Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seattle Bar Owner Bans Google Glass, In Advance

timothy posted about a year ago | from the we-don't-want-your-kind dept.

Google 471

An anonymous reader writes "A popular Seattle bar and restaurant has posted a notice on its Facebook page warning patrons that wearing Google Glass will not be tolerated. 'Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators,' wrote Dave Meinert, owner of the 5 Point Cafe, perhaps in a mock aggressive tone. GeekWire reports that Meinert raised privacy concerns in an interview with a local radio station: 'People want to go there and be not known and definitely don't want to be secretly filmed or videotaped and immediately put on the Internet.' A subsequent FB post includes more Meinert musings on Google Glass: 'They are really just the new fashion accessory for the fanny pack & never removed Bluetooth headset wearing set,' along with unflattering photos of a pair of early adopters."

cancel ×

471 comments

That's his right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133007)

And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.

Re:That's his right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133019)

And it's my right to take my business elsewhere.

And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public. ;)

Re:That's his right (-1, Flamebait)

DrVxD (184537) | about a year ago | (#43133135)

And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public. ;)

And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").

Re:That's his right (5, Informative)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43133181)

In point of fact, the plural of MILF would actually be MILF.

Mothers....

MANIFOLD IRONY (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43133263)

Advocating privacy via Facebook published posting.

Actually, 5 Points is a good spot.

Whenever circumstance dictates that I am forced to mis-spend time in that sodden, dreary town - I am cheered by the 5 Points. Burger time!

Re:That's his right (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133519)

a "milf" can be considered one thing though. when pronounced aloud, "milfs" is the sensible plural.

there's no reason to always be pedantic about everything.

Re:That's his right (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43133225)

And it's my right to film young MILF's breast feeding in public. ;)

And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").

You fool! That wasn't a plural. That was a possessive.

How breasts feed is beyond me, but I understand it is interesting to watch.

Re:That's his right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133427)

It's a gerund, and the sentence makes perfect sense.

I'd argue that the apostrophe provides a better construction than the plebeian alternative with a present participle.

Re:That's his right (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | about a year ago | (#43133615)

Then that would be 'a' young MILF's breast feeding in public. :)

Re:That's his right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133243)

Then it shall be my right to point out that the original comment's author might have been trying to use an abbreviated possessive attached with an apostrophe, which is perfectly fine in English.

Re:That's his right (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43133391)

And it's my right to point out that the plural of MILF is MILFs (and not "MILF's").

It might, however, be more proper to describe them in some other fashion. For example, what kind of MILFs are they?

Air Force pounds MILF lairs with rockets1
By James Mananghaya Updated June 08, 2009 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Air Force attack planes pounded yesterday the position of Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels in Guindulungan, Maguindanao, as fighting between government troops and guerrillas entered its fourth day, a military spokesman reported.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Ponce, spokesman for the Armyâ(TM)s 6th Infantry Division, said SF 21 Marchetti planes conducted two bombing runs between 11 a.m. and 12 noon.

He said that scores of MILF rebels are believed dead because of the accuracy of the rockets fired from the Air Force planes.

Ponce said that while military aircraft staged attacks, ground forces continue to move deeper into the hideout of the MILF guerrillas after a rebel camp was overrun the other day.

He said this camp is being used by the MILF to manufacture improvised explosive devices.

âoeYung nakuha natin na mga IED (improvised explosive device) dun sa na-overran na kampo ay marami so isa yun sa mga pinaghihinalaan natin na dun sila gumagawa... tapos bababa lang e, malapit lang five kilometres magpapaputok na sila ng IED sa mga detachments o sa mga nearby (areas),â he said.

At least 30 MILF rebels were killed while five soldiers and 20 guerrillas were wounded in the latest fighting.

Since August last year, troops have been conducting pursuit operations to get MILF commander Ameril Umbra Kato in Maguindanao after he led his supporters in terrorizing civilian communities in North Cotabato.

In short, rather than MILF's or even MILFs, perhaps it should be MILF cougars or MILF housewives, etc etc.

1 Mananghaya, James. "Air Force pounds MILF lairs with rockets." http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=475584&publicationSubCategoryId=63 Retrieved Wed Jun 17 04:39:36 2009

Re:That's his right (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133231)

And it's my right to give them extra business because of it, and living in Seattle, I will.

Hidden (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133011)

Why don't they put the hardware in a pair of regular horn-rimmed glasses, so you look less of a dork wearing it?

Re:Hidden (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | about a year ago | (#43133131)

Um... How would that be less dorky again?

Re:Hidden (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133335)

Duct tape. It makes any pair of glasses more manly.

I think the word you're looking for is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133027)

Proactively.

Re:I think the word you're looking for is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133601)

preemptively

Meh (-1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year ago | (#43133037)

Just another loudmouth trying to generate publicity for his restaurant by being "controversial". Nothing to see here.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133065)

"nothing to see here"?

So Google Goggles aren't even Beta?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133073)

I for one am more likely to go there as a result.Just because most of the sheeple are willing to post their, and others, information for all the world to see, does not mean that my privacy should have to suffer.

While the tone is probably a bit off, the fact is that the lack of privacy in public has gone way overboard from just lacking a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133121)

"lack of privacy in public"

"privacy in public"

You, my good sir, are an idiot.

Re:Meh (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43133179)

There are degrees of private and public.

Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing. It just means that I should expect for other people to see me in public. But keeping records of what I'm doing in a surreptitious manner is a completely different matter.

Re:Meh (4, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43133387)

Just because I'm out in public doesn't mean that you should have the right to record everything I'm doing

Yeah, it does actually... you are in public; you have no right to not be recorded; and you have a right to operate recording equipment you own, even in public.

If the scene were a public street, without any special legal restrictions on recording, you have a right to record what you see.

However, just because a place is publicly accessible does not mean there are no controls.

On private property that the public has access to, the owner of the property can impose rules, or require you agree to certain conditions before you set foot on the property.

They can (1) require you agree to not bring recording devices onto the property; (2) they can search your person as you are coming in and only grant access if they find no recording equipment, (3) they can require you not operate recording devices on the property, (4) they can have people monitoring what occurs on the property, and order anyone seen holding or wearing a recording device to leave.

In the case of (1) you violate an agreement, and could in theory be sued; however, most property owners won't implement the requirements -- they don't police the entrance and force visitors to sign an actual contract before being allowed in, they may just post a sign.

In this case, a photographer/videographer still has a right to record anything and everything they see on the property, even though the sign says they can't, because they haven't actually signed anything, and a sign stating that something is banned here does not carry the force of law. Ditto for (2), if the searcher fails to find the hidden camera.

Ditto for (3). The property owner has a right to control the use of their property, but the visitors still have all rights not restricted by the law.

(4) is the condition under which photo and video recording may be restricted in public. However, if the property owner fails to detect recording they don't authorize, then it's the photographer's right to have made the recording in public

Normally there will be few legal restrictions -- there are a few such as not using a camera that can see through clothing, and not incurring civil damages such as intrusion upon seclusion (EG, a patron hiding a portable camera in a bathroom).

So there is in general a right to record anywhere in public, with a few qualifications, even in publicly accessible places, where the property owner has stated that its banned.

Re:Meh (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133447)

This post, my friends, epitomises everything that's wrong with the world post-Reagan.

I'm going to frame it and caption it, "Many Americans really think like this."

Thank you, dear AC. At least I can laugh while I watch your country slowly destroy itself.

Re:Meh (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43133525)

What you're suggesting is that stalking ought to be legal. It's one thing to take a couple pictures of somebody in public or to record them as part of the background and completely something else to have long systemized accounts of what people are doing via hidden cameras.

The rulings that established precedent were done during a time when it was costly to have small cameras with large amount of storage capacity and where the internet wasn't yet fast enough to allow for widespread sharing. And where one was likely to be able to see the people doing the recording.

In the past it wasn't an issue, now it is, it wasn't possible to accumulate much data from this in most cases because the processing power available to your average person was miniscule and one didn't have the ability to cross reference huge troves of data.

But, just because you're in a public place does not grant permission to take the photos of people, especially not if you're using hidden cameras or are taking photos in places where people don't expect to have their images taken.

In short that's bullshit right there.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133209)

As soon as you used the word "sheeple" you immediately lost me.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133237)

Ever notice how that word is only ever used to describe others by the sort of person it perfectly describes?

Re:Meh (4, Interesting)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year ago | (#43133109)

If he also has a policy of not letting people run around with cameras filming staff and customers, this is nothing more then a continuation of the policy. I rather like going to PRIVATE establishments and not being filmed and recorded for all to see.

Re:Meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133149)

If he also has a policy of not letting people run around with cameras filming staff and customers, this is nothing more then a continuation of the policy. I rather like going to PRIVATE establishments and not being filmed and recorded for all to see.

Nevermind the fact that the the owner likely is filming and recording everything going on in the place....Oh right you forgot about that.

Re:Meh (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43133195)

Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.

As opposed to people surreptitiously taping for whatever reason and retaining it indefinitely with no notice.

But, I'm guessing that there are no cameras if he thinks this is going to be a net gain for the establishment.

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43133625)

Citation please. If there are cameras, those are publicly visible and there's likely a notice stating that there's surveilance. The tapes themselves are likely only viewed by security and even then most of what's on there gets discarded within a couple months.

The notice that there is surveillance alone reduces expectation of privacy to zero.

It may be their internal policy to destroy tapes and restrict who can view them. But you as a customer have no ability to rely on that, because they didn't sign an agreement with you that that's what they do.

They might use the tapes of hidden and visible cameras and microphones for any permissible business purpose -- up to and including, employee training; performance reviews; identifying customer behaviors; publicity/public relations purposes (such as advertising).

What they will do in fact, is probably just maintain an archive of footage, to review in case of theft or damage is later discovered, or police come with a warrant to review/seize video footage.

However, that doesn't eliminate the privacy reduction at all. The bar's management can change their policy in any way they see fit at any time

Re:Meh (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year ago | (#43133281)

That is their right to film you, you can decide not to go there. That said, most businesses don't post this on the internet. Many businesses don't keep the video very long either. Lastly, and most importantly, most of the camera systems I've installed at businesses deal with monitoring employee theft (stealing from the till).

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#43133211)

Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me. There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.

Plus, I think you need to examine what you think it "private". Would it be OK for someone you don't know and didn't ask and possibly even wasn't aware of to record you in your back yard? In your car? At a picnic in a park? At your table in a restaurant? In a public bathroom? In your house sitting at a window?

I'm sorry, but I TOTALLY agree with the Bar owner's advance ban. It is one thing to give away your own privacy... and quite another to violate the privacy of everyone around you all the time. Times are changing for sure, but sometimes things move too quickly. People are already rude and discourteous enough with damn phones... this is going to be a thousand times worse.

Re:Meh (2)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year ago | (#43133255)

I think you misread what I said? I was saying it's totally within the owners rights to ban google glasses at his location, the same position you have.

For you and anyone else I'll just make my point clear again for history.

PUBLIC. Roads, state controlled venues, police stopping people on the side of the road, public sidewalks. Wear your GoogleGoggles all you want. Post on Youtube what you wish. Please film dumb people doing dumb things, doubly so if they are cops or other public officials.

PRIVATE. A restaurant, my business, your house, pretty much any place that an owner can call the police and have you removed for trespassing when not obeying their rules. Please follow the wishes of the owner. That said, if the owner is doing something illegal, please film dumb people doing dumb things and post them on Youtube (or at least the local police investigator).

Re:Meh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133277)

I think PlusFiveTroll was modded up because you two agree. Did you really read what he wrote?

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#43133291)

There is a *HUGE* difference between wearing a rude headset and recording/sharing/analyzing/uploading everything seen and heard possibly 100% of the time with Big Brother vs. people taking out a cell phone and snapping a few photos or video clips every now and then.

No there used to be a huge difference. With number of camera phones and such floating around an facebook doing not just tagging but facial recognition. There is effectively not difference. Its rapidly becoming one giant surveillance cloud.

I am not sure what the answers are or how to approach the problem or even if it really is a problem; but the reality is that with ubiquity of camera devices, folks recent proclivity for uploading them to more or less publicly accessible websites and tag them, while those sites also correlate across users, doing geo location matching and face recognitions; unless a facility out right bans all photography you have or will soon have no hope of privacy. This is true with or without Google getting in on the game.

Re:Meh (2)

Alef (605149) | about a year ago | (#43133305)

Why PlusFiveTroll is modded up is beyond me.

Perhaps because you didn't actually read the post before you entered rage mode and assumed (s)he was of opposing opinion?

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133261)

"more then a" - what does it mean?

Re:Meh (0)

drkim (1559875) | about a year ago | (#43133345)

Will they be banning cel phones, too? Most of them have cameras in them.

Re:Meh (2)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year ago | (#43133603)

Cellphones don't record & upload constantly, so that's a bit different. It's the gap between a friend bringing along his dog, versus bringing his diarrhea-prone semi-incontinent dog: one most people & places will at least tolerate, the other they'll avoid if at all possible.

Re:Meh (0)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43133577)

If he also has a policy of not letting people run around with cameras filming staff and customers, this is nothing more then a continuation of the policy. I rather like going to PRIVATE establishments and not being filmed and recorded for all to see.

Most bars are publicly accessible spaces; anyone off the street can come in. Which means that in general, legally; the expectation of privacy is pretty much zero. Commonly for security or other various reasons, the property owner will in fact have hidden cameras and microphones recording everything.

This also means, that while the property owner can have a policy that no cameras are allowed filming staff or customers, and can "encourage ass kicking anyone seen with Google glass" policy does not have the force of law.

In the event someone's ass gets kicked, or their Google glass damaged in any way, there are civil and criminal charges that could be filed against the bar, staff, or others involved. Even if they know cameras are banned and bring a hidden one in, anyways, the photographer has a right to their recordings.

Anyways, I rather agree that the concept of possibly being recorded so surreptitiously is a bit concerning.

Personally, I think there should be a law, that the operation of portable concealable cameras should require a permit.

A portable camera is concealable if it is either does not weigh at least 3 pounds, or is not (at least dimensions X by Y by Z or immediately recognizable as a camera) AND capable of capturing a picture or video image without generating both an audible and a visual signal of a legally specified loudness and intensity in the direction that the image was or will be captured from Or capable of recording for an extended period of time.

Portable cameras for sale, should be required to emit both signals, when the capture begins, to alert people that they are being recorded. And if there is an extended video capture, using a portable concealable device -- a visual and audible signal every 5 minutes thereafter, which must be included in the video recording.

Portable cameras available for permitted concealable use should still be required to incorporate the signals and be required to contain a GPS, and a DRM-style licensing function of the ability to perform a concealed recording activity -- with concealed recording only allowed, through the use of a government-issued permit key.

Permits requiring a fee of ~$10 per use of such a device filed in advance; requiring any non-law-enforcement use be cleared with the owner of any property on which concealable cameras would be used and state specific time and place or time and individuals to be recorded with specific GPS boundaries; possible exceptions for business owned devices, where the business can produce documentation that they are for news gathering purposes, and the operator is required to follow restrictive privacy rules.

In other words: Fine, have concealable devices, but no readily available surreptitious operation for just anyone.

Re:Meh (1)

vswee (2040690) | about a year ago | (#43133157)

I certainly wouldn't want to be secretly filmed. 'Augmented reality' is going to be the new '3D-printing' isn't it.

What is this conservatard shit? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133061)

I, for one, will welcome everyone who got "banned" by that backwards moron.
I, for one, will enable users to have *more* intimate, and *less* detached interactions in my bar, with those glasses.
I, for one, will however disallow transferring anything of the video feed outside of the premises. What happens in my bar, stays in my bar, unless *everyone* involved agrees. Analysis, yes. Transfer no. And fuck you if you even dare to say “cloud” instead of a normal word.

And stop propagating the bullshit of braindead morons. I bet he's racist too, based on the same system of 100% pure un-cut prejudices.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (2, Informative)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#43133087)

Google Glass doesn't work that way. It it's on, it UPLOADS.

The owner is totally correct, put the devices in your pocket, please. If the owner is really serious, he's going to have to get the copper mesh upgrade when he remodels... Make the whole place a Faraday cage then no signals get out. Problem solved!

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133123)

This is something everybody needs to realize: Google Glass is an extension of Google's eyes and awareness much more than it is yours. If video surveillance is a nightmare now, it will be a soothing idea compared to everyone walking around with these things on.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (1)

Albanach (527650) | about a year ago | (#43133167)

Why would you have an expectation of privacy in a bar? Crikey, every bar I've been in recently is filled with folk playing with their cell phones. Any one of those could have been recording.

Two seconds on my Facebook feed is enough to see that pictures and video are taken in bars all the time.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133381)

There is a difference between appearing on the occasional tourist photo and being under constant automatic surveillance. Expectation of privacy is a gradual thing. There are very few places and situations where I have absolutely no expectation of privacy, there are some places where I have an absolute expectation of privacy, and in most places I expect people not to record whatever I do even if they technically could.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year ago | (#43133583)

Except the law recognizes plenty of places where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like the bathroom (oops he glanced sideways at the kid at the urinal next to him - child porn!) or someone on the street glances through a window of your home. What about all the activities where the wearer might be expecting privacy, such as doing his taxes or banking online - do you really want google knowing your soc number and bank accounts too?

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133629)

Because it's a privately owned business...you will be banned from all of my restaurants hence forth Albanach. Yes we know who you are.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133143)

A Faraday cage: 1) Would be an absurdly expensive solution to a problem that doesn't really exist (i.e., a microscopic and effectively non-existent pub crawling population that would be wearing Google Glass). 2) Wouldn't ultimately prevent any data carrying device - Google Glass, Android Phone, iPhone, iPad . . . that can take photos and/or record video from eventually sending that data once you leave the Faraday cage. Chances are Glass (like Android, etc.) can simply save or cache the data it is capturing to a local flash drive, which it almost certainly has, then hold on to it until the user steps outside.

In other words, the bar owner would be pointlessly spending money to solve a non-existent "problem."

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133471)

I'm going to guess your "bar" is really a gay bath house.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133481)

You know whats less intimate? Wearing Google Glass.Why the fuck are people wearing heads up displays or using smart phones in a bar. Get over your google fanboyism.

Re:What is this conservatard shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133613)

maybe i want a recommended food pairing from someone other that the nitwits working at said establishment?

Where to start... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133081)

1. A facebook page doesn't count for public notice. Unless they post this in the bar itself, it is meaningless.
2. IANAL, but I don't think they consulted one either. Inciting people to violence seems like a bad idea.
3. People have almost surely been secretly filmed in the bar at some point. It's like this guy has never seen an episode of cheaters.
4. You can hardly do ANYTHING secretly with Google Glass on your face.
5. I don't care anyway, because every Google Glass device I've ever seen has been for the right-eyed. Plus it looks stupid.
6. In any case, his one-man crusade against Google Glass seems pretty stupid and I don't think I would want to visit his bar anyway.

Re:Where to start... (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#43133313)

This tech is a potentially a society changer. Eventually these glasses will come down in price, probably can be combined with on-the-go prescriptions, and different frames made for fashion sake. In other words, they're going to everywhere, and it will become impossible to know if and when you are being recorded /video uploaded. People are all going to have to learn to always be on their best behavior in public and private, or else they'll be risking losing their job, jail, their marital status. The future looks like it's going to be an interesting place.

Re:Where to start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133357)

This tech is a potentially a society changer. Eventually these glasses will come down in price, probably can be combined with on-the-go prescriptions, and different frames made for fashion sake. In other words, they're going to everywhere, and it will become impossible to know if and when you are being recorded /video uploaded. People are all going to have to learn to always be on their best behavior in public and private, or else they'll be risking losing their job, jail, their marital status. The future looks like it's going to be an interesting place.

A future in which people are expected to be nicer and more honest in public and in private? Oh no, what a dystopia...

Re:Where to start... (3, Insightful)

sesshomaru (173381) | about a year ago | (#43133371)

I haven't decided what I think of Google glasses, but I expect people's reactions to them to resemble a moral panic or neo-ludditism. Surreptitious recording devices are pretty old technology at this point, and they've been available to the general public for years. [youtube.com]

Now, look at the Google Glass website:

How to get one [google.com]

The picture doesn't show a surreptitious recording device, it shows a pretty obvious recording device. I would probably only wear something like this in a situation where I wanted to take video, but I suppose some folks will wear them all the time. In which case, post a sign like they have at your friendly neighborhood Swingers Club and be done with it. (Again, why get hostile about a video camera just because it can be worn on someones face. The time to get upset about ubiquitous video cameras was when they started including them in cell phones, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. Or perhaps back when they started selling small video cameras to the general public, but that ship sailed an even longer time ago.)

I'm used to being banned. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133091)

The first Slashdotter to use their "glasses" to look inside "Mr Goatse" wins a Troll of the year 2013 award!.

Unflattering photos (2)

7-Vodka (195504) | about a year ago | (#43133099)

To be fair.. It's not hard to find unflattering photos of people with fanny packs, bluetooth earlobes or geeky google glasses.
Just saying. If they had been flattering photos, it would have to have been some kind of astroturf.

Re:Unflattering photos (1)

jo suis foutu (2643647) | about a year ago | (#43133129)

It's possible that the subjects of the pictures think that they actually are flattering, because before they left their basements they looked at themselves in the mirror through their google goggles.

SEATTLE bar owner (3, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#43133139)

his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees

Re:SEATTLE bar owner (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about a year ago | (#43133161)

his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees

It's a mix of barflies, techno peasants from Amazon, MS and Google (among others), and hipsters. Lots of people there take pix with their cellphones ALL THE TIME, and I've never seen anyone get so much as a "talking to" about it, much less get their ass kicked.

Re:SEATTLE bar owner (0)

yathaid (2106468) | about a year ago | (#43133163)

his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees

Nope, that would be Redmond bar owners. The literal bridge to the eastside over here spans a yawning metaphorical cultural gap between the Eastside and Seattle.

Re:SEATTLE bar owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133185)

his clientele probably consists of Microsoft employees

Amazon, Boeing, Nintendo, Salesforce, and (surprise) Google, are among the large corporations that have offices in the greater Seattle area. IOW, don't be such a freetard.

Understandable decision (4, Insightful)

Shinobi (19308) | about a year ago | (#43133145)

Given the desire to record 24/7 with devices like Google Glass etc, I fully understand the decision, and even support it.

It's one thing if someone hauls up a phone and snaps a couple of pictures or a short video clip, but recording video and audio constantly, that's a big Asshole act...

On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

Re:Understandable decision (1)

foobsr (693224) | about a year ago | (#43133257)

On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

Not to emphasize on the meaning of "geek", I could imagine that the idea of a swarm of semiintelligent nonCCTV drones/droids would not only be appreciated in the UK. So, "do no evil".

CC.

Re:Understandable decision (1)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about a year ago | (#43133533)

>> On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

You mean being selfish, but not knowing it ?

Re:Understandable decision (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43133541)

On a related note, isn't it funny to see how some geeks who complain about having their privacy violated actually want to do the whole "record everything 24/7", not thinking about the privacy of those they meet?

There's still a big difference between recording everything locally for your own use and uploading everything to Google where it will be catalogued, stored and used to funnel ads to people.

Their right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133173)

Its a private business, they can ban whatever they like. Even blue hair.

Might not be good for business.

The 5 Point (5, Funny)

blackfeltfedora (2855471) | about a year ago | (#43133175)

Is a dive bar located 2 blocks from the Space Needle. The best thing I can say about it is that you can watch the CCTV of the laundry next door. I did like being able to enjoy a beer while keeping an eye on my stuff in the dryer.

Re:The 5 Point (1)

ahoffer0 (1372847) | about a year ago | (#43133517)

They pour strong drinks at the 5 Point. It's great dive bar, much safer than the Twilight Exit and more poorly lit than The Canterbury. And it's pretty small. I'm more than a little surprised the they made it onto Slashdot. I guess anything can happen when social media is involved.

Film At 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133203)

Hipster uses Facebook to mock new data-mining technology. Color me shocked.

So what happens (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133227)

...when ocular implants that are as inconspicuous as contact lenses grant all the same functionality as these glasses do?

Re:So what happens (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43133365)

Like most people who don't really understand technology, they figure they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

Re:So what happens (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43133403)

...when ocular implants that are as inconspicuous as contact lenses grant all the same functionality as these glasses do?

We'll all be wearing burqas.

Or the 'scramble suits' from 'A Scanner Darkly'.

Or stay at home and rent bots to go outside.

Glasses in real life (2, Insightful)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43133297)

While the bar owner in the article makes his point in an obnoxious and troll-like manner, his point stands under its own merit.

People do not like being filmed and recorded and having it posted on the internet.

Could you imagine the reaction people would have with somebody wearing these glasses at say, a beach, changing rooms, clothing stores, anything that has children ( oh wont *SOMEBODY* think of the children!) in it, movie theatres, art galleries etc etc.

If a stranger wearing Glasses walked up and started talking to me, my very first reaction would be to put my hand up in front of my face to hide from the video camera, knowing full well that everything I say and do will be recorded and possibly posted onto the internet for the world to see. It would make conversation very awkward for both of us.

Its quite a scary thought really. The tech is cool, thats not under debate. But the privacy ramifications of it are, most especially if Glasses become as ubiquitous as smartphones.

What glasses needs is a way to be useful and cool and functional *without* a camera.

Re:Glasses in real life (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133627)

What glasses needs is a way to be useful and cool and functional *without* a camera.

And smartphones. That's what smartphones need, too.

Luddite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133315)

I assume he's also banning cell phones and traditional cameras as well, right?

OT: $huttleworth on Wired.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133325)

Apologies for being off-topic, but I would like to point fellow slashdotters to wired.com, where you can see a huge congregation of $hills promoting Ubuntu and related $huttleworth contraptions:

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/ubuntu-mir/

It appears to me he now also emulates M$ in the way he does propaganda: Lots of pro-$huttleworth half-truths and semi-lies. For example:

A) Thank god there is only the Linux kernel. Yeah, in $huttleworth propaganda there is no BSD and no Solaris.

B) X.org "must go". Yeah, because a $limy bu$$ine$$man has decided so. We need to ditch a rock-solid technology because Mark $ay$.

Oh, and ban people with really good memories too (0)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43133327)

[nt]

Re:Oh, and ban people with really good memories to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133453)

Your virginity is showing.

Re:Oh, and ban people with really good memories to (1)

oldlurker (2502506) | about a year ago | (#43133461)

[nt]

Because someone claiming to remember seeing you doing something stupid in that bar one time is the same as being filmed, tagged and published searchable on the net?

alcoholics serving alcoholics since 1929 (0)

Spiked_Three (626260) | about a year ago | (#43133331)

So, I just came from the Meca in Seattle; http://mecca-cafe.com/ [mecca-cafe.com]

how is it two restaurants coined the exact same phrase "alcoholics serving alcoholics since 1929" ?

Anyhow, WTF? banning tech glasses? Why don't they ban iPhones, see how well that will do. Obvious publicity stunt, and will probably backfire.

Re:alcoholics serving alcoholics since 1929 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133591)

Yea it'll back fire. All three people in Seattle who will have flown to SF to pay $1500 after 'winning' a contest will be outraged.

Blatantly Illegal (-1, Troll)

gnupun (752725) | about a year ago | (#43133343)

Google glasses are blatantly illegal. They violate the privacy of people who did not even sign up or know about this technology. If just 1% or of the population started using glasses, that would be enough to record lives of the vast majority of the population. You can bet a secret govt agency is sponsoring Google glasses.

Re:Blatantly Illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133441)

Google glasses are blatantly illegal. They violate the privacy of people who did not even sign up or know about this technology. If just 1% or of the population started using glasses, that would be enough to record lives of the vast majority of the population. You can bet a secret govt agency is sponsoring Google glasses.

Recording people in public places isn't illegal. You don't have an expectation of privacy in a public place. And yes, the owner of the bar gets to set whatever rules he wants. I've got no problems with his decision to not allow glass, but that's a private person making a decision about the establishment he owns, not "blatantly illegal"

Re:Blatantly Illegal (1)

furbyhater (969847) | about a year ago | (#43133631)

Pepople like you just don't get it. More than Google Glasses it's people like you that are making me afraid of the future...

Too late (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43133363)

Technology already reached the point where you can be filmed or recorded without being aware of, without needing anything more advanced than a smartphone, with i.e. Koozoo [koozoo.com] . In fact, won't be surprised if there isnt a wearable webcam addon for smarphone to record an event, meeting or whatever, without going full to google glass.

And add to that that a lot of places have security cameras, a lot of them insecure enough to be in this page [hhba.info] some weeks ago.

Now planning a trip to Seattle....;-) (2)

rts008 (812749) | about a year ago | (#43133405)

"Ass kicking will be encouraged for violators"

Well, I accept the challenge gleefully!

bullies (2)

kylemonger (686302) | about a year ago | (#43133445)

Nothing new here really. Public photographers have been harassed forever; ask any practicing street photographer. Cell phone camera users would be in the same boat except that they are in the majority now. Google Glass users are in the monitory currently, so they can be bullied. Give it time.

His bar, his rules (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year ago | (#43133475)

My patronage

Troll bar owner (1)

avm (660) | about a year ago | (#43133479)

The bar owner's a troll...however, I have to say that a bar is the LAST place I would have Glass on my head. I'm interested in it for business use, and recreational use, but come on...where do most cellphones get swiped/lost? That's right, in a bar.

That being said, if I were offered physical violence for wandering into an establishment with these on, there would be problems. A _polite_ request to remove would be sufficient.

so you are...??? (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year ago | (#43133617)

So the bar owner is a troll, but you agree with him. That makes you what exactly?

Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (2, Insightful)

guitarMan666 (1388859) | about a year ago | (#43133493)

Yes, this guy has a right to ban whatever he wants in his business but that isn't really the issue. You have to speak out loud for the damn things to do anything (assuming the advertising is accurate) i.e. "Start recording" "Take a picture" so it isn't like they're active all the time. People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES. They're going to record their own lives and experiences and share those with their circles of friends (Google-related pun unintended) and if your own stupidity is captured in the background you can't say crap about it in basically any venue. Also, if the uploads work the same way that the Instant Upload feature on smartphones does then those images (and presumably videos) are private by default anyway they are not "posted for the world to see" without human intervention. Have some trust in your fellow man for Christ's sake.

There will always be creepers, but to assume that absolutely everyone is hell bent on capturing your behavior or ruining your life is paranoid and vain. If you aren't in your own home you have no expectation of privacy. It is just that damn simple. What's more is that you're getting up in arms over the inadvertent capturing of your image. I mean do you sue the evening news if they happen to catch you in frame? You people are being far too paranoid. This isn't some conspiracy to rob you of privacy. If you are inadvertently captured in someone else's video your anonymity is not gone. As technologists, we should embrace these things and do our part to help construct a new etiquette for their use rather than donning tin-foil hats and hiding from the change.

Re:Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (1)

guitarMan666 (1388859) | about a year ago | (#43133509)

"Technophiles," rather not "technologists."

Re:Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133537)

Actually it's always recording and like analysis will come in the future. 'Start recording just enables a store to flash'

Re:Don't get your tin-foil panties in a wad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133561)

People are not going to record your stupid dalliances because (and this may shock you): NO ONE CARES.

Just off the top of my head, the following HAVE been know to care enough to be a real nuisance:

- paranoid employers (and prospective employers doing background checks)
- ex-spouses and estranged lovers
- cyber bullies
- blackmailers
- political opponents and activists
- paparazzi and journalists
- corporate spies
- weirdos and jerks

Does he ban cellphones also? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133563)

Lets be realistic here he doesnt want people filming or taking pictures of his patrons and then putting them on the internet. Ok thats all well and good but what about cell phones? They take pictures and video and post them to the internet instantly just as well.

This sounds more like he is trying to get attention to his establishment than actually giving a crap about his customers. He just wanted his name out there for his message and nothing else.

if you wear that camera thingie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43133597)

you are taking a pretty big risk cuz i might just smash it off your face

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...