Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service — and No Google Glass, Either

Comments Filter:
  • by johnsnails ( 1715452 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:26PM (#45563749)
  • by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:27PM (#45563751) Journal

    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!

    • by blue trane ( 110704 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:31PM (#45564173) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @09:16PM (#45564489) Homepage

      That was true long before you got here, sonny.

  • Privacy please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:33PM (#45563781)

    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.

  • Easy answer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrLogic17 ( 233498 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:41PM (#45563823) Journal

    There's an easy fix to all of this- make a version of Google glass without a camera. Make a read-only device.
    I want the Internet instantly accessible. That's far less intimidating that saying I want to upload everything you say and do around me.

    • This. Or, allow businesses to register their locations as "Glass-Free" and if Glass detects that it is at one of those locations (via GPS) it disables the camera automatically, with a physical (and visible) shutter. Audio recording should be allowed, as one may legitimately wish to record their own notes. Likewise, if Glass can't get a GPS signal, it should default to this state.

      There should, of course, be an override, because not every location lacking a GPS signal is a location where Glass should not be
  • by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:43PM (#45563837) Homepage

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:06PM (#45563993)

      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"...?

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:46PM (#45564281)

        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).

        • by tftp ( 111690 ) on Sunday December 01, 2013 @03:04AM (#45566323) Homepage

          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.

          This is not a common way to use a cell phone. Sure, you can put it in your front pocket and set to record... but this is very uncommon, and there is no peer pressure to do so. Maybe some boys and girls will want to do that one day, but the video will not go anywhere. Most likely it will be deleted right after filming because watching a lengthy segment of nothing in particular is work, not fun. A GG video will be processed by a robot, and it will see everything that is worth seeing.

          GG promotes and rewards filming. GG wearers are already pushing the limits, as this whole discussion shows. Do you want a worldwide Internet competition for the funniest (not to you!) video taken by GG? Your image, and your privacy, will be converted into jokes for other people. Do you want everyone you know to see yourself slipping and falling in the street one day? Making a mistake that normally would be remembered by humans who happened to witness it? Doing something that would *seem* wrong?

          Yes, it is already possible to do something like that with cell phones. And we have YouTube to dump all that garbage into. However GG is a significant enhancement of such recording. The people around GG wearer do not know when the GG is recording; and the GG is already in position to start recording.

          There are millions of reasons to be wary of GG. For details, please review the video "Don't talk to the police." There the professor gives several examples of how your innocent behavior can get you convicted. GG will be used by the police; and since all the records are at Google, you do not have an option of unseeing something - even if you really, really want to. Today you are protected from being a witness against yourself. What if tomorrow you wear a GG and get into a situation? Your GG video will be subpoenaed, and you will have no say in it. Maybe it will save you; maybe it will doom you. I would rather prefer doubt - it is interpreted in favor of the accused. GG will remove the doubt, even if the recording does not show the whole picture.

    • by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:15PM (#45564063)

      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.

    • by hsmith ( 818216 )
      It is pretty amusing how people assume Glass is a massive surveillance device.

      I have a pair for development and - really - they don't record video non-stop. You actually get about 5% battery life drain for every 1 minute of recording. In 20 minutes, your battery life is dead. So, assuming he had used them for some portion of the day, he'd maybe have 5-10m of recording time.

      Add to the fact, it doesn't take the best video and have the best audio. It isn't bad, but you aren't capturing national secrets on
  • by unitron ( 5733 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:58PM (#45563929) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @10:45PM (#45565041)

      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.

  • by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @07:58PM (#45563931) Homepage

    "I would love an explanation, apology, clarification," Starr wrote on Facebook,

    What more explanation do you need? Why do you believe you're owed an apology? What needs to be clarified?

    "and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination."

    Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff? I hope the staff member gets a bonus and a promotion for puncturing this self-inflated cock-womble's ego.

    What a git.

  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:06PM (#45563989)

    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)

    by MacTO ( 1161105 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:16PM (#45564073)

    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.

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:40PM (#45564231)

    I don't want everything I say, do, or participate in blasted all over the interwebz. I don't post daily or hourly updates on my schedule to twitter or facebook. And, just because YOU elect to blog minute-by-minute innocuous details of your life for the 1000 people who "follow" you, doesn't mean I want to be a part of it.

    I can accept that cameras are going to be out wherever I go, but I'd be pretty pissed off to find some quite, intimate conversation with my girlfriend over dinner blasted out on some idiot's blog who happened to be one table away because he thought my private conversation was entertaining.

  • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @08:50PM (#45564321)

    Legalize cell phone blockers too and let restaurants/bars/theaters install them.

  • Just wait till I get my bionic eyes.

  • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @09:08PM (#45564447) Homepage Journal

    Listen dickhole, they might not have a policy in writing that says you can't hula-hoop in there, either, but if you try to do it, I guarantee they'll ask you to stop, and you're an asshole if you don't. Fucking idiot.

    If they communicate their wishes to you, you either follow their wishes or you fucking leave. It doesn't matter how they communicate to their wishes to you. It's their fucking place.

  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @09:35PM (#45564621) Homepage

    It must be controlled. It just doesn't get any more simple than that. For government, they haven't yet learned their mistakes [where default notion gotta catch'm all pokemon!] is but I'm sure they soon will. For businesses, the default notion of "lock it all down" will yeild a much more immediate backlash.

    As in this story, the ban on Google glass should be countered by Google handing these things out in large numbers to volunteers who will go places which are known to be hostile to such things. When the public sees the hostility, they will respond in much the same way I have to Denny's restaurants -- the gun-free kill zones. I won't go there any longer. And the reasons are exactly the same.

    People need to get over their knee-jerk fears and understand what it is they are dealing with. And only after understanding it properly should they take a position. Reacting out of fear is almost always a very bad idea.

  • by MikeTheGreat ( 34142 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @09:56PM (#45564745)
    Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030 [wa.gov]). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too
  • by JasoninKS ( 1783390 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @09:57PM (#45564749)
    He sounds like little more than a toddler having a hissy fit. "Well I don't SEE anything that says I can't wear it. Just cause you work here doesn't mean you're the boss of me." Um, how about common freaking courtesy? Do you really have to be wearing your Glass constantly? Just cause I don't see a sign that says I can't come piddle in your wine glass doesn't give me the OK to do it. Admittedly, I do get irritated by people that just can't put down their mobile device for 10 minutes without getting twitchy. You want to visit a restaurant that allows Glass and whatever else? Fine, go open your own place. Otherwise, yes, you are subject to the "rules" of the restaurant you're visiting.

    Biggest thing though...have common courtesy. If you've been asked nicely to do something at a business, do it. Their place, their rules. If it's truly unreasonable or discriminatory, then make a case out of it. They ask you to put away your mobile device, speak more quietly, dress in certain attire...do it! But if you're going to throw a fit solely because you choose to be a self-centered ass, then please lock yourself in your house and stay away from the rest of us.
  • by Geste ( 527302 ) on Saturday November 30, 2013 @10:56PM (#45565129)

    I need mister Starr's help to write a smartphone app that will tell me where mister Starr is at any given moment of every day. So that I can be at least one mile away at all times.

    I am mostly in the U District, Fremont and Ballard orbit here in Seattle, so don't get up to Capitol Hill much, but I will need to make a trip to the Lost Lake Cafe

    Starr? Glasshole.

  • by slew ( 2918 ) on Sunday December 01, 2013 @12:50AM (#45565809)

    Two things...
    1. Someone will attempt to declare their google glass a kind of "service-animal" (in California anyhow, I've heard that service iguanas are actually legal if they are considered to assist in an emotional disability).

    2. There is a restaurant chain called the Trail-Dust Steakhouse that ban neck-ties**. If you go in with a neck-tie, a bunch of waiter come around with a big cow-bell and cut off your neck-tie and pin it to the wall (you can add a business card). Perhaps a restaurant will ban google-glass and maybe do the same schick ;^)

    ** This is the official warning they give patrons "This ain't no country club! No ties after 5, so ya'll have two choices – you can take 'em off or we'll cut 'em off!"

The power to destroy a planet is insignificant when compared to the power of the Force. - Darth Vader