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.
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.
Just leave and give the place a bad review.
I'd expect far more "bad reviews" if they allowed Google Glass at the objection of patrons.
"His name was James Damore."
Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.
Do we seriously have to explain the difference between "having glasses that can take pictures" and "holding a phone in your face to take a picture"...?
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.
People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you. That's why you tolerate them. Now, if all the cellphone users had it up and filming around them all the time, how do you think you'd feel?
I have a disabled friend who's missing all four limbs. Curious people constantly film him when he walks on his prosthetics with their cellphones - yes, obnoxious tactless jerks raise their cellphones and start filming right in his face, as if he was a spectacle, just like that. He told me it's been years since he hates going out because of this. That's how you'll feel too when every other schmuck in the street wears the goddamn Google glasses.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
He was kicked out for bringing a fucking video camera into a restaurant and not turning it off when asked. Stop trying to turn it into something else.
No one was kicked out for carrying mobile phones (with cameras)
And if the glasshole from the story had put his Google Glass in his pocket, where most people keep their mobile phones, he wouldn't have been kicked out either. He was given that option and declined it. It is entirely possible that the restaurant does indeed have a policy of kicking out someone who is overtly filming people with a mobile phone and refuses to stop when asked.
I actually wonder if the place itself had security cameras too
Security camera footage historically has a very, very small chance of being posted publicly online.
Had this been about a firearm we'd be up in arms about 4th amendment rights.
First of all, you mean the 2nd amendment. Secondly, there is hardly anyone -- even in the NRA -- who denies the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.
Heck what would have happened if the owner didn't like the colour of the patron's skin? Ok to throw them out as well?
I have to admit, when I started reading this I thought maybe there would be an actual meaningful discussion possible here. Then I reached this gem and realized that instead, I would be replying to a serious contender for "Dumbest Slashdot Comment of 2013". I mean, seriously? Choosing to wear Google Glass when you have been told they are in violation of the owner's policy and been asked to put them away is the same as being kicked out because you are black? Congratulations, that is some serious fucking weapons grade stupidity.
Wow, that's very naive. People are filming with mobiles almost every time I go out. Strange people, strange cars, interesting scenery.
Get it real. It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.
It's actually not a public space - it's owned by the owner who did, in fact, politely ask the guy not to (potentially) film his other patrons.
The point about people filming with mobiles is that you know when they are doing it because it's obvious, and they tend not to be doing it during dinner. Not so easy with the Glass user; is he filming you, or just looking over towards you? Is he filming now? What about now? The thing is a camera that is permanently pointing where the user is looking, which is different to a hand held device that you have to hold up to record with.
The privacy concerns are going to kill this technology in its infancy, and we'll have to wait a decade to try wearable tech again.
You say that as if the privacy concerns aren't valid . We should have to wait a million years before having this technology again.
There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy at all times. For restaurants that does mean you are not worrying about people making video recordings of the environment showing that you were there, who you were with, and what you were doing. At least with a phone it would require the person holding it or otherwise acting in a visible manner. Even then, I can see some places objecting. If I'm paying a couple hundred dollars for a nice romantic experience someplace (stop laughing) I fully expect some measure of privacy.
With Google and FaceFuck's penchant for sorting and identifying everyone in video and pictures it very much has become a valid concern whether or not you have any privacy left anywhere.
Privacy is important whether or not your personal choice is to divest yourself of it.
If that is so, then they cannot evict him upon seeing the goggles, either, unless they have explicitly warned that such are not acceptable in advance - after all, if it's a contract, it's equally binding on both sides, and if they have the right to demand payment at that point, surely he has the right to demand the service he is paying for.