Slashdot Mirror
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service — and No Google Glass, Either
Seattle diners who want to take their food-tweeting pictures with Google glass were already facing a preemptively hostile environment; now (in a different restaurant), a diner's been asked to remove his Google Glass headset, or leave. He chose to leave. Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants where things like Glass are most likely to appear.
http://m.imgur.com/r/TheSimpsons/v2dkKUz
So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?
OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.
Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I think they did the right thing.
It's annoying as hell when somebody is filming or 'could film' covertly in a restaurant, bar or similar place.
He can do what he wants, and in this case, I support him.
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.
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.
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.
Frankly, if you use Google Glass, you're a god damn moron. I wouldn't want you there, either.
So, I'm not a fan of Google Glass, and I doubt I'd ever get one.
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.
They could be checking their email, posting to some social site, reading the news, playing a game - or taking pictures or film clips where I appear. I have no way to know. By comparison, Google Glass is much more obvious about it, with flashing lights and stuff to warn people you're taking a picture.
If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Just leave and give the place a bad review.
I'd expect far more "bad reviews" if they allowed Google Glass at the objection of patrons.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
Since the link to the article seems slashdotted, here's one to another about the same incident.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html
Same guy owns both places.
Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"I would love an explanation, apology, clarification," Starr wrote on Facebook,
What more explanation do you need? Why do you believe you're owed an apology? What needs to be clarified?
"and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination."
Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff? I hope the staff member gets a bonus and a promotion for puncturing this self-inflated cock-womble's ego.
What a git.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.
But ignore that. It's absurd to say you should leave if asked to remove a camera from your head. It's not important to your functioning as a human. It's not going to kill you to fail to live-stream every bite of waffle you take.
I have nothing against glass wearers personally but if I went out to dine with someone who was asked to take off Glass and opted to leave rather than remove it, I'd tell him he could go on his own personal snipe hunt for a restaurant that loved Glass users; I plan to stay and eat.
Similarly if someone asked me to remove a hat I would also remove it. Their restaurant, their rules and as long as they are near reasonable I'd rather eat.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
The difference is the surveillance video doesn't get posted online. (usually)
Why are you talking about tinfoil when there is an obvious recording device present? Tinfoil hattery is involved only if he thought there was a recording device and there was none...
Reacting to something real is as far from "tinfoiling" as you can get.
Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes actually many people here do.
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.
Google Glass, and Twitter, and a bad haircut. The trifecta!
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Not quite any reason; but glassholes aren't a protected class.
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?
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.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too
He sounds like little more than a toddler having a hissy fit. "Well I don't SEE anything that says I can't wear it. Just cause you work here doesn't mean you're the boss of me." Um, how about common freaking courtesy? Do you really have to be wearing your Glass constantly? Just cause I don't see a sign that says I can't come piddle in your wine glass doesn't give me the OK to do it. Admittedly, I do get irritated by people that just can't put down their mobile device for 10 minutes without getting twitchy. You want to visit a restaurant that allows Glass and whatever else? Fine, go open your own place. Otherwise, yes, you are subject to the "rules" of the restaurant you're visiting.
Biggest thing though...have common courtesy. If you've been asked nicely to do something at a business, do it. Their place, their rules. If it's truly unreasonable or discriminatory, then make a case out of it. They ask you to put away your mobile device, speak more quietly, dress in certain attire...do it! But if you're going to throw a fit solely because you choose to be a self-centered ass, then please lock yourself in your house and stay away from the rest of us.
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 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.
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?
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Indeed. Some customers are not worth having. This is one of them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The Constitution does not guarantee unrestricted and unlimited private property rights anywhere; heck, it has the concept of eminent domain written right into it.
If that is so, then they cannot evict him upon seeing the goggles, either, unless they have explicitly warned that such are not acceptable in advance - after all, if it's a contract, it's equally binding on both sides, and if they have the right to demand payment at that point, surely he has the right to demand the service he is paying for.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.