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.

Comments

backup plan...

[johnsnails]

http://m.imgur.com/r/TheSimpsons/v2dkKUz

What does the headline try to tell me?

[maxwell demon]

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!

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[msauve]

"don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit"

You must be new. It's Timothy, wo you have to look at the positive - he spelled all those big words correctly.

Re: What does the headline try to tell me?

[imthesponge]

Being correct is less important than being enticing.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[blue trane]

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.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[AIphaWolf_HK]

You're missing the most obvious interpretation of the title

I honestly don't think that's the most obvious interpretation of the title, or at least not to me.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[blue trane]

It was the first and only way I interpreted it.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" denies you service. "No Google Glass, either" denies you the right to use Google Glass, like "No Mastercard" or "No checks" denies you the right to use certain forms of payment.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[Aighearach]

That was true long before you got here, sonny.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[Zontar The Mindless]

The likely interpretation would be that the added item would be taken as belonging to the *second* clause. Let's expand it and see if you still feel the same way:

"If you've no shirt or shoes, you'll get no service--and no Google Glass, either".

I think most people would interpret that last bit as "you won't get any Google Glass, either".

Another example of a crappy writer trying to "force"a common phrase--wrongly!--for imagined effect.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[blue trane]

To me it's more like: a sign in a store window says "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Another sign below it says "No smoking." The "either" was added to reinforce the "no" part of the two messages. The "no"s convey slightly different meanings, but they're in different contexts. This is something that context-sensitive natural language does all the time.

Your problem may be that you're too used to context-free, formal languages. But the way people communicate everyday is much more expressive.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Please don't try to engage me with a defence of ambiguity as if it were some sort of badge of honour. That shit gets really old.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[AthanasiusKircher]

To me it's more like: a sign in a store window says "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Another sign below it says "No smoking." The "either" was added to reinforce the "no" part of the two messages. The "no"s convey slightly different meanings, but they're in different contexts.

While I understood the headline correctly on first reading, I don't think the GP's reading was necessarily less likely -- in fact, I think your logic here is strained.

The "No Google Glass, Either" is not actually in a different "sign" in this context. It's in the same headline. One could easily substitute a different word or phrase here, and change the meaning to something that clearly agrees with the GP, e.g., "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service -- and No Use of the Restrooms, Either." This statement clearly implies that you can't get service OR use the restrooms UNLESS you have a shirt and shoes. It does NOT imply that if you use the restroom, you will not receive service.

The statement is ambiguous. The ambiguity is not resolved by context, here. The ambiguity is only resolved because the alternative meaning doesn't make much sense.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[blue trane]

Your understanding differs from mine. I can elide the words "use of the" in the second sign, and the meaning is clear to me. Natural language doesn't use formal logic conventions. It's clear from the context that the "no" in "No restrooms for non-customers, either" would mean something slightly different from the first two "no"s in "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Re:What does the headline try to tell me?

[blue trane]

Ambiguity is natural langauge's strength. It's what allows it to adapt to changing conditions. So "mouse" took on a new meaning when technology advanced, creating ambiguity with the old usage, that is resolved by context. Same with the "No"s in the title of this story.

Privacy please

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Privacy please

[ElectricTurtle]

You have a lot less to fear from the yuppie with Google Glass than the lech with a secret pen camera, or button-hole camera, or shoe camera, or whatever they sell these days.

Re:Privacy please

[gweihir]

In countries with reasonable privacy legislation it is also illegal, i.e. any other diner can call the police on the glasshole.

Re:Privacy please

[AK Marc]

Yes, better they covertly film, than overtly wear something that could covertly film. I could film you and you'd never know. Whether cameras in tie clips, eyeglasses (regular looking, just larger frames), buttons, or pens, you'd rather be actually covertly filmed, than not be covertly filmed but see the "covert" camera.

The logic escapes me.

Re:Privacy please

[BasilBrush]

You could also pick-pocket from me. Does that mean mugging shouldn't be illegal?

Filming out in the public street is not a problem, whether with covert or non-covert cameras.

Start using cameras in places where people expect more privacy, and you're starting to hit problems. Use covert cameras and should you be discovered you're heading for being treated as a social pariah, a criminal, a fireable employee, or just someone worthy of a beating, depending on who you film and where. Use a non-covert camera, and you are more likely to be stopped from filming before you commit these transgressions.

The logic escapes me.

Then until you work out what's acceptable behaviour in public, I suggest not using any kind of filming device. For your own safety.

Re:Privacy please

[hyperquantization]

Yes, better they covertly film, than overtly wear something that could covertly film.

Yup, exactly!

Restaurants, for the most part, are in the business of more than just serving food, they're also in the business of a hospitable, cultural experience. If said cultural experience is disrupted by something--even if it's as innocent as the natural curiosity that goes with seeing something as novel as Google Glass headset--then it's in their best interest to mitigate that disruption. Why do you think they say "no shirt. no shoes..." in the first place? Obviously, there is no law against walking barefoot, but, in most western cultures, it's considered rude to do so. Of course, this pattern changes depending upon cuisine/culture, so don't be offended if you're asked to remove your shoes when entering that authentic Japanese restaurant.

tl;dr: Google Glass headsets will be considered rude until they've been integrated into a culture as normal. If you're not sensitive to that culture's norms or etiquette, then you don't deserve to enjoy it.

Re:Privacy please

[AK Marc]

I'm stating the fact that people did before and after Glass. Yet the complaints aren't on *actually* being filmed, but on seeing tech.

Re:Privacy please

[serviscope_minor]

You have a lot less to fear from the yuppie with Google Glass than the lech with a secret pen camera, or button-hole camera, or shoe camera, or whatever they sell these days.

Unlikely.

If some private eye is really out for you, then yes, you are screwed. However, on average, one isn't. Therefore the avreage person has more to worry from a hipster thoughtlessly splattering their life all over the internet than someone really trying to film them.

Re:just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

He can do what he wants, and in this case, I support him.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Easy answer

[MrLogic17]

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.

Re:Easy answer

[Wanderer1]

Augmented reality applications would be disabled by the lack of a camera. Is that worth it?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

This. Or, allow businesses to register their locations as "Glass-Free" and if Glass detects that it is at one of those locations (via GPS) it disables the camera automatically, with a physical (and visible) shutter. Audio recording should be allowed, as one may legitimately wish to record their own notes. Likewise, if Glass can't get a GPS signal, it should default to this state.

There should, of course, be an override, because not every location lacking a GPS signal is a location where Glass should not be allowed and there may be cases where the owner of an establishment wishes to allow Glass, even if they generally do not. The override should trigger a very conspicuous indicator light and notify Google so that they may send an SMS to the owner of the establishment, informing them that a Glass user has activated their override and may be filming or photographing in their establishment. At that point, the owner of the establishment would have an easy way to identify this person (the indicator light) and ask them to leave. Glass could also quarantine any photos, audio (which would not be quarantined normally -- another incentive to not enable the override if you are legitimately using the device to record your personal notes), or video taken during an override for a period of 24 hours, giving the owner of an establishment the opportunity to review the material and either allow it or disallow it; disallowed material would then be deleted.

There, problem solved.

Re:Easy answer

[ebno-10db]

make a version of Google glass without a camera

And people are supposed to waste their time worrying about which version you're wearing and how to distinguish between them? Google glass is an idiotic idea, and anyone wearing one deserves to be thrown out of a restaurant and generally ridiculed wherever they go, unless it's Halloween.

Re:Easy answer

[MrLogic17]

Don't want augmented reality. Want reality with google in the corner always available.

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.

Re:Easy answer

[Aighearach]

As long as the smart phones all also get a visible shutter lock.

Re:Easy answer

[EdIII]

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.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Smart phones aren't what's being discussed here; and people aren't being asked to leave places for having smartphones, so that's not a problem that needs to be solved.

I'm assuming, based on your response, that you are a Glass user. If that is the case, then I must ask you, would you prefer being barred from establishments because of Glass, or being allowed in, but with reduced functionality? Right now, without the shutter lock, you're stuck with the former, while a shutter lock would enable the latter. This is a good thing, overall, though it does mean you would have to buy a *new* new toy, since your current toy doesn't have the shutter lock. Plight of the early-adopter.

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

Making it obvious is very easy - just add an indicator that would clearly tell everyone that device is in a recording mode. Legislate a standard way of doing so if necessary (e.g. a purple LED, no less than X nits bright - not many of those around).

Privacy is important, but you don't have an unlimited expectation of privacy everywhere you go. It is balanced against the rights of others, including, for example, the right to take photos or video recordings of public places - you don't get to demand that they stop doing so just because you happen to be in the picture, unless you're specifically being the target.

Re:Easy answer

[Nerdfest]

It already has that.

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

Ultimately having something very visible that shows the Google Glass is recording either in audio or video will probably be necessary - that's certainly what the feedback suggests. -- Vint Cerf, Sep. 09, 2013

I would think that Vint Cerf, the Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, knows what he is speaking of.

Re:Easy answer

[Solandri]

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. 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.

If the restaurant is like pretty much any modern restaurant, it has a security camera system installed which is recording everything every patron is doing. I thought all the video the FBI used to track down the Boston Marathon bombers had made it clear to everyone that there are security cameras all over the place, including in and in front of "private" stores and restaurants.

While technically the restaurant is a private setting, you have to remember that they do business by inviting the public in. Consequently you will be (gasp!) seen by other members of the public whom you don't know. I don't have a problem with a restaurant setting a no-camera policy, and I don't have a problem with people who wish to frequent such places. I do have a problem with said people arguing as if every restaurant must have a no-camera policy. That's hypocritical. Just as someone's desire to take pictures should not override the wishes of the restaurant owner who wants to prohibit such pictures, neither should the desires of those who don't want their pictures to be taken be able override the wishes of a restaurant owner who wants to allow patrons to take pictures while there. Either way, you're visiting someone else's private space, so it's that private space's owner's right to decide what is and isn't allowed, not yours.

Re:Easy answer

[Mike Frett]

The simple fix is separate areas for people with phones and Google glasses and a different area where people want to be left alone without fear of being recorded digitally harassed.

Re:Easy answer

[Mike Frett]

It's funny because I think the same thing about "Smart" Phone users; If only the users were as Smart as their Tech. We've all forgot the needs vs the wants of life. Phones, Cameras etc are all wants while food, water and shelter are needs. Society has erroneously turned Phones into a need and a selfless act it was without regard to others around them and their expectation of not being harassed by man-made digital nonsense.

The thing is, we have integrated these devices so deep into out lives to which our Brains are losing functionality. We have become accustom to this and the results of the future will have grave consequences for Humans. All it takes is one War between two countries with Tech to disable our electronic life and only at that time will we realize our mistakes.

Re:Easy answer

[ebno-10db]

Where were you when I was saying smart phones are idiotic?

Agreeing with you.

Re:Easy answer

[ebno-10db]

Work as a technologist - live like a Luddite.

I'm an EE. I don't own a "smart" phone. 10 years ago I was designing cell phone chips and I didn't have a cell phone. It's an interesting way to make a living, but you don't have to live with the junk.

Re:Easy answer

[realityimpaired]

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.

And how would I tell, as a casual passer-by, that this is the version you've bought, and not the one with a camera embedded?

Short of making it a completely different colour, I don't think there's an easy way to accomplish this, and I doubt very much that Glass buyers are going to want to buy something that's even more obvious than it currently is.

Re:Easy answer

[ArcherB]

Maybe you should less worried about the camera on a private citizens glasses that can only run for a few hours at a time and more worried about the government owned cameras on every street corner and the business's cameras in every corner of every building that run and record 24/7.

Re:Easy answer

[cgimusic]

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.

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

Smart phones aren't what's being discussed here; and people aren't being asked to leave places for having smartphones, so that's not a problem that needs to be solved.

So why does it need to be solved for Glass, if it doesn't need to be solved for smartphones? Because people can't, or won't, think. That's the only sensible explanation I can come up with.

Re:Easy answer

[BasilBrush]

More logically, you should be concerned about all three.

Re:Easy answer

[BasilBrush]

There *is* call for such functionality for cell phones. For example in movie theatres. And it's been discussed at length in other Slashdot discussions.

And should such a system ever been created for movie theatres, it's reasonable to expect that some restaurants will also want to use it.

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

That's reasonable to me. We do need to figure out as a society how we incorporate these new technologies into our lives, so we can reap the benefits without doing too much damage. I just think it's silly to single out one technology while ignoring other, equivalent, devices.

Personally, I think we should incorporate recording lights into all portable video cameras, phones as well as Glass. I don't think we need to find technological solutions for disabling recording, just ways to make it obvious, so that normal social methods for inhibiting undesirable action can be brought into play. Of course, people can find ways to disable the lights, but people can also bring hidden spycams, which will obviously be designed without recording lights.

Re:Easy answer

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Your suggestion assumes that someone would not disable the LED (easily done with black paint) in order to record without being detected.

Privacy is important, but you don't have an unlimited expectation of privacy everywhere you go. It is balanced against the rights of others, including, for example, the right to take photos or video recordings of public places - you don't get to demand that they stop doing so just because you happen to be in the picture, unless you're specifically being the target.

If I own a restaurant and I do not want to allow Google glass to worn inside then that is MY right. You can always vote with your feet and find another restaurant.

Re:Easy answer

[SvnLyrBrto]

As others have mentioned... eliminating the camera eliminates any possible augmented-reality applications. That is very far from ideal.

What I think Google needs to do, is quit being coy with the invites and the "why I want to be allowed to buy Glass" nonsense; and get the technology into as many regular prescription frames as they can as quickly as possible. Then what are the anti-Glass types going to do, have a contact-lens only policy? Forbid anyone from entering who's wearing any kind of glasses? It simply won't be tenable. And if they try, eventually they'll do it to someone whose eyesight is bad enough that their antics will bring the ADA into play. That will result in a massive and well-deserved lawsuit that the businesses *will* lose.

And no, I don't want to follow strangers around and surreptitiously record and upload them. I barely think to pull out my iPhone and record the interesting bits of my own life; and I've no interest in yours. I want the augmented-reality aspects. And the sooner the luddite brigade is slapped down, the sooner I can get my frikkin-terminator-vision.

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

Your suggestion assumes that someone would not disable the LED (easily done with black paint) in order to record without being detected.

No, it assumes that most people won't. If someone is hell bent on filming you secretly, they already have countless ways to do it - heck, there are miniature wearable cameras available on eBay for that explicit purpose. You can make it illegal (indeed, it's already illegal in many places), but enforcing it will be very hard.

If I own a restaurant and I do not want to allow Google glass to worn inside then that is MY right. You can always vote with your feet and find another restaurant.

Of course. I don't dispute the right of the owner to ask people to leave if he doesn't like them for some reason. This does not mean that the owner should be immune from criticism if the stated or actual reason is invalid or morally wrong.

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

And yet the official FAQ from Google claims otherwise:

Q: What have you done to inform non-Glass users if a picture or video is being taken?
A: We have built explicit signals in Glass to make others aware of what’s happening. First, the device’s screen is illuminated whenever it’s in use, and that applies to taking a picture or recording a video. Second, Glass requires the user to either speak a command — “OK Glass, take a picture” or “OK Glass, record a video” — or to take an explicit action by pressing the button on the top of Glass’s frame. In each case the illuminated screen, voice command or gesture all make it clear to those around the device what the user is doing.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

It's obvious that you're not taking photos or video when your phone is camera-side down on the table, with the screen off, or when it's in your pocket, or when you're placing a call and holding the phone with your finger covering the lens.

All of these stories about people getting kicked out of places for wearing Glass seem to start with them being asked to remove the device and put it away, which would be just as sensible of a solution, except that they always seem to refuse. There is no reasonable way to tell that Glass is not recording, because it is always worn and has no physical interlock. If a smartphone were always worn, leaving both of the user's hands free, then I would agree that a similar solution was needed; but, as it is, it's already exceedingly simple to tell when a smartphone cannot possibly be taking photos or video of me, dead simple to tell when it can be, and relatively obvious to tell when it is.

It's not a problem with smartphones and, therefore, does not need to be solved for smartphones.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock is intended to make it obvious that the device can not possibly be recording, which can only work if the device is generally visible. In a movie theater setting, it would be trivial to use an older device, already existing on the market, with no interlock, or physically disable the interlock, and not be seen.

The physical interlock is intended as a reassurance to whoever the camera is pointed at that yes, this device is capable of recording photos and video, but that capability has been physically disabled for now. Kind of like setting your phone down so that its camera is aimed at either the table or the sky/ceiling, or putting it in your pocket; the people around you can be pretty sure you're not taking photos or video of them. Taking the damn Google Glass off your face would work just as well, but nobody wearing it ever wants to accept that solution.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

I'd prefer it were easy for me to identify the devices that can't possibly be recording me and the ones which might be, rather than the ones that definitely are and the ones that might be. A physical interlock makes it visibly obvious that the camera is disabled and a device without one may be recording at any time, whereas a "recording light" makes it obvious that a device is recording, while a device without one may still be recording at any time.

We're talking about people who what to know they're not being recorded, and a blinking light does not and can not accomplish that when there are already hundreds of millions of devices in the hands of the general public that do not have that light. I'd just keep using my current phone and my 3 current cameras and you'd keep wondering if I was recording you.

With a physical interlock, you *KNOW* you are not being recorded. If I leave the lens cap on my camera, you know I'm not photographing you, just like you know I'm not recording you with my phone in my pocket or set on the table facing downward. With Glass, you do NOT know you are not being recorded, because Glass users refuse to take the device off of their face and put it away.

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

But phones are often used in positions where they could be recording, and no, you can't easily tell. Glass can't be recording if the screen isn't lit... so it's actually easier to verify that Glass isn't being used to record than it is for a phone. If the Glass screen is lit then you have an indicator it might be recording, not proof that it is, and users may well want to look at things while they're not recording (indeed that's most of the purpose of the device).

IMO, this problem is simply solved by adding a recording light to Glass... and to phones. So we have a clear and obvious indicator when the camera is being used.

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

There are hundreds of millions of Glass units? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

I have to accept an opinion of a competent person (Vint Cerf) because he at least saw the device. I haven't, and I cannot say if "an illuminated screen" is a sufficient indicator of anything. Logically, the screen can be illuminated for many other reasons, even when not recording. How well is it visible to others?

With regard to the command: (a) the command to record can be spoken ahead of time - you don't need to mutter it all the time; (b) the victim may not hear the command; (c) there may be alternative ways to capture audio and video, such as by installing software that activates recording by a gesture, or by a smartphone activity, or by timer...

But, most importantly, (d) - the average person is not likely to know these details, and is not likely to care to know. We do not like when people carry live grenades around, even if they are "secure" with the pull ring still being in. The only way to be secure is to not come close to the dangerous item. The GG can be activated instantly, so it is not inert enough. One GG that would be OK with me is a GG without a camera. Most people are not voyeurs, and they don't need an inbuilt camera. Besides, a GG without a camera would be lighter, and the battery would last longer. What's not to like? Who is it, exactly, that insists on having a camera in the product?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

The problem is not solved by adding a recording light to phones, because people can quite simply disable the light or keep using their old phone (there are hundreds of millions to of those out there, remember) for covert recording. Oh, and they complain that the light interferes with low-light recording, which is why Nokia removed the "feature" from their phones in the early 2000s.

It's not a problem of telling when it *is* recording, it's a problem of telling, for certain, when it is not. There are clear-cut instances where a smartphone can not possibly be recording you; e.g. when it has been set flat on a table or put away; for now, you can tell Glass is not recording because the screen is off, but as soon as people are allowed to write Glass apps, what do you think will be one of the first? You can keep yourself from saying or doing something you don't want recorded when you see a device that might be recording you, whether you know it is or not, but you don't have to if you can clearly see that those devices are locked-out.

Furthermore, if your Glass screen is off and you're going to keep it off so I know you're not recording, why don't you just take it off when asked, rather than letting yourself be removed from a place for being an ass? Is it possible that you, in fact, did intend to use the device, or that you have already hacked together a camera app that does not require the screen to be lit? In that case, a physical interlock is the only assurance the people around you have that you are, 100%, for certain, not recording them. Period.

Well, no... not really... you could just put the damned thing away. Like smartphone users do.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Physical interlock. Easily visible. If you see the interlock disabled, you can assume you are being recorded. No enforcement needed. Period.

Care to enumerate on that laundry list of problems?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Because smoking sections were the perfect solution, right? Or are you saying doctors, who may be on call and have to have their phones on them in case someone is brought in to their hospital dying and needs their attention, should be segregated from the rest of the general population and unable to enjoy a "loud-guy-on-his-phone"-free meal like everyone else who can simply leave their phones in their cars?

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

But, most importantly, (d) - the average person is not likely to know these details, and is not likely to care to know.

I actually agree that it would be nice to have some common, standard way of indicating that recording is in progress. Not just for Glass, but for all devices capable of it. That's exactly what I proposed two posts above in this thread. I would even support having this mandated by law (and tampering with it being illegal).

With respect to:

there may be alternative ways to capture audio and video, such as by installing software that activates recording by a gesture, or by a smartphone activity, or by timer...

This is something that you can't really fix. If someone wants to record you covertly, they already have the hardware and software for it. You can make it illegal to discourage it for the fear of being caught, but someone's always going to try.

Most people are not voyeurs, and they don't need an inbuilt camera. Besides, a GG without a camera would be lighter, and the battery would last longer. What's not to like? Who is it, exactly, that insists on having a camera in the product?

The huge attraction of Glass and similar products is that it provides you with "augmented reality" - the ability to overlay metadata directly over your visual input, that is relevant to that input. This has many obviously beneficial applications - for example, a navigation mode that literally points which turn you should take, or the ability to bring up names of people you communicate with. Such functionality does need a camera, not for recording, but so that the device can process the input.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Phones and portable cameras. There are hundreds of millions of phones and portable cameras without a "recording" light. You did just propose putting such a light on phones and portable cameras, did you not?

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

Phones and portable cameras. There are hundreds of millions of phones and portable cameras without a "recording" light. You did just propose putting such a light on phones and portable cameras, did you not?

Sure. But I thought you were arguing that Glass was the really big problem, because it's worn rather than carried. If that's the case, put a light on it... and while you're at it put a light on everything else going forward. You'll still have the ability to tell that a phone lying on the table isn't recording you, whether it has a light or not. But with future, light-equipped, devices, you'll be able to tell even when the device is being held up.

And nearly all camcorders and many if not essentially all cameras with video-taking features already do have recording lights.

Re:Easy answer

[swillden]

I addressed the rest of this separately, so I'll just respond to:

Furthermore, if your Glass screen is off and you're going to keep it off so I know you're not recording, why don't you just take it off when asked

It also provides audio.

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

This is something that you can't really fix. If someone wants to record you covertly, they already have the hardware and software for it.

One problem here is that there won't be much of a punishment for tampering with all those indicators and activators. Try to convert a semi-auto AK47 into a full-auto - that's a serious violation. But hack your own GG - who will even find out, and how? The simplicity of the hack, the lack of enforcement, and the obvious attractiveness of the hack to "entitled persons who have rights" will lead to the sad truth: you still can't say if a given GG is recording or not. It's like a gun that is pointed at you. Is it loaded? No way to tell.

The huge attraction of Glass and similar products is that it provides you with "augmented reality" - the ability to overlay metadata directly over your visual input, that is relevant to that input.

The camera is NOT REQUIRED for this. Furthermore, the camera cannot be used for this. The GG is not even capable of overlaying the computer-generated image onto your entire field of vision. This is problem #0. GG only projects the image into a separate "screen" in the corner. This is useless for augmented reality.

You may want to say: "but why don't we feed the camera through the GG into that small screen?" Yes, it's possible... and is not practical. That screen is small; but it would duplicate the area that you see directly, with your eyes. This will be a very confusing visual input. Do you want to take your driving directions by not looking ahead with your eyes? Who is brave enough to drive a car looking through a camera that is not certified not just for automotive use, and not just for operation of machinery when human life is at stake... it's not certified for anything; it's a pure entertainment device.

Furthermore: there is no CPU in GG that would be fast enough to process the camera image to make any use out of it. This is a serious computational task that is done in self-driving cars. GG, by definition, is not capable of any such thing. It can only feed the camera input, unchanged, into the output, and then overlay hints (in Terminator style) onto that screen. But then why do we need a camera? Simply use a heads-up display that is designed for the task, that can overlay hints onto your entire field of vision, and you are golden. This is how helmets of pilots of warplanes are made. A GG, however you put it, is a toy that cannot do augmented reality. There was an article on Slashdot a week or two ago about the real device; it uses two LCD screens and some optics to generate whatever you want in front of your eyes. Combined with a camera, compass, and a very fast computer, it could be usable as a navigational aid. You could drive in darkness, for example; see in UV; see overlays that do not exist in reality. This is valuable; however GG is not capable of such things. It would cost far, far more to be able to do this. As things are, GG is a head-worn camera that can record short video segments, which then are sent to Google for offline analysis. It is also a heads-up display for the smartphone. GG cannot do much else; as result, it has very little purpose outside of being a fashion item.

Re:Easy answer

[redlemming]

It is balanced against the rights of others, including, for example, the right to take photos or video recordings of public places

In the ancient past (i.e. the Pre-Digital Age) this was sometimes seen as a reasonable balance. Today we know better.

Even in the ancient past, this was a flawed policy. Even in public places there can be expectations of privacy. For example, if one steps away from a trail and goes behind a tree while hiking in a national forest, another person should not be able to take a picture of one relieving oneself, even though this is legally a public place.

Further, there have always been issues with the ability of advanced technology devices to spy into private lots or into private homes, or other clearly private spaces, even from locations far away, locations that may actually be public. Camera zoom capabilities, parabolic microphones, possibly even phased array or extended baseline systems can all potentially be used to intrude into spaces where people reasonably expect to be private. A seemingly empty beach, for example, creates a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a photographer hidden in the dunes nearby is violating that expectation when they take pictures of a woman sunning herself.

We can only expect sensor technology to get better over time, and who knows what new sensor modalities will be developed in the future.

Hence, a policy better suited to modern technology would be that one can only take pictures or make other recordings with the explicit permission of all the uniquely identifiable subjects in the sensory field of the recording device. An exception can be made for security cameras in appropriate settings, or for recording devices intended to capture other forms of sociopathic conduct (such as recording an attempt by a con artist to engage in fraud). Another exception can be made for recording government officials in the performance of their duties. Even in such cases, strict limits can be placed on what can be done with the recordings.

It is appropriate to recognize a right to privacy arising under the 9th Amendment, superseding the right to freedom of the press in many circumstances.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

But with future, light-equipped, devices, you'll be able to tell even when the device is being held up.

How will I be able to tell if a device has a recording light? I won't. I can tell, easily, if a device either does not have a lockout or the lockout is disabled, though.

And nearly all camcorders and many if not essentially all cameras with video-taking features already do have recording lights.

None of mine do. None that I have owned since the early 2000s do, actually, and that's more than a handful. This used to be a standard feature, even in cameraphones, but it was even removed from those in the early 2000s because people were using them in low-light settings (e.g. anywhere that's not a lighting studio or outdoors on a sunny day) and the recording light caused undesirable effects. I'll keep my video quality, thank you very much.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

I did not know Glass provided audio as well when the screen was off, thank you for that information. You missed the boat on the rest of it, though. A light can tell me when a device with a light is recording, but it can not tell me when a device without a light (hundreds of millions of those out there) is recording, nor that the device doesn't have a light. An interlock is obvious; either you have one and it's enabled or you might be recording. Much easier to discern than "do they not have a light or are they not recording?", don't you think?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Also, no, you did not address "screen-off" recording apps. They didn't exist for smartphones when they first came out, either, but they do now. What of those, when they begin appearing for Glass?

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

One problem here is that there won't be much of a punishment for tampering with all those indicators and activators. Try to convert a semi-auto AK47 into a full-auto - that's a serious violation. But hack your own GG - who will even find out, and how?

And if I convert a semi-auto AK to full-auto, who will find out and how?

The simplicity of the hack, the lack of enforcement, and the obvious attractiveness of the hack to "entitled persons who have rights" will lead to the sad truth: you still can't say if a given GG is recording or not. It's like a gun that is pointed at you. Is it loaded? No way to tell.

Well, the obvious difference with a pointed gun is that it would be very lethal if loaded, so the bar for misuse of Glass is naturally much lower ...

Anyway, if disabling such functionality is illegal, I think that vast majority of people will respect that, if only out of the fear of being caught, no matter how slim the chance. Fines can also be made proportionally high to compensate for that, so that the overall risk remains high. Yeah, you will have some of the "I can do whatever" crowd still doing it, maybe even just to make a point, but, as I noted earlier, they can still do it without Glass. The tech today is at the point where setting up a miniature camera for covert recording is cheap and trivial, no hacking required. There's nothing we can really do about that, other than trying to minimize the practice by making undisclosed recording illegal. Adding indicators is making it a little bit easier to enforce, because at least tampering with the indicator is something that is easier to detect if the device is inspected under warrant.

The camera is NOT REQUIRED for this. Furthermore, the camera cannot be used for this. The GG is not even capable of overlaying the computer-generated image onto your entire field of vision. This is problem #0. GG only projects the image into a separate "screen" in the corner. This is useless for augmented reality.

I consider Glass an "early demo prototype" device. True augmented reality with HUD-like screens will come eventually, and I don't see how you can claim that "camera is not required for this". How, exactly, will the device know where to place markers if it doesn't have an image to analyze?

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

And if I convert a semi-auto AK to full-auto, who will find out and how?

If you shoot it at the range; if you transport it and your car is searched; if your house is searched; if someone knows and wants you arrested. Or you may do the mod safely, and nobody would ever know. The risk of discovery is not that great, really, but the punishment is severe.

Anyway, if disabling such functionality is illegal, I think that vast majority of people will respect that, if only out of the fear of being caught

The vast majority of people will not want to wear GG. Those people are more law-abiding. It's like wondering why "Saturday night specials" are mostly found among criminals, and not among wealthy, legal owners of high quality firearms. It's a case of self-selection. If you buy GG, you already want to record (with some good probability.) If you want to record, you will want to mod your gear so that you can record wherever and whenever (with some good probability.) There cannot be a serious fine because, currently, all you risk is being asked to leave. There are no effective laws that would protect your privacy outside of a handful of specially named places (bathrooms.) Is GG legal in locker rooms, changing rooms, bath houses, gyms, doctor's offices, hospitals? I do not know. It may be illegal to come close to someone's window at night and to peer inside; but is it illegal to stand in the street and wear a GG with a telescopic lens? To sit in a parked car?

You are correct, of course, that covert cameras are already available. However GG would popularize "the game." If you ask a typical teenager if he knows where to buy a spy camera, he won't be able to tell you right away. These cameras are rare. If you have one, you must be spy (or so the thinking goes.) However a GG has other functions, and it carries no stigma. High volume of manufacturing, good software support, and low cost will result in many "interesting" applications of GG that we don't want to think of today. On top of that, GG is obvious when worn, so it will be a prime target of robberies. Supplies of "grey" GG will be plentiful. The society just does not need hundreds of millions of additional cameras.

I don't see how you can claim that "camera is not required for this". How, exactly, will the device know where to place markers if it doesn't have an image to analyze?

If you don't have the camera *and* the computer that can do video analysis in real time then you use GPS and compass to determine what you are looking at. It's not as good as the real image... but processing of the real image is too taxing; and besides, you need to have something to compare it with. An array of colored pixels tells nothing to a non-AI computer. If you have a photo, taken from this place in that direction and under similar lighting, then the crude CPU can match them and tell you that you are there. But you can already see where that goes. Augmented reality is a hard nut to crack even if you have a rack full of CPU blades. Doing it in a micropower processor doesn't make the task any easier.

The most obvious application of augmented reality is navigation in a city. I would like to see software that can take all the available inputs (GPS, camera, but not compass) and create an overlay that draws the street that you are on, and a few nearby streets. This is not that simple. Google's Street View was created by storing exact GPS coordinates, and the compass readings, of each frame. If you only have the image to latch onto... good luck; this is hard even for many humans. If you have the compass then you do not need the camera at all - you already know where you are and what you are looking at. You only need the map and the HUD to overlay the map on. This is how you do it without the camera; it will be more reliable, and it will take less power, and it will work regardless of what you see (such as in fog, or at night.)

Re:Easy answer

[Riceballsan]

I don't get the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public resteraunt as something new... we have the exact same privacy we've always had since people developed big cities... that is, there is too much information for anyone to reasonably recognize or care about 99.9999999% of the people in the resteraunt. We actually have more privacy than we did 500 years ago, when towns and cities were smaller, and most people knew the others in the resteraunt. It wasn't that long ago that, seeing 50 people, and none of them knowing who you are, was uncommon. That very same mechanism is appropriate for why some random guy video taping the resteraunt, has the same impact on your privacy.. Ok so guy video tapes the resteraunt, an extra 50 people see it, odds of any of them recognizing and knowing and caring who you are is equally slim... your privacy isn't significantly more compromised by the camera, than it was by the 40 people who walked past the glass window out front... As far as I can tell, the only real noteworthy difference, is that if lightning strikes and one of the people who happens to see you recognizes you, is that person has automatic proof to back up his statement of your presense. Which is of course still not that much different, if you were significant to any of the random passerby's, they'd have pulled out their celphone camera and snapped a picture. Just like why there's hundreds of selfies with random celebreties in the background etc...

Re:Easy answer

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This does not mean that the owner should be immune from criticism if the stated or actual reason is invalid or morally wrong.

I see nothing wrong with someone saying "no google glass allowed" and complain on Yelp. However I am not convinced that the act of banning someone from playing with their favorite electronic gadget rises to the level of being "morally wrong".

Re:Easy answer

[Kernel Kurtz]

Like that will never be hacked.....

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

It's not, I was just being generic. In this particular case it's just silly (the rational way of dealing with it would be banning recording, not the gadget).

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

The vast majority of people will not want to wear GG

Your entire argument hinges on this, but how do you know that?

If you ask a typical teenager if he knows where to buy a spy camera, he won't be able to tell you right away. These cameras are rare.

Huh? You go to Google and type "hidden camera". A teenager would be more likely to know to do that, if anyone.

Either way, I think this is basically an argument between real convenience (not with GG in particular, but with this entire class of devices) and theoretical potential for abuse. If history is anything to go by, convenience always wins in the court of public opinion.

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

Your entire argument hinges on this, but how do you know that?

Somewhere in this thread someone asks "why so many people hate GG here and so few love it?" Of course, it's only a slice through Slashdot audience; but it's likely (IMO) that GG, in its surveillance mode, will not be extremely popular with serious people. They don't care to film others. It's something that only immature children would do.

If history is anything to go by, convenience always wins in the court of public opinion.

There is no convenience in carrying the camera on your head all the time, just in case you want to take a photo once per week. Perhaps there is convenience to have your Twitbook posts listed in front of you all the time - but as I said this is not something that busy people have time or patience for. For them there would be no convenience at all. For me, it doesn't bother me at all that I need to look at my phone if someone calls. In car I only need to say "Answer." Why would I need GG?

Re:Easy answer

[shutdown -p now]

The convenience is augmented reality that is enabled by the camera. Google only pushes the recording angle because that's the only thing that works well so far.

Re:Easy answer

[EdIII]

that is, there is too much information for anyone to reasonably recognize or care about 99.9999999% of the people in the resteraunt.

False.

Technology exists, and is actively being pushed on us, that allows us to identify and tag all individuals in a particular location and have that location recognized via GPS. This information is not private, and has a vested financial interest to not remain private.

Technology or society is no longer a barrier to the analysis of very large data sets.

We actually have more privacy than we did 500 years ago

False.

Safety in numbers no longer works. A regular person can take a photograph of you and attempt a reverse image search with a reasonable chance of success. Using a site like FaceFuck only increases the chances of getting a hit.

There is profoundly less privacy these days precisely because of the advanced technology at the fingertips of those that would use it. These information is increasingly being used against people in ways they don't anticipate.

---

You're failure in understanding the impact of privacy from Google Glass derives from an unsophisticated understanding of the technologies and behaviors involved.

If Google Glass were purely stand alone and bereft of the aforrmentioned technology I would happily agree with you. I'm not afraid of the person with a handheld video camera. I am afraid, and do feel my privacy threatened by, a person uploading that data in real time and then using very sophisticated technology and huge server farms to perform analysis on the data. This is made several orders of magnitude worse when LEO and the intelligence community has access to the data, and employers increasingly perform their own biased background checks utilizing that data.

It is most certainly possible that while at a restaurant you are being recorded as being there along with several other individuals. While the people responsible for the recording may not care in any way, shape, or form care about you, Google and FaceFuck most certainly does . This is the era of topological data analysis and people with vested financial interests being extremely interested in the data.

That is precisely what Google and FaceFuck facilitates whether or not you are actively participating with them.

In short, the problem is not Google Glass, but Google itself.

Re:Easy answer

[DFCollet]

Why not a 'Glass Free section' - in the same way as a 'Smoke Free' section.

Of course, that gets into the realm of "Glass Free Restaurant", which is what this is all about.

My opinion - I agree with the Restauranteur. His place. His rules. Privacy in some places even if not in all places.

But it is also true that you can never expect complete privacy anymore - too many spies around of the government kind. Eat at home and perhaps you will be safe from prying eyes.

Re:Easy answer

[tftp]

I would be glad to review that augmented reality application if and when it is ready. Until then, by default, you already know my opinion :-) It's just too typical when a bunch of geeks touts R-Pi (or any given newfangled gadget) as a solution of all the world's problems. In reality, it's just a small PCB with a few inexpensive ICs that is sold to you for 100x its value.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

A "Glass Free Section" is just a form of segregation. I already addressed this in another post in this thread and you hit on one of the reasons it's a horrible idea in your own post. I fully agree with the restauranteur, as well, which is why I proposed the physical interlock as a solution to both the restauranteur's problem and the Glass user's problem: the restauranteur does not want people recording in his restaurant and the Glass user has no way of assuring the restauranteur that he is not recording, short of putting the device away, which the Glass user was clearly not willing to do.

No interlock? No admittance. Disable your interlock? Owner of the establishment is notified and given the opportunity to approve or delete anything recorded in his establishment. I think it's a fair compromise in that it allows Glass users the wear their devices while still allowing business owners to have control over their use to record inside the business.

This isn't an issue with smartphones the way some people make it out to be, since the types of establishments where Glass users are being asked to put their devices away or leave are the same establishments where it is considered inappropriate to whip out your phone and start gabbing, making it completely obvious if you are recording with your smartphone; and even if you're recording "covertly" by faking a phone call, you'll likely be asked to put your phone away and/or leave simply for being rude.

Re: Easy answer

[kko]

Leave your phone in the car? What the heck? You must be a luddite with only one computer.
This is slashdot, not some sort of woodworking forum.
Adopt tech. Use it. Inhabitants of the previous century need not apply.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

Wow! Such technology illiteracy and you are on Slashdot?

99% of electronic devices are hacked / rooted / jailbroken within a month of public release. Rest are typically not popular enough. There. End of your technological iliterate dream involving Google being the only technically capable entity in the Universe.

In the real world, where any other company than Google is free to create such glasses, their glasses are free from such restrictions. So will get more popular, just because of more convenience. Going with your philosophy, all restaurant owners need to inform all the manufacturers of such devices. All of them need to support the complicated override, contact owner etc.

Now the owner has no privacy from Google - if he wants reasonable privacy for his customers, he must provide his contact information, address etc. with Google. Nice "rent" for Google right there, just for creating such a device.

And the visible shutter can be replaced with dark glass except for a little hole with clear glass for the lens. And all light will be prevented from entering between "shutter" and rest of the device, leaving the clear glass portion visibly black to casual observers.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color, or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.

I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that? Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?

Re: Easy answer

[BronsCon]

I was making a point. One which you clearly missed.

In the context of the "device-free section" mentioned by the post I was responding to, yes, people would leave their phones in their cars, or not have them at all. Of course, "device-free sections" would also mean criminals knowing phones are being left in cars, leading to an increase in vehicle break-ins and theft, as well, but I didn't want to really ruin Mike Frett's day, so I left that piece of info out.

A horrid idea, through and through.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens. Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.

Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated? (hint: "visible", in this context, means "obvious") Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question; rather, you may wish to check your lingual literacy; or, since your post, overall, appears to be well-formed, perhaps just your reading comprehension.

Re:Easy answer

[BasilBrush]

Such a system would never work in a movie theater. A physical interlock

Ah OK, I hadn't realised that's what was being talked about. I was being more general, about other hypothetical measures used to counteract mobile phone use in cinemas. Faraday shields or jammers to prevent phone and text use. Infrared cameras to spot camera use in the darkness. Bluetooth beacons being used to signal areas where phone use was not allowed. etc.

Re:Easy answer

[EdIII]

It's not the fact they are taking pictures in a restaurant at all. A few pictures is entirely reasonable.

The expectation of privacy I am speaking about, which is entirely reasonable as well, is that I can go into a restaurant with a few friends and not have a photograph of us analysed, tagged, and added to a huge database, only to be available later to everyone, especially LEO and Intelligence Communities.

That's the problem. Big Data.

You already have shadow profiles and facial/object recognition running rampant in society now. Ignorant people that have no idea the profound dangers involved in having FaceFuck exist in the first place eliminate my privacy by recording the banality of their everyday lives continuously.

The rights of others is very important. MY RIGHTS TOO. I should be able to exist in society without having a shadow profile showing me in a couple thousand different real profiles linking me to other places, activities, events, etc. in relation to other real/shadow profiles. That's a reasonable expectation of privacy. I never for one second opted in to such a dystopian society, and it's not sponsored/forced upon us in the name of security yet.

This needs to be fought tooth and nail with fanatic effort and it's a very good thing that Google Glass is getting such a cold response from restaurants and public spaces. Government is already trying to force us into a police state ostensibly to protect IP interests (as it seems to be the only real thing we produce now), we shouldn't rush towards it just because of some shiny gadgets provided by corporate america.

Having a LED as you suggest is a very good start as the problem with Google Glass is Google. If the Glasses themselves are not able to record images or analyze the environment in any way, shape, or form without a prominent visible signal to other people it goes a long way to mitigating the problem.

In such a scenario I can legitimately complain the management and walk out of the establishment the moment I see a purple light no differently than someone lighting up a cigarette. I find both equally as offensive in a public space.

What about public spaces like parks? Driving around? Walking down the street? It's very concerning that a world could exist with thousands of purple lights coming at me all the time.

Minority Report?

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens

Right. So as soon as any new company springs up doing the same, all restaurant owners have to scramble to lose their privacy to the new manufacturer too. Without any guarantee of privacy for their customers, because device will be rooted in a month, at the most.

Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.

Then you should have realized the futility of having the device restrict the owner. In fact, I replied to a particular post of yours, not to "elsewhere in this vey thread".

Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated

Your "answer" was already rendered useless by the rooting possibility. And a shutter, of whatever kind, can so easily be physically tampered with, that this shutter cannot result in any security over and above the device software. And blending with the device less well can only result in more easily defeated mechanism, unless you mean something else by "blending" than what most others mean.

Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question

Wanting some "respect" for "authority", are we? How about displaying some technological literacy in your posts than mention about the "discipline" of your "work" ?

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color

In which case, at the very least, red photography cannot be stopped.

or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.

I was replying to your post which this shutter was presumed to exist. And if the owners have to maintain the status quo, your "easy answer" is useless by your own admission.

I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that?

Yes, everyone mentioning that paper shields don't protect against thermonuclear bombs are not proposing any solution so their statement is to be discredited, right? So paper shield, FTW!!!

Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?

Great answer for the paper shield. Which is about as effective as your "easy answer". Yay for the paper shield.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

It does mean "99% of every actual device has been done". Iff :

1. By every actual device, you mean electronic devices
2. By "done" you mean hacked / rooted / jailbroken
3. We are only talking about a month or more old devices
4. The "device" should be in the same general class of "Google glass", in at least a rough way. Means we are not talking about LEDs, loosely sold OPAMPs, etc.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

If you can't see the lockout shutter, why would you assume it exists? Why would you assume I would assume that? That's the whole point in making it wildly visible; nobody has to assume anything. We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well? We can, and we should for the very same reasons.

Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them. Closer than a few feet away and you're close enough to tell it's been altered. I'd say that's pretty effective. Owners don't have to do anything more than require the shutter to be visibly engaged, the automation features are just icing on the cake; that's less work than they have to do right now, what with arguing with customers and kicking people out and all that. Sure, you'll have the occasional asshole who will refuse to engage the shutter, but there will be far fewer of them than there are currently assholes refusing to remove take the damned things off. Again, seems like it would be effective to me.

Boo-hoo, it can, conceivably be bypassed. it can also be effective; unlike paper shields, which don't have to be bypassed at all, simply as a byproduct of being ineffective, so only an idiot would suggest their use. Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal), good luck modifying the lockout, as you've proposed, in the first place. In reality, though, anything can be bypassed, given enough work, so I guess you're saying that we should never implement anything at all?

By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well?

All the danger with toy guns not being orange was someone seeing them, and then mistaking them for real guns. The "danger" with cameras is people not seeing them at all, and them getting smaller and smaller as technology progresses. All the marking is useless if the item is too small to see in the first place.

Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them

Yes, I have tried all that. Works great. Learn the ABCD of photography before spouting bullshit. With long enough exposure, very low light can give very good pictures. So slow moving items can be photographed very easily with the limited light coming from the filter.

Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal

So they are tiny and light. And they feature a large, easily visible, and movable artifact called shutter. If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?

By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.

They are called analogies. Look itt up in a dictionary.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

The *HIGHLY VISIBLE* shutter would be the primary feature here. The automation would be icing on the cake and completely unnecessary. No *HIGHLY VISIBLE* lockout shutter? No admittance and no service. Nobody *HAS TO* turn over any privacy-shattering details to anyone; however, if they're concerned with customers being able to actually find their business and not being able to shoot photos and video inside their business, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to.

It's not a matter of the device restricting the owner, as there is an override on the lockout (assuming the automation is put in place in the first place; otherwise, it would be manually activated), it's a matter of the owner of the device having means by which to let people know they are not shooting photos or video. Completely voluntary and, if you happen to bring your device into an establishment that requires it, and for some reason disable it or refuse to activate it, you can be asked to do so, asked to leave, or forcibly removed from the premesis, as is the case currently for Glass users who refuse to take the device off their face. This would be a win for those users, as well as the people around them. You can't root a *HIGHLY VISIBLE* physical object, my friend.

Make the shutter bright-colored (and internal, so it's not ugly and visible when not engaged) and people will *KNOW* when it is not engaged. Since these devices are constructed in such a way that disassembly and reassembly are next to impossible, it would be exceedingly difficult to modify the shutter, not to mention the fact that any sort of colored filter light enough to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting would be obviously transparent, even from a distance. If the shutter isn't obviously engaged (e.g. not brightly colored and obviously opaque), people are free to assume it has been tampered with, is not engaged, or does not exist, and that you may be shooring photos or video at any time and business owners are free to escort you off of their property, just as they are currently.

One would think, since I explicitly mentioned the override in my original post, that it would be clear that the interlock would be voluntary. It would really be no different than the current situation, other than providing Glass users an option other than "take it off or get out". The automation would strictly be a convenience, for everyone involved.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

With long enough exposure, a head-mounted camera won't be steady enough to produce a recognizable photograph, so that's not really a concern, now, is it? I've worked with 60+sec exposure times; I know how steady the camera has to be for them to turn out, even at 100ms, the camera must be very steady.

If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?

You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid. Second:

Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal...

...it wouldn't be hanging.

Analogies must be analogous (comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared). A never-effective non-solution is not an analog (a person or thing seen as comparable to another.) for an effective-but-bypassable solution. There; I saved you the trouble of looking those up.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

With long enough exposure, a head-mounted camera won't be steady enough to produce a recognizable photograph, so that's not really a concern, now, is it? I've worked with 60+sec exposure times; I know how steady the camera has to be for them to turn out, even at 100ms, the camera must be very steady.

With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.

You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid.

And you mention my strawmen!! I never said it affects camera quality. Just before this sentence, was the tinyness, and wearableness of the device being discussed. LED was disabled by Nokia because of a questionable effect on photography, rendering them (slightly) ineffective in their stated purpose - good video recording . Large shutters will not be put in place in wearable computing because they are large - rendering them (very) ineffective in their stated purpose - being so small that one wouldn't even mind wearing them and still be reasonable cameras. Phew!!

Analogies must be analogous

It was answering your one implied statement (and that statement only) that someone must give some solution for any criticism to be valid. That is clearly not true as perfectly demonstrated by thermonuclear bombs and paper shields. I didn't ask you to stretch the analogy beyond its stated purpose. Either you take back your statement questioning my criticism without solution, or tell me why you dismiss paper shields as ineffective without proposing any solution yourself.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

And the red "shutter" replacement can be extremely thin without giving any clue to casual observers.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.

I see now; we have a scope problem. We're not talking about tiny spy cams, we're talking about Google Glass. The story wasn't about being kicked out of a restaurant for carrying a small camera, it was about Google Glass.

I never stated that an alternative solution was required in order for criticism to be valid; you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.

You must have been kicked off of your high school debate team; I think we're done here.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Actually... let me address that

A casual observer, from across a crowded restaurant, sure; the host(ess) seating you, however, will have a much better view of the device. Still a moot point, though, until you show me that you can disassemble and reassemble one of these wearables and hand it over to me still working and with no obvious signs of modification.

And now we're done here.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.

This is the exact reason why paper shields example is right for this.

1. According to yourself, I am saying your "solution" is no solution at all
2. You agree that alternative solution is not required for criticism. (I assert that saying your solution is no solution at all is an extreme form of criticism).
3. Hence paper shields, which are no solution at all, demonstrate perfectly why no real solution needs to be proposed when another "solution" is declared to be no solution at all.

If you can't even comprehend this much, I am afraid no one should have let you within a mile of your high school debate team lest you infect them with idiocy.

Anyway, since you have even stopped defending your idea of a device acting against its owner in the face of rooting etc., I guess you have accepted the technological illiteracy of your argument. So it does seem we are done here.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

You're making arguments, on my behalf, that I am not making and do not support. The device would NOT act against its owner in any way; it would be providing an additional option above and beyond the current "take it off or get out" that is on the current menu. And it would be able to be overridden (if the automation features were even implemented; if not, it would be *entirely* voluntary) quite easily; it would also be obvious to a casual observer if it had been overridden (note the difference between an override, where the lockout is simply not in place, and bypassing, which may require closer scrutiny to discern, which I have already acknowledged, with caveats which you are yet to address).

It also doesn't help that you're trying to apply my solution to a problem it isn't intended to solve. Of course it's flawed as a solution for 100% preventing shooting photos or video no matter how bad the user wants to do so; that was never the problem it was intended to solve. The problem, once again, it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take the devices off their faces when a business owner (because they can't know for sure) does not want them shooting photos or video in their establishment and, thus, asks them to remove the device or leave. While it does not directly address the societal issue of people not wanting to take Glass off their face, seemingly for any cost, it does solve the problem of the business owner not knowing, for sure, whether or not the Glass user is shooting photos or video, by providing a clear and obvious (and voluntary) indicator that the capability had been disabled.

That is the problem it is intended to solve and you have failed, by trying to prove (which I agree you successfully did) that it does not sufficiently solve some other imaginary problem, to provide any argument that it does not, inf fact, sufficiently solve this problem.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

The device would NOT act against its owner in any way

Owner to device : pretend as if you are disabled.
Device : 2 possible answers :

1. Ok : Your "solution" doesn't work, which consists of the manufacturer telling owner that a device has been overridden, because the device has first told the manufacturer that it has been overridden.

2. No : Device is acting against the owner.

it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take

Glass, with a capital G, taken to mean Google Glass in its current form, doesn't have these particular protection measures. So obviously any "solution" is intended for future devices. If you are saying it is not for future devices either, you can as well give up.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Owner, in my original post, was referring to the RESTAURANT owner, not the DEVICE owner. Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED (e.g. not AT ALL required for my solution to actually solve the problem it is intended to solve, but certainly much more convenient --for everyone involved -- in scenarios where everyone involved has done their part) automation features. In the first case, if the DEVICE owner overrides the lockout, the BUSINESS owner would be notified; again, IF THOSE FEATURES WERE EVEN IMPLEMENTED; of not, it would be ENTIRELY manual, possibly even through some mechanical slide lever that the device itself may not even know the status of (why would it need to if the automation wasn't implemented?).

How is providing the owner of a device an option beyond "take it off or get out" acting, in any way, against them? It's not, plain and simple.

Further, what do you suppose Google is going to call the next version of Glass they release? You don't suppose they're going to call it Glass 2.0 or something similar, do you? Right now there are no other devices like Glass on the market and it's a lot less typing than "miniature wearable eyglass-form-factor computer" so, since any reasonable and intelligent person should be able to figure out that I was referring to the one device that currently makes up the entirely of a class of devices, in order to refer to the entire class of devices, I used simply said Glass.

The reason this solution works, where solutions like "recording" lights fail is twofold: 1) How do you know if a device even has a "recording" light, in order to know to look for it? and 2) How likely is someone not constantly staring at the device to notice the "recording" light flicker when a photo is taken, if it even does?

How is this solution better? You still won't know if the device has a lockout shutter, right? Right, you won't, but you don't need to know it doesn't have one, just that it is or is not active; if it doesn't exist, the default is "not active" and the status quo remains for those people, "take it off or get out".

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED

Shouting won't help. The post to which I originally replied, discussed the device (on its own accord, possibly against the wishes of the device owner) disabling the camera using a physical button. It is not at all mentioned that it is optional, nor is it mentioned that the physical shutter can be manually activated.

Even the override option that you mentioned relies completely on the device (acting on its own accord, possibly against device owner's wishes) informing the restaurant owner (or public at large around it) that it has been overridden.

Rather than shouting, make sensible statements in the first place so that you don't display your technology illiteracy. First admit that you posted something completely stupid, with device acting against its owner possibly against device owner's wishes in the face of rooting/jailbreaking/hacking. Then I will explain how it is not much better than status quo even otherwise.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

s/physical button/physical shutter/

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo. We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail. And, of course, if it's not automated, it would have to be manual; simple logic dictates that.

I'll admit that I wasn't clear in that post; nothing more. You can accept the new details I provided and mount your attack against those (and hell, maybe I'll even admit that your criticism lead me to come up with those details in the first place -- we jointly made that progress) or you can keep attacking something I've already moved on from. You're choosing to do the latter, I'm assuming, because you can't reasonably do the former.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED

So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo

You didn't detail it? You didn't fucking mention it. And now you are shouting about it. This is not sufficient admission, I am afraid.

We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail

Yes, that level of detail as of actually mentioning it. I wonder why you even mentioned as much as you did. Google is most likely to implement it, right ?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

And yet, later in the thread, after I *had* mentioned it, you keep going on like it'd never been said. You're right, I'm wrong, and the whole world is upside down, i'nn'it?

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

One never knows whether you are being dishonest, like just recent post where you "admit" you didn't detail it, whereas you hadn't even mentioned it. Or you are modifying your original statement to make the device autonomy optional. Especially since it didn't come with any apology or admission of incorrectness in the original post.

Not even now, I'm afraid.

Re:Easy answer

[dbIII]

I can see a pattern developing.

Re:Easy answer

[dbIII]

Take a look at the posting history of the guy that is trolling you. What you write is irrelevant since he can continue to argue endlessly with the strawman he's built in your name.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

If you had made a little less effort to see a pattern in Android phone bootloaders, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourselves like this.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

You think I'm not enjoying it every bit as much as he is?

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Wow, okay then, we actually are done here. I really and truly don't have anything to even say to that, beyond spitting out a parsing error. It must have gotten boring for you after a while, I suppose, though I did keep your attention longer than I originally figured I'd be able to; I have to admit, it was getting old for me, as well.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

If you read the whole post, I credit you for pointing out a deficiency (even if it wasn't your intention). You aren't even a fun troll anymore, so really, we're done now.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

This was not for you. Unless dbIII and you are sockpuppets of each other.

Re:Easy answer

[bingoUV]

It is not called merely a "deficiency" when the entire premise is baseless. And it was completely my intention to point out that the entire premise is baseless.

You have surreptitiously modified the "answer" over time, and tried to shout down when I pointed that out. But the original premise remains a completely technologically illiterate idea.

Re:Easy answer

[BronsCon]

Slashdot's threading gets fucked sometimes and that post was not properly nested. Oh well.

Re:just leave

[Jiro]

Human psychology doesn't work that way. Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret, and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.

Also, while the pictures themselves can be used nefariously if they are taken secretly, the process of picture-taking cannot be used for intimidation or to intentionally be rude.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, if you use Google Glass, you're a god damn moron. I wouldn't want you there, either.

Not a Glass fan but

[JanneM]

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.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Anonymous Coward]

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"...?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Desler]

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html

Meinert says "it's all about privacy" and his business partner, Jason Lajeunesse, told Forbes "It's one thing to take out a camera and capture a moment, people see you doing it, they have a chance to step out if the want to. With Glass people don't have a chance to do that. We want our customers to feel comfortable, not like they're being watched."

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[thegarbz]

Phone to your face? Sorry but if I wanted to take a picture of you discretely with my phone you'd NEVER realise. I could for instance hold my phone exactly where a normal person holds their phone while talking, at my ear, except with the camera pointed at you.

Would you notice me? I'll bet you a cookie that you can't count the number of times a person is standing near you using a phone in the normal way because it's something we as a society ignore (unless it's a loud distraction).

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[tricorn]

It probably won't be too long before head-mounted displays like Google Glass are common as the normal interface you use for your personal wearable computer, currently masquerading as a smart phone. "Augmented Reality" is just one application for such an interface. It will be used for playing music, videos, using the Web, showing you where you are and what's around you; a camera watching you type on a virtual keyboard will be an input method, perhaps along with something like subvocalization pickups.

I don't even own a cell phone, much less Google Glass, but I can see a time when I'd use such an interface (it just isn't good enough yet for me to care). I wouldn't have a problem with a policy that says "please don't wear your head-mounted display in here", but I think it's sort of stupid to have such a rule and not also say "please leave your cell phone turned off and put away" as well. Anything you can do with a Google Glass you can do with a cell phone, you can certainly take videos without it being obvious.

It's a strange idea that the primary purpose for having Google Glass is to take videos of everything you're doing and immediately upload it for everyone to see.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Desler]

I don't even own a cell phone, much less Google Glass, but I can see a time when I'd use such an interface (it just isn't good enough yet for me to care). I wouldn't have a problem with a policy that says "please don't wear your head-mounted display in here", but I think it's sort of stupid to have such a rule and not also say "please leave your cell phone turned off and put away" as well. Anything you can do with a Google Glass you can do with a cell phone, you can certainly take videos without it being obvious.

See my post right above you where the two owners already addressed that.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[BitterOak]

People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you.

Ummm, how do you know that? Most smartphones now have cameras built in. How do you know they're not recording while holding the phone up to "fiddle" with them?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Pecisk]

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.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Krishnoid]

I have a disabled friend who's missing all four limbs.

It may sound odd to say this, but wouldn't Google Glass be very useful to him?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Todd Palin]

I'm not really crazy about a bunch of people yaking on cellphones in restaurants either. Maybe cellphones should be prohibited.

Seriously, you can't tell the difference when someone is using a phone to take pictures?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[inking]

You shouldn't really be holding a phone to your face in a restaurant either. It's very bad manners.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[kylemonger]

It probably won't be too long before head-mounted displays like Google Glass are common as the normal interface you use for your personal wearable computer, currently masquerading as a smart phone.

I doubt it. Most people do not want to wear glasses. They certainly don't want to wear something even bigger and more distracting on their faces. Throat mic and earpiece I'll buy, or better yet something like the jewel Ender wore to connect to Jane. But a headpiece like Google Glass becoming as popular as touch screen interfaces? Never.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[hsmith]

It is pretty amusing how people assume Glass is a massive surveillance device.

I have a pair for development and - really - they don't record video non-stop. You actually get about 5% battery life drain for every 1 minute of recording. In 20 minutes, your battery life is dead. So, assuming he had used them for some portion of the day, he'd maybe have 5-10m of recording time.

Add to the fact, it doesn't take the best video and have the best audio. It isn't bad, but you aren't capturing national secrets on it.

Also note, the screen is on during video recording, so it is easy to tell when someone is recording video.

It is amusing how much hatred there is on a technology focused site, how much poor information there is about something people simply dislike.

I rarely wear mine, I dont see the big draw for them honestly.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[antdude]

This is why I hate going out these days because I also have disabilities (born with them). Younglings are bad, but adults are worse. I prefer to be online to socalize since people can't see me like right now.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

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.

It is, in fact, a public space, even if privately owned. And he wasn't asked to not film. He was asked to remove a fashion accessory. He wasn't asked to not film anyone. The owner (or anyone else) can "ask" all they want. The owner can threaten to declare him in trespass if he doesn't vacate the premises, but can't "order" him to do anything (even leave). Well, it was a bar, and bars have a habit of having bouncers assault people. More than once with fatal results, and no repercussions against the establishment.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.

Why would I want to live in that society? I want to live in a society where people have to ask permission to take pictures of people, even in public. How is that outragous?

Fundamentally, I think limitations on photography will get people to do more interestingthigns in public (without the permenant record). Therefore, it's in society's best interests to regulating filimng people in public. In resturants/bars by owners is a good start. By the government would be a better one.

Obviously, there is some fine line out there. People in the background of shots. But, ultimately, I would think software could handle that (autoblurring background faces.)

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[tftp]

I could for instance hold my phone exactly where a normal person holds their phone while talking, at my ear, except with the camera pointed at you.

This is not a common way to use a cell phone. Sure, you can put it in your front pocket and set to record... but this is very uncommon, and there is no peer pressure to do so. Maybe some boys and girls will want to do that one day, but the video will not go anywhere. Most likely it will be deleted right after filming because watching a lengthy segment of nothing in particular is work, not fun. A GG video will be processed by a robot, and it will see everything that is worth seeing.

GG promotes and rewards filming. GG wearers are already pushing the limits, as this whole discussion shows. Do you want a worldwide Internet competition for the funniest (not to you!) video taken by GG? Your image, and your privacy, will be converted into jokes for other people. Do you want everyone you know to see yourself slipping and falling in the street one day? Making a mistake that normally would be remembered by humans who happened to witness it? Doing something that would *seem* wrong?

Yes, it is already possible to do something like that with cell phones. And we have YouTube to dump all that garbage into. However GG is a significant enhancement of such recording. The people around GG wearer do not know when the GG is recording; and the GG is already in position to start recording.

There are millions of reasons to be wary of GG. For details, please review the video "Don't talk to the police." There the professor gives several examples of how your innocent behavior can get you convicted. GG will be used by the police; and since all the records are at Google, you do not have an option of unseeing something - even if you really, really want to. Today you are protected from being a witness against yourself. What if tomorrow you wear a GG and get into a situation? Your GG video will be subpoenaed, and you will have no say in it. Maybe it will save you; maybe it will doom you. I would rather prefer doubt - it is interpreted in favor of the accused. GG will remove the doubt, even if the recording does not show the whole picture.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Zontar The Mindless]

...Not to mention numerous other posters to this discussion.

Some people don't see a difference between

A. device could just maybe be recording video right now, even though he's pointing it slightly below vertical

and

B. quite likely to be taking video at any time and it's certainly positioned to do so *all* the damned time

Others do.

Those of us who can see further than our own arses tend to be in category B.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Zontar The Mindless]

I want to wear mine. But then I'm blind as a bat without them, so I actually have a practical reason for wanting to.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

You'd be wrong. But that won't stop you from assuming I'm lying.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you. That's why you tolerate them.

\

Come to think of it you have a point. I just think of all the upskirt videos shot with Google Glass and how cell phones are *never* used that way.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[thegarbz]

This is not a common way to use a cell phone.

If you think holding a phone to your ear camera out isn't right, thenI think you may not understand how a cell phone works.

GG promotes and rewards filming.

Actually it's promoted as an extension of the phone. If you spent all day filming your battery would be very flat (one review said you get less than an hour of filming time) and you'd run out of storage very quickly too. The vast majority of GG us is nothing more than reading messages getting directions or doing exactly what people do with their phones already.

There are millions of reasons to be wary of GG. For details, please review the video "Don't talk to the police." There the professor gives several examples of how your innocent behavior can get you convicted. GG will be used by the police; and since all the records are at Google, you do not have an option of unseeing something - even if you really, really want to. Today you are protected from being a witness against yourself. What if tomorrow you wear a GG and get into a situation? Your GG video will be subpoenaed, and you will have no say in it. Maybe it will save you; maybe it will doom you. I would rather prefer doubt - it is interpreted in favor of the accused. GG will remove the doubt, even if the recording does not show the whole picture.

That'll be an interesting day. Currently however I don't reside in a country which actively attempts to incarcerate as many of it's citizens as possible. Also while I actually hate the principle of "If you don't do something wrong you have nothing to fear" I do find that some people are overly paranoid. But I guess time will tell if the paranoia pays off.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

Actually he can order him to leave his private business. What are you smoking?

Also, trying to downplay this as if the Glass is as innocuous as a "fashion accessory", like a pair of sunglasses or a hat that serves no other function other than being an item of clothing is disingenuous and you know it.

Unless you're saying that Google Glass is nothing but a fashion accessory that has no use at all, and is only worn because the user thinks it makes them cool?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Solandri]

That's the case right now, with popular consensus being that Google Glass is useless or has trivial functionality. As the technology progresses and augmented reality becomes more commonplace and more useful, this is no longer going to be a one-sided issue whose solution is to simply ban it everywhere. Thinking forward a couple decades, you could visit a foreign country and the glasses could automatically translate all the signs you see (including the menu in a restaurant). You could tour a museum and the glasses would give you additional information of each exhibit you're seeing. You could see someone being mugged and be able to quickly snap the assailant's picture before he flees (faster than you can pull out a phone, turn on the camera app, and press the shutter).

Google Glass is the first exposure most of you have had to this technology. My lab at MIT in the 1990s was two blocks from Steve Mann's, and I frequently crossed paths with him while buying lunch (the gear he wore back then was much more obvious than Google Glass). My initial reaction was like that of most people here - extreme discomfort at the idea of being recorded without my knowledge or consent. But after I'd read some of his work and gotten used to the idea (it still bugged me, it just didn't elicit an overwhelming emotional response in my anymore), I started to think of the possible uses of the technology. Contrary to what most people are saying, the tech does have potential. Maybe not enough to become a huge market success, but it is not completely devoid of merit as many here are arguing.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[drinkypoo]

I had this argument days ago with a glass evangelist.

He, too, is a self-entitled man-child.

Here's the basic crux of why glass owners are megadouches: They want to act like glass is new, innovative, game-changing. Then they want to tell you that it's no different from a cellphone, so relax, guy! Take a load off! Well, that's fucking bullshit. Either it's transformative, and it is different, or it's just like a cellphone, and you're wearing a fucking ugly cellphone strapped to your head and you're an asshole. If it isn't different, then shut the fuck up already. But it is different, so stop pretending there's no new privacy implications.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Jiro]

I'm pretty sure that walking around without a shirt and shoes is not expensive, yet restaurants ban that too.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Khyber]

"This is not a common way to use a cell phone"

You better take your ass out of your cave and go wander the streets like a real human, sometime. There are all sorts of people that hold their phones all sorts of weird fucking ways when they use it - you wouldn't be any fucking wiser to someone taking a picture of you, especially out in the ghetto where people tend to talk by bringing the phone to their mouth (as if they didn't know the microphone could pick up their voice just fine) and the angle at which they do it is perfect for a surreptitious picture.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

Actually he can order him to leave his private business. What are you smoking?

Depending on the definition of "order". "Get out, or I'll throw you out" is illegal (though never prosecuted). It's a violent threat, and if followed up on, is assault. The owner can *ask* the person to leave. And if they fail to do so, may contact the police to execute the trespass order. But the owner can't throw them out without significant criminal and civil risk.

Also, trying to downplay this as if the Glass is as innocuous as a "fashion accessory", like a pair of sunglasses or a hat that serves no other function other than being an item of clothing is disingenuous and you know it.

The order wasn't to stop filming. The order wasn't to disconnect the battery and leave it in a battery jar at the counter until leaving. The order was to "remove that item, because it makes some people uncomfortable" At that point, it's a fashion accessory, and nothing more.

Unless you're saying that Google Glass is nothing but a fashion accessory that has no use at all, and is only worn because the user thinks it makes them cool?

Given the number of Glass users who claim their Glass was off at the time of the altercation, yes. That is all the users wear them for. They certainly aren't on 24/7 recording and streaming to Google, as asserted here. The fact they have neither the battery life nor data plan to do so doesn't stop 90% of Slash-Luddites from asserting such doesn't seem to matter either.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

You're still twisting in the wind here.

No one is claiming that these things are recording 24/7, but that they have the potential to be filming at any moment if the user chooses, and if they do so it looks no different to if they're just sitting there as normal.

Like I mentioned before, you have no idea if the guy is just looking at you or if he's filming you. The chances are he probably isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he effectively has a camera ready to record at very short notice without it being immediately obvious that's what he is doing (compared to being very obviously filmed with a mobile phone or some other form of common consumer camera).

The order was for him to ""remove that item, because it makes some people uncomfortable because it contains a camera and could be used to film his other customers". I added back the crucial detail that puts the request from the owner in proper context. There was a reason he was asked to remove it that went beyond it being just a plain fashion accessory.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

if they do so it looks no different to if they're just sitting there as normal.

Yes, if "changing from black to flashing record button" is "no different".

Every complaint against them seems to be ill informed or simply fraudulent.

The order was for him to ""remove that item, because it makes some people uncomfortable because it contains a camera and could be used to film his other customers". I added back the crucial detail that puts the request from the owner in proper context. There was a reason he was asked to remove it that went beyond it being just a plain fashion accessory.

Yes, and the owner could order a female patron to disrobe or get out because her clothes could contain a hidden camera.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

Strawman argument detected.

I'm out.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

Analogy you don't like = strawman. Intellectually defeated lies and runs away. Yup, I'm still on the Internet. You should have tossed in a parting insult for the Internet coward trifecta.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

No, a straw man argument is just that.

It's clear you're not interested in discussing this honestly, and instead have gone for increasingly disingenuous arguments and ultimately setting up a strawman.

If you want to claim "victory", by all means, and if you want to call me a coward for withdrawing from said debate then that's up to you. I'm not going to insult you though; what would be the point of that?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Bill_the_Engineer]

With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous

There are restaurants that won't allow cell phones to be used at all and this was before smartphones or phones with cameras. Patrons don't want to hear your side of a phone conversation.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Meski]

No, but why does it matter? The restaurant owner is probably using CCTV and streaming it to HD. That's his right, and all you can do about it is not patronise his restaurant. More likely he as an owner doesn't want people doing 'food shots' - and that should be a warning perhaps against eating there.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Stephen Chadfield]

Many people are becoming aware about the degree to which we have allowed our right to privacy to be eroded by adopting new technologies. Google Glass is an unnecessary toy which would facilitate a further erosion of our privacy. This has nothing to do with jealousy.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[strikethree]

Phone to your face? Sorry but if I wanted to take a picture of you discretely with my phone you'd NEVER realise. I could for instance hold my phone exactly where a normal person holds their phone while talking, at my ear, except with the camera pointed at you.

Would you notice me?

Yes. I would. Someone recently was arrested for EXACTLY that in the mall here. But go ahead and try to be dick. We have laws for people like you.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[strikethree]

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.

Oh my god. How very shameful. Did the parents of these people not give them ANY morals or compassion at all? Your friend would be safe around me. *sigh*

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

I gave no strawman. An analogy you don't like isn't a strawman. A strawman is making up an argument, then tearing it apart. Point out the strawman. There isn't one there. Just false rhetorical claims and whining by you.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[serviscope_minor]

You better take your ass out of your cave and go wander the streets like a real human, sometime.

I level the same accusation at you.

Firstly, nobody gives a fuck about you for now, so while people can surrepticiously film you with a cell phone they probably won't. Because of the effort. With google glass it becomes trivially easy.

See the difference?

Secondly it takes a lot of practice to use a cellphone covertly. Just try. If you're reading the screen, bad luck. The camera's pointing at the ground. If it's by your ear, it's hard to take remotely decent stable video with the camera anywhere near the target.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[serviscope_minor]

It is amusing how much hatred there is on a technology focused site

Yes because people on a technology related site ought to worship all new applications of technology regardless of the consequences and be totally unable to think through the implications. Go read some classic sci fi and stop being a prat.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Khyber]

It takes no practice to take a pic surreptitiously and covertly on a phone. Perhaps you should go out in public and look at people and maybe use your brain. If I'm looking at my smartphone, it is held vertical to avoid glare - that means my camera is pointed right at your acne-ridden face, fuckwit. People could easily act like they're asking Siri for info and yet be taking your picture.

You are one ignorant person.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

I gave no strawman. An analogy you don't like isn't a strawman. A strawman is making up an argument, then tearing it apart. Point out the strawman. There isn't one there. Just false rhetorical claims and whining by you.

My argument was that the owner was justified in asking the guy to remove his Glass because it contains a camera that could potentially be recording.

You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.

One on front, casual clothes typically do not contain hidden cameras (unlike the Glass, which has it as a primary feature), on the other front, asking a person to remove their Glass vs strip naked in a restaurant are two different levels of "acceptable" on the scale - i.e., one of them is and one of them absolutely isn't.

That argument - that my point is invalid because it's no different to the owner asking a women to strip naked or leave because she might have a hidden camera - is a strawman.

I'm not sure how I'm whining - I'm merely debating. We don't agree. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I'm "whining" and making "false rhetorical claims".

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.

That's reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. Try not using big words anymore. They are too much for you.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

You then took this to it's extreme and suggested that my argument was invalid because the owner could ask a a female to strip naked because her clothes might contain a camera.

That's reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. Try not using big words anymore. They are too much for you.

I was wondering if you would counter with that. You just admitted to using logical fallacies in your own argument. It is also a straw man argument; you're claiming that because the owner could ask a female patron to strip naked that my argument that he is within his rights and justified to make requests of other patrons is fallacious. It's not mutually exclusive.

Funnily enough, it was you who then went for the ad hom, after suggesting that I should be the one to complete my "internet coward trifecta". Somewhat hypocritical, you think?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

You just admitted to using logical fallacies in your own argument.

You are using big words again. strawman is a fallacy. reductio isn't. You don't understand either.

Funnily enough, it was you who then went for the ad hom, after suggesting that I should be the one to complete my "internet coward trifecta". Somewhat hypocritical, you think?

Again you are using words you don't understand. Insults aren't ad hominem. Try to stick to monosyllabic English. You seem to have enough trouble with that. But less than when you try the big words.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[jo_ham]

Would you like a spade?

For someone so determined to claim I was one component away from an "internet coward trifecta" you sure are showing your colours here.

You're directly questioning my intelligence rather than addressing or conceding the point. Calling me an idiot would be an insult, questioning my intelligence rather than addressing the argument is an ad hominem attack.

I assume you're waiting for me to snap at the bait and insult you so I can "complete the trifecta"?

You could just go back to the argument at hand. You seem to think the restaurant owner is in the wrong in asking a patron to remove a wearable camera/media device because he would clearly be in the wrong if he asked a woman to strip naked because she might have a hidden camera on her.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

You could just go back to the argument at hand. You seem to think the restaurant owner is in the wrong in asking a patron to remove a wearable camera/media device because he would clearly be in the wrong if he asked a woman to strip naked because she might have a hidden camera on her.

I seem to think that the restaurant owner can impose terms on the person there or ask them to leave. From the article, he did not "ask", he ordered it. The owner can't "order" anything (unless they want to order some of their own fries). They may ask. "Please remove your Google Glass, I've gotten complaints it makes some people uncomfortable" would be perfectly fine. Based on TFA, that's not what happened. The patron would have been within his rights to say "fuck you" and sit down. If the owner then stated "Since you won't remove them, you are no longer welcome here, get out, or I'll have you charged with trespassing." He could respond "fuck you" and the owner could still not do anything. Except call the police. And, in practice, the police would say "are you going to leave quietly" and the patron says "yes sir, nobody had explained it that way, I'll be going now, have a nice day", and he'll walk out with no legal problems.

And I think the restaurant owner is wrong for asking someone to remove a fashion accessory.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Seedy2]

Try visiting a larger town, or even a city. See if you go to places where there are more than one or two people present it becomes increasingly more of a burden to for someone to talk to a bunch of strangers, now tell me why it's more reasonable to ask me to ask each of thousands of people if it's all right to snap a picture of a landmark, rather than one person being required to speak to me to say they don't want their picture taken. (and by the way all they can reasonable ask is that I not publish it)

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I did preemptively address that. The ideal solution, easily done, would be to use (mandate camera manufacturers include?) technology to automatically detect and then blur faces in the background. Failing that, there's some point at which the burden becomes unreasonable.

But I disagree on "all they can reasonably ask is that I not publish it". Frankly, if I ask you not to take my picture, and you do, I consider that to be an invasion of my privacy. I consider it reasonable to have you not violate my privacy. I want to live in a society where it is not considered acceptable to violate someone's privacy over their express wishes, and in some cases without their express consent.

Like I said, reasonable lines must be drawn. For instance, I couldn't stand next to the Statue of Liberty, ask you not to take my picture, and not move.

But, here's a little thought experiment for you. (IANAL, I have no idea if this is legal in your jurisdiction. This is only a thought experiment. Don't be the asshole who does this.) Go to a bar. Take a camera. Hold it above a girl with a low-cut top and take a picture. What response would you expect?

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Actually, I do RTFA]

No. On duty policemen should have a lower expectation/standard of privacy than civilians. And obviously, there needs to be some more complexity than conveyed in a post to address the issue of filming the other person involved in whatever police incident you are filming.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Seedy2]

You suggestion is like the difference between leaning on the bar, and walking up to someone and leaning on them, in a bar. If I want to take pictures of people in a public place, and publish, I have to get waivers/permission and stuff after the picture is taken. But when I am on my own just taking photos of the city, sites, landmarks, etc. not framing faces, but framing shots that have people in them, I don't have any requirement to ask them first.
Get this, if you are in public you don't have privacy. I don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask your permission first. pro tip: don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[adolf]

You're purposefully ignoring the obvious.

People often thumb-fuck their phone for a bit, and then hold it to their ear as if to listen to it (voice mail, a phone call, whatever). Their eyes thus freed from the burden of staring into the screen, they may tend to look around, often changing their entire posture and pivoting their whole head...including the phone.

Someone intent on recording/filming/photographing you need only act like any of these people. My own smartphone's camera can be activated screen-off, using the volume buttons on the side, which is the natural spot for my thumb to rest when holding the device to my right ear. To the casual observer, it will appear that I am on a phone call, or waiting on hold. If I want to make it extra obvious that I'm on a (fake) phone call, I can talk to myself while I do this.

High-quality video? Not necessarily, but it should be about as stable as any other head-mounted camera without a viewfinder. Accomplishing this is more about motivation than practice (and with motivation comes practice, so there's that).

Meanwhile, in all cases, post-process video stabilization will help. It is far from perfect, but -is- completely trivial. (Youtube offers this service for free.)

And finally, with Google Glass, I'd have to keep my head facing you the whole time: Folks are trained to ignore the casual and ubiquitous smart phone user, but I'm not sure that we're anywhere near the point where being actively stared at is so easily-overlooked.

(That said, I think you're right in that nobody really cares to film those around them. If I had Google Glass, I wouldn't spend much time filming my surroundings with it. Battery life, slowdowns, storage/network availability, video management, etc etc etc. But a motivated person is more worrisome to me than a casual person.)

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Actually, I do RTFA]

... the difference between leaning on the bar, and walking up to someone and leaning on them, in a bar.

How? It's still just a picture of that person in a public space? You claim that someone should have no rights over how their picture is taken in said space.

framing shots that have people in them, I don't have any requirement to ask them first.

Are you asserting a moral right, or a legal right? We're in an argument about the moral right, so I would like to hear some non-assertion defense in that case. In the case you are claiming a legal right, I have two responses: One, that right is variable and exists in some juristicions but not others. Two, we're discussing what the law should be, hence the status quo is not sufficient to dismiss my points.

don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask

Cool, nor do I. Most states don't let you beat someone with a pipe for doing something wrong.. even illegal. But that's hardly the only remedy available.

don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school.

Read my original post. Keeping something private is different then it being public but not recorded. I want to be able to go to a bar and do something stupid without a permanent record existing. And I will patronize bars that facilitate that. And I want legal support for such places to exist..

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Seedy2]

I don't know if you are deliberately misunderstanding or what.
When I say:
--> I don't want to live in a society where you can beat someone with a pipe and not go to jail because the guy who took the photo didn't ask
I am not talking about you using violence to stop people taking your picture.

I am talking about some random person taking a picture of a crime in progress, and the criminal walks because the photographer didn't ask his permission to photograph the crime.
I am talking about giving criminals an reasonable expectation of privacy in public means they can do whatever they want, because no photographic evidence of their crime will ever be admissible. That is what I see you advocating.

I feel you are being more of a troll here, deliberately misunderstanding to be a prat; if you honestly don't understand the difference between taking a picture in a public place and deliberately invading their personal space you need some help.

I stand by original "don't do things in public that you want kept private, most of us learn that before we are out of grade school", you address little except trollish misunderstandings. I am specifically talking about photography not taking videos, and nothing in the article supports any such ban.

That being said:
Full transparency can only support freedom, if everyone can record everyone else, then it's harder to lie about who did what. If only certain people are allowed to record people in public then they can conveniently lose anything they don't wish to share. hint: you are already being recorded in lots of places, many businesses have security cameras. Those that do stand in an advantaged position if there is a dispute and they control the sole recording.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[AK Marc]

You are, in practice, wrong. In theory, you may be right, but reality trumps theory, every time they are in conflict.

Re:Not a Glass fan but

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Ah, the pipe beating comment was ambigous. I interperted it as a two-party issue - the pipe beating being in retaliation for having an undesired picture taken.

Sure, granted, photographing a crime in progress would fall under different rules and be fine. There's a wide range of exceptions to most rules, or nuances that seem to be beyond the scope of this conversation... although I'd happily veer there if you want.

I use the taking a "picture from above them" example because (in many juristictions) there's no legal difference. We both agree it's wrong. I'm trying to use that as a common base to build from. We can agree that pictures of a girl getting out of a car and having her skirt accidentally and temporarily reveal too much skin are off limits. Why that and not a guy getting overserved in a bar? Or wearing a homemade beer hat?

I fail to see any significant difference between a photo and a video, which is why I didn't really address a distinction. Happy to have you explain why.

Read my original post, about the value of transient experiences, and allowing people to do interesting things in public. If everything in public might some day be used to judge you, people will do fewer interesting things in public.

I understand your point about allowing some but not all people to record. Yeah, I think if a security camera is running, you should have a right to make your own copy as well (with your own camera). So would videoing an interaction with law enforcement and many other things.

I disagree that full transparency can only support freedom. Look at the works published pseudonymously by the (American) Founding Fathers. Fundamentally, privacy and anonymity are great empowerers of freedom, and that's my entire point. Without the ability to fail interestingly and ephemerally, people will try fewer (and less) interesting things.

Re:just leave

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:just leave

[TheGratefulNet]

just leave, I agree with that part.

the rest of us in the restaurant don't want to take part in your spying for google.

cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.

star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.

Re:just leave

[BringsApples]

The review could only legally iterate that they were given a choice to leave or remove the device. If you were like me, and liked the fact that people cannot be looking through google glass (and all of the endless possibilities that will eventually be implemented into these devices, like facial recognition, etc...) at me while I try to eat, and/or be social and enjoy public atmosphere, then such a review turns me onto the place.

Re:Just imagine

[mwvdlee]

Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Different restaurant, same owner

[unitron]

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.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[SuperKendall]

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.

Whereas the next time I'm in Seattle, I plan to visit all of them, and at each one buy a huge expensive meal at, and leave a giant tip with a "THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECORDING POLICY" written in big letters on the receipt.

Do you honestly think there are more people like you, or like me?

Happily I have plans to be in Seattle early next year so I can actually implement this plan.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Surely the low-paid and replaceable service peons are directly responsible for all organizational policies, because they haven't resigned and gone to work elsewhere!

It's my right to harass them if I don't like the policies set by people over which they have no power!

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[SuperKendall]

You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.

It's obviously not a real call for violence, and the fact you think it is just increases your asshol-o-meter.

like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted).

Corruption, just because they don't want diners surreptitiously recorded? Come on.

what matters is how I live my life

I guess so but so far you are sucking at it, caring more about YOURSELF than anyone else.

I can't excuse wrong

Neither can I, not listening to a reasonable request is unquestionably wrong and I will do anything to support those who can understand manners. There are far too many people who cannot these days.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[foobar bazbot]

How would you feel if someone sat at a table next to you and a friend while you were eating, pulled out their phone and aimed it at you and started filming you two?

Depends a lot on the establishment. Burger King? fine. (And I think it's important for fast-food joints to remain Glass-permitted zones, if for no other reason so that Glass-wearers can't claim there's nowhere they're allowed to eat, and use that to push for legislation preventing restaurants from banning Glass.)
Some classy restaurant? No, that's rude.

If you are fine with that, you are the exception.

So in other words, you're going to ask how I would feel about something, but my answer really doesn't matter? OK... you'll understand if I don't waste time answering your next few questions.

Anyway, the reason I said I was "not convinced of the value" of wearable cameras being banned in certain establishments is because in the long run, it doesn't matter what you think, what I think, or what anyone else thinks now, when wearable computing is just reaching the technological maturity to go mass-market.

What matters (or will matter) is what people who've grown up with wearable computing their whole lives will think. And I believe no matter how much we try to protect the status quo, where we have a measure of privacy in public places, it's ultimately doomed, because the next generation (or at latest, the one after that) will abandon it completely. I'm not saying it isn't worth fighting to hold as much ground as we can as long as possible, but I'm definitely not sure it is worth it. (I'm very concerned with privacy in private places, which will also be under attack, and indeed already is. But it's not obvious whether fighting for privacy in public is an essential part of defending privacy in private, or whether it's a waste of resources, and we should fall back to the prepared defensive positions of privacy in private spaces.)

The owner did not do this for advertising,

You do know Meinert's a music promoter amongst other things, right? So you're telling me he naively posted a statement on social media, touting the fact that his bar being the first in the world to ban not-yet-available Google Glass, and throwing in a juicy little call for violence, and was just completely surprised when a hundred media outlets worldwide ran stories on it?

Riiiiiiight.

the person that was kicked out went public with it and he responded.

Oh, I get it, you're conflating the two events, and applying my comments about the first event with the current one. (Surely not because this is the only way to make Meinert look the least bit sympathetic? I'll assume it's just because I wasn't clear enough...)
To be completely clear, I'm saying, because of the first event, where Meinert used an inflammatory statement to get loads of media coverage, the Glass-wearing guy, if he had any sense, wouldn't have gone to a cafe owned by this asshole in the first place (first because, as shown by the first event, Meinert's a media-manipulating asshole who shouldn't be patronized, and second because, given he's banned it in one place, it seems likely he has or will have such a Glass ban in all his restaurants, so if you insist on wearing Glass while eating, you should just eat somewhere else); in that case, he'd have avoided the second event.

Ironic you are offended by that but see no issue with the Google Glasses wearing guy potentially offending others.

"potentially" offending others? If I was in the same place as some Glass-wearer, and it did offend me, I guess I'd have to deal with it the same way as if that person were doing any other offensive thing (wearing an offensive t-shirt, talking on the phone at an inappropriate volume or context, etc.): first try talking like civilized adult

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[gweihir]

Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.

I am absolutely not surprised by that. This is really a prime example why wise people came up with the term "glasshole" before it actually became publicly available. Some people just do not get that living together with others requires a certain amount of respect for said others. The only viable response to these people is zero-tolerance.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[gweihir]

Good. Then decent people will not have to put up with the likes of you there.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[foobar bazbot]

You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.
It's obviously not a real call for violence,

Exactly. A real call for violence, from someone who really believe privacy violations are on a level with punching someone, and thus merit the same level of response, wouldn't be near as bad. (That belief is IMO incorrect, particularly as it applies to violations of privacy in a public space, and thus issuing a call for violence based on nothing more than such violations is wrong, but at least it doesn't compound that with dishonesty.)

This is using a dishonest threat of violence to synthesize a more appealing story, in order to get free advertising. This sort of underhanded marketing is to journalism as SEO is to search -- but more on that later.
And it is, sincere or not, still a call for violence -- claiming that it's somehow less wrong to endorse violence when one doesn't really mean it is like suggesting that, say, blackmailing someone is less wrong if you don't actually intend to exchange the embarrassing materials for payment, but are just using it as a ploy to draw them out to the exchange meet so you can beat them up. Any reasonable person would say you're wrong for blackmailing them and wrong for beating them!

like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted).
Corruption, just because they don't want diners surreptitiously recorded?

Again, you're focusing on which side he's on, not on what dirty tricks he's playing.

No, not corruption, just because they don't want diners being openly recorded (Google Glass has nothing to do with surreptitious recording).
Corruption, just because they're participating in the ongoing corruption of "news" into covert advertising, where instead of paying money to get your name out, you compete with all the other marketers to craft the best combination of attention-getting elements (in this case, the public's growing privacy concerns, a shiny new tech-toy, and a good-old-fashioned promise of ass-kicking) and feed it right to the "news" people via social media, so the "news" outlets will run your story to get the most ad views. I said earlier that this is like SEO, but it's worse -- while search engines continually change their algorithms to fight SEO tricks, the "news" outlets are complicit. Turns out letting marketers, on someone else's payroll, write your story is a lot cheaper than paying newsmen to find stories, investigate them, and write them up. And they wonder why nobody will pay for news anymore!

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Nyder]

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.

I live in Seattle and glad to know peeps like you would not be going to the 5 Point Cafe.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[shutdown -p now]

Do you honestly think there are more people like you, or like me?

Most people don't care one way or another.

And I don't know about the proportion today, but I can guarantee you that 10 years into the future, you will be in a tiny, tiny minority. Wearable computing and augmented reality are just too convenient, and once they become available to the masses at a reasonable price, they'll enjoy the success of iPhone.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[sonamchauhan]

Whether its real call for violence or not, its indicates an attitude problem with the owner. And attitude is everything in hospitality - it informs everything: the staff you hire, the ingredients you procure, how kind you are to customers that make a mistake, or disagree with you ... This guys attitude is Not that of a hospitable restauranteur.

I see the problem with GG in restaurants. I support the ban. After all, its for the benefit of the OTHER patrons in the place. But I still prefer not to eat at venues where attitudes like this flow from the top down.

Feel free to disagree - just remember its your ass kicking he may call for tomorrow because of a bad tip or Yelp review.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[AK Marc]

They have free will to determine when and how they will enforce the policies. As such, they are personally responsible for the enforcement of the policy, even if they had no hand in making it.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[tftp]

This guys attitude is Not that of a hospitable restauranteur.

You cannot be hospitable to good people and bad people at the same time. You have to make your choice. The owner chose to protect many people who already depend on his policy because they are eating their food. This was done at expense of one person who was not even allowed to order yet. This was the right decision even regardless of the nature of the dispute (shirts, shoes, hygiene, inebriation, etc.) I fully support the owner of the restaurant, and if I find myself in the area I will be interested in visiting there.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[mvdwege]

These days, I'm more and more leaning towards the idea that the only valid idea is to smash those Google glasses. Preferably while the owner is still wearing them.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[realityimpaired]

Most people don't care one way or another.

Most people, if they knew they were being filmed, would be very uncomfortable with the idea. They can accept CCTV as a necessary evil, but some random fuck on the street with a camera on his face? Not a chance.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Maritz]

Seems to me that's the exact attitude, beautifully encapsulated...

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[shutdown -p now]

Most people, if they knew they were being filmed, would be very uncomfortable with the idea.

Most people are able to tell the difference between a gadget that can be used to film, and a CCTV or an always-on camera.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Flere Imsaho]

That was a rhetorical question, I know. But judging by the comments on the Glasshole's Facebook page, you're right believing you're in the majority.
His FB page is generating an amusing amount of hate.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Meski]

Zero tolerance itself is not a society friendly policy.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Meski]

Ah, yes, Seattle, home of Microsoft, 'best' friends of Google, not based in Seattle. Could the more vocal of the objectors in Seattle restaurants be playing a Microsoft agenda?

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Stephen Chadfield]

Of course. They are free to enforce their employer's policies or lose their job. You think someone should risk losing their job to appease some idiot who won't give up his shiny gadget for a few minutes?

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[gweihir]

I was quite obviously not talking about general zero tolerance, but about zero tolerance with regard to people not removing glass when it is requested by others.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[Meski]

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, I don't really see how you differentiate 'general' ZT with a specific example. What are you proposing to do when the wearers of Glass don't comply? (I'm not a wearer, nor even a prospective owner of Glass, I'll think about it at a lower price point) Would you have an objection to someone wearing them to read a book in public? (assuming that Kindle app would be workable, any glass owners want to volunteer this info on such a glass unfriendly forum?)

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[AK Marc]

You think someone should risk losing their job to appease some idiot who won't give up his shiny gadget for a few minutes?

And you think nobody should *ever* question orders?

Re:Different restaurant, same owner

[mvdwege]

I also forgot to mention I'm in favour of sending everyone without a sense of hyperbole to death camps.

This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[wonkey_monkey]

"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.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Really does sound like an upcoming episode of Portlandia, doesn't it?

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[thegarbz]

To reply to myself, a lot of the people in this thread are harping on the fact that he had Google Glass on him, and the summary makes it appears as though he was kicked out because of it. Looks like he was asked politely to stop using it and kicked out when he made a major scene.

So yes he's a giant douchenozzel.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[SternisheFan]

Try to look at it from the eatery owner's pov. My customers seem to get upset when another person isn't wearing a shirt in my place, and I want my all my customers to enjoy their meal and come back again. I also want them to tell others that my place is a nice place to eat. So I have to make the rule saying "No shirt, no service."

Same for when my customers complain that some other customer is making them uncomfortable by video recording them with those high-tech google-glass thingys. In order to keep my customers happy, I have to ban googleglass, or I'll go out of business. Word of mouth is powerful. Once word gets around that if you go to my place you could be instantly made into a youtube star (when all you wanted was to have a nice meal out), that place will be deserted.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[gnasher719]

Yes he's a git with an over inflated ego, but he's fully entitled to an explanation and maybe an apology.

Explanation: The owner doesn't want glassholes in his restaurant. Apology: None forthcoming. Clarification: People wearing "Google Glass" are commonly referred to as "glassholes", and treated as assholes.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff?"

And such good advice, as well. Does he think that restaurant staff get juicy severance packages (even if it were legal to pull a 'lost present and future income' figure out of your ass and just fine an employee you are terminating...) or something?

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[gagol]

Anyone thinks of Daffyd Thomas from Little Britain when reading about this douche bag?

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[gweihir]

Yes he's a git with an over inflated ego, but he's fully entitled to an explanation and maybe an apology.

No, he is not. Despite him clearly understanding what his gadget does, he set up a filming session in a restaurant without asking the owner for permission. He is lucky the owner did not call the police on him and had his gadget impounded pending expert removal of the footage taken at his cost.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[gweihir]

The term is "glasshole".

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[ccguy]

And if the glasshole from the story had put his Google Glass in his pocket,

You can't. Glass the (obvious) design flaw of not having fold-able temples. It's one piece, so you can't easily put it away.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Maritz]

Thanks. You hit all the points I would have and a couple more to boot. Bottom line, the guy could've taken off the google glass and gotten on with it. Instead he made a scene and tried to get the waitress in trouble. Complete fucking dick, in other words. I hope this isn't standard from glass early adopters.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Khyber]

"Had this been about a firearm we'd be up in arms about 4th amendment rights"

GO THE FUCK BACK TO SCHOOL AND SHUT UP UNTIL YOU DO.

Holy shit you don't even know your basic Bill of Rights. Just leave slashdot because you're not even intelligent enough to be here.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Meski]

Windows has enough holes in it already

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch

[Zaelath]

It's a reflection of community standards, in the same way that it's against them to dine with your cock out, it's not yet acceptable to play cyborg.

You might well feel that those standards are archaic, in the same way that nudists feel the standards are childish, but guess what, majority rules.

Re:just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that the people that own Google Glass are not more likely to make reviews online?

Re:just leave

[maxwell demon]

Of course people who love to not be recorded while eating will read those "bad reviews" as good reviews ...

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.

Don't delude yourself. Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.

How would you know? Google Glass is deliberately obvious, but you wouldn't recognize most cameras as cameras, let alone notice that they are pointed at you.

Re:just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit about those assholes?
As long as the regular people keep showing up it's fine.

Reporting is a bit one-sided

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

What I want to know is why a glasshole had to wait until he'd finished storming out before writing an angry blog post...

Isn't the augmented reality future supposed to allow you to blog angrily and make a scene at the same time, thus making you more efficient?

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided

[gweihir]

Hehehe, because maybe this glasshole is also incompetent? Dunning-Kruger effect at work. Would not surprise me one bit.

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided

[Anubis IV]

Not really. I can simply leave and then file the appropriate lawsuit against their policies that discriminate against protected classes. But arguing my point then and there with the employee or manager is hardly a worthwhile thing to do.

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided

[Anubis IV]

What you just said is the opposite of true. If a policy is not stated up front, in writing, it doesn't legally exist.

Sure it does. It's private property. So long as the policy isn't illegal (e.g. discriminatory, misleading, etc.), they are welcome to enforce whatever they want in their establishment. Within the bounds of the law, they are permitted to ask you to leave for any reason whatsoever, just as you can ask guests at your home to abide by your rules or leave. If asked to abide by the policy or leave, a failure to do so on your part could result in trespassing charges, which is why your only legal choices while you're still in their establishment are to abide by it or leave.

Just do a quick reality check on what you said: when was the last time you saw a written policy on the front door of a restaurant that stated their policy of kicking out disruptive customers? And yet, despite the fact that you've likely never or only rarely seen such a policy in writing, is there any doubt in your mind that restaurants would have no problems kicking out such a customer? Some establishments, such as theaters, do display similar policies up front, but they do so because it's in everyone's best interests to remind people of them, not because they are under a legal obligation to do so. Theaters were kicking out cell phone users for being disruptive long before the problem became so endemic that they had to create little videos to play before the film that reminded everyone of the policy.

Now, all of that said, you're not without legal recourse in cases such as the all-you-can-eat buffet situation you talked about. In fact, the situation you described with the buffet is something that could happen today, but the reason we don't see it very often in practice is because there are other laws in place prohibiting that particular type of unwritten policy, such as laws against false advertising. Having an unwritten policy ("only one plate allowed") that directly countermands a written one (such as "all-you-can eat") flies in the face of customer expectations and is likely to get you sued. Similarly, if they ask you to leave because of the color of your skin or some other trait that's characteristic of a protected class, then you can sue them for having a discriminatory policy. But just because those unwritten policies wouldn't stand up in court doesn't mean that you should put yourself at risk of trespassing charges by trying to make your case then and there, nor does it negate the fact that the vast majority of unwritten policies are perfectly fine and would stand up in court.

Or, really, when you get down to it, the policy wouldn't matter much, because so long as it's legal, the only thing that matters is that they asked you to leave, which they are free to do for any reason at all. After all, they own the place. Literally.

Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm guessing you aren't either.

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided

[Cammi]

1. This has nothing to do with Apple. 2. You posted as AC, aka, you are nothing, and nobody will miss you.

Re:just leave

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Especially if the business in question caters to hipsters and half the customers are wearing those godawful chunky plastic BCGs. You can hide a lot of recording and processing power in those things these days ...

Different restaurant, same owner

[foobar bazbot]

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.

Re:just leave

[spire3661]

Google Glass is merely the consumer facing aspect of wearable computing. $1500 would go a LONG way in hiding several cameras on my person, including head, in such a way that you would never know. Anyone really into wearables can go much farther than google glass pretty trivially.

douche

[comrade1]

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)

Re:douche

[ebno-10db]

The words I've heard associated with google glass among my friends are 'douche', 'ass', 'moron', etc.

Your friends are very diplomatic and given to understatement.

Re:douche

[gweihir]

Unlikely. Google Glass is not useful in itself. Its primary purpose is to be visible and make the glasshole wearing it appear "leet". That is why this particular overgrown child was so angry when asked to behave himself in public.

Re:just leave

[spire3661]

Good luck with that. You lost this fight decades ago when CCTV was installed publicly and privately.

Re:just leave

[laetus]

Just leave? Love the quote about Google Glass voyeurs: "already facing a preemptively hostile environment"

Some people think secretly filming people is a pre-emptively hostile act.

How much of an ass are you?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[Aighearach]

It's not always on. And it is rarely recording.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[SuperKendall]

Is he going to ban wrist watches? Pens? Jewelry? Phones? Belt buckles? Tablets? Eyeglasses?

They already do if they are recording. It's the fault of Glasses design that they are ALWAYS pointed at exactly what you don't want recorded in a way none of those other things are sitting down. So they are simply banned by default.

It is not absurd to leave if someone asks me to remove random bits of technology from my body because they don't understand the technology.

No, still absurd, stupid, and self-centered if they ask you to remove anything reasonable and you would rather go find a whole new place to eat instead of just going with the flow.

Again if they ask me to remove a hat I would, and that's not even technology.

What's sad is that YOU don't seem to understand how technology may impact those around you.

And have fun at "The bar run by alcoholics for alcoholics"

I don't drink that much but they have food, and apparently all the rude people have self-selected not to eat there. So it sounds like a great place to dine.

So yes, I and the rest of reasonable humanity will enjoy eating there thanks.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[martin-boundary]

It's not always on. And it is rarely recording.

And yet, the wearer always looks like a douche. Go figure.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[SuperKendall]

It's not always on.

It is literally always on when wearing - as in an external observer cannot tell if it's powered, or not. The only way for someone to know it is off is if you TAKE it off and put it away.

I can understand why you might be reluctant since Glass can't fold like real, well, glasses. But then I guess you shouldn't have worn a $1500 hair-band hat irked people. Put it on the table facing the wall.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[shutdown -p now]

It is literally always on when wearing - as in an external observer cannot tell if it's powered, or not. The only way for someone to know it is off is if you TAKE it off and put it away.

I haven't worn one myself or seen it close up, but according to Google, they have deliberately designed it in such a way that it's very clear whether it is recording or not. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[Nerdfest]

There's no point arguing with people. There is an extremely well funded anti-Google Glass campaign going on. There were threats and laws passed even before they were available, based in incomplete and incorrect information, just like most of the posts here.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[tftp]

http://glassalmanac.com/vint-cerf-google-glass-will-probably-need-visible-recording-indicator/

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[stenvar]

No, still absurd, stupid, and self-centered if they ask you to remove anything reasonable

That's the problem: it is not reasonable to ask me to remove a useful digital device that's may be an integral part of my day-to-day life just because you have an irrational fear that I might be using it for clandestinely recording you. The fear is irrational because if I actually wanted to record you clandestinely, there would be much better and cheaper ways to do it than sticking a big Android device on my face.

(I'm actually not a Google Glass user myself, but even my phone can take pictures of you without you noticing.)

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[swillden]

He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.

It's not always on. You can tell when it's recording.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[dcollins]

Also: Jar-Jar Binks wasn't a lame, racist character, there's a well funded anti-George Lucas campaign going on.

Re:How much of an ass are you?

[Stephen Chadfield]

Funded by whom? I am happy to be anti-Google Glass for nothing.

Re:just leave

[spire3661]

You do know that every patron in almost EVERY place you eat is ALREADY being videoed, right? Surveillance is ubiquitous and NOW you want to complain because individuals wish to engage in something business has been doing for literally decades?

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret,

My point is that most cameras will become so small that they are hidden and most picture taking will be "secret"; trying to ban that is pointless.

and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.

Commercial photographers may ask for business reasons, and other people may ask out of politeness, but your permission is not usually required to take your picture. The limits that we have are on publishing pictures, in the sense that if you are unfairly harmed, you may be able to recover damages.

But seriously...

[roc97007]

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?

Re:But seriously...

[Aighearach]

Just like in The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson!

Re:But seriously...

[shutdown -p now]

You may not be filming, but how would anyone know?

By the fact that your screen is not lit up?

Restaurants are not public spaces

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[stenvar]

Nowhere have I disputed the legal right of restaurants to impose such rules. I have questioned the wisdom and effectiveness of such rules.

And I dispute that people who take a "don't photograph me" stance are crusaders against surveillance. While they are getting all upset about Google Glass, the restaurant's surveillance cameras continue to film them.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[penix1]

As I pointed out above, a restaurant surveillance system is trained on the cash registers to record transactions (or thefts) from them. They don't follow you around the damned place like someone wearing Google Glass can.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[SuperKendall]

While they are getting all upset about Google Glass, the restaurant's surveillance cameras continue to film them.

The same people that control that video make my food - I trust them not to poison me nor release random video of me eating (not that restaurant cameras are normally pointed at tables).

With Glasses who knows where the video is going, or even if the singular person wearing Glasses is in control - if they are streaming someone else could be taping the feed. It's just far more possibilities for video being outbound.

Obviously people are going to sometimes take pictures and video in a restaurant. But Glass is just too much a wild factor in that you can't tell if it's recording or not, so you basically have to assume it is and have a person remove it if might be recording other patrons - and how can it not when it's inherently looking where you are?

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm also a part time photog and have followed this kind of discussion online quite a lot.

when I shoot with an slr, its very obvious and you pretty much are encouraged to ask those around you if they are ok being in your shot (lets assume this is not PJ style shooting, etc).

having a visor that is always-on is quite a bit different and everyone knows that. its too easy to hide and that makes the difference.

people deserve the right to be excluded from your little 'documentaries'. they just do. and since we can't tell (red light or not), if you are wearing such a device we have to assume its 'on'.

I'm glad we are talking about this and not just plowing ahead with it, uhm, 'blindly' (so to speak). I hope we collectively agree its a Bad Thing(tm) but at least we're talking about it a little bit, first. its going to take some time before its cheap enough that its already become a problem. right now, we can discuss this before it gets too widely adopted.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[SuperKendall]

It's great that we are having a conversation about this but really a shame that people with Glass apparently are not wanting to be gracious ambassadors for the product, but instead act like complete jerks and just bowl everyone over with the battle try "Technology a 'comin! Move aside!".

If Glass users would simply understand why they are making people uncomfortable instead of demanding explanations, it would go a long way toward allowing future Glass use in public spaces. As it is it seems like current Glass users are the largest motivating force behind bans across the nation - including in some states while driving, where I think Glass makes sense to use.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[bugnuts]

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.

It is private only in that it is not owned by the state.

It is, however, public because it is open to the public and there is clearly no expectation of privacy. The only place where such an expectation exists is in the bathrooms, areas marked "private", rented rooms, and so forth.

They have every right to tell him not to photograph. In fact, they can tell him not to wear blue. Or that he smells funny so he can't come in, or basically anything that is not based on being in a protected class (including those of your state, which can be different than the civil rights act listing). And if he remains there, he's trespassing.

But I highly doubt they've ever told ANYONE taking pictures with a cellphone that they can't photograph. In fact, I would bet if someone had videorecorded with a cellphone while the guy was getting thrown out, there would've been no threats or repercussions from the restaurant whatsoever.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[SuperKendall]

It is, however, public because it is open to the public and there is clearly no expectation of privacy.

It is not open to the GENERAL public and there is absolutely an expectation of privacy from the diners there.

Otherwise photojournalists would be able to bother celebrities inside restaurants, instead of outside.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[AK Marc]

Most have a wide angle or two catching the entire place. So yes, they are following you around everywhere, except the men's room. Is that it? you are upset that the last three guys you tried to hook up with in the men's room were wearing Google Glass and emailed the clip to your wife?

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[tftp]

you are upset that the last three guys you tried to hook up with in the men's room were wearing Google Glass and emailed the clip to your wife?

It's much worse when the three guys that you have nothing to do with offered you a compromising, fake (edited) footage and suggested that you pay them, or else the video goes to your boss.

The simple fact is that you have nothing to gain from glassholes, and something small to lose. Therefore you always lose if a glasshole is present.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[AK Marc]

So, they are like cops, but unarmed. But we are trying ti increase the number of cops.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[bugnuts]

It's called a "public accommodation", and it is indeed open to the GENERAL public during business hours, unless the place is rented out. You are conflating "public" as in publicly-owned (such as sidewalks that aren't actually owned by private individuals) with "public" as in public accommodation such as privately-owned restaurants. There is not an expectation of privacy in any general area except bathrooms and marked rooms. If there was, you could be sued (or even jailed) for taking a selfie in a restaurant and picking up anyone else in the background. If you had an expectation of privacy, security cameras would be illegal (like they are in bathrooms and hotel rooms, where there's an actual expectation).

You're simply out of your mind if you think there's a general expectation of privacy in any public accommodation. There are exceptions, e.g., privately-owned places open to the public can be marked as photography-free zones, such as museums and art galleries. Public places can have private events with their own rules, including renting out a public park. Entry may come with a contract, such as sports tickets and concerts. Some public places may prohibit all recording, such as SCOTUS.

As far as photography goes, entering the general areas of a public accommodation is the same as walking down the sidewalk. The only difference is that the owner can throw you out, as long as it's not based on your race or something. A restaurant is in public, you can be recorded, and you have no "right" or expectation of privacy or "right" to the recording. The photographer, in contrast, has a "right" to record you in public (with some limitations... some states prevent surreptitious recording and some have tried to prevent sound recording, recording of boondoggle animal-cruel farms even from public places, etc, and of course if you're told by the property owner not to record, you can't -- that's what TFA is whining about, because he got thrown out for carrying a recording device.) If you have to have privacy when you dine, then you have to dine in a private room or house where others are not allowed to enter, with the curtains drawn. Or, you can dine in a bathroom or locker room. Yum.

Privacy is not the reason photojournalists cannot enter these public accommodations. It's because the business owner won't let them harass their guests, since it's bad for business. If a photographer enters or lingers after being (legitimately) denied entry, they are trespassing, and can be hauled off.

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[tftp]

It's much worse when the three guys that you have nothing to do with offered you a compromising, fake (edited) footage and suggested that you pay them, or else the video goes to your boss.

So, they are like cops, but unarmed. But we are trying ti increase the number of cops.

No comment. I just cannot come up with one :-)

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[stenvar]

But Glass is just too much a wild factor in that you can't tell if it's recording or not, so you basically have to assume it it

The guy taking a picture from halfway across the room with his DSLR will capture you in exquisit detail. Someone with a pen camera in his jacket or a life recording camera around their neck will. Anyone with one of dozens of phone and camera models with a 90 deg angle between lens and screen will give you no hint they are taking a picture, as will people using any of the dozens of WiFi controllable cameras. All of that will end up in the cloud sooner or later.

And even if you can tell that I'm taking a picture of you, what were you planning on doing about it?

Re:Restaurants are not public spaces

[qbast]

So to sum it up, restaurant owner has every right to throw glasshole out of the door. And said glasshole can't do anything about it except for being whiny bitch on the internet.

I love how ...

[MacTO]

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.

Re:I love how ...

[gweihir]

It is not a private place, it is a place of business. That makes it a special case, as it also is not public. The owner can enforce some rules, but not others. Every place of business is however allowed to restrict video recordings and disturbances to their business.

Re:just leave

[Exitar]

Personally I'd give it a good review.

Re:just leave

[Todd Palin]

The difference is the surveillance video doesn't get posted online. (usually)

Re:Amazing

[ebno-10db]

Apparently your definition of Luddite includes objecting to idiots being trendy by doing bad Borg imitations. I love technology. I know it's why the average person no longer has to break their back 12 hours/day to live without electric lights, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, central heat and various modern forms of communication. I also know that Google Glass isn't tech - it's a bored billionaire's silly idea that will live on as a joke. Good riddance to it. Perhaps the restaurant should make its policy clear by posting a "no a-holes allowed" sign.

Re:just leave

[BringsApples]

They can and they will. You (and the owner) are deluding themselves that they cannot.

I understand your point, and I agree. However I think you misunderstood me, because that's not what I'm talking about. I know that if someone wants to, they can shoot me in the face with a gun. However, I do like the fact that many places do not allow guns. It stops people from walking around with AR15s like it's a war-zone. I do know that some people conceal a handgun regardless.

So it's not that I think that 'rules are always followed and so these rules are grrrrate!', but rather I like that the rule exists at all. Much like the (ridiculous) headline, a lot of people don't like barefooted people or people with no shirts on in places where they want to dine.

Re:Amazing

[femtobyte]

Being technology-centered doesn't mean blindly accepting whatever shiny-shiny your advertising/surveillance overlords push down the pipe. Thinking about and understanding implications of technology might enable you to reach negative critical conclusions about certain uses of technology.

Re:Amazing

[LocalH]

Glass is very much tech - it may not be, at this moment, the revolutionary tech that some people think it is, but it's tech.

For example, Glass (or tech like it, I understand people's hesitation for such a product from Google) has the potential to remove doubt from situations that are "he said, she said", by being an impartial observer. If everyone was wearing HMDs with cameras, maybe people might think twice about being assholes, knowing that they might get called out on it. It wouldn't be some kind of tech panacea - nothing ever will be, IMO - but it has legitimate uses.

Remember kids, technology isn't good or bad, it's what people do with it.

Re:just leave

[ebno-10db]

restaurants are often the clandestine meeting places of many people for many reasons

Various Italian restaurants in NY and NJ specialize in that.

Re:Product promotion via feelings of victimhood

[roc97007]

> ... 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.

I agree with the second part. At some future time we will all look back at this with the same wry expression that some of us look back at 70's polyester leisure suits.

As to the first part, I do not think the product will fail. Any brief skim of facebook pages shows that there is too much demand for exposing your food to the public. So clearly the product will succeed, at least for awhile.

Re:just leave

[wisnoskij]

It is private, it is a private business, owned by a person. There are different rules.

Hell some of them do not even allow you in the door without a suit on, and you definitely are not allowed to secretly record things on private property.

Opposite

[SuperKendall]

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...

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...

How exactly is Glass more obtrusive than folks pulling out cell phones to record? Going by the simple definition of the word, a device that needs to be pulled out of one's pocket and held up by hand is by definition more obtrusive than a device which is always mounted on the wearer's head.

Re:Opposite

[fatphil]

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.

Re:Opposite

[Molt]

I doubt they'd accept people walking in continually filming with their mobiles either. Using your mobile them to grab a few quick videos of your friends, or even take pointless Instagrammed pictures of your food is one thing- filming everything you happen to glance at and upload it an advertising company with an interest in facial recognition is quite another.

Re:Opposite

[SuperKendall]

How exactly is Glass more obtrusive than folks pulling out cell phones to record?

Because it's obvious when a cell phone is out AND video taping something shows on the screen, Glass is around all the time and you can't tell if it's recording or not.

Obtrusive was really the wrong word though.

Re:Opposite

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's more obtrusive to the other patrons--not to the user, who is, after all, not the one who is quite possibly having every dropped crumb and dab with the napkin recorded for posterity.

Do you get it yet?

Re:Opposite

[Zontar The Mindless]

Please leave, kiddy...

...he says to the one with the 3-digit UID.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

First, I'm not sure how objections regarding surveillance have any reasonable connection to the dictionary definition of the word "obtrusive" -- but ignoring that, and taking the statement per its intent, some points:

• These devices are not always-on recorders, and have a light indicating when the camera is running.
• Overuse of that recording process can be handled in the same manner as overuse of the (more obtrusive per dictionary definition) practice of holding up a cell phone camera to record.
• ...so what's the problem here?

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

It's not. And if you tried to spend a hour recording other diners with a cell phone, you would also be asked to leave a restaurant. If you weren't punched in the face first.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

3 and 4 digit UIDs have never been any indication of maturity.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

These devices are not always-on recorders, and have a light indicating when the camera is running.

You might wish or expect that Google Glass has such an indicator light. But it doesn't.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57582255-93/hey-google-glass-are-you-recording-me/

Even if it did, who's to say the glasses haven't been rooted, or such a light physically disabled.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

You might wish or expect that Google Glass has such an indicator light. But it doesn't.

You're quite right; I stand corrected.

Even if it did, who's to say the glasses haven't been rooted, or such a light physically disabled.

If someone wanted to surreptitiously record others, there are better devices to do it with. Built-to-purpose "spy cams" exist, have existed for decades, and are much better at the job -- easier to conceal and not requiring the wearer to stare at their subject to get a steady recording.

So, well, "who's to say" that you aren't already being privately recorded? If someone is motivated enough to void the warranty on a $2000 device to root it, surely they're willing to buy something much, much cheaper.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

If someone wanted to surreptitiously record others, there are better devices to do it with. Built-to-purpose "spy cams" exist, have existed for decades, and are much better at the job -- easier to conceal and not requiring the wearer to stare at their subject to get a steady recording.

Right, and I've already mentioned them in other comments on this story. And they too are unwelcome in most situations. That a spy camera can be concealed does nothing to make Google Glass more acceptable.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

Right, and I've already mentioned them in other comments on this story. And they too are unwelcome in most situations. That a spy camera can be concealed does nothing to make Google Glass more acceptable.

The existence of cheaper alternatives for someone whose goal was surreptitious recording raises the possibility that, perhaps, someone wearing Glass is doing so with an intent other than surreptitious recording... as, if that were their attempt, they would, if competent, be using a tool better suited for the job.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

Using your mobile them to grab a few quick videos of your friends, or even take pointless Instagrammed pictures of your food is one thing- filming everything you happen to glance at and upload it an advertising company with an interest in facial recognition is quite another.

Do you have reason to believe Glass users are actually using their devices in this way, or is this just a bogeyman?

Cell-network bandwidth costs money. The devices aren't always-on recorders unless someone chooses to use them in such a way... and, well, if I wanted an always-on hidden video recording device, there are cheaper and better ways to do it.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

It's not. And if you tried to spend a hour recording other diners with a cell phone, you would also be asked to leave a restaurant. If you weren't punched in the face first.

And yet --

In one case, you regulate people based on their actual behavior. In another, you have something against a device, without regard to its actual usage in practice.

I really, really do not grok the difference.

Re:Opposite

[gweihir]

Indeed. Some people are ancient and still on the level of petulant children. Pointing to their "seniority" as here embodied by a low UID is one of the fallacies these people use to claim superiority. Pathetic, really. Time does not create wisdom, insight does.

Re:Opposite

[dave420]

Apart from the bright red light on the device showing it's using its camera, you're entirely correct.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

None of which makes either spy-camera's or Google Glass' recording facility any more acceptable.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

In one case, you regulate people based on their actual behavior. In another, you have something against a device, without regard to its actual usage in practice.

No. Holding the phone up in the way I described without actually pressing record would have the exact same effect of being ejected or punched.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

I doubt that. Someone who's (say) texting rather than eating might be ejected, but certainly not punched.

And one can tell what's on a Glass user's screen, and whether it's video. Not from a distance, necessarily, but certainly from punching range.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

None of which makes either spy-camera's or Google Glass' recording facility any more acceptable.

...but it does make the likely uses of that recording facility more acceptable, since it makes it a relatively unsuitable tool for people whose goal is surreptitious recording.

Okay -- enough of the theoretical; down to the personal. I'm a commuter cyclist. A very, very law-abiding commuter cyclist (last group ride I went on, the only person quite as meticulous was a LAB instructor). I damn well have cameras, one in obvious view (making the recording I do not surreptitious), others less so (with a circular buffer being recorded over until/unless an impact is detected or manual trigger pressed), and if someone objects? Fuck you. My safety (and ability to demonstrate fault or chain-of-events in court) trumps the reasonable expectation you don't have of being unrecorded in public.

And if you want to throw a punch over being recorded? Better be sure you really did get every device.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

No problem at all in wearing a head cam and recording outside. So long as you don't get in someone's face to annoy them. Wearing a head-cam in most indoor spaces is a different matter. Huge difference.

And if you want to throw a punch over being recorded? Better be sure you really did get every device.

Sounds like you are quite a punchable person. If you think having a camera is going to protect you, you may well find you're mistaken. It's more of a provocation than a defence.

Re:Opposite

[BasilBrush]

Holding a phone in texting position and videoing position is a very different thing. If you video when in the texting position, you'd get video of the table or your lap.

With Google Glass, either would be a problem, since presumably sending a message requires talking at it.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

Sounds like you are quite a punchable person.

Hasn't happened yet. Then again, I'm also a big guy (with a friendly public demeanor) wearing loose clothing in a concealed-carry state.

I honestly don't know how much that last bit contributes; ought to find out on moving next year.

It's more of a provocation than a defence.

There's a longer discussion there, but one better suited to happen over a beer than in a public forum.

Re:Opposite

[cduffy]

Holding a phone in texting position and videoing position is a very different thing.

And going about your business while wearing Glass vs staring at someone to get a steady shot are also different things.

Also, see again re: it being visible from the other side of the display whether the camera app is up and running video.

Re:just leave

[ebno-10db]

Bah. If a proctologist can remove it, you obviously haven't expressed your opinion forcefully enough.

Re:just leave

[thegarbz]

Why? Do you complain about phones, security cameras, or hidden surveillance? You know what separates Google Glass from all of these? You know exactly when it's on an recording.

Also is that where society is heading now, that you leave bad reviews at a restaurant that offers patrons freedoms? I for one look forward to 5 star NSA sponsored restaurants.

Monday might be hard at the office

[evanism]

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.

Re:just leave

[Desler]

Why would this douchenozzle come back with a hidden camera? The whole point is to have people staring at him.

Re:just leave

[SuperKendall]

it would be funny to see what happens when a Glass wearer sits down in a mob-run Italian restaurant and accidentally looks somewhere he should not...

Re:just leave

[bloodhawk]

why would I want to give them a bad review. We need more restaurants taking a stand. When I eat at a restaurant dick wads that think privacy is null and void can eat shit and die.

Re:just leave

[Desler]

Yes actually many people here do.

Re:just leave

[tompaulco]

You do know that every patron in almost EVERY place you eat is ALREADY being videoed, right? Surveillance is ubiquitous and NOW you want to complain because individuals wish to engage in something business has been doing for literally decades?

Wow. It must suck to live where you live.

Re:Amazing

[Desler]

So you don't mind me installing cameras in your house and streaming it on the Internet, right? To object to it is you being a luddite, right?

Re:Amazing

[Exitar]

I don't think Luddites means what you think it means.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Fjandr]

A restaurant is not a public place. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason they so choose. Wearing Google Glass inside is no more a right than bringing in food from outside is a right.

This asshole would not have been embarrassed if he didn't act like an asshole. He was quietly and politely asked to take it off, at which point he threw a tantrum. This is not socially acceptable behavior, and he deserves every ounce of humiliation he's now getting. Maybe he won't act like a complete asshole next time, and will instead either take it off or quietly leave and never frequent the establishment again. His rights were not violated. Only a complete moron thinks that they have the right to bring anything they desire into a private establishment. Fucking entitled little bastard.

Involuntary participation in surveillance culture

[GodfatherofSoul]

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.

Re:Just imagine

[DexterIsADog]

Not for *any* reason - if they went full Denny's and discriminated against people based on race, that would be crazy fun to watch.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Wanderer1]

I disagree, they are public spaces.

See this article regarding justification for smoking bans: http://trib.com/news/opinion/blogs/byer/why-restaurants-and-bars-are-public-places/article_ae80681f-3098-5b53-be02-ebb145b95b8b.html

and also misinformed about the right to privacy in the USA (which doesn't afford anyone in public the right not to be photographed.)

Restaurants are private property, not public space. Public vs private refers to the who owns the place, not how many people happen to be around you.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Desler]

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.

Sure, and the restaurant has the right to kick your douchenozzle ass out for being a glasshole.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Desler]

I disagree, they are public spaces.

And they can still kick you out. Glassholes are not a protected class.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Wanderer1]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Only a complete moron?

See my response to AC regarding restaurants as public spaces. Another corollary might be restaurants being unable to discriminate based on race. That's why some "clubs" exist to skirt public regulations by imposing membership requirements. It is also clear to a random passer-by that an establishment is access-restricted. That is not the case with this diner.

A restaurant is not a public place. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason they so choose. Wearing Google Glass inside is no more a right than bringing in food from outside is a right.

This asshole would not have been embarrassed if he didn't act like an asshole. He was quietly and politely asked to take it off, at which point he threw a tantrum. This is not socially acceptable behavior, and he deserves every ounce of humiliation he's now getting. Maybe he won't act like a complete asshole next time, and will instead either take it off or quietly leave and never frequent the establishment again. His rights were not violated. Only a complete moron thinks that they have the right to bring anything they desire into a private establishment. Fucking entitled little bastard.

Re:Amazing

[ebno-10db]

Glass is very much tech - it may not be, at this moment, the revolutionary tech that some people think it is, but it's tech.

So is a singing fish. What's your point? My point is that at least the singing fish is kind of funny, and thus the superior application of technology.

Remember kids, technology isn't good or bad, it's what people do with it.

That's true. And if what you do with it is design, make or wear Google glass, it's a bad use. Certainly not pollute the planet or blow it into oblivion bad, not even increased crime rate or stress related injury bad. This is the sort of penny ante bad that doesn't get you the cachet of an evil genius, just ridicule.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Wanderer1]

And I can be angry about it, justifiably I think considering I wasn't informed beforehand.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Desler]

See my response to AC regarding restaurants as public spaces. Another corollary might be restaurants being unable to discriminate based on race.

Except that wearing a Google Glass does not make you a member of a protected class. On the other hand, being a member of a minority group does under existing civil rights amendments and federal/state statutes. Your "corollary" is just as much fallacious as that which you responded to.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Desler]

Sure you can be a whiny douchenozzle all you want. The rest of the Internet will simply laugh at you.

Better yet

[MitchDev]

Legalize cell phone blockers too and let restaurants/bars/theaters install them.

Re:Better yet

[Zontar The Mindless]

Adding a couple of layers of chicken wire inside the walls, floor, and ceiling is already legal, AFAIK.

Re:Better yet

[MitchDev]

But can you easily turn it off?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Wanderer1]

Not by much, if at all. We're talking about this in as of a "right to privacy," and there is no such right in a public place, and a restaurant is considered a public, not private, place, even though it is a private business -- as established by these protected class statutes as well as health-related statutes.

Re:Just imagine

[MitchDev]

Why should he? His place of business. The security cameras are their to protect his business and patrons.

The random tech douchebag off the street has his own agenda.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Desler]

Not by much, if at all.

Yeah, because racial discrimination is so much the same thing as not being allowed to be a glasshole in someone's business.

This is ideal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Wanderer1]

Sure you can be a whiny douchenozzle all you want. The rest of the Internet will simply laugh at you.

Unlike you, apparently, I won't mind if the Internet laughs at me, or thinks I mismatched my clothes, or that my haircut isn't very good. But I will feel better for having expressed my righteous indignation at being kicked out of a restaurant (and their lost revenue,) over such a silly and juvenile reason.

Re:Amazing

[LocalH]

That's not what Glass is, though. If you think it is, you need to do some more research.

Re:Amazing

[LocalH]

Funny, because I can think of several good uses for tech like Glass. If you can't, you need to think outside the box.

Hehe, The Cyborgs will Win.

[VortexCortex]

Just wait till I get my bionic eyes.

Re:Just imagine

[Darinbob]

Google Glass, and Twitter, and a bad haircut. The trifecta!

Re:just leave

[Darinbob]

If society jumped off a cliff, would you follow?

What a fucking douchebag

[sootman]

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.

Re:What a fucking douchebag

[Aighearach]

If this is your normal language, you'd get thrown out of the places I go right away.

And the hula-hoop is probably fine.

Re:What a fucking douchebag

[Zontar The Mindless]

So you prefer to dine at Chuck E. Cheese?

Re:What a fucking douchebag

[swillden]

Your mastery of the English language is astounding. Such eloquence.

Re:just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, shit eater, we do complain about all those as well. But most of us don't think about them being at every turn and so we're not looking at someone's bow tie for the camera. With Google Glassholes it's pretty apparent what's going on. We don't fucking want it. Is it that hard for you to understand?
 
Stop sucking so many dicks and maybe you'll come to your senses.

Re:just leave

[tompaulco]

In most states, you need consent to record a person. If you are doing this with hidden cameras without their consent, you are doing so illegally. If you are doing so with google glass, then when they tell you to leave they have expressed that they do not give their consent.

Re:Amazing

[ebno-10db]

If you use a phrase like "think outside the box", you should think outside the box of writing in bad clichés.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[whoever57]

We're talking about this in as of a "right to privacy," and there is no such right in a public place, and a restaurant is considered a public, not private, place, even though it is a private business -- as established by these protected class statutes as well as health-related statutes.

You are so wrong. The owner of a restaurant can deny service to anyone as long as it is not for a set of well-defined but limited reasons (racial discrimination, etc.) as evidenced by widespread rules requiring shirts and shoes in order to be served in many restaurants. The fact that there are health rules does not make it a public place.

Re:just leave

[penix1]

Also, the surveillance video cameras are fixed usually on a front counter to record the cash registers and those dealing with it. They aren't following you around the whole damned diner.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

Security cameras as used for security purposes. They can have a civil liability if they release security footage. Like, if they released footage of a celebrity eating dinner, they'd sue.

If you carried a video camera in the restaurant, and pointed it at everyone you passed by, you'd be asked to leave. I'm sure someone's going to argue "But Google Glasses aren't necessarily recording." Fine. Carrying a video camera in and pointing it at strangers doesn't mean that it's actually recording either.

It's a neat idea, but I'm afraid to say I won't welcome anyone into my house while wearing Google Glasses, nor will I be very open to them speaking to me in a workplace environment.

Re:Just imagine

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not quite any reason; but glassholes aren't a protected class.

Re:just leave

[spire3661]

This really is the worst counter-argument ever..... There is no barrier to posting it online.

Re:Just imagine

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.

Jeez, man, next you'll be asserting that it's acceptable for restaurants to uphold certain standards of dress and decorum in order to best serve their customer niche! That's some kind of revolutionary crazy talk.

What kind of freedom-hater are you?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[stenvar]

It's not about whether the restaurant owner can exclude people wearing Google Glass; of course he has that right because they are not a protected class.

But patrons of the restaurant still don't have an expectation of privacy; it is legal for other patrons to photograph them for as long as they are on premises, just as it is legal for the restaurant owner to film them clandestinely on his surveillance cameras (which he probably does).

And if people use a wearable camera and the restaurant owner doesn't notice and doesn't exclude them, there are no further consequences for anybody.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[whoever57]

See this article regarding justification for smoking bans: http://trib.com/news/opinion/blogs/byer/why-restaurants-and-bars-are-public-places/article_ae80681f-3098-5b53-be02-ebb145b95b8b.html

The author of that article is a moron. The proposed ordinance it discusses defines "public places" for the purpose of that specific ordinance. It does not change their status as a private place for every other consideration except the smoking ban that the ordinance proposes.

Re:just leave

[JWSmythe]

You can, and probably would, be asked to leave if you were to walk around obviously filming everyone in the restaurant as you walked through, and filming others at their tables. Sure, your phone may be able to record video. You aren't holding it up like you're filming the whole time.

And sure, you could get a covert camera. People don't know you're filming. If you were to make such videos public, you could easily be looking at legal problems, if nothing less in civil court.

Re:just leave

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Also, Google Glass pushes the wrong buttons, psychologically, because it's more or less identical to having somebody with their cellphone out and in 'about to start filming/shooting' pose 100% of the time.

It isn't news that most cellphones have cameras; but (because of that), there are signals, like putting it in your pocket, bag, down on the table, etc. that you aren't using it at the moment or are using it, but only to dick around on the internet.

Nothing that you can't change in a few (moderately visible) seconds of movement, or that would stop your covert mic/sneaky fisheye and post-processing techniques from working; but it works socially. 'Glass', even if it's actually turned as far off as the hardware allows, is indistinguishable from a cellphone in its most invasive stance at all times(and, thanks to the haha-not-foldable design, your options for taking it off are substantially worse than with normal glasses).

Re:just leave

[Molt]

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and there's someone on the next table pointing a camera phone at me then I am going to complain. Security cameras I'm not as bothered about as I know most of them aren't actually monitored by people, and the footage will only actually be looked at when someone does decide to ram the handle of a soup spoon into the ear of a Google Glass user to see if there's anything in there.

Re:just leave

[Aighearach]

Right, I'm sure communities where it is socially acceptable for a business to have a dress code will also have various rules for wearable computers.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, where dress codes are frowned on, no new rule is needed; if you're upsetting the people around you, you might well be asked to leave an establishment. And if you explain that the device doesn't record all the time, and isn't recording now, they'll probably just relay that to the people who complained and leave you alone.

Just like if somebody has a camcorder sitting out on their table. OMG, it "could be" recording! And in fact, grandma is about to whip it out and record baby eating. And it is pointing in your direction. And if you're a really difficult person, you might even complain. And I'm sure there are business people who would agree to throw people out who record "home" movies there. But usually it is okay. People are already doing video blogs from their smart phones, and there might be dozens of other diners in the background.

When information is the thing

[erroneus]

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.

Re:When information is the thing

[realityimpaired]

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.

Denny's is a gun-free zone? Good. I think I know where I'm going for breakfast....

Re:When information is the thing

[erroneus]

By breakfast, do you mean robbery?

Concealed Carry people do not commit crimes. It's an almost-zero statistic. In fact, CC people have been shown to actually thwart crime such as armed robbery and more than a few at Denny's restaurants.

It's also worth noting that places like Denny's is targeted for robbery more often than many other places in the same area. That can't possibly be due to the increased liklihood that armed people will not be present would it?

Re:just leave

[Aighearach]

My recommendation is to find a restaurant with full-height booths, where you can sit more privately. Because unless there is a physical barrier, you're already being recorded by people's smart phones, which are also HD camcorders and video phones.

Re:just leave

[Molt]

Individuals? I don't see individuals. I just see a massive advertising business getting people to pay to wear their cameras on their heads and upload the results to their video site or social network, where they can then happily combine them with existing databases and (with a bit more work on facial recognition) use them to track the movement of anyone in the vicinity for the purposes of targeting them more accurately with advertisements.

Faraday cages? Seriously?

[MikeTheGreat]

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

Re:Faraday cages? Seriously?

[safetyinnumbers]

Especially as a Faraday cage wouldn't prevent any device from recording video.

Re:just leave

[femtobyte]

I consider there to be a key difference between Google Glass type cameras and other small/hidden cameras employed by an individual.

First of all, I am a photographer; I consider the right to photograph to be highly important. I think individuals should have the ability to choose to document the world around them; whether to catch a police officer committing a crime; record the events and relationships in their life; produce an artistic or social commentary on the world around them. Key to this process, however, is that the photographer is responsible for and intentional about the images captured --- and makes a specific, personal decision about what and how to capture and display the images.

Google Glass violates the personally responsible and intentional nature of photographic recording. A Glasshole is not recording me because they have a particular personal motivation to do so --- but only as an unintentional stooge of an advertising and surveillance corporation. I may not even be the intended target of their recording --- just a random face in the background of their half-eaten sandwich. But now Google gets views of me, from a dozen angles, to process through their face recognition algorithms and record into the giant tracking DB in the Cloud. The power over how photography is used in society is no longer democratically distributed over millions of individually responsible individuals, applying their own ethical standards on how to document the tiny slice of the world they see. Rather, Glassholes are encouraged to trade away my privacy, not for their responsible and intentional use of photography, but for mere convenience --- to grant an omniscient view of everything concentrated in the hands of a few megacorporations. This is what I object to.

If Larry Page wants a picture of me eating a sandwich through a publicly-visible window, then I will never object to his right to do so with his own camera, standing on his own two feet outside on the street.

Re:just leave

[martin-boundary]

Tha't ridiculously defeatist. The answer is laws, pure and simple. Recording peple without their knowledge *over the phone* is already illegal in most of the world. It would be trivial to extend such laws to the case of being filmed without consent as well. All we need is the will to do it, ie elect politicians with a spine, or at least a fear for their own privacy.

And before you say it, if people are willing to break the law to secretly film others, that will happen too. And I'm ok with that. Crime and punishment etc.

Re:Stop Calling Them "Glass". They're Video Camera

[Aighearach]

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.

Glass guy may have broken WA laws

[MikeTheGreat]

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

Re:Glass guy may have broken WA laws

[tftp]

Assuming you'd actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a restaurant.

You'd have a rock solid expectation of not being videotaped in a restaurant that has a policy that prohibits videotaping. Especially when the staff enforces that policy.

Re:Glass guy may have broken WA laws

[swillden]

Well, he may have broken a law if he was recording. There's no evidence he was, though.

Re:Glass guy may have broken WA laws

[ToddInSF]

That's the issue, isn't it ?

We're all supposed to just automatically trust that someone with a camera mounted to their glasses isn't recording us whenever we leave the house. After all, it's their right.

Myself, I welcome more glassholes creating conflicts like this one. The more ticked-off the public gets the better the chance that the general public will wake-up and start demanding their expectation to privacy be respected, the more likely people will start to decide that a state of constant surveillance, be it done by corporations OR the government, IS a police state.

I just hope all the dickhead convenience faschists are recognized for what they are, instead of accepted as a new normal.

Self-absorbed twit

[JasoninKS]

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.

Re:Self-absorbed twit

[gweihir]

Indeed. Why so many people do not get the concept of common courtesy is beyond me. It is like this guy was aiming to be offensive.

Re:Self-absorbed twit

[JasoninKS]

Exactly. As I see it he had three choices:

1. Remove his Glass and eat at the restaurant like a civilized person
2. Get up and leave
3. Throw a temper tantrum and make a scene

If someone wants to take a picture of their dinner, or they're out with friends and take a few pics of each other, I'm ok with that. As someone else mentioned, sometimes workers are on call and need to use their cell because they're getting a call from work. Personally I try to step away to take that call. But beyond that it's just having basic courtesy and manners. Both of which this idiot seems to be lacking.

Re:Self-absorbed twit

[gweihir]

If he claims to be an adult, he really only has choices 1 or 2. "Temper tantrums" are strictly for children that do not yet know better. He can ask them to certify their policy in writing (which is different from asking for a written policy) or come back with a witness and have them re-state it. Then he can attempt legal action.

Option 3 is just what a typical glasshole will do and I can only applaud the person coining that term for their insight.

Re:Amazing

[Molt]

It's a video camera configured to send data to an advertising company who quite like the idea of ubiquitous surveillance of anyone who happens to be in range of any of their cameras.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for *any* reason - if they went full Denny's and discriminated against people based on race, that would be crazy fun to watch.

Yes, we might finally get a court ruling that the Civil Rights Act is blatantly unconstitutional because it infringes on the property owner's right to refuse service to anyone for *any* reason, and the resulting crazy would be fun to watch from the other side of the ocean.

This will be decided in the courts...

[kylemonger]

... 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.

Re:This will be decided in the courts...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Google Glass is also a boon for disabled persons with motor dysfunctions or visual impairments.

And I'm sure if you told the waitress that, you would have been asked to confirm recording is off, and not going to be turned on, and then left alone. In much the same way that I cannot bring my dog into a restaurant, but we all understand that some people get a different utility from having Fido around.

Re:This will be decided in the courts...

[Zontar The Mindless]

If people using such prosthetics are thereby identified as disabled (and thus in need of them), I'd have no objections.

Most places that don't allow animals on the premises do permit seeing-eye dogs, for example.

Re:Just imagine

[ElectricTurtle]

That's hypocritical as fuck for a place that actually encourages people to instagram their food.

Re:just leave

[ewieling]

OBXKCD http://xkcd.com/1170/

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[fatphil]

"""
"‘Public Place' means an enclosed area to which the public is invited ...
In other words, if you are allowed to walk into a place without an invitation, it's probably public.
"""

Erm, thanks for that wonderfully lucid explanation, that clears everything up.

Re:Just imagine

[Austerity Empowers]

I'd wait until I've started eating the most expensive item on the menu before putting mine on. Just to see how much they really care about their policy.

Re:Just imagine

[femtobyte]

Pointing your cellphone camera at your plate and snapping a pic uploads a picture of your food. Blindly waving around your Glasshole Surveill-o-matic captures video of all the other patrons. Can you see the difference between footage of food on your plate versus video of everyone around you? Would you also think it's hypocritical for a venue to permit photography of events, but get angry at someone for snapping shots of strangers in the bathroom?

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

This tweet is the best:

I cannot wait to see my therapist next week. I started seeing her bc of Google Glass tensions at work. Now my story is international.

Re:Just imagine

[Hans Lehmann]

Security cameras as used for security purposes. They can have a civil liability if they release security footage. Like, if they released footage of a celebrity eating dinner, they'd sue. You may want to re-think that statement.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[kylemonger]

A restaurant is a public place as far as the ADA is concerned and that's probably where disputes like this are headed once the disabled start using Glass in large numbers.

Re:just leave

[Voyager529]

Good luck with that. You lost this fight decades ago when CCTV was installed publicly and privately.

Slight difference...

The DVR systems that exist in bars and restaurants and convenience stores are generally isolated. They exist to ensure a neutral account of something that happened in the event of a dispute. They record to a tape or a hard drive that is usually isolated in its access to the owner themselves. They generally cover entrances, exits, and cash registers. In most states, a notice must be conspicuously posted.

Google Glass users are inherently connected to Google's services, with data easily categorized and indexed by Google, added to a massively interconnected database involving any number of relations and correlations. Glass exists for the benefit of the user, who's definition of "benefit" is undefined, at best. Things that are uploaded to Google are available to whoever Google deems appropriate, regardless of the wishes of anyone else - including the person taking the video and geolocating it. Glass is pointed wherever the viewer intends it to be pointed, and by time there is any "notice" to those being recorded, it is too late.

You can argue that the existence of CCTV has minimized the notion of privacy, and I can't disagree. Even so, being on a video that's only accessible by the owner of the camera system via court order and "geolocated" by the location of the establishment itself is entirely different than being in the field of view of someone who is wearing Google Glass.

Re:Just imagine

[gweihir]

You do understand that the act of ordering enters you into a contract with the restaurant that forces you to pay for what you ordered?

Well, maybe not. What can you expect form a glasshole...

Re:Just imagine

[gweihir]

Well see more of this type. _He_ does it, so it must be right, other people's opinion do not count. There is a reason the term "glasshole" was available before Google Glass was.

Re:just leave

[gweihir]

There is also the little fact that if you see being recorded and do not protest, you give implicit consent. If you do not see the recording being done, that is an entirely different matter. That is one of the reasons warning stickers for security cams are mandated by law in a lot of places.

Re:just leave

[spire3661]

A good and logical counter-argument. I respond with this. What about a non-google solution? Something you have much more total control of the data that flows in and out of it. Is it ok if i do face-matching on my own hardware to build a better picture of who i come near day-to-day? Can i share the data? Aggregate it? Anonymize it? Where are the lines?

Re:just leave

[gweihir]

Indeed. Some customers are not worth having. This is one of them.

google. we make cool things...for a price.

[zerodl]

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.

Re:Just imagine

[sumdumass]

They make you pay your bill before leaving. It isn't a situation where you can eat, become an ass and get ejected and not have to pay the bill.

I've been tossed from plenty of places. Usually from having too much to drink and starting a fight or something stupid along those lines. I was thrown out of one place for saying I didn't want my back to the door.

Re:Just imagine

[PopeRatzo]

What are you going to do when Google Glass and similar products are indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses?

Will you prevent anyone with eyeglasses from entering your house? Will society turn against everyone with eyeglasses?

I seem to recall something similar happening in Mao's China. It didn't go so well for the eyeglass wearers. Maybe we will start to see anyone who refuses to have laser surgery to correct their vision as socially hostile.

Re:just leave

[femtobyte]

The barrier is someone giving a damn to take the time to do so. That seems to be a good enough barrier to prevent at least 99.99% of random surveillance camera video from being posted online, and integrated into advertising/surveillance megacorporation databases. Thus, while a small barrier, it appears to be a quite effective one; good enough for a pragmatic guy like me.

A Nick Starr smartphone app?

[Geste]

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.

Re:A Nick Starr smartphone app?

[Nyder]

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.

I live up on Capital Hill, if I see him, I'll accidentally his google glasses and possibly step on them.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's his private property. So I'm guessing the right to choose who comes onto your private property(which is very real, it's called trespassing)?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[gweihir]

You are wrong. The are neither private not public places. They are space owned by a business, and said business can enforce rules of conduct, as long as they do not discriminate against characteristics of people that said people can do nothing about. (E.g. you cannot refuse service to people based on race.)

So, if being a glasshole like this guy was a recognized medical condition, the business may not be able to enforce a ban on it. As it clearly is just blatant disrespect, the business has every right to ask the offensive person to leave or prevent it from coming in in the first place.

Re:Just imagine

[DexterIsADog]

Security cameras as used for security purposes. They can have a civil liability if they release security footage.

Sorry, I think you pulled that out of your ass. Citation, please. One in the U.S. will do, since that's where the story occurred.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[gweihir]

A restaurant is not a public place. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason they so choose.

No, they cannot. It has to be reasonable. They cannot kick out people based on race, e.g.. But they can kick people out for disrupting their business. Being a "glasshole" may be up to interpretation, but as the glasshole can easily fix that problem, the courts are very likely to rule that the oner has the right to call this a disturbance. Also, any business has the right to restrict video and other recordings on their property.

Re:What about a pencam, or button cam?

[gweihir]

Hidden cameras can land you in jail if used to spy on people....

Re:just leave

[bloodhawk]

someone recording with a smartphone is extremely obvious and yes just as invasive. But it seems most people at least have the common courtesy to realise that it is not acceptable and don't do it, whereas these dick wads that wear google glass think it is their god given right and how dare anyone say otherwise.

Re:just leave

[Mr. Slippery]

Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

First, video is not the same as photography.

Second, surveillance is not limited to government action but means only "the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime". Photography or video need not be done by the state to be surveillance.

Third, restaurants are not public places. In fact the blog to which you link acknowledges to authority of business managers to ban photography on the premises.

My life is a creative work: my choice of dress, my manner of movement, my speech, everything I do is a . Photographs or videos of me in any but the most incidental manner (i.e., I happen to be walking down the street and you capture me in a street scene) are derivatives of that work. I do not grant Google any license to make or distribute such derivative works.

As Steve Mann put it, surveillance is theft.

But all in all, I suspect law won't be willing to address this, and we apparently can't rely on people doing the right thing on their own. We need ubiquitous jammers. Just cheap laser pointers could be an effective means to deal with "glassholes".

Re:Just imagine

[MitchDev]

No, you're just an asshole if you don't understand the difference.

Re:just leave

[Mr. Slippery]

it's that cameras are getting so small and integrated that such bans are pointless. In a few years, everybody will carry body-mounted cameras everywhere. You might as well get used to it now.

No, they won't. If cameras become that ubiquitous, so will camera detectors and jammers, as well as lawsuits about the publication of photographs without signed releases.

Jammer tech?

[ridgecritter]

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?

Re:Jammer tech?

[tftp]

FCC does not permit intentional interference with licensed communications. Jamming is illegal because it interferes with other people's right to use the spectrum that is licensed to them, explicitly and indirectly, through the provider who paid for that license.

I have seen some Chinese-made jammers for cell phones and other wireless devices. They are illegal, but it's possible to get some and use. If anyone complaints, an FCC DF van will be at your place within an hour. They geolocate interferers and fine those who are responsible. A typical fine for a "pirate" broadcast could be $15K. It's all public information.

GG is a social problem. Nobody would object to GG as a gadget... as long as it is not streaming to Google, and as long as it is not worn day in and day out as a fashion accessory. A GG would be an excellent portable monitor at work, for example; or as part of policeman's equipment; or as a wearable teleprompter for Obama. The camera is not needed in the vast majority of cases. It looks like GG got the camera not because the customer needs it, but because Google needs it. Streaming video via a phone is extremely expensive!

Re:just leave

[Mr. Slippery]

Because unless there is a physical barrier, you're already being recorded by people's smart phones, which are also HD camcorders and video phones.

If someone is using a smart phone or more traditional format camera to record me, it will be obviously pointed at me. I will approach them and we will have words. It would be a deliberate act and probably an obvious one.

If someone is covertly recording me, of course, I will not see it, but if such video is ever published, we will have words in court. And if they should fail to successfully hide their surveillance -- the camera falls out of their purse, whatever -- they run the risk of having both their property and their person damaged, a significant disincentive to engage in such recording.

However, if someone with a wearable camera has failed to have the common courtesy to remove it when entering an establishment, it is not obvious whether they are recording me, and they could be recording me without intent, merely because they (for some brain-damaged reason) record everything. It is a substantially different case, and apologies for rude use of wearables that are based on the ubiquity of camera-phones are not not valid.

Re:Just imagine

[PopeRatzo]

Anyone who wants to single me out for anything can have 2 between the eyes.

Can you see well enough with your lazy eye to be that accurate?

Re:just leave

[tricorn]

What makes you think that Google Glass is always recording video, much less sending it somewhere? Even if you record video, it's saved where you want it, not sent automatically to Google.

Most people agree that it should have a clear indicator light that shows when it's recording anything, not sure if they added that in the newer version.

Re:just leave

[femtobyte]

Just wait. Right now, there are battery life and bandwidth limitations to 24/7 surveillance. Also, the device is still in initial publicity stages, thus has to meet PR requirements of not being so grossly creepy that the overwhelming majority of people reject it. But, give Google time to roll this out on mass scale; time for technology to fix the bandwidth and battery issues; and time for the public to adjust to submitting to the next level of all-pervasive corporate control. As for me, I'm going to speak out against intrusive and harmful technologies before they've reached full maturity and unstoppable ubiquity. But you can wait until they come for you, and there's nobody left to speak out...

Re:just leave

[Nyder]

You do know that every patron in almost EVERY place you eat is ALREADY being videoed, right? Surveillance is ubiquitous and NOW you want to complain because individuals wish to engage in something business has been doing for literally decades?

Well, by your argument, child abuse is okay since it's been going on since the beginning of time and no one has been able to do anything to stop it from happening, so that makes it okay...

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

only as an unintentional stooge of an advertising and surveillance corporation.

Oh, so it's your lack of understanding of what they are and how they work that generates animosity. They can be configured and used as an off-line camera. If they are being used in that way only, what is your problem with them?

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

So if every Google Glass was configured to work in off-line mode only, you'd be happy to have everyone wearing a pair?

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Then they'll just use a hidden camera disguised as jewelry and a headset to hear the facial recognition in real time, and re-watch the video at home. You are apparently fine with that, so long as they can't use Google Glass in real-time.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution does not guarantee unrestricted and unlimited private property rights anywhere; heck, it has the concept of eminent domain written right into it.

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

In no state are you required to have consent to record a person (video only, some have rules about audio that many CCTV systems get around by not recording audio).

Also your comment indicates you have no problem being in their presence, you just don't want to be recorded. So if it's a hidden camera, what are you going to do, run around checking everyone for "bugs"? And you imply you'd be ok with it, if it wasn't recording at the time, but given your tone, I think you'd be confrontational even after someone informed you it was off.

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

Blindly waving around your Glasshole Surveill-o-matic captures video of all the other patrons.

No, it doesn't. It's not a camera that is on all the time. It only activates when the person wearing it tells it so.

Geez, what's up with all the Luddites on Slashdot recently? You'd think they at least read up on the technology that they deride to understand how it works, or at least what it actually does.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Recording peple without their knowledge *over the phone* is already illegal in most of the world.

A quick check of the laws, and most of the world allows recording someone without their knowledge *over the phone*. Can you point me to your source, or was it wishful opinion presented as easily disproved fact? wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws

Re:just leave

[shutdown -p now]

The law makes it illegal to record without warning, sure. But wearing a camera is perfectly fine so long as it's not recording. Which is precisely how Glass works.

Re:Just imagine

[femtobyte]

Because a Glasshole would never tell his Surveil-o-matic to activate; they wear them entirely for the pleasure of inactive dead weight.
Because Google would never push products on the public with a gradual scope in invasive creep to record more and more of the time.
Because normalizing the ubiquitous presence of advertiser-surveillance-ready gear will never lead to growing levels of misuse and abuse (i.e. turning them on outside your own home).

In past posts, I've said I'm proud to be a Luddite --- to critically evaluate the impacts of technology in society, rather than blindly accepting what helps the ultra-rich to control the populate. Yes, I'm still a Luddite --- as should be ever technologically-minded person with forethought and a conscience.

Two things

[slew]

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!"

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

Because a Glasshole would never tell his Surveil-o-matic to activate; they wear them entirely for the pleasure of inactive dead weight.

If they do, you will know that.

Because Google would never push products on the public with a gradual scope in invasive creep to record more and more of the time.

If and when they push out a product that's constantly recording, then you'll have legitimate reason to complain. But the incessant whining about Glass that we hear today has nothing to do with that.

Because normalizing the ubiquitous presence of advertiser-surveillance-ready gear will never lead to growing levels of misuse and abuse (i.e. turning them on outside your own home).

Wearable computing is going to be normalized whether you like it or not, just because it's the next obvious step to convenience, and a significant step at that. Again, the only reason why so many people whine about these today is because they're too expensive, and hence seen as rich men's toys. This will stop once they become cheap enough.

As a side note, I hope you realize that you are sounding a lot like the people who complained about how telephone and cars have "ruined our society" etc.

In past posts, I've said I'm proud to be a Luddite --- to critically evaluate the impacts of technology in society, rather than blindly accepting what helps the ultra-rich to control the populate. Yes, I'm still a Luddite --- as should be ever technologically-minded person with forethought and a conscience.

That's funny. Do you remember what the original Luddites did? You've got some nice role models for your "forethought and conscience".

Re:Just imagine

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Agreed. Don't forget just because Google Glass is small and unobtrusive, it's really no different than creepy camera guy (Surveillance Camera Man )
I think this will become more common as more people get google glass, and more people understand what it is and what it's dangers are.

Re:Amazing

[shutdown -p now]

It does not send data (or, indeed, record at all) unless its wearer explicitly starts recording - which is audible (it's voice activated) and visible (the screen lights up).

Re:Amazing

[shutdown -p now]

An angry pitchfork mob mad at the new piece of technology because it somehow disrupts their daily routine. I'd say that it's pretty spot on.

Re:just leave

[Voyager529]

A good and logical counter-argument. I respond with this. What about a non-google solution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flvd5gVT7fg ...but seriously, a Google Glass-like apparatus independent of Google is technology of an entirely different order - only a handful of companies can meaningfully augment reality with internet data. Now if you're talking about something to the effect of "wearable video camera but stores everything to a MicroSD card", then most of the other issues still apply - no notice, and questionable motivation by the wearer.

Something you have much more total control of the data that flows in and out of it.

The use of the second person here is the crux of the issue: is "you" referring to "the wearer", or "the individuals being recorded"? If the former, the above issues are still in force, motives are still questionable, and it's entirely possible that one of the motives is "uploading to Google by hand". If "the individuals being recorded", then the implementation gets messy, and even if that is somehow solved, then if you have two people recorded, one wants the video uploaded to Facebook and the other does not, who wins?

Is it ok if i do face-matching on my own hardware to build a better picture of who i come near day-to-day?

Same problems - questionable motives of the wearer. Now if I were somehow confident that your only intention was to see how many people you pass by on the street more than once in a week, then yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If you're a marketing rep for Clearchannel counting that data in order to directly state the number of impressions a given video billboard will get, then I'm a bit less enthused. This completely sidesteps the "think of the children" and "rule 34" issues presented...and even if I asked a given Glass wearer what their motive was, and assumed they were 100% truthful, I won't know who's the curious one who doesn't trust anything to the cloud, and who's the sketchy person who streams to Google by choice, until it's far too late.

Can i share the data?

Again, this is where messes come in. "with who", "why", "what will happen to it when it's over", and "even if I trust you, the other five people I do not" issues are still at play.

Aggregate it?

Amongst the issues is how we define "aggregate". If by "aggregate" you mean "compare my own footage with...my own footage", then sure...back in my day, we called that 'video editing'. Tying that in with a database of Facebook profiles? uploading data for distributed analysis amongst 10,000 other glass wearers who are curious as to who passes the same people in a day? Selling videos of city life as royalty free B-roll for news broadcasters?

Anonymize it?

If you're blurring everyone's face for the sake of anonymity, then it kinda defeats the purpose of videotaping in the first place in most respects.

Where are the lines?

Herein lies the true issue at hand. None presently exist. There is no societal construct, no precedence, and no feasibly-enforceable-legislation to adequately define the lines. Thus, we end up with what loosely amounts to anarchy - "I", the person being recorded, have a certain set of standards, and "you", the person recording, have another. When these collide, who wins, and why? In a 1:1 situation like that, I guess the answer would be "the one who's most imposing", which is a pretty poor set of circumstances under which to define what's socially acceptable. I'm certainly not opposed to the questions being posed, and discussions being had, but like I said - this is the heart of the matter.

Re:just leave

[Frobnicator]

In most states, you need consent to record a person. If you are doing this with hidden cameras without their consent, you are doing so illegally. If you are doing so with google glass, then when they tell you to leave they have expressed that they do not give their consent.

Um, no.

While I am not a lawyer, I am a photographer and have had to 'lawyer up' a few times. I've also studied the law in the area, and it seems much more familiar with it than you.

First, there is the very important concept of location. There are public places, publicly vsible places, and private places. A person in a public place, such as on public sidewalks or public parks or public buildings, does not generally have a right to that kind of privacy. Anyone who frequents /. can tell you about their favorite stores of photographs from public places (both for good and ill). Public places are public. If you are not in a private place but are still in a location that is publicly visible your privacy rights are also very limited; again we have stories both positive and negative, businesses dumping waste in a publicly visible alley or superstars making out in their back yard. Only if you are in a non-publicly-visible place can you reasonably expect privacy.

Second, there is the very important concept of commercial and noncommercial photograph use. You are right that you do usually need consent if the image will be used in commercial work, such as an advertisement or a movie. However, if the work is non-commercial in nature, such as a personal photograph, a wedding photograph, or if the image is to be used for news or social commentary or many other potential uses, no permission is needed.

So combine the two and you will see you absolutely do not need consent to record a person. You can legally record from any public place to any publicly viewable place. That gives us all the tabloid pics of the superstars naked in their back yards, from a location that is viewable from the public streets, without the permission of the superstars. That gives us all the beach photos of wardrobe malfunctions, again without the consent of the recorded. And it gives us the recordings of police misconduct, without the consent of the officers being recorded.

If you are in a private location then the rules are a little different. But as a general rule if the photographer is in a public place or has permission from the property owner on a private place, any photos they take of you can be used for just about any non-commercial purpose without your consent.

You may not like that. I can guarantee you movie stars and political figures also do not like it. But even with waves of public support (such as after princess Diana's death) the right to photograph people in public places without their consent still stands. Lots of money and effort has been put into rying to get rid of it, but it isn't going away.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Yeah, someone wearing a fashion accessory you don't like deserves to be assaulted.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Yeah, "Whites Only" goes over fine for private businesses, right?

Re:just leave

[sonamchauhan]

What about wearing your GG in the restaurant bathroom, urinating in the stalls? Is that a freedom you cherish too? I don't.

Re:Just imagine

[paiute]

the Civil Rights Act is blatantly unconstitutional because it infringes on the property owner's right to refuse service to anyone for *any* reason

As there is no such right, it cannot be infringed upon.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Google wrote my phone's OS, and I'm never more than 3 clicks away from an offline mode, usually 2 or fewer clicks. I'm not a paid shill. I just know how to use things. Have you ever used Google Glass, or are you just making up things to hate with no information about them?

Re:Amazing

[AK Marc]

Yup. The people comfortable with cell phones because they are "older" tech, and Google Glass is a funny-shaped cell phone, nothing more. It doesn't do anything my cell can't. Though some applications are better suited to it because it has a predictable camera and screen direction. But it's nothing but a re-formed cell interface.

Change bad.

Re:Amazing

[AK Marc]

Nope, that's not what it is, and it's still useful in an offline mode (which is easy to activate).

Re:Product promotion via feelings of victimhood

[roc97007]

You have high quality friends. I recommend you keep them.

Others are not so lucky. There are people who would do what you describe only because it was the next cool thing.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

The fact it has "open" hours and an "open" sign makes it a public place. If he posts "closed" signs and "private residence, no entry" on every door, then it isn't a public place anymore. When you invite the public in, then you have invited them in. All of them.

Re:Just imagine

[femtobyte]

glassholes aren't a protected class

Don't worry; I'm sure Scalia et al. would be overjoyed to support any Supreme Court case claiming that ethically challenged corporofascists deserve the fullest special protection of the law.

Re:Just imagine

[Zontar The Mindless]

WTF? I don't eat the food, I don't pay for it.

Re:Just imagine

[Chickenlips]

There's always the doggie bag option.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Do you honestly swear to shut off your damn phone every time it might violate the common decency norms of those around you (movie theaters indicate not...)

If some people doing something poorly justifies banning it, cars should be illegal. Have you seen how poorly the average driver drives?

Re:Just imagine

[Zontar The Mindless]

I thought people weren't given mod points unless they had working sarcasm detectors? Silly me.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Fjandr]

Being asked to leave based on being a member of a protected class is an exception that shouldn't have to be specified.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[whoever57]

When you invite the public in, then you have invited them in. All of them.

Citation? Because you are absolutely wrong. Every business has the right to deny access to people, as long as it isn't illegal discrimination.

According to you, casinos in Las Vegas don't have the right to refuse entry to anyone. Really?

According to you, restaurants don't have the right to refuse service to people who don't meet their dress code. Really?

I let some people into my house, but I don't have a "private residence" sign. According to you, I have to let everyone in. Really?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

You are lying. The words I said don't mean what you assert they do.

Re:Just imagine

[gl4ss]

..he's using it at work?
at least tape off the camera then, will you?

snapping cameraphone photos all the time would build up some tension as well and so would going around with a gopro strapped on your forehead! doesn't matter if it's recording or not.

it really sounds like he wants to scream to the world that he has a google glass as much as he can...

Re:Amazing

[tftp]

Funny, because I can think of several good uses for tech like Glass.

There are many good uses for a gas mask, or a dildo, or a nuclear bomb. It doesn't mean that they all should be worn in public by the consumer of the lowest common denominator.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[gl4ss]

slap on a gopro and go to a gentlemans club and ... well, you know what's gonna happen.

Re:just leave

[Zontar The Mindless]

Damn straight, mate.

This is what self-absorbed types like N Starr don't get: It's not just about you, Glasshole!

Re:just leave

[YttriumOxide]

I come to have fun, that means i can as well behave like a fool in company of my buds. I want them to remember this shit, not my future employers, or existing one for that matter.

While I don't disagree with you in principle - I too would be uncomfortable with someone having Google Glass on in my vicinity when I'm out enjoying myself - this is something I see a lot, and almost exclusively from residents of the USA: employers shouldn't care what you do in your off time. I find it disgusting how many people simply accept that their employer is their 'owner'.

When I released my book (see sig), my boss even showed significant interest. Several people in the company have now bought it. They know I take illegal substances from time to time. They know I have had illegal substances on me at work (last year's Christmas party was straight after work with no easy opportunity for me to go home between work and party, so I simply took my substances with me to work). They also don't care: I do my job extremely well and am praised for my work. If I did my job poorly, I'd expect to be spoken to about it. If it were because I was turning up to work high and having difficulty concentrating on work, I'd expect them to tell me to stop doing that or face disciplinary action. But as long as I do my job well, it's none of their business what I do outside of that time.

For reference, I live in Germany and work for the European head office of Konica Minolta (business equipment) as a software developer ("Software Development Supervisor" is my actual title, which means I actually spend too much time doing management stuff and not enough coding; but I'm a developer at heart and still get a decent amount of code written myself).

Re:just leave

[Zontar The Mindless]

I had to learn to make sure my phone was angled downwards when reading on the subway, lest people start looking at me oddly (and in not a very friendly way, either).

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[tftp]

You can't take any dog with you into a restaurant; only guide dogs are allowed. GG could be a similar assistive technology, allowed only to those who are officially disabled, carry the permit, and so on.

However it is not very likely that GG would be a good fit as a medical device. It does not have much of video processing power to be useful to people with, say, vision problems. (They may benefit from brightness/contrast/color adjustments, among other techniques.) Most importantly, the medical device has to work all the time; and it will not send the data to Google due to HIPAA. Those devices would be entirely harmless; they wouldn't even be able to record. (What for?)

Re:just leave

[Zontar The Mindless]

Note how this AC, like many a 14-year-old, seems to have no thoughts whatsoever regarding the effects of his actions on others.

Re:just leave

[Zontar The Mindless]

It would be trivial to extend such laws to the case of being filmed without consent as well.

It might be better to know, understand, and apply existing laws, first.

Re:Just imagine

[ProzacPatient]

As someone who has been harassed for photography I make a personal note of places that post signs prohibiting photography and remain aware of my surroundings should I engage in photography. There seems to be this strange unspoken paranoia in society about cameras and law enforcement usually has the worst attitude about it let alone private persons.

The uphill challenges that photographers face in regard to people's attitudes and misinformed ideas about the law reminds me of the same challenges and misinformed ideas and attitudes that those who carry of firearms (or other defensive tools such as tazers) often have to face.

Unfortunately photographers don't have as much case law and legislative code to defend themselves with unlike those who lawfully carry firearms but this site is a great place to start on the subject and of course the EFF usually has some good material in relation to this subject.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

Religion is chosen. So why is it protected?

Re:I'm baffled...

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's mostly typical male adolescent "Look at us, we're all different--in exactly the same way!" tribalism.

BTW, I still have my Rolling Stones T-shirt from the '78 'Some Girls' tour--there's a hole in Keith Richards' head where an overlooked seed fell out of the joint and landed on it--so, yes, I remember very well indeed what it was like being a male adolescent. :)

Re:Just imagine

[borcharc]

Just imagine a person who looks completely normal but uses google glass as an assistive device for a cognitive disability. This will be the case sooner the later, are you going to support bans of legitimate assistive devices for the disabled? Such a person should visit this restaurant first.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

No, they won't. If cameras become that ubiquitous, so will camera detectors and jammers

Those are a waste of money.

as well as lawsuits about the publication of photographs without signed releases.

Did I say anywhere that people have a right to publish those photos? No.

People can take photos anywhere in public spaces and you have no right to interfere. But there are reasonable limitations on publishing.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

You do have rights over commercial use of photographs of you, and there are some restrictions on publishing, but that's all. You can fantasize all you want, but you do not have a right not to be photographed, period.

Re:Just imagine

[pmontra]

I can see the benefits we get from a camera that enables augmented reality applications. What I don't understand is why we should be happy to trade that with potentially ubiquitous and automated spying. There must be a way to keep the two things separated and get the former without the latter. Granted, helding a phone in front on my face (the way we use Layar) is not as comfortable and as useful as carrying the camera in the glasses. Both ways are bad for different reasons, we need an alternative.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

It would be trivial to extend such laws to the case of being filmed without consent as well. All we need is the will to do it, ie elect politicians with a spine, or at least a fear for their own privacy.

Yes, it would be trivial. And what would the result be? When politicians, government officials, police, private security guards, business owners, and others violate your rights, you can't document it.

Politicians don't need "a spine" to make private photography illegal, they are already itching to do it, and people like you are furthering their effort to create a government surveillance state by wanting to give the state a surveillance monopoly.

Re:just leave

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Exactly right. The guy had the right to wear his google glasses in a public place, and the people he was dining around had no expected right to privacy in said public place

Re: Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Should he be allowed to eat naked with nipple clamps on and a dildo up his butt? I think not.
Same goes for Glass. Privacy-wise it is just as offensive, a true Big Brother panopticon where good little spies film on everyone else because of their narcissistic desire to present enviable things to others to get attention.

Re:just leave

[thegarbz]

Is the little recording light on? Punch the person in the face. Is it not on, go about your business and let them go about theirs.

Amazing how you so fear about the mere existence of a device that could possibly see your pee-pee.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[xvan]

Rights are granted by society...
If the society thinks you're a douche and don't have the right to wear glasses in a restaurant, guess what...
You might not be a douche, that's subjective, but you still don't have the right to wear glasses, so there is nothing righteous on your indignation.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

But now Google gets views of me, from a dozen angles, to process through their face recognition algorithms and record into the giant tracking DB in the Cloud.

So do Apple, Microsoft, Flickr, and Facebook, the NSA, D-Link, and lots of other companies and organizations. They get it from public and private surveillance cameras, phone cameras, digital cameras, and many other sources.

Anybody who takes an "intentional" picture with a modern D-SLR in that restaurant (and the owner allows that) will end up with a much better unintentional snapshot of you in the background than Google Glass can ever produce. And they will likely upload it to Google, Apple, Microsoft, Flickr, and/or Facebook, and any of those companies run face recognition and keep track of it in their giant tracking DBs in the Cloud. Yes, Apple, your favorite computer company, does the same thing with your pictures.

You are so fixated on your irrational hatred of Google that you don't realize what's actually going on around you.

Re:just leave

[thegarbz]

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and there's someone on the next table pointing a camera phone at me then I am going to complain.

I still don't understand why people think the existence of Google Glass means it's always recording. It has a light on it when it records. It's an extension of the phone, nothing more.

Funny how I've yet to see a single case of someone being vilified for actually recording someone. So far we just seem to fall over ourselves to attack the guy simply for owning the damn thing. If someone wanted to video tape you discretely they would and you would not know about it.

Re: Just imagine

[Zynder]

You can't possibly be real. I've been told time and time again that there are no TRUE Luddites unless you're Scottish but only a true Scotsman and not one of those fake-ass Scotsmen. Or something like that....regardless, here before me types a True Luddite therefore you must be a figment of my imagination...

Re:Amazing

[Zontar The Mindless]

Feel free to promote transparency in public space; I'm all for it.

But the restaurant I plan to open (to have something to do if and when I ever retire) will be a private space that does not permit recording of patrons without their express permission. Patrons of my establishment will remove Google Glass and similar always-deployed/always-on devices upon entry, or they will patronise someone else's establishment. End of story.

people don't like to be filmed while eating

[D1G1T]

I expect restaurants to be one of the last places google glass will be acceptable.

Re:Just imagine

[As_I_Please]

Yes, we might finally get a court ruling that the Civil Rights Act is blatantly unconstitutional because it infringes on the property owner's right to refuse service to anyone for *any* reason, and the resulting crazy would be fun to watch from the other side of the ocean.

I'd like to know where in the Constitution this right is established.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

Just wait. Right now, there are battery life and bandwidth limitations to 24/7 surveillance.

Google Glass is primarly for information display and interaction, with the option of intentional photography and video. For constant recording, people use life recording devices. They have no display, are completely invisible, and already have a battery life that lasts an entire day. You're barking up the wrong tree.

and time for the public to adjust to submitting to the next level of all-pervasive corporate control.

Corporations, police, and other people who tend to infringe on your rights would like nothing more than to be able to ban personal recording devices, because it prevents people from documenting their abuses, while they themselves can record and conduct surveillance as much as they want and use it against you.

What you are actually doing is supporting "all-pervasive corporate control".

Re:Amazing

[Zontar The Mindless]

Funny, because I can think of several good uses for tech like Glass. If you can't, you need to think outside the box.

Maybe we could use it to make a better Donkey Kong clone, eh?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Zontar The Mindless]

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,)...

Fine. Next time your wife wears a short skirt for your walk in the park and she happens to be a bit uphill from me, I'll be sure to start the live feed. On and visible from a public space, right to photograph, no right not to be photographed, yep yep yep. Looks like I'm covered.

(Of course, if *I* caught somebody trying to upskirt-video *my* wife, I'd feed him his camera--sideways--any law to the contrary be damned. But, then, I'm obviously not the paragon of tolerance that you are, I'm guessing...)

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.

Because no reasonable person objects to being filmed (without any prior warning, even) by strangers while dining with family or friends in a private establishment--of course!

Respect for the customer begins at the front door.

I was taught that respect for other members of the public begins when you walk out your own front door.

Re:just leave

[myowntrueself]

Or right inside their skulls. It will be fun times once artificial eyes become sufficiently advanced and widespread.

Oh for skull guns.

Re: Just imagine

[LeepII]

I think you have hit the nail on the head about the kind of people that wear them.

Re:just leave

[John.Banister]

Ok, now I'm imagining Google Glass with a big black eyepatch over it.

Re:Just imagine

[gweihir]

That is the usual business arrangement to placate you if you imagine something is wrong with the food. The law says differently. There either has to actually be something provably wrong with the food, or some other condition has to be met, for example you having to wait for it far too long. Incidentally, you sound like you have severe entitlement issues. Grow up, will you?

Re: Just imagine

[sseymour1978]

That would be very efficient way of scam for some busineses. Hey, look at my video. I think that sausage weights less than advertised 100 g. And Not everyone can draw from memory and post on facebook some ugly picture when you open your mouth an put food in it. But with google glass it is no brainer. Especially if at next table sits some celebrity.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[gweihir]

No, that is not it. They cannot ask you to leave because they do not like the color of your hair or the brand of your shoes either.

Re:Just imagine

[Zontar The Mindless]

Um, no.

If they fail to deliver, or if the food does not meet my reasonable expectations (and, no, I am not especially fussy), then they've not met their end of the bargain, and I'm not paying. No act of ordering obliges me to pay for something I never receive.

If I have to leave in a hurry, or I change my mind, such that they do not have a reasonable opportunity to fulfil their end of the contract, of course that's my fault and not theirs, and naturally I would offer to pay. But that's not what I was talking about, just as I was not talking about numerous other things that I did not mention above.

Re:just leave

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there is no barrier to posting surveillance video online, however it is rare that surveillance video is posted. One reason is because the owner of the surveillance video doesn't want to release it to protect the privacy of his customers.

However you will know that people with Google Glasses will post their videos on facebook and such. Because Google Glass it is very much like a phone, and phone-videos are currently always ending up on facebook and such.

So there are multiple barriers from positing surveillance videos on facebook:
1. A technical barrier because, right now, video surveillance equipment doesn't come with a button labelled "post on facebook".
2. An economic barrier where a property owner posting surveillance video on facebook will loose him his clients (unless the property is a excibitionist fetish house or something).

Worthless

[CuteSteveJobs]

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.

Re:Worthless

[shutdown -p now]

In this particular case, the economic damage would be the cost of the meal that the person was not allowed to eat after purchasing it.

Re:Just imagine

[sa1lnr]

The existing crazy is fun to watch from the other side of the pond right now. :)

Re:Just imagine

[Joce640k]

"Seeing a therapist to deal with the conflicts" seemed like a better option to him than taking off his Google Glass?

I think we found the real problem.

Re:Just imagine

[Joce640k]

"Glasshole" needs to go into the urban dictionary. They could use his photo.

Re:just leave

[ccguy]

If I'm sitting in a restaurant and there's someone on the next table pointing a camera phone at me then I am going to complain.

It's not going to be pointed at you. It will be pointed to the person in front of the owner - much more likely to complain than you if needed. I still haven't met anyone who has actually tried Glass for a second and then complained about it being intrusive for others. Really, it's not. I cannot record without you knowing (I would have to be staring at you and if I do that then I'm annoying regardless or whether I'm wearing Glass or not). Also keep in mind that Glass has no zoom, so recording from a distance is really pointless.

Re:Just imagine

[gweihir]

Good luck with that. Your expectations are quite irrelevant for the law. It is not your decision whether you are obliged to pay or not.

A new record for the insipid?

[ebno-10db]

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.

Re:just leave

[wisnoskij]

Obviously you have never heard of Michel Jackson.

Re:just leave

[wisnoskij]

Religion is not chosen, it is something you are born into.

We need an ALWAYS OUTRAGED zone

[gelfling]

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.

The diner should of left

[Murdoch5]

If the restaurant doesn't want me to take a picture of my food then I have to wonder what they're hiding.

Second thoughts

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:just leave

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yarr, Matey! That be what happens if your Glass fails Google Genuine Advantage validation, aye.

Re:just leave

[tompaulco]

All of that assuming that a restaurant is a public place. I would argue that it is not. It is open to the public, but it is privately owned and consent to photograph must be given by the owner.
I tend to agree with the celebrities. People shouldn't be taking your picture in public, either.
Police are a different issue. They are doing a public job, paid for by us, the public. So recording them should be okay.
So I guess you would say that the way the law is now, I am pretty much in 180 degree disagreement with most facets of it.

Re:Just imagine

[Livius]

Correct.

Re:just leave

[swillden]

Everything you say is correct as applied to still photography. Video recording is actually not well covered in the law, but audio recording follows rules closer to what the GP described, and since video usually incorporates audio, those laws apply.

Some states are one-party consent states and some are two-party (that's the nomenclature, though "all-party" would be more accurate). In one-party states, if you're part of the conversation you can record without other participants' knowledge. In two-party states, all participants must be aware or it's a crime. Note that they don't have a legal right to tell you not to record. You just have to make them aware, and then they can decide what they do and don't want to say.

However, questions of public vs private still come into play. In a location where there is no expectation of privacy, there is no expectation of privacy. Police officers in several states have tried to use these wiretap laws to slap down people who recorded them, and the courts have rejected their arguments. Public is public.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[swillden]

Of course, if *I* caught somebody trying to upskirt-video *my* wife, I'd feed him his camera--sideways--any law to the contrary be damned.

That's assault. If you do him any permanent damage it's aggravated assault and likely maiming as well (two felonies). You might want to think about who's going to protect your wife from photographers while you're in prison.

Re:just leave

[Keyboard Rage]

All we now need is smart clothes technology that allows us to give a different message to Google glassholes and to the general public.

For example, every Glasshole is shown an image of Goatse, while every other person sees a cute Care Bear or My Little Pony...

Surely there's some Google Glass flaw that can be exploited to obtain this very desirable result?

Re:Just imagine

[GrumpySteen]

The price for take-out is the same as the price for dining in. There is no extra charge for allowing you to stay, so the implied contract does not preclude the restaurant from throwing you out.

Nick Starr is a known drama queen

[Khyber]

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.

Re:just leave

[Maritz]

It's a very good counter-argument to a point that had a ridiculous false premise - that premise being that whoever is in charge of that 'surveillance' footage has a motivation of any kind to put it online.

Re:Just imagine

[Maritz]

By and large it won't have cost them all that much compared to what you'd be paying. So assuming you're obnoxious like this guy in the article, you'll probably be leaving. But who knows - try it out, let us know. ;)

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

You're only considering the privacy implications of Google Glass. Which are not particularly significant, since few restaurants object to one taking the odd photo. Providing you're not making nuisance of yourself and annoying other diners or staff with your photo taking.

No, it's more likely to be just as the TFS title hints. Most restaurants require you to wear a shirt and shoes, and some require you to wear a tie, because they want a certain level of acceptability for the other patrons of the restaurant. Some asshole wearing Google Glass is quite likely to annoy other patrons, so they don't allow it.

Now it may be that you personally either want to wear Google Glass at any available opportunity, or at least don't object to others doing so. Which is fine, if you open a restaurant you don't have to have such a ban. And you don't have to require ties either. But it's fine for the proprietors of other restaurants to have and enforce these standards on their patrons.

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

What are you going to do when Google Glass and similar products are indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses?

Spy cameras built into glasses, pens and ties have been available for decades. And of course the users of them will normally get away with it. But if they are found out, there will often be significant consequences depending on who they are spying on, why and where. It's no different if Google Glass becomes covert.

Anyone found using such covert Google Glasses will be seen as a social pariah, a criminal, or someone worthy of a beating, depending on circumstances.

tip of the...

[Tom]

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.

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

Wearable computing is going to be normalized whether you like it or not

Wearable computing is. But that's not a synonym for head mounted video cameras. Google Glass is.

Again, the only reason why so many people whine about these today is because they're too expensive, and hence seen as rich men's toys.

I'm afraid people here have been very clear of their reasons for rejecting Google Glass and all who wear them. And that's not it.

As a side note, I hope you realize that you are sounding a lot like the people who complained about how telephone and cars have "ruined our society" etc.

He's actually sounding rather more like someone who complains about people using mobile phones in cinemas. i.e. A reasonable person who objects to other people being annoying with their technology.

Re:just leave

[AK Marc]

So if a Catholic and Methodist babies are switched at birth and raised as the "other" religion, they'll know there's a problem and switch religions when they become adults?

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

You made no points. You just listed strawmen. You re-worded the statement in an incorrect way to give a different meaning, then attacked that fabrication. You are arguing with yourself. There are no points to respond to.

Re:Just imagine

[Rob Simpson]

While they are very different situations, Instagramming your food is pretty obnoxious.

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

Blind people commonly carry white canes, or use guide dogs. In either case, they are drawn attention to as assistive devices - the cane painted white, and the harness and hi-vis jacket on the guide dog. And in either case, the law, the public and proprietors of businesses allow them some greater freedoms so that can use them. Most stores don't allow dogs, but guide dogs tend to be an exception. People would object to being hit on the leg with a stick, but wouldn't object if they saw it was a blind person with a cane.

If there is a use of Google Glass to aid the disabled, then it's reasonable to expect that it would be similarly highlighted to mark it out as a aid for the disabled. And for such legitimate use to be tolerated, where use by non-disabled people would be unacceptable.

In a nutshell, the use of dogs by a few disabled people does not mean that dogs in general are or should be allowed in stores. Equally, the potential use of Google Glass like devices by disabled people cannot and should does not imply that people should accept their use by non-disabled people.

Re: Just imagine

[iamhassi]

Agreed. I would not feel comfortable with him in the restaurant

Re:Just imagine

[DexterIsADog]

I'm sure you're the expert.

Potty mouth.

Re: Just imagine

[iamhassi]

Tell it to the judge. From someone that refused to pay (because they charged a different price than their menu) and had the cops called and the cops said pay (whatever price they say) or be arrested so I paid and sued the restaurant, I did tell it to the judge. All I got was my money back, nothing for the BS of having the cops show up because "oops our menu price is wrong you should pay us more" or the BS of having to file a small claims lawsuit just to get justice. Restaurants can do whatever they want and you just have to take it unless you really want to pay thousands to an attorney to make an example of them.

Re: Just imagine

[iamhassi]

He doesn't have to pay, but if he doesn't the cops will arrest him and he can explain to a judge why he didn't pay.

Re:just leave

[dcollins]

Oh, surprise: Not everyone is familiar with the specific UI of your exotic device.

When I was like 14 I had this interaction with my soccer coach on the bus: He was speaking to the team, and I had headphones on. Him: "Take those off!". Me: "But I'm not playing anything, I can hear you." Him: "I don't care, take them off". At which point it immediately dawned on me that from his perspective, he couldn't actually confirm or check that fact. While I needed to think that through one time, apparently others take a lifetime without grokking that. "Trust but Verify", where the only feasible verification for arbitrary devices is to have them put away silently out of sight.

Re:just leave

[BlackPignouf]

I still don't understand why people think the existence of Google Glass means it's always recording. It has a light on it when it records. It's an extension of the phone, nothing more.

I still don't understand why people think the absence of light means it's not recording.
Webcams, mobile phones and Xboxen can still record while being "off". Do you really want to trust Google on that one?

Re:Just imagine

[PopeRatzo]

Anyone found using such covert Google Glasses will be seen as a social pariah, a criminal, or someone worthy of a beating, depending on circumstances.

And how will you know when someone is spying and when someone is just using Google Glass for its AR features?

And the "spy cameras" that have built into glasses for decades were not mainstream consumer products. There's a big difference between something that was purchased at a store frequented by the intelligence and law enforcement community and something purchased at Best Buy. If not in function, then in perception.

We've learned to accept that everyone's carrying a palm-sized high definition camera in their pocket at all times. That was a huge step and the public accepted it without pause. Now those devices are becoming wearable so they won't have to be taken out of the pocket for use, as in the wrist-smartphones.

All this is worthy of discussion, and the notion that you're just going to go around handing out beatings to everyone who's using what will become a mainstream consumer technology does not advance that discussion.

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

Now those devices are becoming wearable so they won't have to be taken out of the pocket for use, as in the wrist-smartphones.

There's no more of a sign of a trend for Google Glass than there was for Segway becoming a widespread form of transport. Availability does not mean widespread adoption.

And the "spy cameras" that have built into glasses for decades were not mainstream consumer products.

Neither is Google Glass. Google might hope it will become one. But hope is not reality.

We've learned to accept that everyone's carrying a palm-sized high definition camera in their pocket at all times. That was a huge step and the public accepted it without pause.

Because phone cameras more like conventional cameras than they are like a spy-cameras. Google Glass is more like spy-cameras than it's like conventional cameras.

the notion that you're just going to go around handing out beatings to everyone

I never said I'd hand out beatings. But it's one of the risks Google Glass users face. Some of them will be beaten for potentially or actually filming where violent people don't want it. For example in the gents toilet. Or when passing drug dealers or pimps in the street. Or simply in a bar.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's not assault if I'm protecting her from harassment.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[swillden]

It's not assault if I'm protecting her from harassment.

Yes, it is. Criminal law includes the concept of justification for very good reasons, but it only extends to actions necessary to prevent the crime. What you described is punitive, not preventative, and is not justifiable. Perhaps turning up the volume a bit will make this clearer. In most US states, you are justified in killing a man to stop him from raping your wife (or another woman; your wife isn't especially privileged in the eyes of the law). But if you catch him raping her and he stands up and starts running away, you can no longer kill him, because punishment is the responsibility and prerogative of the system, not you.

In addition, if the photographer's actions do not actually constitute a crime (perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, look up your local statutes on harassment and public photography), then you can't even assault him in order to stop his actions. You cannot commit a crime to prevent a non-crime.

Of course, there's always the chance that you'll get a sympathetic jury. But I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on that, and my wife wouldn't want me to either.

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

Wearable computing is. But that's not a synonym for head mounted video cameras. Google Glass is.

The major draw of wearable computing is augmented reality, and you can't have that without a camera.

I'm afraid people here have been very clear of their reasons for rejecting Google Glass and all who wear them. And that's not it.

No, not really. 90% of all the negative comments are profanity-laced rants about "hipsters".

He's actually sounding rather more like someone who complains about people using mobile phones in cinemas. i.e. A reasonable person who objects to other people being annoying with their technology.

Bad comparison. When you're complaining about someone's use of mobile phones in cinemas, you're complaining about their use of technology, not technology per se. The equivalent position would be demanding that people are not allowed in at all if they carry a cell phone, on the basis that they might decide to use it in a manner that would be annoying.

Re: Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

If you did get your money back, it sounds like the judge did actually agree with the basic premise of your complaint.

Quick

[Anarchduke]

Someone write an app for google glass that will help handicapped people. Then it would be illegal to prohibit them!

Re:just leave

[Anarchduke]

You live there too.

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

I, however, believe that mass public revulsion and reaction against oppressive moves are capable of changing the outcomes of history

Did you see what people post on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram about themselves these day?

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that having your picture taken by someone else in public is an "oppressive move" when millions of people willingly post information about themselves that is far more incriminating (like e.g. antics while drunk, or something similarly embarrassing).

Yes, they smashed power-looms that were resulting in brutally terrible working conditions for the common man, in return for massive profits for a tiny elite wealthy class.

Are you truly so anti-progress in general? Don't you even realize that those machines are what's almost solely responsible for the prosperity that we all (including even the most poor) enjoy today in the First World, because they are much more productive, and their output can therefore be much cheaper and more accessible? Short-term, they did cause unemployment, but ranting against that is just broken window fallacy - complaining that people aren't allowed to do some useless work so that they get paid for it. Long-term, the labor freed from the need to do what the machines did flowed elsewhere, and we're all better off for it - on one hand, we have more and cheaper goods, while on the other hand, we have more workers who work in environments much more comfortable than factories of old.

Heck, the sweet irony here is that you're using a medium to rant to countless people that would not be possible if Luddites have their way.

"The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering. Most of these long-haired belittlers can't drive a nail nor use a slide-rule. I'd like to ... ship them back to the twelfth century - then let them enjoy it."

you got that backwards

[Macgrrl]

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.

Re:you got that backwards

[shutdown -p now]

I am merely going with the premise that was stated up the thread by the guy to whom I replied, He wrote:

You do understand that the act of ordering enters you into a contract with the restaurant that forces you to pay for what you ordered?

Re:you got that backwards

[stoatwblr]

Therte are a number of exceptions to that. You'd never be sued for refusing to pay if the meal was lousy. There are a number of laws covering this kind of thing but it's almost all based around what's offered being what shows up.

The only time I've seen someone asked to leave a restaurant, there wa sno question of asking him to pay up, they just wanted him out.

I suspect that it would be extremely difficult under contract law to expect payment if the meal wasn't allowed to be finished.

Analagous to a Good Hotel

[stimpleton]

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.

Re: Just imagine

[DrStoooopid]

Kinda falls under that pesky 4th Amendment, perhaps you've heard of it?

wow Privacy?

[tebjmd]

these comments are mostly about the illusion of privacy. WhereY'all been? It is an anachronism like a sundial. Tj

Re:Just imagine

[PopeRatzo]

Some of them will be beaten for potentially or actually filming where violent people don't want it. For example in the gents toilet. Or when passing drug dealers or pimps in the street. Or simply in a bar.

Or during police misconduct.

Re:just leave

[mjwalshe]

Charles Saatchi woudl probably agree with you on that :-)

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[StenD]

You can't take any dog with you into a restaurant; only guide dogs are allowed. GG could be a similar assistive technology, allowed only to those who are officially disabled, carry the permit, and so on.

However it is not very likely that GG would be a good fit as a medical device. It does not have much of video processing power to be useful to people with, say, vision problems.

But is has enough processing power to provide assistance to Aspies - see http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/08/catalin-voss/ . I'm looking forward to being able to purchase GG, and use an app such as that. I suppose I'd need to carry a letter from a therapist.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[tftp]

see http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/08/catalin-voss/ .

What a waste of electrons... whoever wrote that article managed to not say a word about what the software does, and how it works. Can't discuss without details.

But outside of that... if the GG performance is sufficient for the task, then it can be used as a medical tool - especially as a prototype. A real medical device probably has to be a bit more reliable - in terms of battery time, and in terms of dependency on external networks, and such.

Will you be admitted everywhere, even if you have a letter with you? I doubt that. The TSA is notoriously uninterested in letters that anyone can print and sign. Your GG will have to go onto the belt, along with your phone and the notebook and your shoes. Will you be admitted to a locker room while wearing the thing? I do not know. Will you want your lawyer to wear a GG while discussing your predicament, even if he has a prescription?

Seattle

[brunnegd]

Remember, this a town that elected a socialist to city council. Nothing rational in Seattle.

Re:Amazing

[LocalH]

I fail to see how the contents of my nearly-abandoned blog are relevant to this discussion.

Unless you intended to respond with an ad hominem attack instead of actually debating, that is.

Re: Just imagine

[gweihir]

For that definition of "does not have to", I completely agree.

Re:What about a pencam, or button cam?

[gweihir]

Who decides whether a camera is 'hidden'?

Hint: Not you. In fact, it goes something like this:

1. The police when they decide whether to arrest you
2. The prosecutor when he/she decides whether to charge you
3. The jury when they decide whether you were indeed spying on people

You US Americans have a skewed perception of what freedoms you actually have left. Hint: Far, far less than you think.

As to what "visible" means, there is precedent from gun laws. People have been arrested because while carrying visible was permitted, the gun was in a closed holster, or the body of the person was obscuring the cop's view of the gun. AFAIK, the latter person walked, but the former did not.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

Strawman is where the implications listed are not actual implications, but fabricated attacks of something that wasn't said. Such fabrications are lies.

I'm not wrong, but I don't bother tearing holes in the lies of others. You've proven yourself a liar, so you'd just lie about it again. But I do post again so anyone reading your lies has it pointed out to them. You are wrong. You are lying. You've not refuted anything or made any points, other than lying about what I said or meant.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

Which part. Did I use too many words for you? Was the concept too difficult?

If you are the owner of a restaurant, and you sell, or give away footage of people eating in your restaurant, the person or persons shown on the video can sue you for civil damages. Celebrities have the most to lose and gain from it.

It is in the best interest of a restaurant owner to not allow random filming of patrons. They are lenient with taking photos and video of friends they are with, but can (and most likely will) eject you from the premises if you walk around filming everyone without permission. They can (and again most likely will) eject you, even if your camera isn't actually recording, as it presents itself as if you are recording.

The civil liability, of course, varies by jurisdiction. I don't recommend trying the boundaries, unless you like to either end up in court, or severely beaten for filming the wrong person.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

1) Google Glasses aren't.
2) "covert" spy camera eyeglasses aren't exactly covert.
3) You aren't my friend. You aren't welcome in.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

Sure, DexterIsADog.

Some of these are security videos. Some are just videos people shot. They all involve civil cases.

Question answered by lawyers about release of security footage

Texting Woman Who Fell Into Fountain May Sue Mall . The video in the story has been removed, probably as part of a preemptive agreement.

Kanye West suing YouTube co-founder for uploading footage of his proposal

Peninsula card room sues over violent YouTube videos

Couple sues subway over YouTube post

NJTA sues YouTube over the posting of a video that had been shot with an NJTA camera.

And this link may provide you with lots and lots of articles to read on the subject.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

Following this claim, it imples that "you" (the casino) cannot require certain people to leave. Really?

Only if you can never rescind invitations. I never said anything to imply such a constraint. You made up that strawman/lie in order to attack without thinking. If you could think, there wouldn't be an issue. Try to think critically, and you won't end up looking like such an idiot liar.

And no, insults are not an "ad hominem". "You are an idiot" is an insult, not an ad hominem. "Nobody should listen to you because you are such an idiot" is an ad hominem. But then people as stupid as you hear "big words" used, and try to repeat them to sound intelligent. The failure is all the more amusing. Like an 8 year old dressing up in daddy's suit. It doesn't fit. Stick to monosyllabic words, you'll do better when you can understand what you are saying.

Re:Just imagine

[bingoUV]

And how will you know when someone is spying and when someone is just using Google Glass for its AR features?

I do see that usage of Google glasses is a moral grey area, and society is trying to come to terms with it. But AR features? From my understanding of Google glass, at least some one is recording, and Google could even be saving the footage. It is at least analyzing the footage "to enhance your experience".

I don't understand how allowing Google to spy is morally better than spying oneself. I see these two as both morally better and worse than each other, in different ways.

If the camera is on, moral problem remains the same - whether for recording or AR.

Re:just leave

[serviscope_minor]

Anybody who takes an "intentional" picture with a modern D-SLR in that restaurant (and the owner allows that) will end up with a much better unintentional snapshot of you in the background than Google Glass can ever produce.

Yes. But, most stuff is not especially interesting, so onone's going to go out of the way to photograph it most of the time. That changes if people are uploading video to the internet 24/7 (something which glass doesn't do yet).

It's also obvious when someone is using a cellphone camera, compact or DSLR. With glass, not so much. Yeah there could be some dick with a buttonhold camera and a trilby but the number of those is small and they tend to go after specific people. This is about the risk of routinely having too much uploaded routinely.

So do Apple, Microsoft, Flickr, and Facebook, the NSA, D-Link, and lots of other companies and organizations.

So we shouldn't complain when everyone does something bad? The other thing about those organisations is they're not trying to encourage ubiquitous filming yet.

They get it from public and private surveillance cameras,

Most surveillece camera footage donesn't leave the shop.

You are so fixated on your irrational hatred of Google that you don't realize what's actually going on around you.

Or, the person does realise and is focussing first on the worst offender. The companies are all bad. Only one is currently encouraging people to actually wear outward facing video cameras today.

Re:just leave

[serviscope_minor]

If someone wanted to video tape you discretely they would and you would not know about it.

You say that as if the thought has not occured to anyone.

Everyone knows that. If you have a private eye armed with button hole cameras and a Dick Tracy watch are out to get you, you will be filmed. There aren't enough of those people to follow everyone nor do they have the motivation. Casually filming everything and spalattering it all over google plus however is actually a thing that could happen.

Re:just leave

[serviscope_minor]

You can fantasize all you want, but you do not have a right not to be photographed, period.

Even on private property? If you're a provate property owner you have the right to eject someone for photographing if you wish.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

Even on private property? If you're a provate property owner you have the right to eject someone for photographing if you wish.

The restaurant patrons aren't the property owners, so they have no special rights. And property owners do not have a right not to be photographed, all they can do is tell people to leave. Not the same thing.

Re:Just imagine

[lsatenstein]

Not for *any* reason - if they went full Denny's and discriminated against people based on race, that would be crazy fun to watch.

Yes, we might finally get a court ruling that the Civil Rights Act is blatantly unconstitutional because it infringes on the property owner's right to refuse service to anyone for *any* reason, and the resulting crazy would be fun to watch from the other side of the ocean.

Any reason is a bit extreme. Taking photos without permission is a reason. If the photographer does not have the restaurent's permission, then it is the restaurant that would own the pictures and also the copyright.

It is probably also permissible for a person who is talking on the cell phone while eating, and talking loud enough to be intrusive to other peoples desires to eat undisturbed.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

Most surveillece camera footage donesn't leave the shop.

Surveillance is frequently outsourced, analyzed, and recorded off site these days.

It's also obvious when someone is using a cellphone camera, compact or DSLR.

It may be obvious when you do it, but taking photos without drawing attention is one of the primary skills of good photographers. Furthermore, even if you notice, there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

That changes if people are uploading video to the internet 24/7 (something which glass doesn't do yet).

Google Glass doesn't do it because that's not its purpose; it's a digital assistant that happens to have a camera and is deliberately recognizable. It makes a lousy life recorder, although it is reasonably good as a POV snapshot camera, a useful tool in its own right. Many people are using life recorders already, and you don't even notice them because, unlike Google Glass, they are designed for that purpose, have a long battery life, and are invisible.

Both Google Glass and life recorders are important tools for safeguarding our civil liberties against corporate and governmental abuses, because for the first time, widespread multi-POV documentation is possible, and even unskilled photographers have the tools to take pictures of police or criminals without having to face getting beat up for it. But instead of welcoming that, you want to destroy it.

Or, the person does realise and is focussing first on the worst offender.

Both the restaurant owner and you don't understand the technology and are being manipulated. Your fixation and hatred of Google Glass threatens an important tool for individuals to protect their liberties and rights while at the same promoting the agenda of the people wanting to establish a corporate and governmental surveillance society and monopoly. You're on the side of the bad guys.

Re:just leave

[serviscope_minor]

Surveillance is frequently outsourced, analyzed, and recorded off site these days.

Does it leave the company? Nope.

It may be obvious when you do it, but taking photos without drawing attention is one of the primary skills of good photographers. Furthermore, even if you notice, there is nothing you can do about it anyway.

You mean like the restaurant owner who couldn't do anything about it like kicking the guy out?

Both Google Glass and life recorders are important tools for safeguarding our civil liberties against corporate and governmental abuses, because for the first time, widespread multi-POV documentation is possible, and even unskilled photographers have the tools to take pictures of police or criminals without having to face getting beat up for it. But instead of welcoming that, you want to destroy it.

Oh bullshit. No more than normal cellphones. If the cops are going to crack your head for using a phone, they'll crack it for using google glass. Besides how many civil liberties violations have been caught on discrete "life recorders" versus perfectly normal phones?

Both the restaurant owner and you don't understand the technology and are being manipulated.

You seem to be a real evangelist. I understand google glass very well. I used to be a researcher in AR. I know the specs. Just because I happen not to like it, doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Your fixation and hatred of Google Glass threatens an important tool for individuals to protect their liberties and rights while at the same promoting the agenda of the people wanting to establish a corporate and governmental surveillance society and monopoly.

How the hell do you figure out that? Mass surveillance is not a good thing. Just because security cameras exist all over the place, that doesn't make google glass somehow OK. And the lack of support for google glass doesn't make all those security cameras OK either.

Re:Just imagine

[drsquare]

Conversely, that also gives you the right to eat it in the restaurant, as that is implied in the transaction.

Dubble Bubble

[Le Grande Raoul]

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.

[AndyKron]

turn off your restaurant cameras, or I'll leave.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

So now you admit the truth of my point, but continue to call me a liar?

When the truth of your point is that one of your strawmen statements is correct, then you are still a liar. You changed what I said, then attacked it. That's a strawman. Lying about what I did say is a lie. You imposed a constraint I never placed, then declared me wrong. That's a lie. I never added the constraint you did. That I addressed your strawman doens't make it "true".

You admit that a business establishment can "rescind invitaitons".

I never said anything that contradicted that. So you "won" by making up things I never said.

So, in the case of the restaurant, it can also rescind invitations -- it can ask people to leave (rescind their invitation) if the restaurant policy doesn't allow them to stay because, for example, they are wearing google glass.

I never said they couldn't.

That's the point.

Oh, that's the problem. You said factually wrong things. I pointed out they were factually wrong. You then changed your (and my) statements over, what - 20 posts? - until you found a point I agreed was never in contention, then are using that to declare that everything you ever said was true?

Seek professional help. You are deluded, and neurotic.

[...] a restaurant is considered a public, not private, place, [...]

You are so wrong. [...] The fact that there are health rules does not make it a public place.

Someone else (not me) said it was a public place. You indicated it was not.a public place. Apparently this is all about you not knowing what the definition of "public place" is, and arguing endlessly until you beat everyone else down to agree with you on your *wrong* definition, so that you feel better. OK, done. You are right, the law is wrong. An open shop, legally defined as a "public place" isn't when whoever57 says he doesn't like that definition.

In other words, my arguments have no merit because I am a liar.

No, again you fail to read what was written, and instead only read what you wish to hear. "You are a liar. Arguing with a liar is a waste of time." There, pure insult, no ad homniem. When there are two ways to interpret something, the regular way and the obtuse idiot's way, you always choose the latter.

Just take it off

[phorm]

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.

Re:Just imagine

[BasilBrush]

There's another case in point.

BTW there's no need for Google Glass to record cops. Mobile phones work perfectly well.

Re:just leave

[stenvar]

Besides how many civil liberties violations have been caught on discrete "life recorders" versus perfectly normal phones?

You argue that Google Glass is bad because private individuals shouldn't be allowed to record others surreptitiously and without their consent. If that's the principle you want to establish, then there won't be any surreptitious recording, with any device. Legally, there won't be any distinction between a phone strapped to your head (Google Glass), one strapped to your wrist, or one in your pocket.

Mass surveillance is not a good thing. Just because security cameras exist all over the place, that doesn't make google glass somehow OK. And the lack of support for google glass doesn't make all those security cameras OK either.

The security cameras aren't going away, ever: governments and corporations will keep them, they have the power to. Furthermore, they want to control who and what gets recorded, so they want to strip private individuals of their ability to record, keeping that power to themselves. And you are helping them with their agenda.

Establishing a social norm in which every private individual goes around with a camera strapped to their face that they can enable and disable whenever they like is a good thing, because it provides a necessary counterbalance to a corporate and governmental surveillance society that is invariably coming anyway.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

I said it was a public place. You mention context, then take my words out of context. You argued with someone else that it was not a public place. I did later say it was, because you were wrong in correcting someone else who correctly identified it as a public place. I commented on your correction, I did not make the initial assertion.

Re: Just imagine

[iamhassi]

Yes. They had no defense. It was a buffet and they told the judge they ran out of numbers that's why the price was like $6 instead of $10 because they didn't have a 1 and 0 for the sign. But if they do that to 500 people a day and only had to hand back $4 they make $1,996 more a day than they should. The judge should have punished them for defrauding customers and calling the police when it was their fault.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[AK Marc]

No, they are public places. Restaurants may refuse service to anyone at any time (yes, even for illegal reasons). That doesn't mean they can throw anyone out for any reason (legal or otherwise). Unless by "throwing out" you mean inform the patron they are being served with notice of trespass and request they leave, as the police have been notified.

Anyone may "ask" anyone else to do anything at any time. You may ask the lady across the street to flash you her tits. That doesn't mean she must comply. The owner may "ask" the patron to leave, but that does not require a response by the patron.

Re:Just imagine

[Thanshin]

Maybe, but the business has the full right to refuse service and ask him to leave for any reason they want.

Are you sure of that? Can they refuse the service because they only serve Caucasians? Or only men? Or only nationals? Or only non-Jews? Or...

Re: Just imagine

[Thanshin]

Well. If it's revenge you want, you can always burn down the building. It's cheap and not very hard to do without leaving any proof.

Not the way justice works, though.

Re:Just imagine

[Tenareth]

A contract includes two parties, their part of the contract is to provide him time to eat the food. Severing the contract by asking him to leave means they have limited ability to force payment. They are in a stronger position when using something such as illegal behavior (creating a nuisance) to eject the patron, but simply asking them to leave because they are wearing Google Glass(tm) which is perfectly legal, not so much.

Re:Two-party

[Tenareth]

Washington is an all-party state as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#All-party_consent_states

Therefore he's not allowed to record unless everyone agrees.

Re:Just imagine

[soccerisgod]

Did you see what people post on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram about themselves these day?

Wow I'm so fucking tired of that argument. I and millions of others don't, and the fact that some people are exhibitionists doesn't invalidate anything femtobyte said!

Re:Just imagine

[shutdown -p now]

It does invalidate his point about "mass public revulsion". If the current experience with FB is anything to go by, you and him are a relatively small minority.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

Do you have access to the magic Google box. You can find all you want yourself.

One of those that I linked was the mall who released the footage of a lady falling into a fountain while texting. I think that qualifies as person suing business.

Have a nice day.

Re:Just imagine

[JWSmythe]

Oh no, some guy on Slashdot didn't actually follow the links that he requested, and now says he wins. What shall I do?

Oh ya.. not a single fuck given.

Re:Just imagine

[stoatwblr]

If he's ordered to leave before finishing then the restauranty would have a hard time forcing him to pay.

It'd be fun to have a flashmob of glassholes pull this one, but it might put some restaurants out of business.

Re:Just imagine

[stoatwblr]

Depends what you're using it for. I suspect that it or something like it will be ubiquitous within a decade.

The huffing and puffing about it at the moment has a lot of the same sound I used to hear about mobile phones in the 80s when I used to have to carry one for work reasonjs (They were heavy bag ones and weighed a ton).

It will become VERY interesting if google offers Glass on prescription lenses because demanding the removal of prescription glasses IS a civil liberties thing and has gotten business owners in extremely seriou trouble in the past.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech

[Fjandr]

Sure they can. Nobody has to specify the reason for asking a patron to leave.