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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
I haven't decided what I think of Google glasses, but I expect people's reactions to them to resemble a moral panic or neo-ludditism. Surreptitious recording devices are pretty old technology at this point, and they've been available to the general public for years.
Now, look at the Google Glass website:
How to get one
The picture doesn't show a surreptitious recording device, it shows a pretty obvious recording device. I would probably only wear something like this in a situation where I wanted to take video, but I suppose some folks will wear them all the time. In which case, post a sign like they have at your friendly neighborhood Swingers Club and be done with it. (Again, why get hostile about a video camera just because it can be worn on someones face. The time to get upset about ubiquitous video cameras was when they started including them in cell phones, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Or perhaps back when they started selling small video cameras to the general public, but that ship sailed an even longer time ago.)
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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.
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.
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!)
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
...bans Glass before it's cool.
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!
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