Feeds

back to article 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. " …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Or... more likely ...

Their major clientele are Microsoft employees who need all the ego-preservation they can get.

17
25
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: Or... more likely ...

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.

7
18
Silver badge

Re: Or... more likely ...

This is just the beginning, how long before a public lynching?

Or the first case of a pair of GG having to be removed from someone's throat or rectum?

2
1

Re: Or... more likely ...

"carrying a laser pointer and blasting it into their "glasses" would be good fun"

Sadly do to idiots with lasers pointers that now would run afoul of assault laws too.

4
4
Angel

Re: Or... more likely ...

I had to double check that you ain't Eadon...

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Or... more likely ...

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)

6
1
Silver badge
Devil

Re: Or... more likely ...

Or the first case of a pair of GG having to be removed from someone's throat or rectum?

Why? Let it continue streaming as long as possible while so inserted.

1
0
Alert

@ Lars G - Re: Or... more likely ...

"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.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Or... more likely ...

"Their major clientele are Microsoft employees who need all the ego-preservation they can get."

Seriously?

That's such a lame comment that I found myself glancing left to see who had penned it, expecting it to have been Eadon.

2
2
Unhappy

Re: Or... more likely ...

Protip: depressed bar patrons tend to buy more liquor.

0
0

Re: @ Lars G - Or... more likely ...

Is this the story you're talking about

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/18/mcdonalds_computer_vision_spectacles_attack/

0
0
Silver badge

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.

18
8
Silver badge
Facepalm

They don't sell your data, they sell advertising space based on their analysis of the data you give them. You must be the only person on the planet who thinks copyright laws may ever be weakened.

11
5
Anonymous Coward

they sell advertising space based on their analysis of the data you give them

The problem is that few know exactly how much they give..

2
6
Silver badge

Your ignorance does not change what they do and does not make it evil.

6
3
Silver badge

Hargrieves review \ Orphaned works \ Collective licencing. Not weakening at all huh! Still want to talk about ignorance? Do you actually read this site?

2
0
Silver badge

Total publicity stunt. It got them into the media at no cost banning an item that isn't even released yet

3
0
Thumb Down

Hmmm..

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.

9
23
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

" ...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.

34
3

Re: Hmmm..

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....

4
16

Re: Hmmm..

You don't seem to have read past the headline of the article, otherwise you'd know that it's not just this one device that's banned. They already didn't allow filming/photo-taking anyway.

18
2
Meh

Re: Hmmm..

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.

2
13
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Hmmm..

If there is ample warning signs and they choose to ignore the signs then it is an invitation to an arse-kicking straight back out on to the street - - no complaints, the 'intelligent' glasses should have warned them.

20
2
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Hmmm..

Whatever next - no droids?

5
1
Bronze badge
Pint

Re: Hmmm..

Yeah we don't serve their kind here....

9
1
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Hmmm..

> 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 ...

10
0

Re: Hmmm..

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.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hmmm..

Q. When is a bar not private?

A. When it's a public house.

3
3
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Hmmm..

"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.

1
10

Re: Hmmm..

whats next, banning your eyes and brain? you record everything you see after all. at one point in a future there will be a technology to access this information

1
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hmmm..

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..

11
0
Headmaster

Re: Hmmm..

"...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.

8
0
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

> 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.

4
0
Bronze badge
Windows

Re: Hmmm..

Surely "pub" is an abbreviation of "Public House". Sorry, bit of an epic fail there, 'frank by'.

2
6

This post has been deleted by its author

Re: Hmmm..

"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.

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

Sorry Andus, but it's been a few hundred years that "Public House" has actually meant "tavern" and not "a building open to the public". Unless perhaps you're in Oz or NZ in which case I believe a "pub" could also be an "inn".

1
0
Anonymous Coward

"expectation of privacy loss when you're out in public" ???

Sergey Brin should try upskirting in a Tokyo railway station sometime. He'll be lucky if the security guards don't kick his balls up around his shoulderblades before he can wave his "I'm a Google God" badge.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

REALLY?

"!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.

1
0

Re: Hmmm..

"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.

2
0
WTF?

Re: Hmmm..

So all those TV cameras filming in the street, or from a helicopter, should make sure that they have the permission of everyone present to do so? That should be fun in the midst of a riot - or an anti-government demonstration.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Re: Hmmm..

You want privacy in public? Wear a burkha.

Paris Hilton, because she doesn't.

0
0

Re: REALLY?

"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.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

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.

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

> here is no law against filming or photographing someone in a public place

That depends very much on your jurisdiction...

Vic.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

@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.

0
0
Coat

Privacy? What it is?

Mine's the chroma key morphsuit with a handy Mace pocket.

1
1
MrT
Bronze badge

But without the right app...

...you'll just look like a Kermit fetishist with a bulging pocket... unless you go for the achromatic reflective material, in which case it'd be Morph's mate Chaz . . with a bulging pocket.

Hang on, what kind of bar is this again...?

;-)

2
0
Big Brother

Re: Privacy? What it is?

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.

0
0
MrT
Bronze badge

QR codes...

... good idea. That and dazzle camouflage, or just one of those shiny suits from the 80s. I wonder if a really strong hound's tooth pattern would be enough to throw it?

Mine's the one last seen on Human League and Ultravox videos...

2
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.