

Seattle Restaurant Boots Google Glass-Wearing Patron - davidsmith8900
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2427804,00.asp

======
DigitalSea
The restaurant is well within its rights as pointed out to eject patrons
wearing Google Glass. It's perfectly acceptable and allowable, if you don't
like it, don't eat there. I can see why the restaurant would take issue with
Google Glass, at present, it's a new technology and somewhat a bit creepy if
you ask me. Eventually it'll be normal to wear the likes of Google Glass out
and about, but for now it's a new technology that comes with new territory and
boundaries to be set.

If clubs, bars and restaurants are allowed to enforce dress codes (certain
shoes, button up shirts, etc) then I don't see why a restaurant can't enforce
a no Google Glass policy, especially if it's a more higher class venue to eat
at. I can see why some people could take issue with Google Glass. I've been
kicked out of bars before because I wasn't wearing a collared shirt and dress
pants, but you won't read about it in the news.

~~~
jfim
Quoted from this article [1] :

“I inform (the employee) that I am well aware of the policy at The 5 Point
Cafe but asked to see where it was policy for Glass to be disallowed at Lost
Lake. She said she couldn’t provide any and when asked to speak with
management she stated she was the night manager. I again inform her that the
two venues are different and have different policies. She refuses and I
leave,” he wrote. “As we are leaving, Brian (his partner) points out that on
the menu they state “Post photos on our website via Instagram by using
#LostLake.” So how is an establishment which is REQUESTING photos be taken,
not allow me to bring a device which takes photos and can post to Instagram? I
would love an explanation, apology, clarification, and if the staff member was
in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as
well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination.”

It seems rather legitimate to request to see an official policy.

[1]
[http://blogs.seattletimes.com/allyoucaneat/2013/11/26/diner-...](http://blogs.seattletimes.com/allyoucaneat/2013/11/26/diner-
using-google-glass-asked-to-leave-restaurant/)

~~~
DigitalSea
Definitely legitimate to request an official policy, but it's not like he was
being ejected on religious or race though. Maybe the policy is so new they've
yet to print it out for patrons to read, especially more difficult if it
requires printing out new menus on particular stock material.

It's like going over a friends house and they ask you to leave without an
explanation. It's private property at the end of the day and as long as you're
not literally picking someone up and throwing them out, there are no civil
rights being violated here. The owner and management staff at the time reserve
the right to eject patrons for whatever reason they seem fitting, obviously
ejecting a patron means lost revenue, so they wouldn't just go ejecting people
for no good reason.

I get it sucks for the patron kicked out, but lets be honest here, the
situation is being blown way out of proportion. You're kicked out of a
restaurant because you refuse to comply with the requests of the restaurant to
remove your device from your head? How hard is it to remove your glasses?
Would the person in question have responded the same if he was wearing a hat
and was asked to remove it as well?

Calling for the employee who felt as though they were doing the right thing to
be fired is just horrible and waters down the argument of the patron in
question if you ask me.

It reminds me of the time I was at a restaurant and someone started an
argument with 3 of the restaurant staff because they were charged for two
bottles of sparkling water at $10 a pop. They claimed they weren't told of the
cost even though the menu had the cost, they were yelling to the point the
manager just said they would remove the water from the bill and leave it at
that. Restaurant staff have to put up with a lot of crap for a minimum wage.
The patron involved needs to have some compassion, especially if the employee
was only just briefed on the new policy themselves.

I swear some people deliberately try and test the boundaries in these
situations. The patron in question acted very decently, but should have just
removed the glasses and there wouldn't have been a problem.

~~~
jfim
True, if there was an unambiguous sign on the window "No Google Glass," I
doubt any of this would've happened.

However, with regards to the religion or race part, it's very likely that
someone ejecting on this basis will pick some other arbitrary reason rather
than saying "we don't serve x people here."

I agree with you that it's likely that neither party was completely clean,
especially considering the guy knew the policy at a different but related
establishment.

------
maaku
I would object if the guy at the next table over pulled out a camera and
started snapping pictures while my wife and I are eating. I would feel
violated. What is different about Glass? If I were at this restaurant I would
ask the owner to ask him to take off and turn off that device. And if that
didn't happen I wouldn't come back. If you were the owner, what would you do?

~~~
jamesbritt
_I would object if the guy at the next table over pulled out a camera and
started snapping pictures while my wife and I are eating. I would feel
violated._

Same here. In other HN discussions about expectations of privacy while in
public with regards, say, license plate scanning or facial recognition there
always seems to be at least one or two people claiming there is no reasonable
expectation or right to privacy when out in public. I tend to disagree with
them but often they make a plausible argument.

Having a remote camera record the passing of your car feels less in-your-face
invasive, and I wonder if that allows more people to let it slide.

Perhaps the more overt creepiness of Glass will lead to more stringent privacy
laws that (hopefully) are then equally applicable to the more stealthy forms
of surveillance and recording.

At the every least, if I can't come into your place of business with a
ubiquitous recording device then your place of business cannot subject me to
ubiquitous recording either.

I'm less optimistic about similar restrains against data capture under the
guise of "security."

------
taspeotis
There was a discussion on Slashdot before the guy's Twitter account 404'd.
This comment [1] caught my eye.

Since the tweet is gone, I can't verify the quote for myself. But, if it's
accurate, it looks like the customer has very poor conflict resolution skills
when it comes to anything getting between him and Google Glass.

[1]
[http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4504895&cid=45564881](http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4504895&cid=45564881)

------
crusso
I hadn't seen the pejorative "glassholes" until I read a comment on the FB
page. God bless the Internet for its ability to teach us new things every day.

------
vertr07
I'm somewhat sure that these restauranteurs instituted this policy so they
could milk the inevitable media coverage they would get for their restaurants.
The stated privacy reasons are flimsy at best.

