Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seattle Bar Owner Bans Google Glass, In Advance

Posted by timothy on from the we-don't-want-your-kind dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A popular Seattle bar and restaurant has posted a notice on its Facebook page warning patrons that wearing Google Glass will not be tolerated. 'Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators,' wrote Dave Meinert, owner of the 5 Point Cafe, perhaps in a mock aggressive tone. GeekWire reports that Meinert raised privacy concerns in an interview with a local radio station: 'People want to go there and be not known and definitely don't want to be secretly filmed or videotaped and immediately put on the Internet.' A subsequent FB post includes more Meinert musings on Google Glass: 'They are really just the new fashion accessory for the fanny pack & never removed Bluetooth headset wearing set,' along with unflattering photos of a pair of early adopters."

10 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. That's his right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.

    1. Re:That's his right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a "milf" can be considered one thing though. when pronounced aloud, "milfs" is the sensible plural.

      there's no reason to always be pedantic about everything.

    2. Re:That's his right by gallen1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we can be pretty confident that he won't be posting the security camera video on YouTube. I don't think you can say the same for video taken by patrons.

    3. Re:That's his right by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You just dont get it do you? What is the bar going to do when video cameras are woven into clothing? What about prosthetic eyeballs? I have the absolute natural right to videotape anything my eye can behold, period. Society is going to learn this one the hard way i think.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:That's his right by jotaass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have the absolute natural right to videotape anything my eye can behold, period.

      That's a weird point. Your eye does not have perfect vision, you do not hold your memories indefinitely and you cannot feed what you see to a computer to be scanned and analyzed forever. It's one thing for you to look at me, it's a whole other thing when your machine does it. I agree that's the way the world is going, but shouldn't we feel sad about it? We can marvel at the technology, and as geeks we do, but seriously? Perfect infinite crowd-funded surveillance? Of everyone and everything? How is that a good thing?

    5. Re:That's his right by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can marvel at the technology, and as geeks we do, but seriously? Perfect infinite crowd-funded surveillance? Of everyone and everything? How is that a good thing?

      It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's a different thing, and the culture will change to accommodate it.

  2. Understandable decision by Shinobi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the desire to record 24/7 with devices like Google Glass etc, I fully understand the decision, and even support it.

    It's one thing if someone hauls up a phone and snaps a couple of pictures or a short video clip, but recording video and audio constantly, that's a big Asshole act...

    On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

    1. Re:Understandable decision by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

      There's still a big difference between recording everything locally for your own use and uploading everything to Google where it will be catalogued, stored and used to funnel ads to people.

  3. Re:Meh by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are degrees of private and public.

    Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing. It just means that I should expect for other people to see me in public. But keeping records of what I'm doing in a surreptitious manner is a completely different matter.

  4. Re:Meh by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you're suggesting is that stalking ought to be legal. It's one thing to take a couple pictures of somebody in public or to record them as part of the background and completely something else to have long systemized accounts of what people are doing via hidden cameras.

    The rulings that established precedent were done during a time when it was costly to have small cameras with large amount of storage capacity and where the internet wasn't yet fast enough to allow for widespread sharing. And where one was likely to be able to see the people doing the recording.

    In the past it wasn't an issue, now it is, it wasn't possible to accumulate much data from this in most cases because the processing power available to your average person was miniscule and one didn't have the ability to cross reference huge troves of data.

    But, just because you're in a public place does not grant permission to take the photos of people, especially not if you're using hidden cameras or are taking photos in places where people don't expect to have their images taken.

    In short that's bullshit right there.