Seattle drinking den bans Google Glass geeks A Seattle bar has issued a preemptive ban of Google Glass to preserve the privacy of its tipplers. The 5 Point Cafe in Seattle announced plans to suppress the futuristic devices on its Facebook page this week, and didn't mince words. "The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses," the bar wrote …
WTF? You're calling this bar ego preservationists because they like to protect their customers privacy? Maybe this wasn't your direct intent, but it reads that way.
The black can of spray paint is a good idea though, sadly those pesky assault laws will get in the way. However, carrying a laser pointer and blasting it into their "glasses" would be good fun.
"This is just the beginning, how long before a public lynching?"
I recall reading an article a while ago about someone who had been working on a GG type device for years (pre-dating GG). He went into a McDonalds in Paris, was asked to remove them and was then assaulted by a member of staff.
This bar is very central to the alternative-sexuality community in the area where privacy is of the utmost importance. People go there to sit and drink and converse with others that share their lifestyles in a safe place.
Oh and this place is private property and thus its patrons do have an expectation of privacy and the employees do reserve the right to refuse service to and have removed anyone for any reason. So if you want to wear your face-recognition device and refuse to remove them or yourself, you're about to have a lovely evening in the clink (The local law enforcement take personal privacy of the local populace very seriously and are operating well within the law)
This smells a little like a publicity stunt, but I support their right to ban GG and similar devices. Quite a few places already ban cell phone cameras, cell phones, cameras, videocams etc. It's not a huge leap to ban something like GG especially given the whole do only evil reality over at google. If they can find a way to use the video feed for profit they will, and weakened copyright laws will leave the door open for media companies to use footage without permission.
I have no issue with people who choose to wear them in public places, but they should also expect to find places excluding them.
As much as I'm for privacy you should have some expectation of privacy loss when you're out in public. This is definitely a publicity stunt. There are plenty of lower tech ways to intrude on others privacy at the local watering hole.
If they were really concerned with privacy they'd do what they could to legally block any wireless standards on the premises as well as have everyone empty their pockets into a locker before coming in... and that's just a start.
" ...expectation of privacy loss when you're out in public."
Yes, you should, when in a public place. The inside of a bar/cafe/restaurant is not a public place, it is private property. The owner of that property can set conditions on you being allowed into the property and being allowed to stay there.
Apparently you failed to read my second paragraph as I suggested he, the owner, could set more meaningful conditions for his establishment then banning one device that isn't exactly subtle. Even if, as you suggest, all bar patrons are afforded the same legal protections they enjoy at home how do you suggest this be enforced? Rent-a-cop? Vigilante justice meted out by drunken customers? Ohh....
Yes. I read that. Banning devices is one thing. Kicking people out or starting a bar brawl if they use one is another. I'm not advocating that any establishment should be so draconian as to have a security checkpoint. Lord knows how effective the TSA has been with that sort of thing. I'm simply making the observation that these half measures merely give a false sense of security (or privacy). Not that there really is a solution unless you want to go off the grid. I'm just trying to be realistic.
> how do you suggest this be enforced? Rent-a-cop? Vigilante justice meted out by drunken customers? Ohh....
It's called bouncers. And indeed some "burly guys" helping.
What exactly about the real world don't you understand?
Next you will be telling us that bars disallowing patrons to carry projectile weapons at their premises are infringing your progressive rights to carry heat wherever you go. Ah no, hold on ...
"Public House", as in not a "Private House" - a House where "The Public" are legally allowed to imbibe alcohol sold to them by somebody who is legally allowed to sell it to them, i.e. the "Publican", who reserves the right to dictate who they serve in their establishment (providing those dictations don't break other laws - such as denial of access based race, religious views or gender - which is why "Private Clubs" can be Male only or Female only or at least have gender specific areas.)
So a "Public House" is not a Public space and therefore Frank ly was right in what he said.
If some knob pointed a pair of snooping glasses at me in a private bar, i wouldnt be overly happy, and would relish in the bar owner metting out said ass-kicking. These things would be great for a bit of furtive perving or casing a joint as well, bit less obvious than waving a phone or camera around.
On a public street its a bit different, but they still come across as a bit `pervy` tbh.
> If some knob pointed a pair of snooping glasses at me in a private bar,
The question is whether you'd feel any remorse when you learned the poor sod who's just had his arse kicked was blind and the "snooping glasses" were just there to help the poor sod be able to sense what was around him.
This post has been deleted by its author
"The question is whether you'd feel any remorse when you learned the poor sod who's just had his arse kicked was blind and the "snooping glasses" were just there to help the poor sod be able to sense what was around him."
Thats not very likely though is it?, a blind person would be pretty obvious to spot by body movement and probably white cane. No, It will almost certainly be some twattish hipster out with his knobhead mates to film some drunks/social misfits/the poor for his self-importent blog for more twatish hipsters to laugh at and bathe in their percieved superiority. Either that or a perv pointing those unblinking eyes towards peoples nether regions.
Yes im a cynic, but i bet im proved right.
"f privacy loss when you're out in public"
and when people are filming in public without asking the people first use of these glasses can expect do get beaten up and the glasses destroyed.... peple have a right in public space not to be filmed.... expect some serious glass-rage soon - ironically probably posted on youtube foor world and his dog to see.
The outside world is for everyone not just people who want to upload fail films to youtube.
and when people are filming in public without asking the people first use of these glasses can expect do get beaten up and the glasses destroyed
That would come under assault and causing damage to property, ditto for using it in a bar and having this done to you.
You see, there are other options. If someone is doing something you don't like, you are facing the one occasion where it is sensible to use your mouth first - ask them to stop.
This is also the goal of a sign in a pub banning those devices - it means you have had your warning, and chose to ignore it. In a bar, it means you then have the legal ability to eject someone or even have them removed by the police if they bother to turn up, because you have cause. However, you still don't have cause to harm people or their property unless you act in self defence, and even then you're limited to appropriate action.
In a public place, you may ask someone to stop, but AFAIK there is no reason for them to listen to you other than them being nice. This is, for instance, the reason why filming police activity is possible, and officers who don't like that have to dream up reasons such as national security of harming an ongoing investigation in order to take the camera off you (and plenty of that has been fought in court - rarely with a positive outcome for the police). The moment you threaten violence as method of enforcing your desire you can be arrested, certainly if you proceed to make good on that promise. It is thus better to at least start with a degree of civility.
Part of growing up is realising that not everything needs to be resolved with fisticuffs..
"...peple[sic] have a right in public space not to be filmed..."
Nope. It's completely legal to photograph anyone in a public space. The clue is in the word "public". But don't take my word for it. The Metropolitan Police have a page specially designed to provide a summary of the law, with regard to this: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
it's a long page, so a couple of key highlights should suffice:
"...Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel..."
"...Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction..."
Of course, laws will differ around the world but here in the UK, I don't really see much point in becoming annoyed at the prospect of someone with a pair of GG on looking at you. After all, according to several souces [eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/334853.stm ] we've already got the highest number of CCTV cameras per head of population in the world and I don't see the sheeple dragging themselves away from Celebrity Fat Factor on Ice to spray-paint over them very often.
"!and when people are filming in public without asking the people first use of these glasses can expect do get beaten up and the glasses destroyed.... peple have a right in public space not to be filmed.... expect some serious glass-rage soon - ironically probably posted on youtube foor world and his dog to see."
So when I'm out as a tourist and I take a photo in a public place, you all expect me to ask your permission first? WOW, the fking stupidity is off the scale!
If I decide to take a photo in public, I expect to do so without the local filth attacking me.
"If I decide to take a photo in public, I expect to do so without the local filth attacking me"
Better be careful where you go then - look at the fate of the UK tourists who thought they were innocuously filming aircraft in Greece. The locals didn't agree.
And filming public buildings over here can get you in trouble is the authorities (police, building owners, local baristas etc) think you might be planning to blow it up.
No, they don't. Except for areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy i.e. public bathrooms \ beach changing rooms etc, there is no law against filming or photographing someone in a public place. There are laws about what you can do with the footage or pictures, editorial use is fine without consent as is fine art use. It cannot however be used for advertising \ endorsing products. There are some minor exceptions which is one reason for e&o insurance, if someone is filmed in the background etc and no release is acquired.
If it is polite is another matter entirely!
As for enforcement, that is what the police and doormen are for. However, no club that prides itself on providing a discrete environment for people shouts about it in the press. It's likely full of posers and people who would love to be considered in a certain light.
@vic
True, there probably are some tinpot dictatorships like north korea, zimbabwe where it is illegal (like non state sanctioned haircuts). I'm not sure on Switzerland, they may have stronger privacy laws. I can't think of a country I've shot in with laws prohibiting photography in public, I've been in a few where the popo seem to think there are though.
Mine'd be a shabby suit and a handy Mace. Strange Days/Angela Bassett version. Or possibly something liberally decorated with Omron aka EURion patterns. Or just a QR Code pointing to a bot/crawler trap.
Wearable computing is just another potential vector for amusement, and I'm disappointed that Seattleites can only come up with something as lo-tech as an ass whooping.
The purpose is to record the user's daily life, and what will it show? An endless succession of people turning away / crossing the road to avoid them / leaving the room when they enter / slamming doors in their faces / telling them to "take that fucking thing off or else!" / etc.
What's the point?
"What's the point?"
Ah, you obviously are not aware of the 'Zaphod mode'.
That endless succession of people are transformed by the glasses visuals and audio in to people complimenting the wearer on the wise choice they have made, the incredible foresight of being a wearable-tech pioneer, that everything Google does is like King Midas's poo.
But far better to have a big box with ACME on the side and a huge boxing glove to wipe the smug expression off the face.
Actually, a hack has just become possible that preys on the narcissism of the wearers ----
"Candygram for Mongo" (YouTube it yerself)
A bar that nobody has ever heard of bans a technology which is essentially still vapourware and suddenly they're getting worldwide press coverage.
I do think however that it does highlight the major issue with these glasses (when they do appear). They ARE going to get banned in a raft of places like bars, gyms, changing areas. And even when they're not banned, people are going to be highly suspicious of someone sitting in a beach, park, playground, bus, train etc. People *are* going to get caught perving with these things which will only reinforce their social unacceptability.
And even aside from that who really wants to be talking to someone wearing these. Are they paying attention to you or their email? Are they recording you or transcribing the conversation? At least with a phone you can tell if someone's attention is on you or their phone. Are we supposed to be watching someone's eyes to see if they're darting around like they're looking at something which isn't there?
So aside from their dorky experience these glasses have a serious social problem to overcome and I don't see acceptance coming any time soon.
"So aside from their dorky experience these glasses have a serious social problem to overcome and I don't see acceptance coming any time soon."
I think you're wrong. The Farcebook and Twatter generation simply won't see a problem. And, unfortunately, they are or soon will be, the majority.
The Marching Morons.
Give it a few years and the technology will improve so that these über-specs are indistinguishable from normal glasses. Then look out for a wave of violent attacks on innocent spec-wearers, as the tabloids whip up a "terrorists and molesters are filming our children!" frenzy which rattles the cages of the kind of neanderthals who, after finger-spelling their way through similar claptrap in the past, have smashed in the winows of paediatricians' offices.
...artificial eyes got developed and recording video was a diagnostic feature to facilitate blind patients in their rehabilitation? Would those wanting to punch GG users in the face react the same way to these cyborgs? If the article from a few days ago is any indication they'd still do so. The problem isn't that these devices record video. It's the perception that it can be done covertly. But so what if they do? Are you always 100% aware of everyone around you? Some guy could be recording you right now and not even realize it. GG or not.
But still a good idea. I would be very uncomfortable being breast anyone wearing a pair. I have no idea what they are recording (audio and video), I have no idea I'd some facial recognition had tagged me. So I have no idea if my current conversation is going global.
What I do in public is not a secret, but it can still be private. One can discuss even fairly sensitive things in public as your anonymity protects you. Google glasses remove that, and it's only when it's gone will we realise what we have lost.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm not "holier-than-thou"[1], rather I'm a tool user. Using a hammer as a jeweler's screwdriver is not a good idea. Written English (in all it's magnificent iterations!) is a very precise language, when used precisely. Blaming the tool for your lack of proof reading should be beneath you.
[1] In fact, I'm probably quite unholier-than-thou :-)
I see. Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee. He of unerring perfection and exactitude. He who has never stumbled over of a word, taken a wrong turn, forgotten to flush before closing a file or otherwise made any error or misstep from the moment of his conception.
Really Jake, get over yourself. You are coming across as a total ass.
I've never blamed my hardware for my own fat fingering, Yin.
Going to try to explain `Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee.` as somehow being a proper English construct? Seriously. When you're using the wrong tool for the job, you come off as a total tool. Just admit you didn't proofread it. It's easier to say mea culpa than to try to justify your human imperfection.
Hi Jake "The Perfect". So good to hear from you.
I am human, I make mistakes. Unlike Jake "The Perfect", the only human in the history of all creation who has never once made an error. As wise as Solomon? Please. 'As wise and perfect as Jake "The Perfect"' should be the new saying.
I'm not denying my imperfections, I'm taking the piss out of your holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe I should rename you, Jake "The Perfect and Insufferable"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I trust you are being ironic - that is absolute genius!
To others: if you don't get the joke, check out some of the other posts from this man who doesn't even write his own name with a capital letter.
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Please excuse me whilst I pick myself up off the floor and wipe the tears from my eyes.
"this man who doesn't even write his own name with a capital letter."
Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name.
jake's not my name, it's my handle on ElReg. Computers are literate. 0100 0001!=0110 0001.
"Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name."
Oh look everyone, Jake "The Perfect" has to be demoted to Jake "They Like To Think They Are Perfect"!
Jake, don't you proofread? Don't you know that the English language is very exact? It's a precise tool to be wielded deftly and with a delicate touch. '"Anonymous Coward" is [it is] name' what are you wittering on about? "is it is"? Makes no sense. PROOFREAD you fool!
Now I have made my point, I shall let the matter rest.
Whitespace quoted and then inquired:
" I would be very uncomfortable being breast anyone wearing a pair."
Freudian slip or predictive text snafu?
If predictive text wtf were you trying to type?
"Abreast" as in "Abreast of"
a·breast
adverb, adjective
1. side by side; beside each other in a line: They walked two abreast down the street.
It's obviously a publicity stunt if they don't also ban people from using cameraphones. In the stripclubs near me...so I'm told...you get approached by a bouncer the second you take the phone from your pocket. That doesn't happen in bars.
Anyhow, it occurred to me whilst reading this that Google could create a way to have certain functionality of the devices turned off based on location. Then I remembered Apple's got a patent on this sort of thing. So it's another point to the patent trolls in their battle against innovation!
Sorry for that interlude. The google-bashing may now continue.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am really annoyed by the rozzers who use camcorders to film my son and I walking to the ground, so I deliberately conceal my face. I get stopped and questioned and the Police trot out the usual lines:
Its for my safety.
They are allowed to film me in law
And the classic - If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
My response is always that I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear and I certainly do not need you filming me as person that has not committed a crime.
My fear with GG that it will be used for nefarious purposes and may soon be a requirement in law that we all have to wear tracking / recording devices with the exact same excuses coppers give me now.
Why not film them right back? They have no right to prevent you from doing that, but they sure as hell don't like it (in my experience), especially the people who tell you you have nothing to fear are not inclined to repeat that statement with a camera pointed at them..
In my experience, some people have a wonderful imagination.
I don't wear glasses of any kind, not even sunglasses. When I'm cycling, I have a set of headlights (these ones) mounted on my helmet. The helmet also has a headset (with boom microphone) embedded which hooks into either a radio transceiver, or into my mobile phone. This boom mike isn't much different to the ones seen worn by some motorcyclists.
People see the headlights, see a small cable running to the radio on the bike, and immediately assume the two are connected and that I must be recording. Thankfully, no one has confronted me in a violent fashion, but I have been asked about it on more than one occasion. It's easy enough to just turn them on, and suddenly the fact that it's just a light, becomes immediately clear.
Pre-emptive explanation: No, BlueTooth is not an option. Too expensive, and this doesn't support it. I'm not spending $500+ for the luxury of beaming my voice via an intermittent 2.4GHz FHSS digital RF link when a simple wire will do it reliably for under $10.
You are a cyclist. You pay no road tax. You have no right to be on the road anyway.
Do you even have insurance? Done any training? Got any kind of license?
But it's OK; the suffering motorist will pay for your personal lanes and other privileges. And for the accidents you cause. And your medical costs.
Yeah, you just worry about your trinkets.
Ahh, a road troll... of course. Course this has nothing to do with what I posted about, or the article, but I'll bite just this once. :-)
I pay no road tax of course, I damage no roads! When was the last time you saw a footpath resurfaced? Roads get that treatment all the time. "No right"? Does that imply a bicycle has less right than a motorcycle, who has less right than a car, who has less right than a bus, or a truck, who has less rights than a semi-trailer? Who pays the most road tax of those? You really think "rights" are proportional to taxation? Joke is on you my fuel-guzzling fiend.
Truth be told, I'd rather avoid the road completely, and I would if it were practical. But it isn't, so I settle for quiet back-streets. You know, the ones the majority of the traffic isn't using.
Insurance? I'd get some if someone would offer it to me. In fact my bank did ask if I was interested in vehicle insurance. And naturally I enquired further, but they kind of lost interest when I mentioned my sole mode of transport. I can't buy something that isn't there. I only know of Bicycle Queensland, kind of a monopoly, I'll wait until there's a couple of players in the field.
Training? I've read the rule book. That is all that law requires. I don't see car drivers being put through a course in operating V-doubles before being let loose on the road, so why should I know how to drive a car to ride my bicycle? I got about 80% last time I attempted a written road rules test. Not good enough to get a learner's permit, but good enough to operate a bicycle according to Queensland road rules. Got a problem with that? Talk to the government.
Got any kind of license? Yes, I have a radio license. (No, you didn't stipulate vehicle license, you did ask "any kind", and a radio license is a kind of license, issued by a government body.)
And actually around here, it's the Brisbane City Council that provides the footpaths and cycleways, Not Queensland Transport or the Department of Main Roads. I'd imagine this is similar in other parts of the world, where it's the local council that looks after provisioning of bike paths and footpaths, and a state-wide body looks after the roads themselves.
I'll worry about all 0 accidents I have ever caused. And now we shall get back on topic, since my post was more to do with people seeing something from afar and jumping to conclusions.
"You are a cyclist. You pay no road tax. You have no right to be on the road anyway.
Do you even have insurance? Done any training? Got any kind of license?
But it's OK; the suffering motorist will pay for your personal lanes and other privileges. And for the accidents you cause. And your medical costs.
Yeah, you just worry about your trinkets."
I'd like to see this shit stand up in a court of law. Not so smart then!
sigh Seems more than one person missed my point completely.
All three of you, have a down-vote and pay attention. My point was that people will see things, then make unfounded assumptions on what they think they're seeing.
My post had bugger all to do with cycling, and absolutely nothing to do with cycling on the road, or the taxation or lack thereof, paid by cyclists. Might I suggest this forum is a more appropriate place to continue such a discussion?
I used to go there for food when i worked at a DC in the westin. That bar needs no free publicity, it's a 24 hour dive bar that's been in a great location since like the 30's or something and always full of people even between 1 (or 2) and 6 when they can't sell alcohol. It also had decent enough cheap food. drink prices are high, but all of seattle is 5 buck a beer. Check the map it's next to Seattle Center.
I would like to remind everybody though that Redmond WA and Seattle WA are not in fact the same place, and I would doubt an MS staffer would degrade themselves to go in. But, 5 point is next to the Fisher building and like what 5 blocks from the Westin building so you're more likely to find a linux admin or technician eating on the eating side... and honestly you're a lot more likely to find disreputable characters and serious drinkers on the bar side. All the wait staff have attitude and they do have a bouncer like almost every bar in seattle. They get a lot of tourist though, so they need to explain the rules that locals would consider obvious. Every place has their own little rules and no photos is pretty obvious in this bar, i mean unless you're a tourist.
If you waked around a bar constantly filming strangers with your camera phone you would be kicked out at the very least, and you could be very certain you would be asked to stop. You KNOW when a phone is taking pictures, this thing is going to be a ticking bomb for privacy. The last thing I want in a gay bar is a stranger taking pictures. Bouncers are going to have a lot of fun with this.......
Expect more of this to come until Google Glass is shunned and ridiculed and anyone wearing them become social outcasts (if most users of such uber-geekery aren't already). I can see potential future niches for the technology in certain kinds of work, where it will be very useful and acceptable, but for daily use it is DOA.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
