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.
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: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: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 car? At a picnic in a park? At your table in a restaurant? In a public bathroom? In your house sitting at a window?
I'm sorry, but I TOTALLY agree with the Bar owner's advance ban. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time. Times are changing for sure, but sometimes things move too quickly. People are already rude and discourteous enough with damn phones... this is going to be a thousand times worse.
Re:That's his right (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's my right to give them extra business because of it, and living in Seattle, I will.
Re:Meh (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 those sites also correlate across users, doing geo location matching and face recognitions; unless a facility out right bans all photography you have or will soon have no hope of privacy. This is true with or without Google getting in on the game.
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: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.)
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 unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.
There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.
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: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: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:Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (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
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:That's his right (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 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.
Re:Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
Who mods this shit up?
Re:That's his right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's his right (Score:0, Insightful)
And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.
As a 14 year old girl, I cannot wait to find some idiot wearing Google Glass in public. I plan to flash my flat chest at the first opportunity of finding such a moron turning the unwitting fool into a producer of child pornography. I'm already on the sex-offenders list for sexting my bf a harmless fun shot, so I have nothing to lose.
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:Glasses in real life (Score:2, Insightful)
Somebody who wants to make surreptitious recordings is infinitely more likely to buy surreptitious shirt-button or pen camera for $50 that can be just used as is from our chinese friends than $1500 AR glasses that are not surreptitious at all and need modifications to at least not show recording's on now.