Author Topic: Google Glasses BANNED! (Read 19478 times)

Renegade · « **on:** March 10, 2013, 05:42 AM »

This is semi-comical and semi-serious:

http://news.cnet.com...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.

mitzevo · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2013, 05:57 AM »

+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.

Renegade · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2013, 06:00 AM »

Or maybe some smart company will introduce a product or service that can block the video/recording capabilites.
-mitzevo (March 10, 2013, 05:57 AM)

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!

40hz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2013, 06:34 AM »

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.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2013, 06:35 AM »

There are now some concert halls/theatres that block mobile phone signals. I wish they all did!

Renegade · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2013, 06:56 AM »

There are now some concert halls/theatres that block mobile phone signals. I wish they all did!
-Carol Haynes (March 10, 2013, 06:35 AM)

Ah! Gives me an idea! Sell massive Faraday cages~!

I'm expecting that private sales will be flat zero, but government sales would be lucrative~!

40hz · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2013, 07:22 AM »

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.

Renegade · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2013, 07:49 AM »

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.

-40hz (March 10, 2013, 07:22 AM)

That could work very well. Well, that is if it weren't for some animals being more equal than others.

Edvard · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2013, 08:01 PM »

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM »

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...

40hz · « **Reply #10 on:** March 10, 2013, 08:56 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)

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.

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.

Renegade · « **Reply #11 on:** March 10, 2013, 09:06 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2013, 09:20 PM »

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?

40hz · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2013, 09:54 PM »

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?
-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 09:20 PM)

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.

Renegade · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:02 PM »

So... continuing to be Mephistopheles
-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 09:20 PM)

Please allow wraith to introduce himself, he's a man of wealth and taste~!

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?
-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 09:20 PM)

The glasses haven't been around for a long, long time, though those thugs tried to steal them off his face.

cschw · « **Reply #15 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:03 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 09:06 PM)

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?

Renegade · « **Reply #16 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:24 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 09:06 PM)

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 (March 10, 2013, 10:03 PM)

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:41 PM »

Please allow wraith to introduce himself, he's a man of wealth and taste~!
-Renegade (March 10, 2013, 10:02 PM)

Glad someone chimed in with that

cschw · « **Reply #18 on:** March 10, 2013, 11:09 PM »

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....

Renegade · « **Reply #19 on:** March 10, 2013, 11:20 PM »

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....
-cschw (March 10, 2013, 11:09 PM)

Get a dart board, a piece of paper, thick magic marker, a tack, and a blindfold. That's a good start!

(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.

SeraphimLabs · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)

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.

wraith808 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:13 PM »

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.

40hz · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2013, 06:39 PM »

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 (March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM)

Precisely.

Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.
-SeraphimLabs (March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM)

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.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2013, 07:53 PM »

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 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)

You mean like banning guns and accessories?

Tinman57 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2013, 08:02 PM »

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.