Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

CA Court Rules Cyber Cafe Cameras Constitutional 59

Posted by Cliff from the big-brother-is-alive-and-well dept.
mbstone writes: "A California appellate court has upheld [PDF link], 2-1, a Garden Grove, California ordinance requiring so-called 'cyber cafes' to impose a curfew, hire security guards, and install video surveillance cameras capable of identifying patrons. The opinion is a must-read; the dissenting judge called the law 'Orwellian,' and pointed out that 'even the government of Malaysia' was 'too ashamed to enforce' a similar proposal." It appears that the ordinances were enacted in part due to crime involving "gang activity" and to curtail school-children from using the facilities during school hours (unless accompanied by a guardian).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Court Rules Cyber Cafe Cameras Constitutional More

CA Court Rules Cyber Cafe Cameras Constitutional

Comments Filter:

  • "gang activity"?!? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @05:39PM (#8146131)
    I'm curious as to what this actually is... online crack sales? Drive-by DDoSing? Are the Crips and Bloods sending out spam now? Or are they putting together Powerpoint presentations to recruit new members? Seriously, what are "gangs" using (easily tracable and most likely monitored) cybercafe computers for?

    • Re:"gang activity"?!? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ieshan ( 409693 )
      Ever been to a LAN center?

      While I don't neccessarily agree with the legislation, giving kids competition where they play with guns and killing each other and make "clans" which have battles doesn't sound great to your average 40-60 something lawmaker.

      It doesn't sound that great to me, either.

      Games and LAN centers were fun at one point, and then they became this strange culture where everything which isn't "leet" is "gay".

      • Re:"gang activity"?!? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "strange culture". good word there, lets make sure that our lawmakers make anything "strange" an illegal activity before it becomes a "culture". the parent poster asks the reader if he or she has ever been to a LAN center, but i'd really like to know what "LAN center" he/she has been to. obviously a diverse amount across the country. i guess they must all be just a vile gathering of criminal activity. informative? what information has this person presented? nothing but a biased, uninformed opinion. thanks,

    • From the opinion,

      The most recent incident, occurring the day before the memorandum was written, was the murder of a 20- year-old male while he was standing in front of a CyberCafe.

      In other words, the first specific act mentioned wasn't even in the cafe. Does Garden Grove require or advocate similar monitoring inside each and every establishment that is in the same business as one in which a murder was ever committed in front of? How far in front of?

  • hate this shit (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, 2004 @05:52PM (#8146204)
    I used to HATE this shit. When I was a kid and would go to the mall, video arcade or movie theater, adults (especially security) would harass me about not being in school.

    Of course, I was like "fuck you - I go to a private year-round school and we get a week off every other month you stupid shit".

    People really need to be responsible for THEMSELVES and stop trying to be fucking mommy/daddy/big brother.

  • From the opinion:

    The CyberCafe ordinance defines a "CyberCafe" as an establishment that provides Internet access to fee paying customers.

    Sounds like all ISPs are CyberCafes in Garden Grove. Are those ISPs similarly required to monitor their customers? Even if it's not interpreted that widely, how about libraries that charge for access, say, beyond 1 hour?

    • And McDonalds, StarBucks and I know of bakerys plus other places. I am betting their public library too.

      So Garden Grove, turn out the lights... you are electronicly dead.
      • Whoa! Their public library charges a fee to access the internet?

        What is the world coming to?

        • [A slight OT diversion, in answer] I don't know if GG's charges or not (a quick search didn't say). But mine has time limits and charges for printing Web pages (and doesn't charge for printing catalog entries). And a quick search discloses some public libraries that charge for any services beyond basic browsing (e-mail, chat), or any Internet access by non-residents. Any of these (particularly the last) could easily be interpreted as providing "Internet access for paying customers".

          [Back on topic] My co

    • What about the (few and far between) hotel rooms with internet access? Do they have to put cameras in the rooms?

  • Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thomas A. Anderson ( 114614 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @08:03PM (#8146868) Homepage
    This is legislation designed to make up for incompetent busniess owners.

    I own and run a gaming center and have zero problems with students skipping class and violence in or near the store. How?

    1) I'm only open when the high school is closed. This means I open at 3pm on weekdays (noon on weekends and holidays). This may sound like a big deal, but it's not - 85% of my business comes from local high and jr. high schools (and most of the other are adults who work during the day).

    2) I reserve the right to throw anybody out of the store I want. And I do, but only when someone gets out of hand (forgets that it's just a game). I set a tone of "have fun and be respectful" and my customers pick up on this.

    No, I'm not in southern cal where there are more gangs, but still - this is not rocket science.

    just my experience.

    • "Reserve the right" is a myth (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @11:00PM (#8147846) Homepage Journal
      I reserve the right to throw anybody out of the store I want.
      You can't reserve a right you never had in the first place. In California in particular, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code, section 51) prohibits all forms of arbitrary discrimination (as affirmed by several sourt cases since: I have the citations available). You can't throw people out because you don't like they way they look or dress. If they are engaged in the business of the establishment (in your case, playing video games as opposed to loitering) and are not making a disturbance, there's little you can do about it.

      The fallacy is that the "Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a legal myth: you have no such right. Unfortunately, not enough people sue business owners to assert their civil rights. Civil rights trump business owners' private property rights (and rightfully so).

      If you want absolute dominion over who can be in your business, then don't have it open to the general public: have paid membership requirements or by "by appointment only" and be a private club instead.

      • Civil rights trump business owners' private property rights (and rightfully so).

        This kind of crap thinking ("the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one") by too many people is one of the (many) things that is wrong with this country.
        An owner of an establishment should be able to refuse entry to anyone he/she wants, for any reason.
        It's his/her property, after all.
        If members of the community don't like the admittance policy, then they can boycott the establishment.

        (Oh, before anyone bri

        • An owner of an establishment should be able to refuse entry to anyone he/she wants, for any reason. It's his/her property, after all.

          There is a distinction between private property for one's home (where I agree you can do as you please) and a business open to the general public. In the latter case, a business exists to serve the community. As such, you give up some absolute rights.

          Laws are apparently needed because of prejudice and hatred against minorites, women, and even men with long hair (as a n

          • a business exists to serve the community.

            No, it doesn't.
            It exists to make its owners money.
            One way to do this is to "serve the community".
            I know about the prejudice angle; I addressed it in my next paragraph.
            Potential patrons can vote with their pocketbooks.
            If the owner of a business wants to exclude someone based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc., let him/her.
            Such a business will not be as successful as the one down the street that doesn't engage in such behavior, because many people (such as I) w

            • No, [a business] doesn't [exist to serve the community].

              I'm generally talking about a mom-and-pop class of business on Main Street USA (like the owner of a video game arcade in the original post), not some multinational coporation with stockholders.

              If the owner of a business wants to exclude someone based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc., let him/her.

              Let me guess: you're a white, middle-class male who has never experienced any form of discrimination first-hand.

              Such a business will not

              • All this is very fascinating, really. But nothing changes (or will change) the fact that people are asked to leave my place who are under the influence of drugs/alchohol, show any form of physical violence, or continue to swear or cuss after being reminded there are kids around. This is in no way discriminates against the public and is completly within my power as a business owner.

                And yes, the original incedent occured outside the gaming center, but the owner still had some control over that. Most citie
                • ... people are asked to leave my place who are under the influence of drugs/alchohol, show any form of physical violence, or continue to swear or cuss after being reminded there are kids around. This is in no way discriminates against the public and is completly within my power as a business owner.
                  Go back and reread my earlier post. I quite clearly qualified my statement with, "... who are not making a disturbance." Your post is moot.

              • I'm generally talking about a mom-and-pop class of business

                They don't exist to make money for their owners?
                All businesses (except maybe charities and other NPOs) exist to make money for their owners, even if their owners are just one person.

                the most probable scenario is that you wouldn't even know they engaged in such discrimination

                That's what publicity is for.
                That's what picket lines (on the street outside the business's property), etc., are for.
                For example, there is an insurance company from which I

                • [Mom-and-Pop businesses] don't exist to make money for their owners?

                  They probably do, but they have no corporate responsibility to do so: they don't have to answer to shareholders, trustees, or a board of directors. They can do it just for fun if they please.

                  That's what publicity is for. That's what picket lines (on the street outside the business's property), etc., are for.

                  The majority of discimination cases go unreported. If you're discriminated against at a business, the easier option is to go

                  • I am exclusively talking about small businesses (and I'm saying it for the third time now

                    OK, I saw "I'm generally talking about a mom-and-pop class of business on Main Street USA".
                    Where are the other two?
                    (And "generally" is not the same as "exclusively".)

                    If a small business (i.e., single shop) discriminates, then word will get around the neighborhood, and the shop will lose business, even if the people discriminated against don't go to the press.

                    The majority of discimination cases go unreported. If you'

                  • They probably do, but they have no corporate responsibility to do so: they don't have to answer to shareholders, trustees, or a board of directors. They can do it just for fun if they please.

                    But even in the case of 'doing it for fun', there is no implied debt to the community. A business is there to do whatever they want (within the law), not serve the community. Businesses live or die based on their patronage, so it is in their best interest to please their customers. A Government, however, takes its re

                    • But even in the case of 'doing it for fun', there is no implied debt to the community. A business is there to do whatever they want (within the law), not serve the community.

                      If a business is open to the general public, then, by definition, it exists to serve the community.

                      That's the most effective way to fight a business you disagree with: vote with your dollars. This is the truth whether it's a Mom & Pop shop or a Multinational Corporation.

                      Nice theory, but it's not true in practice, especially

                    • If a business is open to the general public, then, by definition, it exists to serve the community.

                      By who's definition!? We can keep going in circles here forever: A business exists to make money. If they choose to serve the public in their pursuit of money, that's their choice. NO private company by law exists to serve the community. The Government exists to serve the community. No matter how hard you try, your belief does not make true the idea that businesses owe you something.

                      Take Walmart for exampl

                    • But you kept fussing at others for using Big Businesses as an example and telling them to look at Mom & Pops... Make up your mind.

                      The only reason I used a big business this time was becase you alleged that the "vote with dollars" theory applies equally well to them. I then (on a completely different topic unrelated to the small mom-and-pop topic) shot that theory down as a side-bar. Sorry you can't perceive the context switches.

                      Look at K-Mart, they used to be the largest retailer in the US and n

                    • K-mart died because people took their money elsewhere. The reason it was taken elsewhere is inconsequential.

        • Oh, before anyone brings up pre-60s Southern U.S. segregation as a counter-example, those were laws as well, and IMO worse than laws requiring unqualified admittance.

          Let me see if I understand what you're trying to say here. It's okay for store or restaurant owners (for example) to kick out minorities for no reason, "gtfo we don't serve niggers here." It's only wrong when the government does it?

          Glad I'm not living in your world. I do have to wonder how you justify this to yourself, though, on a psychologi



        • And a city should be able to refuse him a business permit, sewage service, water service, electrical service, police protection and anything else that belongs to the city, if he doesn't get in line with what the city expects of him, in consideration of all the things the city does to enable his business to exist in the first place.

          No business exists in a vacuum. Every business is indebted to the community in which it exists, and it owes that community.

          If members of the community don't like the admitta
      • Tell it to the Gord [actsofgord.com]

        Show me the part of the constitution or the Bill of Rights the part that says he can't do any of this?

        Or, to put it another way, it's my business. If I don't want to serve you, it'll be for a good reason. You can be whatever colour you want, what ever religion you want, hell I don't much care what species you are (and you better believe I've seen 'em all, buddy). Wanna come in, have fun, give me your money, fine. Wanna harrass my paying customers, break my machines, lose me business? S
    • Of course, the event in question didn't have a damn thing to do with business owners in the first place. The shooting happened in front of the cafe.

  • Near El Camino College... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, 2004 @08:05PM (#8146875)
    7 or 8 years ago, I attended El Camino Community College which is next door to Garden Grove as far as municipalies go.

    Garden Grove is a beautiful suburban city with virtually no manufactoring and no high density commercial zones, just acre after acre of homes, generous yards, parks, strip malls, and the occasional car dealership or big box store (such as Target).

    They also have a very large number of kids ranging from 14 to 23 years old. When I was a student in the area, there was virtually nothing to do but take the bus down the road to Manhattan Beach Mall. By the time I graduated, there were already fears and concerns that these bored kids might be tempted to join a gang.

    I believe a cyber-cafe is a better diversion than joining a gang, but let's be honest here - those cafes do cost money, and people do loose their tempers, get addicted, or otherwise develop an unhealthy fixtation to playing video games all day.

    I think Garden Grove has gone too far, but I really can't think of a better, less costly solution to what they perceive as a problem. The ideal situation is, of course, to give all those kids something socially-acceptable to do, but what?

    Get a job? In this economy?

    Go to school and get training? You did know Califonia has a budget crisis and is drastically cutting Community College offerings?

    Learn to sing and dance and join the worldwide touring production of "Up With People?" Puh-leeze.

  • Dumb question of the moment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @09:14PM (#8147280) Homepage Journal
    But don't you have video-surveillance (and possibly even security guards, presumably out of sight) in large department stores?

    Yeah it's a shame they had to pass a local odrinance but there things aren't taken lightly.

    Obviously there's been MAJOR ISSUES and equally as obviously the owners of the CyberCafes apparently weren't doing enough to deal with the issue.

    READ THE PDF people, criminal activity, gang activity, a guy was MURDERED, and schoolies were goofing off on the web during school hours. At a minimum, the last shows a dereliction of duty on the part of the operator of said CyberCafe.

    The only thing I see *really* wrong in this is where the comment was made "Polisar also reported that patrol officers were finding school aged children at these establishments during school hours, and he expressed concern about minors being able to access inappropriate and dangerous web sites"

    Are you expecting all CyberCafes to censor the internet for you?

    Government mandated censorship is always, absolutely and unconditionally a bad thing.
    • How about their parents make them do what is right?

    • Re:Dumb question of the moment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Sunday February 01, 2004 @12:17AM (#8148318) Journal
      READ THE PDF people, criminal activity, gang activity, a guy was MURDERED, and schoolies were goofing off on the web during school hours. At a minimum, the last shows a dereliction of duty on the part of the operator of said CyberCafe. ....

      Obviously there's been MAJOR ISSUES and equally as obviously the owners of the CyberCafes apparently weren't doing enough to deal with the issue.

      It's not the job of the CyberCafes to act as police -- the CyberCafes pay taxes that pay for cops and DAs, whose job it is to deal with crime. And where have those cops and DAs been, anyway?

      So what you're saying is that existing laws -- against murder and truancy -- were broken, and that rather than enforce those existing laws, Garden Grove chose to pass a new law that would penalize innocent parties and create a financial burden for a business that committed no crime, but had the misfortune of being in an area where the crimes were committed?

      Isn't respect for law in general already undermined by Garden Grove's demonstrated inability to enforce existing law? If Garden Grove is unable to effectively prosecute murders or truancies, how can we be expected to believe it will be able to enforce this new law?

      This is a typical move by legislators looking to get re-elected for "solving" problems they're really ignoring.

      It happens on the left, when Democrats claim credit for dozens of gun control laws that they never get around to fully funding, while ignoring the real problem: criminals ignore laws and circumvent background checks -- because -- surprise! they're criminals.

      It happens on the right, when Republicans pass more and more Draconian anti-drug laws (it's double-extra-super illegal to sell drugs within 500 feet of a school!), none of which actually remedy the real problems with drugs: sales to minors and that addicts want to break into my house to steal my stero to sell it for more crack.

      It happens on the left with "hate crime" legislation, the ridiculous proposition that killing someone because you don't like his ancestry is a worse crime than killing someone because you want his wallet. Murder's illegal, right? But it's less bad if Karl Klansman kills Willy Whiteman for Willie's wallet than if he kills Bobby Blackman out of racial hate? I'm sure Willy's survivors are comforted by this.

      It happens on the right when John Ashcroft tells you with a stright face that we are safer because Tommy Chong's been sent to Federal prison -- prison for God's sake -- for selling glass bongs!

      Now tell me, of all the pot-smokers you know, how many started smoking because they thought bongs looked cool and wanted an excuse to use one? Oh right, pot-smoking tends to precede bong-buying? So what do laws against selling drug paraphernalia achieve? Oh right, they let prosecutors get photo-ops on their way to re-election! I feel safer already.

      Laws like Garden Grove's don't inconvenience real criminals -- anyone who is not deterred by life prison sentences for murder isn't going to suddenly flee at the prospect of a curfew. It just inconveniences those of us who try to follow the laws; now we can't be out after some arbitrary hour.

      Laws like Garden Groves just allow the local legislators to claim they're "doing something" about the problem -- so please re-elect them -- while letting them ignore the real source of the problem and while penalizing law-abiding business owners and citizens with more and more onerous regulations.
      • >>Now tell me, of all the pot-smokers you know,
        >> how many started smoking because they thought
        >> bongs looked cool and wanted an excuse to use one?

        Well... I know at least two people that started smoking after casting a bong in an art class. And one gal that started after building a vaporiser in Elec Engineering, cause she was like asthmatic or something and couldn't even use a bong.
      • Unfortunately, your post makes so much sense and is so insightful that moderators are going to blow a fuse, and your karma will suffer greatly as a result.
      • I agree with most of your post except:

        It's not the job of the CyberCafes to act as police -- the CyberCafes pay taxes that pay for cops and DAs, whose job it is to deal with crime. And where have those cops and DAs been, anyway?

        An owner of a business that deals on a daily basis with minors has a responsibilty to the community (and to themselves) to make sure that kids who are there during school hours aren't skipping class (ie, homeschool or vacations or??). they also have a responsibilty to make sure

      • I hope that you are politically active and express those views where they are most important.
        At the ballot box.
        In political discussions with friends, family, peers and letters to editors.
        By contibuting to compaigns of those who understand and are interested in this kind of issue.
        And maybe even by running for office.

  • Judges tick me off (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vudufixit ( 581911 ) on Saturday January 31, 2004 @09:36PM (#8147392)
    And not just with their actual decisions. I don't understand why Supreme Court judges can turn away or decide cases "without comment." What the hell gives them that right? Why don't they have to provide their reasonings in a public statement.
    Another wonderful one are the stories I've heard of people who've written to judges expressing anger over decisions they've made, and gotten slapped with contempt of court! Doesn't that violate due process?
    • Due to the huge number of cases appealed to the supreme court every year, they can't possibly hear them all. The only ones they will choose to hear will be the landmark cases where there is not much legal presidence. If a similar case has been ruled on before, the previous ruling will be cited as the reason not to hear it. Appeals courts are generally only concerned with how the previous judges applied the law and not with findings of specific facts in a case. Basically, unless you can come up with some tru

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close