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."
Yeah, I know, IHBT etc.
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
I don't understand how an ordinance requiring a certain type of business to employ a security guard or requiring them to monitor how their patrons use there service is a libertarian win.
Of course, you may have only read the slashblurb, which makes it seem like the decision was that the city couldn't prevent the business from monitoring.
-Peter
If I own a cybercafe, my house, my rules. Why would it be even remotely considered illegal to put up a few security cams?
I agree, but do you think it is legal that the government forces you to put up security cameras? I don't think a government should have the right to do so.
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
It isn't that they are ALLOWED. The problem is that these things are REQUIRED. If you run a "cyber-cafe" in this town, you are required by law to have certain security measures in place. Security measures that are a such a major invasion of privacy that they destroy the anonymity that is so essential to free speech.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
I might point out that "the people" did not bring this suit forward, but the internet cafe owners themselves who felt their own rights, as well as the rights of their patrons were being violated.
A later poster writes "My house, my rules."
But that's exactly the point the cafe owners are seeking to have acknowledged.
They are now required, all of them, to install video cameras and post guards by law, and it is that law that has been upheld, against the wishes of the owners.
They wish to have a choice in the matter.
KFG
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
RTFA, dipshit. This is about a PRIVATE business being FORCED to monitor their customers, AND hire private security.
The business didn't want to. It's a mandate of the local government, and it's an infringement on the privacy of a PRIVATE business. Again, RTFA.
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.
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
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.
Seriously, a karaoke bar isn't a cyber cafe. The patrons aren't geeks and have absolutely no respect for computer gear. Putting a standard keyboard out there is just asking for vandalism.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Since the court wasn't asked to consider that aspect of the law, it seems bizarre to me to complain that the court 'upheld' that provision. It really hasn't been tested since the controversy was removed in court.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
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.
RTFBOFR yourself
Amendments 9 & 10 to be specific.
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.
No, they didn't. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in McIntyre v Ohio (1995) that anonymous speech was protected; the majority position referred explicitly to the Federalist Papers. Thank you for not commenting on legal matters about which you know nothing.
The two are equivalent. Free speech includes the right to speak without being physically harmed (or fired, deported, jailed, fined, whatever). Since state power does not usually prevent such retribution, anonymity is a necessary and valid protection for dissident speech.
Nate