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."

Comments

Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[erick99]

The logic that is seemingly employed by the City of Garden Grove and the appeals court is that CyberCafe's cause crime. Otherwise, why use cameras and guards if that is going to do nothing more than displace the same acts of crime further down the street in front of, say,a Starbucks?

Happy Trails,

Erick

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[ackthpt]

The logic that is seemingly employed by the City of Garden Grove and the appeals court is that CyberCafe's cause crime.

Nothing increases the reported incidences of crime like noticing it.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[ivan256]

Starbucks is allowed to have security cameras. Only when a "publicly" accessable computer connected to the internet becomes involved does it become slashdot news-worthy apparently.

Why is there no uproar over security cameras in other retail-zoned establishments? Maybe the real issue is that some people's paranoia is strong enough that they fail to realize they're opposing somebody else's *actual* rights while looking out for the rights they incorrectly think they deserve. If you don't want to be on camera, nobody is forcing you to go to one of these cafes.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[Richard_at_work]

The problem is this: If you allowed people to wander into the cafe off the street, with no identification or means to identify them later, then you have jsut created a magnificent safe haven for all sorts of criminals. This is basically the same as phone companies stopping incoming calls on payphones in some areas, as they were being used by drug dealers to run business.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[nate1138]

That's not a problem. That's called freedom. The instant that I have to identify myself to make my voice heard, one of the great mechanisms that ensures our freedom has just ground to a halt. This country was literaly built on anonymous speech. The Federalist papers were published anonymously, as the authors feared retribution. We cannot let fear of what criminals _might_ do cause us to restrict the freedoms that built this country.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[msuzio]

I believe these "safe havens" for "criminals" are intentional and a part of what our country was based on.

Today's criminals/law breakers/dissidents are often tomorrow's freedom-fighters. It's fairly clear Thomas Jefferson thought that this country was kept free by the assurance that if the government became too corrupt, it could be overthrown again. Unjust laws deserve to be broken... and I want to be assured that our society does not stagnate by trying to crush all actions and opinions that do not suit the current mores.

Challenge authority. If it is just and fair, it can survive your challenge... if it is unjust, your challenge can be one more crack in the wall.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[swv3752]

Sorry, but without anonymous speech, there is no Free speech. It is too easy for some of the more powerful or influential if you prefer, individuals and organizations to impose sanctions on individuals.

If I say GWB sucks and is doing x wrong, it would be easy for GWB's supporters to blacklist me. I may find that unacceptable and keep quiet. Not everyone can be Ghandi. In times past, large gatherings will be gathered and it allows for a degree on anonymity. Sometimes one voice is enough. Sometimes though, it is necessary for lots of voices to be heard and lack of anonymous speech prevents that.

Free speech is a right, one that is constitutionally enumerated. It is not a priviledge. Certain measures have to be taken to garauntee our rights.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I hate to tell you this, but Thomas Paine put his name to that little broadside known as "common sense."

The Declaration of Independence was Signed by numerous merchants, lawyers, and civic leaders, at grave peril to themselves and their families.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the wearing of masks during protests, mostly on the grounds that the constitution protects free speech, not anonymity. You can say whatever you want, but you have to be willing to take the lumps for it.

It's been my experience that most people crying for anonymity on the internet are not big believers in freedom of expression. They are believers in freedom to not get punched in the mouth.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[IshanCaspian]

That's true, but the very activity of subverting a government is by definition something that is outside of the city's laws. Though our founding fathers foresaw that we would someday need to topple our own government, and they gave us certain freedoms that would aid us in that fight, there was never any expectation that the government would be complicit. Subversive activity is what this country was founded upon, and it was certainly looked upon as just by the founding fathers in the right situation. The important distinction is between that which is right within the context of a country's laws and what is ultimately right. Many of our country's greatest heroes triumphed by breaking the law...just look at MLK Jr, for example.

Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[gpinzone]

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.

Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[TedTschopp]

That's the rub of it... You are using someone elses computer. And you expect privacy. There is a need to protect the equiptment and the computer.

Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[Vellmont]

The wrong part is the city _requiring_ video camera monitoring of these cafes. It's kind of scary when the goverment passes a regulation requiring that people be monitored. I don't have a problem with businesses rights to put up video cameras, I'll just be less likely to go to such places. I do have a problem with required monitoring by the government, since then there's nowhere I can go and not be videotaped. Do you want to be videotaped while you enter in the password to your email account, ssh to your machine, or read "controversial" material on the 'net?

I might not have much expectation of privacy while using someone elses computer, but how about when I bring in my own laptop and use the wireless internet connection?

This is a lot more intrusive than videotaping at a retail store, since people don't do anything very private at a retail store. Reading your email, looking up news, etc are private activities and people get understandably nervous when they're taped doing such activities.

Easy Hack

[monstroyer]

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.

Privacy?

[the_skywise]

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...

Terrible Privacy Decision?

[Saxton]

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...

Why shouldn't people exercising ...

[burgburgburg]

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?!?

Attacking everything but the problem...

[DakotaK]

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.

Having a computer in a public place.

[t0qer]

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.

The video provision isn't really that bad

[American AC in Paris]

However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.

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?

Re:The video provision isn't really that bad

[owlstead]

Dunno, how can you tell if it is a grainy black-and-white security recording (from 20 feet away) that is going to wiped in 72 hours. Is it on the camera somewhere?

Maybe I should bring a list of security camera's and check against that, and then ask to see the recordings afterwards? We had a video setup in a computer store (of Gateway, the computer company) which saved data on harddisk in perfect color recordings. Wasn't a bit expensive, and it was a full closed circuit recording facility.

The thing about internet cafe's is that these ARE public places. A telephone boot is private property from a telephone company as well. That does not give them the right to listen in on your calls. These are primary communication means people, don't let them hide behind private property laws the way that they do.

Obviously vandalism is a problem though. Maybe somebody should check if the equipment is ok after somebody leaves. And a security guy will still be needed to arrest persons that misbehave, or steal other peoples property.

Re:WTF

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

If you own it, it's not illegal, unless local ordinances require posting of "Video Surveillance Camers In Use" signs.

The issue is FORCING people to put up cameras even if the cafe owners don't want to, but because Big Brother wants them to.

Indeed, why not?

[raehl]

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.

This decision isn't so bad actually

[dacarr]

Frankly, if patrons work on any public computer, whether at a cafe here in my home town of Garden Grove or wherever, they should expect to be monitored, preferably by the local admins. If I'm running a public network, I don't want some jerkoff downloading kiddy porn on my box - it's a liability to me.

If however it's for the city government to watch...well, mayor Broadwater, I hope you have a significant nest egg for that retirement.

Re:Not a privacy issue

[petabyte]

By the way, most stores use 200-500$ cameras that the resolution isn't good enough to see an on screen password

I don't think most people who use public computers and put their passwords through them are extremely concerned about them. Why would they need a camera to see your password when they can just log the keystrokes?

Terrible for Cyber Cafe's

[Linus Sixpack]

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