DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => Living Room => Topic started by: Renegade on March 10, 2013, 05:42 AM
-
This is semi-comical and semi-serious:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57573387-93/seattle-dive-bar-becomes-first-to-ban-google-glass/
Google Glass won't be available to consumers for months, but there's at least one Seattle bar where the eyewear will not be welcome.
The 5 Point, a self-described dive bar in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood, posted a notice to its Facebook page this week telling Glass Explorers looking to grab a pint that they will need to remove their $1,500 spectacles. The story was noted today on GeekWire.
"For the record, The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses," the post reads. "And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."
"I'm a thought leader," deadpanned Dave Meinert, the bar's owner, in an interview on Seattle's KIRO-FM. "First you have to understand the culture of the 5 Point, which is a sometimes seedy, maybe notorious place. People want to go there and be not known...and definitely don't want to be secretly filmed or videotaped and immediately put on the Internet."
Meinert admitted he was having a bit of fun: "Part of this is a joke, to be funny on Facebook, and get reaction."
More at the link.
But, he does have a point.
It will be interesting to see if there's any kind of fallout or if "recording-free" zones start popping up.
-
+1 for The 5 point. Most places don't allow photo/video'ing (shopping venues, libraries, etc. etc.). If Google Glasses can take video or photos, does that make them exempt from such places? Ofcourse not. BAN! Or maybe some smart company will introduce a product or service that can block the video/recording capabilites.
-
Or maybe some smart company will introduce a product or service that can block the video/recording capabilites.
-mitzevo
Well, you can buy glasses & hats that have IR lights that block recording and only show white spots...
However, I think I'd rather just have a large EMP. Imagine the fun you could have at the airport with one of those! :P ;D
-
I pity the hipster walking down a city street with a pair of those on when he walks past a paranoid crazy who thinks they're being videoed. :tellme:
-
There are now some concert halls/theatres that block mobile phone signals. I wish they all did!
-
There are now some concert halls/theatres that block mobile phone signals. I wish they all did!
-Carol Haynes
Ah! Gives me an idea! Sell massive Faraday cages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage)~! ;D I'm expecting that private sales will be flat zero, but government sales would be lucrative~! :P
-
On a more positive note, with a little additional tech, it could make things considerably more difficult for police who are behaving badly.
What if a web-enabled version of "The Wire" (that most beloved gadget of police action movies - right up there with the HK MP5K) found it's way into the hands of the average Jill or Joe out on the street?
Hard to arrest people for videoing some questionable "enforcement actions" when everybody in the crowd is wearing a set of goggles that can do so. How would you know which of the hundreds is videoing? And how would you stop them if they were? It's pointless to confiscate if the video feed is being sent up to the net in realtime. I suppose you could subpoena their ISP and get access to the person's online storage accounts. But if they've been set up to auto-push to the torrents, well...it's gonna be a bear to censor people or enforce gag orders.
With police perjury on the rise (especially in countries where they still bother to hold trials) it could become a valuable asset in the struggle to preserve constitutional freedoms.
8)
-
On a more positive note, with a little additional tech, it could make things considerably more difficult for police who are behaving badly.
What if a web-enabled version of "The Wire" (that most beloved gadget of police action movies - right up there with the HK MP5K) found it's way into the hands of the average Jill or Joe out on the street?
Hard to arrest people for videoing some questionable "enforcement actions" when everybody in the crowd is wearing a set of goggles that can do so. How would you know which of the hundreds is videoing? And how would you stop them if they were? It's pointless to confiscate if the video feed is being sent up to the net in realtime. I suppose you could subpoena their ISP and get access to the person's online storage accounts. But if they've been set up to auto-push to the torrents, well...it's gonna be a bear to censor people or enforce gag orders.
With police perjury on the rise (especially in countries where they still bother to hold trials) it could become a valuable asset in the struggle to preserve constitutional freedoms.
8)
-40hz
That could work very well. Well, that is if it weren't for some animals being more equal than others. ;)
-
I totally agree with the proprietor's cultural view there. The 5-Point's motto is "Alcoholics serving alcoholics since 1929", and they are one of the best joints to grab an old-fashion plate of eggs and browns on a Tuesday morning when you can smell the rain is going to clear in a half hour or so. That and they really do kick out scumbags, I've seen it.
Good on them. No complaints here. :Thmbsup:
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...
-wraith808
True. But I'm pretty sure (based on what has gone before) that we could come up with a pretty accurate probability of what will happen once these things hit the street. Some uses and abuses are so obvious it's not so much a question of "if any will" as it is a question of "how many will."
So c'mon Beelzebub. We're all geeks here. 8) We already know how this is likely to go down in an unregulated environment. Look at what happened with 'lipstick' cameras and nanny-cams. Those "benign by design" devices proved to be a major if unintentional gift to the voyeur porn market. Ditto with the cameras embedded in half the laptops being sold. Even public school administrators got caught abusing their trust, to say nothing of breaking the law, with those gadgets.
Like all tech, it can go both ways. And if I had to give odds on which side is going to be more 'innovative' and quick off the mark, I'll give you two free guesses as to which side I'd put my money on.
;D
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...
-wraith808
It's not the tool that's the problem - it's who is using it. So, yeah, you're bang on there about a legal banning.
But still, if I own a bar or whatever (as a person - I would exclude corporate entities as I don't believe in HUMAN rights for legal fictions), then I think it's really up to me if I want to establish a set of ground rules for behaviour in my establishment. e.g. If you own a brothel, then there are certain things that would be perfectly fine there that wouldn't be ok in a normal pub.
So, for the person that owns that bar, I'd say he's well within reasonable expectations about what he allows inside of his bar.
I wouldn't say the same for a TGI Fridays though as that's a corporate entity and doesn't have human rights like you or I do.
-
So... continuing to be Mephistopheles :)
These glasses have applications and implications far outside of being a simple device of entertainment, even if not in that particular form. So what happens then (http://blog.laptopmag.com/exclusive-cyborg-steve-mann-on-alleged-mcdonalds-assault)?
-
So... continuing to be Mephistopheles :)
These glasses have applications and implications far outside of being a simple device of entertainment, even if not in that particular form. So what happens then (http://blog.laptopmag.com/exclusive-cyborg-steve-mann-on-alleged-mcdonalds-assault)?
-wraith808
I'm guessing there were some people in McDonalds that were supposed to be somewhere else or with somebody else who got a little bent and bitched to the management. ;D
-
So... continuing to be Mephistopheles :)
-wraith808
Please allow wraith to introduce himself, he's a man of wealth and taste~! :P
These glasses have applications and implications far outside of being a simple device of entertainment, even if not in that particular form. So what happens then (http://blog.laptopmag.com/exclusive-cyborg-steve-mann-on-alleged-mcdonalds-assault)?
-wraith808
The glasses haven't been around for a long, long time, though those thugs tried to steal them off his face.
;)
-
So, for the person that owns that bar, I'd say he's well within reasonable expectations about what he allows inside of his bar.
I wouldn't say the same for a TGI Fridays though as that's a corporate entity and doesn't have human rights like you or I do.
-Renegade
So...if Dave Meinert owns the 5 Points Cafe as a sole proprietor, then he has standing to ban things in his establishment?
What if he has the 5 Points Cafe organized as an LLC (limited liability corporation)...or what if its a partnership--or a limited partnership? At what point along the spectrum of legally-recognized business entities is the right to ban things gained or lost? :)
-
So, for the person that owns that bar, I'd say he's well within reasonable expectations about what he allows inside of his bar.
I wouldn't say the same for a TGI Fridays though as that's a corporate entity and doesn't have human rights like you or I do.
-Renegade
So...if Dave Meinert owns the 5 Points Cafe as a sole proprietor, then he has standing to ban things in his establishment?
What if he has the 5 Points Cafe organized as an LLC (limited liability corporation)...or what if its a partnership--or a limited partnership? At what point along the spectrum of legally-recognized business entities is the right to ban things gained or lost? :)
-cschw
When shrugging off personal responsibility, rights are similarly shrugged off. Why should corporate legal fictions be different? Because they have enough money to purchase whatever legislation they want? I'll leave it at that and let people paint in whatever shades of grey they find most appealing. :D
-
Please allow wraith to introduce himself, he's a man of wealth and taste~!
-Renegade
Glad someone chimed in with that ;D
-
Mr. Meinert has an interest in several Seattle businesses--at least two of which are limited liability corporations. However, it's not clear to me whether he's avoided enough personal responsibility to forfeit his right to ban Google Glasses at the 5 Points Cafe. Just not sure how to measure that.... :D
-
Mr. Meinert has an interest in several Seattle businesses--at least two of which are limited liability corporations. However, it's not clear to me whether he's avoided enough personal responsibility to forfeit his right to ban Google Glasses at the 5 Points Cafe. Just not sure how to measure that.... :D
-cschw
Get a dart board, a piece of paper, thick magic marker, a tack, and a blindfold. That's a good start! :D (A friend to spin you around a bit is optional, but they should point you at the board to avoid any injury.) i.e. I don't have perfect answers, but I can still smell smoke.
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...
-wraith808
It's a privately owned establishment. They are completely within their rights to set what they will and will not allow people to do on their property.
And really it isn't like bans on recording equipment are new. A lot of facilities in nearly every industry also have partial bans on recording equipment, done in order to protect trade secret information.
What will probably happen is the google glass will need to have a provision where a packet can be broadcast on wifi that when recieved disables the device's recording capabilites. Make it similar to the magic packet wakeup that has been present in devices for the better part of a decade- simply a broadcast packet on a designated channel designed to restrict the devices.
Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.
-
I wasn't talking that specifically but the other comments, but going even into that specific case- what happens when it gets into being used to account for handicaps... you're going to have a hard time with that argument.
-
It's a privately owned establishment. They are completely within their rights to set what they will and will not allow people to do on their property.
-SeraphimLabs
Precisely.
Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.
-SeraphimLabs
That's a little dicier a proposition if the disabling mechanism isn't built into the device itself. And I can't see Google willingly doing that without legislation forcing it to do so.
But that then becomes a slippery slope since the same technology also could be used to also disable ordinary cameras, cellphones - and even news cameras.
Note: RF jamming is generally illegal in the USA. Where allowed, it requires a special permit due to the risk of a jamming signal interfering with legitimate permitted communications, GPS devices, and public safety communications such as fire and police radios.
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...-wraith808
You mean like banning guns and accessories?
-
Video glasses have been around for a few years now, along with video pens and other devices, but none of these have been banned. Not to mention that cell phones can take pictures and video's, and they're allowed in all these places. I think it's just their way of getting 15 minutes of fame. More like 15 minutes of shame in my book. Either way, I for one wouldn't bother spending my money in any of their establishments if they want to accuse you of mal-intent just for having an item in your possession.
-
Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.
-SeraphimLabs
That's a little dicier a proposition if the disabling mechanism isn't built into the device itself. And I can't see Google willingly doing that without legislation forcing it to do so.
-40hz
The government is paranoid about maintaining control.
Recording devices in large numbers could very easily be pitched as a threat to national security, because lets face it the government won't be able to get away with anything if everyone who sees it can record it and show footage online. That police abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. False flags? Government inside jobs? Top secret technology? Even just possible political scandals. If they can keep it covered up just by pushing a button on the dash of the cop car, why wouldn't they.
Simply mandating that when devices are exposed to a certain transmission pattern on a certain frequency results in disabling their recording capabilities would be an easy way for them to continue to keep people ignorant. Officials then merely need to make sure these signals are being transmitted while on official functions to prevent them from being recorded, except by authorized equipment for government use only that has the option to override the shutdown signal.
It would be no more questionable than gun control, and far less difficult to implement since the consumer hardware industry would happily lobby in favor of a bill that allows them to sell small transmitters styled similar to wifi hotspots intended to provide this signal for facilities that do not allow recording equipment.
-
What happens when Google glasses become indistinguishable from normal glasses?
-
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...-wraith808
You mean like banning guns and accessories?
-Tinman57
That was the (thinly veiled) point. Thanks. :Thmbsup:
But to continue, the same people saying that there out to be more bans are the same people saying that there shouldn't be controls on guns. Hmm...
-
people saying that there out to be more bans are the same people saying that there shouldn't be controls on guns. Hmm...
-wraith808
A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.
;)
-
What happens when Google glasses become indistinguishable from normal glasses?
-Carol Haynes
They almost are, the non-Google ones. I've been absently following this trend for years, and it's gonna come to a collision point real soon. Because between Carol and Tinman, "they can only ban what their currently stilted imaginations let them ban".
As for "magic disabling carrier frequencies", I don't see that approach really working, it will just lead to "un-moderated" Chinese versions of stuff or something.
On a show of The Panel there was a disturbing response from the panelists that "it's okay to not hire someone based on their Facebook posts because it shows bad judgement to post a pic of you getting drunk blah blah". Oh really?! Now I know why I avoid that hard place only to risk being deemed an anti-social critter for not being on there to begin with.
I love the stories of "Police say _____ _____ _____ ____". 12 hours later: "Man posts pics on Facebook denying police account." Police: "Well, um, we didn't yet have the full information on our officer's conduct".
-
A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.
-40hz
+1
The most dangerous people are the ones that KNOW what right/wrong is and what you *should* and *shouldn't* do. They're invariably out to save the world because nobody else is capable of running their own life without "guidance".
-
A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.
-40hz
+1
The most dangerous people are the ones that KNOW what right/wrong is and what you *should* and *shouldn't* do. They're invariably out to save the world because nobody else is capable of running their own life without "guidance".
-Renegade
Yup. They're called members of the government and clergy. ;D
:tellme: :tellme: :tellme:beep-beep-beep***basement alert***beep-beep-beep :tellme: :tellme: :tellme:
-
:tellme: :tellme: :tellme:beep-beep-beep***basement alert***beep-beep-beep :tellme: :tellme: :tellme:
-40hz
I think I pushed the wrong button... ;D
-
Queue laughter! ;D
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57574607-93/google-glass-the-opposition-grows/
Google Glass: The opposition grows
"Stop The Cyborgs" is a new site that attempts to bring a balanced trepidation to the unbalanced idea that we'll all be walking round with Google's outer brain strapped to our faces.
The opposition will congregate in dark corners.
They will whisper with their mouths, while their eyes will scan the room for spies wearing strange spectacles.
The spies will likely be men. How many women would really like to waft down the street wearing Google Glass?
It won't be easy. Once you've been cybernated, there's no turning back. Which is why the refuseniks are already meeting in shaded corners of the Web.
One site is called "Stop The Cyborgs." It claims to be "fighting the algorithmic future one bit at a time."
A sticker being offered on the "Stop The Cyborgs" Web site.
It's going to take a lot of bitty fighting, but the people behind this site -- they're naturally anonymous, in an attempt to stop Google spying on them -- say they're fighting Google Glass in particular.
They say that it will herald a world in which "privacy is impossible and corporate control total."
Seems there is more resistance than ever.
-
Don’t ban me, bro: paranoia reigns in preemptive Glass bans (http://livingthruglass.com/dont-ban-me-bro-paranoia-reigns-in-preemptive-glass-bans/)