backtop


Print 162 comment(s) - last by rechiel7890.. on Dec 4 at 3:54 PM

The establishment is concerned that Google Glass wearers will take photos or videos of other customers without consent

A Seattle restaurant has made its stance on Google Glass clear: leave them at home, or get out. 
 
Seattle-based diner Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge released it's official policy on Google Glass via Facebook yesterday. The post said a recent customer was asked to leave the restaurant when they insisted on wearing Google Glass inside. 
 
The restaurant is concerned that Google Glass wearers (also known as "glassholes" in some cases) will take photos or videos of other customers without consent. 
 
Here's Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge's entire Facebook post:

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.

The comments are a mix of supporters for the ban and those who believe Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge should get with the times.

One particular commenter said: "You lost my business and probably dozens of my friends will be boycotting your establishment! Learn how the technology works! What if I wanted to take a picture of my food.... Idiots!" 

To which Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge owner, Jason, replied: "Ohh no...You mean we wont have a flock of google glass wearing man children stinkin up the joint. Shoot!!!! What are we going to do! The Google Glassers Boycott is actually hilarious."
 
So don't think you can bully Lost Lake into allowing your tech specs inside. No means no. 
 
This isn't the first time Google Glass wasn't readily accepted in the wild. Last month, San Diego commuter Cecilia Abadie received a ticket when local police spotted her wearing her Google Glass while driving. The ticket states that her charge is "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver (Google Glass).”

Sources: Facebook, Daring Fireball



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I approve of this message
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 11:08:58 AM , Rating: 5
Firstly, don't get me wrong...I don't believe there's any way to claim that using Google Glass inside a restaurant is "illegal." And there are laws that allow photography in public places, without receiving the consent of the person in the public place.

But people go to a restaurant (or a bar, or a theater, or whatever) for an enjoyable meal/show/gathering/whatever. Realizing that someone else is recording everything you and your party says and does probably completely ruins that intent. And very likely could cause you to leave the establishment where such a thing is occurring...and possibly never want to go back.

So it's definitely in the business owners' best interests to lay down a policy - and there's nothing wrong with them doing so, no more than it is wrong for them to set a dress code. No one's going to be refused service...so long as you're not recording inside the establishment.

Personally I've never seen a Google Glass here in the upper Midwest. But if I did, I'd probably get over the techno-nerd excitement pretty fast if I was trying to have dinner with my wife someplace and realized the Google Glass guy was seeing/hearing what we were doing. And there's a reasonable chance it could make me and/or my wife uncomfortable enough to leave...and possibly not come back.




RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/27/2013 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 5
Did you read the article? They are asked to stop OR leave. So take the glasses off and finish your dinner.


RE: I approve of this message
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By twhittet on 11/27/2013 1:53:18 PM , Rating: 5
I see no reason for an apology, as they did nothing wrong. If anything I think they might pick up a few new customers, and I respect them for their choice.

In the grand scheme of things it won't matter one way or another, as long as this is an isolated incident, and as long as their food and service is good.


RE: I approve of this message
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By ClownPuncher on 11/27/2013 7:14:48 PM , Rating: 5
Good for you. You're what people refer to as a useless idiot.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By melgross on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By inteli722 on 11/27/2013 3:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's look at some Yelp reviews prior to this controversy:


None of them. This was all before the debacle.


RE: I approve of this message
By rechiel7890 on 12/4/2013 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Austin. I can see what your saying... Jacqueline`s artlclee is really cool... on saturday I got themselves a Ford after having made $8151 this-last/4 weeks and-also, $10 thousand this past month. it's certainly the most-comfortable job Ive ever done. I actually started four months/ago and right away was bringing in more than $85 per-hour. Visit This Link...bay91
quote:
bay91


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 3:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You aren't naive enough to think he would say that to real customers, do you? I hope not!
He did, on FB...DERP!


RE: I approve of this message
By Bobhacks on 11/29/2013 2:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.yelp.com/biz/lost-lake-cafe-and-lounge-...

this chick has actually checked into this place and reviewed a lot more different places. She seems normal and even she
said this place was only 2 stars.....

So there are people who didn't like this place before the whole google glasses thing.

also just read the owners comments to people who reviewed it negative. He has an attitude and sounds like a dick.


RE: I approve of this message
By Solandri on 11/27/2013 1:56:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's why I nod in approval at the first part of the story -- that they kicked out a customer that by the sound of it was behaving in a rude/creepy manner.

What baffles me is why they then had to scapegoat Google Glasses and harass customers that perfectly polite and willing to pay, but happen to be wearing/testing a Google Glass.

I think that's more an artifact of media selectivity (the gossip mill) rather than some real trend.

Restaurant kicks out patron for being rude. Everyone shrugs, no media coverage.

Restaurant kicks out patron for being rude while using Google Glass. Media has a collective orgasm, falls over itself trying to cover the story.

The restaurant is probably tickled at all the free publicity it's getting for what I agree is a stupidly selective and over-specific policy.


RE: I approve of this message
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 2:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

I think that's more an artifact of media selectivity (the gossip mill) rather than some real trend.

Restaurant kicks out patron for being rude. Everyone shrugs, no media coverage.

Restaurant kicks out patron for being rude while using Google Glass. Media has a collective orgasm, falls over itself trying to cover the story.

The restaurant is probably tickled at all the free publicity it's getting for what I agree is a stupidly selective and over-specific policy.
I would think that too, but read over their Yelp record.

3 stars, with numerous 1 or 2 star negative reviews offsetting some good reviews.

The common complaints:
+ Some of the staff are rude.
+ The service is slow.
+ Food poisoning, bland food, burnt food -- all issues with the cook staff.

Okay, so when the owner says:
quote:
Ohh no...You mean we wont have a flock of google glass wearing man children stinkin up the joint. Shoot!!!!
You might give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe his rude, childish, bully-sounding remark was just the result of frustration at the media and a long day. It'd be like if they banned all users of Android smartphones as they were "less secure and might spread malware to other customers".

But when your restaurant has a reputation for rude staff and you make rude, childish, bullying remarks about groups of your patrons (or ex-patrons, I suppose), it's a lot harder to just brush off.

Why did this happen at THIS particular diner/dive. Maybe it was chance, but I think the fact that the place has such a history of poor service reflects on why they might choose to take such a technically ignorant stand that turns away paying customers.

It might be a blessing in disguise for Glasses owners and non-Glasses owners alike -- as by the sound of the reviews, the place isn't able to treat a normal-size crowd attentively and with respect -- maybe they don't need the extra business ... or any business.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 2:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the guy with the Google Glass may have actually been trying to capture some of the staff's poor behavior. Would not be surprised if they were treating their customers this badly.

At the expense of sounding like someone in Obama administration (apologies in advance!!) it is usually people that have the most to hide that are most paranoid that it might be recorded. Seems to me with all the bad reviews this place has a lot of dirty underwear they don't want hung up on the clothesline.


RE: I approve of this message
By melgross on 11/27/2013 3:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree with aaaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathe policy. It's like taking your hat off when inside, or sunglasses. First of all it's polite. Second of all, it makes people uncomfortable. A restaurant is not a public space. It's a private one. Just like asking customers to adhere to a dress code, they can ask this too, and refuse service to anyone who doesn't comply.

I've on,y seen one person wearing this. That was the other day in the subway here in NYC. Seriously, the guy ware dorky enough without them. I think we're going to see a certain kind of individual wearing these. I don't find an actual use case for them, at least not now.

I wore glasses for almost my entire life. When I had cataract operations two years ago, I no longer needed them for anything other than reading. I honestly can't understand why someone who doesn't need glasses wanting to wear these things other than for what they think is the coolness factor, though what seems to me to be the jerkiness factor. Brinn himself looks real dorky with them on, and this guy looked 10 times worse.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 3:39:57 PM , Rating: 1
Restaurants, bars and clubs that are open to the public (some are not and thus exceptions) are public (at least in the U.S. - not sure about Canada). They are actually called "public accommodations" and governed by U.S. federal human rights acts regarding race, color, creed and physical disability. However proprietors may have rights to refuse service under specific conditions depending on the state and civil expansions to these human rights (i.e. California makes it illegal to refuse service based unconventional dress or sexual preference). Proprietors can refuse admittance, service or even eject you for any reason as log as your federal, state or civil human rights are not being violated.

These locations are also public for the purposes of still, video and audio recordings. That doesn't mean that recordings made in these places can be legally published without consent of the subjects (they can't and you can end up in legal hot water for publishing without that consent), but they are not illegal to obtain.


RE: I approve of this message
By Samus on 11/27/2013 3:16:50 PM , Rating: 4
Google Glass in public is different. In public, I think everybody is aware of the possibility of being monitored or recorded. I'm sure I've ended up in the background of thousands of photo's in my lifetime. But even then I'm usually aware of it because of a flash, a posing group, or the clear identification of a camera device.

In private, the story is different. You are correct the owners have the right to set their own privacy policy. Where you are not correct is saying it is moronic. Google Glass has the potential to completely invade private party policy. While Glass is cool and all, it's borderline illegal to use while driving and in private settings where recording devices are illegal.

Furthermore, and to the point, the fundamental issue people have with Glass isn't "ignorance of the technology" but the fact nobody but the wearer knows when its actively recording. It's a stealthy recording device with no blinking red light to let the 3rd party know its active.

Last I checked, recording somebody with audio AND video without their consent requires a warrant, and is otherwise illegal. The exception is public service workers.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By Keeir on 11/27/2013 4:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
The question is three fold I think:

1.) Should a resturant have the ability to deny service to wearing google glasses?

2.) Does denying the ability to wear google glasses make any sense in a resturant setting?

3.) Does denying the ability to wear google glasses makes any sense for this resturant?

For me, the answers are yes and yes and .... no. I am fairly sure that Google Glass wearing is not some form of absolute nessasity or an unalterable state, therefore I can't see any other answer to 1.), but yes.

I also think that most restaruants strive to have a sense of ambience. Cell phone use, even to take pictures, IMO, is already pushing an acceptable limit in many restaruants, and I have been to many that actively discourage cellphone use. The difference between Google Glasses and a completely hidden device is in the knowledge. Its one thing that someone might be recording you, another to suspect someone might, and another to stare right at the device.

Now, all this being said, there are clearly places where google glasses and other such devices wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue. This "diner" would be one of them for me.


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By ClownPuncher on 11/27/2013 7:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
Personal freedoms? A restaurant owner can kick you out for having a shitty mustache if he wanted. You don't have the "right" to do whatever you want on someone else's property.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By Keeir on 11/27/2013 9:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
If he ment it literally, he is correct.

A mustache full of shit or made of shit, would be a valid reason to deny service.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By ClownPuncher on 12/2/2013 12:25:10 PM , Rating: 4
You don't need any reason at all to deny service.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By Keeir on 11/27/2013 9:20:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But that's just me, I'm into this new concept called personal freedoms.


But your not into the position that a business owner can decide within the established legal guidelines the behaviour he will allow in his business? That is a confusing double standard. This is especially confusing if what the business is selling is an experience that includes both visual and audio.

quote:
Why would anyone WANT to? Can you help answer that. Why does everyone talk as if the sole purpose in a Google Glass wearers life is to spy on them?


And you continue to miss the point.

Its not whether your being "spied" on that is the issue.

Some people don't like being in a bus stop, because they don't like being in a bus stop. Similiar to 50% of the people playing/talking with cellphones, obviously wearable computer devices will create a feeling about a place.

I don't like to eat near cameras, cellphones, video equipment. I'd prefer not to stare at them during dinner.

Would you like to stare at big posters promoting Obamacare during dinner? Would you say its within a resturants ability or interest to prevent people from holding big political signs at thier table? Yes, this is not exactly an compariable example, but I don't understand this mentality that people should be right be able to use/wear an non-essentially electronic device where-ever and when-ever they please...

Resturants can decide if they want to allow people to wear/use Google Glasses.

People who want to wear Google Glasses at dinner can choose not to go to places that prohibit them.

People who don't want to eat around Google Glasses or -anything else- can avoid places where this is common.

Where is the loss of personal freedoms?!?


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: I approve of this message
By Keeir on 11/28/2013 12:51:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Let's be clear, this personal was harassed. And not because of any behavior on his part, but because the owner profiled him as a Google Glass "manchild stinking up" the place.

His comments are bigoted, plain and simple. It's no different then Denny's refusing to serve African Americans, or any other form of discrimination.


Interesting interpretation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/lost-lake...

In the ORIGINAL person's complaint, there is no mention discrimination, name calling, or harassment . Lets not translate the flame war occurring online as the interaction that occurred. Heck, the owner wasn't even present in the original conversation, but just a manager trying to uphold what appears to be the intention of the owner.

It seems clear to me that the discussion that was held in the restaurant was civil. Not discrimination. It also appears the owner of this and other establishments is being consistent.

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any indication that the owner "refuses" to serve anyone who owns or uses Google Glasses. Just those that refuse to take them off in his restaurants.

Here's a great quote from the owner responding to the -original- complaint

"Meinert wrote in reply: “Nick — we like you, just thought it was understood that wearing Glass inside makes others uncomfortable. We’re not anti-Glass, they are useful in all sorts of ways. We just think there should be some rules around them. Sorry for the hassle. Please respect others."

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/allyoucaneat/2013/11...

or this

"As David Meinert, the other co-owner of Lost Lake, told Forbes: "We're not trying to be jerks at all. If you walked in here with a video camera we'd ask you to stop. If you're speaking too loudly on a cellphone we'd ask you to leave. That should be obvious. With Glass, there should be etiquette around its use, and we feel that in a setting like a café or bar they should just be taken off and not used."

To be clear:

I am not against people using Google Glass around me.

I AM for Restaurant and Entertainment venues having the ability to, within reason, set limits on the behavioral standards.

Google Glass use, at this point in time, appears to be a reasonable limitation. I would not expect to be able to wear my Google Glasses to the Movies, to the Theater, to a Concert, and potentially not to certain Sports venues. I also would consider it rude to wear my Google Glasses to many restaurants. McDonalds? Sure thing, Google Glass it up. Canlis? Probably not.

This is not being a Luddite. Just because something is possible and even acceptable some of the time, does not mean it is acceptable or advisable all of the time.

P.S. Whining that you should be allowed to use your latest gadget anywhere you please sounds like a man-child to me.


RE: I approve of this message
By Scannall on 12/1/2013 9:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
In your mind then, the property owner has no rights at all. All that matters is your toy and wearing them.


RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/27/2013 11:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it is time for you to check again. The laws for video and audio recording are different. If you record a conversation of two people at a restaurant and you are not part of that conversation you are probably violating the law. You can take all the video you want but audio is a different ball of wax.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 9:47:42 AM , Rating: 1
Not really because most video includes audio. Let's put it this way. Cops are on a stakeout and are using a wired person as bait as well as recording video.

The person being recorded will most certainly NOT be signing releases on those recordings will they. Are these admissible as evidence in court? If it were not legal to record them in the first place the police would have to break the law in obtaining them. It is the same as a cop breaking into your house without a warrant to obtain evidence. The law is the law. If the police break the law to gather evidence THEY the case gets thrown out and they could very well be brought up on charges themselves. Police are not above the law.

So if you have specific examples of this law, please feel free to link it here.


RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/28/2013 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, really. Your police analogy is lacking because in such situations one of two conditions likely exist: A) there is a warrant; B) in one party consent states, 38 states, the person wearing wire has given his consent. If I am wearing the wire my consent is pretty explicit. And yes, if police illegally record audio conversations the evidence is generally thrown out.

And since you apparently lack googling skills, here you go:
Washington State's (2 party consent)Law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73....

Federal Law (1 party consent): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511

Wiki's take: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording...

Katz v. United States : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

Case law has pretty consistently found that conversations in normal speaking voices in restaurants are protected from non-consenual taping. Interestingly, 'youtube moments' are not protected. As soon as a person acts in such a manner to remove reasonable expectation of privacy, such as dancing naked atop a table while singing God Bless America at the top of her voice, it is perfectly legal to audio record that person.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/28/2013 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what the policy is in this restaurant but I have seen people kicked out of other restaurants for using smartphones. Usually it is for talking to loudly, but more than once it has been for obviously video recording patrons.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 7:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
And if that is the case, then more power to them.

However when the restaurant bans the use of glass ONLY because of the POSSIBILITY that you MIGHT record something, then they are taking it a little too far since other wearable/portable tech is perfectly capable of doing the same thing. There may not be a law for this (and god help us if a law is needed), but again the restaurant is within their rights to do this. Whether publicizing this techniophobia to (prospective) customers is a wise thing to do depends on the customers. At the end of the day this technophobia will either help or damage their business and only the buying public can determine that.


RE: I approve of this message
By Mint on 11/27/2013 11:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
It really baffles me how people are suddenly concerned about privacy in new tech products but give their cellphones a complete pass.

How is it that people are so paranoid about Kinect spying on them when their cellphone has two cameras and a GPS? How is glass any different from a cellphone?


RE: I approve of this message
By TheDoc9 on 11/27/2013 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
*A cell phone can be placed in a drawer.

*A cell phones cameras are almost never in view of anyone or anything unless the owner purposely wishes it.

*Kinect is always on, always facing your living room/family room or bedroom.

*Glass is a camera that is always pointed to the users viewpoint and can be easily used without others knowledge.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I should leave my google gear at home then huh?


RE: I approve of this message
By FaaR on 11/27/2013 12:08:12 PM , Rating: 4
You don't have your cell phone pinched over the bridge of your nose all the time while out in public, do you? ...There's the difference.

That, and the fact googlass can shoot video surrepticiously without anyone noticing you're doing it.


RE: I approve of this message
By flyingpants1 on 11/27/2013 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't have your cell phone pinched over the bridge of your nose all the time while out in public, do you?


You pretty much do, or at least pretty close to your nose.

quote:
That, and the fact googlass can shoot video surrepticiously without anyone noticing you're doing it.


And cell phones can listen in on you 24/7 no matter where you are, without anyone knowing.


RE: I approve of this message
By melgross on 11/27/2013 3:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
You are the only person with their nose on the side of their face.yes, it's rude to talk on the phone in a restaurant, but only if talking loudly. After all, people do talk in a restaurant.

But this is different. You don't wonder if someone is recording you if they happen to glance your way, but you will if they're wearing Glass. It's uncomfortable.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By jimbojimbo on 11/27/2013 1:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except you have your head pointed in their general direction the whole time.


RE: I approve of this message
By Solandri on 11/27/2013 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That, and the fact googlass can shoot video surrepticiously without anyone noticing you're doing it.

There's nothing new about that. Candid street photographers have been doing it for close to a century.

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Voyeur-Right-Digital-...

It's a fake lens with angled mirror which lets you shoot sideways from the direction you're pointing the camera.

You think Google Glass is reducing your privacy when you're out in public. What you fail to realize is you lost it a century ago when photography, audio recording, and eventually video cameras became commonplace. If the restaurant is typical, they have their own internal security camera system recording everything you do.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 2:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the restaurant is typical, they have their own internal security camera system recording everything you do.
They have PICS of the place with people in on their site FFS and someone pointed it out on FB! ;)


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 2:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I saw it and I bet they didn't get signed releases from their patrons for those pics.

There is a really big difference between capturing images and publishing them. One is legal in public places (restaurants, bars and clubs are open to the public are treated as public -- just the proprietor has the right to ask you to leave). The other can be prosecuted if the subject objects and there is no written release.


RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/28/2013 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 1
You're not a lawyer, are you?

In the US one does not need consent to publish a photo, consent MIGHT be needed if the photo is published commercially. Laws on commercial use vary by state, but it is typical that consent is needed for commercial publication. I suppose one could argue that the restaurants use of photos of patrons on their facebook page would constitute advertising and thus is commercial.

http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-pho...


RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/28/2013 12:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 6:54:49 PM , Rating: 3
That my friend is where we differ.

What you are failing to realize is that (for example) you took a picture of me, posted it to your facebook page, I requested its removal and upon your failure to comply I suffer financial or other damages (i.e I lose my job directly because of that picture), I could sue you for a compensation. You might want to ask your lawyer about it if you do not believe me. That is not just a matter of publishing a picture. It is not a matter of commercial or simple free display on your part. But rather a much wider civil litigation regarding anything you could possibly do to me that causes financial or other damage. All it takes is for me to prove my objection, your subsequent failure to comply and the damages sustained resulting from that failure to comply.

You see, when you publish something and the subject objects and it causes the subject any kind of financial or professional damage, you can very well be brought before a judge and made to pay damages because of it. Not just in the U.S., but in many other countries of the world as well.


RE: I approve of this message
By Just Tom on 11/29/2013 3:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
We can disagree, and you could certainly sue me but you'd most likely lose. If I am not using your likeness for financial benefit I am perfectly within my right to do so. I could even post embarassing or damaging photos of you and assuming A) you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and B) I did not manipulate the photo in any way I'd be safe from liability. I am really curious to know exactly what laws you think are being broken? Not that I'd ever do it but the 1st Amendment protects obnoxious behavior such as publishing embarassing photos. There is a reason sites such as peopleofwalmart.com are able to exist.

I don't know facebook's on using non-consensual photos, it might be a violation of their TOS but it is not a violation of law.

Of course, I am assuming no other laws such as harassment or stalking have been broken.


RE: I approve of this message
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
You just keep on pretending that there's no difference between someone using a camera in a public place to take snapshots and someone wearing Google Glass who may or may not be recording everything happening around them at all times without any indication as to whether or not he's doing so.

Also, again, no one's necessarily saying this is illegal. Other than the voice recording part, which very well could be illegal... The point is that it makes people uncomfortable knowing that there's someone there who *might* be recording everything they do and say, and there's no way for them to tell if they are or not. It's about those people choosing to not patronize an establishment where that activity would be condoned. Not because it's illegal, not because it's infringing anyone's rights, but because people will normally choose to *not* be someplace where they expect to be made uncomfortable.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
That my friend is simple paranoia.

I would say to those people to take off their tinfoil hats because anyone texting while holding the back of their smartphone to you can also be recording you. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is happening.

If someone was truly interested in doing this, they would be using tech that doesn't shout "Hi. Be sure to smile! I'm recording everything you are doing.". There are much less obvious ways to do that.


RE: I approve of this message
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 2:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Holy balls you're ridiculous.

And if I was walking around with a video camera on my shoulder? Does it require people to be wearing tinfoil hats to wonder whether or not they're being recorded?

There's no effective difference between Google Glass and an actual video camera for the sake of this discussion. Paranoia has nothing to do with it. You're pointing a video recording device around.


RE: I approve of this message
By Zshazz on 11/27/2013 2:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're the ridiculous one. His point stands and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Someone "texting" on their phone could also be recording you just as easily. You see that circle on the back of 95% of phones? That's a camera! It can record you without you knowing! Can't ignore facts, bud. Camera on the back of your phone! Boom! *drops mic which is also his phone, by the way*


RE: I approve of this message
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 1
Have already debunked the theory that's it's the same thing with a smartphone. Not doing it again. You fail.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have already debunked the theory that's it's the same thing with a smartphone. Not doing it again. You fail.
Except, you really didn't...


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have already debunked the theory that's it's the same thing with a smartphone.


You did? I must have missed that. Oh wait...you didn't.


RE: I approve of this message
By Zshazz on 11/27/2013 3:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
As you can already see, no one's buying it. You aren't getting out of this by saying you debunked it when you haven't.

What you really mean is, "having no way to debunk the fact that it's the same thing with the smartphone, I'll have to say nothing and continue to ignore it like I was just told I couldn't. *sad defeated face*"


RE: I approve of this message
By nikon133 on 11/27/2013 4:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this one, mate. These guys are ridiculously stubborn.

I don't know a person, nor have I seen any in public places, who was texting, browsing, ereading... while holding smartphone/tablet the same way they would be holding it for taking a photo or video. Everyone holds phone basically pointing down for camera-less tasks. Same as taking vs. reviewing photos with P&S camera.

But with glasses, it is completely different game. You never know what is wearer doing.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 9:54:42 AM , Rating: 1
And again, that is paranoia.

How do you know the glasshole would give a rat's ass about recording you? If I am on a video call with a friend how do you know I am not recording what you are doing (as if I would really care). Most glass users really don't care about you - they are in their own little world of web surfing, watching youtubes and reading goofy forums like DT.

Personally I find wearing googlass in social situations rude, but then I find using a smartphone to do the same kinds of things every bit as rude. After all if I am out with my pals, I would like to feel I am engaging enough to keep their attention.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 2:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and when I am waving around my smartphone I am also waving around a recording device. And if I want to record audio, I don't even have to take it out of my pocket.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
A video recorder does one thing and one thing only -- record videos. It would be a pretty good assumption that if someone is pointing a video camera in your direction you may well be recoded.

A smartphone, and Google Glass, does many, many different things besides recording things.

If I am holding up my smartphone in your direction, what makes you think I am not on a video call with my wife? Smartphones have front-facing camera. Likewise when I am wearing googlass what makes you think I am even looking at you when I turn my head in your direction? In either case you don't, but because googlass looks geeky, you assume I am recording you (actually it's the restaurant that is recording you - not me)


RE: I approve of this message
By Flunk on 11/27/2013 11:37:41 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, if they're waving it around recording everything.

I personally believe that it's pretty rude to wear your Google Glass when you're out to dinner with someone, or in fact out with someone else at all. It's like being with someone who has their phone one out all the time.

No I don't think this will affect their business, at least not for the foreseeable future. The number of people with Glass right now is tiny. And it doesn't help that the people that necessitated this rule were so rude. There is a reason that people are calling them Glassholes.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Their business will fall off for other things rather than the Google Glass. Seems their service is none too good and the staff/owner gets pretty rude to customers.

I agree with you that wearing Google Glass is not a cool thing to do when you are out with friends/family. Sends the message that their company is not good enough for you which is kinda rude - much the same as playing games or surfing the web on your smartphone while out with friends is not a very cool thing to do. The exception of course is if you are playing with your tech toys along with your friends (i.e. share the experience with them).

There are times when using Glass is not socially appropriate just as there are times when using your smartphone is not socially appropriate. As a technology user you need to know where to draw the line.


RE: I approve of this message
By dragonbif on 11/27/2013 11:42:50 AM , Rating: 3
Washington state has 2 laws/statutes that can be used here.
1st: A Privacy statute that forbids the recording of private conversations without the consent of all participants.
and
2nd: The filming or photography in a private establishment without prior consent of the owner.

Using a smartphone to take photos is obvious but the glass is a wink. This is a short little blurb but I am sure there is more to it. From what the owner posted it seems like they asked the guy a few times to stop so I don't think he was just taking picks of just his food. Anywho from what some of my coworkers are telling me this place is never in want of customers. Never been there myself tho...


RE: I approve of this message
By jimbojimbo on 11/27/2013 12:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Neither 1 or 2 apply here since he wasn't recording. He had the potential to but wasn't. Basically he was assumed guilty and treated as so.


RE: I approve of this message
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 1:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
...and exactly how can the observer tell whether or not a Google Glass wearer is recording?

They can't. Ergo, one has to assume that they are recording at all times.


RE: I approve of this message
By Zshazz on 11/27/2013 3:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't assume they're guilty without evidence.

How am I supposed to know you aren't hacking my bank account right now? I can't. Ergo, the FBI will be at your door in 30 minutes.


RE: I approve of this message
By Farfignewton on 11/27/2013 8:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't assume they're guilty without evidence.


As I'm not participating in a trial or involving the justice system, yes, I can. Assuming someone pointing a recording device at you is not recording is not a bet I would take.

quote:
How am I supposed to know you aren't hacking my bank account right now? I can't. Ergo, the FBI will be at your door in 30 minutes.


"We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of." - Agent K, not of the FBI, but likely correct when it comes to filing false reports.


RE: I approve of this message
By Zshazz on 11/28/2013 9:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I'm not participating in a trial or involving the justice system, yes, I can.


*the point*

-- 3 miles --

*your head*

Do you even understand why the justice system does it that way? It's not an arbitrary decision. You can't do it because it's nonsense in general. You don't assume guilt before innocence because if you do you're putting the burden of proof on the wrong party. Otherwise someone could you accuse you without limit of anything and you'd have to perform the more difficult task of proving that you aren't guilty (often, which, no proof could exist). Hence, when I said:

quote:
How am I supposed to know you aren't hacking my bank account right now? I can't. Ergo, the FBI will be at your door in 30 minutes.


I was clearly showing you the reason why such a rule must exist. You wouldn't like the logical conclusion if it were allowed.

Now, on the other hand, if you had proof that such recording was happening, you could complain. If someone said "OK, Glass, record video" in front of you or if a little red light was illuminated on the device, then you would have a legitimate reason for believing he was recording and could rightfully complain. That's proof of wrongdoing. The vague possibility for wrongdoing, however, is not sufficient reasoning.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 10:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
That my friend is just another example tinfoil-hat-mania.

Tell me why anyone would want to record video of you? Are you doing something stupid? If so I would be pointing my smartphone at you too and firing the result up to youtube.

Perhaps you robbed a bank? Or cheating on your wife/husband and got caught smooching your girlfriend?

If anybody werre really that interested in catching you, there are much more discreet ways of doing it:
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/hd-camera-glasses

Got your tinfoil hat ready? Anybody wearing glasses could be recording your every move in glorious HD with audio.


RE: I approve of this message
By 91TTZ on 11/27/2013 1:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
If I was holding a camcorder up and looked like I was going to film you, could I defend myself by saying "but the camera isn't rolling?"

Probably not. They'd tell me to put it down.


RE: I approve of this message
By Zshazz on 11/27/2013 2:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry 91TTZ, you cannot check your cellphone in here. It has a camera and I'm afraid you could be recording me. No, I don't think it's unreasonable. After all, if you were wielding a TV camera with a boom microphone and a light and interrogating everyone of my customers, I'd have to ask you to stop as well for the same reason.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 10:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
Can you surf the web with a camcorder? Make video calls with it? Post messages on DT with it? Watch a youtube video on it? Try a different example.

There is a wee bit of difference in holding a devices specifically made to record video/audio and nothing else to holding up (or wearing) a device that can do many other things - most of them having nothing to do with recording video or audio.


RE: I approve of this message
By tech4tac on 11/27/2013 1:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from the laws/statues, the restaurant can kick him out for almost any reason.

When you visit an establishment, YOU ARE A GUEST: I don't think people get that. The owner of the establishment has the right to deny service & kick you out for any reason not forbidden by discrimination laws. He can kick you out just because he thinks you're looking at him funny. Granted you are a paid guest and expect a certain level of service and respect, but you don't disrespect your host or other guest by being an idiot (especially when they've already asked you nicely).

Bravo to the restaurant for taking a stand and kicking them out. Technology does not displace politeness, kindness, and respect.


RE: I approve of this message
By Solandri on 11/27/2013 3:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you visit an establishment, YOU ARE A GUEST: I don't think people get that. The owner of the establishment has the right to deny service & kick you out for any reason not forbidden by discrimination laws. He can kick you out just because he thinks you're looking at him funny.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. What we're arguing is if this is a good reason for a restaurant to be kicking someone out. What next - forcing people to drop their cell phones off with the receptionist before being seated?
quote:
Bravo to the restaurant for taking a stand and kicking them out. Technology does not displace politeness, kindness, and respect.

Like it or not, this "problem" is only going to get worse. As computers become smaller and able to augment more facets of our everyday lives, it's inevitable that they will need to capture and monitor stuff happening around you in order to do this.

A blanket "put the technology away" is the luddite's solution. Society needs to arrive at some balance between this new technology and politeness, and incidents/discussions like this need to happen for that balance to be found. That's the way we developed "rules" about photography (with the paparazzi pushing the limits of those rules). e.g. Taking photos of strangers without their permission is not ok. Taking photos of your family/friends with unconsenting strangers in the background is ok.


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 4:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

You said it: Luddites.

I can't believe what's going on here lol. Just wow. It's like reading comments from the 20'th century...


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 4:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
It is a perfectly good reason to kick them out - if they were caught recording AND if they apply the same restrictions to cell phone users. Tossing someone out for being a social moron is not a good reason unless they are being disruptive to other patrons & staff.

Google Class does a lot more than record stuff just as a smartphone can be used for more than to record stuff. The difference is that with glass you wear the display on your head rather than in your hand.

I agree that in current society glass creeps people out when used in semi-public situations. I get that and folks who are socially responsible would refrain from doing that.

I also agree that using glass or a smartphone when you are out socializing with friends & family is socially irresponsible behavior since these people deserve your full attention.


RE: I approve of this message
By Keeir on 11/27/2013 9:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we're arguing is if this is a good reason for a restaurant to be kicking someone out.


Why does it matter?

Unless you believe that people have the right to wear google glasses whenever they please, its seems reasonably within the owner's choice to allow/disallow their use upto refusal of service (after warnings).

Whether its a "good" reason will depend entirely on the business in question and the situation.

How about a Dinner/Theatre establishment? Would it be a good reason then?

How about if the guy was acting like he was conducting interviews of other guests and staff?

I been to many "restaurants" where it appears to me that discouraging the wearing/use of Google Glasses WOULD be the smart thing.

I also been to many "restaurants" where since people feel the need to fiddle and play with cellphones etc, it wouldn't make much difference.

I've chosen to eat at other places based on electronics use going on around me. I've also chosen to eat a certain places based on my need to use a electronic device. Let the market decide based on indepenent choices where the socially acceptable limit ends up being.


RE: I approve of this message
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2013 11:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't we all basically all on camera when out and about anyways. The concept of privacy is basically dead.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 4:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. Somebody finally gets it.

You can't go anywhere without being recorded. Security cameras are clicking and whirring wherever you go. Hell the restaurant being talked about here is full of them and every patron is being recorded by the restaurant themselves.

Pull up to gas up your car. Be sure to smile.
Buying some smokes at the convenience store? Be sure to wave to the camera.
Stopping at an intersection. there is probably a camera watching you do it.
I can go on Google maps and virtually drive right up to my house (or yours ;) ).

About the only time you aren't being watched is while in your home (Unless you have an XBOX One + Kinect).

We are being watched. Privacy is a myth.


RE: I approve of this message
By 91TTZ on 11/27/2013 4:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The concept of privacy is basically dead.


I disagree with that. People who can profit from it have been trying to erode your privacy for a while, but we cannot use that fact as encouragement that our privacy should be further eroded.

What next, pointing cameras in people's windows so you can film them while they're in their own house?


RE: I approve of this message
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2013 4:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
I have some bad news, I'm pretty sure that's perfectly legal. This issue was brought up by the google street view cars. By the way I didn't say I like it.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cerin218 on 11/27/2013 12:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
What's Public about a Private business?


RE: I approve of this message
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Exactly. This is nothing the courts/justice system needs to get involved in.

The free market has a wonderful ability to seed out incompetent businesses like this one.

Okay, so you ban a patron whose behaving rudely/belligerently to other patrons with ____ digital device. Good job, that's called good customer service.

But then you go and attack polite paying customers because you hate ______ device, and then have the audacity to continue to mock them after they post an earnest message telling you that they felt offended by your policy/comments?
quote:
One particular commenter said: "You lost my business and probably dozens of my friends will be boycotting your establishment! Learn how the technology works! What if I wanted to take a picture of my food.... Idiots!"

To which Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge owner, Jason, replied: "Ohh no...You mean we wont have a flock of google glass wearing man children stinkin up the joint. Shoot!!!! What are we going to do! The Google Glassers Boycott is actually hilarious."
Okay, good work moron, you've just lost some of your paying customers.

The best irony is that he's making this policy in response to a rude/belligerent customers, but his comments to paying customers with a legitimate complaint makes this owner sound just as rude, arrogant, and belligerent as the bad diner. His comment sounds like some sort of Rich Incognito bully b-llsh-t.

I don't own Google Glasses, but I sure wouldn't want to go to a restaurant whose owner talks to customers like that.

Here's a Yelp review of the place from last month (before this controversy):
quote:
This place has gone downhilllllll!! Went twice this week and both time, the food took over an hour (@3am) and they had fights broke out. The place is right in the heart of all the bars/clubs on cap hill. I guess late night drunken fights are inevitable? Doesn't mean I have to like it. They also seem understaffed lately. Which creates antsy diners, make hungry ones angry and things just go south after. I still like their chicken and waffles and the dim lit decor. Just not sure its worth the wait anymore. There's always fish fry next door!
Okay strike 1, it sounds like you have horrible service.

Another review:
quote:
Amazing business plan and applause to the guy that thought "we can put a 24 hour cafe in a high traffic, drunk location of Capitol Hill with terrible quality and service and still make $$$$!!!"
Staff- rude
Food- less then awful
Strike two, by most of the reviews it sounds like your food is pretty bad, mediocre at best.

Now you've said this load of junk. You think its cool to make fun of customers? And by the comments it sounds like your attitude has extended to the waitstaff?

Well to the manager I say, great work bully, f--k you, that's strike three, I'm going to take my money elsewhere.

That's the great thing about the free market -- it weeds out most of the businesses who think it's okay to bully customers, offer unremarkable food, and sh-tty service.


RE: I approve of this message
By mackx on 11/27/2013 12:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
phones are ok but not glass? wtf?

what about people using glass but have prescription lenses?

"ok i'll take them off. now please read the entire menu to me including the price so i can my choice. also the same for the bill when that comes".


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 1:18:20 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly.

This was harrasment plain and simple. And this loudmouthed oaf of an owner hopefully has the shit sued out of him

The guy did nothing wrong. He was singled out, prejudised against, and harassed.


RE: I approve of this message
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 1:33:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This was harrasment plain and simple. And this loudmouthed oaf of an owner hopefully has the shit sued out of him
First off, I don't own an Android or Google Glasses, so I may not have the personal connection to feel specially offended.

That said, I disagree with your suggestion that the courts get involved.

The manager's comments -- which belittle paying customers -- seems to establish that he's a rude, arrogant bully. Based on Yelp comments PRIOR TO this controversy, the waitstaff is consistently rude to customers. Well now we see where that comes from. If the owner treats customers like an a-hole, you can bet your bottom dollar he'll hire a staff of people that are a-holes as well and will let them treat paying customers like sh-t.

I've witnessed this first-hand a number of times -- never had it had anything to do with technology (an interesting twist certainly) -- but I've been at joints where the waitstaff treated me, my friends, or my date rudely, so I complained to the manager only to be blown off and have my complaint rudely responded to. Guess what -- I never went back to any of these places. And at least two of them have since gone out of business.

The best way to deal with a rude, offensive, bully is to ignore them.

If you respond in kind, you're sinking to their level. On the flip side if you let them get you too upset, you're giving them the gratitude of seeing you squirm.

No reason to waste taxpayer money writing laws and spending court time on something that the free market already takes care of.

This place is clearly owned by a bully and treats its paying customers rudely.

That's a surefire formula to guarantee your restaurant will go under. The customer is ALWAYS right. It's one thing to make the difficult decision to exclude a customer that's behaving rudely to others.

It's quite a different thing to make cavalier comments insulting broad groups of customers and "banning them" because you're too good for you money, particularly when your restaurant already has a reputation for treating customers rudely.

Guess, what the free market will bury you.

Paying customers are banned? Oh joy, I bet they were just lining up for your service that based on Yelp commentary was rude and slow. Man they're really missing out.

Remember Reclaimer -- the free market solves at least 80-90 percent of problems Americans instinctively look to big government to solve.


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:35:00 PM , Rating: 1
Jason I don't want the "courts" to get involved either.

But the guy was plainly harassed, and if he wanted to, I wouldn't mind seeing him sue this stupid windbag lol.

quote:
The best way to deal with a rude, offensive, bully is to ignore them.


Well, there we differ. I think one should always stand up for themselves when being bullied or harassed.

quote:
Remember Reclaimer -- the free market solves at least 80-90 percent of problems Americans instinctively look to big government to solve.


I'm not calling for any Government action at all, Jason. This is me, remember? LOL.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 7:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
If the restaurant owner had slandered the person wearing the google glass, he could he would be in a heap-o-trouble.

However the law doesn't (and shouldn't) protect us from loudmouthed ignorant morons (freedom of speech). Like any right though, there can be consequences to using it inappropriately (Saying "Handle the bomb in my suitcase carefully!" at an airport can have some pretty profound consequences). Anybody can be a loudmouthed ignorant moron if they want to. It is supposed to be a free country and free countries tolerate asshats. The other side of the coin is that those loudmouthed ignorant morons have nobody but themselves to blame if it comes back and bites them in the ass.

The consequences of this restaurant owner's exercise of free speech could have consequences. And that is his problem to deal with.

As for the google glass user, if he had been asked politely to not use his device in the restaurant and the guy became obnoxious about it, the staff has the perfect right to ask him to leave just as I would expect them to handle any other unruly customer.

I don't agree with limiting their anti usage policy to google glass though. If they are going to restrict glass use in their business, they should restrict smartphones too. We won't because EVERYBODY is carrying and using one of those. They are simply singling out glass users and trying to bully them into complying. But as asshats are tolerated in North America, it is their right to do that and it is also their consequences to deal with. Businesses need to cater to theri public. If they don't, they die. Simple as that.

There are other ways to deal with that. Word of mouth boycotting the restaurant is a good place to stare - just be factual because spreading falsehoods can backfire on you hard.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 10:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

The customer will decide if this restaurant is worthy of future business based on its own merits. Really don't need even more government nannies telling us all how to live and behave. Businesses know they have to kiss a lot of butt to survive. Those that don't will not survive since they depend on those customers they piss off coming back.

At the end of the day it is the operator of a restaurant that sets behavior rules of their establishment. If those rules drive paying customers away, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they have to either change their attitude or fire staff, cut back on quality and finally close their doors. It's a tough world out there.


RE: I approve of this message
By marvdmartian on 11/27/2013 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if they have a sign up that reads "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", then they have all the legal right they need. The only exclusions being if they violate your civil rights by refusing service.....and I'm pretty sure wearing Google Glasses doesn't constitute a civil right for anyone.

This is no different than a business owner asking someone to leave for any other reason they deem necessary.


RE: I approve of this message
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/29/2013 12:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
The only sign is the one prohibiting the wearing of google glass in that restaurant.

My gripe is that they are singling out only google glass users and not users of other tech like Samsung Gear, spy glasses or smartphones -- all of which are capable of capturing video of you without you being able to prove it.

Having a sign prohibiting the use of recording devices on the premises would have made a lot more sense and brought a lot less heat down on them. But they are doing nothing but showing paranoia about a device that could record rather than being used to actually do it.


RE: I approve of this message
By 91TTZ on 11/27/2013 1:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong.

The establishment is allowed to make rules, even rules that state that you're not allowed to talk on the phone while in the restaurant. They can do the same with Google Glass.


RE: I approve of this message
By mmntech on 11/27/2013 1:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Restaurants, as with any business, are considered private property. So the laws governing public photography don't apply to them. You cannot video or photograph people without their permission on private property. Business owners are 100% within their rights to ban Google Glass from the premiss. Furthermore, businesses could be held liable should another patron complain. So it's in their best interest to do so.

The difference between Google Glass and a smartphone, is it's pretty obvious if you're taking pictures with your iPhone. Not so much with the glasses. Google Glass ups the creep factor. No wonder a lot of people feel weirded out by it.

For the record, I think it's highly rude to use a your devices in any sitdown restaurant. And I'm the type who loves me some gadgets. People need to learn to show some manners and respect.


RE: I approve of this message
By Argon18 on 11/27/2013 2:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe there's any way to claim that using Google Glass inside a restaurant is "illegal."

I don't think anyone is claiming that it's illegal. The claim is that it's obnoxious. The restaurant is private property, the owner can set whatever policy he likes. If he says patrons cannot wear google glass, then they cannot wear it. If he says patrons cannot wear blue shirts on tuesdays, they they cannot wear it. This has nothing to do with "rights".


RE: I approve of this message
By nafhan on 11/27/2013 3:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
This reminds of the big to do in my area about "kid free" restaurants: a restaurant owner should just do what makes his customers happy (within legal limits).

At the same time, this is kind of pointless. Anyone with a smartphone can easily take a video while pretending to text. The Google Glass thing just makes it more obvious that you could be getting video taped at any moment.


RE: I approve of this message
By Omega215D on 11/28/2013 9:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
The entitlement issues are astounding. Aside from whatever problems there may be with service the owners of the establishment can set the rules. If you don't like it find another place to eat. Hell, there's a McDonalds in Texas telling people to pull up their pants if they want to eat there.


RE: I approve of this message
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
It that McD's was in California, the owner of it could be sued. In California you cannot refuse service based on unconventional dressing.

quote:
California actually took the premise a few steps further in the 1960s with the passage of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The act prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations. Public accommodations include restaurants and hotels. Going beyond The Civil Rights Act of 1964, it addresses sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical conditions. It also applies to ownership that may discriminate for arbitrary reasons such as the way somebody might be dressed. In states other than California, wearing outrageous clothing to a restaurant may be an acceptable reason to be asked to leave.


RE: I approve of this message
By hpglow on 11/28/2013 9:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
A resturant is not a pubic place it is a private estabishment. They may ask you to leave at any time for any reason. Once you are asked to leave you are either tresspassing or loitering depending on your city's laws. I ran a pool hall and an arcade for 8 years and I can't count how many times someone tried to tell me I couldn't make them leave just because I didn't like their attitude (in my case they were almost always also heavily intoxicated as well.). The circumstances here are different but none the less if this resturant owner dosent want a video recording device in his resturant it is well within his legal right. Just as many art galleries will post "no photographs or video" this owner dosent want to deal with these devices in his establishment. I don't think I would agree with him but its his establishment and he gets to run it as he sees fit. Maybe he feels his plating style is propritory or he dosnt want a crappy employee making it to youtube who knows. If you don't like it just go somewhere else instead of being a whinny bitch. Seriosly noone cares if you aren't going back because you couldn't wear your google glass. My mecanic won't even let people bring a cell phone in his office. Does he care if you don't come back? Hell no he is busy all the time because he does good work and is cheap. Internet hipsters need to realize e that there is a whole world of people out there that don't read or care about their FB, twitter, or blog rants. If this resturant's food is worth a salt they will survive without glassholes coming through the doors.


RE: I approve of this message
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/28/2013 10:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
glassholes
IMO, calling them this, makes you worse than them. You don't like it? Fine, don't be a pretentious douchebag about it.


The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: The owner...
By amanojaku on 11/27/2013 12:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're saying the owner is a douchebag for being concerned about his customers' rights to privacy, safety, and general comfort?

Google Glass, and any other head-mounted camera, is easily abused. If I want to record a photo or video, you'd never know. On the other hand, a smartphone, a camera, etc... needs to be pointed at the subject, making it pretty clear that a recording is in process or just finished. Normally, you hold your smartphone at a downward angle, in your lap.

Using Google Glass at a public venue is similar to using a cell phone on an airplane, bus or train: it's not illegal, nor should it be, but it's bad etiquette. The douchebags are the ones who couldn't care less about how their actions affect others.


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The douchebags are the ones who couldn't care less about how their actions affect others.
Please do explain how wearing Google Glass is affecting others? It really isn't...

This douchebag of an owner is going to LOSE business by HIS actions...


RE: The owner...
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 1:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please do explain how wearing Google Glass is affecting others?


OK. It likely bothers most, if not all people, to feel like their every word and action is being recorded. Which is perfectly possible with someone wearing Google Glass.

Therefore, "others" can be greatly affected by someone wearing Google Glass. To the point where they want to not be paying customers of a given establishment. I would wager a massive amount of money that he's going to WIN a lot more business from people who don't want to be clandestinely recorded than he's going to lose from the few people who would be douchey enough to insist on wearing Google Glass while eating dinner.


RE: The owner...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 1:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
You have no right to not be offended in this country. You also have no right to privacy when out in public, that's an oxymoron.

If smart phones are "okay" in public places, there's no logical way you can claim Google Glass isn't.

The Technophobia I'm seeing here is alarming.


RE: The owner...
By Argon18 on 11/27/2013 2:25:56 PM , Rating: 1
"You also have no right to privacy when out in public"

I don't think this word means what you think it means. Walking down the sidewalk is "out in public". A restaurant is not a public space. It is private property. And the proprietor of the restaurant can make whatever policies he chooses. He likely also bans talking on cell phones, as most nicer restaurants do. I would not want to eat next to a google glasshole, or a loudmouth cell phone talker. This isn't technophobia, it's basic customer service.


RE: The owner...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO customer service!?

Did you READ this guys comments? He knows next to nothing about customer service. He just called an entire group of people "manchildren that stink up his place". Wtf?!

quote:
A restaurant is not a public space. It is private property.


It's private property that is open to the public. If you want to split hairs. Regardless of how you want to phrase it, it's a public place.

quote:
He likely also bans talking on cell phones


Likely? Why don't you find out and get back to me. I highly doubt it.

quote:
This isn't technophobia


Yeah it kinda is...


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 2:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It likely bothers most, if not all people, to feel like their every word and action is being recorded. Which is perfectly possible with someone wearing Google Glass.
That's an assumption, you nor I knows how any of these people feel.

quote:
I would wager a massive amount of money that he's going to WIN a lot more business from people who don't want to be clandestinely recorded than he's going to lose from the few people who would be douchey enough to insist on wearing Google Glass while eating dinner.
I don't agree, I think he will lose quite a bit of business over this.


RE: The owner...
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 2:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe you said that with a straight face, but OK. Time will tell.

Although if Mick's posts about this particular restaurant's reviews are accurate, they're probably not winning many friends regardless of the Google Glass issue.

I'd not be surprised in the slightest to see similar policies pop up at restaurants all over the country though, if Google Glass (or something similar) ever really takes off.


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 3:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't believe you said that with a straight face, but OK. Time will tell.
Sure did, because I am not some total paranoid as you seem to be...


RE: The owner...
By Argon18 on 11/27/2013 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 1
"This douchebag of an owner is going to LOSE business by HIS actions..."

Are you really that clueless? I support the owner's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including google glass douchebags. There's too much worry these days about "offending" people and nonsense like that. It's about time someone stuck to their principles, and told an obnoxious customer to STFU and get out. Bravo restaurant manager!


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 2:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you really that clueless?
Coming from you, that's hilarious...


RE: The owner...
By Argon18 on 11/28/2013 10:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take that as a yes. Lol. You can crawl back into your hole now.


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/28/2013 4:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
You can take it as you like, you are still a loser regardless.


RE: The owner...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I support the owner's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason


Good attitude!

Now when can I open my restaurant that doesn't allow blacks, Mexicans, and Muslim people? Since you seem to be taking us backwards to pre-civil rights times, you should totally be okay with this.

quote:
and told an obnoxious customer to STFU and get out.


He wasn't being obnoxious. He wasn't recording or taking pictures. He wasn't doing ANYTHING different than anyone else in there. He was harassed and discriminated against for wearing a device the owner had a personal issue with.

This is NOT okay, and I'm honestly shocked that people here are so ignorant to allow their personal feelings about Google Glass or technology in general to make them support such a clear violation.

I thought this was America? Wtf people!


RE: The owner...
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 3:25:47 PM , Rating: 1
Also, Argon talking about others being obnoxious? Pot, kettle, and all that bullshit that goes with it.


RE: The owner...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah I got that vibe too. Big time.


RE: The owner...
By Argon18 on 11/28/2013 10:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
"Now when can I open my restaurant that doesn't allow blacks, Mexicans, and Muslim people? Since you seem to be taking us backwards to pre-civil rights times, you should totally be okay with this."

Lol, what? Are you really associating google glass with racism and civil rights? LMAO how sad. A video recording device has nothing to do with the color of your skin. How confused you must be to make such an association. You should have paid more attention in civics class.

"He wasn't being obnoxious. He wasn't recording or taking pictures."

And there's the rub- you don't know that. He very well could have been recording and you'd have no way to know it. That's obnoxious.

Imagine this. You're out on a date with a girl trying to have a good time. An anonymous camera crew comes in there with video cameras and microphones and sat right next to your table recording everything you do for the entire duration of the meal. The camera crew is anonymous (you don't know their motives) and they aren't affiliated with the restaurant. You'd feel uncomfortable and you'd object to that. Any reasonable person would. Wake up and realize that google glass is the same thing.


RE: The owner...
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 7:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine this. You're out on a date with a girl trying to have a good time. An anonymous camera crew comes in there with video cameras and microphones and sat right next to your table recording everything you do for the entire duration of the meal. The camera crew is anonymous (you don't know their motives) and they aren't affiliated with the restaurant. You'd feel uncomfortable and you'd object to that. Any reasonable person would. Wake up and realize that google glass is the same thing.


Far from the same bud. You can assume that camera crews toting video cameras are there to record things. That is all that video cameras do. Record things. And further in order to do that they have to point the cameras right at you. Also... how do you know they are not affiliated with the restaurant? Are they wearing signs? Why else would a camera crew come walking into a restaurant?

Google glass is not the same thing. How can you assume a google glass user is recording you when you can do so many OTHER THINGS with it? I mean seriously? Why waste the memory recording YOU? I wouldn't bother wasting it with my smartphone why would I bother doing it with glass.

Your objections are so full of holes you could use it to drain pasta. Take off the tinfoil!


Stupid rationale
By jimbojimbo on 11/27/2013 12:56:22 PM , Rating: 1
Let's see. If someone wearing Google Glass was going to record video of you they'd have to point their head at you the entire time! That'll be quite obvious. Now that the restaurant asked the person to remove the glasses the person could start recording then place it on the table pointing to you and record inconspicuously. Thanks, restaurant owner, for allowing people to record video without getting caught now!




RE: Stupid rationale
By Motoman on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid rationale
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...and if you happen to be sitting at the table behind their date? Guess what...they've got their head pointed at you the whole time. Not to mention the fact that it's perfectly normal for someone to just casually look around the restaurant while eating anyway...therefore recording anyone and anything that's going on.
I think you're off base here Moto.

Let's go back in time to the year 1950 and put a couple on a date at a diner in the same scenario you just mentioned. Let's assume the person behind them is being a bit creepy and staring at them.

What's to stop them from remembering your GF's face later when he's wrestling with Jimmy?

And let's be real. If you're an adult and you're doing this it problem means you're a creep.

But really it's not that deviant even. Most of us did it in our younger years. Can you honestly claim that back in grade school you never remembered the face of some hottie in your class when you were taking care of business? I agree it's a bit weirder as an adult as most of us have learned to find relationships to satisfy our sexual needs. But voyeurism is a pretty normal part of sexuality, particularly in the teenage years.

Heck, you guys on DT have no problem hooting and hollering every time I post a picture of some model showing off a tech product. The context is slightly different, but it's driven by the same voyeuristic instinct to see an attractive human and keep that mental picture -- or a physical one -- as a means of fantasizing.

And it's an element of sexuality that by no means needs Google Glasses to be accomplished. It's pretty easy to remember an attractive person who you were sitting across from all night ... glasses or not.

Google's video recording/lifebits capability might be scary from a government spying perspective, or because it might allow security breaches or intrusive marketing, but in terms of being rude or perverse it's really no different than human memory, if a bit better.

It's storing images of stuff? Guess what, your brain can do that for most of us.

Now if you're saying "Glasses take a photo" and are hovering around a certain female in a clear harassing/intimidating way, that's another story.

But to say just sitting there innocently is an offense, is simply ignorant. I see this time and time again when I hear complaints or statements about technology -- people fail to take the time to seriously consider how the technology compares and contrasts to pre-digital alternatives.

As a result in some cases like this controversies that are just silly arise, while in other cases serious problems are overlooked.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point.

Without Google Glass, if you want to be a creep (i.e. stare luridly at someone, or take pictures/video with a cellphone), you're going to be easily identified as being a creep.

With Google Glass, you can be a creep completely surreptitiously - there's no way for others around you to know whether you're recording everything or not. And then potentially have an HD recording of someone to watch while "taking care of business."

And I'm not even saying that it's illegal to do so - as far as I can tell, it's not. Although it may be illegal to record the private voice conversations around you.

And it's not about people thinking they have a "right" not to be offended. No one's saying they do.

The fundamental issue is that someone wearing Google Glass in a setting such as a restaurant could pretty reasonably be expected to make people uncomfortable. Because of the fact that the other patrons have no way of knowing whether or not their every action and word is being recorded. And while they don't have a "right" to not be upset by the Google Glass wearer, they also don't have any requirement to sit there and possibly be recorded.

They do have the right to complain to management about the fact that they're uncomfortable - for any reason. They also have the right to get up and leave. As well as having the right to never come back, especially if it turns out that management expressly condones the use of Google Glass at their establishment.

There's nothing that's going to cause people to continue to patronize such an establishment - and it has nothing to do with "rights." It has to do with not being someplace where you're going to be creeped out.

And I'm more than willing to wager that there's vastly more people on this planet who would choose to not be in an establishment where Google Glass is condoned vs. the extreme minority of people who would be such irrepressible d-bags that they would refuse to put their Google Glass away during dinner.

The math therefore winds up pretty simple...condone the use of Google Glass at your restaurant and lose LOTS of money. Or ban their use and lose very little to no money.

All of this being irregardless of whether or not the owner/staff of a given restaurant are already d-bags themselves.


RE: Stupid rationale
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 2:17:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
With Google Glass, you can be a creep completely surreptitiously - there's no way for others around you to know whether you're recording everything or not. And then potentially have an HD recording of someone to watch while "taking care of business."

And I'm not even saying that it's illegal to do so - as far as I can tell, it's not. Although it may be illegal to record the private voice conversations around you.

And it's not about people thinking they have a "right" not to be offended. No one's saying they do.
Sure.

And I think you're missing the point.

Yes some people may fail to realize this was ALREADY occurring (thanks to the wonderful things called "the brain" and "memory") and may buy into the alarmism about Google glasses. Yes people might be offended. But to propogate such nonsense is silly.

I doubt the majority of patrons were offended or fearful of the Google Glasses owner. Why would they be?

Look here's the bottom line. I get if your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/life-partner/s-x sl@ve whatever is an attractive individual and you don't want people to have an image of them. That's basic human nature -- protect what's yours.

But if you're afraid of people seeing them FULLY CLOTHED in a public location and saving an image of them FULLY CLOTHED -- regardless of whether that image is mental, digital, whatever -- cover them up with a headscarf. Or keep them locked up indoors in your s-x dunge0n.

The world is a scary, offensive place, sure. But it's easy to save an "HD" mental image of someone and recall it at will later for many people -- without Google Glasses.

If you're too stupid to realize that, then your stupidity is interfering with fellow diners, who in all likelihood are not recording your GF.

For an owner to support such complaints is pure technical ignorance and alarmism. It'd be like if an iPhone owner complained about another diner's Android phone, suggesting Androids are more prone to malware, and the owner Googled a couple alarmist articles and decided the iPhone owner is right and banned all Android phone users from dining there.

It'd be fine to ban all Android users, I feel from a LEGAL perspective. But from a BUSINESS perspective, banning customers based on technical ignorance is a moronic move.

And in this case what ads insult to injury is that the restaurant already has a rather checker reputation.

When you own a restaurant where 30-40 percent of your customers on Yelp have complained of rude, slow service and you respond to such an incident by posting a childish grade-school sort of insult against a group of people, you're helping people make the easy decision to not do business with you.

You want to go to a place with slow service, bad food, and ... as our discussion points out... a technically ignorant owernship (the least important issue)


RE: Stupid rationale
By Motoman on 11/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid rationale
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 2:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, you've gone off the deep end. My apologies for believing it might be possible to have a fruitful discussion with you.
How so.

Please explain to me exactly how Google Glasses threatens your privacy in any significant degree more than the human memory.

First -- let me say I'm not meaning this to be hurtful or offensive to you as I typically agree with the opinions you voice on DT.

That said, in this case I feel you posted a rambling argument trying to villainize Google, Google Glasses, and/or Google device owners using an argument that was fundamentally flawed in its failure to recognize the identical threats posed by non-digital equivalents that nearly every one of us possess at all times -- our memory.

I don't blame you -- I'm guessing you're just repeating the same alarmism about Google Glasses and privacy you read elsewhere. Well as the post above explains, though, it's pretty much tripe.

Now, I thoroughly debunked your argument, and all you have to say is I've "gone off the deep end"?

I think offering a rational -- clear -- technically sound argument is far from crazy. It's quite the opposite, in fact -- common sense.

And until you offer a detailed, rational as to exactly why Glasses are a threat to privacy, that's not some regurgitated wandering, luddite argument from questionabl sources, I rest my case regardless of whatever sort of insulting banter you choose to engage in.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Motoman on 11/27/2013 3:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't debunk anything.

Also, please point out to me at what point I said that this was a "threat to privacy." I said no such thing.

What I have said - and all that I have said - is that it's a reasonable expectation that people could become uncomfortable with someone in the restaurant with them wearing a device that may or may not be recording everything they do and say, while they themselves have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't.

It can make people uncomfortable. Period. That's it. It's not a "violation of your privacy," local laws and ordinances notwithstanding. You're in a public place, and as such you can get photographed or video taped.

But because of the fact that you can see the person wearing it, it can make you feel creeped out. To the point where you don't want to be there anymore. And may not want to ever go back.

This is the entirety of what I have said. It has nothing to do with being a luddite - as has been expressed before, the same issue would happen if someone was in the restaurant with a video camera on their shoulder. Or wearing a GoPro. Or...whatever.

It's not about rights. It's not about a fear of technology. It's about people choosing to not be someplace where they feel uncomfortable. And once again, I'm prefectly willing to wager that there are vastly more people on this planet who would feel uncomfortable enough with someone wearing a Google Glass, or a similar device, in a restaurant with them to no longer bring their business to that establishment. Certainly vastly more than there would be people who would insist on wearing their Google Glass, or a similar device, while eating dinner.

Detailed. Rational. Not wanering, not luddite, and not insulting. Vastly different from you, who have just called me stupid, insulting, and a luddite. Because of your ridiculous rejection of a thoroughly obvious and rational assertion, to which you respond with insults, I declare you to have gone off the deep end.

Good day.


RE: Stupid rationale
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 3:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Detailed. Rational. Not wanering, not luddite, and not insulting. Vastly different from you, who have just called me stupid, insulting, and a luddite. Because of your ridiculous rejection of a thoroughly obvious and rational assertion, to which you respond with insults, I declare you to have gone off the deep end.
Wrong. I said the criticisms you've read and based your opinion on (I've seen plenty of them) are luddite. I'm not criticizing you I'm criticizing the misinformation you're repeating.
quote:
What I have said - and all that I have said - is that it's a reasonable expectation that people could become uncomfortable with someone in the restaurant with them wearing a device that may or may not be recording everything they do and say, while they themselves have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't.

It can make people uncomfortable. Period. That's it. It's not a "violation of your privacy," local laws and ordinances notwithstanding. You're in a public place, and as such you can get photographed or video taped.
Yes and as I pointed out that discomfort is silly and luddite -- likely based on misinformation they've read.

I walk into every single restaurant I've ever been into with a superb video and audio recording system. Heck, it has a search function that rivals anything Google Glasses can deliver. It's called my eyes, ears, and brain. Hey, some of us even have 20/20 vision and can record you in HD (gasp!).

I guess you have to ban me because I have eyes and a brain and record mentally what you or your GF look like in HD.

Your argument is silliness.

Few people are offended or afraid of Google Glasses unless they've been the victim of misinformation (as I feel you have).

The fact of the matter is that Google Glasses are interesting, but every single one of us arguably has a better system of audio/visual storage and lifelogging between our ears.

QED.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 4:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But because of the fact that you can see the person wearing it, it can make you feel creeped out. To the point where you don't want to be there anymore. And may not want to ever go back.


But they aren't creeped out about the restaurants own video surveillance system running 24/7? Riiight, okay.

Moto let me ask you something, and I mean this in all seriousness, but are you per chance stricken with Agoraphobia?

I just can't relate to whatever it is you're shoveling here. I'm trying, but I just can't.


RE: Stupid rationale
By FlyBri on 11/27/2013 2:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman is hitting the nail right on the head. Jason, sorry to say it, but you are missing the point. For one, your example (1950's couple) has a huge hole in it that Motoman pointed out -- in 1950 you wouldn't have a recorded video or pictures that can be shared with the entire world. And if it does get put up on the internet, that probably means you never be able to be fully removed from the internet.

Giving a weak example doesn't help your argument (and many times, it actually just hurts it). I'm totally willing to hear an argument from the other side of things, if the argument is well thought out and based on common sense. Unfortunately, I have yet to see one in this thread yet.

Of course smartphones can record video, audio, and pictures as well, but let's just use common sense here -- if you're going to use it to capture anything, it really is much harder to do it as inconspicuously compared to using Google Glass -- that's just a common sense fact. The fact that Google Glass can capture video, audio, etc. pretty inconspicuously is the main reason why many people would feel uncomfortable around someone wearing it in a setting such as a restaurant.

Now as to how the restaurant owners continued to fire back online and their supposedly rude service in general, well, that's a different story. But a restaurant which kindly asks a patron to remove and put away his/her Google Glass to me is not at any fault -- legally or common sense-wise.

People who are clamoring about their "rights" in situations like these remind me of the same people who deny store employees access to check their shopping bag and receipt on the way out (like Best Buy for example) because it is their "right" to refuse to do so. Yes, legally once the transaction is complete you own the product and do not have to show the employee your receipt or bag. But the store is just trying to help prevent losses, and if it takes an extra two seconds of your time, why can't you just do it? If you have to wait awhile in a line of people getting their bags checked, then I can understand if you just want to leave. But if you refuse just so you can claim it's your "right" to do so, you're a douche. There's no invasion of privacy in doing so -- common sense just says to go ahead and let them check. Most of the people who complain in this way also are typically people who don't own their own business, don't have other similar large responsibilities, and/or haven't been on the other side of things.


RE: Stupid rationale
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2013 3:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Motoman is hitting the nail right on the head. Jason, sorry to say it, but you are missing the point. For one, your example (1950's couple) has a huge hole in it that Motoman pointed out -- in 1950 you wouldn't have a recorded video or pictures that can be shared with the entire world. And if it does get put up on the internet, that probably means you never be able to be fully removed from the internet.
Huh?

Is this person a private investigator? Why are they sharing pictures with you to "the entire world".

C'mon man.

Unless your girlfriend looks like Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn (to continue 50s/60s theme) had a baby, I'm guessing not that many people care to look at pictures of you and your girlfriend eating dinner. No offense, but that's reality.

The only cases I could see people being interested were:
1.) If you were cheating on your wife/husband/etc. and someone was investigating you.
2.) This person was a "lone wolf" stalker.
3.) You or your significant other is a celebrity.
4.) You or your significant other is stupendously attractive -- a perfect 10.

1 & 3 are basically you inviting attention on yourself with your behavior. 2 and 4 are certainly problematic, but Google Glasses are NOT A PREREQUISITE to stalk and gawk. This indeed happened in the 1950s.

Basically your entire premise revolves around scenarios where either the behavior in question could be done with or without Glasses, or scenarios where the subject is inviting the attention to some degree.
quote:
Now as to how the restaurant owners continued to fire back online and their supposedly rude service in general, well, that's a different story. But a restaurant which kindly asks a patron to remove and put away his/her Google Glass to me is not at any fault -- legally or common sense-wise.
....
People who are clamoring about their "rights" in situations like these remind me of the same people who deny store employees access to check their shopping bag and receipt on the way out (like Best Buy for example) because it is their "right" to refuse to do so. Yes, legally once the transaction is complete you own the product and do not have to show the employee your receipt or bag.
Hey, hey. Careful. I said MULTIPLE times I thought the banned patrons had no legal grounds to sue and should not waste taxpayer money suing.

If you read all of my comments (or even a few of them) you would see that I don't agree anyone's "rights" were infringed upon. I think that's a silly claim. What I am saying is that this is a bad for business policy based on technical ignorance. While they're within their rights, it's another nail in the coffin of a business that already (from prior reviews) had a reputation for poor service, rude staff, and cleanness/sanitation issues (i.e. food poisoning).

We agree on one point at least -- however smart or dumb the ban is the restaurant's owner didn't do anything illegal. No one's rights were violated.

You don't have a "right" to good service. You have the FREEDOM to take your business elsewhere and let places that don't give you proper service quietly die. I've seen it happen multiple times.

That's the joy of the free market.

Remember --"the customer is always right". I sure wouldn't visit an establishment which had so many negative Yelp reviews long before this incident, and then drew that kind of response from the staff.

As one commenter pointed out, the reviews were so bad on Yelp that one might think that the Google Glasses owner was trying to tape the poor service and rude waitstaff behavior -- a la Mystery Diners.

Many of the comments also seem to suggest the kitchen is somewhat messy, and at least one person complained of food poisoning. So news or health department investigators might also use glasses to investigate whether the restaurant was cooking in an unsanitary way.

Kind of shifts the scenario eh?

Maybe the ban has less to do with protecting customers and more to do with the restaurant looking to nix undercover video investigators who are looking to expose a diner with a checkered history of reviews.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless your girlfriend looks like Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn (to continue 50s/60s theme) had a baby, I'm guessing not that many people care to look at pictures of you and your girlfriend eating dinner. No offense, but that's reality.


Is it just me, or does Moto and a few others here make it seem like the world is out to get them, spy on them, or make them uncomfortable?

Seriously people don't buy Google Glass so they can make a bee line to the nearest restaurant and make your life a living hell. You aren't THAT interesting, sorry to say.

This is just ridiculous.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Cheesew1z69 on 11/27/2013 3:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it just me, or does Moto and a few others here make it seem like the world is out to get them, spy on them, or make them uncomfortable?
Most certainly not just you.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 10:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
No it's not just you.

I wonder what nasty little secrets Moto has that he doesn't want others to know? Only extreme forms of paranoia manifest with such vigorous objections.

It's a rhetorical question Moto! We really don't what to know your secrets! Really we don't!


RE: Stupid rationale
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2013 4:37:15 PM , Rating: 2
And if you don't want to be the center of attention where ever you go its your fault for overchicking.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Reclaimer77 on 11/27/2013 3:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow people get away with it without Google Glass Moto...

http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/12/15/upskirt-photo...

Seriously get a clue. You're position is indefensible and there's no logic behind it. Just raw emotions you can't back up.


RE: Stupid rationale
By Jeffk464 on 11/27/2013 4:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it may be illegal to record the private voice conversations around you.


I think the only legality of this is what is and is not admissible in court as evidence. I don't think you can be arrested for leaving your phone on voice record while at Chili's.


You can make this same argument with smartphones...
By quiksilvr on 11/27/2013 11:08:56 AM , Rating: 1
You can just pretend you're texting and take a picture of someone and yammer away on your cellphone. How is glass different?




By Monkey's Uncle on 11/27/2013 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
Smartphones can also record video in glorious HD as well.

Technophobia will become rampant.

Frankly is someone is getting off on me eating a cheeseburger or drinking a pint, more power to them.


By Motoman on 11/27/2013 12:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
You might think you're a super-spy sneaking a photo on your phone, but it's pretty clear what you're doing if someone happens to see you doing it. Waving your phone around the room while taking video or photos will be pretty GD obvious.

No one's going to worry about you pulling your phone out to take a picture of your food and post it to your blog, like a doosh. That's normal. Pointing it around the restaurant to record isn't normal, and will draw attention.

Wearing Google Glass means you could be recording everything, all the time, with no outward indication that you're doing it. There's no way for even a careful observer to figure out whether or not you're recording. It's completely surreptitious. And people who wouldn't mind being in the background photo of your hot date from your first dinner together are quite likely to take offense to having their entire meal recorded instead.


By Monkey's Uncle on 11/28/2013 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Again, there's that "could be". I could be using my smartphone to crack into your bank account too. Does that mean I am actually doing it?

Next time you are in a restaurant, be sure to look around at all the video cameras recording every move you make. Be surer to ask the manager to see their video monitors. Try asking the manager to erase the footage in which you appear. Just try it.


good
By BAFrayd on 11/27/2013 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 3
It's a great policy.
Next time I'm around Lost Lake I'm going in for a bite and thanking them.




meh...
By macca007 on 11/28/2013 11:19:59 PM , Rating: 1
Will be funny in a decade or two when google glass or whatever the tech is called becomes available as a contact lens, Who is going to know!
Seriously unless you are a spy or CIA agent who gives a shit about you being in a photo. If it is being used to make money or it is manipulated to degrade you in some way then you can make a case in court and sue the shit out of them, Otherwise go take a chill pill for paranoia. I used to worry about all this stuff but now middle aged and I couldn't give 2 shits what I am in. You are already on security camera and who knows who is looking at it, For all you know they probably fapping off to your wife in that low cut half see through dress on the security tape. You better go and sue the establishment.




RE: meh...
By PillowCannon on 12/4/2013 10:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're middle aged, so your life is over already.

Think about those who still have a fight in them, want to change the system. Improve democracy and fight corruption.

NSA is already using web history porn found to blackmail any political opponents and journalist.

Democracy ends once the powerful have all the data of the powerless.


By Cerin218 on 11/27/2013 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Does the world really NEED a picture of your food? And somehow WE'RE the idiots?

I miss the days before technology could bring me the useless minutia of other peoples lives. Like I care that you are pleased it's sunny today. Or that you have just entered a restaurant. Or that you had en English muffin for breakfast. Or how your children dressed today. Or that Khol's is having a sale and you got the cutest scarf. Your importance is in your head. The rest of us could care less.

Except for the guy that put a sensor on his chair that would tweet his friends every time he farted. That is a responsible use of technology. Also the dogs tags that would randomly tweet you thoughts from your dog during the day.




10 years from now
By jimbojimbo on 11/27/2013 1:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
All restaurants will have signs that say "No androids allowed!" meaning not the phone OS but robots. Robots could be recording everything so they can't possibly be allowed!




Just wait
By momorere on 11/27/2013 2:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
All of this will go away silently once Apple "invents" the wearable computer genre. It will quickly become the new "norm"




By 91TTZ on 11/27/2013 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think the crux of the matter is this question: What is a reasonable expectation of privacy? What information should you know about a person?

Without the aid of computers there's always a chance that you'll know someone or know about their history from word of mouth. But with computers and facial recognition software you're able to quickly access information that has been previously compiled and stored in a database.

If we've learning anything about computers it's this: computers allow us to do what we previously could do, but faster. If a private investigator could look through public records to find info about a person a computer could look through online databases in milliseconds and provide the results to you in a convenient, easy-to use interface.

Imagine in the future wearing the latest model of Google Glass and using facial recognition to identify and provide information about people you see. You might see a guy when you're out and it identifies him and brings up his Facebook profile, mugshots from a previous arrest, court dockets, links to people that have mentioned his name online, his family tree and pages about his family that mention where they live, how much they paid for their house and how much taxes they paid, thereby giving you an idea of their wealth. It would be a stalker's and gold digger's dream. They could scan the guys at the club and try hooking the richest one.

How long before social media sites keep a running record of a person's location? Right now your location is tagged in pictures you post to Facebook, but how long before Facebook is constantly running in the background, taking periodic snapshots of your location and then publishing the information on their site? It may seem creepy now but as a company they have a profit motive to innovate and since their business is your personal business, the obvious way to innovate would be to publish increasing amounts of your information.

We have to draw the line somewhere.




what?
By p05esto on 11/27/2013 7:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you should be able to wear those retarded galsses anywhere... you should get a ticket for being a dork if you do.




Cameras...?
By delphinus100 on 11/27/2013 9:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The establishment is concerned that Google Glass wearers will take photos or videos of other customers without consent


I understand their concern, but where were they when cellphones with cameras were invented...?




tip of the iceberg
By Strunf on 11/28/2013 8:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
Google Glass is just the tip of the iceberg there's plenty of sickos out there taking pictures and filming without being noticed. The law should really forbid even the act of taking the picture of someone without their consent, or at least give the right to the person that is the picture to have the picture deleted.

Just another question to those saying that it doesn't bother them, if that's cool with you I guess it's also cool with you that they film you on the swimming pool, and your girlfriend, and your kids...

Quite frankly if I was to chose between 2 equal restaurants and one forbid Google Glass while other doesn't I would go to the one that forbids Google Glass every single time.




Prescription eye wear
By blakeatwork on 11/28/2013 3:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
What would the case to remove a patron, who has Google glass embedded in their prescription eye wear? I'd love to be able to pop my existing lenses into a Glass (or derivative product) set of frames.




Public places....
By croc on 11/28/2013 11:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
A park is a public place, try taking a video of other people in a park. Particularly if some of the 'people' are young children...

A beach is a public place, try taking a video there... But don't even THINK about pointing anywhere NEAR young children...

A roadway is a public place, try videoing a police person doing their duty...

A restaurant is NOT a public place, the owner or his authorized representative gets to call the shots. This particular place chooses to not allow videoing. Fair enough, his property, his rules. As long as the person who pulls out any form of video equipment suffers the same fate, its all good. Even if other types of video equipment ARE allowed to be used, its STILL all good, because it is NOT a public place, capisci?




By PillowCannon on 12/4/2013 10:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Welcome to modern civilization!

It's about time we got ubiquitous video archival technology.

This will change the way crime is fought in the 21st century.

Imagine once this technology gets cheap and small enough that everyone has it either worn invisibly or implanted.

All your faulty wetware memories can be compensated since any conversations you've had between other parties is on record. Any event that happened to you will never be forgotten. No one can lie and then change their word after.

And imagine how many criminals will be caught once every appearance within visible range of any other person is recorded and recognized with computer recognition.

No criminal, once on file can ever approach anyone, let alone harm them since all video feeds are constantly analyzed by computer vision for matching criminal profiles so the authorities can be immediately alerted with GPS coordinates.

No more criminals!

Anyone who's NOT wearing one is likely a criminal or has criminal intent.




Good!
By mgilbert on 11/27/13, Rating: -1
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki