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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A rather prominent light is illuminated when video is being recorded. It does not constantly record video, and does not do so surreptitiously. Your claim of "will be recorded" is absolute nonsense. Ignorance isn't helping you sound sane.
...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!