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.
Maybe, but the business has the full right to refuse service and ask him to leave for any reason they want. He may not agree with it, but that's too bad. In turn he can exercise his right to dine elsewhere that allows it and to leave a bad review of the place that asked him to leave for wearing it.
The guy who complained is a complete douche who demanded that the manager get fired. He's also #GlassExplorer! And look at his haircut. The self-entitled rich tech geek boy force is strong in this one. His poor rights were violated and he's going to complain to everybody.
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.
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.
You're missing the most obvious interpretation of the title: "No" is repeated for linguistic, and phonetic effect. It has different meanings in the different contexts. In the first phrase, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", the first two "No"s can be interpreted as being in an ellided "if" clause: "If you have no shirt or no shoes, then you will get no service." The third "No" is in a consequent clause, and means that you will receive no service.
In "No Google Glass, Either", the "No" can be interpreted as a standard proscription against what follows. It is like "No running", "No swimming", "No smoking", etc.
To recap: "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common phrase which uses the word "no". "No Google Glass, either" is referencing another common syntactical pattern using the word "no". The title was constructed, I think, with the idea of mentioning a lot of "no"s, which are used in different contexts. The point is that businesses like to tell you "no" a lot.
And it's not even really "reacting to", as the anti-GG policy *predates* the attention-seeker's attention-seeking stunt. The stunt was a reaction to the policy, if anything.
"Starr had walked into an establishment owned by one of the more vocal anti-Glass restaurateurs".
It's clear provocation, with the expected result, in order to justify a pathetic look-at-poor-me, I'm being oppressed, whine.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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
I still don't understand these privacy concerns. I can't think of many public places I could go near where I live where I wouldn't be being recorded anyway. As soon as I step outside my front door I am being recorded by at least two neighbours security cameras and many businesses have them too. I am not saying this loss of privacy is acceptable, just that the Google Glass doesn't really make it any worse.