Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the asking-for-it dept.

Crime 921

First time accepted submitter Martin Blank writes "Sarah Slocum, an early adopter of Google Glass, was bar hopping with friends in San Francisco when a few people in the bar took issue with the eyewear when she was demonstrating it to another patron even though she wasn't recording. When she felt threatened, she informed them that she would start recording. Two of them approached her, yelling and throwing a bar rag at her, and ultimately ripping the Glass from her face and running from the bar with it. She gave chase and eventually got the Glass back, but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar. This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works. Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"

cancel ×

921 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

not in use? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357159)

"I wasn't using it or recording them"... wat?

Rejects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357177)

This will always happen when you go to places where the rejects of society hang out. Deal with it and find other places to go to.

Re:Rejects (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357389)

Pathetic self-promoting blogger

When I first read about this 2 days ago witnesses said it was her friend who threw the first punch after she was insulted.

Re: Rejects (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357523)

Yeah, this is just click bait for googles new spy device. As if they don't have enough data on everybody already.

Glassholes are rejects (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357569)

Not those who care about their own privacy. Hopefully many other similar stories will follow.

Re:Rejects (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357601)

From TFS: what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

What will it take to get you to suck my dick, bitch? If someone objects to your stupid glasses, put them in your pocket. The Glasses woman was a glasshole (or is that glass ho?). When someone objects, take the god damned things off or leave!

And sorry, but the "rejects of society" are those with such little self-esteem they have to have the latest bling to feel worthwhile. I am not impressed.

No, not those who don't understand... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357179)

discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works

No... especially among those who do understand how it works.

Re:No, not those who don't understand... (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357255)

Not really. Buying into fear and hype is not the same thing as understanding something. In fact it is kinda the opposite.

Re:No, not those who don't understand... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357515)

I understand that I don't want to have my every interaction with a glasshole uploaded to Google for indexing.

Re:No, not those who don't understand... (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357527)

That only happens with the devices made of straw.

Re:No, not those who don't understand... (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46357511)

Yes, I'm sure the guys at the bar were taking a principled stand here.

"Listen *hic* lady... you need to *hic* read sche... shnedr... schnieder on security. Or is it *hic* Krebbs? Listen, here's the thing *hic* when I go out in public *hic* I don't expect anonymimitiy through obscurity... I mean security... but your wearable glasses camera makes it easeir for *hic* yahoo... NO (slaps self) stupid! I mean Google and the NSA to invade my privacy. Look *hic* at CCCTVs in england. Yeah. That's it. (barfs)"

Take pictures, press charges. (5, Insightful)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 5 months ago | (#46357181)

If someone starts threatening you you start recording. Because if they steal from you, or strike you, they've committed assault and you'll have iron clad evidence of it.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (5, Insightful)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about 5 months ago | (#46357227)

Assuming your device survives the experience.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about 5 months ago | (#46357283)

Pray you will have internet and get an steaming upload app?

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (3, Informative)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 5 months ago | (#46357319)

I made a steaming upload not half an hour ago. What did I eat for supper again??

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (5, Funny)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 5 months ago | (#46357595)

If it's going up, you've got some serious issues.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357373)

Google has a great feature where it automagically gets uploaded to your G+ account. Of course, this has to be turned on, and you have to have fast enough internet available to get it on the web in the last few seconds of operation, but in a city like San Francisco, I'd be surprised if this didn't work.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357329)

A $3.99 balaclava from the Dollar Store can easily take care of any identifying info. Of course, if push comes to shove (literally), a good attacker will just shove the victim's face in the wall, so the glasses get a good view of the bricks, then the concrete...

This isn't something completely new... it is just blowback from being recorded 24/7, and now people want to wear headcams to add more insult to injury. I wouldn't be surprised to see more incidents of this happening, be it reactionary protests, or just to snarf something worth $1500... and $1500 buys a lot of meth in most of the US.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (1, Informative)

tompaulco (629533) | about 5 months ago | (#46357453)

Unless, of course, the only reason they were threatening you is because you were recording. Then recording is just stupid.
Also, for telephone conversations in California are an all party consent state for recording. Everyone has to agree before you can record. Stands to reason that the same should be true for other types of recording.

Re:Take pictures, press charges. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357579)

the summary didn't say that she was threatened. it said that she felt threatened, which is just a BS way to do what she wants. so yeah, if you're in a bar and somebody asks you to take off your google glass, then it is wise to do so. and inb4 cell phone: poor analogy man! If I take a cell phone out at a bar to do a text, nobody will care, but if I start holding the cell phone upright as if I'm videoing everybody, I shouldn't be surprised when it gets slapped from my hand.

the sad part is that people don't see the lesson from this is "don't be a glass hole". what was she doing with her glass that was so super imperative she had to wear it at that bar? nothing i bet.

Nothing (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357191)

Its a douchetastic piece of hardware worn by pretentious assholes.

Re:Nothing (2, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357297)

Personally I feel that people who will physically assault a person for being part of a group they are not are much bigger pretentious assholes then someone who is minding their own business with their friends.

I find the detractors far more pretentious then the people who have google glass.

Re:Nothing (2)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about 5 months ago | (#46357407)

Yes, just that! Those idiots have actually taken the attention away from the real issue here which is a potential for loss of privacy with devices like Google Glass! Now the problem has been re-defined to safety of those wearing Google Glass.

Re:Nothing (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357559)

And I believe there is a real debate there worth having, but the majority of the criticism, even if it is wrapped up in 'privacy' seem to be more cultural then anything else.

what will it take for general acceptance (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | about 5 months ago | (#46357197)

to finally take hold?

Oh, I dunno, maybe not wearing it in a bar and threatening to record other people with it when they don't want to be recorded.

Or, maybe, we'll just have to get used to living in a post-privacy future.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357275)

idiot. Ofc criminals don't want to be recorded - that however is not a reason not to record them.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (1)

cornfeed (2141840) | about 5 months ago | (#46357521)

What happens when the thing you are being recorded becomes illegal the next day? This is not just about first world use. The ubiquity of surveillance and it's illegitimate use to torment people is clear and common.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357287)

Oh, I dunno, maybe not wearing it in a bar and threatening to record other people with it when they don't want to be recorded.

Yea, nobody's ever taken a photo or a video in a bar before with a phone.

Or, maybe, we'll just have to get used to living in a post-privacy future.

Never existed.

I'm not saying that all Google Glass users are saints, but can we all calm down please?

captcha: pacifism

Re: what will it take for general acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357307)

Replace google glass with a smartphone 6+ years ago. Would you still be attacking the victim? Also, do people who go to bars and expect privacy while there actually exist?

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (4, Insightful)

torchdragon (816357) | about 5 months ago | (#46357333)

Its a good thing you're apologizing for the thuggish behavior of the aggressors. I'll make sure that you compensate me for any injuries I receive when I'm robbing your house.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357381)

Its a good thing you're apologizing for the thuggish behavior of the aggressors.

I see no evidence of thuggish behavior. We only have one persons, most likely made up, story.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357339)

Oh, I dunno, maybe not wearing it in a bar and threatening to record other people with it when they don't want to be recorded.

So, any time anyone threatens violence...

Nobody wants to be recorded when beating up someone.

Re:what will it take for general acceptance (0, Troll)

flabordec (984984) | about 5 months ago | (#46357397)

Yes! Now imagine if she had been wearing a short skirt as well, then those guys wouldn't just be justified in assaulting her, they could also rape her! </sarcasm>

San Francisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357209)

Butters: But... how come we can't just take the bus on into the city?

Cartman: You don't know San Francisco, Butters. [zips the suit up] It was the breeding ground for the hippie movement in the 60s. Those hard-core liberals, lesbian activists, and diehard modern hippies young and old. [turns around and sighs] I swore I would never set foot in San Francisco. God help me. [reaches down, picks up the helmet, and puts it on, locks it in place, and pressurizes the suit. Communication resumes through the intercom] All right, Butters, I'll be tethered to you through this cord. It's my only lifeline, so make sure it stays taut. If you stop hearing my voice, for the love of Christ, start reeling me in with all your strength.

Not generally accepted!? (4, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | about 5 months ago | (#46357211)

what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"

We've got one example of some dickheads and that's grounds to claim it isn't generally accepted? If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.

Re:Not generally accepted!? (3, Informative)

rhazz (2853871) | about 5 months ago | (#46357365)

Very much agree! Regardless of the actual acceptance levels, one incident is statistically insignificant. If you replaced the gadget in this case with a hand-held camcorder, would you suggest that camcorders are not generally accepted? Or maybe just recording devices in general are not accepted in this context.

Also I would say that the number of Google Glass related violent incidents is over-reported compared to other tech-gadget related incidents, since this is only news because it involves Glass.

Re:Not generally accepted!? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46357405)

If there's only a couple of examples of people getting hassle for wearing something new and novel then I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted.

For a device that's still not generally available; only available in developer quantities at a high price? I don't think so.

A number of us here have pointed out that people wearing Google Glass are so annoying to people around them that they risk being punched. A warning that's been repeated by Google fans as if it's a threat. But it was no threat, just a prediction. And here we see one early example of that prediction more or less coming true.

She wasn't punched, but it was bad enough considering she's female. A male probably would have been punched.

Re:Not generally accepted!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357541)

And black kids playing thug music in Florida are likely to get shot. Being predictable does not make it right. I say fuck you and your predictions. I have glass, and if it had been me, I'd have punched back.

Re:Not generally accepted!? Nope. (0)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 5 months ago | (#46357591)

> I'd say that's pretty much the definition of generally accepted

Wearing Google Glass isn't common. I've never seen anyone wearing it. If I saw someone wearing it in a bar, I think I'd ask the barman to ask them to put it away or leave.

LED (5, Interesting)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 5 months ago | (#46357217)

what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

A red LED that glows when the 'glasses' are actually recording and is dark when they aren't.

Re:LED (5, Informative)

radja (58949) | about 5 months ago | (#46357321)

just stop pointing your camera at me. I don't care if it's showing a red light or not. She was being obnoxious, and wouldn't stop when asked.

Re:LED (2)

Hentai (165906) | about 5 months ago | (#46357395)

just stop pointing your camera at me. I don't care if it's showing a red light or not. She was being obnoxious, and wouldn't stop when asked.

I thought the article said she wasn't recording, just showing it to someone else?

Re:LED (0)

Reapman (740286) | about 5 months ago | (#46357391)

It already does...

Re:LED (5, Informative)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 5 months ago | (#46357467)

what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

A red LED that glows when the 'glasses' are actually recording and is dark when they aren't.

Which is easily disabled. Even laptop camera lights that claimed to be "hardware inline" has been showed to have exploits that malware can use to disable the light while recording (they won't really be as "inline" as you think because of noise issues with that, and the fact that many cameras these days double as light sensors, so they are always on). If you are the owner it is even easier, you can cover up the light, or disconnect a wire.

That's alright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357223)

I think it should be MY option whether I am featured in your glass recordings, and I won't take your word for it, thank you.

Why get mad? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357231)

I am having difficulty imagining a world in which people would have a problem with this. Are you going to chase down and attack someone who has their cell phone out?

I guess I am missing some bit of information that makes the anti-glass argument make sense.

Re:Why get mad? (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357343)

Of course not, cell phones are on the 'right' side of a cultural divide and thus are 'fine'.

While people complain about the recording or the perceived pretentiousness of the owners, it is really just a mini culture war with people falling over themselves to demonstrate their own authenticity by not being one of 'those' people. It is kinda like people who go on forums to proclaim loudly how horrible social media is and how we all need to go make real friends like THEY do. They want more people in their particular subculture and they want a nice assured status within the group, mostly by demonstrating loudly how they are NOT someone the group has agreed is to be hated.

It is kinda pathetic actually.

Re:Why get mad? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357589)

I am having difficulty imagining a world in which people would have a problem with this. Are you going to chase down and attack someone who has their cell phone out?

I guess I am missing some bit of information that makes the anti-glass argument make sense.

You have never heard of people meeting opposition to filming others with a cell phone and continue to do so even after being asked not to? The difference with a cell phone is that it is much more obvious when you use it in a way that people disagree with. And, also that not all cell phones (yet) report back to the vast data collection machine that is Google, with its capabilities to correlate data, face-recognize, geo-track, etc. For me it is also about the sum of all the Little Brothers when plugged into something like this.

Why SHOULD there be acceptance? (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about 5 months ago | (#46357235)

Seriously. We're already living in a panopticon society, being recorded by the government and private business almost 24x7.
Now we have a bunch of people OPENLY wearing cameras on their heads, recording our every moment in public too, whether we want it or not.
I can understand a certain modicum of hostility. Granted, nobody should EVER be PHYSICALLY attacked. But the people behind Google Glass, as well as the users of the product need to understand that this product is going to be pushing people's buttons.

Keep attacking the Glass users (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357239)

Then that way the product will fail and we get our decency back.

I do however feel for the idiot who got glasses SURGICLY screwed into his SKULL. So so called father of wearables, more like idiot. he gets attacked in McDonalds, good too, rip them from his bloody skull.

We need to start developing open source JAMMERS to disrupt Wearable devices.

Make them feel uneasy about wearing them.

Re:Keep attacking the Glass users (2)

utnapistim (931738) | about 5 months ago | (#46357379)

> Keep attacking the Glass users [...] Then that way the product will fail and we get our decency back.

You are loosing more of your decency by attacking people than by someone next to you using Glass.

Re:Keep attacking the Glass users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357383)

People like the above commenter make me re-evaluate my stance on personal fire-arms. Because frankly, if a considerable fragment of the human race thinks violence is an acceptable response to something they don't like, then this violence will only stop when all these people are either imprisoned or killed in self-defense; the sooner the better.

Wander into a bar holding up a video camera (4, Interesting)

stiggle (649614) | about 5 months ago | (#46357243)

See if the response is the same.
Tell the patrons that its OK, you're not actually recording anything despite holding the camera in a manner to record.

Or you could just put the Google Glass in your pocket and socialise with your friends without the need for a constant internet connection.

Re:Wander into a bar holding up a video camera (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357471)

She was socializing by showing someone what they were and how they work. She wasn't just wearing them around a bar and walking up to random people to show them her glasses.

Re:Wander into a bar holding up a video camera (1)

blunttrauma (601130) | about 5 months ago | (#46357479)

This, exactly. I expect this happens as little as it does because in general, people don't know what it is. They think you are wearing ugly glasses, if they notice at all.

As they get more widespread, this is going to happen more often.

Re:Wander into a bar holding up a video camera (2)

fincher69 (1998394) | about 5 months ago | (#46357481)

I would actually like to see someone test this, but with an appropriate example like a GoPro. I wonder if people would have the same reaction if someone entered a bar wearing a GoPro or similar camera on their head, especially if there was tape where the recording light is. I have a feeling the response wouldn't be as strong, because people are more familiar with the technology.

Any time someone has their phone out, whether it appears they are talking on it or just txt'ing, they could be recording. It would be trivial for me to fake a common phone task, but actually be recording video of anything in the bar. Yet, no one confronts me just because I have my phone out. There really is no rational reason for people to treat those with Glass any differently than anyone who doesn't have their phone in their pocket.

Re:Wander into a bar holding up a video camera (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 5 months ago | (#46357611)

Or you could just put the Google Glass in your pocket and socialise with your friends without the need for a constant internet connection.

If there's one reason why this solution doesn't really satisfy me it's that as a wearer of glasses if I ever went with a device like Google glass I would like to have a front facing camera and I don't want to have to carry a spare non-glass pair to be socially acceptable. Obviously I want it to be extremely obvious if the device is recording (both for me and those around me) and I'm more than a little dubious about giving Google quite so much access, but I don't see why the issue can't be resolved like other unsocial behaviour (when it is exhibited) rather than banning one potential tool for it.

Begun, the Class Wars Have... (5, Informative)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | about 5 months ago | (#46357261)

FTA: "You [i.e. rich hipster techies] are killing this city!"

It may have ostensibly been about privacy, but clearly it was also about resentment towards tech-industry aristos displacing everyone else,
with their private busses and their artisanal vodkas and fancy gadgets and most of all their ability to pay obscene rents and stay in The City
rather than commuting in from Gilroy.

When looking for acceptance of new ideas... (1)

Ben4jammin (1233084) | about 5 months ago | (#46357263)

Maybe bar hopping is not the best plan.
Oh and Protip: Never set your wallet/purse down in a bar.

Didn't go down that way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357277)

According to the thread about this on reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco this was person is a complete and utter douche who was going from bar-to-bar last night attempting to incite an incident.

But that's for the Fair and Balanced reporting.

Simple solution (4, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about 5 months ago | (#46357279)

Don't bring recordable media into bars. People go to bars to relax and be themselves, fear of being recorded makes them unable to do just that.

Re:Simple solution (1)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 5 months ago | (#46357605)

So the bar should ban recording devices. Everybody drops their smart phone off at the coat check before they go in. That way everybody is happy.

This is why they got angry (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#46357285)

They got angry because the Google Glass rose the women into higher power and social position for having the convenient recording feature.

Loaded question... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357291)

Loaded question: "...what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?". The question implies that general acceptance should take hold. Why should it?

As I see it, the people who reject Glass understand very well how Glass works, and this is exactly why they reject it.

All Positive (2, Informative)

invid (163714) | about 5 months ago | (#46357303)

My step-son owns Google Glass and he went with us on a cruise recently. All the reactions I saw were very positive. He allowed other to wear it and demonstrated how it worked to anyone who was interested. If anything, it added to his popularity.

Re:All Positive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357413)

This is because he was on a cruise with people that can afford to be on a cruise. The lady in the story was in a bar along with all the poor drunk people who can only find entertainment in bars.

Re:All Positive (0)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46357575)

So you're saying I can be more popular if I wear Google Glass? Nice try Google!

The real "glass holes" (2, Insightful)

JavaBear (9872) | about 5 months ago | (#46357309)

It seems to me that the real "glass holes" are those without Google glass.

Re:The real "glass holes" (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#46357443)

More and more I am agreeing. I do not have a use for such devices, but if I did, I would probably get one in part because my respect for the detractors and their arguments has been rapidly going down. They talk about pretentious and douchyness, but they seem to exhibit far more of it then the 'glass holes'.

Acceptance will never take hold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357315)

No provision for blurring people who are recorded without their consent. They're well within their rights to keep you from recording.

Or is it just theft? (5, Insightful)

wooppp (921578) | about 5 months ago | (#46357325)

"...but her purse was gone when she returned to the bar.". Is it just the plain old distraction tactics?

Businesses need to take the lead on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357327)

Either allow these cameras inside or not.

People are pissed because they aren't aware that someone is filming them. It's essentially voyeurism unless you KNOW you are being filmed.

Established policies about this at the door via sign would be enough to prevent these violent reactions.

Re:Businesses need to take the lead on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357459)

better leave your iphones at the door then too!

not surprising. it will get worse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357331)

Anyone whos been paying attention can tell this will only get worse. WAY worse. I expect at least a couple of murders.
Authorities have beat, shot, and killed people recording them around the world since cameras were invented. Why should the general public be ANY different?
This isn't a simple case of 'haves versus have nots' having their face rubbed in it.
This is fear of the unknown. That NEVER ends well.

Duuhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357351)

Getting in a bar fight, for being a dick. News at 11.

Looks like "with a computer" gets replaced with "while wearing google glass".

Stupid San Francisco rednecks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357353)

Totally uncivlized.

Why can't the people who live in San Francisco behave like people in Alabama?

/sarcasm

Aimed at those who reflexively denigrate regions they're totally ignorant of.

There won't BE any "general acceptance" (5, Informative)

kheldan (1460303) | about 5 months ago | (#46357361)

People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.

Re:There won't BE any "general acceptance" (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 5 months ago | (#46357553)

People don't like being recorded, or even the possibility of being recorded, without their express permission. That's not going to change, therefore there isn't going to be any "general acceptance" of technology like this.

Seems people don't like being recorded by individuals they can actually see in the flesh, and just accept the recording of themselves by whoever mounts a camera on the ceiling or wall anywhere. And I don't think it's just the tacit acceptance of being monitored and recorded as a condition of darkening someone's door: I suspect that the average person would be far more uncomfortable with a mall cop pointing a camera at them in person vs. monitoring them from a back office with an array of pannable cameras as they moved about the premises. Even though the net result is the same, it's the apparent human element that I suspect makes Average Joe uncomfortable.

Re:There won't BE any "general acceptance" (1)

0xG (712423) | about 5 months ago | (#46357607)

Agreed.
Just because we *can* make this technology, doesn't mean that we *should*.

It's not all about the recording (2)

sacdelta (135513) | about 5 months ago | (#46357369)

While I would prefer to see a red led indicating that it is actively recording, that's not the only issue.

The early adopters are also actively running around flaunting that they had an extra $1,500 just lying around. It is also similar to the hostility growing about the elite companies busing their employees. There is a level of elitism that is being flaunted about by these people and that doesn't sit well with many people. Especially with a growing divide of haves and have nots.

In this case it seems that since they eventually just grabbed the device, that all of the bluster was probably just show to get them in a position to steal it.

It should not take hold. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357371)

As long as I despise the physical aggression, this cannot be an excuse to make Google Glass more accepted. This thing is pure EVIL. People who try to convince you that this is just the normal evolution of society are simply missing the point that one thing is the "possibility" that someone is recording you everywhere (e.g. with small/hidden cameras). Another thing is the "acceptance" of this fact, like if it were something normal which we should get used to.

I was expecting less Glass supporters on Slashdot. This must be either due to an increase of hipster kids among its readers, or (more likely) the result of an ongoing astroturfing campaign by Google - you can bet they are very active from this point of view.

Anyway, every time I hear the argument "don't bother about Glass, spy cameras are much cheaper and you don't even notice them", Beta kills another kitten.

Maybe people have had enough? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357401)

When I go to a bar the last thing I'd expect is some douche wandering in with the potential to record me inebriated. Given the absurdly conservative society we live in, combined with the new "at will" employment philosophy (yes, even in Canada), I'd get upset too. Fuck off with your toys already.

It is not the same (3, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 5 months ago | (#46357415)

Google glass is up front and personal. Eye level, quality video and audio. That is far different than an overhead security cam, even the best ones. The reaction is the same as if a person was recording with a hand held video camera in a bar. How well do you think that would be tolerated, especially if it was not directed at an immediate group of friends and short lived? How would you feel sitting in that bar with the other patron aimlessly recording for 30, 60 or more minutes? Would you be surprised if someone got up and knocked the camera out of their hand? Verbally berated them? Pushed them?

Re:It is not the same (0)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#46357609)

> Would you be surprised if someone got up and knocked the camera out of their hand? Verbally berated them? Pushed them?

Yes, but I don't tend to go to the kinds of bars that are populated by violent nitwits.

It's not about Glass (5, Insightful)

Natales (182136) | about 5 months ago | (#46357423)

The real issue here is what's actually going on in SF. If you don't live here you probably don't know, but there has been a lot of soft aggression against tech workers regardless of the company all over the city, simply because more and more are moving in, driving up the prices of housing and attracting more higher-end businesses, effectively changing the nature of traditionally "working class" neighborhoods. Classic gentrification.

This bar in particular is more of a punk-type place, located exactly in one of those areas under rapid changing, so the presence of someone with GG was probably an in-your-face reminder (no pun intended) of the situation many of the locals are experiencing.

I can personally understand both sides, but I tend to side with history: everything changes over time and different forces will produce different changes. You can fight it only to a certain degree, but change is inexorable, and you can't forever cling to "the way things were before".

I will be behind adoption (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357425)

When I make a black box device where in a push of a button I can ensure myself you glassholes aren't filming me being an asshole.

She caused the escalation (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#46357427)

From TFA

Slocum said she was bar hopping with friends when they ended up at the bar in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. She was showing one curious bar patron Google Glass when two women started shielding their faces and rolling their eyes, she said. One of the women made an obscene gesture, Slocum said.
Feeling threatened, she said she told them she was going to record with Google Glass.
 
That’s when she said one of the women and a man “charged” her, telling her they did not want to be filmed.

She could have walked away, but instead she chose to up the ante by threatening the patrons with recording their objections to being filmed.
 
 

Slocum said the woman then ran up to her, saying “you are killing the city” and tried to grab Google Glass from her. Then the man “ripped them off my face and ran out of the bar,” Slocum said.

Now that is interesting as it may be indicative of a general anti-Google aspect in the city as much as an anti-glass thing.

Wait, what? (1, Troll)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 5 months ago | (#46357431)

Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

First of all, I don't get the link between these two things. "Cheap, easily-hidden spy cameras exist, therefore there should be general acceptance of expensive, hard-to-hide spy cameras"? Is that the basic thought behind this sentence? Huh?

Secondly, you forgot to explain why I should give a shit about whether Glass is accepted or not. What's my interest in it? I don't want one. I don't know anybody who wants one. The only people I ever read about who have them are jerks. And I don't work for Google.

So to answer your question: general acceptance will happen when Google cancels the project.

Not true ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357449)

This physical level of hostility is unusual, but discomfort with Glass is common, especially among those who don't understand how it works.

Even among people who understand how it works, there's hostility to this.

Because, eventually it stands to be everything we're afraid it will be, a method of Google to monitor people who want nothing to do with Google and for the people wearing them to violate our privacy.

I don't want people wearing Google Glass in bars (5, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 5 months ago | (#46357455)

I wouldn't be aggressive, but I also think it's unacceptable that people film me constantly when I'm trying to relax. Especially in bars and similar places where I have high expectations of being away from the scrutiny of everyone but the people I've chosen to socialise with.

Pointing cameras at people (and optionally saying "I swear it's not recording"), in the form of phones or Glass or whatever, is simply a really anti-social thing to do.

So is aggression and theft, but one wrong doesn't mean we should turn the other person into a white knight as this article tries to do.

p.s. (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 5 months ago | (#46357547)

P.S. In that last sentence I meant "person" in the general sense, not specifically the person mentioned in this particular article. What I'm criticising is that the article portrays the behaviour of filming people without their consent as being perfectly fine, and that people who object just "don't understand". (Don't understand what??)

Not remotely a useful question (2)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 5 months ago | (#46357461)

Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?

Your question is nonsensical: Those people would likely be even more furious if they knew your clothes were covered in pinhole spy cameras.

The problem is people don't like having creepy strangers record them in public, regardless of whether they have the "right" to do so or not. The issue is the human discomfort and you might get to a point where people won't just kick your ass for looking at them while wearing Google Glass (or similar invasive, idiotic, and useless products) but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. Nor will you ever get them comfortable with the perception that they're being recorded.

I wonder what the over/under on somebody hacking Google Glass to disable the "recording" light is--assuming such a hack doesn't exist already in the wild and we just haven't heard about it.

Cell Phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357465)

because a large majority of the population carrying around a GPS / camera / sound recorder that we allow to be taken out at any time is totally fine.
Put your cell phone on your face; now we have a problem.

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357477)

Next time think twice before putting a camera in front of everyone's face, glasshole. Hopefully many other similar stories will happen.

This post is fake, just a marketing ad. How come n (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357485)

This post is fake, just a marketing ad. How come no police was called, no charges were made?

"...what will it take?" (3, Interesting)

scotts13 (1371443) | about 5 months ago | (#46357499)

"...what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?"

Major changes in society, that won't be happening anytime soon. Look, we're already monitored basically 24/7. We don't like it, but if we squint our eyes and look the other way, we can pretend we aren't. The Google Glass thing is just shoving it in our faces and not allowing us to ignore it. (The reasonably common perception of Glass wearers as pretentious hipsters doesn't help).

I think it's far more likely that places like bars (where we want to relax and do foolish things) will ADVERTISE that they don't allow these devices, and don't record internally. Glass may be the straw that triggers the backlash.

I'm a google shareholder, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46357513)

Wait, so it's bad for the NSA/FBI/CIA/TLA to spy, but we should embrace google spy glasses? This is fucking ridiculous. I'm a google shareholder, but you people are obsessive enough to worry me.

Not recording? (2)

jmd (14060) | about 5 months ago | (#46357519)

I didn't inhale back in the 60s either.

On or off the issue is not what she is doing. But what she is perceived as doing.

People hate cameras. (3, Interesting)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 5 months ago | (#46357529)

People turn quite irrational at the prospect of being photographed or filmed. I've run into problems overseas, but I almost think it's worse in the US. People seem to take issue with the mere presence of a camera. If you're shooting buildings that are not established landmarks you get odd looks. And I got approached once because I was taking photos of car taillights for a project. They were still suspicious after showing them my shots. The only time you're really not going to have a problem is when you're with friends and your camera is clearly pointed at them.

Google Glass, however, takes this perceived threat to a whole other level because you've got a camera stuck to your head and in the minds of the ignorant you're recording everything you see.

Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself, if the other party were resentful of someone flaunting wealth, if theft was the motive, or if they really were just plain stupid. Either way, bars and such tend to attract imbeciles which is why I would never wear something like Google Glass out at night. At least not until the technology became ubiquitous and accepted.

Not so much to do with Glass (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46357597)

more to do with assholes looking for an excuse to harass someone, and possible a scam specifically to steal her purse,

Lets not attribute to society as a whole premises based on violate actions some some assholes who clearly need therapy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>