
Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass - balnaphone
http://eyetap.org/mcdonalds/
======
pg
No one at an ordinary McDonald's would even notice such a device. Ergo this
was not an ordinary McDonald's, but one with security people looking for
cameras. Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras?
Possibly because it was a mafia front. If you wanted to launder money, a fast
food restaurant in a popular location would be a good place to do it.

The way the employees behaved is consistent with this explanation.

Edit: I should have said no more than that the excessive reaction of the
security people suggests there may be something dubious happening at this
McDonald's that they don't want filmed. But there are other less dramatic
things they might be doing besides money laundering: using undocumented labor,
for example.

~~~
AlexMuir
Without further information I find this very hard to believe.

Laundering money through a fast food restaurant with a supply chain outside
your control is a terrible idea. Franchises are required to purchase food
centrally.

Q How much cash are you banking this week?

A 1,000,000 EUR

Q So you have sold 500,000 Big Macs.

A Yes

Q Can I see your invoices for 500,000 buns please?

The profit margin is not high enough for it to be worth ordering extra stock
and throwing it out. The business would effectively be paying about 70% tax.
That's not digestable, even to launder cash.

More plausible reasons: Running a McDonalds franchise and significantly and
systematically under-reporting revenue using unauthorised suppliers. But to
involve low-level staff would seem unlikely.

This isn't exactly covert surveillance. Some bored member of staff just didn't
like the look of this American weirdo with a video camera for an eye, a piece
of paper that he waves around and an attitude that he is entitled to buffer
everything he sees anywhere in the world and then publicly blame an entire
multinational for a minor, local incident. (Not my perception, but I think it
likely that it was theirs.)

~~~
dr_
Whether it's money laundering or underreporting revenues, the implication is
that something is awry at this McDonalds. The author is probably doing
McDonald's Corp. a service by contacting them. They should address it,
immediately.

~~~
tibbon
Precisely. You could also put a kilo of cocaine into a cane or walker. Yet,
assaulting every older/disabled person using such would be downright criminal.

~~~
einhverfr
Assaulting anybody _is_ downright criminal in most jurisdictions.

------
Zenst
Complain to the Olympic board as McDonalds are a sponsor of the Olympics and
the Para-Olympics.

In parallel write/email to the newspapers etc.

Also talk to your embassy who can advise how to proceed in other ways.

You have a vision problem and need a visual aid to combat that disability.
McDonalds not only commited assualt but also did it systematicaly and
premeditated way indicating they are not a suitable sponsor for the para-
Olympics.

If they won't deal with this issue responsibly, then sod em and shame them as
publicly and in as many ways as possible; you have done nothing wrong, nothing
and they are all to blame so shame them.

Also few links on FB and twitter with liberal abuse of #mcdonalds #imlovinit
#mcd and the like will soon garner this issue the attention it needs and
deserves.

You could see a lawyer, but it's hard to find one who can deal with this. I'd
go the press/PR route (then a good lawyer will come to you) as your doing but
with a few nationals who will happily run this story. Now is a good time given
there large marketing event called the Olympics, leverage this time and
educate McDonalds.

Last time I went to McDonalds security told me the toilets were for customers
only too which I pointed out that in a civilised World we wash our hands
before we handle our food and I had no desire to take my food into the toilet
or leave it unattended as I had no confidence on the security being able to
saftly protect my food/possesions. He appologised and I left to eat elsewere.

~~~
grimboy
Drifitng off topic, but the Paralympics are already sponsored by ATOS, the
company the UK government has put in charge of taking social security from the
genuinely disabled.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-
games...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-games-
organisers-defend-atos-sponsorship)

~~~
writetoalok
> social security from the genuinely disabled

And what might that percentage be? Seeing a number of moochers feigning
disability for unearned dole outs, is surely the most common disgust of our
times.

And if one is disabled, they should not expect to be given free handouts from
money forced out at gunpoint. They need care and consideration and all
volunteer help they can get.

Its time to realize that Government should be the institution for one thing
and one only. Protection of individual freedom. And nothing else.

~~~
DividesByZero
Internet libertarians are adorable.

~~~
writetoalok
Thank you, and is that the only comment you have on the topic? Say, what is
your philosophical stand on this?

------
heyrhett
I find it really hard to believe that Steve Mann would have some kind of
medical condition that would lead a normal Dr. to prescribe that Steve Mann
wears the computer vision glasses that Steve Mann invented.

I'm sorry he was harassed, but this story really smells of one of the oldest
ways to gain media attention on the internet:

Step 1: Get screwed by a big company (this is the easy part) Step 2: Write a
blog article documenting how you got screwed Step 3: Submit story to slashdot,
digg, reddit, etc.

Keep in mind people, before you start blowing up about this "injustice" that
we're only hearing one side of the story. And frankly, I'm of the opinion that
cases of assault are _better_ handled by police and courtrooms than blogs and
internet mobs.

Also, the fact that the retribution Steve Mann is demanding, is that
_McDonald's_ repairs the glasses that Steve Mann invented is, well, a fantasy
to say the least.

~~~
ChuckMcM
What I don't understand why clearly things have been manually blacked out (or
whited out in this case). Why not show their face?

I agree this story smells in a dozen different ways. Rather than the mafia I'm
wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in
order to assert IP rights against a very wealthy company which has made very
public announcements about glasses that augment your vision and take pictures
of what you see.

For that reason I think we'll see more on this story.

~~~
Jach
> …I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some
> documentation in order to assert IP rights…

This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this page yet.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann>

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aeyeta...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aeyetap.org%2Fpublications%2Findex.html&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google?
On the contrary for someone who has put as much of his life into augmented
reality, to see Google Glass hit the press where essentially this giant $250B
company is going to change the world with _his ideas_? Especially where he is
the sole inventor and assignee?

I don't know about you but that movie has played out so many times as to be
cliche. Generally the professor's college is the one doing the suing as they
get assignment rights to research but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I'll be the first to admit I'm awfully cynical about patents these days, and I
sure as hell know that if some patent litigator saw Mann's patent he would ask
Dr. Mann if he was being compensated by Google. If not that same litigator
would probably have a moment of giddyness as he offers to get him that
compensation. Could be a big payday, and money is a powerful motivator.

I'll take it all back if Mann says that Google has already licensed the
patent. Otherwise my bet is on the legal sharks.

~~~
ajays
Jeez man, anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing these days
knows all about Mann's work. I'm sure the Google Glasses people know all about
it too; I'd be shocked if they did not. He's just too well known. Stop tilting
at windmills.

Here's some background reading:
[http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-
gla...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-glass-
wearable-computers-disappoint-me)

~~~
ChuckMcM
If your employer allows it, browse the US patent office [1]. That is a search
for 'google' and 'glasses' in any patent application. Then go to the link the
US PTO maintains which cites references to Dr. Mann's patent [2]. Of the 34
patents that reference Dr. Mann's work, _not a single one_ is a Google patent
associated with Google Glass.

So while "anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing" knows about
Dr. Mann's work, apparently those same people at Google seemed to have missed
that connection when the started filing patents about wearable displays.

So, I agree with you. Everybody working with wearable computing _should_ know
about Dr. Mann's work. And anyone putting out a 'revolutionary product' which
looks strikingly similar to the Eyetap product would, acknowledge that debt
and perhaps show how they learned from what had gone before.

So if you're right, then I'm right too.

[1] [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=glasses&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=google&FIELD2=&d=PTXT)

[2] [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-
adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PALL&Query=ref/6614408)

------
AsylumWarden
Wow, sorry to hear about the assault and damage to your property. That is
quite a way to wreck an otherwise pleasant vacation. I will say that I am glad
to hear that I am not the only one to have been treated in a rather hostile
manner at a McDonald's in Paris. My wife and I went there on vacation a few
years back. My wife was filming my clumsy handling of the french language as
she made me order (she is actually quite good at french) and an "employee"
took her camera, shoved us out of the restaurant and then smashed our camera
on the side walk. I'm not sure what they think they are hiding.

~~~
waffle_ss
There must be something in the water there because we had eggs thrown at us
from an upper floor apartment walking down some sidewalk in Paris (I guess our
speaking English to one another was offensive?). We always spoke French when
interacting with francophones. Visiting the more rural places in France was
pleasant though, and the people were more friendly.

~~~
chris_wot
Parisians are famed for their rudeness. Whether that is fair I cannot judge,
when I went there we didn't seem to have any problems!

~~~
Natsu
Except for one rude shopkeeper, everyone I met in France was nice.

~~~
AsylumWarden
Were you in Paris? Seriously, we had no problems anywhere else we went. It was
just Paris. We visited Nice, Lyons, and Toulouse on our trip and had lots more
fun in those places.

------
richardv
This is a really disturbing story. I hope you get a satisfactory resolution.

Anyway, there has been a trend recently with regular HN'er saying that people
should stop using HN as a way to get justice. "HN is not your mommy".

I strongly believe that this is exactly the time that HN should step up,
upvote this story, and ensure to it that a guy who creates the technology he
wears see's some kind of justice.

~~~
rosser
I'm the person who wrote the "HN is not your mommy" comment, and I'd like to
take a moment to clarify a bit what I was trying to say with that.

Most importantly, I definitely wasn't decrying _all_ instances of people
bringing a situation that has gone some flavor of shitty to the attention of
HN. In fact, it's in no small part the fact that the HN community is so
willing to help one another out that keeps me here — particularly among the
alumni, but I think their conduct just sets the example for the rest of us.

That said, I've started to feel a few times lately like that willingness to be
helpful is being taken advantage of — or at least people are trying to do so.
The "I didn't win the contest! Waaaah!" was just the most egregious example
I'd seen in some time, and I felt the need to call it out. Given that it was
the highest rated comment I've ever posted on HN, I'm clearly not alone in
that.

This situation isn't remotely the same. This is a clear-cut case of ignorant
idiocy escalating into physical assault, and the louder and more forcefully
the fact that _that kind of thing is fucking wrong_ gets shoved in McD's face,
the better.

~~~
swang
Do you have a link to the I didn't win the contest article?

~~~
kleyton
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4220156>

------
akamaka
Coming from Steve Mann, I'm a little bit hesitant to take this story at face
value.

A while back, he had a run in with airport security about his equipment:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN...](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN.html)

While I don't deny that the security guards could have acted more
respectfully, it seems like Steve went out of his way to put himself in a
situation that he knew would be problematic. Why couldn't he have removed the
equipment before returning to the airport? Also, some of his claims seemed
exaggerated, like that his equipment couldn't be x-rayed or that he became
disoriented in the airport with having his wearable computer.

If he's looking to make a point about cyborg rights, fair enough, but my
opinion of him is that he doesn't come into these situations with an attitude
that avoids misunderstandings. I think that another person in this same
situation would have at least been able to communicate with the McDonald's
staff and determine what the problem was.

------
truxs
I think they were not afraid of terrorism or cops but rather journalist.

This past few years several documentaries showed how bad hygien can be in some
french restaurant (fast-food or not) wich in the worst case led to the death
of customers. [http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/quick-d-avignon-
benjam...](http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/quick-d-avignon-
benjamin-14-ans-est-bien-mort-intoxique-18-02-2011-1321649.php)

One of this documentary was involving macdonald but was only broadcast on the
internet once it was leaked cause the channel didn't want to lose one of the
biggest advertiser. [http://www.slate.fr/story/19421/mcdo-kfc-le-reportage-
censur...](http://www.slate.fr/story/19421/mcdo-kfc-le-reportage-censure-
de-m6-reapparait)

So i would bet they were afraid of bad publicity ... Oh the sweet taste of
irony

------
scoot
_"when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by
a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory,
and are not overwritten with new ones"_

This sounds bogus. The stills presented in the post suggests they were taken
by design rather than some random stills "remaining in memory" after the
alleged assault.

There are frames from earlier in his McDonald's visit that it would not make
sense to still exist in memory for "processing". I'm not questioning the
alleged events, but wondering why he would give such an unlikely explanation
of the existence of these stills? Is it illegal to video in a retail
establishment in France?

~~~
antoinevg
What he is trying to explain is that he is NOT making a permanent video record
of everything he sees.

Any computer vision system is going to have an image buffer.

When you break the system it's going to stop overwriting that buffer with new
images.

If he had been left alone the images on his blog would have been overwritten
with new images.

Does it make more sense to you now?

~~~
betawolf33
Consider how long ago these events are in his narrative. He gives a still of
'Possible Witness 1' who he met and talked with as he entered the store.
Presume that that image is at the end of their conversation (as it will have
been pretty long).

He then describes going to the counter and ordering food. That is to say, his
daughter ordered food in French. That's a minute or two of activity, at the
least.

Then he goes and sits down to eat his food. Assuming really prompt service and
that he was attacked almost as soon as possible in the narrative, that's at
least another half-minute to take a seat and unwrap your sandwich.

There are then a series of images and a description of him trying to reason
with several people who 'deliberated on [his documentation] for some time'
before pushing him out. That, to me, is at least five minutes of
confrontation.

I can't see why his image buffer would be over seven minutes long.

------
corford
Upsetting but I don't think there's much that can be done about it. The local
police or gendarmes are unlikely to have the time to pursue it and I doubt any
witnesses will come forward (from the staff at least). Just a case of three
"beuf" (as the French would say) taking a dislike to a geek. Sadly, there's a
sub-section of young(ish) male French society that is extremely macho and very
closed minded when it comes to people not fitting the mould. They're the same
jerks that will harass a girl if she's wearing a short skirt (because
obviously that means "she's up for it!")

~~~
guard-of-terra
In Russian, this kind of person is called "gopnik". Feel free to use.

Not directly related to one of two USA main parties.

------
cargo8
WHAT?! I can't believe this happened and truly hope you can find these people.

From the sound of your story, it sounds like those three were probably not
actually affiliated McDonalds. Were you confident that even Potential Witness
1 was a true employee? Sounds like a scam and heist, but very strange since
multiple people involved were wearing (seemingly) legitimate McDonalds
clothing. Although, I would note that they were not wearing the uniform that
the cashiers were wearing, which may give more weight to the conjecture that
they were just lurking in plain site waiting to mug or rip someone off.

I hope you find these guys and they get whats coming to them.

~~~
citricsquid
Here in England the managers of a McDonalds wear different clothing items to
the peons, it's plausible that the people involved were either managerial
staff or possibly security? The fact that perp 3 is carrying janitorial
equipment would indicate he is indeed part of the store.

------
ackackackack
> _The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in
> order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g.
> by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered
> pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with
> new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system._

The computer broke and accidentally took these handy photos of his
perpetrators? Yeah I don't believe that for a second. I'm betting that it was
always recording video and in order to release these images publicly or in a
courtroom, he needs a story about how it "malfunctioned" when he was roughed
up.

Side tangent, that's exactly what's creepy about this glass technology.
There's no physical indication that a picture/video is being recorded, like
someone reaching into their bag, pulling out a camera, and pressing a button.
Will someone be recording me as I'm talking to them? I'll never know.

~~~
enneff
It is plausible that the software stores recent imagery in a circular buffer
for processing purposes and that the assault caused the software to crash,
leaving the data in the buffer. Besides, Steve's work is university funded
research so it wouldn't be hard to have the code analyzed if it came to that.

Regardless, your paranoia about such devices filming you unawares is
misplaced. There are many off-the-shelf recording devices that are far less
conspicuous; you have probably already been photographed hundreds of times by
such devices. At least with these head mounted devices you have a definite
visual cue that a camera is pointed at you.

A reasonable practice is to assume you're being filmed when not in a place or
around people you trust.

------
richardjordan
I would imagine a lawyer at any of a number of the nations larger law firms
would take this on for you on contingency given the rather large sums that
McDonald's might be forced to spend settling this with you.

These firms are pretty approachable - don't go the local small-fry ambulance
chaser, they won't know what to do.

------
foxylad
Anyone else have alarm bells going off about the statements about buffering?
He's very careful to represent storage of the images as an accident caused by
the incident, which is slightly odd in itself - why not simply say it records
everything it sees and that that was very useful in this case?

Then if there was no storage, how come there are images for several minutes
before the assault? It must have been at least a ring buffer, so there WAS
storage (albeit temporary).

I'm not condoning the violence that was done to him in any way. But this
dissembling makes me want another witness before I take this at face value.

~~~
EvilTerran
_He's very careful to represent storage of the images as an accident caused by
the incident, which is slightly odd in itself - why not simply say it records
everything it sees and that that was very useful in this case?_

Probably because he either believes French law forbids recording people
without their permission, or doesn't know one way or the other (I'm in the
second camp) -- so he has to emphasise that it was not his intention to take
these pictures, to make it clear that he wasn't doing anything wrong in that
regard.

------
tokenadult
The link in the submitted article, referring to an earlier incident in which a
cell phone camera caused a physical confrontation with a McDonald's customer
in France,

[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-49140976/mcdonalds-
me...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-49140976/mcdonalds-messes-up-
how-not-to-handle-service-mistakes/)

is probably important context here. It appears that there is some systematic
misunderstanding among the company managers about how to train their employees
to avoid overreacting to cameras in the store.

------
LargeWu
The real crime is that he went to Paris and ate at McDonalds.

------
drrotmos
While this incident is terrible, there's one thing Dr. Mann doesn't make
entirely clear in the article.

The contact information for McDonald's France is quite easily found at
<http://www.mcdonalds.fr/contacts>. It's not an e-mail address, but rather a
phone number, but the way the article is written it's not at all clear if he's
tried to contact them by their publicly available phone number?

~~~
alister
He says that he tried to call, and his statement looks clear to me:

> _I also tried calling the main number, at mcdonands.com: 1-800-244-6227, but
> got a voice recording that was totally unintelligible (very loud and
> distorted), and it appears this number does not work._

I tried the number just now, and in fact, it is _exactly_ as he describes: you
get a loud distorted unintelligible message for a 3-4 seconds and then it
hangs up.

As Dr. Mann is likely calling from Canada, as I also am, it occurred to me
that this particular 800 number might not work from Canada. Some USA-based 800
numbers work, and some don't -- it depends on the calling area that the
800-number subscriber wants to pay for.

Listening to the message a second time, I think that I can make out words
about the "calling area", which would indicate why it's not working.

~~~
deadmansshoes
Except that number is for the US McDonalds. The French numbers would be +33 1
30 48 65 28 or +33 1 30 48 60 00 as stated on the contact page.

"I don't have the resources to take on a branch of a large multi-national
corporation operating in a distant country" - doesn't really cut it when the
contact page and number can be found on the Internet in 2 seconds of
searching.

------
kghose
A few people have voiced concern that this is a made up story. I have to admit
that I belong to that bunch.

I would imagine that if a store had a concern that this was an ... odd
individual, carrying a video recording device, recording customers, employees
and the store itself, I would send out security to escort the person out. But
I would do so with a great trepidation, because of lawsuits.

There MUST be something missing in this story. It would take great
recklessness and lack of ethics to completely fabricate the story, but it is
possible.

More likely is that there were some leading events that we have not been told
about.

~~~
akoumjian
The biggest red flag for me is how he is suddenly assaulted without any
warning or prior dialogue taking place. That doesn't mean that any assault was
justified, but it means we are not being told something.

------
digitalengineer
I've been to Paris many a time and have friends there. The French cab drivers
and people working in restaurants are known for their _extremely rude
behavior_. Even the French hate them! I've been called a faggot by one waiter
for ordering tea instead of coffee. (I was dining with two girls). Another
waiter in the freaking LOUVRE MUSEUM tried to buy drugs from me. You know,
just because I'm from Holland I must be carring pot. I don't know why but
don't judge France and the French by visiting only Paris.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Worst two weeks of my life was two weeks spent in France. And only about 8
hours of that was in Paris. And that was actually somewhat pleasant. Aside
from the people at the host company I was doing work for, nearly every human
interaction I had in France fit the "Rude French" stereotype to the letter.
But I doubt they care (or even know) they were all rude asses.

------
saboot
Can someone illuminate why a recording device would illicit such a harsh
reaction? I can understand businesses wanting to avoid someone stand there
with a video camera, but does France take this more seriously?

~~~
petercooper
There are (sadly) thousands of such stories, YouTube videos, etc. about
photographers getting assaulted and intimidated when legally taking photos in
certain areas. This is basically the same thing at an even more technological
level.

My speculation on this: A lot of people in security have such boring jobs that
even if they don't feel intimidated by photographers, they relish a chance to
play big, get a buzz out of the day, _and_ look like they're "doing their
job."

------
guard-of-terra
I believe in the future it would be legal to film everywhere 24x365, and it
also will be legal to shoot the bad guys (with weapons, not video) if they did
some bad thing AND you film it.

And then everybody will behave, because if they don't they might get shot.
Sort of a high-tech wild west.

(and you don't have to be a hard ball, just trigger the wearable fire response
system).

~~~
westicle
There is a difference between filming in public and private spaces.

In most common-law jurisdictions filming in public is completely legal, even
filming an event put on by a private entity (ie a sports game - there is no
property in a spectacle). Note also the proliferation of CCTV in public spaces
in many countries.

On private property you have the right to set rules and effectively dictate
who is welcome and who is trespassing. Hence you can't take a video camera
into a theatre etc.

There is a grey area when your public filming infringes on the reasonable
expectation of privacy of another person. I doubt anyone here would take too
kindly to a stranger following them 24/7 with a video camera.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Stranger following you with a cam is not much worse than stranger following
you 24/7, period.

But now you would be able to film that fact and then sue him for annoying
behavior.

------
obilgic
"The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in
order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by
falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures
for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by
the then non-functioning computer vision system.

As a result of Perpetrator 1's actions, therefore images that would not have
otherwise been captured were captured. Therefore by damaging the Eye Glass,
Perpetrator 1 photographed himself and others within McDonalds. "

Dude, this makes no sense...

~~~
pbhjpbhj
This is the bit, as it appears, where the guy treats the readers as idiots and
tries to make out that he wasn't really recording the whole visit just in case
that mitigates against his claim of unfair treatment.

Those are not "buffered pictures" they are captured and purposefully stored
images of the entire visit - which must be more than 10 mins. A transient
store that simply enabled immediate viewing would likely be of the order of
[far] less than a second; comparable with the buffering in an LCD screen.

What we'll probably find is that McD asked him not to take pictures in their
outlet and he claimed he wasn't taking pictures at all that it was _solely_ a
medical device.

It looks about as bogus as it comes to me - is it some sort of PR stunt.

------
charonn0
The Parisian Police did nothing?!

~~~
angelbob
An American tourist was harassed but not physically injured. He has evidence
(some hearsay/unverifiable) that random McDonalds employees destroyed
property, but it's going to be annoying and difficult to prove anything.

I wouldn't expect a lot of help. Imagine if a random Albanian had a similar
problem with NYC McDonalds employees and called the NYPD. The police don't
support the assault, but they're not going to leap to attention over it.

~~~
grecy
This has always been my experience with Police in foreign countries.

They are polite, friendly, and genuinely wish the incident didn't happen. Once
they ascertain nobody is really injured, etc. there is not a whole lot they
can do.

------
bobotom
The actual assault description is extremely lacking in detail. Are we to
believe someone walked up unannounced and tried to rip the eye glasses off!?

~~~
jlgreco
That sounds like a fairly standard security overreaction to cameras, so yes?

------
disappointment
A number of companies seem to have policies against in-store photography.
Supermarkets don't want their competitors getting accurate data about their
pricing. Usually, it's the ones that offer loyalty cards so they can track
their customers more effectively.

I have no idea how a branch of McDonald's in the centre of a major tourist
city expects to be able to keep any secrets but it may simply be a company
wide policy. Someone should update them on just how small, cheap and effective
actual spy cameras are these days. Not to mention phones.

------
robomartin
> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter

This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it.

First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and
privacy.

People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly
don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not
expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to take it off and you
can't, then you leave. You are the transgressor, not the people in front of
you.

Second bit of advice: Ask for permission when walking into a private
establishment -like a restaurant- with such a rig. It isn't their job to
accommodate every nutcase that comes through the door. You are not a nutcase,
but your actions may have telegraphed otherwise.

I would expect people to react very differently to an actual blind person
wearing some hardware than an obviously sighted person under the same
circumstances.

There are also details that are not being revealed. Does he "scan" the place
and do a bunch of stuff with the hardware when entering a new environment?

I find it hard to believe that someone would outright attack him without prior
motive. People just don't do that -not even in France- unless they are
seriously provoked or are criminals. We know nothing about the interaction and
actions of the cyborg propr to the "assault". Let's say he was "scanning"
people at the restaurant and generally acting in an intrusive manner, well,
that's just not acceptable behavior in most parts of the world.

Finally, the las bit of advise might be: Be aware of cultural differences when
traveling to other countries. While in Canada and parts of the US people might
generally go out of their way to be polite, that is not the case around the
globe. In some parts of the world you'll gen man-handled and even beaten-up if
you act like an idiot and show a general lack of respect. Just because you
think what you are doing is OK it doesn't mean that everyone around you
agrees.

Times do change. When I was in college I'd walk around with my HP calculator
hanging off my belt. Outside of college I'd take it off. Today people walk
around with computers in their pockets and little devices with blinking LED's
in their ears all day long. That's just the way the world works. Be smart
enough to use Aikido, not Karate.

Finally: Get someone to help you with industrial design. When comparing the
photos on the linked page, your rig looks intimidating, while the Google rig
is almost invisible.

Also, turn the damn thing off when dealing with people so your eye looks
normal.

I respect the work and dedication immensely, what I think is off-base here is
the assumption that it is OK to stick a camera in everyone's face (or within a
private establishment) without permission.

If you decide to down-vote please have the courtesy to explain your reasons so
that I and others might learn from contrasting points of view.

~~~
ben0x539
Christ, that's some quick victim-blaming.

There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if
it's a camera in your business. Physically assaulting someone over a camera is
even worse. All attempts to excuse this sort of behavior immediately fall flat
given that "possible witness 1" was given documentation of the device and
apparently accepted it, and the perpetrator was also given the documentation.

At the point where you willfully destroy someone else's documents, you can't
really hide behind cultural differences.

I'm speaking as a European if not a French citizen, but I cannnot read your
post as anything but flamebait, given the prejudice and total lack of empathy.

~~~
robomartin
I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically
have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a
complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not
take sides unless and until the facts are known.

If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a
criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible manner. I
am not disputing that and don't think anyone would.

Why didn't he go to the police? I would physically go to the nearest police
station and file an assault report. Do you really think French police would
ignore him, particularly with evidence and witnesses? I think not.

My post was about common sense and manners. "When in Rome", if you will.

I did not place blame nor justify the destruction of property. It is purely
your choice to read that into my post. PleAse don't put words in my mouth.

If any of the post wasn't clear: I, nor anyone on HN unless you were there,
know exactly what went on. Therefore it is impossible to take sides an feel
empathy for him or justify the other party's actions. We just don't know
enough, so let's not get overly polarized in one direction or another.

My comments were more about how rude and unreasonable it might be to force
yourself onto others or invade their privacy. If you want to walk around with
a bunch of tech scanning everything around, you have to be respectful enough
to ask permission.

Prejudice? Where? There's a huge difference between prejudice and reality. The
Dutch don't have protection from the mechanisms inside windmills. I've done
windmill tours with my kids and you simply have to adjust to their reality
(when in Rome). Some Americans think this is insane. We might want to have
floor to ceiling barriers to prevent anyone from getting their hands into the
gears. The Dutch probably think that we are an over-controlling sue-happy
society. None of this is prejudiced. It's just the way it is. When in the
Netherlands I behave with respect and consideration for their ways. The same
is the case in the UK, France, Italy or Germany. I've spent a good deal of
time in various places in Europe. I can say that we, Americans, can be total
jerks and so can everyone else (except the Dutch, they are always nice).

~~~
sesqu
I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without
someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing
only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk.

You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as
Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly
discriminatory.

You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided
the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a
necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy?

You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he,
a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were
just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were
intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one
would do with this device, especially in the given scenario.

You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had
done.

All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no
way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking
about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into
an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.

~~~
robomartin
A few points:

Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really?

Look/feel: If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make
the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. The Google device is easy to
ignore. His rig is, well, look at the pictures. I also imagine it having a
bunch of wires hanging off of it going to a backpack or something.

If he was blind he'd probably have a cane (well recognized internationally) or
it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per
his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he
was not impaired.

It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave
as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree
does not imply common sense.

He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever
that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have
ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.

It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not
leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That
alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would
not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs
above those of your kids for self-serving reasons.

If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in
public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an
idiot next time.

There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some
might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I
see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their
kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant
conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.

~~~
yew
> Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really?

You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that
I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate
characterization.

> If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech
> non-threatening. That's basic UI design.

'Basic UI design' would be making sure that a device intended for permanent
attachment to a human body was sufficiently supported and padded to prevent
physical damage.

Appearance would be a strictly secondary concern, especially given that we
supposedly live in a 'pleasant society,' as you put it, where physical assault
should be looked down upon as a response to 'looking weird.' Though I have a
sneaking suspicion that you might disagree with that idea . . .

~~~
robomartin
> You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack'
> that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely
> accurate characterization.

I did not attack you personally in any way. You have chosen to resort to name
calling without justification. I'll let the reader decided where the ad-
hominem originated, which is really obvious.

I never once suggested that a physical attack was justified. You are choosing
to read and extrapolate that out of my words. It's wrong, but you are free to
use your imagination in any way you care to.

Live long and prosper.

------
helen842000
This particular McDonalds has been at the centre of SO many protests turned
violent, anti-americanist attacks & incidents that I'm pretty sure the staff
are permanently suspicious of anything or anyone out of the norm. I too have
been to this particular McDonalds & the sheer volume of people that pass
through the doors I'm surprised they don't have a more professional security
team with the intelligence to differentiate on a customer by customer basis. I
also totally agree that any form of photography in Paris (either close up to
an individual store front or inside) will cause immediate confrontation.

There is some irony in this story, that McDonalds' objection to recording
images in their store actually gave the Eye Glass wearer a reason to use the
images captured. An incident was caused by them trying to attempt to viciously
stop what they perceived as a threat.

------
anigbrowl
I find it strange that there's no mention of a police report or a complaint to
the Canadian embassy.

------
forgottenpaswrd
The reality is that you are assaulting other people's privacy if you wear this
glasses.

It does not matter that you have a letter from your doctor, you have to
provide a way of switching the thing off.

Me, me, me. What about others? What happens if people don't want to be
stalked?.

This man does not realize what he is doing is not only for good, but is going
to be used for the bad, to control other people.

This has serious consequences for the people. Very serious , you know what
John was doing from 6:00pm to 6:16, where he was, with whom.

The good thing about cities was the personal freedom to do anything without
gossip like in a rural village.

In the future you will have central databases with information about what
every person is doing on real time, just sending the video feed and using
facial recognition technology.

~~~
capitao
honestly I don't care about their privacy. They work at mcdonalds not fucking
NASA, it no secret what a big mac is

~~~
vacri
NASA is publicly funded and its mission is to extend human knowledge. Why
should anything there be more secret than at McDonlads?

------
lsc
Seems to me like he needs to implement a Stephenson style panic button - In
Snow Crash, at one point YT used a special button on her phone to summon help
from other couriers.

It'd be easy enough to implement technically; when I hit the panic button it
notifies all listeners of my location; listeners configure how far away they
want reports. (perhaps taking reports from further away from people with
higher reputation or from people you manually configure as more important...)

I mean, in the case of Mann, it's easy; if I was nearby and knew he needed
physical help, I'd be happy to show up. The problem is for the rest of us, the
unknowns, there would need to be some sort of sense of community or something.

~~~
ktizo
It would be fantastic to be able to summon the MIT wearables division in an
emergency. Surely one of them has built a Gundam by now.
[http://www.wearcam.org/computing.html/borgs_outside_medialab...](http://www.wearcam.org/computing.html/borgs_outside_medialab.jpg)

~~~
lsc
hah. yeah. but I think the most powerful thing (and this could be implemented
with cellphones) is just being able to summon witnesses, esp. witnesses with
cameras.

It seems that these days wars are more about how it looks in the media than
about killing as many of the other guys as you can. Just knowing that they are
being watched, I think, would prevent most violent crime.

------
ams6110
McDonald's has a policy of not allowing photography in their stores. Clearly
in this case there seems to have been an overreaction, they should have just
politely but firmly asked him to leave.

 _McDonand's does not publish any direct contact email information_

So do it the old fashioned way. Get out a pen, paper, and stamp. Probaly have
better results anyway. Here are the people in charge:
[http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/leadership.htm...](http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/leadership.html).
Their address, from their "contact us" web page, is McDonald's Corporation,
2111 McDonald's Dr., Oak Brook, IL 60523

------
bborud
This is really simple: don't eat at McDonald's. If you don't want a hysterical
society where people get beaten up while minding their own business, then
please do not reward them with your money.

------
datalus
Go to Paris. Eat at a McDonald's. o_O

~~~
tspiteri
Maybe it's a fast meal at midday when there are still places to go, and a good
meal in the evening to wind down.

~~~
datalus
I spent sometime in Lyon last summer, the cafes aren't too slow when you want
to grab a bite to eat. However, I can only assume one would go to McDonald's
to get a Royale with Cheese ;)

------
chrismetcalf
Anybody else notice that this is blocked as "spammy" on Facebook?

~~~
andri
Getting the same thing here. I did find an acknowledgement from Facebook
regarding blocking imgur.com 8 hours ago
([http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/wo8ej/facebook_h...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/wo8ej/facebook_has_blocked_imgurcom/c5f2pv0)),
but blocking EyeTap seems suspicious.

~~~
adv0r
same thing here

------
michaelfeathers
Sadly, I predicted this would happen years ago. Fear of Photography vs. Next
Generation Prosthetics.

The way technology and society work, I expect that visual prosthetics will
eventually have built-in recording restrictions and classified as medical
devices, thus making people with photophobia feel safe, or they will jump into
the mainstream so fast (ala Google) that society will get used to it. Having
an unobtrusive appearance would help, but I don't hold much hope for the
latter.

------
sathishmanohar
I can't help but think, anonymous is the right kind of people to deal with
this incident. Given he is willing to publish photos without masking faces.

------
springishere
What about simple sale of illicit goods ? That would warrant a response like
this. With so many people in and out it would be easy to slip something in
with the orders. It isn't the first time it's happened, either.

[http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-
city...](http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/police-
say-mcdonalds-drug-buys-lucrative-333133/)

------
MichaelApproved
Why are we discussing this on HN?

If you were assaulted, file a police report. If your private property was
damaged, hire a lawyer or file a small claims lawsuit.

------
student12383947
part of the problem might also be McDonald's nazi-like controlling strategy -
in our business class a McDonalds owner came in couple months ago and told a
lot about his 2 McDonalds locations in New England. Basically, owners of
McDonalds don't own real estate, so that if McDonald's corporation doesn't
like the owner they can make the owner out and change owner through an
auction. McDonald's can send undercover people to check quality of service at
any time, and if they don't like something - number of checks double and
warning to owner is given, so that if owner doesn't improve, the headquarters
will change the owner.

McDonalds is very very dependent on its reputation, because if there are
problems with one location, other locations suffer as well. So, spreading this
case more would allow him to get remedy.

I believe that it is possible to sue McDonalds headquarters for such shit. One
woman successfully sued McDonalds for a few millions for spilled hot coffee.

Please look for a free consultation from a good lawyer, who might want to work
for a percent from the case remedy.

------
pferde
A bit off-topic, but I couldn't even get to the linked article, even after
allowing all javascript I could find. Web really has gone to hell.

------
supervacuo
Surely the only take-away from this is that McDonald's is a terrible place.
Didn't we all know that already?

It's still helpful to try and do as much damage as possible with this story
(ideally getting some money or at least an apology for the victim), but make
no mistake that the company structure will make this vanish into the æther in
no time.

The long-term solution: just don't go there.

~~~
enneff
Do we all know that? Is it true?

I have had hundreds of meals at McDonalds and never witnessed anything like
this. The staff have been pleasant and helpful, the environment clean, and the
food as advertised. "Terrible," seems ridiculously hyperbolic to me.

~~~
justinatjustat
'as advertised' - there's ya terrible.

------
ww520
This is an outrageous assault and battery. This is a criminal act. I hope the
police are involved and arrests are made.

Steve Mann is the father of wearable computer. I remember seeing him as a
undergrad in MIT wearing those clumsy camera and computer at the belt. He is
the pioneer in real cyborg tech.

------
madethemcry
I can`t accept the story without questioning the part with the buffer. I
looked at the pictures and thought, this buffer must have been very huge to
record all those images. Watching the full buffer content would be
interesting.

~~~
madethemcry
It seems that he removed or never stored related images on his glogger
profile.

[http://glogger.mobi/u_noscript.php?u=mann&y=2012&m=7](http://glogger.mobi/u_noscript.php?u=mann&y=2012&m=7)

------
feralchimp
If you think McDonald's is liable for assaulting you, bring a suit. If you
lack the resources to bring a suit, by all means complain and stop shopping at
McDonald's.

But how much else is there to say, really?

------
lnanek2
What will be really interesting is when he brings his recording device into
somewhere people get naked, like a locker room...that isn't going to go well
with a lot of people.

------
ojbyrne
Random tidbit from the article - HDR photography is patented.

------
obilgic
What is wrong about taking pics at mcdonalds, Im confused..

------
leke
If the normal channels of bureaucracy don't find this man justice, I'm sure
the internet will.

All hail the internet!

------
arjn
Assuming everything the OP says about the incident is true, why would the
French police not help ?

------
florent_k
Facebook don't allow to put this link in a comment, it's strange

------
tuananh
Stop watching Breaking Bad, people.

------
tripzilch
There's no question that Perp-1 and Perp-2 were assholes and had no right to
do whatever they did. But the sheer _naivety_ and _entitlement_ in this story
really makes me shake my head in disbelief. Maybe he just doesn't have any
experience travelling abroad?

What about his travel insurance? He doesn't mention that at all. He got
assaulted and his expensive medical equipment broken. He even got photographic
evidence! Sounds like a clear-cut case that any decent travel insurance would
cover. He did check with his insurance agency whether they cover his
eyeglasses, right? And if they did not, he must have surely insured them
separately before travelling abroad, right? So, what is this "I'm not seeking
to be awarded money. I just want my Glass fixed" about then?

Did he really bring an expensive piece of medical equipment on your vacation
abroad, without properly insuring it?

And what about this "letter from my doctor"? Anyone notice how his
excruciatingly detailed report is rather quiet on this matter, he doesn't even
mention anything like "which explains that I require these glasses for health
reasons" (which would be the _only_ time when a "letter from my doctor" would
carry _any_ weight). Or whether it includes a French translation. I know this
because I have, on occasion, had to bring certain medications over the border
(to Turkey, a non-Schengen country). It's not "a letter from my doctor", it's
a multi-lingual form you need to request at the embassy of the country you're
going, which your doctor fills in, signs _and stamps_ \--I was informed that
in Turkey, the bureaucrats won't accept forms that are not stamped, and I
assume that every country has its peculiarities like that. I brought three
copies to be on the safe side, one for in my suitcase in my hotel, one for in
my wallet to always have with me, and a third one for "just in case" I gave to
a travel companion. Overkill maybe, but it's those little details that can
make the difference between a minor inconvenience and a disaster, when on
holiday.

As far as his description is concerned his letter might as well have been a
postcard with "Hi Steve, have fun on your vacation! Hope your glasses don't
break. Greetings, your friend the nameless Doctor, MD.".

There's a few other parts of the story where details are somewhat lacking.
(I'm mostly noticing because he's being rather tediously detailed about all
sorts of irrelevant things, such as the meal he ordered)

What _exactly_ happened when things turned bad? His story makes it seem like
Perp-1 came _out of the blue_ and "angrily grabbed my eyeglass, and tried to
pull it off my head", really? And he later states "struck my Eye Glass, not a
direct hit like a punch in the face, but a side-swipe, grabbing motion", a
separate event implying that he and his family actually stuck around after
having been assaulted from behind to see if they had any more where that came
from? You're in a cheap "restaurant" in a foreign country, people are being
aggressive, you get the fuck out. It's a McDonalds, not a US Embassy. The
meals may be molecularly identical, but you're not in the US. And, apparently,
uninsured.

He also does not mention whether there were any words exchanged as things got
heated. Did they ask him to leave? Did Mr Mann say or explain anything? His
daughter speaks French, did she step in and try to mend the situation? French
people do have a habit of speaking rather fast and incomprehensible as they
get more annoyed, so maybe her French did not suffice. In which case, you're a
tourist in a hostile situation, not speaking the language, and it's probably
smart to leave.

Also it seems pretty obvious that Perp-2 was not a McDonalds employee (notice
the shades in his hair and the "meal" in front of him). The most logical
explanation would seem to be that Perp-2 was a (minor) celebrity, complaining
about a possible paparazzi tabloid photographer (who are known for doing
weirder things than wearing silly cameraglasses). Doesn't make it right, but
tabloid photographers sometimes get treated very similarly.

What about "I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without
much luck". Sounds like that aspect adventure should have been at least half
of his story. No word about contacting his travel insurance agent. They should
have a 24/7 world-wide hotline, especially when it concerns, er, "medical
emergencies", such as, you know, damage to your expensive highly specialized
medical equipment that you really need to carry on you at all times as your
properly filled out, stamped and translated paperwork clearly shows.

I can't believe he actually spent more words on how he tried to contact
McDonalds than what the embassy, consulate, police and his travel insurance
agent had to say. He actually called a US 1-800 number to speak to a McDonalds
rep?! What good did he expect that would do? Is that how you do it in the US?
"Take on a branch of a large multi-national corporation operating in a distant
country", take them on about what? You can't possibly expect them to take
responsibility for this, that is why other countries also have police and laws
and such, and you go to them. For example, let's say you go to Somalia (in
case Mr Mann is reading: please don't actually do this), it's practically
anarchy there, not much of a state to speak of. Say you find a McDonald's
restaurant, you go there, and you get beaten up and mugged by the staff there.
Would you then also call this US 1-800 number and complain to the US branch of
McDonald's and say "I went to one of your establishments in Somalia and I got
mugged!" ?

What I would do in his case:

1\. As soon as I get out of the restaurant, call the travel insurance hotline,
who would probably tell me to:

2\. Go to the police, file a report of physical assault and property damage.
There is no "luck" involved. File the report, you get a piece of paper, and
that is your only business with the French police. There is very little you
can do about bringing justice to the McD employees, so forget about them.

3\. The piece of paper report is the evidence you need to make the claim with
your travel insurance agency. Those photographs will also come in handy.

4\. They either pay out or not. If not, consider getting better insurance and
try reading your insurance policy to see if they cover damages done to your
eyeglasses in cases of physical assault. But if they don't cover even that, I
really wonder what they do cover. The biggest question is probably whether the
glasses are more expensive than a certain maximum limit coverage. But that's
really something you should take into account before leaving abroad with
really expensive and fragile medical equipment on your face.

4b. There is a possibility where your travel insurance company will want the
details of whoever assaulted you, to see if they can make a deal with their
liability insurance, if those are mandated in France. The police report should
also help with that. This will make things quite a bit more tedious, but still
relatively straight-forward, as you know who it is and where he works.

5\. End of story. Notice how nobody needed to "take on a foreign branch of a
multi-national corporation" ...

------
TheAmazingIdiot
Complete aside - Comment about posted pictures from Digital Eye Glass

I noticed from his posted pictures (labelled as Possible Witness 2)
[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RnoG7dHRDjY/UASnGzPFkSI/AAAAAAAAAD...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RnoG7dHRDjY/UASnGzPFkSI/AAAAAAAAADA/8zPAI5x2Cm0/s640/cashier.jpg)

There's some nasty spherical lensing effects there. I'm noticing that from the
signboard on the right middle side. The menuboard should be flat across, with
perhaps a deviation of where the signage isnt exactly flush to each other.
Also in other pictures, you can see spherical lensing distortion from the
corners of walls and ceiling tiles.

I know of libraries that take low compute overhead that compensate for this.
And all you need for calibration is a checkerboard of white and black waved
around.

~~~
strstr
This could be intentional, as it may increase his peripheral vision through
the Eye Glass.

~~~
vacri
It may also be corrected when the image is projected into his eye.

------
hastur
Can't wait for the Anonymous to hack and publish McDonalds' mail systems.

As a side benefit, we might learn what kind of turd they're feeding to people.

~~~
gcb
they will not move a finger. unless you say perpetrator 1 proceeded to kick a
cat.

------
franzus
> visit Paris

> go to McDonald's

~~~
lazugod
He was traveling with his kids.

~~~
inoop
... which is probably one of the best reasons you shouldn't go to MacDonald's.

------
adv0r
guys, did they blocked the link on facebook ?
<http://www.lize.it/up/blockedOnFb.png>

