|
I don't want some DurDur douchetoboggan taking shots of me either. Technology develops faster than manners. I'll be visiting this restaurant next week to show support. Bravo. "A few months ago, Google finally confronted their glasshole problem head on, releasing a list of “Do’s and Don’ts” for Glass Explorers that amounted to a very call for basic human decency and respect. Paramount among their concerns were glassholes who break the rules or are rude to those of us who aren't aspirational cyborgs. Now, one East Village restaurant has incurred the wrath of these very glassholes for the crime of asking someone to please put their Glass away inside their restaurant. EV Grieve has the details about what went down at 3rd Avenue joint Feast at the end of April: Katy Kasmai was asked to take off her Glass before dining, because the restaurant had previously received several comments about privacy from other guests when a Glass Explorer ate there. Kasmai allegedly refused to take hers off, and left. "We try to give everyone the best experience possible and she didn't get that," Feast management told them. Karmai wrote about the experience on Google+ on April 20th: "For the first time ever this place, Feast, in #NYC just asked that I remove +Google Glass because customers have complained of privacy concerns in the past. Never has happened to me before in the one year I've had Glass. I left. #throughglass." She added in a comment, "I did ask if they restrict cellphone access as well. They said no. Anyway plenty of good restaurants nearby, I'm at ABC Kitchen now. Better food. No strange Glass rules." And then, Feast says that they suddenly were inundated with negative reviews online—most of which referenced the Glass situation:" http://gothamist.com/2014/05/24/east_village_restaurant_asks_woman.php#.
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
At this point I don't have any problem with a restaurant making a decision like this, but things are only going to get weirder. It's inevitable that there'll be ordinary eyeglass frames augmented with Glass-like technology, so "please take it off" won't really be possible anymore. I've only spent one evening with a Glass user. It was a guy I didn't know, at a conference, after a mutual friend noticed a tweet of mine about a Glass person taking a picture of his dinner (he actually wasn't doing that, it turned out). We went out to dinner the next night and honestly I got used to the Glass thing in basically no time at all. Of course, I'm a programmer, and I understand the technological situation pretty well, and that's an advantage I have in "coping" over a layperson. I don't know whether other people around were creeped out by the guy, but he was perfectly pleasant. He did no Glass evangelism on me at all, though he did convey some of the more interesting features (like being able to answer questions about random old buildings in St. Louis based on ready-at-hand Glass-delivered content). In its current form there's no way I want one, to be clear. I like having ready access to information however so I don't find the concept repugnant at all. Oh and people slamming the restaurant is just typical reddit bullshit (that I don't endorse or condone, for what that's worth).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
The claims of discrimination are priceless. Let's just call it genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
She's an entitled, spoiled idiot, but if the restaurant is all about privacy, they should also ban cellphone usage. As things stand, this policy is probably part of the anti-Google/Facebook/Apple movement that's taking place in the region. Google Glass is one of the most prominent displays of "I'm a Google employee/fan" so walking around with one is a good way of painting a target on one's self.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:She's an entitled, spoiled idiot, but if the restaurant is all about privacy, they should also ban cellphone usage. If there was someone who was getting their phone out and taking pictures of everyone the restaurant would probably ask them to leave too.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If there was someone who was getting their phone out and taking pictures of everyone the restaurant would probably ask them to leave too. Did you even read the article? This wasn't based on anything she did. quote:EV Grieve has the details about what went down at 3rd Avenue joint Feast at the end of April: Katy Kasmai was asked to take off her Glass before dining, because the restaurant had previously received several comments about privacy from other guests when a Glass Explorer ate there. Kasmai allegedly refused to take hers off, and left.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
What the hell is with the backlash against Google Glass? Why does wearing a mildly silly-looking thing on your face make you apparently Literally Hitler, The NSA, And Communism At The Same Time?
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:What the hell is with the backlash against Google Glass? Why does wearing a mildly silly-looking thing on your face make you apparently Literally Hitler, The NSA, And Communism At The Same Time? Yea being asked to take off a needless thing that makes some people uneasy is basically treating you like Hitler.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:What the hell is with the backlash against Google Glass? Why does wearing a mildly silly-looking thing on your face make you apparently Literally Hitler, The NSA, And Communism At The Same Time? I invoke Godwin. Really, it's extremely rude to photograph people without asking them first. I wouldn't want to dine around active glassholes any more than I'd want to dine in a place with an active camera crew.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Did you even read the article? This wasn't based on anything she did. Sounds to me like 'what she did' was refuse to take off a thing she absolutely has no need to wear and makes the staff/customers uneasy. They didn't kick her out, she left in a huff.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:What the hell is with the backlash against Google Glass? Why does wearing a mildly silly-looking thing on your face make you apparently Literally Hitler, The NSA, And Communism At The Same Time? 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
People freaking out about google glass aren't mad because people can take pictures with their face, the problem with glass is consent. If someone asks me if they can take my picture, sure. If you're holding up a phone at me and looking like you might be taking my picture without asking, I'm going to get uncomfortable. Wearing glass is trying to conflate the lines of surveillance and removing consent from the picture, and that's what really is making people uncomfortable. I understand that when I'm in public I don't have an expectation of privacy, but I feel like I have an expectation of not being tracked, identified and followed by data surveillance. And if I'm in a private place, like a restaurant, then I *definitely* have an expectation of privacy. Glass tries to throw all those notions out the window, and people aren't just going to roll over and let that happen.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
I've been struggling with things like this as a 4th amendment issue for a while and best I can do is we really need to take a step forward by creating national codified definitions of what is a public and private place for the sake of information technology. We can allow states to do their own more restrictive rules if they so choose but there really needs to be a fundamental baseline to protect civil liberties, privacy and public safety. It would probably go something like: Public Space - No Expectation of Privacy
Private Space - No Transmission or Recordings without Prior Consent of Owner and/or Target
Obviously by no means comprehensive but we have a real problem where people are relatively inconsiderate and unless some form of authority tells them what proper manners are we're never going to get anywhere in this that doesn't turn into some fresh level of hell set by badly reasoned precedent of judges who don't understand what a Roku is.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've been struggling with things like this as a 4th amendment issue for a while and best I can do is we really need to take a step forward by creating national codified definitions of what is a public and private place for the sake of information technology. We can allow states to do their own more restrictive rules if they so choose but there really needs to be a fundamental baseline to protect civil liberties, privacy and public safety. This has already been codified, not quite how you describe it, Glass just puts privacy concerns into people's faces.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've been struggling with things like this as a 4th amendment issue for a while and best I can do is we really need to take a step forward by creating national codified definitions of what is a public and private place for the sake of information technology. We can allow states to do their own more restrictive rules if they so choose but there really needs to be a fundamental baseline to protect civil liberties, privacy and public safety. Even if I'm on the National Mall, it would be sociopathic behavior to shoot repeated photos of me without asking beforehand. To make it understandable for D&D denizens, imagine that there's a dusky-skinned sort with magnificent headgear in the restaurant. To take a photo is to steal the soul, which is even worse than genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Even if I'm on the National Mall, it would be sociopathic behavior to shoot repeated photos of me without asking beforehand. Personally I agree, but there's a whole genre of art photography devoted to people doing exactly that. Personally I like the results sometimes but the methodology I find horrifying. I find it hard to take pictures of anything out in public that's not an obvious "ooh ooh take a picture" subject, and random strangers walking by are definitely not something I'd feel comfortable shooting (I'm a terrible bad amateur photographer anyway). In a way, newer technology like Glass (or something similar not designed by a crazy person) could make street photography less of an ordeal for the subjects, though the basic ethical issues obviously remain. [edit] I'm not trying to be a concern troll here; I think the topic really is a conundrum in terms of social ethics, interpersonal behavioral norms, privacy, etc etc. emfive fucked around with this message at 20:04 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Hahaha, I don't know where this came from but it is awesome. EDIT: Oh gently caress me, that's Austin, isn't it? Even better!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Sounds to me like 'what she did' was refuse to take off a thing she absolutely has no need to wear and makes the staff/customers uneasy. Define "need," thanks. Do you really need your smartphone? It makes my girlfriend and I uncomfortable. What if you're secretly recording our conversations with it? I need you to turn it off whenever you're within close proximity to us. If you don't like that, you can leave the venue.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Even if I'm on the National Mall, it would be sociopathic behavior to shoot repeated photos of me without asking beforehand. To make it understandable for D&D denizens, imagine that there's a dusky-skinned sort with magnificent headgear in the restaurant. To take a photo is to steal the soul, which is even worse than genocide. I agree morally speaking but the problem is that we do have legitimate concerns about things like law enforcement officers rights to privacy in public spaces to consider. People can correct me if I'm mistaken but it's not unheard of that police will avoid the creation of and/or destroy evidence if it keeps them out of trouble. Freedom of information in the public sphere is the only recourse. Perhaps I'm thinking too far into the future but we will approach a time when video evidence is only as credible as the person who presents it, editing will become too powerful. I don't think sociopathic is the right concept here so much as "being a huge inconsiderate jerk" The problem with the google glass jerk phenomenon is that they believe their right to monitor everything electronically trumps your right to not be recorded, which is why: EightBit posted:This has already been codified, not quite how you describe it, Glass just puts privacy concerns into people's faces. Seems completely untrue to me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Define "need," thanks. Unless you and your girlfriend run the establishment, this is probably a stupid argument you should give up on.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Define "need," thanks. Me, not I, is the accusative. It's perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that strangers not record your conversations without permission. In fact, it's illegal to do so in many jurisdictions. It wouldn't be an enormous leap to extend this prohibition to unilateral Glass recordings of unwitting strangers.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I agree morally speaking but the problem is that we do have legitimate concerns about things like law enforcement officers rights to privacy in public spaces to consider. People can correct me if I'm mistaken but it's not unheard of that police will avoid the creation of and/or destroy evidence if it keeps them out of trouble. Freedom of information in the public sphere is the only recourse. Perhaps I'm thinking too far into the future but we will approach a time when video evidence is only as credible as the person who presents it, editing will become too powerful. I'm OK with monitoring cops when they're performing their duties as officers of the state; obviously a cop at home has every right to privacy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Actually isn't there evidence that attaching cameras to LEOs reduces the amount by which they terrorize the populace while not meaningfully reducing their actual crime-fighting and law-enforcing activities? Exactly. Law enforcement officers are not private individuals while working. They are extensions of the state, which exists to serve us. The state has no privacy rights; only citizens do.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I remember when cell phones first hit mainstream popularity and stopped looking like The Football. People in restaurants outside of douchebag hives like New York and LA would never bring them out in public and always excused themselves from the table. Fifteen to twenty years later we wouldn't even give them a second thought. Within 5-10 years things like Glass will be completely integrated into daily life and this thread will seem bizarre. I don't think that's a great thing any more than I think the proliferation of people staring into cell phones during meals is a great thing, but it seems inevitable. Any efforts to contemplate how they should be integrated will crumble before whatever convenience they represent by then.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Hahaha, I don't know where this came from but it is awesome. It was during SXSW. He's pretty much the personification of SX (at least before the music part).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:50
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea being asked to take off a needless thing that makes some people uneasy is basically treating you like Hitler. I'm not even talking about this in particular, it just seems like everyone has this absolute burning hatred of Google Glass all of a sudden and it makes no sense because it's literally not any different than a smartphone. TheImmigrant posted:I invoke Godwin. Do you also have issues dining around people with smartphones? Do you cower in fear when someone holds their phone up because you might be in the background of a dumb selfie or a picture of food?
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
As someone said up thread this technology will invariably be put into normal looking glasses where it's impossible to tell that it's there. Hell, eventually people will want to record their entire lives so that they can re-experience past events later, like in The Final Cut or Black Mirror: The Entire History of You. This isn't exactly the first time new technology has infringed upon privacy and people have had to get used to it because it wasn't going away.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:It was during SXSW. He's pretty much the personification of SX (at least before the music part). My office building is past the right edge of the photo. SXSW was a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:It was during SXSW. He's pretty much the personification of SX (at least before the music part).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Maybe Google Glass isn't that bad a device, but it sure seems to attract people with persecution complexes. Like that woman who claims she was "attacked for wearing Google Glasses" when in fact she was talking loudly in a bar about what scumbags SF locals were.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I'm not even talking about this in particular, it just seems like everyone has this absolute burning hatred of Google Glass all of a sudden and it makes no sense because it's literally not any different than a smartphone.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Maybe Google Glass isn't that bad a device, but it sure seems to attract people with persecution complexes. Like that woman who claims she was "attacked for wearing Google Glasses" when in fact she was talking loudly in a bar about what scumbags SF locals were. It attracts rich techies who aren't used to being told no.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:I'm not even talking about this in particular, it just seems like everyone has this absolute burning hatred of Google Glass all of a sudden and it makes no sense because it's literally not any different than a smartphone.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How is this the case? The google glass thing sits on your face like you're Vegeta and tells you the power levels of everyone around you while streaming data to Google about who's in the gay bar at 11:20 PM on Thursday night. A smartphone can do many of these things but you have to use your hand to point it, and typically it sits in your pocket or purse. I'd say this is a quanitative difference. This is my primary concern, moreso than the part where it tells people I'm in the gay bar. You look like a loving knob, take that poo poo off before I die from toxic levels of fremdscham.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How is this the case? The google glass thing sits on your face like you're Vegeta and tells you the power levels of everyone around you while streaming data to Google about who's in the gay bar at 11:20 PM on Thursday night. A smartphone can do many of these things but you have to use your hand to point it, and typically it sits in your pocket or purse. I'd say this is a quanitative difference.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The google glass thing sits on your face like you're Vegeta and tells you the power levels of everyone around you while streaming data to Google about who's in the gay bar at 11:20 PM on Thursday night. Essential question: does the Google Glass thing explode like the Saiyan glass if the power reading gets too high? 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Wha-! His LinkedIn... so powerful! How can this be?!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Essential question: does the Google Glass thing explode like the Saiyan glass if the power reading gets too high? Does some sort of douchebag black hole form?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Wha-! His LinkedIn... so powerful! How can this be?!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
twodot posted:It doesn't do this, it doesn't have anywhere close to the battery life it would need to record constantly. The only innovation here is in convincing people to put smartphones on their faces. Battery technology will improve over time - just because it can't record & stream 24/7 now doesn't mean that people's concerns about being surreptitiously recorded are without merit.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:41
|
|