When can real-world laws invade augmented reality fantasies? A trial in Milwaukee will decide

What a wonderful opportunity.

The Government/authorities should do two things.

a) pass the long overdue laws that executives and management of companies/corporations/organistions are personally held liable for, and prosecuted for, criminal acts they commit, cause to be committed.

b) partner with such as Candy Lab to provide the augmented reality service to the subsequent inmates so that they can visualise themselves as being out in he free world rather than being locked up in chokey.

At a cost of $X per annum where X=personal assets pre crime/years of sentence.

Let the fun begin

So this is a park. Should a 'game' that provides a head-up display with pulse rate, breathing, distance travelled, etc., for joggers be banned? Surely not, that's a health app, right? What about one that encourages you to go further with XP and levels, sharing results, and so on? Still a health app, or now a game? Should it be banned?

What about one that encourages people to run in small groups, that gave XP to the whole party? Ban now?

And so on.

Jack Thompson... pwned

Leigh Alexander... pwned

Leland Yee... pwned

I think I'm going to bet on the gamers.

BOLLOCKS. If I choose to publish an app that overlays a Santa Claus at the top of the Eiffel Tower whenever you point your phone at it, guess what, I don't need your permission to do that, and you don't get to impose any rules / taxes / whatever your black little heart desires on me. NONE. You're welcome to arrest and/or lock away anybody crazy enough to try to climb the tower to touch Santa, but that's not my problem and you can't make it so.

Which is not to say I can't see the irrelevant busybodies emit stern dictats excommunicating all of the above (oh, of course I can) I'm just saying I recognize NONE OF IT as legitimate, and am willing to do exactly just enough to keep myself out of trouble, not thinking twice about taking the first loophole I can find (then the next one if you close the first). It's - not - your - call.

"Congressional Caucus on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality Technologies for the 115th Congress."

Shouldn't that be the Caucus on Virtual and Augmented Reality with Mixed and Integrated Technologies (VARMINT)?

I thought Congressfolk always went for acronymous groups and legislation.

That aside, I think I probably agree with the "ban" and most of the various requirements set by the county in question.

I say, let them have their ordinance. then go to town on it. A 1 million liability policy is super cheap. I carry 2 million on myself and its a couple hundred a year. Order in a few hundred porta-potties and have them placed on the park, occupying all sorts of space. Tie up resources from the city or county in managing all of it. when it starts to cost them money, they may just change their tune...

Wont somebody think of the flowers?

So - this county wants to ban AR games, because someone irresponsible might walk on their flower beds while playing them.

However I bet they don't want to ban sales of assault rifles because someone might use them to commit murder.

I'm not surprised in the drop in users of Pokemon Go. My 9yo loved - we would walk for miles with the app, visiting historic sites around the area, but with each 'update' it would become more and more buggy, crash (or fail to start) more often, up to the point where it became unusable and none of the 'fixes' infact fixed anything.

I almost hit a number of people as I was biking near a park in my home town during the height of the Pokemon-Go craze. These were not just kids, but mainly grown-ups (including parents setting a wonderful example) who just rushed off the pavement onto the bike lane without looking. Fortunately I had my wits about me and my brakes are in excellent order, and I managed to dodge at least 6 different people in just 5 minutes. Not ideal by any standards.

First and foremost, it is the users of the AR app that are responsible for their own conduct, but it is a good idea if companies think about the locations they set, and avoid certain spaces. I am not sure how, or even if this should be legislated, but observations suggest that merely relying on common sense of users is not sufficient, alas. Here in the Netherlands the users could be fined under the catch-all clause of "endangering traffic", even as a pedestrian, and if they trample things they could also be charged with vandalism, but I do not think the companies could be charged with anything.

That's interesting

As I understand the intent of these restrictions, it could also ban flash mobs organized by smartphone and Twitter.

Verizon delenda est, eh?

Silly

It's not about organized events - the Pokemon Go example was players of the game spreading news of hard to get Pokemon being in that particular park area. Obviously unfortunate timing as the rare Pokemon happened when game at peak popularity / numbers and a big (but shortlived) craze: Essentially a flash mob type of scenario (would be no different to say a very rare bird arriving in a park and the news being spread and lots of keen bird watchers going to park to see it)

Niantic (makers of Pokemon Go) do have some organized events (can't speak about PoGo, but I know they do for another AR game of theirs, Ingress). For the organized Ingress events there is always liaison / permission from relevant authorities for the events (which tend to be city wide, not in a small area).

Can't speak about the Candy poker game, but Niantic AR games have locations all over the place (over 5 million locations in Ingress when someone produced figures a while ago).

So most AR locations do not get huge numbers of people attracted there.

Ironically, locations chosen are often things "of interest" (FSVO interest, obv. opinions vary) but aim to get people out in the fresh air walking, so would be churches, statues, plaques etc. Parks often have statues and other things of interest so quite common locations.

But hey, extremely rare events are often drivers of bad legislation (stares at certain UK politicians response to terrorism)

It's not about organized events - the Pokemon Go example was players of the game spreading news of hard to get Pokemon being in that particular park area. Obviously unfortunate timing as the rare pokemon happend when game at peak popularity / numbers and a big (but shortlived) craze: Essentially a flash mob type of scenario (would be no different to say a very rare bird arriving in a park and the news being spread and lots of keen bird watchers going to park to see it)

Niantic (makers of Polemon Go) do have some organized events (can't speak about PoGo, but I know they do for another AR game of theirs, Ingress). For the organized Ingress events there is always liason / permission from relevant authrioties for the events (which tend to be city wide, not in a small area).

Can't speak about the Candy poker game, but Niantic AR games have locations all over the place (over 5 million locations in Ingress when someone produced figures a while ago).

So most AR locations do not get huge numbers of people attracted there.

Ironically, locations chosen are often things "of interest" (FSVO interst, obv. opinions vary) but aim to get people out in the fesh air walking, so would be churches, statues, plaques etc. Parks often have statues and other things of interst so quite common locations.

But hey, extremely rare events are often drivers of bad legislation (stares at certain UK politicians response to terrorism)

Disclosure, Do not work for Niantic / have any affiliations with them, but have played their game Ingress & attended organised (fully cleared with authorities) events.

My take

While the content of virtual reality games can and should enjoy First Amendment protection, wandering around a public place with your nose stuck in a smartphone or tablet, at the risk of bumping into people, constitutes action, not speech, and is properly subject to regulation.

That the kind of regulations proposed could indeed make VR gaming of the type seen in Pokemon Go impossible may indicate that they're unreasonably onerous, but that is an area where quite rightly the courts are loath to second-guess legislators.

Difficult one

I can see both sides to this. On the one hand such games do indeed attract more people to a park than the park may be able to handle without additional facilities. But on the other hand that is not much different to what happens when a TV documentary or popular YouTube video features a particular venue, and we would not ask the maker of a documentary that shows XYZ park in a very good light to provide additional facilities to cope with the extra people it will inevitably attract.

I will add in my next location based game the whole Milwaukee County in the list of off-limit-areas. until the citizen in that county pressure the county sdupervisor to revoke that ordinance.

Of course that exception would also be listed in the appstore in the game description so that nobody in that county would download for playing in that location.

This is so obviously a crucial milestone. The law, which I agree with, is a gamechanger in more ways than one: if it prevails the rise of the machine he's will be rightly stopped. If not, then expect the other thing to happen real quick

It's a Public park

A public park is meant to be used. If individuals are causing damage to the park they should be individually held responsible for the damage.

If I started a kite company near a park and people bought my kites by the thousands and went to fly them in the nearest park, I am not responsible for the damage those people cause. They are individuals, individually participating in the same activity. I didn't tell them to go to that park. That's where they chose to go as there was open space and wind.

When a flower bed gets trampled by a kite flyer or a AR player it doesn't matter which they were doing, the person trampling the flower bed is responsible for the damage. If the city or state tried to hold me responsible for the damage they would get laughed out of court. Same for the AR company.

The AR company should work with the parks system to create an experience that works for everyone. Randomly created objects should be shunted to the nearest footpath or parking area. So players can enjoy the park and not cause damage. A system should be developed where an organization can send a set of areas and where the game content can be safely moved to to preserve safety and security. It could be an online map where you outline an area, draw on the safe zones and in 15 minutes the game is updated.