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/
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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
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
Actually it's more like monitoring a library to make sure the patrons don't burn the books. Or slip Playboys into "Run Spot Run". There are definite reasons to monitor computer usage, number one being I bet the cyber-cafe can be held liable for anything their patrons do on their machines. Number two, as someone above mentioned: it's their business, and their rules. There are video cameras in your grocery store, in your book store, in your department store, probably even in your coffee shop. why should this be different? Gotta face the facts, they're watching everything we do ;) *removes tinfoil hat*
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
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.
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.
Law abiding citizens don't care if they're being monitored.
Wow, can you keep a straight face when you say that?
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
"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.
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!
Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you have to worry about proving that if you are accused of wrongdoing. It will take your time and energy and considerable amounts of money to prove that.
Even if you are cleared of the charge, you may never recover your reputation. If you are lucky, you end up like Richard Jewell. If you're not lucky, you end up like Fatty Arbuckle.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
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?
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.
...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)
And how are we going to know if something is illegal is done if we never look at cyber cafes or discuss what they are doing?
The problem isn't that cyber cafes are more prone to illegal activities than other businesses, but if you adopt the stance that cyber cafes are off limits and anything goes when you dub it a "cyber cafe", then people looking for a front for illegal activities will start cyber cafes.
I agree that we need to avoid the government fiat. However, the first time we get a report of a pornographer using a "cyber cafe" as a front for his real operation...kiddie pr0n, then we will get beat to pieces by the moral majority.