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/
Only people who can afford their own computers should be allowed to look at porn.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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...
"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!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
Yeah, I know, IHBT etc.
This isn't a case where the cafes wanted to use guards and cameras, but where the city council mandated that each cafe use guards and cameras.
That is damn scary.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
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
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.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
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
If I own a cybercafe, my house, my rules. Why would it be even remotely considered illegal to put up a few security cams?
I agree, but do you think it is legal that the government forces you to put up security cameras? I don't think a government should have the right to do so.
To hell with the karma. I say it's a dupe!
"If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
It'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.
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.
Now first, for a bit of a disclaimer, I happen to be one of the sort of people who would have run a cyber cafe there myself if I could, and when my internet connection wasn't available for three months here in Colorado, the local Cyber Cafe was a savior. And I happen to like my privacy too.
However, let's go back in time a bit. It got to the point where cybercafes became literally gang hangouts and even resulted in deaths.
But it was NOT because they were geeky, or because they had computers, or because they had violent video games. (In fact, bear in mind that the Cybercafes there are really NOT all that useful for doing work or such at. They're 99% CounterStrike and UT, and if you ask the workers for SSH or a VPN tunnel, they'll look at you funny ) It was simply because they had "Fun things for bored teens to do, and were open until 4 am.". So they got slapped with restrictions in an attempt to cull the gang activity... and these restrictions also really hurt the cybercafe as a whole.
Now, bear in mind, there's nothing quite as unpleasant as going past the cyber cafe at the end of the street and finding literally 20 police cars there, lights flashing enough to give a blind man a convulsion, however, at the same time, that police response also netted 4 people who had outstanding warrants out for various violent acts.
So, really, it was a point of "The cafes didn't do enough to protect folks, so the city came in and overreacted."
I just hope that sometime, some folks can find a happy medium.
@Whee
So to everyone who's saying "so what? my shop, my rules" : NO. Your shop, Government rules. This is a literal Big Brother situation.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 3M Privacy Filters for laptops. You can read the screen perfectly when you're sitting right in front of it, but the image rapidly goes to black as you move off to either side.
I've used these on most of my laptops (all except Apple, with the extra-wide screens) for years and it does a great job of killing shoulder-surfing, even when the surfer is a nosy jerk in the next seat in coach class. (I was glad to have one when I was taking a break on an internatiopnal flight back and the attempted shoulder surfer was a teenager with a "What Would Jesus Do" wristband. -- I was writing erotica and didn't want to cope with the potential hassles.)
I would get the funniest looks from people at conferences too -- these do such a good job of blanking the screen that other people would ask why I was typing into a machine that wasn't even turned on.
I live in Garden Grove and have been following this one for quite some time. The mayor of Garden Grove (actually, an acquaintance of mine) is, sadly, like most other politicians... he wants to push privatization and expand corporate control as much as possible to ensure more tax dollars flow into the city's coffers. For example, he has tried to use zoning and eminent domain laws to, in essence, give the city control of a large chunk of land so that Garden Grove can... wait for it... build a Theme Park (*boggles*).
That's right, Garden Grove, which is literally next-door to Disneyland, and has a booming hotel industry in that corner of the city (did I mention he was party to forcing small businesses out to throw up tax-producing hotels?) and is just ten minutes' walk away from Knott's Berry Farm is trying to create a theme park (never mind that the abysmal failure of Disney's California Adventure tells us that the area surrounding Garden Grove is over-saturated with theme parks with Six Flags Magic Mountain, Legoland, Universal Studios Hollywood, Sea World, and probably even more parks I forgot within an hour or two drive).
I tell you this, and it may seem like meandering, because the mayor and city council are somewhat control freaks and are ESPECIALLY trying to cast the city in a "safe, friendly" light so that tourists will stop there.
The problem, of course, is that Garden Grove had two or three gang-related shootings at cyber-cafes a couple of years ago. So, in typical bureaucratic/control freak fashion, the city council cracked down on cybercafes instead of gangs (the mayor and the city council are not exactly wise in the ways of technology - remember, he's an acquaintance so I know this firsthand - heck, CBs and Ham Radios are almost too much for him, never mind computers).
The problem is that this is STANDARD PRACTICE for the City of Garden Grove... they use draconian interpretations of zoning and eminent domain laws, react in a very bizarre way to things that threaten their (imagined, in some cases) tourism industry, and in general, are much more "Big Brother" than I would like.
The regulations for cybercafes are mostly jeered by the residents here - we aren't complicit, we're lobbying and complaining, but of course, the "paternal government" knows better than the ignorant masses. After all, "look, now that we have armed guards and police patrols at cybercafes, gang violence there is down" (never mind that gang violence is UP at their "newer" hangouts - and residential areas - since they ditched the cybercafes concurrent with the increased police presence - it WASN'T the cameras et al). In other words, what the city doesn't get is that their regulations in cybercafes don't STOP crime; they just MOVE the crime elsewhere (within the city, it's worth noting).
Fortunately (I guess), the mayor has of late turned his crusade away from cybercafes and is devoting his energy to widening the 22 Freeway (some would say to the point of insanity).
Check out ocregister.com (the local newspaper) and especially the editorial and opinion section and you'll find out that everyone around here pretty much considers the City of Garden Grove as the most flagrant example of "how government gets WAY too intrusive, abuses laws, and in general tries to bully those it should be protecting."
This hits close to home for me, but having seen this in action for YEARS, I can't say it's news. Take Garden Grove (and neighbor city, Cypress, the same city that re-zoned land belonging to a local church "out from underneath it" in order to keep it from building a church on a parcel of land -- because the city wanted a Costco on that parcel instead). This is NOT a federal problem exclusively - it happens on state and local levels, too - and the more "career politicians" we have in office - and the more entitlements we as citizens expect, the worse things are going to get. We're fighting to take back Garden Grove; make sure you don't LOSE control of your city!
--AC
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?
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
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.
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
Nothing increases the reported incidences of crime like noticing it.
That, and planting agents provocateur to instigate more crimes.
-kgj
-kgj