Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Bar Owner Bans Google Glass, In Advance
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."
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
1. A facebook page doesn't count for public notice. Unless they post this in the bar itself, it is meaningless.
2. IANAL, but I don't think they consulted one either. Inciting people to violence seems like a bad idea.
3. People have almost surely been secretly filmed in the bar at some point. It's like this guy has never seen an episode of cheaters.
4. You can hardly do ANYTHING secretly with Google Glass on your face.
5. I don't care anyway, because every Google Glass device I've ever seen has been for the right-eyed. Plus it looks stupid.
6. In any case, his one-man crusade against Google Glass seems pretty stupid and I don't think I would want to visit his bar anyway.
Google Glass doesn't work that way. It it's on, it UPLOADS.
The owner is totally correct, put the devices in your pocket, please. If the owner is really serious, he's going to have to get the copper mesh upgrade when he remodels... Make the whole place a Faraday cage then no signals get out. Problem solved!
The first Slashdotter to use their "glasses" to look inside "Mr Goatse" wins a Troll of the year 2013 award!.
To be fair.. It's not hard to find unflattering photos of people with fanny packs, bluetooth earlobes or geeky google glasses.
Just saying. If they had been flattering photos, it would have to have been some kind of astroturf.
Liberty.
If he also has a policy of not letting people run around with cameras filming staff and customers, this is nothing more then a continuation of the policy. I rather like going to PRIVATE establishments and not being filmed and recorded for all to see.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/18/227234/mcdonalds-denies-profs-claim-staff-attacked-him-for-wearing-digital-glasses
This seems like the guy is just copying McDonald's policy.
This is something everybody needs to realize: Google Glass is an extension of Google's eyes and awareness much more than it is yours. If video surveillance is a nightmare now, it will be a soothing idea compared to everyone walking around with these things on.
Um... How would that be less dorky again?
his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees
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?
Nevermind the fact that the the owner likely is filming and recording everything going on in the place....Oh right you forgot about that.
I certainly wouldn't want to be secretly filmed. 'Augmented reality' is going to be the new '3D-printing' isn't it.
Why would you have an expectation of privacy in a bar? Crikey, every bar I've been in recently is filled with folk playing with their cell phones. Any one of those could have been recording.
Two seconds on my Facebook feed is enough to see that pictures and video are taken in bars all the time.
Is a dive bar located 2 blocks from the Space Needle. The best thing I can say about it is that you can watch the CCTV of the laundry next door. I did like being able to enjoy a beer while keeping an eye on my stuff in the dryer.
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.
Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.
As opposed to people surreptitiously taping for whatever reason and retaining it indefinitely with no notice.
But, I'm guessing that there are no cameras if he thinks this is going to be a net gain for the establishment.
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me. There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
Plus, I think you need to examine what you think it "private". Would it be OK for someone you don't know and didn't ask and possibly even wasn't aware of to record you in your back yard? In your car? At a picnic in a park? At your table in a restaurant? In a public bathroom? In your house sitting at a window?
I'm sorry, but I TOTALLY agree with the Bar owner's advance ban. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time. Times are changing for sure, but sometimes things move too quickly. People are already rude and discourteous enough with damn phones... this is going to be a thousand times worse.
...when ocular implants that are as inconspicuous as contact lenses grant all the same functionality as these glasses do?
I think you misread what I said? I was saying it's totally within the owners rights to ban google glasses at his location, the same position you have.
For you and anyone else I'll just make my point clear again for history.
PUBLIC. Roads, state controlled venues, police stopping people on the side of the road, public sidewalks. Wear your GoogleGoggles all you want. Post on Youtube what you wish. Please film dumb people doing dumb things, doubly so if they are cops or other public officials.
PRIVATE. A restaurant, my business, your house, pretty much any place that an owner can call the police and have you removed for trespassing when not obeying their rules. Please follow the wishes of the owner. That said, if the owner is doing something illegal, please film dumb people doing dumb things and post them on Youtube (or at least the local police investigator).
Advocating privacy via Facebook published posting.
Actually, 5 Points is a good spot.
Whenever circumstance dictates that I am forced to mis-spend time in that sodden, dreary town - I am cheered by the 5 Points. Burger time!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I think PlusFiveTroll was modded up because you two agree. Did you really read what he wrote?
That is their right to film you, you can decide not to go there. That said, most businesses don't post this on the internet. Many businesses don't keep the video very long either. Lastly, and most importantly, most of the camera systems I've installed at businesses deal with monitoring employee theft (stealing from the till).
There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
No there used to be a huge difference. With number of camera phones and such floating around an facebook doing not just tagging but facial recognition. There is effectively not difference. Its rapidly becoming one giant surveillance cloud.
I am not sure what the answers are or how to approach the problem or even if it really is a problem; but the reality is that with ubiquity of camera devices, folks recent proclivity for uploading them to more or less publicly accessible websites and tag them, while those sites also correlate across users, doing geo location matching and face recognitions; unless a facility out right bans all photography you have or will soon have no hope of privacy. This is true with or without Google getting in on the game.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
While the bar owner in the article makes his point in an obnoxious and troll-like manner, his point stands under its own merit.
People do not like being filmed and recorded and having it posted on the internet.
Could you imagine the reaction people would have with somebody wearing these glasses at say, a beach, changing rooms, clothing stores, anything that has children ( oh wont *SOMEBODY* think of the children!) in it, movie theatres, art galleries etc etc.
If a stranger wearing Glasses walked up and started talking to me, my very first reaction would be to put my hand up in front of my face to hide from the video camera, knowing full well that everything I say and do will be recorded and possibly posted onto the internet for the world to see. It would make conversation very awkward for both of us.
Its quite a scary thought really. The tech is cool, thats not under debate. But the privacy ramifications of it are, most especially if Glasses become as ubiquitous as smartphones.
What glasses needs is a way to be useful and cool and functional *without* a camera.
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me.
Perhaps because you didn't actually read the post before you entered rage mode and assumed (s)he was of opposing opinion?
Duct tape. It makes any pair of glasses more manly.
Technology already reached the point where you can be filmed or recorded without being aware of, without needing anything more advanced than a smartphone, with i.e. Koozoo. In fact, won't be surprised if there isnt a wearable webcam addon for smarphone to record an event, meeting or whatever, without going full to google glass.
And add to that that a lot of places have security cameras, a lot of them insecure enough to be in this page some weeks ago.
Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing
Yeah, it does actually... you are in public; you have no right to not be recorded; and you have a right to operate recording equipment you own, even in public.
If the scene were a public street, without any special legal restrictions on recording, you have a right to record what you see.
However, just because a place is publicly accessible does not mean there are no controls.
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They can (1) require you agree to not bring recording devices onto the property; (2) they can search your person as you are coming in and only grant access if they find no recording equipment, (3) they can require you not operate recording devices on the property, (4) they can have people monitoring what occurs on the property, and order anyone seen holding or wearing a recording device to leave.
In the case of (1) you violate an agreement, and could in theory be sued; however, most property owners won't implement the requirements -- they don't police the entrance and force visitors to sign an actual contract before being allowed in, they may just post a sign.
In this case, a photographer/videographer still has a right to record anything and everything they see on the property, even though the sign says they can't, because they haven't actually signed anything, and a sign stating that something is banned here does not carry the force of law. Ditto for (2), if the searcher fails to find the hidden camera.
Ditto for (3). The property owner has a right to control the use of their property, but the visitors still have all rights not restricted by the law.
(4) is the condition under which photo and video recording may be restricted in public. However, if the property owner fails to detect recording they don't authorize, then it's the photographer's right to have made the recording in public
Normally there will be few legal restrictions -- there are a few such as not using a camera that can see through clothing, and not incurring civil damages such as intrusion upon seclusion (EG, a patron hiding a portable camera in a bathroom).
So there is in general a right to record anywhere in public, with a few qualifications, even in publicly accessible places, where the property owner has stated that its banned.
"Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators"
Well, I accept the challenge gleefully!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Nothing new here really. Public photographers have been harassed forever; ask any practicing street photographer. Cell phone camera users would be in the same boat except that they are in the majority now. Google Glass users are in the monitory currently, so they can be bullied. Give it time.
[nt]
Because someone claiming to remember seeing you doing something stupid in that bar one time is the same as being filmed, tagged and published searchable on the net?
My patronage
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
The bar owner's a troll...however, I have to say that a bar is the LAST place I would have Glass on my head. I'm interested in it for business use, and recreational use, but come on...where do most cellphones get swiped/lost? That's right, in a bar.
That being said, if I were offered physical violence for wandering into an establishment with these on, there would be problems. A _polite_ request to remove would be sufficient.
Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.
There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.
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.
Except the law recognizes plenty of places where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like the bathroom (oops he glanced sideways at the kid at the urinal next to him - child porn!) or someone on the street glances through a window of your home. What about all the activities where the wearer might be expecting privacy, such as doing his taxes or banking online - do you really want google knowing your soc number and bank accounts too?
preemptively
Cellphones don't record & upload constantly, so that's a bit different. It's the gap between a friend bringing along his dog, versus bringing his diarrhea-prone semi-incontinent dog: one most people & places will at least tolerate, the other they'll avoid if at all possible.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
So the bar owner is a troll, but you agree with him. That makes you what exactly?
Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.
The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.
It may be their internal policy to destroy tapes and restrict who can view them. But you as a customer have no ability to rely on that, because they didn't sign an agreement with you that that's what they do.
They might use the tapes of hidden and visible cameras and microphones for any permissible business purpose -- up to and including, employee training; performance reviews; identifying customer behaviors; publicity/public relations purposes (such as advertising).
What they will do in fact, is probably just maintain an archive of footage, to review in case of theft or damage is later discovered, or police come with a warrant to review/seize video footage.
However, that doesn't eliminate the privacy reduction at all. The bar's management can change their policy in any way they see fit at any time
Pepople like you just don't get it. More than Google Glasses it's people like you that are making me afraid of the future...
Then take precautions, wear an IR strobe on your person. Then i can record whatever i want and you can keep me from recording you. Even better would be for this restaurant to instal a few IR strobes, then they can have customers be comfortable while maintaining the anonymity of their clientele.
That hardly matters in reality....since there may not be any upper bound on the number of people who might corroborate the claim. If ten people see somebody do something illegal, for instance, but only one of them remembers the perpetrator's face well enough to identify them, that's still more than enough information to initiate prosecution, and with an additional 9 witnesses to the event, probably sufficient to convict.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In a restaurant, bar or other publicly accessible private establishment, the rules are made by the owner.
Having that out of the way, I'd like to comment that in Russia dashboard-mounted cameras that film 24/7 are nothing new. They are in fact so common, expat Russians are spreading that habit in near-by countries. That's how some almost all (or all?) those recent awesome meteorite videos came to be.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The owner may not be able to arrest you, but he can sure as hell kick you out and ban you from ever entering again. If you come back in again, he really can have you arrested and hauled off for trespassing by actual cops.
Who mods this shit up?
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They do not have unlimited right to impose rules, especially private property open to the public.
In the case of (1) you violate an agreement, and could in theory be sued; however, most property owners won't implement the requirements -- they don't police the entrance and force visitors to sign an actual contract before being allowed in, they may just post a sign.
You can always sue anything for anything. You "could" sue someone for wearing white after Labor Day, if you wanted. That doesn't mean it was in any illegal or against the law.
If you want to keep it about the law, technically one could argue that consent to enter was predicated on surrender of recording devices, if any. Failure to do so removed consent to enter and implied notice to leave. So anyone walking past a "no google glass" sign to come in could be arrested for trespass. Though in practice, I've never seen anyone arrested for trespass for being asked to leave and not complying before the police arrived (unless there was some other circumstance, like breaking and entering or vandalism). If it has happened, I'd like to hear about it so I can stop pretending it never happens, but at this moment, as far as I know, there has never been a case in US law where a person on open private property was arrested for trespass for not leaving when asked by someone other than a police officer.
Ditto for (3). The property owner has a right to control the use of their property, but the visitors still have all rights not restricted by the law.
The rights or private property are diminished greatly once someone invites *everyone* in.
Learn to love Alaska
So what you are saying is that only sheeple use sheeple.
Learn to love Alaska
Underlying the concept of stalking is the danger of physical danger at least on some level. You cannot be stalked by a toddler. Stalking and recording via google glass are two completely different things. No threat of physical violence = ok.
Except that you can't just make up your own classifications. If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Zero. You might wish it to be different, but that doesn't change anything.
I think most people here don't realize how irritating and problematic being recorded constantly during private conversations can be. From experience just with someone that had a voice recorder, knowing that the slightest thing you say could be shared out of context or edited to make you look bad and subsequently (perhaps after a couple of bad experiences) *trying* to police every word becomes stressful enough to spark real resentment and anger.
Considering the amount of pressure that a lot of people are under these days between job, financial, and personal issues, and that being recorded on video would be even more stressful than mere audio, this situation is likely to push a lot of them over the edge into violence or worse. I wouldn't be surprised if pressure from voters & police experts results in politicians banning devices of this sort.
Before anyone says it: no, cellphones, cameras and standard surveillance cameras are not the same thing. The cellphones/cameras aren't used to record constantly (doing so would be a major battery drain), so as I said in another thread, the difference between them and GGlasses is similar to that of a friend bringing his dog and a friend bringing his incontinent diarrhea-prone dog. Civilian surveillance cameras are intended to record constantly but usually either lack audio or can't hone in on one specific conversation, plus they're under the control of a neutral third party that has little incentive to abuse the recording.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
How exactly can you be upset about being recorded in public? Do you understand what "public" means?
They violate no laws. You have no "privacy" when in public. That has been the consistent findings of the court. There is no concept of the right to be forgotten or anything like that in the US. This is nothing new, just a new way of doing something old.
Learn to love Alaska
When you can bash a household names hardware and have your eatery splashed over the interwebs?
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but wouldn't it be cool to make a Infra-red led array that shines brightly on your face or away from your head in a way that saturates the photosensors in a camera and makes it impossible to see your face in an image / recording? I am going to try to make one of these I think.
Stalking is a pretty questionable offense, since it can apply to almost any behavior that the "victim" objects to. And according to you if the victim doesn't realize they are being stalked the stalking is worse! Of course companies and the government are experts in overt and covert tracking, but it's somehow criminal when impotent individuals do it?
Marvelous Infant-Lactating Female
One restaurant/bar I frequent has a cellphone jammer behind the bar. Your shit goes offline when you enter the premises.
In the US, at least, criminal trespass arrests generally occur after an officer witnesses the owner telling someone to leave and not come back. The police don't have the right to tell me to leave your house - only you have that right. Also, they don't have the right to arrest me unless they either witness me committing a crime or get get a warrant. So it's the property owner (or their representative) telling someone to leave, the cop just witnesses the criminal trespass.
Good on the bar owner for banning these intrusive and hideous things. My patronage is assured (If I lived there)
But everyone here is going on about right to not be recorded and so on. Can you just stop going on about your rights and look at it from a decency and morality perspective? Society is perfectly capable to manage it's own etiquette. No laws or rights required.
Poking a camera in ones face unasked is plain rude. It would piss me off. It is the domain for paparazzi and they are assholes. Google glass is the equivalent of poking a camera on ones face and if I were exposed to such a twat I warn him once and slap the bloody thing off his face the second time.
The other irritating thing that also applies to smartphone users is having them checking their damn phone every few seconds during a conversation. It is rude and persons that feel the need to glue their damn screen to their eye while in a social environment are just the ultimate assholes. I tend to break off conversation when I detect those stealthy glances to their phone.
But, it won't come to that. Google glass has always been a stupid idea and has no hope in hell to ever become cool or socially accepted. Good for the bar owner to make his declaration and get a conversation around the politeness aspect of those things started.
Though in practice, I've never seen anyone arrested for trespass for being asked to leave and not complying before the police arrived (unless there was some other circumstance, like breaking and entering or vandalism). If it has happened, I'd like to hear about it so I can stop pretending it never happens, but at this moment, as far as I know, there has never been a case in US law where a person on open private property was arrested for trespass for not leaving when asked by someone other than a police officer.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/12/12/video-shows-nashua-police-using-taser-on-woman-after-iphone-dispute/
There are plenty of silent apps that will take video and pictures with a push anywhere on the screen that can be activated while holding the phone very casually.
If someone really wants a picture of you, they'll get it.
By your definition, we would all need permits for our cellphones.
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They do not have unlimited right to impose rules, especially private property open to the public.
They have the ability to make "No Chidren" rules in restaurants. If you are told that you are not allowed to bring in a camera to surrepitiously record other patrons, see how long you'll stay in the place with your google glass.
And you really want to check on the laws in the state you will do this recording in. THere are different laws for video and audio, and given that the audio laws tend to be more strict, if you have both audio and video, the audio laws will prevail.
Say you are in California. they have two party consent. Both parties have to consent to the recording. In some other cases, Communnications in a home or business have inherent confidentiality. If you are in a crowded restaraunt, Talking loudly you don't have an expectation of privacy. But if you are trying to have some privacy, sitting off in a corner, talking privately, you do have that expectation. Under California law, it is illegal to disclose confidential information illegally obtained, but if you legally obtain the information, you can disclose it. There is also the matter if the subject being disclosed reasonably expects confidentiality.
As in so many aspects of the law, you'll note that there is a lot of wiggle room in there including some things that sound a little contradictory. So you might expect a lawsuit or criminal action by disgruntled patrons. But if the property owner states that they do not allow cameras without permission, and you are caught with one, you can expect an escort out of the restaraunt, probably to the applause of the other patrons. And if was my place, I'm certain that I would have reasonable concern that you might become violent, so your escort would be law enforcement officers. All within my rights.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He's taking a stand on new technology. What's wrong with that?
Nevermind the fact that the the owner likely is filming and recording everything going on in the place....Oh right you forgot about that.
No, why do you equate the two? The owner isn't going to post the videos anywhere. The owners understand that their customers want some privacy. They aren't going to release anything unless there is a crime committed that is documented by the video.
Even regarding cameras, you won't have a problem bringing in a camera to shoot a birthday or celebration. But if you are sitting in a corner with your Google glass or other camera system, evidently just recording for an unknown purpose, they aren't going to like that very much. Nor are the rest of the customers.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
back before it was a bar, wasn't even aware it was a bar now.
Anyways, this is about free publicity, not about him caring about people privacy.
Be seeing you...
The Final Irony: Complaining about privacy ... in your facebook page. WTF.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
There still is a big difference: Its easier to notice when someone is pulling out a cell phone or a camera to snap a photo. With a pair of glasses, they could record you without any outward indication that they are recording you.
The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.
The Bar or restaurant has a big interest in your privacy. Bar owners especially understand things about people that perhaps slashdotters and utopians do not.
These are places to unwind, these are places where people can let their hair down. Some time business is done here. So it's an honor system. You can bet that whatever the owner has on camera will stay right there. Their customers demand it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
tto get into a brewing business, o open a few pubs where wearing the google glass is encouraged.
I've been barred from better places.
Google Glasses don't record constantly, for the reasons you stated - the battery would drain in an hour and the thing would be useless. Or do you think the glasses are hooked up to a notebook battery slung under the wearer's shoulder? To start recording you have to give a voice command ("ok, glass, record a video" or "ok, glass, hang out with [contact or group name]"). The glasses also have an indicating light which shines when video is being recorded.
So yes - either be afraid of cameras, cellphones, and Google Glasses, or none of them, as they all possibly share the same capabilities - taking images and video, and uploading them to the internet.
So Glass is not banned in public places where you live, just the use of it to record video in private property open to the public, just like current cellphones and cameras. Glass doesn't constantly record, and when it does record, a light is illuminated on the front for all to see.
Expectation of privacy in public is an expression. It's down to the fact that no-one can legally expect privacy in public, hence English having those two words: "public" and "private". If you are scared of people looking at you or you being recorded, don't leave your house without a disguise. Problem solved.
Your expectations don't match up with reality as far as the law is concerned.
Recording devices are going to be ubiquitous soon - if they're not already with mobile phones.
Sure, Google Glasses are different in that they're on your head and ready to record a little more subtly, but if it's not them, it's going to be something else.
Reactionary policies like this won't really address the problem - technology is fundamentally changing how privacy works.
Citizens need to be made aware of the issue from both sides - when it's OK to record someone, and when they need to be conscious of the fact that they might be being recorded.
They need to be aware of the technical advances (e.g., face recognition combined with social network trawling) and cognisant of the risks. Even today, in a (mostly) Google Glasses free world, people should be aware of the fact that what they're doing might be recorded by someone, somewhere.
Behaviour will need to change to adapt to the new technology - just like it already has to some large degree because of things social networks and ubiquitous digital cameras. Know your rights to privacy, but be aware that a lot of them end when you step outside.
Would you kick out someone with a recording prosthetic eye? How about someone who uses a wearable to make up for lack of short term memory? How about Alzheimer's patients that rely on a wearable to guide them back home? The idea that you are going to be able to dictate where wearables are allowed is laughable at best. Sooner or later the American Disability Act will kick in and and you are fucked if you even try kicking someone out.
Finally, you are a moron if you think its appropriate to waste the police's time kicking out a patron with a wearable camera on. If you are going to be an ass, at least be man enough to enforce your own rules.
Good-bye
You are recorded pretty much everywhere in public now, what makes you think putting them on people is any different? Why are you ok with the restaurant recording you from entrance to exit, but not me at the next table? What is the functional difference?
Good-bye
ATTN HEDWARDS: You are now notified that you are recorded in public most of the time. It makes no difference if it is the establishment or an individual person doing it. I have absolutely no obligation to stop capturing photons because it makes you squeamish.
Good-bye
Well society is going to have to fucking get over it. Cameras are literally going to be everywhere, hell they are NOW. Unless you plan on frisking customers, i dont see how you plan on stopping it and any attempt to do so would have serious civil liberties implications. If i can legally capture photons with my eye, its a safe bet i can also do the same with a CCD. That is the reality we face now.
Good-bye
What is this conservatard shit?
In what way is opposition to a corporate-sponsored, real-time surveillance system a conservative position?
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Get over your corporation fanboyism.
FTFY.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
...bans Glass before it's cool.
Not a good "rule" to promote, just because its "your" establishment, doesn't give the you the power to take away a person's rights.
All that will serve is if someone does get their ass kicked in the pub wearing Google glass, the pub will be seen as encouraging the assault and will become liable.
It's like me writing in class rules for a martial art "you will get beaten up". Sure you got to a martial arts class to be beaten up but as soon as that "beat up" is not consented then the martial art becomes labial. That is, students only hit each other during sparing sessions, not outside of set consented times of combat.
Same thing here, the rule writer can be put up for assault and sued now and the courts wont go easy on him because the rule will be seen as premeditated I.E his intent was to cause this upset. Very dumb.
Cool Story. How does a cell phone jammer stop the camera from recording?
No threat of physical violence = ok.
As someone who actually has a stalker at the moment, I totally disagree with that statement. While I am not overly threatened in a physical manner, that's not to say that constant emails, texts and phone calls from someone is okay. The last thing I need to be added to the list is a constant video feed of where I am, who I am with. Stalking isn't just about a physical threat - it's basically about someone harassing you and many people you know.
How would you feel if you had twenty-ish missed calls on your work phone over a weekend from one number - just so they could listen to your voicemail over and over?
How would you feel if your stalker for your home address and often drove past the house checking to see what was going on, or couriered flowers and presents on a regular basis?
How would you feel if photos were sent to your parents and friends house of random nights out with quotes of "Whore" and "Bitch" pointing to friends?
These are just some of the things that fall under stalking and let me tell you that while I appreciate that folks have rights to do what they like, I have also learned that people do deserve to have a certain right to a little privacy even out in public.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Anyhow, WTF? banning tech glasses? Why don't they ban iPhones, see how well that will do.
Slippery slope. Yes, you can already secretly and naturally videotape people with spy equipment. You have to spend some serious money on that equipment, but nobody will suspect you.
Also, you can buy an iPhone or a similar smartphone with video recording capability. Then you can take it into your hand, point at the scene and click some buttons. Then you have to stay like that and keep the iPhone pointed for the entire duration of the recording. If you do that it will be pretty obvious to anyone around what you are doing. It is also known that your video remains your property and you know your responsibility for it. If you record a drunken friend, publish that, and your friend loses his job because of that, the loss of a friend will be trivial, compared to the need for a dozen of new tooth implants.
If you wear these glasses then the obviousness of your recording is further dropped since you wear them all the time, and they are always pointed at what you are looking. The indicator light that is available today may become unavailable - or customer-controlled - tomorrow; besides, it is usually trivial to disable any light, anywhere, if you want to.
Besides, the society does ban iPhones and other recording equipment in some places even today. A movie theater is one obvious example; a classified environment is another. However try to record video in locker rooms, bathrooms, or where children play, or in a biker bar, or of a street gang. I am sure if you survive the experience you will not want to try that again.
Cellphones don't record & upload constantly
Mine does.
People like you are why the United States is crumbling. Regulate this, regulate that. It's this mindset that makes it harder for small businesses to operate. All this regulation is doing is propping up big business at the expense of the little guy.
FC Closer
Google Glass doesn't work that way. It it's on, it UPLOADS.
Cite?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Ugly George?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Perhaps this will spawn a market for devices that will disrupt video recordings. These can be installed in places where people value their privacy and/or are there with people they don't want others to see them with, etc., etc., etc. I think this would be a great selling point for many people. "Come to our establishment! We won't let others spy on you!"
Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
i think that the solution to this is to go much more proactively against stalkers
you can demonstrate and factually prove a pattern of transgressive behavior. as a matter of evidence, this allows police, courts, and correctional forces to become involved according to how the laws surrounding this behavior are defined
1. it is not right for you to change your life.
2. it is not right for society to change its rules, for all of us to suffer, because of stalkers.
3. and it is not right to tolerate the stalker
therefore, the only remaining option is to perhaps jail the stalker, fine the stalker. in some way punish the stalker severely for the behavior
i think that current stalking laws are too weak. they need to made harsher. but the punishments must be designed carefully, in such a way to reduce the behavior without fostering further psychological attachment issues. it doesn't sound easy. i can't think of an easy fix
it's a difficult subject. but it needs to be taken a lot more seriously
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"just so they could listen to your voicemail over and over" Wow, what you got on your voicemail??? Care to post the number for the rest of us?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Glass is a representation of a product that las vegas created to emulated the NASA/astronaut/space program. The original program took 20+ years to biologically condition the individual (which was always a psychic). The point of the program was to use the individuals visual cortex to see rather than their eyes. Glass is simply some sort of parody which emulates that.
Ummm, expensive? no, not at all. I fly FPV RC aircraft. Those are the planes that are flown via goggles and an onboard camera. I have three ready to fly aircraft sitting next to me. The video portion for all 3 has a total cost of maybe $600, and that includes a $350 pair of nice goggles, something I would not need if I wanted to record the public.
The public is all ape shit over this privacy thing. How dumb are they to realize there have been security cameras installed in half the transformers on telephone poles for 20+ years. I can stand on a street corner near my house, and count 20+ security cameras capable of watching me. Wake up sheeple, you already have no privacy. Banning Googlge glasses will improve your privacy score from 0 to 0.
But anyhow, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make. My comment was about trying to ban any technology. We've seen how great that has worked for the movie industry, as your example.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
"just so they could listen to your voicemail over and over" Wow, what you got on your voicemail??? Care to post the number for the rest of us?
LMAO, That is deadset gold - made me laugh out loud - not something I have done about this crazy for a while. Seriously, it's an office work phone in a multi national retailer, "Hi you have called... press # to go to the switch..." etc type thing.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
When you hold up your phone at the bar, the manager smashes you in the face with a cellphone jammer.
Very soon, everyone wearing glasses will be targeted as a potential 'spy'. Thanks, Google.
This is why I want to see Google Hat. Google Glass, but with 19th Century rules on when to remove your hat. (Forget the bit about doffing your hat to ladies though, that could be seen as a cheap cleavage shot).
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I have absolutely no obligation to stop capturing photons because it makes you squeamish.
And I have absolutely no obligation to allow you, someone who is deliberately chosing to do something that makes my other patrons squeamish, to enter my establishment.
The bar owner isn't banning you from recording everywhere. He simply setting rules of conduct that may preclude you (should you break, or give indication that you intend to break, those rules) from entering his bar.
What people areguing against the bar owner here are aguing for a society where you can do what you want because the technology allows you to do what you want. Do they really want to live in a society that works that way?
Cellphones don't record & upload constantly
Mine does.
No, your's can if you actively chose to make it do so in the same way that this chair can smack you squarely over the back of the head if someone actively choses to make it do so.
You seem to be arguing for the right to do something simply because it is possible. Do you really want to live in a world that works that way? Think about it for just a minute (actually, to an extent the world does work that way for some people, but that doesn't make it right...).
You cannot be stalked by a toddler.
This is the most insensitive thing I have ever read! I am currently peering out my window through the blinds and can see a toddler sitting on his Big Wheel, holding a pair of binoculars, and smiling at me. HE JUST MADE THE THROAT SLASH GESTURE AT ME!
lik-sang.com
Just think more establishments should have a picture of a douche with a slash through it in preparation for the pending Douchocalypse brought to you by Google..
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Well, actually yes.
Classic privacy is dead, get over it. Attempting to stop technology by legislative means are futile. It's funny how people criticize MAFIAA for legislating its business model and trying to stop the technological progress, but at the same time cry foul when new technology invades their privacy. The next battle is for total openness - if state and corporations can watch over us, then we should have power to watch over them.
And about that 'but imagine that your employer sees your drunken pictures' argument, it's high time for everyone to recognize that nobody is perfect and learn to ignore such things.
Underlying the concept of stalking is the danger of physical danger at least on some level. You cannot be stalked by a toddler. Stalking and recording via google glass are two completely different things. No threat of physical violence = ok.
That is pure bullshit, both legally and morally.
No offence, but I can only assume you are some creepy stalker trying to gustify their pathetic existence. I hope one of your victims cuts your fucking head off with a blunt bread knife after capturing and torturing you horribly for a few days.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
However, I believe there would be certain legal...issues if you did this.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Stalking is a pretty questionable offense, since it can apply to almost any behavior that the "victim" objects to. And according to you if the victim doesn't realize they are being stalked the stalking is worse! Of course companies and the government are experts in overt and covert tracking, but it's somehow criminal when impotent individuals do it?
Turds like you really don't help things. Stalking is not "a pretty questionable", it is a serious problem involving a seriously disturbed individual which always has the potential to end in murder.
And quite what it has to do with corporate or government espionage is beyond me.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
In the UK, you can be required to leave licensed premises (i.e. somehwere selling alcohol) for any or no reason whatsoever. If you're barred by the landlord of a pub, tough shit.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Thats what the police are there for, protect and serve. If i tell you to leave and you don't for any reason i might have, i can and will call the police to have you removed. Wither you think its inappropriate/or you don't like it means nothing. All that matters is that i will have you removed one way or another legally.
Jack of all trades,master of none
By that logic, just looking at people is sexual harassment.
Absolutely, looking at them the wrong way is considered sexual harassment (ask your HR rep, judge or lawyer if you don't believe me). But that's common knowledge unless you were born yesterday.
And what's up with the troll rating? 99.9% of all businesses will not permit their employees from wearing these glasses on the job. This is dangerous technology. If you like it, use it by all means. But don't invade the privacy of strangers unless you have their permission.
The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.
No it doesn't. It tells me that I'm trading some of my privacy in exchange for a degree of protection against crime. It discourages pick-pockets and it makes it easier to prosecute someone who assaults you.
I enter into an implied contract with the property owner, and not with the other customers.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I used to work in security, and those security cameras you see? Well, the tapes are never made public, except in cases where they're used for prosecution or in case of a lawsuit, and they're typically destroyed within a couple of months of being taken.
The sorts of images that the bar owner is preventing people from taking, may never be deleted and may very well be available to every Tom, Dick and Harry with access to the public.
Just because you're too stupid to see the implications of huge troves of data being available on the internet, does not make it any more reasonable to go the surveillance society route. People have been fired for pictures of them holding red cups, with no evidence of what's in the cup, merely because they're cheap cups that are often times used for alcohol at college parties.
You're talking about defamation etc if they circulate pictures saying "whore", "bitch" etc. Not stalking.
Personally if someone calls me 20 times I'll just block the number. If they try from another one and keep intruding, I can get them for harassment. Because I'm actually inconvenienced, I have to answer the phone etc. But if there is zero impact on my life, then there's simply no case to be made for stalking.
Even if you aren't overtly threatened, the implicit danger of violence is also enough to register a case of stalking. But if there is literally never any possibility of your life being affected in any way, I doubt if you'll have a case.
Now who's talking about physical violence? :D
Looks like people who think they're being stalked need to be restrained more than those recording stuff...
Restaurants know that putting a video of you picking your nose on YouTube is bad for business. The guy at the table next to you thinks it's a great laugh....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
For instance even at the SuperDish game which is extremely highly surveilled, you STILL expect privacy inside the restroom. Is GOOGLE going to guarantee that with this product?
I think the Europeans have the right QUESTION on their statement "the right to be forgotten."
I understand I am going to be on quicki-mart cameras for security, and ATM machines and the like. The EXPECTATION is that the OWNER of the location has limited funds to keep those longer than needed for security. Because keeping piles of junk is expensive. That's far different than what is starting up to SELL that information to somebody else. That somebody else is not EVER going to remove the data... Google Glass is one of the collection mechanisms... Specifically to capture and store information about EVERYBODY ELSE. And what THEY are going around you.
That's what Google is selling.. Go back ten years and you automatically captured video... Look you were in the bar with people that are famous now because we got their info years later.. Better yet, they were cheating on their second wife before they got divorced from the first.
You will note all the people that OWN. These companies keep technology far away. Microsoft deletes emails after 30 days, Zuckerberg never updates HIS Facebook relationship status, and so on.. They don't trust all this collected information and they claim to OWN it... Why should YOU.
How about we say it this way. When I'm in public I expect to be seen by the OTHER PEOPLE who are in public too. They might remember with their minds, bring recording and off-site storage into this and its not the same thing.
Where is the expectation that I have to worry about non-marked recording devices who's OWNERS are not in public for me to see?
Being "in public" does not mean recorded by automatic equipment forever and ever. THAT is the fallacy. How about this, all owners and manufactures of automated recording equipment have to have THEIR google Glass feed available at all times at any camera location! Now we are equal in public.
Would you kick out someone with a recording prosthetic eye?
So this person with the hypothtical prosthetic eye - do they have to record in order to use it?
How about Alzheimer's patients that rely on a wearable to guide them back home?
With all due respect, what are you talking about? What is this device that allows an Alzheimer's patient to be out and about by themselves? Having had relatives that suffered with the condition, it wouldn't work even if you tried something like that. You can't just pull nonsensical "what ifs" out of your hat, and No ADA compliance problems at all, because prosthetics be they eyes or legs or penile implants, don't have to be recording what other people are doing.
Finally, you are a moron if you think its appropriate to waste the police's time kicking out a patron with a wearable camera on. If you are going to be an ass, at least be man enough to enforce your own rules.
If I have a policy that states no recording, and someone comes in and insists that they can record whatever they want, and refuses to leave, you can bet the police will be called. You going to guarantee that they aren't packing? Anyway, we pay the police to do their job, and they tend to do their job.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You have the strangest mixture of paranoia, demand for civil liberty, and demand for no civil liberty I have ever seen. Have fun.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I feel like there's a lot of hostility here from people who haven't spent enough time in bars...
They should try it some time. Maybe go in, relax with a brew or two, if their by themselves, thay can chat with th ebarkeep or someone nearby.
Probably a lot better than setting in a corner, looking like a voyeur or stalker.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes. He can. A business owner can refuse service to anyone at any time, as long as in doing so s/he does not violate discrimination laws.
No it doesn't. It tells me that I'm trading some of my privacy in exchange for a degree of protection against crime. It discourages pick-pockets and it makes it easier to prosecute someone who assaults you.
I enter into an implied contract with the property owner, and not with the other customers.
Bingo! And unless someone picks your pocket, or assaults you, your privacy will not be compromised. These bar cameras - when they exist - are all for the owner's and their customer's safety.
They are not for showing you flirting with the waitress, or talking with a friend, or looking for a friend for the evening.
Or let's take another for instance. Let's say a person is gay, but isn't "out".
So he or she goes to a gay bar in another town. So now some Google glass wearing fundamentalist wants to go into the bar and records the patrons of the bar enjoying their evening. Uploads them to the web as a way to harass the patrons.
There was a similar thing a few years ago in a nearby city. Some group of holy rollers decided they were going to take photos of vehicles parked at adult book stores and post them on the web. Their response to the private property argument was go ahead, have us arrested.
But rather than all that messiness, the adult store and some patrons hung around until the Fundies showed up, then photographed them, their vehicles, and their license plates and posted those photos on their website. Whoops hold on.... They only said they would unless the good fundies ceased their tactic. The photos all stopped.
Perhaps people who are caught recording other patrons activities will be likewise recorded themselves, perhaps their photos posted prominently with a warning that they are likely recording other patrons. After all, if the Google glass wearer has every right to take and post the video, they wouldn't deny anyone's right to do the same to them, eh?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Attempting to stop technology by legislative means are futile.
Definitely though this isn't legislation (i.e. governement dictated and legally enforced), it is a much more localised preference about what goes on in a particulat home/business/whatever. It is more akin to banning someone playing loud music in the corner of the pub or not letting someone back in your garden unless they promise not to urinate on the rabbit like they did last time.
It's funny how people criticize MAFIAA for legislating its business model and trying to stop the technological progress, but at the same time cry foul when new technology invades their privacy.
Perfectly normal human hypocrasy I think. For what it is worth I have no problem with them protecting their business model by legal and moral means, my problem is that when those means fail they pervert the legal system in a morally questionable way - they are hypocrits too in that they are quite happy to stoop very very low in order to defend their relatively unchangfing view of the world that is changing (changes that some low people, mentioning no myselfs in particular, might sometimes use to borrow some bits).
The next battle is for total openness - if state and corporations can watch over us, then we should have power to watch over them.
I for one have no problem with monitoring with CCTV and such, especially in places where problems are known to happen (pubs full of people some of which have had a bit too much, alley ways, carparks, ...), though I wounldn't want uncrontrolled individuals monitoring me as quite franky I don't really trust the average member of the general public. Of course the people monitoring that CCTV and it's stored output can also be questionable but you have to trust (and sometimes test) that relevant precautions/checks/balances exist and are working to prevent bad apples upsetting the cart as much as practically possible.
And about that 'but imagine that your employer sees your drunken pictures' argument, it's high time for everyone to recognize that nobody is perfect and learn to ignore such things.
Definitely. I'm lucky that my employer is happy with me being a human with a few flaws one of which being a rather strong liking for social gatherings involving alcohol (heck, my manager is often there, as we are a company that tries to get along socially as well as professionally where possible and he is entertaining company). As long as what you do in your personal life does not affect your performance at your job or result in you otherwise somehow damaging your company or its reputation it should be no concern of your employer or potential employer (there are some professions where your private behaviour can legitimately be considered though, such as thoughs were you are a part of the company's public image or jobs like being a police officer (who, in the UK at least, are never officially off duty as they are warrented to take action on behalf of the law at any time rather than their arrest rights being contracted to specific hours)). Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people who will make judgements based on infomation recorded in this manner and distributed accidentally or with the intention of doing harm - it isn't practical to expect legislation (or common sense) to fix that any more than it can fix the privacy issues in the first place. I'm not sure how we can, as a society, fix that.
My natural face-recognition skills are strongly inferior even to moderately obsolete computer algorithms. Such thing would work as a neural prosthesis for me, a social-interaction equivalent of a peg leg. Would you want to relieve me and others of such aid?
For the record, I'd strongly prefer if such functionality operated offline, without cloud connection...
What about people unable to recognize faces/expressions on their own? Such toy can be an equivalent of a physical handicap prosthetics. Or do you want to be an asshole and oppress the neurologically disadvantaged?
That will keep working until smart antenna arrays become norm for cellphones. It is fairly logical - no need to send RF energy to all directions when a small fraction of the power can be sent just in the direction of the cell tower, and the same applies to the received signal which then stands out of noise (including jammers) much better.
So is DRM. It's just a part of a contract, with its terms enforced by civil and criminal law. So?
Look at LGBT. At the very start of the movement there were similar suggestions - hide and use privacy laws to suppress any dissemination of private information. Instead LGBT people choose to defy society and go into the open - and they succeeded. So it can be done, and with privacy it'll be easier - you can bet that your boss would also have some embarrassing secrets. As do most of other people.
We can be recorded in every business we walk into, and every street we walk.. but the minute we turn the tables and it's no longer in the investment class's benefit for there to be recordings of everything.. it's a bad idea.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
That adage is for weenies who want to prop themselves up above others by setting forth a highly draconian measure and then being beyond reproach because the vast majority of people don't have a better idea. Just because I don't have an answer (to what I see as a non-issue anyway), doesn't mean I can't criticize such an asinine suggestion.
FC Closer
You can't in the US. If you kick out someone because they are Black or Hindu, then you are violating the law.
Learn to love Alaska
With all due respect, what are you talking about? What is this device that allows an Alzheimer's patient to be out and about by themselves? Having had relatives that suffered with the condition, it wouldn't work even if you tried something like that.
Alzheimer's patients aren't dumb. They are often not even confused. They are lost. They are in the body of an 80 year old when they think they are 40 and it's 1970 (at least, that's how I've seen it in my family). If Google Glass charted them a route "home" and gave appropriate audio feedback, it could likely guide someone in the middle of an episode home. Even if not, it could listen to the ambient noise for "are you ok" and call home if the patterns are consistent with someone getting lost in an episode. It could even email a screenshot to the "owner" of the old coot once every 5 minutes, after some trigger to help with identification and recovery.
The family wouldn't talk about the episodes much. They were good about not talking. Gramps served in WWI, and I never heard him (or anyone else) speak a single word about it, ever. After he died, I heard that he'd served in it, and the fact it wasn't mentioned until then was supposed to be sufficient. But I gathered that one episode, he wandered into a store that used to be owned by a friend, who was long since dead. And he argued with the people there about his friend. Yelling, getting abusive, confused because he was "in there yesterday" and saw him. A call from the wife at that point to talk him down and collect him is always better than the police dragging him home.
If I have a policy that states no recording, and someone comes in and insists that they can record whatever they want, and refuses to leave, you can bet the police will be called. You going to guarantee that they aren't packing?
And when the police come, I'll turn it off after they get there, if I haven't already, then claim it was off the whole time and you never asked me to get out, but stated that I had to turn that off or get out, and you are being abusive and threatening, and I'd like you arrested for threatening my person with harm. "I complied with every request he made, he was just irrationally yelling at me." The police will ask me to leave, and I'll do so. The next time someone does come in and leaves theirs on and starts something, the police will already have you down as a lying troublemaker. Don't worry, they tend to do their job.
Learn to love Alaska
Like I said, she was asked to leave by the police 10 minutes before the arrest. Never is someone arrested for trespassing without refusing an order by the police (unless there is some other crime, assault or vandalism, where the cops will arrest for trespass to evaluate the evidence for the "worse" crime).
Learn to love Alaska
I may have misread what he posted, but I was far from entering rage mode :)
I feel like there's a lot of hostility here from people who haven't spent enough time in bars...
That is insightful. And there are plenty of Bars that wearing cameras and recording the patrons activities will probably result in instant eviction from the premises. Not by the owners, but by customers. And from what I have seen, good luck with any legal action against bouncers.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's a semantic argument, isn't it?
She refused the store's request for her to leave. The store calls the cops. When the cops arrive, why wouldn't they also ask her to leave? It's not like it takes a lot of effort on their part.
The only way out I can see would be if the business made some sort of a citizen's arrest and brought the people to the police themselves instead of calling on the police do it. I doubt there's a company out there dumb enough to try it.
Yes, which goes back to the "is it illegal to ignore the owner's requests to remove Google Glass or leave". Then the answer is absolutley It is legal to ignore them, so long as you don't ignore the police, if they call them. When the argument is about semantics (specifically of whether something is "legal" or not), then it is all a semantic argument, and could be no other.
Learn to love Alaska
Alzheimer's patients aren't dumb. They are often not even confused. They are lost. They are in the body of an 80 year old when they think they are 40 and it's 1970 (at least, that's how I've seen it in my family). If Google Glass charted them a route "home" and gave appropriate audio feedback, it could likely guide someone in the middle of an episode home.
Seriously, if you let an Alzheimer's patient out and alone, you have some serious lack of understanding about the condition. There was a local home sued successfully for patients wandering off. Your method of them getting themselves home could work, except they would have to know what the glasses were for, and what the strange sounds were. An older friend is in the early stages of Alzheimer's right now. For about a year, he was getting lost in his vehicle even with using a GPS unit, where the ladies voice tells you to "Turn here". That's a pretty close analog of your idea. We all knew it was really happening when he called his daughter to come up from out of state, complaining how his SUV was broken and now useless. Turned out he forgot how to put the keys in the ignition. For my mother in law, my wife was alternately "her" mother, and only occasionally her real self. Moments of lucidity were interspersed with not being able to figure out how the door in her room opened and closed.
If I have a policy that states no recording, and someone comes in and insists that they can record whatever they want, and refuses to leave, you can bet the police will be called. You going to guarantee that they aren't packing?
And when the police come, I'll turn it off after they get there, if I haven't already, then claim it was off the whole time and you never asked me to get out, but stated that I had to turn that off or get out, and you are being abusive and threatening, and I'd like you arrested for threatening my person with harm. Ever watch those court TV shows where someone sues someone because they were sued. That is you.
You see, what will trip you up is those cameras that I the bar owner have installed. They will show every second of my intraction with you.
So if you decide that you are going to accuse me of threatening you? I'll just let you file the police report (I'll even encourage it) Then I'll show them the tape then you 'll get dinged for filing a false report. You see, you are one of the people that the cameras are there to protect other people against. It's not nice to dissemble.
If you are so certain of your unfettered right to video record people in a bar without their consent, I suggest you try it. If you don't have Google Glass, use a smartphone camera. Go into a bar or restaraunt, and start recording people. Then watch the fun unfold. Then come back and let us know how that's working out for you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Seriously, if you let an Alzheimer's patient out and alone, you have some serious lack of understanding about the condition.
You don't "let them out" like a dog. You have them living at home with a caregiver (spouse being a common one). And you could leave them watching TV in the living room, while you go use the bathroom and return to find them gone.
What, do you immediately put them in the home with buzzers on every door and exits funneled past nurses stations? Chain them to the bed? If you give them any semblance of freedom, they will slip away. Some more than others. Slipping a GPS phone in their pocket with tracking on is a great thing. That'd let Grandma go to the market while Gramps watches Golf on TV without worrying that Gramps decides to go play a round or two and gets lost on the way. Having Glass to where grandma could glace every once in a while and see what he sees would be a great help in giving him freedom with reduced risk.
For about a year, he was getting lost in his vehicle even with using a GPS unit, where the ladies voice tells you to "Turn here".
My father managed to stop in a busy intersection to try to figure out where he was. He wanted to see all the signs at the same time, and stopped in the intersection was the easiest place to do it. He was used to ignoring honking, but the intersection was on a curve, and someone coming around the curve wasn't paying attention, and he lost his car that way (I never did hear if she lived, she wasn't belted and she left a lot of hair and blood on the inside of her windshield), though I couldn't convince him to stop driving. At 81 he was still driving infrequently - mostly blind, and very senile, though no Alzheimer's, from what I could tell. At least for the last 20 years, his companion (15 years his senior) was almost always his passenger. She could see and had no mental deficiencies of any kind, so she made sure they got where they were going, even if she wasn't in physical shape to drive a car anymore. He died last year, she died last week.
Learn to love Alaska
The owner may not be able to arrest you, but he can sure as hell kick you out and ban you from ever entering again.
He can order you to leave, and use lawful means to encourage you to leave. If he threatens to touch you, then he has committed a crime (assault). If he actually touches you in an unlawful physical way such as "kicking you", "grabbing you", "shoving you", or "hitting you", then he has committed a crime (battery).
If he lawfully orders you to leave, and you refuse to leave, then he may summon the police to have you removed.
If you come back in again, he really can have you arrested and hauled off for trespassing by actual cops.
Probably not. He would need to be able to demonstrate at that later time that you had no express, legal, or implied authorization to enter and remain on the property.
There are a number of ways you could obtain that; one of those, would be calling in, at a later date, and making arrangements on the phone to conduct some sort of business, or come by to pay an outstanding bill. It is likely that you would be able to in fact, obtain explicit authorization from whoever was answering the phone.
In any case, if he attempted to have you arrested, this could result in you suing and collecting damages.
If I walk in wearing a Google (fucking) Glass, I DARE them to eject me or actually TRY an "ass kicking".
I enter into an implied contract with the property owner, and not with the other customers.
The sign isn't a contract; it's a warning/alert/notice.
What's implied is consent to surveillance, by remaining in the area where such a sign has been posted. Provided the sign is posted prominently.
Granted, someone who cannot read the sign, because they are blind or illiterate has consented to nothing.
The property owner/manager responsible for the surveillance, might or might not be the same organization that runs the business operating at that location, and might or might not be beholden to protect the privacy of people at the place of public accomodation.
Yeah, keep smoking that shit, dude.
I enter into an implied contract with the property owner, and not with the other customers.
The sign isn't a contract; it's a warning/alert/notice.
If the sign says it's for customer safety, and you leak an embarrassing video of your customer, you'll have a good case for a law suit. Your implied consent is conditioned on what the information he gave you being true in the first place. That's pretty damned near a contract, if you ask me....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Different countries different laws.
In Norway you cannot publish photo/ video of people in the public when they are clearly identifiable. Any person in said photo/ video can ask for its removal.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
If the sign says it's for customer safety, and you leak an embarrassing video of your customer, you'll have a good case for a law suit.
The signs usually just say there is video surveillance, without specifying a reason, or what the footage might be used for. Even if they did, the argument that there is an implied contract about the use of surveillance content, would be a very weak one.
Companies and governments alike frequently use a pretext to justify something, all the time -- the patriot act was meant to help bring terrorists to justice; that doesn't mean law enforcement won't be using the new warrantless wiretap and similar powers to catch a greater number of petty criminals more efficiently, and assist the RIAA.
It would be a very big stretch of the imagination to suggest such a sign is a "contract" or guarantee about how it will be used, once gathered. Companies are not known for posting privacy policies, or privacy agreements in public, even though that becomes more common online.
There could be a case for a lawsuit, just like there could be, if someone on the street filmed you, and released an embarrassing video.
So long as there is no journalistic value in the video, and you can prove that actual financial damages were incurred, there would be a complaint you could make.
(It doesn't mean you will be successful)
You can sue over an embarrasing video someone posted. You can contact online video sharing sites, with cease and decist letters, demanding they remove video; as long as you can afford the lawyers.
The problem, of course, is that these actions can draw more attention to the embarrasing video online -- the lawsuit may lead to broader consumption of the content complained about.
In Norway you cannot publish photo/ video of people in the public when they are clearly identifiable. Any person in said photo/ video can ask for its removal.
It's actually a nice idea to favor privacy so much, but Norway's approach is extreme.
There should be cases where you can publish a video against the will of someone in it when (1) they knowingly participated in its recording [otherwise, they might just object to it -- because they after the fact decided they wanted to renegotiate their payment for participating], or (2) their presence in the video actually has journalistic value or meaningful speech value, and isn't just there to personally embarrass or harass the subject; those portions of the video should be allowed -- otherwise, politicians or other public officials such as police officers, could squelch free speech.
So other countries are more reasonable than Norway
I'm 100% confident those caveats are there. If you're the main person in a news story, walking down the public street, you are not protected by this.
But the guy in the background who is clearly visible, perhaps in the same trade as said person, but not affiliated, may ask to be blurred or cut out. This is reasonable, because he may become a victim of association.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
They do not have unlimited right to impose rules, especially private property open to the public.
There are many examples of a dress code being required in "public" establishments, e.g.: "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or "men must wear coats while dancing." I don't see this as being any different, but maybe if I was a glasshole myself there would be an augmented reality layer that would bolster my sense of entitlement.
"No Shirts, no shoes, no Niggers." was a code from the past as well. It's illegal. There's no reason they couldn't ban the glasses, but there is a difference between "no service" and "arrested for trespassing". If you walk into McDonalds without a shirt on, they can refuse to sell you something. They will likely not order you out under penalty of trespassing charges. And it would be illegal to give the order "no glasses" and likely if there was an issue with glass vandalism and harassment, the second generation would be much more subtle. So are you going to violate ADA and harass everyone with glasses on?
Learn to love Alaska
"No Shirts, no shoes, no Niggers." was a code from the past as well. It's illegal.
Growing up on the west coast, in something of a beach town, I never knew about that code. I have seen restaurants using it to try to keep hippies, beach bums, and surfers out of their establishment, though. Even though I fit the rough description, I understood that if I wanted to utilize an establishment, I had to play by their rules. I generally chose other establishments.
And the establishment must abide by governmental rules on who they can and can't exclude, and how they treat those who they wish to exclude. That is the question here, not whether they must serve you if you don't comply with their policies, that's unrelated to what anyone else mentioned here (other than the one person who linked the woman tased for poor English skills when she was refused service after ordering an item online, when others around here were served).
Learn to love Alaska
But the guy in the background who is clearly visible, perhaps in the same trade as said person, but not affiliated, may ask to be blurred or cut out.
OK... but i'm not sure if that helps much if the story already aired on TV. It would make more sense if they had a law requiring that the media would air a follow up on the same channel and show, to make a clarification, if an unfair insinuation was made about a bystander who incidentally happened to be there, and some economic burden had to be met by the complaintant to deter frivolous complaints.
If the news media had to ask, then you have an unreasonable prior restraint against free speech.
At some point, it is actually necessary to sacrifice the privacy rights, to protect the public.
It's within reason of course, I've personally asked to be cut out from a story when I exited the police station to renew my passport (they usually film there when someone has been raped, kill etc). I can't expect the media to observe my rights when they are busy doing their jobs.. but I can expect it when I ask for it. Usually they will blur or cut out people "sticking out" by default.
And whether you can report to the police would be a question of gravity.
Defining Statistics and Social Research