Slashdot Mirror
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service — and No Google Glass, Either
Seattle diners who want to take their food-tweeting pictures with Google glass were already facing a preemptively hostile environment; now (in a different restaurant), a diner's been asked to remove his Google Glass headset, or leave. He chose to leave. Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants where things like Glass are most likely to appear.
the tin foil this place must use!
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
http://m.imgur.com/r/TheSimpsons/v2dkKUz
So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?
OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.
Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I think they did the right thing.
It's annoying as hell when somebody is filming or 'could film' covertly in a restaurant, bar or similar place.
The owner is a fool if he thinks he can ban cameras, or that people are "in private" when they are out eating in a restaurant. Google glass is at least visible, many people in the future will simply put the camera in a piece of jewelry or a pen just because it looks less geeky.
Just leave and give the place a bad review.
Because Google glasses are extremely annoying and only worn by assholes.
Glassholes.
The glasshole, that is.
Try and record that, Google-glassers
There's an easy fix to all of this- make a version of Google glass without a camera. Make a read-only device.
I want the Internet instantly accessible. That's far less intimidating that saying I want to upload everything you say and do around me.
So, I'm not a fan of Google Glass, and I doubt I'd ever get one.
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.
They could be checking their email, posting to some social site, reading the news, playing a game - or taking pictures or film clips where I appear. I have no way to know. By comparison, Google Glass is much more obvious about it, with flashing lights and stuff to warn people you're taking a picture.
If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Someone wearing google glass is basically pointing a camcorder at everything in front of him.
I'd ask him to leave out of concern of the privacy of other guests.
I just fail to see the appeal of being constantly connected like that. Why not just take them off? Why not just enjoy the meal, and the company of whomever you may be dining with? Unless this is a purely status-symbol thing, which still boggles my mind.
Since the link to the article seems slashdotted, here's one to another about the same incident.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html
Same guy owns both places.
Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"I would love an explanation, apology, clarification," Starr wrote on Facebook,
What more explanation do you need? Why do you believe you're owed an apology? What needs to be clarified?
"and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination."
Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff? I hope the staff member gets a bonus and a promotion for puncturing this self-inflated cock-womble's ego.
What a git.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So many Luddites on a technology-centered site.
FC Closer
For the first time on American soil, the 1 percent has been banned by the 99 percent!
The customer was asked to put the Glass away before he was asked to leave. He chose to leave. Or, at least that's how his version of the story tends to go, which tends to paint him as the victim.
To hear it recounted elsewhere, he began making a scene when he was asked to remove his Glass, demanding to see a manager and then shouting at the manager that he wanted to see the policy in writing, despite acknowledging the fact that he knew of the policy being in place at other affiliated restaurants he knew. The manager explained that the policy wasn't in writing, which got an angry response from him, and he stormed out in a fury then made an angry blog post.
Lost Lake actually clarified their policy after the incident (emphasis mine):
We recently had to ask a rude customer to leave because of their insistence on wearing and operating Google Glasses inside the restaurant. So for the record, here's Our Official Policy on Google Glass:
We kindly ask our customers to refrain from wearing and operating Google Glasses inside Lost Lake. We also ask that you not videotape anyone using any other sort of technology. If you do wear your Google Glasses inside, or film or photograph people without their permission, you will be asked to stop, or leave. And if we ask you to leave, for God's sake, don't start yelling about your "rights". Just shut up and get out before you make things worse.
If a business has a policy in place, whether in writing or not, and politely informs you of it and asks you to respect it, your choices are to either abide by it or leave. Some of us won't like this policy. We are free to avoid bringing our business there. Others of us will support the policy. We are free to send more business there. That's the nice thing about businesses: they can cater to niches that appeal to a particular subset of customers with whom their interests are aligned. Either way, acting like an ass just makes you one.
It's not mentioned in the summary, but the two stories linked are related. The current one involves the Lost Lake Cafe, which is owned by Dave Meinert. Dave Meinert also owns the 5 Point Cafe, and made the old story by posting to 5 Point's facebook page: "For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."
I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them. Not because I have a Glass I won't take off (I don't have one at all) or because I object to the idea of certain places being off-limits for wearable cameras (I'm not convinced of the value, and think it would be a bad thing if every restaurant or every bar had such a ban; I do think having some with and some without is an experiment worth trying), but because using a threat of violence to get free advertising makes it quite clear who the real "glasshole" is.
The words I've heard associated with google glass among my friends are 'douche', 'ass', 'moron', etc. These are friends that work as programmers and managers for google, facebook, apple, and adobe. I'd bet the sentiment outside of those companies by tech leaders is similar. I think it's interesting that the blowback for google glass that was in the general population is now in the tech population. But ultimately the negative attitude to google glass won't matter. Three to five years from now the google glass equivalent will be nothing more than a small unnoticeable pin or grain of dust. Today we'll notice in a meeting when someone is wearing glass, but a few years from now we won't. (although people can record and replay meetings with their cellphone easily, but it's an active process)
and also misinformed about the right to privacy in the USA (which doesn't afford anyone in public the right not to be photographed.) Some advocate belligerent behavior in response to Google Glass users, in a very Luddite-esque manner. And so many people so self-conscious of being recorded in some manner that they feel their rights extend over the top of the rights of others. Oh, the outrage, the fear, and the insults hurled at the new nerds.
Society's 'norms' once demanded signs that set an expectation of dress for patrons at restaurants, apparently. But wearing a camera on your head isn't as obviously antisocial as some claim (particularly on The Verge comments, but probably elsewhere, even with my social circle,) and if it's so egregious a violation of the decorum of a *diner* (no jacket required,) then it demands to be spelled out with as much clarity as a New York City letter grade so potential patrons can make a decision before they're inconvenienced, rejected, and embarrassed.
Finally, what is this overwhelming panic people feel about being recorded by others? Do they fear being made fun of on social networks? Do they really associate with people who might? And do they care about those around them who may? Few of us are so interesting or important, and those who are likely have obnoxious and obvious people photographing them often.
My right to use Google Glass (if I had such,) or a mobile phone, or a GoPro camera, or whatever may come is not an infringement of your right to be free of recording (for you have none outside your home,) nor is it terribly bright of you to denigrate them or their new toys when you'll likely enjoy something similar once they become openly sold and include some absolutely desirable software that happens to depend on the camera.
Nick was entitled to an respond in anger when he was confronted after being allowed in the restaurant, without a clue that he'd be embarrassed and rejected for something that few could reasonably anticipate. Respect for the customer begins at the front door.
My rights have been infringed because of my adoption of this revolutionary new technology!
Let the world of social media erupt in outrage in order to reinforce my narcissism!
It's a novel new marketing strategy for sure, but the fact that you went out (presumably with friends) to eat at a restaurant and wore your silly face mounted camera, presumably because you thought that tweeting photos of your food would enhance the experience in some unspecified way is wonderful evidence for the fact that this is a device that will not only fail, but be a hilarious accessory for retro-tech humor in about ten years time.
He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.
But ignore that. It's absurd to say you should leave if asked to remove a camera from your head. It's not important to your functioning as a human. It's not going to kill you to fail to live-stream every bite of waffle you take.
I have nothing against glass wearers personally but if I went out to dine with someone who was asked to take off Glass and opted to leave rather than remove it, I'd tell him he could go on his own personal snipe hunt for a restaurant that loved Glass users; I plan to stay and eat.
Similarly if someone asked me to remove a hat I would also remove it. Their restaurant, their rules and as long as they are near reasonable I'd rather eat.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Presumably the cretins who wrote the article haven't been on Ebay in the past few years...
I can see where coming into an establishment wearing Google Glass is this century's equivalent to walking in accompanied by a 60 minutes crew. You may not be filming, but how would anyone know?
But really, there is a solution. Google just needs to build the device into the eye. Then, there wouldn't be any way to tell, except perhaps by the RF energy. And who doesn't go around exuding some kind of RF these days?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I am a part time photographer. I am fully aware and agree that photography should be allowed any time in a public space.
But I also know that restaurants are not public spaces. They are private and different rules apply. If they tell you you cannot photograph there, they have that right and personally I agree that they should be able to dictate that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I love how Starr feels compelled to determine the restaurants policy: if the staff member was enforcing a policy, then Starr feels that it is inappropriate; if the staff member wrongly told him to remove his gadget, then Starr feels that it is his place to dictate the disciplinary action (and suggests an action that most likely violates labour laws).
I'm sorry Mr. Starr, but you entered a private establishment. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If you don't like it, you are permitted to voice your concerns. Yet you are by no means entitled to enter that business and you are by no means entitled to tell the owner how to discipline their staff. Even though it may seem obvious to you that the business is losing your business, it is by no means obvious what would happen if the restaurant bent over backwards to keep your business. You may be driving other customers away with what is (at least currently) an idiosyncrasy or you may be making the staff uncomfortable.
Maybe the objections and discomfort will dissipate with time. Even then, Mr. Starr, you aren't in the right. You aren't in the right because you are demonstrating your sense of entitlement, your sense that you're the only person that matters. You aren't the only person who matters, and you have very few entitlements when you are in a private venue.
Idiots don't understand that people have rights and that we don't live for you!
You are NOT special! Well, other than your IQ being quite limited.
Why are you talking about tinfoil when there is an obvious recording device present? Tinfoil hattery is involved only if he thought there was a recording device and there was none...
Reacting to something real is as far from "tinfoiling" as you can get.
Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Poor little snot rag was upset that someone told him what to do.
Time to grow up and put away the entitlement. It's hanging out and embarrassing yourself.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
I don't want everything I say, do, or participate in blasted all over the interwebz. I don't post daily or hourly updates on my schedule to twitter or facebook. And, just because YOU elect to blog minute-by-minute innocuous details of your life for the 1000 people who "follow" you, doesn't mean I want to be a part of it.
I can accept that cameras are going to be out wherever I go, but I'd be pretty pissed off to find some quite, intimate conversation with my girlfriend over dinner blasted out on some idiot's blog who happened to be one table away because he thought my private conversation was entertaining.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Use a mirror to shine light in the wearer's face? LED pointers?
Legalize cell phone blockers too and let restaurants/bars/theaters install them.
You can use linguistics to avoid some of the people's bullshit detectors some of the time, but you can't use linguistics to avoid all of the people's bullshit detectors all of the time.
GG people write scathing reviews and post them online. Other douchebags, I mean GG people, read these reviews and avoid the same^H^Hne restaurants. Everyone happy.
Anyone who buys or wears google glass is a bad person , a foool, and should be raped by donkeys
hate Google. Nearly every day I hear someone spout the Bing propaganda. I use Google at work instead of Bing, and I have been threatened with getting fired and sued for that several times. The only thing that saved my ass the last time was that I showed our HR director that none of the results in the first ten pages of the Microsoft Bing results included the term I was searching for. Microsoft Bing is a complete joke, and I'm really getting tired of people getting so upset and screaming anti-Google garbage. There's even one Microsoft-cultist that carries an anti-Google sign outside of our office. If you've ever been to Bellevue, WA, especially around 8th and Bellevue Way, then you've seen this guy. That Microsoft guy has carried that sign for more than five years. He quit his job so he would have more time to stand on the sidewalk and scream his pro-Microsoft messages. Microsoft people are scary.
Just wait till I get my bionic eyes.
Listen dickhole, they might not have a policy in writing that says you can't hula-hoop in there, either, but if you try to do it, I guarantee they'll ask you to stop, and you're an asshole if you don't. Fucking idiot.
If they communicate their wishes to you, you either follow their wishes or you fucking leave. It doesn't matter how they communicate to their wishes to you. It's their fucking place.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
There are plenty of restaurants which would prefer that gentlemen wear coat and tie. I don't see a particular problem with such a policy. A policy of no wristwatches would be unusual, but similar.
There are plenty of restaurants that prohibit the use of mobile devices in the restaurant. If you whip out your cellphone, the waiter or maitre'd is there in a flash saying "Sir, would you please step outside to use that". I've not seen it, but I could also imagine the waiter asking if you'd like your meal packaged to go, since if you're popping in and out to maintain connectivity, you're not going to be able to sit and appreciate it, and your activities will disturb the other patrons. I've been in a restaurant where I was a regular patron, and had to be ready to leave at any moment because of a "on call at work" kind of thing: I told them this, they sat me in a place where it wouldn't be disruptive, and when the inevitable call came, they were ready to handle to the to-go aspect (which they normally did not do).
Nice restaurants are nice because they aren't just a retail establishment for the provision of food on a plate and a place to sit: there's a carefully designed ambiance maintained by the front of the house staff. The chef sequences the timing of the preparation so you have a good dining experience.
You are, of course, free to not patronize such establishments. There are plenty of places which don't give a rodent's fuzzy behind whether you are on a phone, carrying a GoPro strapped to your chest, etc.
First, I hate glass as much as I think the tech is nice. I would rather eat at places that ban glass than eat where glass is allowed. Second, banning glass is like banning cellphone use which just about almost every restaurant does already. Sure, you can take pics and all but you're not allowed to talk on it, at least not consistently. This is a business, they are allowed to make whatever rules they feel like making even if it pisses off customers, and I'm all for it. Depending on the star-level of the restaurant, they might even prevent you from eating there if you don't wear a fancy enough attire. Anyone that think that they should be forced to allow google glass or any other piece of technology is a socialist moron. Allow nature to take its course, if enough people hate businesses that don't allow glass or whatever, the business will be forced to adapt or die. That's the way business works.
It must be controlled. It just doesn't get any more simple than that. For government, they haven't yet learned their mistakes [where default notion gotta catch'm all pokemon!] is but I'm sure they soon will. For businesses, the default notion of "lock it all down" will yeild a much more immediate backlash.
As in this story, the ban on Google glass should be countered by Google handing these things out in large numbers to volunteers who will go places which are known to be hostile to such things. When the public sees the hostility, they will respond in much the same way I have to Denny's restaurants -- the gun-free kill zones. I won't go there any longer. And the reasons are exactly the same.
People need to get over their knee-jerk fears and understand what it is they are dealing with. And only after understanding it properly should they take a position. Reacting out of fear is almost always a very bad idea.
In Silicon Valley, they took down those signs so that folks like Steve Wozniak and Richard Stallman could come in and order a meal.
I can't believe that the summary writer can actually suggest that "Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants" - I can't think of a single restaurant that wants to spend the vast amounts of cash to prevent wireless communication
If Google Glass becomes popular in the futur, business owners could redesign their restaurants so each tables have a blind so people can eat with the certitude that they're not recorded. It could even be advertised as such by the restaurant and "privacy-aware" customers would go there for this feature.
actually it isn't a camera. It is just a wearable computer. The primary purpose is to display information, not record it. Even in an immersive application that is using the camera, it usually is only processing the visual information and displaying some sort of meta-data, rather than making recordings that can be played back later.
Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too
He sounds like little more than a toddler having a hissy fit. "Well I don't SEE anything that says I can't wear it. Just cause you work here doesn't mean you're the boss of me." Um, how about common freaking courtesy? Do you really have to be wearing your Glass constantly? Just cause I don't see a sign that says I can't come piddle in your wine glass doesn't give me the OK to do it. Admittedly, I do get irritated by people that just can't put down their mobile device for 10 minutes without getting twitchy. You want to visit a restaurant that allows Glass and whatever else? Fine, go open your own place. Otherwise, yes, you are subject to the "rules" of the restaurant you're visiting.
Biggest thing though...have common courtesy. If you've been asked nicely to do something at a business, do it. Their place, their rules. If it's truly unreasonable or discriminatory, then make a case out of it. They ask you to put away your mobile device, speak more quietly, dress in certain attire...do it! But if you're going to throw a fit solely because you choose to be a self-centered ass, then please lock yourself in your house and stay away from the rest of us.
... and I expect the first case will be a discrimination complaint based on Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Besides being a toy for the able-bodied, Google Glass is also a boon for disabled persons with motor dysfunctions or visual impairments. I'm disabled and I know I want Glass for that kind of use, and I already use other, more cumbersome devices to do what Glass can do in a comfortable, wearable product.
I like google glass, but I dont like the camera. same with I like Chromecast but I dont like that I cant use just anything with it. I like Chrome, its pretty fast and nice but I hate that it may or may not be keeping tabs on what I do or where I go (allegedly). if I could take out the camera and modify it to give me other information from the phone or whatever, that would be swell.
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
Is someone working this thread? Because I'm seeing almost nothing but glass hate getting up modded...
I need mister Starr's help to write a smartphone app that will tell me where mister Starr is at any given moment of every day. So that I can be at least one mile away at all times.
I am mostly in the U District, Fremont and Ballard orbit here in Seattle, so don't get up to Capitol Hill much, but I will need to make a trip to the Lost Lake Cafe
Starr? Glasshole.
Don't worry, the govt will force these establishments to allow Glass. How else will they be able tap into all the video that is recorded?
I've not looked into the technical details of GGlass. Is it susceptible to jamming? Might it be feasible to carry a wifi/BlueTooth jammer on my person that would inhibit GG's recording functions? If so, KickStarter, anyone? Or has it already been done?
Non Microsoft headgear not allowed here !
I own Microsoft stock and Google Glass threaten my portfolio !
Actually, I own NO MS or Google stock.
If you say it or do it in public, someone is recording it.
queue the "NSA loves to watch you" theme music.
Coming soon to American reality TV network
I would like to eat without the fear of someone potentially filming (since there's no indication that the camera is active on Google Glass) and uploading whatever happens to the internet without my consent.
If glass owner can't respect that, feel free to get out, bunch of insensitive clod.
Two things...
1. Someone will attempt to declare their google glass a kind of "service-animal" (in California anyhow, I've heard that service iguanas are actually legal if they are considered to assist in an emotional disability).
2. There is a restaurant chain called the Trail-Dust Steakhouse that ban neck-ties**. If you go in with a neck-tie, a bunch of waiter come around with a big cow-bell and cut off your neck-tie and pin it to the wall (you can add a business card). Perhaps a restaurant will ban google-glass and maybe do the same schick ;^)
** This is the official warning they give patrons "This ain't no country club! No ties after 5, so ya'll have two choices – you can take 'em off or we'll cut 'em off!"
I expect restaurants to be one of the last places google glass will be acceptable.
There are a lot of reasons I hate being in a "two-party" state like Massachusetts, where you need explicit permission to record someone by audio in ANY circumstance, private property or not.
If this glasshole was REALLY wronged why doesn't he post the footage of the way they were awful to him? I mean he has proof, right?
Contracts can be freely broken. Happens in business all the time. To do it the breaker must pay the breakee economic damages which will likely be $0.00. That won't even cover his lawyers fees, and what if the jury decides they don't like hipsters wearing googleglasses? Hipster would probably piss off the jury further by showing up wearing them in court.
That's why we have anti discremination laws. You can't for example refuse all women, or all blacks. But yeah you can discreminate by clothings apparels.
491 comments and counting about some guy complaining he couldn't wear his Google glass into a diner.
P.S. A bunch of those comments are mine.
there definately here listining to what your saying.
We simply need to establish zones of permanent furious retarded outrage about everything. No Phones, no gum, no perfume, no Google, no kids, no dogs, no outside food or drink, no talking, no blacks no Jews no Irish, no gays, no Muslims, no radios, no headphones, no electric cars, no non electric cars, and a million other things the same fucking retarded shitheads wake up every day screaming about and wishing they were dead.
If the restaurant doesn't want me to take a picture of my food then I have to wonder what they're hiding.
Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants where things like Glass are most likely to appear.
Hey, this is a fantastic idea. Take whatever restaurant employee needs more to do, and give them all the phones up front. Then swap them for those pager coasters. When you turn in your coaster, you get your phone back. If your phone rings, the coaster vibrates. I can think of two good ways to support doing this without human intervention, the first being connecting to the standard headphone jack (phones without them fucking suck anyway) and the second being using a piezo to detect the phone itself vibrating.
I think there is definitely a market for establishments which don't even contain cellphones. I, for one, would pay a small premium to eat someplace where nobody was on the phone if it had good ambience, decent food that doesn't make me sick and which is seasoned adequately, and good service. And frankly, not making me sick and providing good service are the most important criteria, in that order. More and more restaurants seem to be having problems with these two points. And yes, I tip. Even at buffets, though less. Unless I am ignored. I know your job is hard. Do it anyway. I'll help you make reasonable money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So there's a guy staring right at you, and then he says loudly: "OKAY GOOGLE GLASS TAKE A PICTURE!" That stealthy bastard!
Anyone that's come across this 'child' knows he's nothing but a self-entitled douchebag.
Someone should kick him and his partner square in the nuts.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
With the whole thing becoming predictably smaller, it won't be long until either Googles or someone elses Glasses will be inconspicuous.
So all the policies are only bridging the time until we as society have figured out how to deal with the consequences of this technology.
Which, if the past is any indication and it usually is, might be a while. Here in the west, we still haven't figured out a proper cell phone handling etiquette and it's been about 20 years.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Someone write an app for google glass that will help handicapped people. Then it would be illegal to prohibit them!
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Most places that are likely to refuse service will be the type of place where you order, eat and then pay - it would be the restaurant owner who would end up out of pocket if an order was placed and the guy was thrown out before he could eat it.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
I think you are all missing the point. The google glass wearer assumed it was ok to wear them at dinner in a restaurant with others who are not. They assumed others would be ok with it as the wearer was. That's honestly taking it too far. He is being rude to the rest of the consumers of that restaurant assuming the owner was ok with changing the mood of the place by allowing an invasive technology like glass.
Sorry because you have an always on camper strapped to your head doesn't make everyone else is okay with it. Good job business owner for standing up for your customers
A good hotelier conducts his/her business knowing that a percentage of the clients are there when they shouldn't be, and with who they shouldn't be.
While one could debate ethics, it is reasonable that the client expects privacy as part of the service.
Cameras at restaurants where clients are there when they shouldn't be, and with who they shouldn't be, blows the business out of the water.
Just one headline would be damaging.
I once saw a crowdsourced dance at a foodcourt that went viral. I saw a work collegue in it who was on holiday. All legit but there he was, at the right place at the other side of the world and at the right time.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
these comments are mostly about the illusion of privacy. WhereY'all been? It is an anachronism like a sundial. Tj
It is my right to take photos of people in the street, in restaurants, in supermarkets etc. and publish or sell the photos for journalism or for art. I won't allow anyone to take away my rights. Banning Google Glass is an attack against the First Amendment. Privacy is just another way of saying you're against freedom of speech. I saw you with my eyes, why can't I take a picture of you, publish it, and sell it? I'm a street photographer, this is my job, I take pictures of strangers in the street without their consent and I sell them in fine art galleries.
Remember, this a town that elected a socialist to city council. Nothing rational in Seattle.
Then it should follow that people who gab on their cell phone in a restaurant, should also be invited to leave!
I know how to take care of this guy: Put four or five pieces of Dubble Bubble in your mouth, chew them soft and get them in a big wad. Slap the wad on Mr. Google's Glass and that is that. He can just feel lucky that I didn't choose epoxy putty which sets up rock hard in ten minutes. I can just imagine the howling a gnashing of teeth.
turn off your restaurant cameras, or I'll leave.
Is it really that hard to take it off? What happens when you go to the washroom? I guarantee that people are going to have some even bigger issues with a potential recording device in there.
The problem is not that it is wirelessly networked (wifi, 3G/4G, gps, bluetooth, what have you). The problem is not that it records from a line-of-site perspective, secretly or obviously. Heck, the problem isn't even that it records... The problem is not Glass, but Google. It is Google that has the database parsing the information about your face, your sandwich, your routine.
So does your Chromebook. So does your Android Phone. So does *my* Android Phone, I'm sure-- Cyanogen Mod or otherwise. Microsoft I'm sure has an equivalent. If I disable an AdBlocker to use a feature on a site, it seems Amazon, TigerDirect, NewEgg and everyone else knows what I've been searching for, no matter how I came across it.
@All the security cameras aren't a concern, at least they don't end up on the internet:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=security%20camera%20footage
"Security Camera Footage" - About 503,000 Results
@Corporations are to blame.
Most of us have heard about the NSA, but a few links in here:
https://www.eff.org
And you'll me refreshed or informed.
You want to have a meaningful discussion about this? About all of technology in general? Fine. I am for it. Then let's have a meaningful discussion.
Glass is not the problem. Glass is technology. Technology, until utilized can not be good or evil. It simply exists. From hammer, to nuke, to Glass.
If technology can not be a problem can't be good or evil, what develops our view of various devices. Usage. To this degree, many commentators are 100% right. Those select few who were given access to Google Glass are ambassadors to a fledgling technology. And they are making a fine mess of things. Clearly Google should have realized this was a living breathing PR event and treated it as such. Their public image is already scuffed, why wouldn't they raise this up as their shining bouncing baby?
Accessibility. Not everything should be in the civilian market. I can not answer, yet, where Glass should be. I want it to succeed because I have a passion for all things technological. Cybernetic limbs, biomechanical organs, phones, visors, holographics, AR/VR. I love it all. With *everything* in life there needs to be balance and moderation. Always-on for everything is a bad stance. No technology is a bad stance. Full-bore consumerism is bad. Self-creation of goods is bad. We have the society we have, the *potential* we have, because of technology. Again, and it'll be this post's mantra: Technology is not evil.
I do not understand Instagramming your sandwich. I do not understand it. But, I have a physical photo (*gasp*) of myself, along with several of my college friends at a bar with pitchers of beer and mounds of hotwings while people threw darts in the background. No one in the background cares, besides the brightness of the flash- I'm sure, that the picture was being taken. There are reasons for that, but none of them were because it was obvious I was taking a picture. I could scan that picture at a Wal-Mart, and e-mail it to everyone I knew, and they could do the same. So on. The people in the background do not care, because it is not going through a database, willingly backdoored, that can process literally a googl worth of information a day. Faces, locations, whatever. My digital camera is android based. I pull it out, I ask permission to take a picture. I snap, click a button, and it's on FB and all my friends have a copy in their inbox too. Google still gets the info. The problem is not Glass. The problem is not the internet. The problem... is not technology.
Glass can help many professions. Surgeons, EMT's, Firefighters, Police. Great opportunity for sports. There's plenty of applications without anyone on the street owning their own personal pair. "Oh yes, let's give it to the police!!!11!!!1!!oneone!!" - Again. It's not the technology. Someone told it to record, when to start and when to stop. Someone turned in the raw or edited footage for a certain response. The camera can only see. It can not speak. Te