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.
"...but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar.". Is it just the plain old distraction tactics?
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!
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.
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!
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
or just stop cheating on your wife. options, options
"...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."
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.