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.

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.

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?