Slashdot Mirror
Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass
First time accepted submitter Martin Blank writes "Sarah Slocum, an early adopter of Google Glass, was bar hopping with friends in San Francisco when a few people in the bar took issue with the eyewear when she was demonstrating it to another patron even though she wasn't recording. When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording. Two of them approached her, yelling and throwing a bar rag at her, and ultimately ripping the Glass from her face and running from the bar with it. She gave chase and eventually got the Glass back, but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar. This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works. Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
This will always happen when you go to places where the rejects of society hang out. Deal with it and find other places to go to.
discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works
No... especially among those who do understand how it works.
If someone starts threatening you you start recording. Because if they steal from you, or strike you, they've committed assault and you'll have iron clad evidence of it.
Its a douchetastic piece of hardware worn by pretentious assholes.
to finally take hold?
Oh, I dunno, maybe not wearing it in a bar and threatening to record other people with it when they don't want to be recorded.
Or, maybe, we'll just have to get used to living in a post-privacy future.
Best Slashdot Co
Butters: But... how come we can't just take the bus on into the city?
Cartman: You don't know San Francisco, Butters. [zips the suit up] It was the breeding ground for the hippie movement in the 60s. Those hard-core liberals, lesbian activists, and diehard modern hippies young and old. [turns around and sighs] I swore I would never set foot in San Francisco. God help me. [reaches down, picks up the helmet, and puts it on, locks it in place, and pressurizes the suit. Communication resumes through the intercom] All right, Butters, I'll be tethered to you through this cord. It's my only lifeline, so make sure it stays taut. If you stop hearing my voice, for the love of Christ, start reeling me in with all your strength.
We've got one example of some dickheads and that's grounds to claim it isn't generally accepted? If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.
what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?
A red LED that glows when the 'glasses' are actually recording and is dark when they aren't.
I think it should be MY option whether I am featured in your glass recordings, and I won't take your word for it, thank you.
I am having difficulty imagining a world in which people would have a problem with this. Are you going to chase down and attack someone who has their cell phone out?
I guess I am missing some bit of information that makes the anti-glass argument make sense.
Seriously. We're already living in a panopticon society, being recorded by the government and private business almost 24x7.
Now we have a bunch of people OPENLY wearing cameras on their heads, recording our every moment in public too, whether we want it or not.
I can understand a certain modicum of hostility. Granted, nobody should EVER be PHYSICALLY attacked. But the people behind Google Glass, as well as the users of the product need to understand that this product is going to be pushing people's buttons.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Then that way the product will fail and we get our decency back.
I do however feel for the idiot who got glasses SURGICLY screwed into his SKULL. So so called father of wearables, more like idiot. he gets attacked in McDonalds, good too, rip them from his bloody skull.
We need to start developing open source JAMMERS to disrupt Wearable devices.
Make them feel uneasy about wearing them.
See if the response is the same.
Tell the patrons that its OK, you're not actually recording anything despite holding the camera in a manner to record.
Or you could just put the Google Glass in your pocket and socialise with your friends without the need for a constant internet connection.
FTA: "You [i.e. rich hipster techies] are killing this city!"
It may have ostensibly been about privacy, but clearly it was also about resentment towards tech-industry aristos displacing everyone else,
with their private busses and their artisanal vodkas and fancy gadgets and most of all their ability to pay obscene rents and stay in The City
rather than commuting in from Gilroy.
>;k
Maybe bar hopping is not the best plan.
Oh and Protip: Never set your wallet/purse down in a bar.
According to the thread about this on reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco this was person is a complete and utter douche who was going from bar-to-bar last night attempting to incite an incident.
But that's for the Fair and Balanced reporting.
Don't bring recordable media into bars. People go to bars to relax and be themselves, fear of being recorded makes them unable to do just that.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
They got angry because the Google Glass rose the women into higher power and social position for having the convenient recording feature.
Loaded question: "...what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?". The question implies that general acceptance should take hold. Why should it?
As I see it, the people who reject Glass understand very well how Glass works, and this is exactly why they reject it.
My step-son owns Google Glass and he went with us on a cruise recently. All the reactions I saw were very positive. He allowed other to wear it and demonstrated how it worked to anyone who was interested. If anything, it added to his popularity.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
It seems to me that the real "glass holes" are those without Google glass.
No provision for blurring people who are recorded without their consent. They're well within their rights to keep you from recording.
"...but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar.". Is it just the plain old distraction tactics?
Either allow these cameras inside or not.
People are pissed because they aren't aware that someone is filming them. It's essentially voyeurism unless you KNOW you are being filmed.
Established policies about this at the door via sign would be enough to prevent these violent reactions.
Anyone whos been paying attention can tell this will only get worse. WAY worse. I expect at least a couple of murders.
Authorities have beat, shot, and killed people recording them around the world since cameras were invented. Why should the general public be ANY different?
This isn't a simple case of 'haves versus have nots' having their face rubbed in it.
This is fear of the unknown. That NEVER ends well.
Getting in a bar fight, for being a dick. News at 11.
Looks like "with a computer" gets replaced with "while wearing google glass".
Totally uncivlized.
Why can't the people who live in San Francisco behave like people in Alabama?
Aimed at those who reflexively denigrate regions they're totally ignorant of.
People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
While I would prefer to see a red led indicating that it is actively recording, that's not the only issue.
The early adopters are also actively running around flaunting that they had an extra $1,500 just lying around. It is also similar to the hostility growing about the elite companies busing their employees. There is a level of elitism that is being flaunted about by these people and that doesn't sit well with many people. Especially with a growing divide of haves and have nots.
In this case it seems that since they eventually just grabbed the device, that all of the bluster was probably just show to get them in a position to steal it.
Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.
As long as I despise the physical aggression, this cannot be an excuse to make Google Glass more accepted. This thing is pure EVIL. People who try to convince you that this is just the normal evolution of society are simply missing the point that one thing is the "possibility" that someone is recording you everywhere (e.g. with small/hidden cameras). Another thing is the "acceptance" of this fact, like if it were something normal which we should get used to.
I was expecting less Glass supporters on Slashdot. This must be either due to an increase of hipster kids among its readers, or (more likely) the result of an ongoing astroturfing campaign by Google - you can bet they are very active from this point of view.
Anyway, every time I hear the argument "don't bother about Glass, spy cameras are much cheaper and you don't even notice them", Beta kills another kitten.
When I go to a bar the last thing I'd expect is some douche wandering in with the potential to record me inebriated. Given the absurdly conservative society we live in, combined with the new "at will" employment philosophy (yes, even in Canada), I'd get upset too. Fuck off with your toys already.
Google glass is up front and personal. Eye level, quality video and audio. That is far different than an overhead security cam, even the best ones. The reaction is the same as if a person was recording with a hand held video camera in a bar. How well do you think that would be tolerated, especially if it was not directed at an immediate group of friends and short lived? How would you feel sitting in that bar with the other patron aimlessly recording for 30, 60 or more minutes? Would you be surprised if someone got up and knocked the camera out of their hand? Verbally berated them? Pushed them?
The real issue here is what's actually going on in SF. If you don't live here you probably don't know, but there has been a lot of soft aggression against tech workers regardless of the company all over the city, simply because more and more are moving in, driving up the prices of housing and attracting more higher-end businesses, effectively changing the nature of traditionally "working class" neighborhoods. Classic gentrification.
This bar in particular is more of a punk-type place, located exactly in one of those areas under rapid changing, so the presence of someone with GG was probably an in-your-face reminder (no pun intended) of the situation many of the locals are experiencing.
I can personally understand both sides, but I tend to side with history: everything changes over time and different forces will produce different changes. You can fight it only to a certain degree, but change is inexorable, and you can't forever cling to "the way things were before".
When I make a black box device where in a push of a button I can ensure myself you glassholes aren't filming me being an asshole.
From TFA
Slocum said she was bar hopping with friends when they ended up at the bar in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.
Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass.
That’s when she said one of the women and a man “charged” her, telling her they did not want to be filmed.
She could have walked away, but instead she chose to up the ante by threatening the patrons with recording their objections to being filmed.
Slocum said the woman then ran up to her, saying “you are killing the city” and tried to grab Google Glass from her. Then the man “ripped them off my face and ran out of the bar,” Slocum said.
Now that is interesting as it may be indicative of a general anti-Google aspect in the city as much as an anti-glass thing.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
First of all, I don't get the link between these two things. "Cheap, easily-hidden spy cameras exist, therefore there should be general acceptance of expensive, hard-to-hide spy cameras"? Is that the basic thought behind this sentence? Huh?
Secondly, you forgot to explain why I should give a shit about whether Glass is accepted or not. What's my interest in it? I don't want one. I don't know anybody who wants one. The only people I ever read about who have them are jerks. And I don't work for Google.
So to answer your question: general acceptance will happen when Google cancels the project.
Comment of the year
Even among people who understand how it works, there's hostility to this.
Because, eventually it stands to be everything we're afraid it will be, a method of Google to monitor people who want nothing to do with Google and for the people wearing them to violate our privacy.
I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.
Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.
So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Your question is nonsensical: Those people would likely be even more furious if they knew your clothes were covered in pinhole spy cameras.
The problem is people don't like having creepy strangers record them in public, regardless of whether they have the "right" to do so or not. The issue is the human discomfort and you might get to a point where people won't just kick your ass for looking at them while wearing Google Glass (or similar invasive, idiotic, and useless products) but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. Nor will you ever get them comfortable with the perception that they're being recorded.
I wonder what the over/under on somebody hacking Google Glass to disable the "recording" light is--assuming such a hack doesn't exist already in the wild and we just haven't heard about it.
Who did what now?
because a large majority of the population carrying around a GPS / camera / sound recorder that we allow to be taken out at any time is totally fine.
Put your cell phone on your face; now we have a problem.
Next time think twice before putting a camera in front of everyone's face, glasshole. Hopefully many other similar stories will happen.
This post is fake, just a marketing ad. How come no police was called, no charges were made?
"...what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
Major changes in society, that won't be happening anytime soon. Look, we're already monitored basically 24/7. We don't like it, but if we squint our eyes and look the other way, we can pretend we aren't. The Google Glass thing is just shoving it in our faces and not allowing us to ignore it. (The reasonably common perception of Glass wearers as pretentious hipsters doesn't help).
I think it's far more likely that places like bars (where we want to relax and do foolish things) will ADVERTISE that they don't allow these devices, and don't record internally. Glass may be the straw that triggers the backlash.
Wait, so it's bad for the NSA/FBI/CIA/TLA to spy, but we should embrace google spy glasses? This is fucking ridiculous. I'm a google shareholder, but you people are obsessive enough to worry me.
I didn't inhale back in the 60s either.
On or off the issue is not what she is doing. But what she is perceived as doing.
People turn quite irrational at the prospect of being photographed or filmed. I've run into problems overseas, but I almost think it's worse in the US. People seem to take issue with the mere presence of a camera. If you're shooting buildings that are not established landmarks you get odd looks. And I got approached once because I was taking photos of car taillights for a project. They were still suspicious after showing them my shots. The only time you're really not going to have a problem is when you're with friends and your camera is clearly pointed at them.
Google Glass, however, takes this perceived threat to a whole other level because you've got a camera stuck to your head and in the minds of the ignorant you're recording everything you see.
Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself, if the other party were resentful of someone flaunting wealth, if theft was the motive, or if they really were just plain stupid. Either way, bars and such tend to attract imbeciles which is why I would never wear something like Google Glass out at night. At least not until the technology became ubiquitous and accepted.
P.S. In that last sentence I meant "person" in the general sense, not specifically the person mentioned in this particular article. What I'm criticising is that the article portrays the behaviour of filming people without their consent as being perfectly fine, and that people who object just "don't understand". (Don't understand what??)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Not those who care about their own privacy. Hopefully many other similar stories will follow.
> I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted
Wearing Google Glass isn't common. I've never seen anyone wearing it. If I saw someone wearing it in a bar, I think I'd ask the barman to ask them to put it away or leave.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
more to do with assholes looking for an excuse to harass someone, and possible a scam specifically to steal her purse,
Lets not attribute to society as a whole premises based on violate actions some some assholes who clearly need therapy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... when technology has advanced far enough that there is no inherent need by virtue of its function for something that may be outwardly visible. Even current technology spy cams are less noticeable than google glass is.... I can only imagine it's a matter of time before tech has advanced far enough that a user of something like this would be all but completely indiscernable from the rest of the crowd.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Your quote makes no sense. It was not in the article, and glass has many other features other than recording.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
She told them "I'm going to start recording you" and THEN they went after her. Perhaps if she was less aggressive nothing would have gone wrong? Just a thought.
I think I DO know how it works. It takes pictures and videos of people secretly. And it's not the same as security cameras. Security cameras are there so that if something happens there is evidence. Security camera video typically does not get uploaded all over the place unless something remarkable or illegal happens. Glassholes are there to spy on you and then immediately upload whatever you're doing. People don't like being spyed on in that way.
Proverbs 21:19
"When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording."
Stupid bitch is stupid. This happens when people live too much in virtual realitites and "social networks" and forget that reality has its own rules (and no, you don't have to accept the general terms, and no, you cannot opt out).
Remember the douchebags that leave their bluetooth headphone thing in their ear all day long, ostensibly because it's more convenient, but more of a status declaration (because frankly, how much "work" is it to either lift up your cell phone when it rings, or put in the earpiece when it rings?) to all around them?
Yeah, Google Glass is like that, to the exponential power of "look how much more $ I have than you".
Personally, no, I don't believe I need to simply "accept" that someone's desperate need to stay connected to the interwebs" is so significant that he/she can't take the bloody thing off in a social situation.
If someone were to stand there filming me, I might object as well. If they were to start doing it without asking, I might firmly object.
Here's my tip, if you're going to assault someone with Google Glasses on, make sure you a) assault them from behind, preferably either with something over their head, or at least knock the glasses off, b) step on the glasses ASAP.
I'm not saying anyone should hurt anyone (I expect you'll get caught, anyway) but I'm reaching the point where ostentatious disregard for other people should treated with cavalier disregard for their social contract in turn.
-Styopa
What...no links to the cheaper spy cameras?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I have a question?
Was this girl so dumb as to leave her purse unattended in a bar? And what relevance does it have to the story?
Or, better yet, no one cared or liked her enough in the bar to keep an eye on her purse?
I like how a google glass user expects those around her to just accept her at face value that she is not recording rather than accept that she's making those uncomfortable around her. Its like refusing to take off a 3 foot tall hat in a sporting event after the guy behind you pokes you in the back. Then getting mad when he throws
You do need to realize that you can get prescription lenses for Google Glass now, right? These may well be the user's only glasses that allow them to actually SEE anything. Put them away? Why? Because you think they will record you? You know the security camera in the corner actually IS recording you, right? As opposed to glass which simply could record you. But you aren't interesting so why would they bother?
When people are up in arms about something, they always go after the easy targets; even when said targets are far from the biggest threat.
Where I need to worry that any moment of my life can appear on online without my permission.
Where I need to worry someone has turned on and off their recording at opportune times of that moment that appeared on online to make me look bad without giving full context of the situation.
Where I need to pay money to remove said videos from the Internet.
Where I cannot walk down the street, eat at a restaurant, workout at a gym, or celebrate at a bar without worrying someone is recording to be uploaded and judged harshly by tens of thousands if not millions of people.
I doubt anyone else wants to live in that world either, but every time someone resigns themselves to allowing it that world arrives that much sooner.
Couldn't you just go to a bar where they aren't having illicit sex with Donkeys? Then it wouldn't matter if someone was wearing Google Glass, would it? Trust me. You're not that interesting. I mean, seriously. What the FUCK are you doing in plain sight in a bar in front of hundreds of people that you so desperately need to keep private? More importantly, why can't you see the inherent contradiction there?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works."
I'm pretty sure that statement is about as wrong as it gets. Everyone's very aware of how it works, during the scuffle she turned on video recording and it's been posted to youtube, which is basically the whole problem. Google Glass makes it so that you can't really have an off the record discussion any more. And please spare everyone the nonsensical argument about cell phones posing the same risk, especially since you're not wearing the phone on your face.
The way i take google glass, is there is no light for recording. As in secret. You know the red dot/green dot. So no one knows.Plus you add google voice to the mix, plus you add tagging... And some one cheati9ng on their expense account/lover...you get what I mean?
Or you could just put the Google Glass in your pocket and socialise with your friends without the need for CONSTANTLY REQUIRING ATTENTION FROM EVERYONE AROUND YOU.
FTFY.
When nearly everyone has the tech, it will be a mutually assured disclosure situation, and only those who don't have it will feel threatened and/or left out.
In a nutshell: If you have it, you accept it on others, and if you don't have it, you will feel exposed, and therefore resent the presence of it on others.
Widespread adoption will be about the only thing that can allow it to take hold. Sadly, this will also create even more backlash against it.
I doubt it will ever be truly widespread. Isn't it still illegal in most places to record people without prior permission, and threatening to record can also be seen as a threat? Every new phone has a camera as it is. You want to see people get twitchy? Walk into any bar actively recording as you go and post the results! That's not even Glass backlash, just blatant recording reaction!
Maybe there will be a string of clubs spring up that having Glass (or something else similar) is the only way you get in.
Watch for signs to pop up Banning the use of such devices in various establishments. Theaters will likely lead the pack there. I'm surprised that the MPAA/RIAA haven't jumped on this bandwagon yet, as ambient recording of copyrighted material is (at least in their mind) illegal, and recording club music could be a goldmine for them...
And only the wearer knows if it is recording or not.
Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar. Most bars have security cameras in them anyway and the management has full access to strategically-placed video feeds.
But the expectation is that bar management won't go posting video of tipsy patrons behaving comically on web sites for all the world to see.
I think people running around with video cameras on their heads that may or may not be filming everyone else is just going too far.
Glassholes indeed.
He was yelling at me and I thought he might start hitting me so I raised my hands to defend my face. He took this as an act of aggression and started punching me because of it.
This is the actual video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTrx-i_nB4
One of the "attackers" was girl...
I think the issue isn't the fact they don't know how it works but very much aware of how this produce will impact personal privacy.
A little red light will not fix this, (it could be disabled anyway easily) you think the hate is bad now? wait till its available for everyone and you get voyer and stalker videos.
Just because something about you enrages me.
You mean besides the light, the staring and the verbal commands?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Maybe you would, maybe you're just posturing on the internet. Frankly I don't care which it is, what I do know is that 99% of the time when people say they'd do something like that they wouldn't in fact do it in practice.
There's no difference btwn glass and the idiots running around every bar taking pictures and video with their phones constantly....
This is why every Glass should come with a gun. The gun defends the Glass, and the Glass defends you in court when you use the gun.
I wouldn't call this "attacked" as she wasn't physically harmed. They threw a rag at her? That's not an attack. They grabbed the Google Glass from her face? That's theft, not an attack. An attack would be something that was intended to hurt her, such as a punch to the face or a kick to the leg intended to do harm.
..has anyone tried to start just taking random pictures inside bars and/or clubs these days?? it's just NOT socially acceptable and people will literally get in your face and threaten to smash you and your stupid phone if you don't quit post haste.
this issue is nothing but an extension of this perceived invasion of privacy ... you just can't wear a frigging camera on your face and potentially snap serriptious pics and not piss people off...
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
No light. Here - see for yourself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023...
"There is no tiny red LED light flashing when Glass is in recording mode. However, the Glass display is on when recording, and people in close proximity on the other side of the lens can see the tiny reverse image of what's on the display. But the act of recording video or picture taking may not be that obvious from a distance or to the uninitiated. It's clearly less obvious than someone pointing a phone in your direction."
Look, I am not defending the aggressors here, but I like Molotov's. It's certainly not a place, however, that I would proudly sport any $1,500 set of eye-wear, at least not in a way that I am obviously bragging about it, though. Camera-laden or not.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?
I think ordinary people won't buy spy cameras to take pictures of others, no matter how cheap they are (investigation and voyeurism are not ordinary).
As I noticed with cameras on phones and smartphones, some people took my picture without my consent, just because it was easy and available and inconspicuous (or they tought it was).
This may be the feelings those agressive people had: "Again! A gadget to have one photo taken without one being aware, neither asked." And this gadget is pushing it a bit too far.
A google marketeer. How desperate: If you don't use our product, you are an asshole. Right. Fuck off.
A Stupid Entitled Attention Whore!
There was abuse by users and paranoia by patrons several years ago.
I dont think the abuse has ended, but the paronoia has.
If you are in a public place you have no expectation of privacy.
If you are in a private establishment open to the public like a bar, and the OWNER or other authorized person does not want you recording there the most they can do is ask you to leave.
They have no right to stop you from recording or to take the recoding device from you.
I don't agree with two party consent for phone recording, only one party. If you don't want what you say on the phone to be recorded by the person you are talking to don't talk to them. The only thing two party consent protects is criminals and criminal politicians.
But that does not matter, the second you leave your own private property (and it must actually be someplace NOT visible from the road, sidewalk or other public place) you have absolutely no expectation of privacy as ruled countless times by the courts. The only exception to this recognized by the courts is in changing stalls, showers and bathroom stalls.
we don't serve your kind here.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I fucking hate those things. Just what we need, more bullshit to distract people while theyre driving, walking, or whatever. I wouldn't allow them in my business either, but since i run a hog farm, i doubt i'll have that problem. But seriously, fuck google glass.
That you have to try to explain all that reveals the problem. Anyone reading your original comment would take "light" to mean little red LED - not the light in the viewfinder of a reverse image that also would be tiny and not especially visible.
When the Google Glass is on and displaying something to the wearer, there will also be a "light" in the eyepiece. How is someone to know without getting in your face and eavesdropping on what you are doing? See the issue? Someone has to get in your face to tell if you are surreptitiously recording them or not.
It is a recipe for fights and altercations. Google Glass wearers should understand that just wearing them is going to piss some people off in quite a few situations. Add alcohol to the mix and they ought to be prepared for whatever happens.
Someone pointing a phone at someone is at least a bit more obvious and if you do it to the wrong person the same thing is going to happen. It's easy to understand why people would react this way for most people. Apparently not for "glassholes", though.
I understand all the comments of "what are you doing in the bar that is so private?" and "no expectations of privacy in a public place!"
However, there have been instances of teachers (and others, I'm sure) getting fired, just because their students found a picture of them holding a drink. Not acting rowdy, or drunk, or anything unreasonable. Just a picture of a teacher holding a beer.
(And, because it seems to be required when posting anon now, here goes: captcha: somethingwitty)
The way it should happen
Yuppie walks into bar, starts showing off shiny new toy that has a camera, gets a request to stop taking pictures, puts toy away for later.
The way it happened.
Yuppie walks into bar, starts showing off shiny new toy that has a camera, gets a request to stop taking pictures, then escalates things by threating to take pictures of those who do not want their picture taken.
Most bars already have several if not dozens of cameras installed by the owners. There are cameras on light poles and traffic lights installed by police. ATM's, even the little cheap ones in gas stations and bars are all recording all the time. The governments of the world all have many satellites pointed down on the planet recording at high enough resolution to tell weather you have a mole on the back of your neck.
The ONLY thing that google glass does is give Little Brother the chance to call Big Brother on their bullshit.
If you can't stop telling racist jokes or cheating on your wife with gutter sluts while you are at a bar the problem is with you, not people with recordings of reality on a device other than their minds.
It is obvious that not everyone took it to mean that, as it was upmodded.
How is someone supposed to know, by paying attention. If they they are talking and the light is on then they probably are not recording, if the light is staying on when they are not talking it probably is on.
Google glass does not piss people off, people become pissed off because they are idiots and let their own anger get the best of them.
I can turn my video on, and sit it on the table with the screen off, or I can pretend to play a game. That is no where near as obvious as someone staring at you with the glass on.
It is not apparent why people who escalate a rude glass user by being rude or violent themselves., when the proper course of action would be to kindly ask them not to record you, if they refuse take it to the bar owner/manager, and if the manager/owner does nothing maybe you are in the wrong place.. If you cannot understand how to act civilized maybe it is not the glass owner who is being the jerk.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
This seems to be less about Glass and more about "her purse was gone when she returned to the bar"
Grab Glass so you chase my friend... I'll grab your purse and run away in the confusion.
All of it. I'm ASKING you to give it to me. Stop being obnoxious by not giving your money to me.
What? You say that you don't HAVE to give me your money?
Oh, I see, my rights end where you get annoyed... That is how that works.
Well, you annoy me. So you are now in the wrong.
we're all being recorded already without our express permission. bars, restaurants, businesses, public venues, roads, airports...all record. Even worse, these video feeds are often being processed with facial recognition software for tracking purposes.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
It's terrible that this woman felt threatened and had glasses physically taken off her face by someone else, but the story is also a bit one sided. In a video breakdown of the story (don't know if it was in TFA) they mention someone in the Glass wearer's group punched one of the other patrons before the glasses were taken from her. Clearly there was a lot of alcohol fueled aggression, and likely on both sides.
Putting aside whether it was justified for the woman to be wearing in the first place, record the other people, etc. The practical thing once she saw that people were upset would have been to just put them away and let the issue drop. People are unpredictable, and you never know what they're capable of. Some guy recently got killed for texting in a movie theater by a retired police officer of all people. I'm not willing to risk my own safety over something as stupid as google glass.
Having said all that, this seems like a problem mostly confined to the bay area. In other cities I think people would be too embarrassed to call themselves a google glass evangelist.
with the next generation of this wearable computing and recording technology, where the recording device will be so small it will be easily concealed as for example a finger ring, a watch, a button, or a bobby pin/hair clip.
I'm pretty sure we're all going to have to get used to the possibility of being recorded surreptitiously by others at any time, speaking pragmatically.
Even now, there are these things called eyes that most people have, attached to a vast memory device with a playback mechanism.
Before, you'd be reported on in a society gossip column or gossip network (if anybody cared about your existence and antics, that is).
Now you'll be on InstaTube or WhatsAppetizing or whatever it is.
Plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
while there is not expectation of privacy in a bar, I would think that some sort of privacy does exist when you enter a bar. I would like to think that management does care about my privacy. If someone is drowning their sorrows, their should be no one is around filming it and posting it on you-tube.
soon we will see signs posting that say something like " no filming, and no recording devices ".
imagine if the founding fathers of the USA had to deal with recorded evidence against the British, planning the revolution. might just not have happened.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
"the sum of all the Little Brothers when plugged into something" {= This right here. You're willingly becoming part of Google's surveillance system.
I can understand in previous primitive times there was nothing better to do after the sun set and the work day was done. But now there is absolutely no reason for it.
... and is it your assertion that it was the existence of the picture that is the problem here? Clearly the problem is not the existence of the picture, but the phenomenally stupid reaction to its existence.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. People from SF are quite often assholes.
2. Drunk people are quite often assholes.
3. People resent cyborgs.
4. Claude Van Dame wasn't there to protect her and Steven Seegal (sp.) was giving bunny ears to Putin.
I know how it works and if I was at a bar with someone besides my wife I might seriously consider beating up big brother. There is a time and a place for everything and I am going to say a bar is not a place for Google Glass.
I thought it was a thin client of sorts.
A priest, a rabbi, and a guy wearing Google glass walk into a bar...
We need a new version of this...
(Web 3.0 folks. That's what Google glass is.)
Trust me. You're not that interesting.
Neither are you, apparently. Why do you need surreptitious internet access in a social setting?
What the FUCK are you doing in plain sight in a bar in front of hundreds of people that you so desperately need to keep private?
As much as it burns you up to hear it, it's none of your business and never will be.
"Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
Uh, take all those super-secret spy cameras out from hiding and put them in plain view. You'll notice they are not welcome either, so to answer your question, when will general acceptance happen? Mind telling me why we should ever simply accept this? People have dodged having their picture taken for decades, and Glass isn't going to change that apprehension for the majority of the public.
So tell the bartender, manager, or someone who actually has some legitimate rights to make the rules that you won't be buying food and drinks at a place where you can't relax. Some places will ban them, some places will enourage them. Just like with conventional cameras and cell phones.
Getting aggressive with someone to make them stop something that they are within their rights to do generally falls somewhere between "picking a fight" and "being a bully," and failing to stand up to that kind of crap is almost always worse than dealing with a non-deadly assault and some stolen gear.
Sarah Slocum is an annoying, antagonistic piece of shit. She makes every effort to place herself in these situations so as to elicit a negative response, blog about it, increase her popularity, and $$profit$$. She can get hit by a bus any day now. . . that would be just fine.
Either way it's stupid that anyone would physically/verbally assault someone even if they are wearing are being annoying google glass.
http://uptownalmanac.com/2014/02/hell-hath-no-fury-google-glass-explorer-scorned
Several witnesses told KPIX5 that Slocum was very friendly, as were others in the bar who were excited to see the high tech glasses demonstrated.
But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.
*recording someone without their permission* may be in invasion of someone's privacy, but that wasn't happening here.
And after threats for NOT recording, she then wished to record any criminal acts so that she had proof of the criminal activities.
Hang on, isn't that what we WANT? We WANT the criminals caught on camera so that they get caught and we want them to know it's going to happen so they decide NOT TO DO IT in the first place.
But only if the criminals are *people we disagree with*, amirite?
Supposedly at least.
http://uptownalmanac.com/2014/02/hell-hath-no-fury-google-glass-explorer-scorned
Several witnesses told KPIX5 that Slocum was very friendly, as were others in the bar who were excited to see the high tech glasses demonstrated.
But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.
"other spycams" aren't usually connected to the Internet and a known NSA supporter like Google, they also don't generally run facial recognition software either.
See the attitude of the girl though? "Oh you don't like my Glass and I don't want to remove them so now I will video you." Typical classless, self indulgent, sociopathic behaviour inherent in technophiles.
Fuck Glassholes.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording.
It is never a good idea to threaten somebody unless you are able to defend yourself. It has nothing to do with right or wrong and everything to do with common sense. Obviously the attackers were wrong. However, since they were upset that the woman could start recording them, threatening to record them if they don't back down seems like a dumb idea, especially since they had been drinking. This would be paramount to telling somebody bigger than you who had been drinking "I'd like to see your try," or "Go ahead, make me."
File this under "What would you expect to happen?"
Either way it's stupid that anyone would physically/verbally assault someone even if they are wearing are being annoying google glass.
You don't get to bars much, I guess, because stuff like this happens all the time whether GG is involved or not.
But then, the witnesses said some people inside the bar got upset about the possibility of being recorded by the glasses. Brian Lester said he watched as a man insulted Slocum, then a man accompanying her retaliated with his fists.
People like their privacy and anonymity. As such, they may not want to be recorded for any number of reasons while in a bar. Think of it like "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Evidently GG will put an end to that.
Discomfort is common because people are damned sick and tired of being filmed everywhere they go. I'm not all that familiar with Glass (not even remotely interested in owning something like that, especially since I already wear glasses and can't see how the device would even work for someone who needs corrective lenses) but if it doesn't have a bright red LED blinking whenever the camera is on it ought to. Glass owners might appreciate that, too, so that they can (hopefully) avoid getting punched out when wearing their expensive toy.
BTW, the way that final question was worded makes it sound like there's some discrimination against Google Glass wearers that us philistines who don't want to be on camera 24x7 have to get over. The vast, vast majority of people on the street, in bars, in stores, etc are not celebrities, politicians, or other public figures and should be afforded privacy. Filming or photographing strangers in public used to require a model release form. (If it no longer does, I can easily see laws reinstating that requirement being passed soon.) You don't give up your right to some privacy just because you step out of your house just because a CEO from an Internet company says so.
Now... let the flames from the Google Glass fanboyz begin...
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
It's also worth noting that SF has an incredible housing shortage right now, driven by a combination of severe height and unit limitations for new construction and a seriously bonkers and labyrinthine city permiting process.
This is why the issue stands out so much in SF as compared to other places undergoing gentrification.
I think the visceral betrayal feeling is deep-rooted in the human psyche, and has nothing to do with the "camera". For a very long time, human beings have used eye-contact as an establishment of trust and social connection. Replacing that with ANYTHING is extremely emotionally difficult for some people. Hell, people threw a fit about dark sunglasses in the 80s, and I believe the Glass-hate is actually closer to the fear of sunglasses than it is to the fear of "big brother."
It is actually a lot more socially acceptable in modern times to be a-typically social (read: Geeky, Autistic, Introverted, Gay) when it is consciously recognized, but people are still just as xenophobic and reactive when it is below the surface, when something strikes a nerve with their core psychological infrastructure.
When you wear Glass or dark sunglasses, some people think you are SCREAMING "I get to see your inner emotions and private thoughts, but you do not get to see mine." It is in the head of the attacker, not the glasshole, but it comes from an icky feeley place and not a place of reason.
Case study: Nobody gives a shit about dashboard cams or GoPro.
Being recorded prevents you from segregating your friends, family, coworkers, and acquaintances into distinct groups. Everyone behaves differently depending on who they are around. Recorded activities can be seen by other groups ("circles") and, in particular, ones you may not want to include. This need for distinct social circles has been around since the dawn of time when folks acted differently in front of, say, parents and clan leaders vs friends.
From the article: "by the time she ran back into the bar, her purse with her keys, wallet and phone were gone".
Maybe this is what it all was about. A standard pickpocket distraction manoeuvre.
1. Don't be a Glasshole and "threaten" to record people. In fact take the fucking Google Glass off, because it just weirds everyone out to think you are running around filming them all.
2. If you are stupid enough to drink, you are stupid enough to get what's coming to you.
How soon before your video capture of me is online, and can be found via an image search?
I may not have the expectation of privacy from these things and other cameras, but surveillance cameras aren't posting their content online. These things (Glass/Cellcams) are designed for that.
In the past somebody could say they thought they saw me somewhere. Proper authorities could take that info and request surveillance from the site.
Now, somebody doesn't care about who they're recording, and I'm in the background. Now I'm tagged forever in that geolocation at that time. I'm not cool with that. In the past that was info down the memory hole. Now it's there forever, and I have no control over it.
My mom says I'm cool.
In the last 5 years I have not seen a single bar without security cameras.
No ONE... out of like what, 10, 15 bars?
They all have them. Slip and fall scams, robbers, police actions, the reasons are many.
But if you don't like being recorded, a fucking bar is the last place to go to.
I think an important distinction needs to be made about the difference between Google Glasses versus cellphones, cameras and other more traditional recording devices. With the latter, it's relatively obvious if someone is recording you: the item's lenses are pointed at you. If the cellphone is in their pocket or angled at my feet, it's easy to see it's not pointed at me. It's also easy for me to verify if they are recording me on a cellphone or not, just simply flip the thing around and take a look. With Google Glasses, I have no idea if a person looking at me is simply looking or is actually recording. There's no indication, and it's not quick to spot check; they have to go through the process of actually removing the glasses and showing me. It creates uncertainty on whether or not I'm being recorded, and therefore, creates unease.
That being said, this event seems to be just as much about the whole Techie vs. "Traditional" San Francisco debate which is a whole different can of worms.
"...what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
For me? A reasonable belief that the recording will not become part of a centralized surveillance database of sightings of me and my fellow citizens that can be datamined decades from now. The same thing I want for ATM cameras, license plate scanners, and all the other increaslingly pervasive permanent, personally identifiable record systems. Reasonable expectation of privacy isn't just about whether I am concealed from perception, it is also about the reasonable belief that where I have been and what I've been doing will generally be forgotten if I'm not famous and it isn't criminal behavior or otherwise significantly offensive.
In short, I will become accepting when I believe the device shows the same degree of civil discretion and temporal fade that I would expect from a random stranger who sees me walk out of a strip club or hydroponics store (neither of which are my personal pecadillo, but the best I could come up with). I do not have that belief currently about Google Glass. It's the same motive that causes me to limit my use of Facebook (six logins of less than fifteen minutes each last year -- I counted). Problem with Google Glass is I can't choose when you are going to sacrifice my privacy to your corporate overlord's time- and GPS- stamped photo surveillance database.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I see the distinction you make, but it is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
First, yes, I agree, smartphones are everywhere, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar.
Second, Google Glass is something that can be expected to be "out" aka on the face, much more than a phone snapping pictures, and there is much less to distinguish GG taking pics/vids than a phone. This means the likelihood of pictures of people drinking - without them knowing a picture was taken - is much higher.
Third, there are people who could/would/will get fired for such pictures being taken, and posted online, even without their knowledge.
This last is a problem with societal expectations, completely separate from acceptance of GG, but the presence of GG will exacerbate the issue by making such documentation of people having a real life outside of the workplace much more common.
Someone in England covered a speed trap camera with a burlap bag, set it on fire, and police are saying it was likely on purpose (lol). A LOT of people in England walk around with their face obscured by a handkerchief to protest CC TV camera. A ton of those cameras have been vandalized or destroyed.
So back in Freedom Land aka the US, you walk into a bar with a head mounted video device and OMG SHOCKING someone takes issue with it. Wow, no precedent for that! Except for...all the precedent.
You are yet another example of an ignorant retard who can't understand the difference between transient human observation and permanent compuational observation.
There is a difference between being observed and subsequently forgotten by a human and the permanent exposure that comes from hordes of idiots like yourselves, donning recording gear owned (you don't own what you can't control) by a multinational corporation, uploading video to a data center. Video that will never be deleted (even if you, the ignorant "owner" of said video think it is). Video that will be indexed by facial recognition, text to speech analysis, conversational keywords, human networking parameters, and other means that we don't even know about yet. If you doubt these assertions, you learned nothing from Snowden and Prism and there is no hope for you. Just because you are too myopic to understand or care about the distinction, does not mean the rest of us are.
By the way, you sound really tough, do you lift, bro?
Well, good luck explaining this prior to your next bar fight :)
When someone is filming out in public and they are making it fairly obvious that they are filming, I have the ability to see this action and avoid being in their scope of frame or I can cover my face from the filming that is on going. This is MY choice to NOT be filmed. It is not a matter of having something to hide, I just don't want to be in your feature video, whether personal or posted on line.
You may have the right to film in public, but I have the right to hide from that filming. It's utterly insane to me to listen to those who don't care whether they are filmed or not to tell me to "Just Get Over It". Why is my right to remain private less important than your need to video everything? Simply put, it is NOT.
If it was OK, then why, through out television history, can people request that media obscure their face on film, but the average Joe can just film me and post it to the world wide web? Why is there a double standard? There shouldn't be.
I don't want to be filmed unless I approve of the filming, and I should have the right of refusal and those with the filming devices should be courteous enough to accept my right of refusal and honor it.
Just because I'm in public, doesn't mean I expect 100% privacy, clearly I can't, but I have a reasonable expectation of limited privacy. I mean if I'm in a bar enjoying a cocktail (or anywhere public for that matter), those individuals that are in close proximity of me are privy to seeing me or hearing my conversation, if I'm being loud enough to be noticed in the sea of faces. But once you film me and posting it, you're taking away my reasonable expectation of limited privacy. You're now making my business available to the entire internet world who weren't in the room. This essentially steals from me the ability to be myself without being monitored by the whole world.
If you still feel like I should just shut up and go away, then you really are oblivious.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
According to the supreme court and Fed Justice Department these laws are invalid.
If you have no expectation of privacy you can be recorded. This applies to all people within the US, not just news crews, police, security guards, or whatever other 'professional' or fancy costume wearer you can think of.
All people have the right to record events/places that they otherwise are legally present at.
Private owned property can have rules about such, but the only thing they can do is ask the person to leave. Stopping them or taking their equipment is not ever legal. For government workers is it prior restraint, and possibly theft. For the general public it would be assault and theft.
If you don't like how you act in public stop going in public.
I just don't understand the lairs and hypocrites who, in trying to hide their bad behavior, expect the general public to help them further their lies by removing any possibility of an objective record of reality.
"Yeah. That's it. (barfs)" And then Archer left the bar. Picking up this lady now seemed a lost cause.
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees. -- Willam Blake
That you have to try to explain all that reveals the problem...
With the mental capacity of the people who are fearing being recorded, yeah. Given that it's a bar, and bars tend to be full of people on the spectrum from "mildly buzzed" to "passed out in the restroom with their head in the toilet and in real danger of drowning", you don't have to be Buzz Lightyear to detect a potential problem...
Anyone reading your original comment would take "light" to mean little red LED - not the light in the viewfinder of a reverse image that also would be tiny and not especially visible.
And that's totally cool. Let them take it that way, not see a red LED, and then not lose their mind over the idea that they are being recorded, because, hey, no red light.
If someone is too stupid to know that it requires a human to do something to record, then I have no problem with them being prevented from flying off the handle and sitting there mollified in their drunken stupor by the fact that there's no little red light.
Unless you are suggesting that we start requiring a little red light? That'd be a great idea, as long as you also ban white nail polish and/or liquid paper, which could be used to ver up the little red light.
I have seen a few Google Glasses wearing individuals. These are your classic book smart and common sense stupid individuals.
Go into a bar and show off technology to people who
1) Don't care about tech.
2) Are drunk.
3) Are resentful of the tech industry as rents have sky rocketed.
Hopefully the company that hired here does not have here in customer facing situations.
Simple, you do the legal, ethical, and moral thing.
You ask the staff to ask her to not wear google glass. If they don't you leave.
Anything else is wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I can completely understand the people with hostility toward Glassholes. If I whip out my cell and start recording something or someone it is quite apparent what I am doing. Not so with Glass, you push a button and the recording starts. Old fashioned handheld cameras had a red flashing light that indicates when the camera is active, but not Glass. If it had a couple of large, red flashing lights indicating when it is actively recording might go a long way toward gaining acceptance.
BUT what really concerns me is criminal agencies (like the FBI) have already claimed the "right" to hack in and activate your computer's webcam/microphone in order to spy on you. How long before they claim this right for Google Glass?
People don't like being spied on. Google Glass users are just going to have to deal with it. Cool, you aren't recording, but you're also not wearing that in here. Kinect has the same issue. People don't like being spied on. Augmented reality is neat but maybe a little more thought needs to be given to the implications of augmenting shared reality through devices like this.
Put a man walking ahead of you, waving a red flag every time you feel like recording something. A time immemorial solution.
Even the most ardent Glasshole cannot prove their piece of tech can't be hacked by the three-letter crowd, allowing not only themselves to be spied on, but also every freaking person they come into contact with.
Why "sadly"? You're out where anyone can see you. This includes artificial eyes like camera lenses and sensors. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine is a strength, not a fault.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Oh hey, looks like SuperKendall finally got his wish to assault someone wearing Glass.
I guess the reason it was a woman is that he must have had to wait to find someone small enough that he felt he could take them on safely.
Simple, you do the legal, ethical, and moral thing.
Self defense is legal, ethical, and moral
If I feel threatened for any reason, including by a camera that's turned off, it's my right to stand my ground. I don't need to wait for the cops to defend myself, why should I have to wait for staff?
Anything else is fringing on my FREEDOM
That should be enough (~25% of google's market cap)...
The only threat that justifies self defense if a physical threat.
1. It does not infringe your freedom.
2. You do not understand the law or even common sense.
3, If you do not take this chance to educate yourself you will hopefully go jail before you hurt anyone.
The idea that your are "threatened" by a camera is both funny and terrifying . The fact that such stupid ideas are voiced on Slashdot is so sad.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
to some glasshole entering a bar:
Go to the manager and explain that you are leaving as you object to being filmed and will not return unless they ban glassholes. Even better if several people do it.
I'm sorry this might be "cool" and neat but pointing cameras in peoples faces on or off is a really dumb idea. Some cultures don't like their photos taken because of their beliefs. Some people don't want to be in your dumb you tube video. Some people just want to be left alone without someone invading their privacy to have their public nerdgasm. I hope this becomes more common place. This is a socially unacceptable technology with severe privacy implications. If a few techno nerds need to get their faces bashed in so this becomes more understood by them as a group I personally don't have a problem with it.
people put in plain sight as I am about all the hidden cameras that seem to be multiplying.
I am concerned about people physically attacking others, for any reason at all, especially for one as stupid as someone wearing GG.
Well, wearing Google Glass is equivalent to wearing a huge "Kick Me" sign on your back. Somewhat equivalent to dressing up as Luke Skywalker and walking into a bar with a fake light saber...
Sure, evidence is good, but I'd prefer not getting assaulted/robbed in the first place. Sometimes avoiding the conflict is more important than winning an argument.
Google Glass wearers should understand that just wearing them is going to piss some people off in quite a few situations. Add alcohol to the mix and they ought to be prepared for whatever happens.
And when, like in this story, the Glasshole ignores repeated requests to put her privacy-invading toy away, she should have expected something like this. I'm going to stop just short of saying she deserved what she got...theft of property is never called for. But I think if she'd been in any of the bars I frequent, she would have ended up with a beer poured over her head and I doubt anyone would have felt particularly bad about it.
What she was doing was comparable to talking on a cell phone during a movie prior to the theaters making rules against that behavior...technically allowed, but completely disrespectful of everyone around her and basically assholish.
That's the thing here. With a Gopro it takes effort to upload footage online. Actually a lot of effort. I know because I regularly shoot footage at the race track. You have to connect it to a computer, download it, edit it, and upload it.
Glass has an internet connection and can post content in real time. I think the fear is public shaming. Any glasshole can instantly upload photos and videos of people in compromising situations almost instantly. The possibility of becoming a viral internet photo or video goes up 100x. People don't like that.
There's a lot of people out there that have very little interest in social media nor technology. They just want to live their lives. Glassholes in a lot of ways are worse than being attacked by paparatzi. At least with the professionals there's a delay and an editor in the sequence that acts like a filter. Notice how upset the celebs get when someone jumps out of the bushes with a 20K camera.
Anyone can pee on the floor. Be a hero, shit on the ceiling!
The linked article is from LA, not SF. Local news sources covered it better, and seem to imply this was a PR stunt:
http://sfist.com/2014/02/26/vi...
The internet is noting what happened to this woman in a bar in San Francisco when she wore Google Glass. She has called this a hate crime. As she notes the product hasn't even been released yet. But when it is released it will be irresistible.
Think of some of the possibilities. An app has been announced Where when you meet someone new in a bar you can take a photo of them and it will search a database and identify who they are. A woman could know if this person is who they say they are, if they are married or has a criminal record. Gay men could know if the guy was on the downlow and what they were packing in their pants. And you could get a review of their performance in bed from your trusted social circle. Priceless. Grindr for Glass can't be far away. And the amazing thing is that people will pay to be assimilated. A lot.
Keep in mind that this is just the start. They are already working on contact lenses that have video displays in the lens. In 50 years the technology will be light years along. Instead of having a earpiece for sound you will have implants. So while non-enhance humans are sleeping you could be learning new things. And Google could improve your mental health by assuring you that you have nothing to worry about from technology and your retirement is perfectly safe in a 401k plan invested in their company. In 50 years the non-enhanced will be at a distinct disadvantage. This woman is a visionary not a clueless Glasshole.
You are not very bright if you think a phone cannot be used to record someone inconspicuously. It's actually very easy. With glass you have to be looking in the general direction and mentally it's difficult to avoid having a zombie stare look in the general direction. With a phone you can just turn off the record screen (or not) and act like you're holding your phone in your hand doing something else like being on the phone or listening to music or even have it peek out of your shirt pocket. Granted there may be image stabilization issues or things getting recorded at funky angles .. But those can be fixed in post processing.
If you don't believe me, next time you're in a public place and it's legally fine to record .. Try it.
How is someone supposed to know, by paying attention. If they they are talking and the light is on then they probably are not recording, if the light is staying on when they are not talking it probably is on.
Google glass does not piss people off, people become pissed off because they are idiots and let their own anger get the best of them.
People aren't idiots. They just don't want to have to know the minutiae of how an invite-only, $1500 device works to be sure that their drunken behavior doesn't end up on YouTube. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Asshole walks into bar full of assholes; hilarity ensues.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works.
but there are propably enough people who do know how it works..
Google probably planing to start sales of Privacy device or Android Privacy+ application which will disable recording of the buyer as soon as Google glass is out of beta.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
And this is why we hate glassholes.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The only threat that justifies self defense if a physical threat.
No, self defense is simply a matter of feeling threatened.
The woman felt threatened when some people hid their faces and gave her rude gestures. There was no more physical than a camera. Yet that was her justification to escalate the conflict and start recording, and TELL people she was recording, which is as smart an idea as kicking a bear. So no, I'm not the one without common sense here
If it's ok for her to feel threatened over non-physical things and escalate conflict, it's ok for me to feel threatened over non-physical things and escalate conflict.
And nowhere in my post did I say self defense equates to I go hurt someone. I think you're projecting your own violent thoughts onto others.
The idea that your are "threatened" by a camera is both funny and terrifying
The truth often is.
We also have people shot dead over texting in a movie theater
Remember the Wild West? When people used to duel at high noon? This story and any other bar fight (that's all this story is, a bar fight), just a lesser form of that. Freedom isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
The fact that such stupid ideas are voiced on Slashdot is so sad.
The sad thing is that you think the idea of freedom is stupid
Please engineer a version of Google Glass that is camouflaged to look just like a normal pair of eye/sun-glasses.
Sincerely,
Potential Google Glass Wearers
&
People Who Don't Want To Be Recorded By Google Glass Wearers And Aren't Likely To Attack Them If We Can't Tell The Difference
Absolutely. I live on the same street a block away from Molotov's. I was at Nickies last night (another bar on the street) and heard what actually happened.
First, the woman *was* recording. She was going around to a lot of people even when they asked her repeatedly not to record them. She was quite drunk and being a bit of a brat.
Second, none of her stuff got stolen. She was so drunk she forgot her purse and stuff at the bar. She got it back later.
So basically the whole thing is a load of horse droppings.
I'm going to find those guys at that bar and show them every single traffic light, closed circuit television, and any other ancillary cameras deployed by private and governmental agencies all around them. I could have San Francisco in a full scale riot by the end of the week!
in plain sight in a bar in front of hundreds of people
I don't know what bars you're going to...unless you count those "dance hall" things, I suppose. There's a difference between "a few dozen people" and "on the Internet for the entire western world to see."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
They completely introduced it as simply a video recorder / privacy invasion device, instead of as a HID which would still be useful even with no camera at all.
Nothing says "I'm rich please rob me" like wearing a $1500 toy everywhere you go.
I might buy this if it was at Walmart, but it happened in a fucking bar.
>recording our every moment in public too, whether we want it or not
How do you not get that they're not doing that? How hard is it to figure out?
People don't get to attack people for doing things they don't like. If they can't pass laws preventing public recording, then they have to just live with it whether they want to or not. There's something to be said for the rule of law in a civil society. I cannot stress hard enough that IF YOU DO NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT IS LEGAL, YOU \\\WILL NOT/// DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR YOU \\\WILL|| GO TO JAIL.
And you'll deserve it. Disapprove of the things all you like. Attack those who act within their legal rights and I'll remove you from society. Look for the man wearing Glass and carrying a gun.
...if she hadn't responded to their threat with another threat, thereby escalating the situation?
soon we will see signs posting that say something like " no filming, and no recording devices ".
Which means, no cell phones. No bar owner would dare post that.
I was talking with some of my coworkers about whether Glass will succeed. One said he hopes it goes away. He said if he saw anybody wearing Glass in near proximity to his kids, he would fight them. It made me realize how crazy my coworker is.
"If it's ok for her to feel threatened over non-physical things and escalate conflict, it's ok for me to feel threatened over non-physical things and escalate conflict."
No it is not. Once you become physical you are breaking the law.
"And nowhere in my post did I say self defense equates to I go hurt someone. I think you're projecting your own violent thoughts onto others."
The people involved took her property physically that is a violent act.
"The idea that your are "threatened" by a camera is both funny and terrifying
The truth often is.
We also have people shot dead over texting in a movie theater [slashdot.org]"
And that idiot is in jail.
"Remember the Wild West? When people used to duel at high noon? This story and any other bar fight (that's all this story is, a bar fight), just a lesser form of that. Freedom isn't all sunshine and rainbows."
The wild west mainly happened in the movies. Notice that showdowns at high noon do not happen anymore.
"The sad thing is that you think the idea of freedom is stupid"
And with that I know you are a lost cause.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The club I used to go to in London had a 'no photos / filming' policy to protect it's customers. People were allowed to take their phones in, of course, but they just weren't allowed to use them to take photos and film. The club was for alternative culture people, and the policy was so they could dress the way they liked without worrying about photos of them getting about town.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
is to avoid dangerous people and dangerous situations.
It's not apologzing for someone who commits assault when you say there may have been alternate courses of action that would improve the outcome. If someone punches some guy shooting his mouth off and generally being a jackass at the bar, few people would have a problem with the idea that if the man hadn't been acting like a jackass he probably would not have been assaulted. Yes, the assaulting party is still "guilty" but guilt and justice doesn't heal a broken jaw.
I've seen Google Glass, and you know what? Even at a tech conference I found it creepy and offputting, and I'm a gadget geek. How do you think most of the population feels about it? A minority of said population is a group of a-holes who are prone to physical violence. Does that mean it's fair or just? Certainly it does not, but fair and just often have little to do with reality. So whining and moaning about it won't help much and what will help is slow, gradual, systemic change (which won't be fast enough to save GG, I don't think).
I don't think GG will be accepted, honestly, people have a worse reaction to that than Bluetooth headsets, which were also a useful and legitimate technology. You just can't get around that people never stopped seeing them as an indicator of douchebaggery. Cell phones once had such an issue and lost it, part of it was the price coming way down, I'm sure, coupled with the fact they were damned useful without a lot of similar alternatives. While there are no GG clones, everything it does is replicated by other, accepted technolgies that are, in many cases, more convenient.
I'd wager wearing a GoPro at a pub would lead to even more fights, however the antagonist would likely pat you on the back afterwards and ask to watch the footage with you/share the youtube revenue...
Thieves often set up situations such that they work in concert. So two guys grab her Google Glass and run. The player who took her purse may have been an accomplice. They set up a situation in which someone is distracted from paying attention to their property. Hopefully all three will be arrested and assault and robbery charges applied.
Wearers will continue to be further alienated from society and thus more dependent on Google being their primary social interaction. Eventually you'll have friends and coworkers that you can only interact with while they sit home alone wearing Google Glass and you'll feel sorry for them and invite them out for a drink. When you do you'll tell your friends, 'OK, now I know she has a computer on her face, but that's all she has and she's not really a bad person, so everybody just be cool with it. OK?" And they will have won.
For lols you could prank the glass wearer by tapping their glasses and saying stuff like:
"Ok, glass, goatse lemonparty tubgirl"
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
People seem to be on either two sides of this. For the people who argue that everyone carries a camera in their cellphone and could be recording you, or that anyone can buy a cheaper spy camera, here is my argument for you. This is obviously a extreme parallel I am about to draw, but I am going to compare Google glasses to to guns... I see the arguments being very similar (in the US). People can legally (in several states), carry guns, even concealed ones. This is bad enough as there are people who feel uncomfortable if they just saw someone carrying a gun in a holster. Now my comparison is that what Google Glasses is doing is that they are taking it one step too far. They are basically doing to equivalent of allowing the person who carries a gun today to basically walk around with it, holding it 24/7 in a shooting position (arms straight out, finger on trigger). This would obviously scare the living hell out of most people if someone was holding a gun this way in a bar. This is effectively what they are doing with a camera now. Yes everyone has a camera on their cellphone these days, but most of the time its in peoples pockets or bags. And if it is out it is either pointing to the floor, to a table or towards a friend if you are taking a picture. People dont walk around with their phones out 24/7 and pointing it faces of random people in bars. Yes someone could sneakily film someone by holding it in a subtle way or by using a spy camera. But someone could also hold a concealed gun under their jacket and have it pointed it towards you. Just because they can do that already, doesnt automatically give them the right to walk around with it pointed towards you at all times. My point is not that cameras == guns. My point is that the step from having a camera on a cellphone in a your pocket to wearing a camera in your glasses is the same length step as going from carrying a gun in public to carrying it whilst pointing it straight out in front of you.
Getting the law changed would likely require a new amendment
That is false, it's simply an updated interpretation of the right based on "new" technology.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The only glasses they have are the $1,500 ones? If someone chooses to unnecessarily add another function to a piece of medical equipment that others then object then they have helped make their own problem. I have glasses that don't record and would hazard that people with google glass & prescription needs also already have none recording glasses.
As to the security camera in the UK this has to have a data protection registration which will say what they can and can't do with the data and I can then make a subject access request to get hold of said data if I so desire. IANAL but believe a person recording anyone (by whatever means) not a family member in public would already require a data protection registration, although this is not a very enforced rule for average Joes/Janes as far as I'm aware.
This isn't illegal, but lots of things that will qualify you as being an asshole aren't illegal.
There are things that you might do that will make you "deserve to get your ass kicked". Just because you deserve it, doesn't mean anyone has the right to do it.
If you act in a way that any reasonable person would realize would result in getting their ass kicked, and you do get beat up, I am not going to care. If you then have that person arrested for assault, I am also not going to care.
...and witnesses saw her drop her purse (and not stolen as she later claimed).
please do some more research before posting inflammatory crap like this.
but the owner has 12 security HD cameras, search for them using wifi
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The owner has a camera running, then what.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Please don't make excuses for thieves and physical assaults. Maybe if people were civilized and didn't attack or steal from others, nothing would have went wrong. Just a thought.
Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold? What are you talking, a year in the face of the history of mankind for acceptance to finally take hold for this device? LOL
A corporation that laughably doesn't just tout itself as the first search engine of the internet has placed the entire world in its satellites' views in its first decade as a company, undiscerning characters driving around in driverless cars, hunched over their laptops, wardriving, stealing encrypted passwords, invading privacy of people in their own homes for which they get fined an incredible $1 US, video capturing every street in the world with 360 deg 3D views, and is now unconscienably placing spyglasses on the faces of more questionable types with undeclared motivations, and arrogantly in our faces, recording personally identifiable video capture of unwilling participants while it pleads with the world of slashdot and others even lobbying, "Oh please, let us video capture you with our spyglasses, immediately uploading your images to our networks for any undefined reasons and at no cost to us, granting us all rights, indefinitely without your permissions."
It is beyond comprehension why they haven't already been banned by common sense legislation which would have almost positively banned this device had it come from every other known or unknown search engine-manufacturer wannabes on earth. Are they attempting to give someone an omniscient view, omnipotently of the world? WHO? Sum10 Wong here. Weal wong.
It will never be acceptable. Buyers beware.
What the hell are people thinking when they point to the Red LED as a mitigating factor?
Hopefully my meta material invisi-cloak (with hood at no extra cost) will be here soon! ,)
I think an outer facing LED is a good idea. Yes it could be altered but if you really want to secretly record you can anyway. Most people wouldn't alter it though and this would give reassurance to those around that they aren't being recorded.
Almost as assholish as intolerance
Now I'm tagged forever in that geolocation at that time.
And to make matters worse it could be the wrong location/time noted on it and it would generally just be believed.
Heaven used to have the policy where they would take your camera or phone off you at the door. They have given up on that though and now you see a sea of screens whenever the act is on the stage.
You are right. Google glass is like walking around with a camcorder pointing at people all the time. Even if it appeared to not be recording I do not think I would trust the user and besides who wants to answer the "are you recording me??" question you're going to hear constantly? Don't even get me started if you try to wear them in a bathroom. Google is not perfect they have had many projects fail and glass is just one of many.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Sell it to Apple. They'd double the price, call it "iEye" and it would be fashionable.
Of course, we'd then need laws mandating a remote kill switch.
Google glass is this decade's bluetooth headset. You know how there was always that one guy who would wear his headset all the time, just in case someone Very Important called? You could never tell if he was on a call, or just talking to himself. He was slightly removed from every conversation, whether it was on the phone or right in front of him.
That's Google Glass to me. It perfectly combines being rude and looking like a dork.
"Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
Just wait for people to find out you're wearing one of those...
Privacy is terrorism.
The camera in Glass is there for one reason only: to violate privacy.
Oakley's goggles don't have a camera.
Glasses are for the user to see, not to let another person look out of those glasses.
This woman got what she deserved. Out of all the places it is unacceptable to use Google Glass, a bar is in the top few. People are in there to enjoy a drink and social time, not to be part of your home movie.
And neither is doing the NSA's work for them! The ubiquity of camera phones with mics are bad enough in the police state we live in but now certain people wish to voluntarily strap spycams to their faces. You don't even need to have read 1984 to know this is a bad idea. I know you're excited about augmented reality, which in regular reality is just another scam to serve you more Google ads, but some of us still want privacy and don't put everything we do on Facebook all the time.
And don't give me the "the little light is on when I'm recording crap." If you're paying attention you know any device with an indicator light can have that indicator light deactivated merely with software changes, thanks NSA!
No it is not. Once you become physical you are breaking the law.
The people involved took her property physically that is a violent act.
Learn to read. I said ***I***. I'm not those people.
I said I will defend myself. Self defense allows physical force.
And that idiot is in jail.
Doesn't matter. The point is people can feel threatened over anything.
The wild west mainly happened in the movies. Notice that showdowns at high noon do not happen anymore.
No, it does happen today. Again, these bar fights (and the linked theater shooting) are just showdowns in another form.
And with that I know you are a lost cause.
I'm a lost cause for liking freedom?
This would have dampening effects on social engagements.
"nobody should EVER be PHYSICALLY attacked"
I disagree. Some people are in serious need of an ass kicking now and then. When the regular ass kickings are suspended, they turn into asshats and Internet trolls that make everyone else miserable.
If you don't want people to see you acting like a drunken idiot, wouldn't it be best to just not act like a drunken idiot? Seems easier than worrying about someone capturing it to video. He'll almost every phone out there can record video today. I've worked as a bouncer. I never understood the expectation that it was okay to act like an idiot because you were drunk. You are responsible for your actions - period. A bar is a public place. If you do something in a public place, the public will see you. Don't complain when a member of that public shares your asinine behaviour with the rest of the public who happened to be somewhere else and missed the originL performance.
The problem, is with a frikkin society that spies on every moment of your life, a government that strips liberties and privacy from each of us daily, and turns into a hostile semi armed camp. Throw Google glass into THAT mix and see what comes out of the oven..
What happened to the `don't hit the kid with glasses` rule?
It's like talking on your cell phone in a cafe or library, or like filming people illegally (in our state it's illegal without consent) and being surprised the natives don't like their souls taken away and turned into funny videos so they can be mocked worldwide just because some entitled jerk thinks it's "funny".
I'll bet she texts when she drives and does this kind of thing everywhere else in her life.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I dislike the ubiquitous surveillance state as much as anyone else, maybe more, but the fact that this incident happened in San Francisco isn't lost on me.
She was a dingbat for bar-hopping with a camera on her face, and drawing attention to herself.
Many people in SF tend towards a SF-type of assholism that is both reactionary and violent.
Can't we all just agree that everyone sucks ?
So she was showing off, by showing how it works in a private business? The bar should have asked her to leave!
It certainly did not help when Google took a huge shit on this maxim. As it stands, I really don't care if Google ever gets this off the ground.
This whole thing reminds me of the bar scene in Star Wars Episode IV:
Wuher: Hey! We don't serve their kind here.
Luke: What?
Wuher: Your droids. They'll have to wait outside. We don't want them here.
Why do think they didn't serve droids (who had holographic cameras and long-term memory modules) in a BAR that had the likes of characters wanted on twelve systems?!
Or she was more worried about her Glass than about her purse. Poor call, IMO
If anybody actually read the article, they would have noticed it was her friend who started being violent with the people who didn't like the idea of being recorded. This is next level douchebaggery, and she got off way too easy. She should have gotten her toy back in pieces, and a broken nose as well.
If you take out a cell in a restaurant, or a plane, or in you own space, there is always a contingent wanting to criticize you into submission. Now they've gone to the next level. Who are these people, and, what can be done to convince them that people using cells and gadgets are not second class citizens in need of correction or second class to any proximate person that is feeling particularly entitled. I would hope this lady is paid for her time and damages, she's probably a decent citizen.
Couldn't you just go to a bar where they aren't having illicit sex with Donkeys? Then it wouldn't matter if someone was wearing Google Glass, would it? Trust me. You're not that interesting. I mean, seriously. What the FUCK are you doing in plain sight in a bar in front of hundreds of people that you so desperately need to keep private? More importantly, why can't you see the inherent contradiction there?
Just as an example, there are certain restaraunts where if a person walks into it with a recording device, the chances are excellent that they will be found floating face down in the Hudson River the next morning. Demand your rights to record them as you are fitted wit' do's concrete booties.
And it doesn't even have to be nefarious, or about illicit secks.
Business deals are made in restaurants and bars.
People interview for jobs in restaurants and bars. And while quite ethical and legal, their present employer might not like that and fire them.
People get engaged in (you know)
People break up
People meet with their lawyers. Where I have breakfast, there are lawyers meeting with their clients almost every day. They need the combined public place/expectation of not being posted on Facebook.
There are people out there today who feel they have to share everything with the tubez. Not all of us agree.
What is more, the Glasshole phenomenon is in many ways like the need some parents have to bring their completely undisciplined larvae into nice restaraunts and bars.
An utter disregard for other people. Little Caytlyin And Jawnee run around th erestaraunt, crawling under other people's tables, scream, stick their hands in other people's food, and make a general mess - and just for good measure, they often stiff the waitstaff.
And they also tend to make an ugly scene if management tries to get them to calm their brats down.
So many places simply are not allowing children any more.
And Caytlyn and Jawnee's Mommy and Daddy are really upset, because they think they have the right to be the Asshat Family in public. Why would anyone not just think their lovely children are just expressing themselves?
Because regular customers, good customers who return often will go away if they are bombarded with the Asshat Kids and find another place.
Same with Glassholes. It's pretty safe to assume they are recording if they are there. It's very safe to assume that it will lessen people's enjoyment if their evening out means they cannot speak freely. It's also just about a given that a lot of customers will find some other place to spend their money if the place ends up crawling with Glassholes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
gosgog:
Paranoid assholes, with a cell phone you gotta move to action for taking Pix, same with Glasses, you gotta make a move to, in order to get to click, even it only takes your voice.Its not perpetually in the pix action mode, otherwise battery & GBs would run out unless your talking terrabit. Anyway anyone who would punch a Gal is a total asshole and needs jail time.
Let's hope this is a start of a trend. If enough people get bitch slapped for walking around with wearable recording devices, maybe they'll think twice about throwing the money away to buy them.
I have no issue with this and I hope it happens ALL THE TIME.
If you see that red LED, its GO TIME. Shut that shit down, by any means necessary.
Douchebag hipsters tend to be giant pussies, so splitting open a few heads and smashing their toys will definitely get the message across that they're not wanted.
Guess what else happens in bars. People get recorded!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
What's to understand? It's a video and audio recording device that must be presumed to be always on (there should be a very prominent red 'recording on' light on the front - but it would be instantly hacked so it's pointless). That's what freaks people out and rightly so. From the perspective of those around you, you may as well be wearing a shoulder mounted television camera that's always recording in the direction you look. At the very least it's rude and annoying, but google is relying on the masses just shrugging their shoulders and accepting their miserable fate. Then google will mine every second of video taken with every single google spy glass for their benefit and that of their NSA clients. If this woman was attacked then quite obviously the attackers should be prosecuted. But that doesn't mean I am totally cool with being videotaped. I guess the hope is that when every man and his dog is wearing a cloud-connected live-streaming surveillance cam then we'll be so awash in video that even Moore's Law won't be able to keep up with the factorial growth in bits... but I wouldn't count on it.
Well put. I am a former club DJ and I agree completely.
"what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
I hope this never happens, we should not accept being spied upon.
Once that information is collected it can easily be abused, the holder of that information should not have that kind of power.
Obnoxious glassholes need to be beaten into a bloody pulp on sight.
Shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 of them being beaten to death to discourage the rest from being obnoxious assholes in public with their stupid spy toy.
Please don't make excuses for aggressive jerks. Maybe if people were civilized and didn't harrass others, nothing would have gone wrong. Just a thought.
The person who snatched them off her face and ran is guilty of robbery and should be prosecuted for it.
This lady may have stirred up trouble but she is still a victim and no amount of provocation gives her attackers any excuse.