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."
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:What is this conservatard shit? (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.
SEATTLE bar owner (Score:4, Interesting)
his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees
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:0, Interesting)
This post, my friends, epitomises everything that's wrong with the world post-Reagan.
I'm going to frame it and caption it, "Many Americans really think like this."
Thank you, dear AC. At least I can laugh while I watch your country slowly destroy itself.
Countermeasures (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.