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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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?

[Vellmont]

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

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

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

Easy Hack

[monstroyer]

Wear an oversized novelty sombrero hat when using a computer in these cafes. California has a lot of mexican restaurants, geeks in sombrero hats will fit in very easily.

On another note, a 42 page legalese PDF isn't really my idea of News For Nerds but page 36 says:

"Some considerable space is devoted to refuting the idea that the city has required the video cameras to be pointed at the screens. Well, thankfully, even this majority understands that that would be too much. But then the majority go on to approve of the requirement that there be video cameras at the cybercafes with the ipse dixit that video surveillance is narrow tailoring."

So, it's not as bas as "The Importance of" makes it out to seem.

Privacy?

[the_skywise]

In a public place?

Maybe. Methinks that this is more of a "cover your butt" issue so that they can track down people who are using their computers for generating spam, or stalking, rather than what particular porn site you're looking at.

OF course, if everyone's looking at the same porn site that would be good investment information and might constitute insider trading...

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?!?

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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

[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.

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

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