Beta
×

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!

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service — and No Google Glass, Either

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the keep-it-in-your-pants dept.

Privacy 845

Seattle diners who want to take their food-tweeting pictures with Google glass were already facing a preemptively hostile environment; now (in a different restaurant), a diner's been asked to remove his Google Glass headset, or leave. He chose to leave. Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants where things like Glass are most likely to appear.

cancel ×

845 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just imagine (0)

ozduo (2043408) | about 10 months ago | (#45563737)

the tin foil this place must use!

Re:Just imagine (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563817)

Maybe, but the business has the full right to refuse service and ask him to leave for any reason they want. He may not agree with it, but that's too bad. In turn he can exercise his right to dine elsewhere that allows it and to leave a bad review of the place that asked him to leave for wearing it.

Re:Just imagine (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563833)

Frankly, if you use Google Glass, you're a god damn moron. I wouldn't want you there, either.

Re:Just imagine (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563901)

The guy who complained is a complete douche who demanded that the manager get fired. He's also #GlassExplorer [twitter.com] ! And look at his haircut. The self-entitled rich tech geek boy force is strong in this one. His poor rights were violated and he's going to complain to everybody.

Re:Just imagine (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563951)

From his twitter: "I'm gay, into technology & have an amazing partner"

Wow! What a fag.

Re:Just imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563995)

What an AIDS-having fuckfag. He thinks a penis fits into an anus, why doesn't he eat his food by shoving it into his ass? Oh yeah, that's not natural...

Re:Just imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564159)

Why doesn't this fabulous poofter just say he has a boyfriend? If you're into poop and diseases, don't hide it by saying "partner". I thought the fag class was proud of its malformed brain and diseased inclinations? Just say "boyfriend" you faggot, you're not starting a business, you're into gross things with shit.

Re:Just imagine (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 10 months ago | (#45563891)

Maybe the restaurant just didn't want to offend all the other guests by letting in a one-man camera crew.

Opposite (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45564121)

Why are you talking about tinfoil when there is an obvious recording device present? Tinfoil hattery is involved only if he thought there was a recording device and there was none...

Reacting to something real is as far from "tinfoiling" as you can get.

Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...

OPPA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563739)

Butsecks style!

What does the headline try to tell me? (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45563751)

So if I have no shirt or no shoes, then I get neither service nor Google Glass? Or is it that I won't get service without Google Glass, just as I won't without shirt or shoes?

OK, the summary clears it up: None of the possible interpretations of the title is correct.

Of course the title is not the one from the submission, which actually was descriptive and correct. So in future don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit — if they do, they make things worse!

Re:What does the headline try to tell me? (1)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45563859)

"don't complain when Slashdot editors don't edit"

You must be new. It's Timothy, wo you have to look at the positive - he spelled all those big words correctly.

Re: What does the headline try to tell me? (1)

imthesponge (621107) | about 10 months ago | (#45563873)

Being correct is less important than being enticing.

Re:What does the headline try to tell me? (5, Informative)

blue trane (110704) | about 10 months ago | (#45564173)

You're missing the most obvious interpretation of the title: "No" is repeated for linguistic, and phonetic effect. It has different meanings in the different contexts. In the first phrase, "No shirt, No shoes, No service", the first two "No"s can be interpreted as being in an ellided "if" clause: "If you have no shirt or no shoes, then you will get no service." The third "No" is in a consequent clause, and means that you will receive no service.

In "No Google Glass, Either", the "No" can be interpreted as a standard proscription against what follows. It is like "No running", "No swimming", "No smoking", etc.

To recap: "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is a common phrase which uses the word "no". "No Google Glass, either" is referencing another common syntactical pattern using the word "no". The title was constructed, I think, with the idea of mentioning a lot of "no"s, which are used in different contexts. The point is that businesses like to tell you "no" a lot.

Privacy please (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563781)

I think they did the right thing.

It's annoying as hell when somebody is filming or 'could film' covertly in a restaurant, bar or similar place.

just leave (0, Troll)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45563787)

The owner is a fool if he thinks he can ban cameras, or that people are "in private" when they are out eating in a restaurant. Google glass is at least visible, many people in the future will simply put the camera in a piece of jewelry or a pen just because it looks less geeky.

Just leave and give the place a bad review.

Re:just leave (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563795)

He can do what he wants, and in this case, I support him.

Re:just leave (4, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | about 10 months ago | (#45563831)

Human psychology doesn't work that way. Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret, and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.

Also, while the pictures themselves can be used nefariously if they are taken secretly, the process of picture-taking cannot be used for intimidation or to intentionally be rude.

Re:just leave (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45564055)

Someone who takes pictures using a hidden camera knows that he's doing it in secret,

My point is that most cameras will become so small that they are hidden and most picture taking will be "secret"; trying to ban that is pointless.

and cannot delude himself into thinking that since people see him taking pictures and don't immediately run away, they must be okay with it.

Commercial photographers may ask for business reasons, and other people may ask out of politeness, but your permission is not usually required to take your picture. The limits that we have are on publishing pictures, in the sense that if you are unfairly harmed, you may be able to recover damages.

Re:just leave (5, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#45563841)

Just leave and give the place a bad review.

I'd expect far more "bad reviews" if they allowed Google Glass at the objection of patrons.

Re:just leave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563939)

You think that the people that own Google Glass are not more likely to make reviews online?

Re:just leave (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 10 months ago | (#45563963)

Of course people who love to not be recorded while eating will read those "bad reviews" as good reviews ...

Re:just leave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563987)

Who gives a shit about those assholes?
As long as the regular people keep showing up it's fine.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564053)

You think that the people that own Google Glass are not more likely to make reviews online?

The core issue here is about not acting like a jerk in public places where the rights
and sensibilities of others should be respected whether there are specific rules in place or not.

If you are unable to see this, you should get help.

Re:just leave (2, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 10 months ago | (#45564127)

Why? Do you complain about phones, security cameras, or hidden surveillance? You know what separates Google Glass from all of these? You know exactly when it's on an recording.

Also is that where society is heading now, that you leave bad reviews at a restaurant that offers patrons freedoms? I for one look forward to 5 star NSA sponsored restaurants.

Re:just leave (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#45564151)

Yes actually many people here do.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563843)

The owner can do anything he wants concerning google glass. This is not a case of discrimination. If I knew that I was being videoed, I would leave. Keep you stupid google glass out of people's face. You are nothing more than a selfish paparazzi.

Re:just leave (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 10 months ago | (#45564049)

You do know that every patron in almost EVERY place you eat is ALREADY being videoed, right? Surveillance is ubiquitous and NOW you want to complain because individuals wish to engage in something business has been doing for literally decades?

Re:just leave (4, Insightful)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 10 months ago | (#45564077)

The difference is the surveillance video doesn't get posted online. (usually)

Re:just leave (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about 10 months ago | (#45564185)

You do know that every patron in almost EVERY place you eat is ALREADY being videoed, right? Surveillance is ubiquitous and NOW you want to complain because individuals wish to engage in something business has been doing for literally decades?

Wow. It must suck to live where you live.

Re:just leave (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 10 months ago | (#45563853)

just leave, I agree with that part.

the rest of us in the restaurant don't want to take part in your spying for google.

cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.

star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563915)

There is no anti surveillance crowd. Not your society to boss.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564087)

There is no anti surveillance crowd. Not your society to boss.

Your rights end where the rights of others begin.

It's not about "bossing", you pathetic dipshit, it is about RESPECTING OTHERS'
RIGHTS.

Re:just leave (1, Flamebait)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45563979)

star-trek-visor-guys are not what we want. and we - the anti-surveillance crowd - are not shy about telling you that this is NOT ok in our society.

Don't delude yourself. Surveillance is what governments do. You're not "the anti-surveillance crowd", you're the "anti-photography crowd". And photography in public places is perfectly OK in our society, and that includes restaurants.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/ [photograph...acrime.com]

cameras are, like the article says, are easy to see if they are pointed at me.

How would you know? Google Glass is deliberately obvious, but you wouldn't recognize most cameras as cameras, let alone notice that they are pointed at you.

Restaurants are not public spaces (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45564071)

I am a part time photographer. I am fully aware and agree that photography should be allowed any time in a public space.

But I also know that restaurants are not public spaces. They are private and different rules apply. If they tell you you cannot photograph there, they have that right and personally I agree that they should be able to dictate that.

Re:just leave (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 10 months ago | (#45564019)

Good luck with that. You lost this fight decades ago when CCTV was installed publicly and privately.

Re:just leave (4, Interesting)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45563881)

The review could only legally iterate that they were given a choice to leave or remove the device. If you were like me, and liked the fact that people cannot be looking through google glass (and all of the endless possibilities that will eventually be implemented into these devices, like facial recognition, etc...) at me while I try to eat, and/or be social and enjoy public atmosphere, then such a review turns me onto the place.

Re:just leave (0)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45563905)

The review could only legally iterate that they were given a choice to leave or remove the device

"Didn't like the ambience. Felt the staff was rude."

and liked the fact that people cannot be looking through google glass

They can and they will. You (and the owner) are deluding themselves that they cannot.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563943)

They won't, because they're kicked out as soon as they're found, and Google Glass isn't exactly hard to see.

Re:just leave (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 10 months ago | (#45564007)

Google Glass is merely the consumer facing aspect of wearable computing. $1500 would go a LONG way in hiding several cameras on my person, including head, in such a way that you would never know. Anyone really into wearables can go much farther than google glass pretty trivially.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564097)

Google Glass isn't hard to see because it is intended to be seen. Many wearable cameras are already invisible because people like small, unobtrusive cameras that they don't have to fiddle with constantly.

It is pointless to try to ban wearable cameras, and banning Google Glass just accelerates the process of cameras becoming totally invisible.

Re:just leave (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45564085)

They can and they will. You (and the owner) are deluding themselves that they cannot.

I understand your point, and I agree. However I think you misunderstood me, because that's not what I'm talking about. I know that if someone wants to, they can shoot me in the face with a gun. However, I do like the fact that many places do not allow guns. It stops people from walking around with AR15s like it's a war-zone. I do know that some people conceal a handgun regardless.

So it's not that I think that 'rules are always followed and so these rules are grrrrate!', but rather I like that the rule exists at all. Much like the (ridiculous) headline, a lot of people don't like barefooted people or people with no shirts on in places where they want to dine.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564135)

They can and they will. You (and the owner) are deluding themselves that they cannot.

Perhaps you are from some country other than the US and you
believe that you'd have rights in the US which would not exist
under the law.

In the US, any private business is within its legal rights to ask
a guest to leave, and if that guest does not comply the police
are empowered under the law to arrest that person.

Use Google Glass against the wishes of the establishment, and the
manager may ask you to quit using the Google Glass or leave. Do you
really think you are going to continue defying the wishes of the management
of a private establishment ? You'd better have your attorney's cell phone
number memorized, so you can call him from jail.

/

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563897)

What do you mean the future? You can get pen cameras on ebay for under 30$

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563985)

Why should anyone operating a place of business tolerate the presence of someone opening advertising that they have a blatant disregard for others? Of course that is a two way street, customers should not do business with anyone who puts them on camera, tracks their purchases, etc as they are endangering their customers.

BTW, you're wrong, that is a PRIVATE business, restaurants are often the clandestine meeting places of many people for many reasons. It has been common practice for thousands of years that guests of restaurants, bars, etc imposing themselves on other customers uninvited are requested to leave and/or escorted out. Modern electronics and the ban of smoking has by-passed many of the natural protections of hiding in plain sight. People should have an expectation of limited privacy in places other then their homes even if protected by the natural limits on human senses and memory plus cognitive awareness.

Re:just leave (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45564115)

restaurants are often the clandestine meeting places of many people for many reasons

Various Italian restaurants in NY and NJ specialize in that.

Re:just leave (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45564145)

it would be funny to see what happens when a Glass wearer sits down in a mob-run Italian restaurant and accidentally looks somewhere he should not...

Re:just leave (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 10 months ago | (#45563997)

Google glass is at least visible, many people in the future will simply put the camera in a piece of jewelry or a pen just because it looks less geeky.

Especially if the business in question caters to hipsters and half the customers are wearing those godawful chunky plastic BCGs. You can hide a lot of recording and processing power in those things these days ...

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564001)

It's not about being photographed, it's about knowing that you're being photographed. A visible camera makes people uncomfortable, they won't enjoy their dinner as much, won't stay for the high-profit deserts and coffee, won't tip as much, and maybe not go back to the same place. A hidden camera has no immediate impact, only later and only if the operator starts publishing photos and videos.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564023)

Show up at my place with one of those idiot devices, and you'll need a proctologist to remove it from you.

Re:just leave (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45564125)

Bah. If a proctologist can remove it, you obviously haven't expressed your opinion forcefully enough.

Re:just leave (2)

laetus (45131) | about 10 months ago | (#45564043)

Just leave? Love the quote about Google Glass voyeurs: "already facing a preemptively hostile environment"

Some people think secretly filming people is a pre-emptively hostile act.

How much of an ass are you? (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45564047)

He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.

But ignore that. It's absurd to say you should leave if asked to remove a camera from your head. It's not important to your functioning as a human. It's not going to kill you to fail to live-stream every bite of waffle you take.

I have nothing against glass wearers personally but if I went out to dine with someone who was asked to take off Glass and opted to leave rather than remove it, I'd tell him he could go on his own personal snipe hunt for a restaurant that loved Glass users; I plan to stay and eat.

Similarly if someone asked me to remove a hat I would also remove it. Their restaurant, their rules and as long as they are near reasonable I'd rather eat.

Re:How much of an ass are you? (-1, Troll)

stenvar (2789879) | about 10 months ago | (#45564165)

He's not banning cameras, he's banning an always-on head mounted camera that you cannot tell when it's recording.

Is he going to ban wrist watches? Pens? Jewelry? Phones? Belt buckles? Tablets? Eyeglasses? Because they all have the same property: they might contain a camera and might be recording.

It's absurd to say you should leave if asked to remove a camera from your head.

It is not absurd to leave if someone asks me to remove random bits of technology from my body because they don't understand the technology.

if I went out to dine with someone

The probability of you and me having dinner is zero, so don't worry about it. And have fun at "The bar run by alcoholics for alcoholics", because that's the motto of that fine establishing. Just your place, I'm sure.

Re:just leave (1)

Exitar (809068) | about 10 months ago | (#45564075)

Personally I'd give it a good review.

Re:just leave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564089)

Or right inside their skulls. It will be fun times once artificial eyes become sufficiently advanced and widespread.

Re:just leave (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#45564119)

It is private, it is a private business, owned by a person. There are different rules.

Hell some of them do not even allow you in the door without a suit on, and you definitely are not allowed to secretly record things on private property.

Re:just leave (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#45564143)

Why would this douchenozzle come back with a hidden camera? The whole point is to have people staring at him.

Re:just leave (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 10 months ago | (#45564147)

why would I want to give them a bad review. We need more restaurants taking a stand. When I eat at a restaurant dick wads that think privacy is null and void can eat shit and die.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563789)

Because Google glasses are extremely annoying and only worn by assholes.

Nobody likes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563801)

Glassholes.

Sounds like a huge douche (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563803)

The glasshole, that is.

and a lot more infrared light! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563821)

Try and record that, Google-glassers

Easy answer (4, Interesting)

MrLogic17 (233498) | about 10 months ago | (#45563823)

There's an easy fix to all of this- make a version of Google glass without a camera. Make a read-only device.
I want the Internet instantly accessible. That's far less intimidating that saying I want to upload everything you say and do around me.

Re:Easy answer (1)

Wanderer1 (47145) | about 10 months ago | (#45564033)

Augmented reality applications would be disabled by the lack of a camera. Is that worth it?

Re:Easy answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564079)

Has anyone yet demonstrated an augmented reality application that would particularly be missed?

Re:Easy answer (2)

BronsCon (927697) | about 10 months ago | (#45564131)

This. Or, allow businesses to register their locations as "Glass-Free" and if Glass detects that it is at one of those locations (via GPS) it disables the camera automatically, with a physical (and visible) shutter. Audio recording should be allowed, as one may legitimately wish to record their own notes. Likewise, if Glass can't get a GPS signal, it should default to this state.

There should, of course, be an override, because not every location lacking a GPS signal is a location where Glass should not be allowed and there may be cases where the owner of an establishment wishes to allow Glass, even if they generally do not. The override should trigger a very conspicuous indicator light and notify Google so that they may send an SMS to the owner of the establishment, informing them that a Glass user has activated their override and may be filming or photographing in their establishment. At that point, the owner of the establishment would have an easy way to identify this person (the indicator light) and ask them to leave. Glass could also quarantine any photos, audio (which would not be quarantined normally -- another incentive to not enable the override if you are legitimately using the device to record your personal notes), or video taken during an override for a period of 24 hours, giving the owner of an establishment the opportunity to review the material and either allow it or disallow it; disallowed material would then be deleted.

There, problem solved.

Re:Easy answer (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45564161)

make a version of Google glass without a camera

And people are supposed to waste their time worrying about which version you're wearing and how to distinguish between them? Google glass is an idiotic idea, and anyone wearing one deserves to be thrown out of a restaurant and generally ridiculed wherever they go, unless it's Halloween.

Not a Glass fan but (3, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | about 10 months ago | (#45563837)

So, I'm not a fan of Google Glass, and I doubt I'd ever get one.

With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.

They could be checking their email, posting to some social site, reading the news, playing a game - or taking pictures or film clips where I appear. I have no way to know. By comparison, Google Glass is much more obvious about it, with flashing lights and stuff to warn people you're taking a picture.

If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.

Re:Not a Glass fan but (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563993)

If these people really are concerned about their customers privacy, they'd forbid smartphones, not eyewear.

Do we seriously have to explain the difference between "having glasses that can take pictures" and "holding a phone in your face to take a picture"...?

Re:Not a Glass fan but (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 months ago | (#45564063)

With that said, banning Glass while allowing phones is ridiculous. Every day on my commute, I've got dozens of people around me holding their phones to their faces. At a lunch restaurant I see the same thing. At dinner, in bars, on the street - you've got people fiddling with their phones everywhere.

People who fiddle with their phones aren't filming you. That's why you tolerate them. Now, if all the cellphone users had it up and filming around them all the time, how do you think you'd feel?

I have a disabled friend who's missing all four limbs. Curious people constantly film him when he walks on his prosthetics with their cellphones - yes, obnoxious tactless jerks raise their cellphones and start filming right in his face, as if he was a spectacle, just like that. He told me it's been years since he hates going out because of this. That's how you'll feel too when every other schmuck in the street wears the goddamn Google glasses.

Re:Not a Glass fan but (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#45564179)

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html [tweaktown.com]

Meinert says "it's all about privacy" and his business partner, Jason Lajeunesse, told Forbes "It's one thing to take out a camera and capture a moment, people see you doing it, they have a chance to step out if the want to. With Glass people don't have a chance to do that. We want our customers to feel comfortable, not like they're being watched."

Not unreasonable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563855)

Someone wearing google glass is basically pointing a camcorder at everything in front of him.
I'd ask him to leave out of concern of the privacy of other guests.

I'm baffled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563875)

I just fail to see the appeal of being constantly connected like that. Why not just take them off? Why not just enjoy the meal, and the company of whomever you may be dining with? Unless this is a purely status-symbol thing, which still boggles my mind.

Different restaurant, same owner (3, Informative)

unitron (5733) | about 10 months ago | (#45563929)

Since the link to the article seems slashdotted, here's one to another about the same incident.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/34196/google-glass-owner-asked-to-take-his-glass-off-at-seattle-diner/index.html [tweaktown.com]

Same guy owns both places.

Oh, and the glasshole customer tried to make trouble for the waitress who was just implementing the policy established by the owner.

This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (5, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#45563931)

"I would love an explanation, apology, clarification," Starr wrote on Facebook,

What more explanation do you need? Why do you believe you're owed an apology? What needs to be clarified?

"and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination."

Who the hell is this guy to think he knows best as to how the owner should handle their staff? I hope the staff member gets a bonus and a promotion for puncturing this self-inflated cock-womble's ego.

What a git.

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45563957)

Really does sound like an upcoming episode of Portlandia, doesn't it?

Re:This guy sounds like a whiny bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564167)

Starr comes off as a self-entitled prick. He will probably regret his remarks in ten years after he's matured some.

Amazing (0)

LocalH (28506) | about 10 months ago | (#45563945)

So many Luddites on a technology-centered site.

Re:Amazing (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45564081)

Apparently your definition of Luddite includes objecting to idiots being trendy by doing bad Borg imitations. I love technology. I know it's why the average person no longer has to break their back 12 hours/day to live without electric lights, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, central heat and various modern forms of communication. I also know that Google Glass isn't tech - it's a bored billionaire's silly idea that will live on as a joke. Good riddance to it. Perhaps the restaurant should make its policy clear by posting a "no a-holes allowed" sign.

Re:Amazing (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 10 months ago | (#45564111)

Glass is very much tech - it may not be, at this moment, the revolutionary tech that some people think it is, but it's tech.

For example, Glass (or tech like it, I understand people's hesitation for such a product from Google) has the potential to remove doubt from situations that are "he said, she said", by being an impartial observer. If everyone was wearing HMDs with cameras, maybe people might think twice about being assholes, knowing that they might get called out on it. It wouldn't be some kind of tech panacea - nothing ever will be, IMO - but it has legitimate uses.

Remember kids, technology isn't good or bad, it's what people do with it.

Re:Amazing (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 10 months ago | (#45564197)

So you don't mind me installing cameras in your house and streaming it on the Internet, right? To object to it is you being a luddite, right?

Re:Amazing (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about 10 months ago | (#45564105)

Being technology-centered doesn't mean blindly accepting whatever shiny-shiny your advertising/surveillance overlords push down the pipe. Thinking about and understanding implications of technology might enable you to reach negative critical conclusions about certain uses of technology.

There goes the neighborhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45563955)

For the first time on American soil, the 1 percent has been banned by the 99 percent!

Reporting is a bit one-sided (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 10 months ago | (#45563989)

The customer was asked to put the Glass away before he was asked to leave. He chose to leave. Or, at least that's how his version of the story tends to go, which tends to paint him as the victim.

To hear it recounted elsewhere, he began making a scene when he was asked to remove his Glass, demanding to see a manager and then shouting at the manager that he wanted to see the policy in writing, despite acknowledging the fact that he knew of the policy being in place at other affiliated restaurants he knew. The manager explained that the policy wasn't in writing, which got an angry response from him, and he stormed out in a fury then made an angry blog post.

Lost Lake actually clarified their policy after the incident (emphasis mine):

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.

If a business has a policy in place, whether in writing or not, and politely informs you of it and asks you to respect it, your choices are to either abide by it or leave. Some of us won't like this policy. We are free to avoid bringing our business there. Others of us will support the policy. We are free to send more business there. That's the nice thing about businesses: they can cater to niches that appeal to a particular subset of customers with whom their interests are aligned. Either way, acting like an ass just makes you one.

Re:Reporting is a bit one-sided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564181)

If a business has a policy in place, whether in writing or not, and politely informs you of it and asks you to respect it, your choices are to either abide by it or leave.

Official Policy: NO Niggers NO Queers. If you're upset by this you are an ass.

Different restaurant, same owner (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 10 months ago | (#45564005)

It's not mentioned in the summary, but the two stories linked are related. The current one involves the Lost Lake Cafe, which is owned by Dave Meinert. Dave Meinert also owns the 5 Point Cafe, and made the old story by posting to 5 Point's facebook page: "For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses. And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."

I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them. Not because I have a Glass I won't take off (I don't have one at all) or because I object to the idea of certain places being off-limits for wearable cameras (I'm not convinced of the value, and think it would be a bad thing if every restaurant or every bar had such a ban; I do think having some with and some without is an experiment worth trying), but because using a threat of violence to get free advertising makes it quite clear who the real "glasshole" is.

Re:Different restaurant, same owner (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 10 months ago | (#45564109)

I don't live in Seattle, but if I did, I'd make it a point to find out what other establishments Mr. Meinert owns, and not patronize any of them.

Whereas the next time I'm in Seattle, I plan to visit all of them, and at each one buy a huge expensive meal at, and leave a giant tip with a "THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECORDING POLICY" written in big letters on the receipt.

Do you honestly think there are more people like you, or like me?

Happily I have plans to be in Seattle early next year so I can actually implement this plan.

douche (1)

comrade1 (748430) | about 10 months ago | (#45564011)

The words I've heard associated with google glass among my friends are 'douche', 'ass', 'moron', etc. These are friends that work as programmers and managers for google, facebook, apple, and adobe. I'd bet the sentiment outside of those companies by tech leaders is similar. I think it's interesting that the blowback for google glass that was in the general population is now in the tech population. But ultimately the negative attitude to google glass won't matter. Three to five years from now the google glass equivalent will be nothing more than a small unnoticeable pin or grain of dust. Today we'll notice in a meeting when someone is wearing glass, but a few years from now we won't. (although people can record and replay meetings with their cellphone easily, but it's an active process)

Re:douche (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 10 months ago | (#45564183)

The words I've heard associated with google glass among my friends are 'douche', 'ass', 'moron', etc.

Your friends are very diplomatic and given to understatement.

Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech (0)

Wanderer1 (47145) | about 10 months ago | (#45564021)

and also misinformed about the right to privacy in the USA (which doesn't afford anyone in public the right not to be photographed.) Some advocate belligerent behavior in response to Google Glass users, in a very Luddite-esque manner. And so many people so self-conscious of being recorded in some manner that they feel their rights extend over the top of the rights of others. Oh, the outrage, the fear, and the insults hurled at the new nerds.

Society's 'norms' once demanded signs that set an expectation of dress for patrons at restaurants, apparently. But wearing a camera on your head isn't as obviously antisocial as some claim (particularly on The Verge comments, but probably elsewhere, even with my social circle,) and if it's so egregious a violation of the decorum of a *diner* (no jacket required,) then it demands to be spelled out with as much clarity as a New York City letter grade so potential patrons can make a decision before they're inconvenienced, rejected, and embarrassed.

Finally, what is this overwhelming panic people feel about being recorded by others? Do they fear being made fun of on social networks? Do they really associate with people who might? And do they care about those around them who may? Few of us are so interesting or important, and those who are likely have obnoxious and obvious people photographing them often.

My right to use Google Glass (if I had such,) or a mobile phone, or a GoPro camera, or whatever may come is not an infringement of your right to be free of recording (for you have none outside your home,) nor is it terribly bright of you to denigrate them or their new toys when you'll likely enjoy something similar once they become openly sold and include some absolutely desirable software that happens to depend on the camera.

Nick was entitled to an respond in anger when he was confronted after being allowed in the restaurant, without a clue that he'd be embarrassed and rejected for something that few could reasonably anticipate. Respect for the customer begins at the front door.

Re:Surprising number of Verge comments anti-tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564155)

and also misinformed about the right to privacy in the USA (which doesn't afford anyone in public the right not to be photographed.)

Restaurants are private property, not public space. Public vs private refers to the who owns the place, not how many people happen to be around you.

Product promotion via feelings of victimhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564027)

My rights have been infringed because of my adoption of this revolutionary new technology!

Let the world of social media erupt in outrage in order to reinforce my narcissism!

It's a novel new marketing strategy for sure, but the fact that you went out (presumably with friends) to eat at a restaurant and wore your silly face mounted camera, presumably because you thought that tweeting photos of your food would enhance the experience in some unspecified way is wonderful evidence for the fact that this is a device that will not only fail, but be a hilarious accessory for retro-tech humor in about ten years time.

Re:Product promotion via feelings of victimhood (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#45564117)

> ... is wonderful evidence for the fact that this is a device that will not only fail, but be a hilarious accessory for retro-tech humor in about ten years time.

I agree with the second part. At some future time we will all look back at this with the same wry expression that some of us look back at 70's polyester leisure suits.

As to the first part, I do not think the product will fail. Any brief skim of facebook pages shows that there is too much demand for exposing your food to the public. So clearly the product will succeed, at least for awhile.

What about a pencam, or button cam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564057)

Presumably the cretins who wrote the article haven't been on Ebay in the past few years...

But seriously... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#45564061)

I can see where coming into an establishment wearing Google Glass is this century's equivalent to walking in accompanied by a 60 minutes crew. You may not be filming, but how would anyone know?

But really, there is a solution. Google just needs to build the device into the eye. Then, there wouldn't be any way to tell, except perhaps by the RF energy. And who doesn't go around exuding some kind of RF these days?

I love how ... (5, Informative)

MacTO (1161105) | about 10 months ago | (#45564073)

I love how Starr feels compelled to determine the restaurants policy: if the staff member was enforcing a policy, then Starr feels that it is inappropriate; if the staff member wrongly told him to remove his gadget, then Starr feels that it is his place to dictate the disciplinary action (and suggests an action that most likely violates labour laws).

I'm sorry Mr. Starr, but you entered a private establishment. If you don't like it, you are free to leave. If you don't like it, you are permitted to voice your concerns. Yet you are by no means entitled to enter that business and you are by no means entitled to tell the owner how to discipline their staff. Even though it may seem obvious to you that the business is losing your business, it is by no means obvious what would happen if the restaurant bent over backwards to keep your business. You may be driving other customers away with what is (at least currently) an idiosyncrasy or you may be making the staff uncomfortable.

Maybe the objections and discomfort will dissipate with time. Even then, Mr. Starr, you aren't in the right. You aren't in the right because you are demonstrating your sense of entitlement, your sense that you're the only person that matters. You aren't the only person who matters, and you have very few entitlements when you are in a private venue.

YES! Finally banning idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45564103)

Idiots don't understand that people have rights and that we don't live for you!

You are NOT special! Well, other than your IQ being quite limited.

Monday might be hard at the office (1)

evanism (600676) | about 10 months ago | (#45564137)

Poor little snot rag was upset that someone told him what to do.

Time to grow up and put away the entitlement. It's hanging out and embarrassing yourself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>