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.
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.
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.
"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.
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"...?
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
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.
People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you. That's why you tolerate them. Now, if all the cellphone users had it up and filming around them all the time, how do you think you'd feel?
I have a disabled friend who's missing all four limbs. Curious people constantly film him when he walks on his prosthetics with their cellphones - yes, obnoxious tactless jerks raise their cellphones and start filming right in his face, as if he was a spectacle, just like that. He told me it's been years since he hates going out because of this. That's how you'll feel too when every other schmuck in the street wears the goddamn Google glasses.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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)
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
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.
And it's not even really "reacting to", as the anti-GG policy *predates* the attention-seeker's attention-seeking stunt. The stunt was a reaction to the policy, if anything.
"Starr had walked into an establishment owned by one of the more vocal anti-Glass restaurateurs".
It's clear provocation, with the expected result, in order to justify a pathetic look-at-poor-me, I'm being oppressed, whine.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
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?
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
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.
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
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
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.