
Seattle drinking den bans Google Glass geeks - iProject
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/09/seattle_bar_bans_google_glass/
======
alan_cx
I say good. And I am stunned by the reaction to it here. So, I must have a
Sunday ranty thing....

Seems to me that people get all angry when websites violate privacy, but when
the public are encouraged to violate privacy with cool gadgets, suddenly its
defence-able. OK, so this is a bar. What about a playground? Nursery? School?
Changing rooms? Tell me, how to I protect my privacy from google glass wearing
people? How do I protect my kid's privacy, or stop my kids violation other's
privacy?

Put it this way, if I'm taking a leak in a bar's wash room, and I see some
bloke wearing google glasses looking down at "me", he's gonna get very hurt.
No joke. No irony. Hurt.

It is simple: I dont want my urinating penis on the internet.

Sorry, call me prude, but I don't want that. Condemn me all you like, but
remember I'm a geek hacker like you reading this, and that is how I feel about
it. Now imagine a possible reaction of some non geek. OK, I don't do violence,
frankly in reality I'm way more likely to be on the receiving end as I am
physically pathetic, weak and useless, but this has great potential for a lot
of people suffering real harm, either physically or virtually.

"Publicity stunt"? I despise this accusation. It is a pathetic cowardly throw
away dismissal, which is designed to belittle those taking some action, in
this case, to protect privacy. The message here is: Oh ignore them, its just a
publicity stunt, nothing real or worth bothering with here. Move on.

Really? The great HN community suddenly belittles those who want to protect
privacy? Really people? Thought this through or is this a knee jerk defence of
cool technology? Dismissal as a publicity stunt implies attention seeking. Ok,
fair enough. So in future, when we get a subject where people reply saying
they have disabled java, flash, cookies, etc, due to privacy concerns, we will
condemn them as publicity seeking attention seekers, right? Paranoid ignorant
fool, yes?

People need to start thinking the implications of this through. Sure, for
years we have been able to buy head mounted camera's, CCTV, spy drones, etc,
but a google pushed product like this will hit mass market, and change the
game radically and for good. Its not so much the technology, but how mass
market it could and will become.

Let the timer begin now. How long until the first google glass wearer gets
assaulted or worse for merely wearing google glasses in the wrong place?

Tell me, is the only privacy that concerns hackers the privacy expected while
hidden behind a keyboard? Is no other privacy valid? Is the attempt to protect
other privacy really merely a publicity stunt?

I don't like this one little bit. Yeah, very very cool technology. Hell, on
that level I want one too. But lets have a long hard think about this. It
really is a huge game changer with some serious implications.

Ranty done.

~~~
randallsquared
> Seems to me that people get all angry when websites violate privacy, but
> when the public are encouraged to violate privacy with cool gadgets,
> suddenly its defence-able. OK, so this is a bar.

People already have eyes and memories. Head-mounted cameras like Glass and the
Looxie are a way to preserve your own memory of what you were _already
seeing_. Do you really feel that you have the right to wipe or degrade other
people's memories? If you don't want someone to remember something, _don't
invite them at all_.

> What about a playground? Nursery? School?

In general, all of these already have cameras everywhere, don't they? For
safety?

> Changing rooms?

Changing rooms? Seriously? How many strangers do you let crowd into a changing
room with you? Zero, am I right? So how could that possibly be a problem. As
for similar situations like locker rooms, they _already_ have the problem that
strangers might be in there with you, with their eyes. I predict that as
cameras go everywhere people go (and they will), we'll see a sharp uptick in
single-person stalls in locker rooms. I would be far happier with that (at the
gym, say) already; cameras aren't different from eyes in principle.

Edited as I got farther in:

> Put it this way, if I'm taking a leak in a bar's wash room, and I see some
> bloke wearing google glasses looking down at "me", he's gonna get very hurt.
> No joke. No irony. Hurt.

This is true whether he's wearing a camera or not, though, isn't it?

> It is simple: I dont want my urinating penis on the internet.

...or for people to see it at all, I'd expect. Once random strangers (like the
guy in the wash room) are staring at you, the number of random strangers seems
like a mere detail, no?

~~~
rkwz
>People already have eyes and memories.

It's not about seeing, it's about recording and sharing it in the internet.
There is a big difference.

~~~
randallsquared
Smartphones were the beginning of the end of that difference. This is the
obvious next step.

What about when this kind of tech is so small that it's embedded in contacts?
Even if you think that's twenty years off, still, surely it's obvious that
it's coming? It's possible not to notice that someone is video recording you
at the moment, but soon it will be essentially impossible to know if they are.

------
m0nty
I work in a school. These devices will inevitably be banned in such places.
It's already a bit risky to take photos of children - it has been suggested
(albeit by an especially neurotic, paedophile-obsessed parent) that one of my
colleagues is a paedophile for taking photos of school events. For a member of
staff to wear these glasses at school would be risky, to take them into a
sensitive area such as a boarding house or changing room, a career-ending
move.

I can foresee that other places, like the bar in OA and hospitals, medical
waiting rooms, lawyers' offices, etc, have an implicit assumption of privacy
which would be infringed by these devices. Many conversations and meetings
have similar unspoken requirements - if you might be recording or
photographing me, I'm not talking to you. Wearing these to a blind date or job
interview could be an immediate deal-breaker for many people. "You're
recording this? How dare you!"

It doesn't seem unreasonable for people to ban these devices. The assumption
of many potential users that I am happy to be photographed, recorded, uploaded
and discussed is what needs to be challenged.

~~~
coldtea
> _I work in a school. These devices will inevitably be banned in such
> places._

I don't think that will be a problem, because there will never be such
devices.

They are vapourware, solving a problem people don't have, won't have, and
don't want to have.

Sure, Google might release them commercially at some point. Still, they will
go the way of the yo-yo, the Sony dog robot, the MiniDisk and other novelties.

Only geeks (in the unpopular, nerdy meaning of the term) lust after a thing
such as Google Glasses. They are a 100% guarantee that you won't even get
laid, and for something that you wear on your head, that's the kiss of death.

~~~
taligent
> solving a problem people don't have

See this is what I don't get about Google.

There are thousands of problems that Google Glasses could solve. But life
recording and answering how long a bridge is are terrible use cases. For me it
makes far more sense to position it in firmly in the business and education
sectors. And then provide the necessary back end services to support
developers.

It ties in so much better with other Google services and works to their
strength which is in solving big data problems. Leave the gimmicks to the
others.

~~~
rkwz
>There are thousands of problems that Google Glasses could solve.

Can you give some examples?

~~~
m0nty
Police officers could wear them to ensure good behaviour from the police and
public alike.

You could modify them to include a range-finder so surveyors could look at a
building or room and measure it, just by being there.

You could use them for virtual reality applications -- "weak" VR since not
fully immersive but nice to check out the proposed make-over for your living
room.

Sports-people could wear them to give first-person views of the action.

They could be worn to workplace disciplinary hearings (or any other low-level
legal proceedings) with your representative/legal counsel listening in and
offering feedback. You could record everything, so could your counsel.

There probably are thousands of applications, but compulsively recording
public spaces and the people in them is probably not the best.

------
michaelfeathers
This reminds me of the advance-buzz based roll out of the Segway. One of the
effects was that various municipalities enacted unfavorable legislation with
regard to them. I really think that the high profile was the issue. Glass is
going to have the same problem.

I think there's a law here:

 _Disruptive technology receives backlash in proportion to its advance press.
The best bet for any radically new technology is to become useful and
ubiquitous below the radar._

If you asked people 20 years ago how they felt about everyone walking around
with palm sized video recorders, pointing them and taking video at whim, they
would've been upset and prone to legislate against it, but because the
technology advanced in quality slowly and had a free ride on cell phones, it
became accepted.

~~~
pcote
Yeah, I thought of the smart phone angle of this too. The other day I was part
of an airplane evacuation drill and I noticed someone filming me with his
smart phone after all was said in done.

On one hand, I knew his intent was to film the activity and not me personally.
On the other hand, I still felt a little annoyed about it. I might have said
something if not for the fact that this technology is everywhere anyways.

~~~
taligent
The technology is everywhere. The act is not.

You don't see people walking around with their phone held high constantly
recording everything as they walk around. If you did then most people would be
suspicious or concerned about what they were doing. And more than likely at
some point they would be asked to stop.

People record video using smartphones of people they know. Not random
strangers.

------
damncabbage
Relevant article ("The Google Glass feature no one is talking about"):
[http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-
one...](http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one-is-
talking-about/)

~~~
alan_cx
Thank you for that. Always wise finding the source from a TheRegister article.
They sadly do tend to reduce a decent story to pulp.

------
Heliosmaster
For people that read past the headline (probably not many judging by the
comments):

"We don't let people film other people or take photos unwanted of other people
in the bar because it's kind of a private place people go."

So filming / taking pictures is already not allowed. It feels like publicity
stunt, but nothing particularly weird, imho.

~~~
derefr
There are things HMDs are useful for besides recording/storing sense data. In
fact, I would say, so many of them (and growing further with each new
development), that a policy like this will eventually just become impossible
to enforce--it would be like asking people to leave their phones at the door,
or perhaps even their prescription glasses.

But, of course, this _is_ still a problem that needs to be solved; never
before have the barriers to recording everyone around you, unbeknownst to
them, been so low. (Whereas before, only professionals--spies, reporters,
hostage-negotiators, etc.--really bothered to go through all the schlep
required.)

So, perhaps, in the future, a law will be passed requiring HMDs (and phones,
actually--there's no reason they don't also count) to get a "privacy-zone"
feature. Within range of any wi-fi AP emitting a "privacy-zone beacon", the
HMD would be legally required to disable its recording features. This brings
the barrier-of-entry back up to "have to jailbreak your HMD and override the
restriction", which is similar to "buy a gizmo from a spy-store" in terms of
difficulty, so I would say it's equitable.

Of course, then you could get police walking around emitting privacy-zone
beacons, and other totalitarian effects.

The real underlying problem, causing things like that, is that completely
_technological_ systems are prone to _social_ exploitation, because our own
_social mores_ aren't carried over into the technological domain. So, instead,
we would want to rely partially on the technology, and partially on social
enforcement.

A good balance might be: entering a privacy zone prompts you to disable your
recording--a single "click" will do so, but you can ignore/cancel the request.
Once you've complied, you can't re-enable recording until you leave the
privacy zone. Also, the privacy-zone beacon will be aware of whether you've
complied with the request. Thus, as the owner of a private establishment (e.g.
a bar), you can simply activate your privacy-zone beacon and attenuate its
range out to some distance beyond the perimeter of your building--and then
have a bouncer who won't let people in until they see, among whatever other
conditions--that they have assented to disabling recording.

~~~
coldtea
> _There are things HMDs are useful for besides recording/storing sense data.
> In fact, I would say, so many of them (and growing further with each new
> development), that a policy like this will eventually just become impossible
> to enforce--it would be like asking people to leave their phones at the
> door, or perhaps even their prescription glasses._

Really? I would like to read a list of those "uses".

Except if you talk about some kind of accessibility accessories, there's
nothing that makes those glasses even remotely a necessity.

Even something like your glucose levels you can watch them from a device
that's not a glass with a camera attached. Like your smartphone or a watch.

~~~
derefr
Three that immediately jump to mind:

* Putting a "minimap" in your field of vision as you walk down the street.

* Letting you read a book--or consume an ordinary chatroom/news feed/other auto-updating thing--while standing in a packed subway car, or while laying in bed (no more weird-sideways-phone-holding-time), and never having to "put it down" when something needs your attention; you just look away, and then look back.

* Giving you to-do lists that you'll finally always check, because they can actually get "in your face." For that matter, spaced-repetition flash cards that come up exactly when you need them to optimally memorize things.

Also, a few more that _involve_ sensory data input, but only to process it
into something else (these could be high-level APIs that can safely be
accessed whether or not "real recording" is enabled):

* Identify your contacts with visual recognition [can be just stored on your device--not some Panopticon database], and automatically pull up their contact cards/Facebook profiles. Everyone you've met gets a nametag hovering over them like in an MMO.

* Finally make QR codes useful: look at one and immediately see the thing it links to overlaid--and then bookmark it with a glance. This extends to other kinds of barcodes--for example, being able to see the lowest price for an item in a store by just looking at the UPC.

* Identify images, songs, movies, TV shows, etc., through passive submission to something like Tineye, Shazam, etc., or just by a "backing track" laced into the audio/video, that the HMD can detect. Never "lose" something you liked just because you didn't get to find out its name.

* Pair the HMD to a TV, then pause the stream whenever you look away from it. Pair the HMD to a computer, then lock it whenever you aren't interacting with it.

~~~
coldtea
I think all of the above are of really marginal utility. I mean, todo's, maps,
QR codes and media identification. Compared to the "you'll never get laid
wearing these" it's a no brainer.

The most interesting parts (book, video) are not really applicable to the
current (and next 10 years) capabilities of the display. And given the
technology, maybe never.

We'd sooner have in-retina imaging that glass displays with the appropriate
qualities.

------
coldtea
""""The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google
Glasses," the bar wrote. "And ass kickings will be encouraged for
violators.""""

Nice. So a good way to make money is to go to the bar with Google Glasses, get
your ass kicked (literally), and sue them.

~~~
jrockway
Indeed this does seem like a good way to recover the initial financial outlay.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing the threats are "Internet toughguy" threats rather
than actual toughguy threats, so it may take a while to cash out.

------
carlob
I thought this was going to happen, and I think it's right to try and limit
the scope of people filming everything.

You need to pull out a phone and aim it to take pictures or videos, and in
some jurisdictions it is compulsory for digital cameras to emit an audible
noise when shooting.

I guess in the end these head mounted cameras will have a small led so that
you know when someone is filming you, and we'll be forbidden in places where
privacy is expected or where recording is forbidden (cinemas, concerts,
theaters…).

~~~
ericb
If we were to legally require a visible indicator when recording, would it be
any worse than a cell phone?

~~~
carlob
Yes because you could still put some black tape on it or possibly circumvent
the led in software via jailbraking.

I guess that when the phone is in your pocket or aimed at your feet, I'm
pretty sure you're not filming me.

------
pavs
Also why google glass is a privacy nightmare:
<http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/>

I too don't understand the love for Glass by the same group people who
generally are anal about privacy. Talk about double standard. Would you be ok
if I held a camera to your face, probably recording, while I am talking to
you?

~~~
Kylekramer
Pretty much the same possibility of being recorded has existed for decades.
Does no remember Nixon's presidency?

The only difference is Google Glass makes it more noticeable.

------
jrockway
The irony of all this is that the bar probably has a security camera system
that's recording everyone all the time anyway.

~~~
alan_cx
Is the CCTV content available from google search? Am I tagged? Are my words
recorded? Can that be linked on cross referenced? Can a future employer or
pervert see the footage? If I slip up and expose myself, can a google search
reveal that too?

~~~
jrockway
It depends on whether or not you annoy Reddit or 4chan. If yes, then yes :)

------
mattryanharris
To me this feels like a publicity stunt.

~~~
readme
Me too. Kudos to him. It's a good PR stunt.

------
ck2
The fun part is going to be when people start remotely hacking people wearing
google glass.

It's going to be like a very early version of ghost-in-the-shell with external
memory interfaces.

------
friendly_chap
I don't want to sound negative but I can't hold it back.

Anyone who wears this spy gadget for no specific reason (eg. recording jumping
out of a plane or something), but because it is "cool", is seriously
delusional, and a poor fellow who can NOT make decisions about his or anyone
else's wellbeing.

Why?

I understand that recording every move of your life is an interesting idea, at
least it would be, in an utopian world. Unfortunately, we live in a world
where approx 99% of people is being ripped off and oppressed by their
government and co. Encouraging the behaviour of wearing this CIA sponsored
hoax is just...

I seriously can't find words.

~~~
emkemp
"CIA sponsored hoax"?

------
jschuur
Sounds like a classy joint, where the owner incites their clientele to
violence:

"And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."

------
devonbarrett
Waiting for the hats with infra red lights to hit the market.

------
cleverjake
The 5-point cafe has had a history of publicity attempts - they used to have
bikini clad women pay your parking meters if you bought food. They generally
latch on to current events and try to leverage them to get people to come in
more.

~~~
cleverjake
yeah - confirmed. [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-
bar...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar-that-
banned-google-glasses-admits-it-was-a-pr-stunt/)

------
damian2000
Probable source of the sign - the 'stop the cyborgs blog' ...

<http://stopthecyborgs.org/google-glass-ban-signs/>

------
keikun17
so how does one establishment that just honestly want to ban GG to protect
their customer's privacy release a pre-emptive statement like this without
having it looking like a privacy stunt?

~~~
fyolnish
What's a privacy stunt?

~~~
yen223
It's like a publicity stunt, only that no one knows about it.

------
brador
Guy in the comments there allegedly willing to spray black Google glasses
caught recording him.

What's the legality of doing that? What's the min-max punishment?

------
astrobiased
After reading Amped from Daniel H. Wilson, this post seems to strike the same
chord as the book. Almost freaky.

------
edwardunknown
I don't think this is (purely) a publicity stunt, I expect all bars will ban
these stupid things because it's asking to be punched in the face. It's a
safety thing.

