Seattle Bar Owner Bans Google Glass, In Advance 471
An anonymous reader writes "A popular Seattle bar and restaurant has posted a notice on its Facebook page warning patrons that wearing Google Glass will not be tolerated. 'Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators,' wrote Dave Meinert, owner of the 5 Point Cafe, perhaps in a mock aggressive tone. GeekWire reports that Meinert raised privacy concerns in an interview with a local radio station: 'People want to go there and be not known and definitely don't want to be secretly filmed or videotaped and immediately put on the Internet.' A subsequent FB post includes more Meinert musings on Google Glass: 'They are really just the new fashion accessory for the fanny pack & never removed Bluetooth headset wearing set,' along with unflattering photos of a pair of early adopters."
That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's my right to give them extra business because of it, and living in Seattle, I will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
Why is this modded flamebait? I tend to view this as a reactionary policy done by a person who clearly thinks far too much of his establishment. That's his right. Since I view his policy in that light it's my right to go somewhere else. The policy also strikes me as hypocritical as I'd be willing to bet that he has several cameras and probably audio monitoring throughout the establishment (also his right) and yet wants to ban others from doing the same thing.
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they
Re: (Score:3)
Re:That's his right (Score:4, Informative)
For sure. There will be a lot of customers who feel similarly who will give that establishment more business. The two or three yuppies who decide to go elsewhere and pout about the restrictions will be minor compared to the 100 new customers who show up to cheer.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you don't have the permission of the person you are not allowed to take that photo or shoot that video."
Nonsense. You can take photos and videos of anyone provided that it is in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. It only requires a release if you plan to use it for commercial purposes.
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not so confident. Maybe not literally 24/7, but certainly some guy sending a feed consisting of a very large number of hours of indiscriminately taken video per day. Most people won't do that, but there's no way to tell in advance who will.
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Interesting)
It reminds me of those few gun stores where they ban their customers from carrying a gun while their staff is openly carrying. Sure, it's their right to ban such but it's still hypocritical.
lol...I live in one of the most gun-friendly states in the union -- Arizona. There are seven gun shops within a ten minute drive of my house, and two shooting ranges inside of fifteen minutes. There are three supermarkets (yes, supermarkets!) -- two Wal-marts and a K-Mart -- that also sell sporting goods, including shotguns, rifles and a small selection of hand guns. At the Wally-world, you can purchase 500 rounds of 9mm parabellum at 6am on a Sunday morning, and the sleepy-eyed clerk just yawns as she's stacking the boxes for you on the counter. Getting the picture, yet? Let me see if I can make it a little clearer. Maybe one more anecdote to crystallize this for you. People can and do carry openly in Arizona (not a majority, not even a large minority) but you will always see somebody carrying in Arizona if you are out in public enough. The local military base has a "local conditions" briefing for newly arrived personnel and their families, which includes a presentation to explain why there is no need to dial 911 if the guy or girl standing in line next to you at the Starbucks or the bank has a piece shoved into their waistband. Now, about your hypocrisy thing -- at every gun shop in my home town that I've ever visited, there is a sign on the door with words to the effect that your weapon must be secured in your holster, or you will be relieved of it -- probably by prying it from your cold, dead fingers. Not that you can't carry it, mind you, but just that you be smart about it. One even has a picture of Dirty Harry with "Do you feel lucky, Punk?" tacked beneath the warning sign, in case you think they are being a tad hypocritical. All this is to point out to you that in Arizona, the idea that somebody can stop you from responsibly bearing a weapon is a non-starter. Hypocrisy can only occur when it's possible for you to prevent somebody from doing something that you do your self. When it comes to Arizona and carrying a gun, that kind of hypocrisy just can't happen.
Re:That's his right (Score:4, Funny)
You can feel comforted by the fact that if you're assaulted in Arizona, there will always be someone in range who can defend you.
Re: (Score:2)
You and your everyone-uploading glasses would not be missed.
With any luck, Google Glass will use a set of identifiable ports that can be blocked on everybody's router.
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
I have the absolute natural right to videotape anything my eye can behold, period.
That's a weird point. Your eye does not have perfect vision, you do not hold your memories indefinitely and you cannot feed what you see to a computer to be scanned and analyzed forever. It's one thing for you to look at me, it's a whole other thing when your machine does it. I agree that's the way the world is going, but shouldn't we feel sad about it? We can marvel at the technology, and as geeks we do, but seriously? Perfect infinite crowd-funded surveillance? Of everyone and everything? How is that a good thing?
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
We can marvel at the technology, and as geeks we do, but seriously? Perfect infinite crowd-funded surveillance? Of everyone and everything? How is that a good thing?
It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's a different thing, and the culture will change to accommodate it.
Re: (Score:3)
such as places to go, like bars, that ban such surveillance, as an attractive feature
Re: (Score:3)
I'm willing to call "perfect infinite crowd-funded surveillance of everyone and everything" a bad thing. It's a bold move, but I stand behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's a different thing, and the culture will change to accommodate it.
Bollocks, society (culture) can always decide something is just bad. E.g. we don't let individuals own nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have the absolute natural right to videotape anything my eye can behold, period.
Just don't act surprised if you are denied entry to certain places. Then your eye cannot see the same stuff as your implanted camera.
Society will teach you a lesson the hard way, I think. It's not the other way around because society is far larger than you. Walking into a bar and screaming "I have rights!1!" is one of many excellent ways to have your @ss kicked, hard. The trick is that the people inside the bar are not la
Re: (Score:3)
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he wants.
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, the plural of MILF would actually be MILF.
Mothers....
MANIFOLD IRONY (Score:2)
Advocating privacy via Facebook published posting.
Actually, 5 Points is a good spot.
Whenever circumstance dictates that I am forced to mis-spend time in that sodden, dreary town - I am cheered by the 5 Points. Burger time!
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
a "milf" can be considered one thing though. when pronounced aloud, "milfs" is the sensible plural.
there's no reason to always be pedantic about everything.
Re:That's his right (Score:4, Funny)
I'm holding out for "milves"
Secondary acronym (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In point of fact, the plural of MILF would actually be MILF.
Mothers....
From American Pie it means Mom I'd like to fuck. She's a MILF. She's not a Mothers I'd like to fuck. How it turned into a plural is anyone's guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBN_SUfW2OM [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public. ;)
And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").
You fool! That wasn't a plural. That was a possessive.
How breasts feed is beyond me, but I understand it is interesting to watch.
Re:That's his right (Score:4, Funny)
Then that would be 'a' young MILF's breast feeding in public. :)
Unless MILF was being used as a proper noun: "And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public" is structurally equivalent to "And it's my right to film young Harry's rabbit feeding in public"
Re: (Score:2)
And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").
It might, however, be more proper to describe them in some other fashion. For example, what kind of MILFs are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Rebel soldiers are flashing tit in Seattle bars? Oh for that Google Glass.
Re:That's his right (Score:4, Funny)
And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public. ;)
And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").
Nice try. You're confusing breastfeeding with a breast that is feeding.
I bet you feel more than a little embarrassed now.
P.S. How else do you think breasts get so big. You have to feed them.
Unflattering photos (Score:3)
To be fair.. It's not hard to find unflattering photos of people with fanny packs, bluetooth earlobes or geeky google glasses.
Just saying. If they had been flattering photos, it would have to have been some kind of astroturf.
Seen this before (Score:2)
This seems like the guy is just copying McDonald's policy.
SEATTLE bar owner (Score:4, Interesting)
his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees
Re: (Score:3)
his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees
It's a mix of barflies, techno peasants from Amazon, MS and Google (among others), and hipsters. Lots of people there take pix with their cellphones ALL THE TIME, and I've never seen anyone get so much as a "talking to" about it, much less get their ass kicked.
Understandable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the desire to record 24/7 with devices like Google Glass etc, I fully understand the decision, and even support it.
It's one thing if someone hauls up a phone and snaps a couple of pictures or a short video clip, but recording video and audio constantly, that's a big Asshole act...
On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to emphasize on the meaning of "geek", I could imagine that the idea of a swarm of semiintelligent nonCCTV drones/droids would not only be appreciated in the UK. So, "do no evil".
CC.
Re: (Score:2)
>> On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?
You mean being selfish, but not knowing it ?
Re:Understandable decision (Score:5, Insightful)
On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?
There's still a big difference between recording everything locally for your own use and uploading everything to Google where it will be catalogued, stored and used to funnel ads to people.
Re: (Score:2)
No there isn't. Everything on your Google SpyGlass will be uploaded to Google.
Maybe you should try reading my posts before responding to them since, duh, that was my whole point.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Things have gone too far. Especially with regards to places like a bar, where people want to get drunk, forget their worries and have a good time. Not worry that they'll have their entire night recorded and posted on the internet, or be recognised/profiled by someone on the fly whilst in a compromising situation, via surveillance tech.
And yes, for all the bitching about privacy with regards to cookie blocking, ad-network tracking, etc. you'd think that the /. crowd would be up in arms. But i
The 5 Point (Score:5, Funny)
Glasses in real life (Score:3, Insightful)
While the bar owner in the article makes his point in an obnoxious and troll-like manner, his point stands under its own merit.
People do not like being filmed and recorded and having it posted on the internet.
Could you imagine the reaction people would have with somebody wearing these glasses at say, a beach, changing rooms, clothing stores, anything that has children ( oh wont *SOMEBODY* think of the children!) in it, movie theatres, art galleries etc etc.
If a stranger wearing Glasses walked up and started talking to me, my very first reaction would be to put my hand up in front of my face to hide from the video camera, knowing full well that everything I say and do will be recorded and possibly posted onto the internet for the world to see. It would make conversation very awkward for both of us.
Its quite a scary thought really. The tech is cool, thats not under debate. But the privacy ramifications of it are, most especially if Glasses become as ubiquitous as smartphones.
What glasses needs is a way to be useful and cool and functional *without* a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
If a stranger wearing Glasses walked up and started talking to me, my very first reaction would be to put my hand up in front of my face to hide from the video camera, knowing full well that everything I say and do will be recorded and possibly posted onto the internet for the world to see.
So when it goes out, they'll have your face shot while you recognize the item, then you putting your hands up like an idiot. I've seen lots of people interviewed on the street by someone with a larger camera, and nobody had that reaction. So why would you do that for google glass if you wouldn't for a shoulder-mounted studio camera?
Re: (Score:2)
This.
My personal policy is to never face or engage in conversation anyone wearing Google Glasses. Ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Glasses in real life (Score:5, Informative)
Too late (Score:3)
Technology already reached the point where you can be filmed or recorded without being aware of, without needing anything more advanced than a smartphone, with i.e. Koozoo [koozoo.com]. In fact, won't be surprised if there isnt a wearable webcam addon for smarphone to record an event, meeting or whatever, without going full to google glass.
And add to that that a lot of places have security cameras, a lot of them insecure enough to be in this page [hhba.info] some weeks ago.
Now planning a trip to Seattle....;-) (Score:3)
"Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators"
Well, I accept the challenge gleefully!
bullies (Score:2)
His bar, his rules (Score:2)
My patronage
Troll bar owner (Score:2)
The bar owner's a troll...however, I have to say that a bar is the LAST place I would have Glass on my head. I'm interested in it for business use, and recreational use, but come on...where do most cellphones get swiped/lost? That's right, in a bar.
That being said, if I were offered physical violence for wandering into an establishment with these on, there would be problems. A _polite_ request to remove would be sufficient.
so you are...??? (Score:2)
Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun u
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES.
Just off the top of my head, the following HAVE been know to care enough to be a real nuisance:
- paranoid employers (and prospective employers doing background checks)
- ex-spouses and estranged lovers
- cyber bullies
- blackmailers
- political opponents and activists
- paparazzi and journalists
- corporate spies
- weirdos and jerks
Two issues: restaurant/bar and public places. (Score:3)
In a restaurant, bar or other publicly accessible private establishment, the rules are made by the owner.
Having that out of the way, I'd like to comment that in Russia dashboard-mounted cameras that film 24/7 are nothing new. They are in fact so common, expat Russians are spreading that habit in near-by countries. That's how some almost all (or all?) those recent awesome meteorite videos came to be.
The stress might result in outbreaks of violence (Score:2)
I think most people here don't realize how irritating and problematic being recorded constantly during private conversations can be. From experience just with someone that had a voice recorder, knowing that the slightest thing you say could be shared out of context or edited to make you look bad and subsequently (perhaps after a couple of bad experiences) *trying* to police every word becomes stressful enough to spark real resentment and anger.
Considering the amount of pressure that a lot of people are und
Who needs an advertising budget? (Score:2)
When you can bash a household names hardware and have your eatery splashed over the interwebs?
Countermeasures (Score:5, Interesting)
Just seeing Google Glass photos get me annoyed (Score:3)
Good on the bar owner for banning these intrusive and hideous things. My patronage is assured (If I lived there)
But everyone here is going on about right to not be recorded and so on. Can you just stop going on about your rights and look at it from a decency and morality perspective? Society is perfectly capable to manage it's own etiquette. No laws or rights required.
Poking a camera in ones face unasked is plain rude. It would piss me off. It is the domain for paparazzi and they are assholes. Google glass is the equivalent of poking a camera on ones face and if I were exposed to such a twat I warn him once and slap the bloody thing off his face the second time.
The other irritating thing that also applies to smartphone users is having them checking their damn phone every few seconds during a conversation. It is rude and persons that feel the need to glue their damn screen to their eye while in a social environment are just the ultimate assholes. I tend to break off conversation when I detect those stealthy glances to their phone.
But, it won't come to that. Google glass has always been a stupid idea and has no hope in hell to ever become cool or socially accepted. Good for the bar owner to make his declaration and get a conversation around the politeness aspect of those things started.
Hipster bar owner... (Score:5, Funny)
...bans Glass before it's cool.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google Glass doesn't work that way. It it's on, it UPLOADS.
The owner is totally correct, put the devices in your pocket, please. If the owner is really serious, he's going to have to get the copper mesh upgrade when he remodels... Make the whole place a Faraday cage then no signals get out. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is something everybody needs to realize: Google Glass is an extension of Google's eyes and awareness much more than it is yours. If video surveillance is a nightmare now, it will be a soothing idea compared to everyone walking around with these things on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you have an expectation of privacy in a bar? Crikey, every bar I've been in recently is filled with folk playing with their cell phones. Any one of those could have been recording.
Two seconds on my Facebook feed is enough to see that pictures and video are taken in bars all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the law recognizes plenty of places where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like the bathroom (oops he glanced sideways at the kid at the urinal next to him - child porn!) or someone on the street glances through a window of your home. What about all the activities where the wearer might be expecting privacy, such as doing his taxes or banking online - do you really want google knowing your soc number and bank accounts too?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you can't just make up your own classifications. If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy. Zero. You might wish it to be different, but that doesn't change anything.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
If he also has a policy of not letting people run around with cameras filming staff and customers, this is nothing more then a continuation of the policy. I rather like going to PRIVATE establishments and not being filmed and recorded for all to see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me. There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
Plus, I think you need to examine what you think it "private". Would it be OK for someone you don't know and didn't ask and possibly even wasn't aware of to record you in your back yard? In your ca
Re: (Score:3)
I think you misread what I said? I was saying it's totally within the owners rights to ban google glasses at his location, the same position you have.
For you and anyone else I'll just make my point clear again for history.
PUBLIC. Roads, state controlled venues, police stopping people on the side of the road, public sidewalks. Wear your GoogleGoggles all you want. Post on Youtube what you wish. Please film dumb people doing dumb things, doubly so if they are cops or other public officials.
PRIVATE. A restaura
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.
No there used to be a huge difference. With number of camera phones and such floating around an facebook doing not just tagging but facial recognition. There is effectively not difference. Its rapidly becoming one giant surveillance cloud.
I am not sure what the answers are or how to approach the problem or even if it really is a problem; but the reality is that with ubiquity of camera devices, folks recent proclivity for uploading them to more or less publicly accessible websites and tag them, while thos
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me.
Perhaps because you didn't actually read the post before you entered rage mode and assumed (s)he was of opposing opinion?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.
As opposed to people surreptitiously taping for whatever reason and retaining it indefinitely with no notice.
But, I'm guessing that there are no cameras if he thinks this is going to be a net gain for the establishment.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.
The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.
It may be their internal policy to destroy tapes and restrict who can view them. But you as a customer have no ability to rely on that, because they didn't sign an agreement with you that that's what they do.
They might use the tapes of hidden and visible cameras and microphones for any permissible business purpose -- up to and including, employee training; performance reviews; identifying customer behaviors; publicity/public relations purposes (such as advertising).
What they will do in fact, is probably just maintain an archive of footage, to review in case of theft or damage is later discovered, or police come with a warrant to review/seize video footage.
However, that doesn't eliminate the privacy reduction at all. The bar's management can change their policy in any way they see fit at any time
Re: (Score:3)
The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.
The Bar or restaurant has a big interest in your privacy. Bar owners especially understand things about people that perhaps slashdotters and utopians do not.
These are places to unwind, these are places where people can let their hair down. Some time business is done here. So it's an honor system. You can bet that whatever the owner has on camera will stay right there. Their customers demand it.
Re: (Score:3)
That is their right to film you, you can decide not to go there. That said, most businesses don't post this on the internet. Many businesses don't keep the video very long either. Lastly, and most importantly, most of the camera systems I've installed at businesses deal with monitoring employee theft (stealing from the till).
Re: (Score:3)
Cellphones don't record & upload constantly, so that's a bit different. It's the gap between a friend bringing along his dog, versus bringing his diarrhea-prone semi-incontinent dog: one most people & places will at least tolerate, the other they'll avoid if at all possible.
Re: (Score:3)
People like you are why the United States is crumbling. Regulate this, regulate that. It's this mindset that makes it harder for small businesses to operate. All this regulation is doing is propping up big business at the expense of the little guy.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are degrees of private and public.
Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing. It just means that I should expect for other people to see me in public. But keeping records of what I'm doing in a surreptitious manner is a completely different matter.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing
Yeah, it does actually... you are in public; you have no right to not be recorded; and you have a right to operate recording equipment you own, even in public.
If the scene were a public street, without any special legal restrictions on recording, you have a right to record what you see.
However, just because a place is publicly accessible does not mean there are no controls.
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They can (1) require you agree to not bring recording devices onto the property; (2) they can search your person as you are coming in and only grant access if they find no recording equipment, (3) they can require you not operate recording devices on the property, (4) they can have people monitoring what occurs on the property, and order anyone seen holding or wearing a recording device to leave.
In the case of (1) you violate an agreement, and could in theory be sued; however, most property owners won't implement the requirements -- they don't police the entrance and force visitors to sign an actual contract before being allowed in, they may just post a sign.
In this case, a photographer/videographer still has a right to record anything and everything they see on the property, even though the sign says they can't, because they haven't actually signed anything, and a sign stating that something is banned here does not carry the force of law. Ditto for (2), if the searcher fails to find the hidden camera.
Ditto for (3). The property owner has a right to control the use of their property, but the visitors still have all rights not restricted by the law.
(4) is the condition under which photo and video recording may be restricted in public. However, if the property owner fails to detect recording they don't authorize, then it's the photographer's right to have made the recording in public
Normally there will be few legal restrictions -- there are a few such as not using a camera that can see through clothing, and not incurring civil damages such as intrusion upon seclusion (EG, a patron hiding a portable camera in a bathroom).
So there is in general a right to record anywhere in public, with a few qualifications, even in publicly accessible places, where the property owner has stated that its banned.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're suggesting is that stalking ought to be legal. It's one thing to take a couple pictures of somebody in public or to record them as part of the background and completely something else to have long systemized accounts of what people are doing via hidden cameras.
The rulings that established precedent were done during a time when it was costly to have small cameras with large amount of storage capacity and where the internet wasn't yet fast enough to allow for widespread sharing. And where one was likely to be able to see the people doing the recording.
In the past it wasn't an issue, now it is, it wasn't possible to accumulate much data from this in most cases because the processing power available to your average person was miniscule and one didn't have the ability to cross reference huge troves of data.
But, just because you're in a public place does not grant permission to take the photos of people, especially not if you're using hidden cameras or are taking photos in places where people don't expect to have their images taken.
In short that's bullshit right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Underlying the concept of stalking is the danger of physical danger at least on some level. You cannot be stalked by a toddler. Stalking and recording via google glass are two completely different things. No threat of physical violence = ok.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
No threat of physical violence = ok.
As someone who actually has a stalker at the moment, I totally disagree with that statement. While I am not overly threatened in a physical manner, that's not to say that constant emails, texts and phone calls from someone is okay. The last thing I need to be added to the list is a constant video feed of where I am, who I am with. Stalking isn't just about a physical threat - it's basically about someone harassing you and many people you know.
How would you feel if you had twenty-ish missed calls on your work phone over a weekend from one number - just so they could listen to your voicemail over and over?
How would you feel if your stalker for your home address and often drove past the house checking to see what was going on, or couriered flowers and presents on a regular basis?
How would you feel if photos were sent to your parents and friends house of random nights out with quotes of "Whore" and "Bitch" pointing to friends?
These are just some of the things that fall under stalking and let me tell you that while I appreciate that folks have rights to do what they like, I have also learned that people do deserve to have a certain right to a little privacy even out in public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who mods this shit up?
Re: (Score:2)
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They do not have unlimited right to impose rules, especially private property open to the public.
In the case of (1) you violate an agreement, and could in theory be sued; however, most property owners won't implement the requirements -- they don't police the entrance and force visitors to sign an actual contract before being allowed in, they may just post a sign.
You can always sue anything for anything. You "could" sue someone for wearing white after Labor Day, if you wanted. That doesn't mean it was in any illegal or against the law.
If you want to keep it about the law, technically one could argue that consent to enter was predicated on surrender of recording devices, if any. Failure to do so removed consent to enter and implied notice to leave. So anyone walking
Frequent occurence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.
They do not have unlimited right to impose rules, especially private property open to the public.
They have the ability to make "No Chidren" rules in restaurants. If you are told that you are not allowed to bring in a camera to surrepitiously record other patrons, see how long you'll stay in the place with your google glass.
And you really want to check on the laws in the state you will do this recording in. THere are different laws for video and audio, and given that the audio laws tend to be more strict, if you have both audio and video, the audio laws will prevail.
Say you are in California. they have two party consent. Both parties have to consent to the recording. In some other cases, Communnications in a home or business have inherent confidentiality. If you are in a crowded restaraunt, Talking loudly you don't have an expectation of privacy. But if you are trying to have some privacy, sitting off in a corner, talking privately, you do have that expectation. Under California law, it is illegal to disclose confidential information illegally obtained, but if you legally obtain the information, you can disclose it. There is also the matter if the subject being disclosed reasonably expects confidentiality.
As in so many aspects of the law, you'll note that there is a lot of wiggle room in there including some things that sound a little contradictory. So you might expect a lawsuit or criminal action by disgruntled patrons. But if the property owner states that they do not allow cameras without permission, and you are caught with one, you can expect an escort out of the restaraunt, probably to the applause of the other patrons. And if was my place, I'm certain that I would have reasonable concern that you might become violent, so your escort would be law enforcement officers. All within my rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... How would that be less dorky again?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Duct tape. It makes any pair of glasses more manly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where to start... (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't decided what I think of Google glasses, but I expect people's reactions to them to resemble a moral panic or neo-ludditism. Surreptitious recording devices are pretty old technology at this point, and they've been available to the general public for years. [youtube.com]
Now, look at the Google Glass website:
How to get one [google.com]
The picture doesn't show a surreptitious recording device, it shows a pretty obvious recording device. I would probably only wear something like this in a situation where I wanted to take video, but I suppose some folks will wear them all the time. In which case, post a sign like they have at your friendly neighborhood Swingers Club and be done with it. (Again, why get hostile about a video camera just because it can be worn on someones face. The time to get upset about ubiquitous video cameras was when they started including them in cell phones, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Or perhaps back when they started selling small video cameras to the general public, but that ship sailed an even longer time ago.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...when ocular implants that are as inconspicuous as contact lenses grant all the same functionality as these glasses do?
We'll all be wearing burqas.
Or the 'scramble suits' from 'A Scanner Darkly'.
Or stay at home and rent bots to go outside.
Re: (Score:2)
[nt]
Because someone claiming to remember seeing you doing something stupid in that bar one time is the same as being filmed, tagged and published searchable on the net?
Re: (Score:2)
That hardly matters in reality....since there may not be any upper bound on the number of people who might corroborate the claim. If ten people see somebody do something illegal, for instance, but only one of them remembers the perpetrator's face well enough to identify them, that's still more than enough information to initiate prosecution, and with an additional 9 witnesses to the event
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly can you be upset about being recorded in public? Do you understand what "public" means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One restaurant/bar I frequent has a cellphone jammer behind the bar. Your shit goes offline when you enter the premises.