Glassholes Use Google to Destroy a Restaurant's Rating

overclock

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
312
The bigger crime here is the article's author incorrect use of the word decimate. Think of the words decimal, December, decade. The restaurant's reputation was not reduced by 10%. Their reputation was devastated. The Glasshole should have looked this up for the uneducated author.
 

Ashton

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
2,505
I gotta laugh at how this became a headline. Honestly, the same thing has happened for years, even before social networking became big. Person with a lot of friends gets pissed off, friends leave negative ratings (or give other people negative comments in person) to "defend" their friend who was "wronged" The difference was years ago it was more localized,but pissing off a local celebrity would still get your business blacklisted by their fans. The only reason this made news is because Glass is big right now. (Note that I never said that the reaction was justified, just that it's not new)

On the direct topic, most cellphones today are larger than a shirt's breast-pocket, it would be easy for someone to turn the camera on, slip in it their pocket and record constantly, but I don't see places banning camera phones. This is mostly just scaremongering combined with clickbait.

While I agree that nobody should be rude enough to record those around them 24/7, I also see this as an over-reaction. Honestly, do the majority of Glass users constantly record? Considering the drain on battery life, I'd think not.

All that articles like this do is push back a technology that could be used to great benefit (from doctors having up-to-the-second stats on a patient they're operating on, to everyday drivers having a HUD that displays their speed/tack/gas etc so they don't have to take their eyes off the road)

I'm usually a privacy advocate, but I'm looking at this and for once saying "get over it, you're being paranoid!"
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,625
Once again the technophobes on oftForum our in full anti-technology mode.

This is no different then somebody using a phone in the cafe.


The restaurant have their own rights to enforce any restrictions within their premises. If she doesn't want to obey such restriction, then she should dine elsewhere. We're not entitled to dine at any restaurant we want.

That user is just being a self entitled bitch about it
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,259
the issue is the price
people with the money for them right now are just assholes to start with
i feel it will be less of an issue once the tech is more wide spread
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
So then you have nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

You seem very confused here yet roll your eyes like a 10 year old. G-Glass is not equivalent to a privately owned CCTV. Huge difference yet your response was 'then you have nothing to worry about' like it somehow is. Of course they're completely different, that's the point. Apples to oranges here.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
the issue is the price
people with the money for them right now are just assholes to start with
i feel it will be less of an issue once the tech is more wide spread
Despite the constant propaganda encouraging it lately, we're not a completely envy based society yet. The issue here is not envy.
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,455
If I found Glass useful enough to wear and a restaurant ordered me to remove them, I'd leave and never give them my business again. As long as Glass users aren't polluting the environment with noise and camera-equipped phones are allowed that location, this shouldn't be an issue. The people who have an issue with this are luddites who are all too eager to laugh at the geeks, like this is junior high. I'm not surprised this restraunt's behavior was rewarded with spite. It's a natural reaction to persecution.

Chap, please install a IP cam in your bathroom and supply us with the IP addy so we can all have a damn good laugh then?

What have you got to worry about?
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,455
To be honest looking at the Glass and people wearing it, I can see an Opti-grab like lawsuit ahoy.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,103
Once again the technophobes on oftForum our in full anti-technology mode.

This is no different then somebody using a phone in the cafe.


Yeah except it's a bit different, now if you said no different than someone using a phone in a restaurant, then I would say ok I see that. But then if people are talking on phones in nice restaurants, the good ones well tell them to kindly turn off their phone as well.

But hey yeah, bully mentality for the win, you personally get snubbed you find 12 other people to give bad reviews. That's totally [H]ard. If this was one woman with one bad review, and her review specifically said "Asked me to take of my Google Glass, I refused and left (One star)" then someone could see "oh hey douche bag being douche bag, this is a restaurant I'd like to go to"
 

Bassmankr

n00b
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
32
The expectation of privacy is an "Inherent Right" which predates and supercedes the laws of the US. Parts of it are expressed in the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments as well as in other fundamental laws of the US. Inherent Rights can not be given away nor legislated against (that's why there is no legal "voluntary slavery", although it didn't prevent the US from ignoring basic rights for long periods of time). Whether a patron expresses concern or not over their Inherent Right of expectation of privacy from their image or actions being electronically published in a public manor (the internet) there is a real risk that a privite business owner could be sued from that action if other patrons engage in that activity without the written permission of those being recorded and broadcasted in a public form. Additionally private owners have every right to set their own rules for their premises that don't infringe on the basic rights of others (do not discriminate against race/sex/age/sexual preference/etc.). Wearing Google Glass into any privite establishment simply violates the rights of others and puts that privite establishment owner at risk from lawsuit.

It sadly is getting to the point that one will have to copyright their own image and have a publication fee in excess of a million dollars per instance. Then some test cases can legally bankrupt people that engage in violatation of one's reasonable expectations of privacy in privitely owned locations. Do we really need to have signs like the one posted above in every establishment's window? We are already seeing laws passed against wearing them while driving. Maybe writing expensive tickets to those engaged in the recording of others without their permission will also be needed for those shitholes who have no regard for others. Hopefully asking anyone wearing them in a privite setting politely to remove them explaining that you hold your expectation of privacy important will curb this practice. For those who refuse then lodging a complaint with the management/owner along with opening their eyes to the potential legal risk they are facing seems to be the appropriate action.

As for those posting negative reviews for an establishment they have never visited there are exsisting laws in place that allow civil lawsuits against those engaged in such harmful actions.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Why would anyone even need to wear Google Glass in a restaurant or any other public place. Is there an app that scans your menu and tells you what the best dish is or something.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
The bigger crime here is the article's author incorrect use of the word decimate. Think of the words decimal, December, decade. The restaurant's reputation was not reduced by 10%. Their reputation was devastated. The Glasshole should have looked this up for the uneducated author.

Eh, that definition has changed a bit. There are now more parts to it. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate

Just look at the given examples.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Is there something someone could wear inconspicuously to prevent a glasshole from capturing their face on a recording?

If not, who is working on it?
Hopefully it involves using lasers to destroy the camera. :D
 

Bassmankr

n00b
Joined
Feb 6, 2014
Messages
32
The burdon is on the person violating rights, not the right holder. Google could make it's software to blur ALL recorded faces and distort all recorded audio until the glass wearer edits. Broadcast now edits to blur, they would need to do the opposite process in that it would require specific action to unblur. That would simplify it for court cases as a glass wearer took a deliberate action to unblur someone's image/voice/actions without their written permission.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Once again the technophobes on oftForum our in full anti-technology mode.

This is no different then somebody using a phone in the cafe.


And if someone was holding up their phone and videoing or taking pictures of everyone, they would also be asked to leave.
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
The best way to drive a Glass owner absolutely apeshit? Pretend like they aren't wearing them, don't ask about them, talk about them, nothing. If they bring them up, change the subject immediately. :D

My friend got google glass, and he wanted to talk about it, I said "Cool" and that was it

he wanted to talk and talk about it, so I brought it up as a point of contention that I should talk about my tablet for however long he talks about his glasses, after which he stopped talking about it

I get it, its a new toy etc, but does said toy need to have a 20+ minute conversation?
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Typical entitled attitude. People have a right to a sense of privacy. When someone has a cell phone out, it is visible. With the glass on, it becomes more vague. A private business has to right to enforce certain policies that help make their guests feel more secure.

As much as I hate more laws, maybe we just need a law that any recording device like Google glasses must have a visual indicator (like a flashing red light) visible to whoever is being recorded. That way people would know when to punch the person :)
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
Once again the technophobes on oftForum our in full anti-technology mode.

This is no different then somebody using a phone in the cafe.
Google reminds users...

Don'ts:

Be creepy or rude (aka, a “Glasshole”). Respect others and if they have questions about Glass don’t get snappy. Be polite and explain what Glass does and remember, a quick demo can go a long way. In places where cell phone cameras aren’t allowed, the same rules will apply to Glass. If you’re asked to turn your phone off, turn Glass off as well. Breaking the rules or being rude will not get businesses excited about Glass and will ruin it for other Explorers.

That woman was being unreasonable. It's not about being a luddite.
 

MostComfortable

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
426
Once again the technophobes on oftForum our in full anti-technology mode.

This is no different then somebody using a phone in the cafe.


No it isn't. This combines the obnoxiousness of keeping a smartphone pointed at people with the douchebaggery of a bluetooth headset.

Its a terrible product for awful people.
 

Odellus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
1,699
i have never seen a topic filled with such ignorant and egotistic discussion in all my life. good fucking god.
 
Top