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.
What does the headline try to tell me? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?
OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.
Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!
Privacy please (Score:3, Insightful)
I think they did the right thing.
It's annoying as hell when somebody is filming or 'could film' covertly in a restaurant, bar or similar place.
Re:just leave (Score:3, Insightful)
He can do what he wants, and in this case, I support him.
Re:just leave (Score:5, Insightful)
Human psychology doesn't work that way. Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret, and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.
Also, while the pictures themselves can be used nefariously if they are taken secretly, the process of picture-taking cannot be used for intimidation or to intentionally be rude.
Not a Glass fan but (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I'm not a fan of Google Glass, and I doubt I'd ever get one.
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.
They could be checking their email, posting to some social site, reading the news, playing a game - or taking pictures or film clips where I appear. I have no way to know. By comparison, Google Glass is much more obvious about it, with flashing lights and stuff to warn people you're taking a picture.
If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.
Re:just leave (Score:5, Insightful)
Just leave and give the place a bad review.
I'd expect far more "bad reviews" if they allowed Google Glass at the objection of patrons.
Re:just leave (Score:5, Insightful)
just leave, I agree with that part.
the rest of us in the restaurant don't want to take part in your spying for google.
cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.
star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.
Re:Not a Glass fan but (Score:5, Insightful)
If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.
Do we seriously have to explain the difference between "having glasses that can take pictures" and "holding a phone in your face to take a picture"...?
How much of an ass are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.
But ignore that. It's absurd to say you should leave if asked to remove a camera from your head. It's not important to your functioning as a human. It's not going to kill you to fail to live-stream every bite of waffle you take.
I have nothing against glass wearers personally but if I went out to dine with someone who was asked to take off Glass and opted to leave rather than remove it, I'd tell him he could go on his own personal snipe hunt for a restaurant that loved Glass users; I plan to stay and eat.
Similarly if someone asked me to remove a hat I would also remove it. Their restaurant, their rules and as long as they are near reasonable I'd rather eat.
Re:Not a Glass fan but (Score:5, Insightful)
With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.
People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you. That's why you tolerate them. Now, if all the cellphone users had it up and filming around them all the time, how do you think you'd feel?
I have a disabled friend who's missing all four limbs. Curious people constantly film him when he walks on his prosthetics with their cellphones - yes, obnoxious tactless jerks raise their cellphones and start filming right in his face, as if he was a spectacle, just like that. He told me it's been years since he hates going out because of this. That's how you'll feel too when every other schmuck in the street wears the goddamn Google glasses.
Re:just leave (Score:5, Insightful)
Opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you talking about tinfoil when there is an obvious recording device present? Tinfoil hattery is involved only if he thought there was a recording device and there was none...
Reacting to something real is as far from "tinfoiling" as you can get.
Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...
Re:just leave (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes actually many people here do.
Re:Not a Glass fan but (Score:4, Insightful)
Phone to your face? Sorry but if I wanted to take a picture of you discretely with my phone you'd NEVER realise. I could for instance hold my phone exactly where a normal person holds their phone while talking, at my ear, except with the camera pointed at you.
Would you notice me? I'll bet you a cookie that you can't count the number of times a person is standing near you using a phone in the normal way because it's something we as a society ignore (unless it's a loud distraction).
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should he? His place of business. The security cameras are their to protect his business and patrons.
The random tech douchebag off the street has his own agenda.
Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
He was kicked out for bringing a fucking video camera into a restaurant and not turning it off when asked. Stop trying to turn it into something else.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Security cameras as used for security purposes. They can have a civil liability if they release security footage. Like, if they released footage of a celebrity eating dinner, they'd sue.
If you carried a video camera in the restaurant, and pointed it at everyone you passed by, you'd be asked to leave. I'm sure someone's going to argue "But Google Glasses aren't necessarily recording." Fine. Carrying a video camera in and pointing it at strangers doesn't mean that it's actually recording either.
It's a neat idea, but I'm afraid to say I won't welcome anyone into my house while wearing Google Glasses, nor will I be very open to them speaking to me in a workplace environment.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.
Jeez, man, next you'll be asserting that it's acceptable for restaurants to uphold certain standards of dress and decorum in order to best serve their customer niche! That's some kind of revolutionary crazy talk.
What kind of freedom-hater are you?
Re:just leave (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't news that most cellphones have cameras; but (because of that), there are signals, like putting it in your pocket, bag, down on the table, etc. that you aren't using it at the moment or are using it, but only to dick around on the internet.
Nothing that you can't change in a few (moderately visible) seconds of movement, or that would stop your covert mic/sneaky fisheye and post-processing techniques from working; but it works socially. 'Glass', even if it's actually turned as far off as the hardware allows, is indistinguishable from a cellphone in its most invasive stance at all times(and, thanks to the haha-not-foldable design, your options for taking it off are substantially worse than with normal glasses).
Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
No one was kicked out for carrying mobile phones (with cameras)
And if the glasshole from the story had put his Google Glass in his pocket, where most people keep their mobile phones, he wouldn't have been kicked out either. He was given that option and declined it. It is entirely possible that the restaurant does indeed have a policy of kicking out someone who is overtly filming people with a mobile phone and refuses to stop when asked.
I actually wonder if the place itself had security cameras too
Security camera footage historically has a very, very small chance of being posted publicly online.
Had this been about a firearm we'd be up in arms about 4th amendment rights.
First of all, you mean the 2nd amendment. Secondly, there is hardly anyone -- even in the NRA -- who denies the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.
Heck what would have happened if the owner didn't like the colour of the patron's skin? Ok to throw them out as well?
I have to admit, when I started reading this I thought maybe there would be an actual meaningful discussion possible here. Then I reached this gem and realized that instead, I would be replying to a serious contender for "Dumbest Slashdot Comment of 2013". I mean, seriously? Choosing to wear Google Glass when you have been told they are in violation of the owner's policy and been asked to put them away is the same as being kicked out because you are black? Congratulations, that is some serious fucking weapons grade stupidity.
Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes he's a git with an over inflated ego, but he's fully entitled to an explanation and maybe an apology.
Explanation: The owner doesn't want glassholes in his restaurant. Apology: None forthcoming. Clarification: People wearing "Google Glass" are commonly referred to as "glassholes", and treated as assholes.
Re:Not a Glass fan but (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's very naive. People are filming with mobiles almost every time I go out. Strange people, strange cars, interesting scenery.
Get it real. It's public space. If you don't want to be filmed, politely ask. If not, sorry.
It's actually not a public space - it's owned by the owner who did, in fact, politely ask the guy not to (potentially) film his other patrons.
The point about people filming with mobiles is that you know when they are doing it because it's obvious, and they tend not to be doing it during dinner. Not so easy with the Glass user; is he filming you, or just looking over towards you? Is he filming now? What about now? The thing is a camera that is permanently pointing where the user is looking, which is different to a hand held device that you have to hold up to record with.
Re:Different restaurant, same owner (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't mind the attention-whore call for violence, as long it's in service of the policy you prefer.
It's obviously not a real call for violence, and the fact you think it is just increases your asshol-o-meter.
like you (i.e. who care more about which team's on top) than like me (i.e. who care more about the way the game's being corrupted).
Corruption, just because they don't want diners surreptitiously recorded? Come on.
what matters is how I live my life
I guess so but so far you are sucking at it, caring more about YOURSELF than anyone else.
I can't excuse wrong
Neither can I, not listening to a reasonable request is unquestionably wrong and I will do anything to support those who can understand manners. There are far too many people who cannot these days.
Re:just leave (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:just leave (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider there to be a key difference between Google Glass type cameras and other small/hidden cameras employed by an individual.
First of all, I am a photographer; I consider the right to photograph to be highly important. I think individuals should have the ability to choose to document the world around them; whether to catch a police officer committing a crime; record the events and relationships in their life; produce an artistic or social commentary on the world around them. Key to this process, however, is that the photographer is responsible for and intentional about the images captured --- and makes a specific, personal decision about what and how to capture and display the images.
Google Glass violates the personally responsible and intentional nature of photographic recording. A Glasshole is not recording me because they have a particular personal motivation to do so --- but only as an unintentional stooge of an advertising and surveillance corporation. I may not even be the intended target of their recording --- just a random face in the background of their half-eaten sandwich. But now Google gets views of me, from a dozen angles, to process through their face recognition algorithms and record into the giant tracking DB in the Cloud. The power over how photography is used in society is no longer democratically distributed over millions of individually responsible individuals, applying their own ethical standards on how to document the tiny slice of the world they see. Rather, Glassholes are encouraged to trade away my privacy, not for their responsible and intentional use of photography, but for mere convenience --- to grant an omniscient view of everything concentrated in the hands of a few megacorporations. This is what I object to.
If Larry Page wants a picture of me eating a sandwich through a publicly-visible window, then I will never object to his right to do so with his own camera, standing on his own two feet outside on the street.
Re:Just imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing your cellphone camera at your plate and snapping a pic uploads a picture of your food. Blindly waving around your Glasshole Surveill-o-matic captures video of all the other patrons. Can you see the difference between footage of food on your plate versus video of everyone around you? Would you also think it's hypocritical for a venue to permit photography of events, but get angry at someone for snapping shots of strangers in the bathroom?
Re:Restaurants are not public spaces (Score:5, Insightful)
It's great that we are having a conversation about this but really a shame that people with Glass apparently are not wanting to be gracious ambassadors for the product, but instead act like complete jerks and just bowl everyone over with the battle try "Technology a 'comin! Move aside!".
If Glass users would simply understand why they are making people uncomfortable instead of demanding explanations, it would go a long way toward allowing future Glass use in public spaces. As it is it seems like current Glass users are the largest motivating force behind bans across the nation - including in some states while driving, where I think Glass makes sense to use.
Re:Just imagine (Score:2, Insightful)
You do understand that the act of ordering enters you into a contract with the restaurant that forces you to pay for what you ordered?
Well, maybe not. What can you expect form a glasshole...
Re:just leave (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Some customers are not worth having. This is one of them.
Re:Different restaurant, same owner (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.
I am absolutely not surprised by that. This is really a prime example why wise people came up with the term "glasshole" before it actually became publicly available. Some people just do not get that living together with others requires a certain amount of respect for said others. The only viable response to these people is zero-tolerance.
Re:Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The privacy concerns are going to kill this technology in its infancy, and we'll have to wait a decade to try wearable tech again.
You say that as if the privacy concerns aren't valid . We should have to wait a million years before having this technology again.
There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy at all times. For restaurants that does mean you are not worrying about people making video recordings of the environment showing that you were there, who you were with, and what you were doing. At least with a phone it would require the person holding it or otherwise acting in a visible manner. Even then, I can see some places objecting. If I'm paying a couple hundred dollars for a nice romantic experience someplace (stop laughing) I fully expect some measure of privacy.
With Google and FaceFuck's penchant for sorting and identifying everyone in video and pictures it very much has become a valid concern whether or not you have any privacy left anywhere.
Privacy is important whether or not your personal choice is to divest yourself of it.
Re:Just imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
The Constitution does not guarantee unrestricted and unlimited private property rights anywhere; heck, it has the concept of eminent domain written right into it.
Re:Just imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is so, then they cannot evict him upon seeing the goggles, either, unless they have explicitly warned that such are not acceptable in advance - after all, if it's a contract, it's equally binding on both sides, and if they have the right to demand payment at that point, surely he has the right to demand the service he is paying for.
Re:Just imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
Blindly waving around your Glasshole Surveill-o-matic captures video of all the other patrons.
No, it doesn't. It's not a camera that is on all the time. It only activates when the person wearing it tells it so.
Geez, what's up with all the Luddites on Slashdot recently? You'd think they at least read up on the technology that they deride to understand how it works, or at least what it actually does.
Re:just leave (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the little recording light on? Punch the person in the face. Is it not on, go about your business and let them go about theirs.
Amazing how you so fear about the mere existence of a device that could possibly see your pee-pee.
Re:just leave (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm sitting in a restaurant and there's someone on the next table pointing a camera phone at me then I am going to complain.
I still don't understand why people think the existence of Google Glass means it's always recording. It has a light on it when it records. It's an extension of the phone, nothing more.
Funny how I've yet to see a single case of someone being vilified for actually recording someone. So far we just seem to fall over ourselves to attack the guy simply for owning the damn thing. If someone wanted to video tape you discretely they would and you would not know about it.