Banning Google Glass? There's a Site For That

[exfileme]

Here's a site that will list all establishments banning wearable computers.

Banning Google Glass? There's a Site For That : Read more

 

[jonnyrb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You guys realize how much more website traffic and publicity this Cafe has gotten... this was a genius play for business.

 

[soo-nah-mee]

[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.

 

[DeeboT]

Soon it will be banned from the bedroom...sigh. - How Google Glass Ruins Relationships - http://youtu.be/Ysq5itvbKOE

 

[house70]

"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]

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]

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 ...

 

[ruffopurititiwang]

crappy site is crappy.

 

[f-14]

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]

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]

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]

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')

 

[bluekoala]

Useless article for a useless website.

 

[JonnyDough]

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]

[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.”

 

[lathe26]

I'm not looking forward to day someone leaves their device on and walks into a public bathroom.

 

[sumasu325]

*************** http://bit.ly/YniJRv **********
I'm creating $86 associate degree hour engaging from home. i used to be appalled once my neighbour told Pine Tree State she was averaging $95 however I see however it works currently. I feel most freedom currently that i am my very own boss. this is often what I do,
*************** http://bit.ly/YniJRv **********

 

[anti-painkilla]

I just wonder whether they ban photos being taken as well or just the fact that you would never be able to tell if someone is videoing you.

I understand the whole not wanting to be recorded and photographed all the time seeing as everything that gets recorded ends up on the internet.

 

[kyuuketsuki]

[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]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.”[/citation]This wouldn't fall under discriminating against someone with a disability. You might as well try to claim that a business couldn't require people to remove their shoes because some people wear othopedic soles for foot problems.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]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.”[/citation]

So you could weld an assault rifle to a wheelchair and go inside a bank or an airport? Yeah, that would be an extreme case, but I don't think you can go around reasonable restrictions as easy as that. This will probably be settled in court, but I think we should just accept that we can be recorded in public by anyone for any reason.

 

[spectrewind]

[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]

Not really. There is a difference between fame and notoriety. Most businesses want to make money. I guess we'll find out of this owner's ego has the effect of increasing business, or putting him out of business.