Banning Google Glass? There's a Site For That

Status
Not open for further replies.

jonnyrb

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
I dislike this idea and believe it's stunting innovation. "Wearable computers" so is my cellphone in a holster a wearable computer? I can take candid pics any time.
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
459
0
18,930
0
I agree with the concerns over being covertly recorded, but they're fighting a losing battle. Cameras and wearable computers are only getting smaller, plus unless they're banning cellphones, you can already record a video relatively inconspicuously (just pretend you're talking on the phone).
 

evilsizer

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2009
17
0
18,570
1
When I get these, I'm going to have them with a prescription.Try and stop me Albertsons, Winn-Dixie, or 5 Point Cafe'. You cannot require someone to have a spare pair of glasses. You also cannot require someone to remove their glasses to enter your establishment when they are required to see. It would be like not allowing someone with a service dog into your establishment. It will be interesting to watch companies try to prevent us from wearing these.
 

Fargradius

Honorable
Mar 20, 2013
1
0
10,510
0
I completely disagree with this guy; he is acting the same as if someone is fighting cell phones or smarter cars ... etc! If we is concerned about privacy and video recording, then he should simply state that and not target one product!
 

guzami77

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2010
2
0
18,510
0
You guys realize how much more website traffic and publicity this Cafe has gotten... this was a genius play for business.
 

soo-nah-mee

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2009
248
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]guzami77[/nom]You guys realize how much more website traffic and publicity this Cafe has gotten... this was a genius play for business.[/citation]Doesn't sound like the sort of place that wants any publicity.
 

house70

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2010
1,465
0
19,310
39
"I’m a thought leader,” Meinert said..."

LOL. He forgot that he needs to THINK before calling himself that.

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]I agree with the concerns over being covertly recorded, but they're fighting a losing battle. Cameras and wearable computers are only getting smaller, plus unless they're banning cellphones, you can already record a video relatively inconspicuously (just pretend you're talking on the phone).[/citation]
That's what I argued in the first article. And that's why this trend is ridiculous. The owner is just trying to get some attention.
 

joecole1572

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
27
0
18,580
0
I still think there is privacy concerns. The difference between google glass you your cell phone is that at least with a cell phone, you can catch somebody taping things. Google glass makes it harder to tell if you are being recorded or not.

I guess we will see how much of a privacy issue this actually becomes....
 

plattyaj

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2009
15
0
18,560
0
I remember in the early days of camera phones; loads of businesses wouldn't let you take them in. A few years later and they had all dropped that because nobody had phones without cameras anymore. You can never stand in the way of progress ...
... not that I'm saying Google glasses will be as ubiquitous as cellphone cameras; I'm suspecting less use than Bluetooth headphones but I could easily be wrong. Just because I wouldn't ...
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
774
0
18,940
4
actually yes, yes they can, and they do for all sorts of reason, even seeing eye dogs, people with guns and other oddities etc.

it's the right to refuse service.

[citation][nom]evilsizer[/nom]When I get these, I'm going to have them with a prescription.Try and stop me Albertsons, Winn-Dixie, or 5 Point Cafe'. You cannot require someone to have a spare pair of glasses. You also cannot require someone to remove their glasses to enter your establishment when they are required to see. It would be like not allowing someone with a service dog into your establishment. It will be interesting to watch companies try to prevent us from wearing these.[/citation]
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
1,549
0
19,730
0
I can see why banning them could be necessary. I have done many questionable things while drunk and am glad that the vast majority of them were not recorded. Of course if Google Glasses (or a similar product) ever become as ubiquitous as cell phones then there won't be much of a choice.
 

DeadLight

Honorable
Mar 4, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
Why did he just tell everyone that the bar is a "seedy" and "notorious" place if he doesn't want it to get any attention? Streisand effect in full force happening here...
 

markbanang

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
What a great idea, you could use it as a source of info to overlay on your augmented reality view of the world to tell you where you aren't welcome. *8')
 

JonnyDough

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2007
496
0
18,940
3
It's common courtesy to ask if someone if you can take their photo. I don't believe the someone should take photos of something that is not a tourist landmark (ie the Statue of Liberty which is owned by the Federal Government) with the sole intention of profiting from it.

If Google wants to walk into a privately owned bar, snap photos, put them online, and then make money either directly or indirectly as a result of those photos it seems shady to me. But then, who hasn't seen old advertisements of famous brands hanging in a restaurant or something similar to that? People will always use what they can to profit. Welcome to capitalism.

So where do we draw the line? The fact is that even if a bar is a private establishment, they would have to ban ALL computers or ALL cell phones at the door. It may be a private establishment but it has an open door policy to a public offering.

An establishment cannot single out a specific person, that's profiling/prejudicial treatment and that IS illegal (i.e. you aren't allowed in here because you're missing half of your leg and we don't like cripples).

As far as the law actually goes I'm pretty sure it's like this:
If they want to create a policy that would eliminate Google from snapping photos for online use or limit something like "all computers" they can, however they cannot single out Google as a company specifically, as that would be illegal.
 

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
745
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]actually yes, yes they can, and they do for all sorts of reason, even seeing eye dogs, people with guns and other oddities etc.it's the right to refuse service.[/citation]
In the US you can't deny service to someone with a disability unless they are causing a problem, so no you can't refuse to serve someone with a seeing eye dog. It is against the law to deny service based on protected classes such as “race, color, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
G Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
G Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
J Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
J Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
G Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
oliwierek10 Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
G Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
V Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
G Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
PhilipMichaels Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
AndrewFreedman Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
XGamer_BiH Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 2
Mark Spoonauer Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 0
T Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
T Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
A Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1
D Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 4
JMcEntegart Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 10
CherlynnLow Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality 1

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY