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?"
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.
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
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.
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!!!
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
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.
Personally I feel that people who will physically assault a person for being part of a group they are not are much bigger pretentious assholes then someone who is minding their own business with their friends.
I find the detractors far more pretentious then the people who have google glass.
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.
"...but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar.". Is it just the plain old distraction tactics?
Of course not, cell phones are on the 'right' side of a cultural divide and thus are 'fine'.
While people complain about the recording or the perceived pretentiousness of the owners, it is really just a mini culture war with people falling over themselves to demonstrate their own authenticity by not being one of 'those' people. It is kinda like people who go on forums to proclaim loudly how horrible social media is and how we all need to go make real friends like THEY do. They want more people in their particular subculture and they want a nice assured status within the group, mostly by demonstrating loudly how they are NOT someone the group has agreed is to be hated.
It is kinda pathetic actually.
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.
> Keep attacking the Glass users [...] Then that way the product will fail and we get our decency back.
You are loosing more of your decency by attacking people than by someone next to you using Glass.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Pathetic self-promoting blogger
When I first read about this 2 days ago witnesses said it was her friend who threw the first punch after she was insulted.
Yes, just that! Those idiots have actually taken the attention away from the real issue here which is a potential for loss of privacy with devices like Google Glass! Now the problem has been re-defined to safety of those wearing Google Glass.
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".
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?
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?
"...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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Rejects or not, if you're going to walk around flashing the geek equivalent of a Rolex watch, you can probably expect some resentment from the general public.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?
It reminds my of an acquaintance of mine who wrote about his glass experience, saying that he was out at a street festival and was confronted by a street performer who was worried he was recording the show. The response was 'no, I'm not, but there are three or four other people around here with smartphones who are' and he pointed them out.
Obviously, seeing people wearing Google glass the first few times can be off putting (presumably), but I've heard people say more than once that they were pretending to do something on their phone but were actually taking video.
I think it's too late really to do much about this - people already have easy access to video cameras that are commonly carried around in public and give little to no indication that they are recording. The glass is just one more way to do it.
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."
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.
With glass, you cannot easily detect whether the glasshole is recording or not. With a phone, it takes a certain stance to record anything useful and hence it is easy to see. Try recording videos with a phone some time and see how people get upset...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Man, you must be a lot of joy to have around if you beat up everyone who dares to take out their cellphone with you around. Protip: it's way too late to be upset about cameras. Grow a pair. Cameras are everywhere.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
"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."
or just stop cheating on your wife. options, options
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.
We have them already. They're called "hoodies".
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
"...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
If the person was "checking their email" in such a way that always pointed the camera in your direction... yes. How do you know they are not recording? If they cant manage to aim the thing in a direction that does not offend anybody, they should put the thing away.
The fact that you kind of have to have the camera pointed at people constantly, regardless if it is recording or not, is the whole problem with Glass.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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."
Just don't wear them in Florida.
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.
On the other hand, I and most others quite enjoy watching a glasshole getting punched.
Exactly! After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
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.
Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?
You're being deliberately stupid in order to make a very dumb point. People using their smartphones rarely hold it at an angle that would put people's faces in frame unless they're taking a picture (or video).
Knock off the false equivalence. Nobody is buying.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
And if I somehow new that a particular pen being worn was one of those, I'd probably get pretty angry about it as well. I keep seeing this basic argument come up here, and it's kind of amazing how everyone keeps missing the point. Glass is NOT a spy device. It's not designed to be. It's not marketed as one. It's just supposed to be some cool new tech toy that also happens to record video. Someone wearing Glass isn't trying to disguise it or anything.
But seriously, next time you are in a line at a store or something, take out your phone and start pretending to record people next to you. Don't try and hide it, just hold it up to your face and record. If they ask, tell them you aren't recording anything, but still continue point the camera at them and their family anyway. See what kind of reaction you get.