Slashdot Mirror
Google Glass User Fights Speeding Ticket, Saying She's Defending the Future
Nerval's Lobster writes "A California software developer dubbed an explorer by Google and a scofflaw by the California Highway Patrol appeared in court to fight over the purpose and usage of wearable electronics. Cecilia Abadie denies she was doing 80 mph in a 65 mph zone when she was pulled over by the CHP Oct. 29 of last year, but proudly admits wearing her early edition of Google's Google Glass augmented-reality goggles. She just doesn't agree with the CHP's contention that Google Glass is a television. Abadie, who works at virtual-reality sports software developer Full Swing Golf and was one of the first 'explorers' chosen by Google as early testers of Google Glass before they were released, wears the goggles for as long as 12 hours per day, using them both as a way to pull email, driving directions and other information into her view and to push pictures, Tweets, updates and other information out to professional and social networks in a process she describes as 'living in transparency.' The California Highway Patrol, unfortunately for Abadie, considered wearing Google Glass to be the same as watching television while driving. One of the two citations Abadie was given was for speeding; the other was for 'driving with a monitor visible in violation of California Vehicle Code 27602.' Fighting that perception in court is 'a big responsibility for me and also for the judge who is going to interpret a very old law compared with how fast technology is changing,' Abadie told the Associated Press for a Jan. 16 story." A court commissioner in San Diego dismissed the Google Glass ticket, saying he could find no evidence that the device was in use while Abadie was driving.
Isn't that like saying a pilot is distracted by having his HUD turned on?
So I guess you're also against HUDs like I had in my last two cars.
Have you seen what distractions cops drive around with?!?
Seems to me the only idiot here is you!
Nobody is arguing about the speeding, though the cops around here like to tack on an extra 10 or 20 mph when they think they can get away with it.
It's about being persecuted over outdated and inappropriately applied laws, especially since there is no proof that the device was even in use, just that it existed.
Your phone probably has a camera. If you were on a phone call with your friend, and Alex Baldwin walked up and punched you for taking pictures of him, would it be right? Having the capability to perform an action with a device does not indicate that said action is being performed despite the existence of the device.
You might want to ask yourself that question you posed.