Here in the US, in order to be considered an "unconditional gift", the shipment must be unsolicited, not just incorrect. An solicited, but incorrect shipment can be recovered by the sender in the US.
Wrong on so many levels, but I do know which law you are referring to. It doesn't apply in cases where you've actually ordered something and was written to put a stop to a once popular practice of sending unordered merchandise, then sending a bill weeks later; it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Don't know if it worked or not, but I do know it came too late. I, along with most people I know, switched almost exclusively to streaming services where we pay much less *and* have fewer commercials. Sure, this law doesn't apply to streaming services, but most of them seem to at least pretend to give a shit about their viewers and enforce it anyway.
A) Posting as AC only hides you from other users
B) Our friends at dice.com surely record the IP address from which every post was made
C) Probably banned anyway
D) You're 100% correct, otherwise.
Please recognize the difference between wishing something upon someone and believing someone deserved it. I've never wished death on anyone, but there are people I believe deserved it when it found them.
If you read the whole post, I credit you for pointing out a deficiency (even if it wasn't your intention). You aren't even a fun troll anymore, so really, we're done now.
Wow, okay then, we actually are done here. I really and truly don't have anything to even say to that, beyond spitting out a parsing error. It must have gotten boring for you after a while, I suppose, though I did keep your attention longer than I originally figured I'd be able to; I have to admit, it was getting old for me, as well.
And yet, later in the thread, after I *had* mentioned it, you keep going on like it'd never been said. You're right, I'm wrong, and the whole world is upside down, i'nn'it?
So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo. We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail. And, of course, if it's not automated, it would have to be manual; simple logic dictates that.
I'll admit that I wasn't clear in that post; nothing more. You can accept the new details I provided and mount your attack against those (and hell, maybe I'll even admit that your criticism lead me to come up with those details in the first place -- we jointly made that progress) or you can keep attacking something I've already moved on from. You're choosing to do the latter, I'm assuming, because you can't reasonably do the former.
Owner, in my original post, was referring to the RESTAURANT owner, not the DEVICE owner. Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED (e.g. not AT ALL required for my solution to actually solve the problem it is intended to solve, but certainly much more convenient --for everyone involved -- in scenarios where everyone involved has done their part) automation features. In the first case, if the DEVICE owner overrides the lockout, the BUSINESS owner would be notified; again, IF THOSE FEATURES WERE EVEN IMPLEMENTED; of not, it would be ENTIRELY manual, possibly even through some mechanical slide lever that the device itself may not even know the status of (why would it need to if the automation wasn't implemented?).
How is providing the owner of a device an option beyond "take it off or get out" acting, in any way, against them? It's not, plain and simple.
Further, what do you suppose Google is going to call the next version of Glass they release? You don't suppose they're going to call it Glass 2.0 or something similar, do you? Right now there are no other devices like Glass on the market and it's a lot less typing than "miniature wearable eyglass-form-factor computer" so, since any reasonable and intelligent person should be able to figure out that I was referring to the one device that currently makes up the entirely of a class of devices, in order to refer to the entire class of devices, I used simply said Glass.
The reason this solution works, where solutions like "recording" lights fail is twofold: 1) How do you know if a device even has a "recording" light, in order to know to look for it? and 2) How likely is someone not constantly staring at the device to notice the "recording" light flicker when a photo is taken, if it even does?
How is this solution better? You still won't know if the device has a lockout shutter, right? Right, you won't, but you don't need to know it doesn't have one, just that it is or is not active; if it doesn't exist, the default is "not active" and the status quo remains for those people, "take it off or get out".
You're making arguments, on my behalf, that I am not making and do not support. The device would NOT act against its owner in any way; it would be providing an additional option above and beyond the current "take it off or get out" that is on the current menu. And it would be able to be overridden (if the automation features were even implemented; if not, it would be *entirely* voluntary) quite easily; it would also be obvious to a casual observer if it had been overridden (note the difference between an override, where the lockout is simply not in place, and bypassing, which may require closer scrutiny to discern, which I have already acknowledged, with caveats which you are yet to address).
It also doesn't help that you're trying to apply my solution to a problem it isn't intended to solve. Of course it's flawed as a solution for 100% preventing shooting photos or video no matter how bad the user wants to do so; that was never the problem it was intended to solve. The problem, once again, it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take the devices off their faces when a business owner (because they can't know for sure) does not want them shooting photos or video in their establishment and, thus, asks them to remove the device or leave. While it does not directly address the societal issue of people not wanting to take Glass off their face, seemingly for any cost, it does solve the problem of the business owner not knowing, for sure, whether or not the Glass user is shooting photos or video, by providing a clear and obvious (and voluntary) indicator that the capability had been disabled.
That is the problem it is intended to solve and you have failed, by trying to prove (which I agree you successfully did) that it does not sufficiently solve some other imaginary problem, to provide any argument that it does not, inf fact, sufficiently solve this problem.
A casual observer, from across a crowded restaurant, sure; the host(ess) seating you, however, will have a much better view of the device. Still a moot point, though, until you show me that you can disassemble and reassemble one of these wearables and hand it over to me still working and with no obvious signs of modification.
With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.
I see now; we have a scope problem. We're not talking about tiny spy cams, we're talking about Google Glass. The story wasn't about being kicked out of a restaurant for carrying a small camera, it was about Google Glass.
I never stated that an alternative solution was required in order for criticism to be valid; you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.
You must have been kicked off of your high school debate team; I think we're done here.
With long enough exposure, a head-mounted camera won't be steady enough to produce a recognizable photograph, so that's not really a concern, now, is it? I've worked with 60+sec exposure times; I know how steady the camera has to be for them to turn out, even at 100ms, the camera must be very steady.
If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?
You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid. Second:
Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal...
...it wouldn't be hanging.
Analogies must be analogous (comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared). A never-effective non-solution is not an analog (a person or thing seen as comparable to another.) for an effective-but-bypassable solution. There; I saved you the trouble of looking those up.
The *HIGHLY VISIBLE* shutter would be the primary feature here. The automation would be icing on the cake and completely unnecessary. No *HIGHLY VISIBLE* lockout shutter? No admittance and no service. Nobody *HAS TO* turn over any privacy-shattering details to anyone; however, if they're concerned with customers being able to actually find their business and not being able to shoot photos and video inside their business, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to.
It's not a matter of the device restricting the owner, as there is an override on the lockout (assuming the automation is put in place in the first place; otherwise, it would be manually activated), it's a matter of the owner of the device having means by which to let people know they are not shooting photos or video. Completely voluntary and, if you happen to bring your device into an establishment that requires it, and for some reason disable it or refuse to activate it, you can be asked to do so, asked to leave, or forcibly removed from the premesis, as is the case currently for Glass users who refuse to take the device off their face. This would be a win for those users, as well as the people around them. You can't root a *HIGHLY VISIBLE* physical object, my friend.
Make the shutter bright-colored (and internal, so it's not ugly and visible when not engaged) and people will *KNOW* when it is not engaged. Since these devices are constructed in such a way that disassembly and reassembly are next to impossible, it would be exceedingly difficult to modify the shutter, not to mention the fact that any sort of colored filter light enough to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting would be obviously transparent, even from a distance. If the shutter isn't obviously engaged (e.g. not brightly colored and obviously opaque), people are free to assume it has been tampered with, is not engaged, or does not exist, and that you may be shooring photos or video at any time and business owners are free to escort you off of their property, just as they are currently.
One would think, since I explicitly mentioned the override in my original post, that it would be clear that the interlock would be voluntary. It would really be no different than the current situation, other than providing Glass users an option other than "take it off or get out". The automation would strictly be a convenience, for everyone involved.
If you can't see the lockout shutter, why would you assume it exists? Why would you assume I would assume that? That's the whole point in making it wildly visible; nobody has to assume anything. We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well? We can, and we should for the very same reasons.
Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them. Closer than a few feet away and you're close enough to tell it's been altered. I'd say that's pretty effective. Owners don't have to do anything more than require the shutter to be visibly engaged, the automation features are just icing on the cake; that's less work than they have to do right now, what with arguing with customers and kicking people out and all that. Sure, you'll have the occasional asshole who will refuse to engage the shutter, but there will be far fewer of them than there are currently assholes refusing to remove take the damned things off. Again, seems like it would be effective to me.
Boo-hoo, it can, conceivably be bypassed. it can also be effective; unlike paper shields, which don't have to be bypassed at all, simply as a byproduct of being ineffective, so only an idiot would suggest their use. Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal), good luck modifying the lockout, as you've proposed, in the first place. In reality, though, anything can be bypassed, given enough work, so I guess you're saying that we should never implement anything at all?
By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.
For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens. Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.
Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated? (hint: "visible", in this context, means "obvious") Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question; rather, you may wish to check your lingual literacy; or, since your post, overall, appears to be well-formed, perhaps just your reading comprehension.
I was making a point. One which you clearly missed.
In the context of the "device-free section" mentioned by the post I was responding to, yes, people would leave their phones in their cars, or not have them at all. Of course, "device-free sections" would also mean criminals knowing phones are being left in cars, leading to an increase in vehicle break-ins and theft, as well, but I didn't want to really ruin Mike Frett's day, so I left that piece of info out.
Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color, or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.
I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that? Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?
A "Glass Free Section" is just a form of segregation. I already addressed this in another post in this thread and you hit on one of the reasons it's a horrible idea in your own post. I fully agree with the restauranteur, as well, which is why I proposed the physical interlock as a solution to both the restauranteur's problem and the Glass user's problem: the restauranteur does not want people recording in his restaurant and the Glass user has no way of assuring the restauranteur that he is not recording, short of putting the device away, which the Glass user was clearly not willing to do.
No interlock? No admittance. Disable your interlock? Owner of the establishment is notified and given the opportunity to approve or delete anything recorded in his establishment. I think it's a fair compromise in that it allows Glass users the wear their devices while still allowing business owners to have control over their use to record inside the business.
This isn't an issue with smartphones the way some people make it out to be, since the types of establishments where Glass users are being asked to put their devices away or leave are the same establishments where it is considered inappropriate to whip out your phone and start gabbing, making it completely obvious if you are recording with your smartphone; and even if you're recording "covertly" by faking a phone call, you'll likely be asked to put your phone away and/or leave simply for being rude.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the US, in order to be considered an "unconditional gift", the shipment must be unsolicited, not just incorrect. An solicited, but incorrect shipment can be recovered by the sender in the US.
Wrong on so many levels, but I do know which law you are referring to. It doesn't apply in cases where you've actually ordered something and was written to put a stop to a once popular practice of sending unordered merchandise, then sending a bill weeks later; it applies in cases where no product was ordered, not cases where the wrong product was sent.
Don't know if it worked or not, but I do know it came too late. I, along with most people I know, switched almost exclusively to streaming services where we pay much less *and* have fewer commercials. Sure, this law doesn't apply to streaming services, but most of them seem to at least pretend to give a shit about their viewers and enforce it anyway.
Well, they only out one word
Fixed that for ya
The submitter seems to have misspelled "With".
A) Posting as AC only hides you from other users
B) Our friends at dice.com surely record the IP address from which every post was made
C) Probably banned anyway
D) You're 100% correct, otherwise.
Slashdot's threading gets fucked sometimes and that post was not properly nested. Oh well.
It's a float. In case you've ever wondered what happened to yours: Rounding error.
Please recognize the difference between wishing something upon someone and believing someone deserved it. I've never wished death on anyone, but there are people I believe deserved it when it found them.
If you read the whole post, I credit you for pointing out a deficiency (even if it wasn't your intention). You aren't even a fun troll anymore, so really, we're done now.
Wow, okay then, we actually are done here. I really and truly don't have anything to even say to that, beyond spitting out a parsing error. It must have gotten boring for you after a while, I suppose, though I did keep your attention longer than I originally figured I'd be able to; I have to admit, it was getting old for me, as well.
You think I'm not enjoying it every bit as much as he is?
And yet, later in the thread, after I *had* mentioned it, you keep going on like it'd never been said. You're right, I'm wrong, and the whole world is upside down, i'nn'it?
So I didn't detail the automation features as optional to implement, boo-fucking-hoo. We're talking about Google, they're most likely to implement something like that, so I didn't think it was worth going into that level of detail. And, of course, if it's not automated, it would have to be manual; simple logic dictates that.
I'll admit that I wasn't clear in that post; nothing more. You can accept the new details I provided and mount your attack against those (and hell, maybe I'll even admit that your criticism lead me to come up with those details in the first place -- we jointly made that progress) or you can keep attacking something I've already moved on from. You're choosing to do the latter, I'm assuming, because you can't reasonably do the former.
Owner, in my original post, was referring to the RESTAURANT owner, not the DEVICE owner. Both of your "arguments" are based entirely on the (for the 3rd or 4th time now) OPTIONALLY IMPLEMENTED (e.g. not AT ALL required for my solution to actually solve the problem it is intended to solve, but certainly much more convenient --for everyone involved -- in scenarios where everyone involved has done their part) automation features. In the first case, if the DEVICE owner overrides the lockout, the BUSINESS owner would be notified; again, IF THOSE FEATURES WERE EVEN IMPLEMENTED; of not, it would be ENTIRELY manual, possibly even through some mechanical slide lever that the device itself may not even know the status of (why would it need to if the automation wasn't implemented?).
How is providing the owner of a device an option beyond "take it off or get out" acting, in any way, against them? It's not, plain and simple.
Further, what do you suppose Google is going to call the next version of Glass they release? You don't suppose they're going to call it Glass 2.0 or something similar, do you? Right now there are no other devices like Glass on the market and it's a lot less typing than "miniature wearable eyglass-form-factor computer" so, since any reasonable and intelligent person should be able to figure out that I was referring to the one device that currently makes up the entirely of a class of devices, in order to refer to the entire class of devices, I used simply said Glass.
The reason this solution works, where solutions like "recording" lights fail is twofold: 1) How do you know if a device even has a "recording" light, in order to know to look for it? and 2) How likely is someone not constantly staring at the device to notice the "recording" light flicker when a photo is taken, if it even does?
How is this solution better? You still won't know if the device has a lockout shutter, right? Right, you won't, but you don't need to know it doesn't have one, just that it is or is not active; if it doesn't exist, the default is "not active" and the status quo remains for those people, "take it off or get out".
You're making arguments, on my behalf, that I am not making and do not support. The device would NOT act against its owner in any way; it would be providing an additional option above and beyond the current "take it off or get out" that is on the current menu. And it would be able to be overridden (if the automation features were even implemented; if not, it would be *entirely* voluntary) quite easily; it would also be obvious to a casual observer if it had been overridden (note the difference between an override, where the lockout is simply not in place, and bypassing, which may require closer scrutiny to discern, which I have already acknowledged, with caveats which you are yet to address).
It also doesn't help that you're trying to apply my solution to a problem it isn't intended to solve. Of course it's flawed as a solution for 100% preventing shooting photos or video no matter how bad the user wants to do so; that was never the problem it was intended to solve. The problem, once again, it was intended to solve is that Glass users seem to not want to take the devices off their faces when a business owner (because they can't know for sure) does not want them shooting photos or video in their establishment and, thus, asks them to remove the device or leave. While it does not directly address the societal issue of people not wanting to take Glass off their face, seemingly for any cost, it does solve the problem of the business owner not knowing, for sure, whether or not the Glass user is shooting photos or video, by providing a clear and obvious (and voluntary) indicator that the capability had been disabled.
That is the problem it is intended to solve and you have failed, by trying to prove (which I agree you successfully did) that it does not sufficiently solve some other imaginary problem, to provide any argument that it does not, inf fact, sufficiently solve this problem.
Actually... let me address that
A casual observer, from across a crowded restaurant, sure; the host(ess) seating you, however, will have a much better view of the device. Still a moot point, though, until you show me that you can disassemble and reassemble one of these wearables and hand it over to me still working and with no obvious signs of modification.
And now we're done here.
With ever smaller cameras, surely people will find other places to mount , place or hover the camera than the head.
I see now; we have a scope problem. We're not talking about tiny spy cams, we're talking about Google Glass. The story wasn't about being kicked out of a restaurant for carrying a small camera, it was about Google Glass.
I never stated that an alternative solution was required in order for criticism to be valid; you were not criticizing, so much as insisting that I had no solution at all, which is very different. Furthermore, the "paper shields" example actually does provide no solution at all and can therefore be dismissed as an analogy to my proposed actual solution.
You must have been kicked off of your high school debate team; I think we're done here.
If questionable effect on video quality made Nokia remove LED indicator, manufacturers of these devices, marketing them as "wearable" - will love to hang extra "shutters" , right?
You just love your strawmen, don't you? First of all, an extra shutter would have no detrimental effect on video quality, so I'm not sure the angle from which your attacking this is valid. Second:
Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal...
...it wouldn't be hanging.
Analogies must be analogous (comparable in certain respects, typically in a way that makes clearer the nature of the things compared). A never-effective non-solution is not an analog (a person or thing seen as comparable to another.) for an effective-but-bypassable solution. There; I saved you the trouble of looking those up.
The *HIGHLY VISIBLE* shutter would be the primary feature here. The automation would be icing on the cake and completely unnecessary. No *HIGHLY VISIBLE* lockout shutter? No admittance and no service. Nobody *HAS TO* turn over any privacy-shattering details to anyone; however, if they're concerned with customers being able to actually find their business and not being able to shoot photos and video inside their business, I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to.
It's not a matter of the device restricting the owner, as there is an override on the lockout (assuming the automation is put in place in the first place; otherwise, it would be manually activated), it's a matter of the owner of the device having means by which to let people know they are not shooting photos or video. Completely voluntary and, if you happen to bring your device into an establishment that requires it, and for some reason disable it or refuse to activate it, you can be asked to do so, asked to leave, or forcibly removed from the premesis, as is the case currently for Glass users who refuse to take the device off their face. This would be a win for those users, as well as the people around them. You can't root a *HIGHLY VISIBLE* physical object, my friend.
Make the shutter bright-colored (and internal, so it's not ugly and visible when not engaged) and people will *KNOW* when it is not engaged. Since these devices are constructed in such a way that disassembly and reassembly are next to impossible, it would be exceedingly difficult to modify the shutter, not to mention the fact that any sort of colored filter light enough to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting would be obviously transparent, even from a distance. If the shutter isn't obviously engaged (e.g. not brightly colored and obviously opaque), people are free to assume it has been tampered with, is not engaged, or does not exist, and that you may be shooring photos or video at any time and business owners are free to escort you off of their property, just as they are currently.
One would think, since I explicitly mentioned the override in my original post, that it would be clear that the interlock would be voluntary. It would really be no different than the current situation, other than providing Glass users an option other than "take it off or get out". The automation would strictly be a convenience, for everyone involved.
If you can't see the lockout shutter, why would you assume it exists? Why would you assume I would assume that? That's the whole point in making it wildly visible; nobody has to assume anything. We've convinced toymakers to put orange tips on the active ends of their guns to show that they're harmless; why can't we get them to put them on the active ends of their cameras, as well? We can, and we should for the very same reasons.
Have you ever tried shooting photos or video through a colored filter? Anything dark enough to appear opaque from more than a few feet away is too dark to shoot through in a non-studio-lit setting unless all you care about is where the light sources are located in a room and how frequently someone (anyone) walks past them. Closer than a few feet away and you're close enough to tell it's been altered. I'd say that's pretty effective. Owners don't have to do anything more than require the shutter to be visibly engaged, the automation features are just icing on the cake; that's less work than they have to do right now, what with arguing with customers and kicking people out and all that. Sure, you'll have the occasional asshole who will refuse to engage the shutter, but there will be far fewer of them than there are currently assholes refusing to remove take the damned things off. Again, seems like it would be effective to me.
Boo-hoo, it can, conceivably be bypassed. it can also be effective; unlike paper shields, which don't have to be bypassed at all, simply as a byproduct of being ineffective, so only an idiot would suggest their use. Furthermore, as the shutter would be internal (e.g. it would slide into the unit when not active, because honestly who wants that thing visible when it doesn't have to be) and these devices aren't exactly built with disassembly in mind (they're tiny and light, as a function of being largely glued together and impossible to take apart and reassemble without breaking something internal), good luck modifying the lockout, as you've proposed, in the first place. In reality, though, anything can be bypassed, given enough work, so I guess you're saying that we should never implement anything at all?
By the way, strawmen aren't really any harder to work past than paper bags. Nice try, though.
For the record, Google is not the only company capable of putting a brightly-colored (and only visible when the interlock is active) piece of plastic in front of a lens. Also, my technologically-illiterate ass has rooted or jaillbroken every smartphone I've ever owned and, in fact, mentioned that possibility elsewhere in this very thread.
Furthermore, what part of "with a physical (and visible) shutter" makes you think it should blend in with the device so well as to be so easily defeated? (hint: "visible", in this context, means "obvious") Perhaps my technological literacy, given that I work in an engineering discipline, is not what should be called into question; rather, you may wish to check your lingual literacy; or, since your post, overall, appears to be well-formed, perhaps just your reading comprehension.
I was making a point. One which you clearly missed.
In the context of the "device-free section" mentioned by the post I was responding to, yes, people would leave their phones in their cars, or not have them at all. Of course, "device-free sections" would also mean criminals knowing phones are being left in cars, leading to an increase in vehicle break-ins and theft, as well, but I didn't want to really ruin Mike Frett's day, so I left that piece of info out.
A horrid idea, through and through.
Or, you know, the lockout shutter can be fire-truck red or some other obvious color, or simply presumed to not exist, in which case business owners can simply not allow the device, as they do currently.
I don't see you proposing any solution, whatsoever, though. Why is that? Or, are you suggesting that, since there is no perfect solution, nothing should be done at all? Because I'm sure that's the best way for us to progress; how could I have been so naive?
A "Glass Free Section" is just a form of segregation. I already addressed this in another post in this thread and you hit on one of the reasons it's a horrible idea in your own post. I fully agree with the restauranteur, as well, which is why I proposed the physical interlock as a solution to both the restauranteur's problem and the Glass user's problem: the restauranteur does not want people recording in his restaurant and the Glass user has no way of assuring the restauranteur that he is not recording, short of putting the device away, which the Glass user was clearly not willing to do.
No interlock? No admittance. Disable your interlock? Owner of the establishment is notified and given the opportunity to approve or delete anything recorded in his establishment. I think it's a fair compromise in that it allows Glass users the wear their devices while still allowing business owners to have control over their use to record inside the business.
This isn't an issue with smartphones the way some people make it out to be, since the types of establishments where Glass users are being asked to put their devices away or leave are the same establishments where it is considered inappropriate to whip out your phone and start gabbing, making it completely obvious if you are recording with your smartphone; and even if you're recording "covertly" by faking a phone call, you'll likely be asked to put your phone away and/or leave simply for being rude.