Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Input Devices Technology

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass 921

Posted by timothy
from the asking-for-it dept.
First time accepted submitter Martin Blank writes "Sarah Slocum, an early adopter of Google Glass, was bar hopping with friends in San Francisco when a few people in the bar took issue with the eyewear when she was demonstrating it to another patron even though she wasn't recording. When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording. Two of them approached her, yelling and throwing a bar rag at her, and ultimately ripping the Glass from her face and running from the bar with it. She gave chase and eventually got the Glass back, but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar. This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works. Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • by Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:16AM (#46357261)

    FTA: "You [i.e. rich hipster techies] are killing this city!"

    It may have ostensibly been about privacy, but clearly it was also about resentment towards tech-industry aristos displacing everyone else,
    with their private busses and their artisanal vodkas and fancy gadgets and most of all their ability to pay obscene rents and stay in The City
    rather than commuting in from Gilroy.

  • All Positive (Score:3, Informative)

    by invid (163714) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:18AM (#46357303) Homepage
    My step-son owns Google Glass and he went with us on a cruise recently. All the reactions I saw were very positive. He allowed other to wear it and demonstrated how it worked to anyone who was interested. If anything, it added to his popularity.
  • by 50000BTU_barbecue (588132) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:19AM (#46357319) Homepage Journal
    I made a steaming upload not half an hour ago. What did I eat for supper again??
  • Re:LED (Score:5, Informative)

    by radja (58949) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:19AM (#46357321) Homepage

    just stop pointing your camera at me. I don't care if it's showing a red light or not. She was being obnoxious, and wouldn't stop when asked.

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:22AM (#46357361) Journal
    People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.
  • by rhazz (2853871) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:22AM (#46357365)
    Very much agree! Regardless of the actual acceptance levels, one incident is statistically insignificant. If you replaced the gadget in this case with a hand-held camcorder, would you suggest that camcorders are not generally accepted? Or maybe just recording devices in general are not accepted in this context.

    Also I would say that the number of Google Glass related violent incidents is over-reported compared to other tech-gadget related incidents, since this is only news because it involves Glass.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:22AM (#46357373)

    Google has a great feature where it automagically gets uploaded to your G+ account. Of course, this has to be turned on, and you have to have fast enough internet available to get it on the web in the last few seconds of operation, but in a city like San Francisco, I'd be surprised if this didn't work.

  • Re:Rejects (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:23AM (#46357389)

    Pathetic self-promoting blogger

    When I first read about this 2 days ago witnesses said it was her friend who threw the first punch after she was insulted.

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:25AM (#46357427)

    From TFA

    Slocum said she was bar hopping with friends when they ended up at the bar in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.
    Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass.
     
    That’s when she said one of the women and a man “charged” her, telling her they did not want to be filmed.

    She could have walked away, but instead she chose to up the ante by threatening the patrons with recording their objections to being filmed.
     
     

    Slocum said the woman then ran up to her, saying “you are killing the city” and tried to grab Google Glass from her. Then the man “ripped them off my face and ran out of the bar,” Slocum said.

    Now that is interesting as it may be indicative of a general anti-Google aspect in the city as much as an anti-glass thing.

  • by tompaulco (629533) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:27AM (#46357453) Homepage Journal
    Unless, of course, the only reason they were threatening you is because you were recording. Then recording is just stupid.
    Also, for telephone conversations in California are an all party consent state for recording. Everyone has to agree before you can record. Stands to reason that the same should be true for other types of recording.
  • Re:LED (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:28AM (#46357467)

    what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

    A red LED that glows when the 'glasses' are actually recording and is dark when they aren't.

    Which is easily disabled. Even laptop camera lights that claimed to be "hardware inline" has been showed to have exploits that malware can use to disable the light while recording (they won't really be as "inline" as you think because of noise issues with that, and the fact that many cameras these days double as light sensors, so they are always on). If you are the owner it is even easier, you can cover up the light, or disconnect a wire.

  • by murdocj (543661) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:39AM (#46357639)

    She told them "I'm going to start recording you" and THEN they went after her. Perhaps if she was less aggressive nothing would have gone wrong? Just a thought.

  • by scotts13 (1371443) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:48AM (#46357805)

    Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself...

    If you read the original article, a couple of women nearby rolled their eyes and covered their faces, clearly not wanting to be recorded. She said she felt "threatened" by this, and specifically TOLD them she would now be recording them. Sounds pretty antagonistic to me.

  • Re:not in use? (Score:5, Informative)

    by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:52AM (#46357881)
    And only the wearer knows if it is recording or not.

    Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar. Most bars have security cameras in them anyway and the management has full access to strategically-placed video feeds.

    But the expectation is that bar management won't go posting video of tipsy patrons behaving comically on web sites for all the world to see.

    I think people running around with video cameras on their heads that may or may not be filming everyone else is just going too far.

    Glassholes indeed.
  • Re:not in use? (Score:4, Informative)

    by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @12:06PM (#46358107)
    No light. Here - see for yourself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023... [cnet.com]

    "There is no tiny red LED light flashing when Glass is in recording mode. However, the Glass display is on when recording, and people in close proximity on the other side of the lens can see the tiny reverse image of what's on the display. But the act of recording video or picture taking may not be that obvious from a distance or to the uninitiated. It's clearly less obvious than someone pointing a phone in your direction."
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday February 27, 2014 @12:38PM (#46358587) Homepage Journal

    Out in the open in a public place, such as a sidewalk, bar, or a grocery store - there isn't an expectation of privacy.

    Bars and grocery stores are private places. You can be asked to leave for any reason which is not on your local, state, or federal list of protected reasons. For example, in California you can't tell someone to leave because they're gaying up the place, because sexual orientation is a protected attribute in California. But you can tell them to leave because they're causing you some sort of problem. A court decides whether you were justified.

    A bar is not a public place. It is not owned by the state. If the proprietor wants to record everyone coming in they have to post a notice. There is an expectation of a certain level of privacy which does not include being recorded.

    Now, malls are public places. But a bar is not. And a bar in a mall is not.

  • About housing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:16PM (#46359219)

    It's also worth noting that SF has an incredible housing shortage right now, driven by a combination of severe height and unit limitations for new construction and a seriously bonkers and labyrinthine city permiting process.

    This is why the issue stands out so much in SF as compared to other places undergoing gentrification.

  • by pepty (1976012) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:24PM (#46359327)

    Cell phones these days are cameras. Looking it one is like looking in a camera's viewfinder. If you claim it's not offensive, I'm fine with that, but then using google glass is not offensive either.

    Looking at your cellphone != Holding the camera up pointing at the room with the screen towards you. When you look at your phone, where is the lens pointed? Answer: somewhere on the ground, not too far away from your feet. You only hold it vertically up near eye level when you are using the camera.

    On a related note: how do you feel about people wearing Glass type devices in places that forbid recording (bathrooms, locker rooms, etc)?

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @01:41PM (#46359595)
    Someone in England covered a speed trap camera with a burlap bag, set it on fire, and police are saying it was likely on purpose (lol). A LOT of people in England walk around with their face obscured by a handkerchief to protest CC TV camera. A ton of those cameras have been vandalized or destroyed.
    So back in Freedom Land aka the US, you walk into a bar with a head mounted video device and OMG SHOCKING someone takes issue with it. Wow, no precedent for that! Except for...all the precedent.

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire

Working...