Seattle drinking den bans Google Glass geeks

I say good. And I am stunned by the reaction to it here. So, I must have a Sunday ranty thing....<p>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?<p>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.<p>It is simple: I dont want my urinating penis on the internet.<p>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.<p>"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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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?<p>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?<p>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.<p>Ranty done.

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.<p>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!"<p>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.

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.<p>I think there's a law here:<p><i>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.</i><p>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.

Relevant article ("The Google Glass feature no one is talking about"): <a href="http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one-is-talking-about/" rel="nofollow">http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one...</a>

For people that read past the headline (probably not many judging by the comments):<p>"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."<p>So filming / taking pictures is already not allowed. It feels like publicity stunt, but nothing particularly weird, imho.

""""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.""""<p>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.

I thought this was going to happen, and I think it's right to try and limit the scope of people filming everything.<p>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.<p>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…).

Also why google glass is a privacy nightmare: <a href="http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/</a><p>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?

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

To me this feels like a publicity stunt.

The fun part is going to be when people start remotely hacking people wearing google glass.<p>It's going to be like a very early version of ghost-in-the-shell with external memory interfaces.

I don't want to sound negative but I can't hold it back.<p>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.<p>Why?<p>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...<p>I seriously can't find words.

Sounds like a classy joint, where the owner incites their clientele to violence:<p>"And ass kickings will be encouraged for violators."

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

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.

Probable source of the sign - the 'stop the cyborgs blog' ...<p><a href="http://stopthecyborgs.org/google-glass-ban-signs/" rel="nofollow">http://stopthecyborgs.org/google-glass-ban-signs/</a>

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?

Guy in the comments there allegedly willing to spray black Google glasses caught recording him.<p>What's the legality of doing that? What's the min-max punishment?

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

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.