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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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: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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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:just leave

[maxwell demon]

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

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: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?

[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: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?

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:just leave

[Todd Palin]

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

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.

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

[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

[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: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.

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: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]

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.

Better yet

[MitchDev]

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

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.

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!

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: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: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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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

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: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.

Re:Just imagine

[ElectricTurtle]

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

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

[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: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: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 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.

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: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: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 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 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.

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

[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: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 imagine

[Zontar The Mindless]

WTF? I don't eat the food, I don't pay for it.

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: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 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

[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 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: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: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

[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 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: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.