a case about "banned vs allowed". This is "allowed vs required". Unlike a gas station or daycare, these cyber cafes have been ordered to tape their customers. See where I'm going with this?Does the law stipulate that the video *must* be recorded? Or that if recorded, how long the recording has to be kept? How about a 1-minute tape loop? Does it stipulate that the camera must be well-focused? Does it stipulate that the comps' monitors cannot be set to cause those huge black bars due to differing framerates/scanrates between the camera and monitor? Even if this law is upheld, I don't see a problem for anyone, except the mandated costs of implementation.
That ruling is unconstitional and it violates the privacy laws. what kind of country would this be if all your first amendment rights were guareented but you had to do them in front of a video camera? I'd rather not have big brother watching me if I decide to check my bank account or send an email to a friend.
Trix are for kids!
OK, you're saying that if the courts had ruled the government can control whether or not you can put a camera on your own property, that'd be a WIN for privacy rights?
And Mr. Bork, I never said anything about an end-users contemplation of speech (That's the correct spelling, by they way. Not speach). I was discussing efforts by the government to chill both the initial expression of alternative views and the reception of such views. Taking away the privacy of end-users has been seen as a method of preventing the dissemination of alternative views.
As for politicians, they are public individuals specificaly and expressly trying to share their views with the public and explicitly attempting to tie their views to their public persona. Slightly different from a private citizen trying to respond to a /. posting and so afraid of repercussions that they AC it. Silly Mr. Bork.
From the opinion:
The ordinance does not require video surveillance of e-mail or images from the Internet appearing on the customer's computer screens. The ordinance requires only that the system be capable of showing "the activity and physical features of persons or areas within the premises."
So what is the primary "activity" of someone at a CyberCafe that is supposed to be monitored, if not what they're doing on the Internet? It reads to me as if the majority opinion is trying to have it both ways.
> However, in a terrible privacy decision, the
> court said video monitoring of the computers
> and patrons was a-ok.
What privacy? It's a service provider, and one
of their terms of service is they get to watch.
You have no privacy in your home, your IP is logged and your ISP can be forced to give out all your personal informations. The RIAA is currently doing exactly this. Now, with Cyber Cafes required to keep their customers on tape, the combination (IP/timestamp) can be resolved to a picture of you. Anonymous proxys are a matter of trust, you dont know if they arent really run by the feds or if someone has a backdoor planted in. With this new law, there is no legal way left to stay truly anonymous. So the only option for REAL privacy is to either crack a system and proxy through it, or use someone else's unsecured network (for convenience a wireless one, less work than tapping into a phone/network line)
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
It's funny how quickly slahsdotters come running when they think that their right to download porn, warez, or music might be threatened. This is not an issue about freedom on the internet. You know what these (predominantly Asian) kids do at the cafes? They don't surf the net or spread antigovernment speech. They play games. Okay, maybe they take a short break to look at import-tuner or model sites. But typically, these kids are there to get their game on. Most go home when they're done. Unfortunately, some stick around, pick fights with other kids, and in rare cases, guns are pulled. While this doesn't happen very often, it certainly happens TOO often. The Cyber Cafe owners have shown that they've done nothing to keep this from happening. Hell, the city had to mandate that at least ONE adult be on the premises at any given time; TWO during peak hours. Sad thing is, these cafe owners call it a hardship.
The reality is, that the city has given these cafes the chance to police themselves and they have failed. Since the city/police are responsible for the well-being of its citizenry, they feel the need to force enforcement upon them in the form of cameras.
Also, I don't know if ANY of you have thought this trough, but have you ever seen a surveilance tape? We're not talking about hi-res type of equipment. We're talking about the cameras they use at 7-11. Good luck reading a computer screen with that!
Okay, so enough ranting. Simply put:
This is not about the government spying on you.
In Garden Grove, cyber cafes are merely Gen-Y arcades.
This is about requiring security at these arcades.
I fail to see how a cybercafe deserves any more protection for privacy of partons than a convenience store.
For the protection of the patrons, and the owners almost all entertainment, and retail establishments have video recorders these days.
Look, if they're going to video monitor you going down the interstate, I see no reason that you should be exempt on the Information SuperHighway.
I couldnt get the article to come up for some reason, but from this thread I've gathered that the city requires the use of cameras and security guards at cyber-cafe's, can anyone tell me if they specifically require video footage of whats on the computer screens?
If not then why don't these cyber-cafe's just buy those privacy guard monitor covers, looks just like a glare screen, but unless you are directly in front of the monitor theres no way you can see anything.
It might not be following the spirit of the law, but in this case, the spirit of the law is stepping a bit too far by REQUIRING that they monitor these places.
Anyway, like I said I can't get the page to come up so this might not be allowed.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
...having cybercafes monitored. Under one condition... So long as I can view another public institution right alongside the same feed --- namely the same feed off of cameras that should be placed over the desk of every state employee.
I'd particularly appreciate the camera placed over top of the Governator's desk. It would be nice to see how the California government wastes the state's time and money in exchange for their invasion of privacy.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
judging by how everyone here has reacted, you seem to forget it's one tiny town in cali that has done stuff like this before.
now say, if LA or the entire state required this.. then there'd be concern.
I'll grant that it was figuratively built on anonymous speech. Does the Capitol building have old copies of the Federalist Papers as its foundation? Most likely not. When basketball announcers say it I watch really close, but I have yet to see a player "literally explode to the basket". Always so disappointing.
Nonsense. Name one example of anonymous free speech on an issue important to America. Sincerly, Publius
Some little town in CA claims they have a problem with gang activity at cybercafes. The city decides to require the owners to install video cameras, so that video can be obtained through a warrant if something occurs. /. goes nuts because cameras may record what's on screen. Kind of wierd, but some commuities make you paint your house a certain color.
Also, The US is still smarting from losing potential evidence in an Internet cafe, which might have related to the 9/11 attacks. The world can't slip up in the same place twice. It's unforgiveable. So California is making sure that terrorism is made that little bit harder, and is making sure it will catch the idiots next time. Watch out for an extended time that stores will have to keep their tapes. Good luck to them.
Nothing increases the reported incidences of crime like noticing it.
That, and planting agents provocateur to instigate more crimes.
-kgj
-kgj
ha ha.
Go find out what kind of crime's are going down in fast food restaurants. It makes this cafe shit look like an elementary school playground. Cafe's are just the flavour of the month.
Should we shut down all the fast food joints?
Maybe, to keep "the children" safe we should outlaw personal contact or interaction of any kind. Everyone indoors now!!! It's for the children.
The dissenting judge obviously felt the camera requirement was bogus. If it wasn't a matter of controversy, how did s/he get to write about it?
Observingsurveillance.org
The Surveillance Camera Players
it's that they are being REQUIRED to do so, to a degree that leaves individual PATRONS as identifiable.
required to videotape the customers..
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Even though this law may sound like its breaking privacy, it might not be that bad. If I were to start a cybercafe, I would anyways do the things in the chart for the safety of the cybercafe and to maintain order. If users don't like the idea, they don't go to that cybercafe. Who would want those bandwidth-hogging games anyways in their cybercafes? In fact, maybe cybercafes should be limited to web browsing, and no games.
In many elections, you do not have the right to an anonymous vote in the US--consider the Iowa (and numerous other) caucuses as proof of the point In addition--there's one thing you can do from a public computer that you can't from home--and that's be anonymous. Just so you know, they have these things called IP addresses that allow what you do at home to be tracked....
Roe v. Wade? ROE v. WADE?? That was a challenge to a Texas law making it a crime to perform an abortion. It had nothing to do with privacy.
Who is this Sill justice? And how can I get him reelected/nominated? I live in California. Forgive my ignorance.