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?

[ron_ivi]

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

With the huge number of people I see doing business at cybercafes, I fear the monitoring may make running hotbeds of industrial spying too. I guess this is one more reason to have a good VPN / tunnel when working in those places.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[rworne]

They certainly can. That is if you consider shooting the patrons a crime.

There have been several instances of violence at Cyber Cafe's, mainly from playing on-line shooting games.

One instance that happened here at a local cafe:

Cafe A is at one physical address, Cafe B at another.
Player at A frags player at B.
Player B gets P.O.'d and sees who owns the IP address of the other player.
Player B then looks up who owns the domain, and finds Cafe A's address.
Player B drives to Cafe 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.

--
The Constitution and laws of the United States forbid all interference with the religious or political concerns of other nations.

U.S. President Millard Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan, 1852

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[nate1138]

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.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[kfg]

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

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?

[Cruciform]

You say "several" but just how common is this?

Let's compare this situation to a bar? I haven't been to a bar yet that didn't have at least one person threaten or assault another while I was there. (This includes minor incidences like spitting or shoving, or having to be dragged out by bouncers).

So then by the reasoning of these laws all bars should be equipped with cameras inside and outside.

Drug deals also happen in bar bathrooms. Let's put cameras in the bathrooms.

It's just silly when there's a media reaction to events, they create this fantastical link between this new "menace", and then laws are rushed into place to deal with it.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[strictnein]

Security measures that are a such a major invasion of privacy that they destroy the anonymity that is so essential to free speech.

Sorry but free speech != anonymous free speech

While free speech is a right, it is not without it's responsibilities and it is not without boundaries either (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.). The right to free speech (in the US) does in no way guarantee you that you can make whatever statement you want, whenever you want to, anonymously (if you want), and face no repercussions.

It is a right, and like many other rights, it can be abused. If you abuse it, you face the consequences.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[salemnic]

I'm wondering, what privacy are you speaking about? Why do you have an expectation of privacy in a cybercafe? You are on someone else's property, using someone else's machines and someone else's badwidth. Into a public network.

So, basically, what privacy that was existent no longer is?

I don't mean to be antagonistic, and it seems you care very strongly about this matter, so please don't take it that way. I just want to look at this logically.

-s

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[Short Circuit]

It being a privately-run establishment, I don't have a problem with privately-run security measures. My problem is when a tape is subpoena'd for one investigation, and the authorities use it to in another investigation, or to start another investigation. (Kind of like using a warrant to search a man's posessions as a basis for indighting his roommate in a separate case.)

The major clash between cyber cafes and video cameras is that those cameras can catch everything people do on their screen. Most of the information on the internet is read or interpereted with the eyes. Most information communicated by people over the Internet is typed in. Having a video camera on your screen is like having a wiretap on a payphone. It is an invasion of privacy.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[owlstead]

Though I communicate a lot over coffee, I don't think that Starbucks and cybercafe's are in the same ballpark. One serves coffee and the other one is used for communications.

Nobody is forcing you into a public pay phone either (I hope). But that does not mean they should be able to listen to your calls.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[jacem]

I remember when all of the hype about how dangerous payphones were because they empowered drug dealers and pedophiles and the like.

If you look at the timing of this scare you will note that it was just after the cell phone was introduced. I remember this because many many pay phones were removed, as part of the patriotic appeal to stop drug pushers. The problem is that now that cell phone are pretty much universal I can't help but notice many of the pay phones have been put back.

Although I have no problem believing that many illegal businesses were based around using pay phones to receive calls. The timing of the events makes it hard for me to believe that that was the real source of all of the hype.


JACEM

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[John Hurliman]

Your privacy in a public Internet Cafe, right? Seriously, people think that store owners shouldn't have the right to monitor their own premises. Noone is forcing you to use the Internet Cafe. Protest by going home and getting online, or go to the library. Should it be unconstitutional for you to install security cameras, because you might invade privacy rights of visitors and solicitors?

As far as them being required, I don't disagree because the anonymous nature of the cafes make them prime ground zero for hacking, carding, illegal porn trading, etc. But how hard is it to go wardriving for a few minutes and find your own truly anonymous hotspot? Seems like an unnecessary burden put on store owners.

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.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[kevinank]

The rule wrt video cameras was decided by stipulation. If you read the court decision you will see that the Cyber Cafe only considered video camera system installation to be a problem if they would be required to turn over tapes of their customers without court intervention. When the city stipulated that the inspection requirement was only an inspection of the recording system, not of the tapes, and that tapes would not be requested without a court order the Cafe withdrew its objection to that facet of the law.

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.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[sqlrob]

RTFBOFR yourself

Amendments 9 & 10 to be specific.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[BlewScreen]

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.

Becuase criminals wouldn't dream of using the existing safehavens known as public libraries...

-bs

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[nate1138]

Prior to the surveilance requirement, the proprietor of such an establishment was free to allow anonymity at his discretion. There is no hard and fast expectation of privacy, but it was optional and available in some of these cafes. I suppose the crux of my argument is this:

If the owner of such an establishment wishes to allow anonymity, what gives the state the right to say otherwise?

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[nate1138]

So Alexander Hamilton and the other authors of the federalist papers were "believers in freedom not to get punched in the face"? And what about various corporate whistleblowers, should they be subject to retaliation by their company because you they did the right thing? I don't limit the importance of anonymous speech to the internet. It is a powerful tool for little voices to take on big forces.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[sped44]

And you still have that anonymity. Write all the anonymous papers you want - just don't do it in a cybercafe on a PUBLIC network. There is a big difference between having anonymity and having it everywhere you WANT (or think you deserve) it.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[rocketfairy]

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the wearing of masks during protests, mostly on the grounds that the constitution protects free speech, not anonymity.

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.

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.

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

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[God Takeru]

The right to anonymous free speech is, in fact, exactly the sort of thing we have the right to. I give the voting process as an example of this-- there was a time in this country when somebody's boss or landlord or their cronies could look over his shoulder while he was writing out his ballot, and indeed a person could be fired, evicted, or end up beaten as a result. The anonymous vote was established to allow people to express their opinions free of harrassment.

Now, if I post to the internet that the Martians have landed, and this causes mass panic, this is perhaps analagous to the "fire" situation you've described, often the example given as a limit of free speech-- but this is the internet. First of all, you're not going to take my word for it, you're going to check the major news sites and reliable sources to see if this is true, or turn your TV to CNN. The internet is not a "crowded theater." People don't panic about web postings, and even if they did, it's hard to imagine large numbers of injuries and deaths resulting (see trampling issue in fire/crowded theater).

The internet is already filled with hate speech, protected under law in this country-- and if the sort of thing on the KKK's website isn't enough to cite riots, I can't imagine what would be.

The thing about public computers is this: there's nothing I can do on them I can't do at home. From here, I can post an article declaring the Martians have landed (I'm sure many websites already claim such), and from the internet cafe I can do the same. My anonymity is always protected, because it's the internet. Although the cafe is a public place, I am not broadcasting my message in the cafe-- I am broadcasting it on the internet. The other people at the cafe can keep on doing what they're doing, and won't know what the hell I've typed, unless they happen to visit my site, on pure coincidence.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[d34thm0nk3y]

This is a pretty common argument heard in these types of debate. The thing is, we ALREADY have laws governing these types of things. They are called Libel, Child Pornography and Conspiracy. They are already illegal, and doing them provides Probable Cause to the Lawful Search and Siezure of property (search implying the loss of privacy).

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[bonhomme_de_neige]

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.

Sure. Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech .. just not freedom after speech.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[bonhomme_de_neige]

Today's criminals/law breakers/dissidents are often tomorrow's freedom-fighters.

And today's freedom fighters are often tomorrow's terrorist scum.

Just think, if security cameras in cyber-cafes were not required by law, how many cyber-cafes would use that and not have them? They have large volumes of cash on the premises. And once you have security cameras in your establishment of your own volition it's trivial for the government to get access to anything they record. Whether they are required or not is really moot point.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[Dun Malg]

Thus we have the age old "right to privacy" that is not explicitly stated anywhere in the consititution

It's not clear where you stand on the issue so this isn't necessarily directed at you, but anyone who thinks a right has to be enumerated in the constitution in order to exist needs to read the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Paraphrased, this means "just because we didn't list it in Amd1 thru Amd8 above does not mean a right does not exist."
There was a lot of debate over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. One side felt it was important to put together a "top 10" type list so as to clearly illustrate what they were talking about when they spoke of inalienable rights. The other side felt that if any such list were enumerated, some would interpret this as the whole list of rights and refuse to recognize other rights not enumerated therein. The first group won the debate (obviously), but the second group had a very good point.

It never ceases to infuriate me when people claim "strict constructionism" when denying rights not listed in the Bill of Rights! First, "strict constructionism" has no business being applied to the rights of the people. It's really a philosophy on the limitation of government: basically, it's the notion that if it's not specifically listed in the constitution as one of its powers, then the federal government isn't allowed to do it. In essence, strict constructionalism should be all about the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Unfortunately, it seems to attract the type of lunatics who wail about Roe v. Wade being based on "non-existent rights" because the right to privacy isn't specifically listed in the Bill of Rights! This is unfortunate, because the other side of the debate is the "living document" clowns who read the constitution looking for new interpretations of the role of the federal government in order to extend its reach! What's a wacky libertarian to do?

Sorry. Kinda went off on a rampage there.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[instarx]

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.

The most freightening thing about your viewpoint is that you seem to think that it is normal and OK for the police to track and monitor everyone simply based on the justification that there may be some criminals there. For some reasaon you seem to think that surveillance is normal and places where surveillance is not allowed are exceptions. And what's more - you're against creating any exceptions!

Read my sig.

Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime?

[npsimons]

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.

What, and you think you have a right to punch them in the mouth just because you don't agree with what they have to say? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. No one should have the right to harm others. And everyone should have the right to express their opinions without retribution, mouth-punching or otherwise.

Yep...

[Black Parrot]

Only people who can afford their own computers should be allowed to look at porn.

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?

[daemones]

If you want privacy, do it from someone else's unsecured wireless network connection.

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?

[Golias]

I agree with both sides of the decision. Governments should not be allowed to ban them from communities through zoning, and these places should be allowed to monitor what their customers are up to in their cafe. From a libertarian perspective, it's a double-win, even if it's only a mixed blessing in the eyes of the tinfoil hat crowd.

Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[illuminata]

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

I think that the submitter was just pissed off that he couldn't lift the mice and keyboards anymore.

Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[pete-classic]

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

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.

Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe?

[Glug]

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.

Those ARE "private" computers. They're the property of the Internet cafe businesses. As I understand it, the root problem was hooligan regulars at a small number of cybercafes, almost certainly due to their geographic locations and the fact that they were open late. Unreal Tournament plus open late hours equals teenage males that live nearby. The "solution" (security guards and video cameras) lost sight of that problem, and wound up having profound privacy and free speech effects on ALL cybercafes in that region.

Bet you dollars to doughnuts that the guards and cameras at the five problem cybercafes will simply cause the hooligans to take their activities elsewhere. Cost is high, and root problem remains unsolved.

Even though those were privately owned computers, consider the effects that would be had on publically owned computers. Suppose that someone was murdered outside a neighborhood library, because its late hours and geographic location made it a popular hangout for wayward youth. Would a reasonable solution be to mandate the installation of security guards and surveillance cameras in ALL public libraries? That's effectively what's been done here.

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...

Re:Privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

?Glue? on the keyboards...

[hadesan]

If Pee Wee Herman used the station before you came in... It's probably not glue on the keyboards...

Subversives beware...

[ackthpt]

In Sov^H^H^H USA, government watches YOU!

"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!"

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...

Re:Terrible Privacy Decision?

[illuminata]

But masturbation wants to be free.

Maybe not so bad after all...

[mopslik]

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

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?!?

Re:Why shouldn't people exercising ...

[dutky]

ivan256 wrote:

Most importantly: There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.

Well, that depends on whether you consider fear and intimidation to be an abridgement of your right to freedom of speech. Further, though you are technically correct, the first amendment doesn't specifically address privacy (except as an interpretive issue), the fourth amendment is aprorpos:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is from this amendment, specifically the part about being secure in their persons, that we get the modern right to privacy.

The two amendments, combined, are pretty good backup for the idea of a right to privacy, addressing both overt (search and seizure) and covert (fear and intimidation) governmental monkey-business.

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.

Eyes everywhere

[TGrimace]

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!

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.

Re:Having a computer in a public place.

[The Wing Lover]

I recently built a crappy little search engine for the karaoke bar I work at.

You don't work at XO Karaoke in Toronto, do you? Because if you do, you're right, it *is* crappy.

Re:Having a computer in a public place.

[87C751]

THE FUCKING ENTER KEY WAS PEELED OFF!

Next time, use something designed for the application. (that KSM067 looks like it could withstand a karaoke bar)

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.

Re:Having a computer in a public place.

[bugnuts]

[cybercafes] probably have to maintain an inventory of enter keys just to keep up with the theft that occurs.

Yes, they maintain their inventory from other cybercafes. There exists N cybercafe keyboards, and N-k enter keys.

Isn't there a famous problem about sharing these keys... the Porn-surfing Philosophers or something?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, RTFA. It's being considered illegal to not put up security cams, not to put them up.

Yeah, I know, IHBT etc.

Read the ruling

[GreenCrackBaby]

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.

Re:Read the ruling

[strobexii]

You know what is damn scary?

A 20-year-old man dies in a Garden Grove parking lot after having a screwdriver smashed through his skull. That's scary. My friend gets followed in his car from a cafe and shot at a traffic light. That's scary.

In these cafes, you have a junior high school students sitting across from gang members. The customers have shown they cannot regulate themselves, the businesses have refused to regulate them, so, unfortunately, it has become the government's task.

Besides, if privacy is the foremost concern in your mind (more important than say, the lives of children), just go somewhere other than a public internet cafe. The choice is yours.

Terrible decision?

[ShiftlessXL]

"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.

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:The video provision isn't really that bad

[MoneyT]

Theoreticaly, if the phone booth said "All calls from this booth will be recorded" they might be able to record since you have been notified about it, and still chose to use the phone. Much like the "These premises protected buy closed circuit cameras."

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.

Re:Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix.

[cheerios]

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*

Re:WTF

[happyfrogcow]

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.

dupe?

[tuanjim_2001]

To hell with the karma. I say it's a dupe!

Not a privacy issue

[diablobynight]

Why would you look at porn in public? That's why strip clubs don't have windows. They don't want there computers tampered with, nor their internet connection used for hacking, as public terminals often are. Seems perfectly legitimate, if a clothing store can monitor their changing rooms, I think and internet cafe should be allowed to monitor their computers.

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.

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?

Re:circumvent the video cameras

[squiggleslash]

Another option is to carry around a small portable device capable of generating a substantial EMP blast, that automatically goes off every few seconds.

Of course, you may have problems using it to guarantee your privacy in a cyber cafe.

I work at a cyber cafe

[Mellzah]

We try to keep it a family environment there (I know, I know, headshots might not be what some consider great for a family, but whatever). All it really takes for our business to fail is one little kid to tell their parents they saw someone looking at porn, or one parent to see it for themselves. Word of mouth would kill us. If we couldn't remotely view customer's screens, this would have happened already.

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.

Re:I work at a cyber cafe

[chill]

...they saw someone looking at porn, or one parent to see it for themselves.

How about positioning the monitors where people other than the user can't see them? I can't find the link, but remember reading about Cyber Cafes in China.

To be legal, the screens have to be turned in, where everyone can see what you're doing. The *popular* places take their chances and turn all the monitors towards the wall, with little cardboard slats on the side creating a private environment.

And, just for curiosity, how do you do the remote viewing? Software or hardware? (I.E. -- a KVM hooked to all monitors or something like VNC or NetMeeting?)

-Charles Hill

Re:I work at a cyber cafe

[Mellzah]

It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it could be successfully applied at our establishment.

When I lived in Taiwan, I frequented a lot of cafes--ones that were primarily for the internet offered each patron a private cubicle. Game-based cafes were much more open.

I work at a primarily game-based cafe. Part of the energy that is generated by players at our tournaments would be stifled if everyone were separated.I suppose it would be possible to offer a row of private, internet only cubes, but honestly, I don't see it happening. Providing a 'spank tank' of sorts would still be counter-conducive to the family environment we wish to create.

As for your other question, our remote view capability is software based. We use SmartLaunch, which has a built-in monitoring tool, which basically takes a screenshot of every machine hooked into the SmartLaunch network. We have no way of monitoring customers that come in with their own laptops and hook in on our Wi-Fi...so I guess if you want privacy, there's your answer.

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.

Cybercafes Gangs...

[KitFox]

While I can understand people being upset about privacy, at the same time, I know WHY this happened. I used to live in Garden Grove, on Gilbert St, about 1/2 a mile from a cyber cafe.

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.

RTFA: the cameras are MANDATORY

[frankie]

Note: This article is a dupe, and the original version had a much more informative blurb:

"A California appellate court has upheld, 2-1, a Garden Grove, California ordinance requiring so-called 'cyber cafes' to impose a curfew, hire security guards, and install video surveillance cameras capable of identifying patrons. The opinion is a must-read; the dissenting judge called the law 'Orwellian,' and pointed out that 'even the government of Malaysia' was 'too ashamed to enforce' a similar proposal." It appears that the ordinances were enacted in part due to crime involving "gang activity" and to curtail school-children from using the facilities during school hours (unless accompanied by a guardian).

So to everyone who's saying "so what? my shop, my rules" : NO. Your shop, Government rules. This is a literal Big Brother situation.

Privacy filters, cameras, and prying eyes

[elflet]

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

All cameras should be banned! NOT

[NinjaPablo]

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?

Re:Force Stores to ID

[schmoli]

Law abiding citizens don't care if they're being monitored.

Wow, can you keep a straight face when you say that?

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

Re:Do the Night Clubs *cause* crime?

[rworne]

So explain to me again how cyber cafe's *cause* crime?

Oh, I know what you are getting at (I hope). The Cafe's themselves do nothing to "cause" crime any more than adult bookstores do. The patrons of these establishments cause the crime. That makes the Cafe a public nuisance as far as the city is concerned.

The big thing here in Los Angeles is issuing conditional use permits to put a leash on certain types of businesses. One classic example is when Dave & Busters tried to open a place here in Woodland Hills. D&B is 18-and over, they have a dress code, they card, and overall it's a very nice place. But D&B has a video arcade in it. D&B wanted to pour millions into the building to fix it up. The city would only give them a conditional use permit which would be revokable for any reason they see fit after some time period (6 to 18 months or so). D&B decided to screw all that and went somewhere else.

So there it is in a nutshell.

The patrons are the problem. The solution, it seems, is to get rid of the problem by getting rid of the businesses.

Firsthand experience....

[Rahga]

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.

Why Asian gangs abuse cybercafes?

[peter303]

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.

Re:Why Asian gangs abuse cybercafes?

[FreshFunk510]

I seem to have a completely different perspective.

First of all, you have to know the history. Vietnamese "youth gangs" didn't suddenly say, "Hey, let's meet up at Cybercafe X for our next gang meeting". You have to live in cities like Garden Grove to understand the reality.

The first question one should ask is what a "gang" really is. Many white suburban area police have been quick to identify groups of male asian youth as gangs. Today, I think that term might be properly applied, but when places like this started sprouting up 4 or 5 years ago I felt that the majority of kids hanging out were unfairly labeled gangs. In fact the only difference between these groups and groups of lan-gamers were the way they dressed (and may some other bad habits like smoking but, as you all know, "gang members" aren't the only ones who break rules).

To me a gang represents a group of individuals who partakes in breaking the law as a group. I think it's incorrect to make this blanket accusation amongst all the asian kids that hang out at cybercafes.

This has noting to do with immigrants who don't have computers and to say that this has no caught on with "anglo youth" because they have access at home and school is ludicrous (if not racist). Parents do NOT sanction tehse places because they seem educational. I dont' know where you got that from. Whenever my parents see places like this they complain about how kids go there to be around bad influences while their parents work hard to make a living income. Any parents with common sense say the same. The truth is these kids probably lie to their parents about where they are (much like I did in high school but in a less harmful way).

E-Commerce, Entertainment Standards, etc..

[yintercept]

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.

Re:E-Commerce, Entertainment Standards, etc..

[yintercept]

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.

Audio and Video

[BeemanH2O]

"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.

Expectation of privacy in public

[starX]

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!

Does this apply to Starbucks that offer a WAP?

[Animats]

"The CyberCafe ordinance defines a "CyberCafe" as an establishment that provides Internet access to fee paying customers."

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.

These Cybercafe's are used by Latino gangs

[dananderson]

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.

Re:These Cybercafe's are used by Latino gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but no cigar.

Some of them ARE used for recreation et al.

And more often, they are gathering points for VIETNAMESE or KOREAN gangs, not so much for LATINO gangs (Garden Grove has a white-bread, mostly gang-less - and considerably more expensive - no condos, only SFHs - West Side... and a much larger and less expensive (condos and apartments) and much more gang-populated East Side, the North section of which is predominantly Korean, the Middle section of which is predominantly Viet, and the South section of which is predominantly Hispanic).

The majority of the cybercafes (no new ones have been built in a couple of years since an unofficial moratorium exists on zoning for new ones) are located in the Viet and Korean areas of town (since the richer West side has computers at home and of the poorer groups, Viet and Korean cultures place more value on education/technology, hence creating more demand for the cafes).

This is not a racist statement, simply a point of fact. It's not a Latino problem so much as a Viet and Korean problem - based on the population demographics around the cafes.

--AC

Re:not a problem

[avgjoe62]

I have heard this so many times that I have to point out the error of it.

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.

Re:Paves the way for...

[PetWolverine]

Say what you will about the surveillance clause in this ruling, a system like the parent post is talking about would be a blatant and intolerable--indeed, a dangerous invasion of privacy. If I go to an Internet cafe and check the balance in my bank account, and there is, unbeknownst to me, a keylogger on the computer, then the shop owner now has my social security number and the password to online administration of my bank account--information I could normally count on to be protected by strong encryption on its way from my computer to my bank's servers. I would then check my E*Trade account to see how my stocks are doing, at which point the shop owner has the necessary info to sell my stock and order a check sent to him.

Worst of all, I would then go to read /., and for all I know, the shop owner would start logging on as me to troll, ruining my karma! Big Brother! BIG BROTHER!!

who added video taping to the 1st amendment?

[SPYDER Web]

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.

Privacy rights?

[Syberghost]

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?

Check your panties. They might be in a bunch!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Privacy, you have no Privacy... get over it.

[oldstrat]

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.

Privcay Shields?

[MortisUmbra]

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.

I have absolutely no problem with this...

[Alpha_Traveller]

...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.

free speech != anonymous free speech

[Tom_Yardley]

Nonsense. Name one example of anonymous free speech on an issue important to America. Sincerly, Publius

Agents Provocateur

[handy_vandal]

Nothing increases the reported incidences of crime like noticing it.

That, and planting agents provocateur to instigate more crimes.

-kgj