No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service — and No Google Glass, Either 845
Seattle diners who want to take their food-tweeting pictures with Google glass were already facing a preemptively hostile environment; now (in a different restaurant), a diner's been asked to remove his Google Glass headset, or leave. He chose to leave. Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants where things like Glass are most likely to appear.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe, but the business has the full right to refuse service and ask him to leave for any reason they want. He may not agree with it, but that's too bad. In turn he can exercise his right to dine elsewhere that allows it and to leave a bad review of the place that asked him to leave for wearing it.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Informative)
The guy who complained is a complete douche who demanded that the manager get fired. He's also #GlassExplorer [twitter.com]! And look at his haircut. The self-entitled rich tech geek boy force is strong in this one. His poor rights were violated and he's going to complain to everybody.
Different restaurant, same owner (Score:4, Informative)
Since the link to the article seems slashdotted, here's one to another about the same incident.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html [tweaktown.com]
Same guy owns both places.
Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.
Reporting is a bit one-sided (Score:5, Informative)
The customer was asked to put the Glass away before he was asked to leave. He chose to leave. Or, at least that's how his version of the story tends to go, which tends to paint him as the victim.
To hear it recounted elsewhere, he began making a scene when he was asked to remove his Glass, demanding to see a manager and then shouting at the manager that he wanted to see the policy in writing, despite acknowledging the fact that he knew of the policy being in place at other affiliated restaurants he knew. The manager explained that the policy wasn't in writing, which got an angry response from him, and he stormed out in a fury then made an angry blog post.
Lost Lake actually clarified their policy after the incident (emphasis mine):
We recently had to ask a rude customer to leave because of their insistence on wearing and operating Google Glasses inside the restaurant. So for the record, here's Our Official Policy on Google Glass:
We kindly ask our customers to refrain from wearing and operating Google Glasses inside Lost Lake. We also ask that you not videotape anyone using any other sort of technology. If you do wear your Google Glasses inside, or film or photograph people without their permission, you will be asked to stop, or leave. And if we ask you to leave, for God's sake, don't start yelling about your "rights". Just shut up and get out before you make things worse.
If a business has a policy in place, whether in writing or not, and politely informs you of it and asks you to respect it, your choices are to either abide by it or leave. Some of us won't like this policy. We are free to avoid bringing our business there. Others of us will support the policy. We are free to send more business there. That's the nice thing about businesses: they can cater to niches that appeal to a particular subset of customers with whom their interests are aligned. Either way, acting like an ass just makes you one.
I love how ... (Score:5, Informative)
I love how Starr feels compelled to determine the restaurants policy: if the staff member was enforcing a policy, then Starr feels that it is inappropriate; if the staff member wrongly told him to remove his gadget, then Starr feels that it is his place to dictate the disciplinary action (and suggests an action that most likely violates labour laws).
I'm sorry Mr. Starr, but you entered a private establishment. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If you don't like it, you are permitted to voice your concerns. Yet you are by no means entitled to enter that business and you are by no means entitled to tell the owner how to discipline their staff. Even though it may seem obvious to you that the business is losing your business, it is by no means obvious what would happen if the restaurant bent over backwards to keep your business. You may be driving other customers away with what is (at least currently) an idiosyncrasy or you may be making the staff uncomfortable.
Maybe the objections and discomfort will dissipate with time. Even then, Mr. Starr, you aren't in the right. You aren't in the right because you are demonstrating your sense of entitlement, your sense that you're the only person that matters. You aren't the only person who matters, and you have very few entitlements when you are in a private venue.
Re:What does the headline try to tell me? (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing the most obvious interpretation of the title: "No" is repeated for linguistic, and phonetic effect. It has different meanings in the different contexts. In the first phrase, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", the first two "No"s can be interpreted as being in an ellided "if" clause: "If you have no shirt or no shoes, then you will get no service." The third "No" is in a consequent clause, and means that you will receive no service.
In "No Google Glass, Either", the "No" can be interpreted as a standard proscription against what follows. It is like "No running", "No swimming", "No smoking", etc.
To recap: "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common phrase which uses the word "no". "No Google Glass, either" is referencing another common syntactical pattern using the word "no". The title was constructed, I think, with the idea of mentioning a lot of "no"s, which are used in different contexts. The point is that businesses like to tell you "no" a lot.
Re:What does the headline try to tell me? (Score:4, Informative)
It was the first and only way I interpreted it.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" denies you service. "No Google Glass, either" denies you the right to use Google Glass, like "No Mastercard" or "No checks" denies you the right to use certain forms of payment.
Re:What does the headline try to tell me? (Score:4, Informative)
That was true long before you got here, sonny.
Re:Opposite (Score:5, Informative)
"Starr had walked into an establishment owned by one of the more vocal anti-Glass restaurateurs".
It's clear provocation, with the expected result, in order to justify a pathetic look-at-poor-me, I'm being oppressed, whine.
Re:Restaurants are not public spaces (Score:4, Informative)
I'm also a part time photog and have followed this kind of discussion online quite a lot.
when I shoot with an slr, its very obvious and you pretty much are encouraged to ask those around you if they are ok being in your shot (lets assume this is not PJ style shooting, etc).
having a visor that is always-on is quite a bit different and everyone knows that. its too easy to hide and that makes the difference.
people deserve the right to be excluded from your little 'documentaries'. they just do. and since we can't tell (red light or not), if you are wearing such a device we have to assume its 'on'.
I'm glad we are talking about this and not just plowing ahead with it, uhm, 'blindly' (so to speak). I hope we collectively agree its a Bad Thing(tm) but at least we're talking about it a little bit, first. its going to take some time before its cheap enough that its already become a problem. right now, we can discuss this before it gets too widely adopted.
Glass guy may have broken WA laws (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How much of an ass are you? (Score:4, Informative)
There's no point arguing with people. There is an extremely well funded anti-Google Glass campaign going on. There were threats and laws passed even before they were available, based in incomplete and incorrect information, just like most of the posts here.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech (Score:4, Informative)
It's not assault if I'm protecting her from harassment.
Yes, it is. Criminal law includes the concept of justification for very good reasons, but it only extends to actions necessary to prevent the crime. What you described is punitive, not preventative, and is not justifiable. Perhaps turning up the volume a bit will make this clearer. In most US states, you are justified in killing a man to stop him from raping your wife (or another woman; your wife isn't especially privileged in the eyes of the law). But if you catch him raping her and he stands up and starts running away, you can no longer kill him, because punishment is the responsibility and prerogative of the system, not you.
In addition, if the photographer's actions do not actually constitute a crime (perhaps they do, perhaps they don't, look up your local statutes on harassment and public photography), then you can't even assault him in order to stop his actions. You cannot commit a crime to prevent a non-crime.
Of course, there's always the chance that you'll get a sympathetic jury. But I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on that, and my wife wouldn't want me to either.