7 ms·
Seattle drinking den bans Google Glass geeks
- mattryanharris 14y agoTo me this feels like a publicity stunt.
- readme 14y agoMe too. Kudos to him. It's a good PR stunt.
- keikun17 14y agoso how does one establishment that just honestly want to ban GG to protect their customer's privacy release a pre-emptive statement like this without having it looking like a privacy stunt?
- fyolnish 14y agoWhat's a privacy stunt?
- badgar 14y agoConsidering Google Glass aren't available for the forseeable future, to appear sincere you should start by being in a geographical location brimming with Google engineers. Google has a small but growing Kirkland presence, but it's not nearly the size of many companies in Seattle.
- Noughmad 14y agoIt doesn't. Whenever someone with GG enters the bar, kindly ask them to remove the glasses. There is no need to publicize this bad, except as a publicity stunt.
- Heliosmaster 14y agoFor people that read past the headline (probably not many judging by the comments): "We don't let people film other people or take photos unwanted of other people in the bar because it's kind of a private place people go." So filming / taking pictures is already not allowed. It feels like publicity stunt, but nothing particularly weird, imho.
- derefr 14y agoThere are things HMDs are useful for besides recording/storing sense data. In fact, I would say, so many of them (and growing further with each new development), that a policy like this will eventually just become impossible to enforce--it would be like asking people to leave their phones at the door, or perhaps even their prescription glasses. But, of course, this is still a problem that needs to be solved; never before have the barriers to recording everyone around you, unbeknownst to them, been so low. (Whereas before, only professionals--spies, reporters, hostage-negotiators, etc.--really bothered to go through all the schlep required.) So, perhaps, in the future, a law will be passed requiring HMDs (and phones, actually--there's no reason they don't also count) to get a "privacy-zone" feature. Within range of any wi-fi AP emitting a "privacy-zone beacon", the HMD would be legally required to disable its recording features. This brings the barrier-of-entry back up to "have to jailbreak your HMD and override the restriction", which is similar to "buy a gizmo from a spy-store" in terms of difficulty, so I would say it's equitable. Of course, then you could get police walking around emitting privacy-zone beacons, and other totalitarian effects. The real underlying problem, causing things like that, is that completely technological systems are prone to social exploitation, because our own social mores aren't carried over into the technological domain. So, instead, we would want to rely partially on the technology, and partially on social enforcement. A good balance might be: entering a privacy zone prompts you to disable your recording--a single "click" will do so, but you can ignore/cancel the request. Once you've complied, you can't re-enable recording until you leave the privacy zone. Also, the privacy-zone beacon will be aware of whether you've complied with the request. Thus, as the owner of a private establishment (e.g. a bar), you can simply activate your privacy-zone beacon and attenuate its range out to some distance beyond the perimeter of your building--and then have a bouncer who won't let people in until they see, among whatever other conditions--that they have assented to disabling recording.
- devonbarrett 14y agoWaiting for the hats with infra red lights to hit the market.
- damncabbage 14y agoRelevant article ("The Google Glass feature no one is talking about"): http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one-is-talking-about/ http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one...
- alan_cx 14y agoThank you for that. Always wise finding the source from a TheRegister article. They sadly do tend to reduce a decent story to pulp.
- astrobiased 14y agoAfter reading Amped from Daniel H. Wilson, this post seems to strike the same chord as the book. Almost freaky.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- ck2 14y agoThe fun part is going to be when people start remotely hacking people wearing google glass. It's going to be like a very early version of ghost-in-the-shell with external memory interfaces.
- jrockway 14y agoThe irony of all this is that the bar probably has a security camera system that's recording everyone all the time anyway.
- majmun 14y agoThey also sell drinks and probably don't allow others to sell drinks in there.
- coldtea 14y agoAnd the non-irony is that this security camera system is nothing like google glasses, in the sense that only the bar owners watch (and that's mostly if there's some security issue), it captures only from a certain fixed axis of rotation, and it doesn't get your snapshot on Instagram and Twitter.
- alan_cx 14y agoIs the CCTV content available from google search? Am I tagged? Are my words recorded? Can that be linked on cross referenced? Can a future employer or pervert see the footage? If I slip up and expose myself, can a google search reveal that too?
- jrockway 14y agoIt depends on whether or not you annoy Reddit or 4chan. If yes, then yes :)
- taligent 14y agoSo ? The intent of the camera system is to have evidence if an incident occurs. I doubt the bar owner is going through it at the end of the night looking for which parts of it are interesting enough to post on Facebook.
- jrockway 14y agoWhy can't I have my own evidence if an "incident occurs" that affects me? It seems like quite a double standard. BTW, there are already a ton of cell-phone videos taken at that bar and posted to YouTube, so I doubt having a new type of recording device is actually going to make a difference: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=five+point+cafe http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=five+point+cafe
- brador 14y agoGuy in the comments there allegedly willing to spray black Google glasses caught recording him. What's the legality of doing that? What's the min-max punishment?
- carlob 14y agoI thought this was going to happen, and I think it's right to try and limit the scope of people filming everything. You need to pull out a phone and aim it to take pictures or videos, and in some jurisdictions it is compulsory for digital cameras to emit an audible noise when shooting. I guess in the end these head mounted cameras will have a small led so that you know when someone is filming you, and we'll be forbidden in places where privacy is expected or where recording is forbidden (cinemas, concerts, theaters…).
- ericb 14y agoIf we were to legally require a visible indicator when recording, would it be any worse than a cell phone?
- carlob 14y agoYes because you could still put some black tape on it or possibly circumvent the led in software via jailbraking. I guess that when the phone is in your pocket or aimed at your feet, I'm pretty sure you're not filming me.
- jschuur 14y agoSounds like a classy joint, where the owner incites their clientele to violence: "And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."
- m0nty 14y agoI work in a school. These devices will inevitably be banned in such places. It's already a bit risky to take photos of children - it has been suggested (albeit by an especially neurotic, paedophile-obsessed parent) that one of my colleagues is a paedophile for taking photos of school events. For a member of staff to wear these glasses at school would be risky, to take them into a sensitive area such as a boarding house or changing room, a career-ending move. I can foresee that other places, like the bar in OA and hospitals, medical waiting rooms, lawyers' offices, etc, have an implicit assumption of privacy which would be infringed by these devices. Many conversations and meetings have similar unspoken requirements - if you might be recording or photographing me, I'm not talking to you. Wearing these to a blind date or job interview could be an immediate deal-breaker for many people. "You're recording this? How dare you!" It doesn't seem unreasonable for people to ban these devices. The assumption of many potential users that I am happy to be photographed, recorded, uploaded and discussed is what needs to be challenged.
- coldtea 14y ago>I work in a school. These devices will inevitably be banned in such places. I don't think that will be a problem, because there will never be such devices. They are vapourware, solving a problem people don't have, won't have, and don't want to have. Sure, Google might release them commercially at some point. Still, they will go the way of the yo-yo, the Sony dog robot, the MiniDisk and other novelties. Only geeks (in the unpopular, nerdy meaning of the term) lust after a thing such as Google Glasses. They are a 100% guarantee that you won't even get laid, and for something that you wear on your head, that's the kiss of death.
- taligent 14y ago> solving a problem people don't have See this is what I don't get about Google. There are thousands of problems that Google Glasses could solve. But life recording and answering how long a bridge is are terrible use cases. For me it makes far more sense to position it in firmly in the business and education sectors. And then provide the necessary back end services to support developers. It ties in so much better with other Google services and works to their strength which is in solving big data problems. Leave the gimmicks to the others.
- michaelfeathers 14y agoThis reminds me of the advance-buzz based roll out of the Segway. One of the effects was that various municipalities enacted unfavorable legislation with regard to them. I really think that the high profile was the issue. Glass is going to have the same problem. I think there's a law here: Disruptive technology receives backlash in proportion to its advance press. The best bet for any radically new technology is to become useful and ubiquitous below the radar. If you asked people 20 years ago how they felt about everyone walking around with palm sized video recorders, pointing them and taking video at whim, they would've been upset and prone to legislate against it, but because the technology advanced in quality slowly and had a free ride on cell phones, it became accepted.
- pcote 14y agoYeah, I thought of the smart phone angle of this too. The other day I was part of an airplane evacuation drill and I noticed someone filming me with his smart phone after all was said in done. On one hand, I knew his intent was to film the activity and not me personally. On the other hand, I still felt a little annoyed about it. I might have said something if not for the fact that this technology is everywhere anyways.
- taligent 14y agoThe technology is everywhere. The act is not. You don't see people walking around with their phone held high constantly recording everything as they walk around. If you did then most people would be suspicious or concerned about what they were doing. And more than likely at some point they would be asked to stop. People record video using smartphones of people they know. Not random strangers.
- coldtea 14y ago""""The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses," the bar wrote. "And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."""" Nice. So a good way to make money is to go to the bar with Google Glasses, get your ass kicked (literally), and sue them.
- jrockway 14y agoIndeed this does seem like a good way to recover the initial financial outlay. Unfortunately, I'm guessing the threats are "Internet toughguy" threats rather than actual toughguy threats, so it may take a while to cash out.
- alan_cx 14y agoI say good. And I am stunned by the reaction to it here. So, I must have a Sunday ranty thing.... Seems to me that people get all angry when websites violate privacy, but when the public are encouraged to violate privacy with cool gadgets, suddenly its defence-able. OK, so this is a bar. What about a playground? Nursery? School? Changing rooms? Tell me, how to I protect my privacy from google glass wearing people? How do I protect my kid's privacy, or stop my kids violation other's privacy? Put it this way, if I'm taking a leak in a bar's wash room, and I see some bloke wearing google glasses looking down at "me", he's gonna get very hurt. No joke. No irony. Hurt. It is simple: I dont want my urinating penis on the internet. Sorry, call me prude, but I don't want that. Condemn me all you like, but remember I'm a geek hacker like you reading this, and that is how I feel about it. Now imagine a possible reaction of some non geek. OK, I don't do violence, frankly in reality I'm way more likely to be on the receiving end as I am physically pathetic, weak and useless, but this has great potential for a lot of people suffering real harm, either physically or virtually. "Publicity stunt"? I despise this accusation. It is a pathetic cowardly throw away dismissal, which is designed to belittle those taking some action, in this case, to protect privacy. The message here is: Oh ignore them, its just a publicity stunt, nothing real or worth bothering with here. Move on. Really? The great HN community suddenly belittles those who want to protect privacy? Really people? Thought this through or is this a knee jerk defence of cool technology? Dismissal as a publicity stunt implies attention seeking. Ok, fair enough. So in future, when we get a subject where people reply saying they have disabled java, flash, cookies, etc, due to privacy concerns, we will condemn them as publicity seeking attention seekers, right? Paranoid ignorant fool, yes? People need to start thinking the implications of this through. Sure, for years we have been able to buy head mounted camera's, CCTV, spy drones, etc, but a google pushed product like this will hit mass market, and change the game radically and for good. Its not so much the technology, but how mass market it could and will become. Let the timer begin now. How long until the first google glass wearer gets assaulted or worse for merely wearing google glasses in the wrong place? Tell me, is the only privacy that concerns hackers the privacy expected while hidden behind a keyboard? Is no other privacy valid? Is the attempt to protect other privacy really merely a publicity stunt? I don't like this one little bit. Yeah, very very cool technology. Hell, on that level I want one too. But lets have a long hard think about this. It really is a huge game changer with some serious implications. Ranty done.
- damian2000 14y agoProbable source of the sign - the 'stop the cyborgs blog' ... http://stopthecyborgs.org/google-glass-ban-signs/ http://stopthecyborgs.org/google-glass-ban-signs/
- pavs 14y agoAlso why google glass is a privacy nightmare: http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/ http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/ I too don't understand the love for Glass by the same group people who generally are anal about privacy. Talk about double standard. Would you be ok if I held a camera to your face, probably recording, while I am talking to you?
- Kylekramer 14y agoPretty much the same possibility of being recorded has existed for decades. Does no remember Nixon's presidency? The only difference is Google Glass makes it more noticeable.
- friendly_chap 14y agoI don't want to sound negative but I can't hold it back. Anyone who wears this spy gadget for no specific reason (eg. recording jumping out of a plane or something), but because it is "cool", is seriously delusional, and a poor fellow who can NOT make decisions about his or anyone else's wellbeing. Why? I understand that recording every move of your life is an interesting idea, at least it would be, in an utopian world. Unfortunately, we live in a world where approx 99% of people is being ripped off and oppressed by their government and co. Encouraging the behaviour of wearing this CIA sponsored hoax is just... I seriously can't find words.
- emkemp 14y ago"CIA sponsored hoax"?
- cleverjake 14y agoThe 5-point cafe has had a history of publicity attempts - they used to have bikini clad women pay your parking meters if you bought food. They generally latch on to current events and try to leverage them to get people to come in more.
- cleverjake 14y agoyeah - confirmed. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar-that-banned-google-glasses-admits-it-was-a-pr-stunt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar...
- edwardunknown 14y agoI don't think this is (purely) a publicity stunt, I expect all bars will ban these stupid things because it's asking to be punched in the face. It's a safety thing.