• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seattle Restaurant Ejects Customer Wearing Google Glass

Bodhisattva said:
Two things...

1. They did not eject him... he chose to leave.

2. What are google glasses?

EDIT: Just read up on what it is... pretty frickin' cool but also a huge violation of privacy at stake. I would ban them in my business as well.
Click to expand...

I also took the time today to read about and watch the video showing google glasses being used. I have no doubt that those who don't have a problem using Facebook, with all their privacy issues, will be their best customers. Meh!
 
Cardinal said:
The owner didn't want the guy photographing or recording other customers with them, though it's a little late to put the genie in that particular bottle seeing as anyone can record anybody with their phone completely inconspicuously.
Click to expand...

When someone is holding up their cellphone to text you can't tell if they are taking your pic or not. With so many cellphones out there I imagine we end up in someone's photo background from time to time.
But the Google Glasses there is no doubt what their function is. I think it would be annoying to just be eating your meal with your family and have some guy sitting at another table with a camera pointed at you.

Plus, if you are a guy standing in the restroom using the urinal and Mr Google Glasses walks in and pulls up next to your urinal... I don't know if I like that.
 
American said:
You want to record someone with your phone, you'll have to hold it up with your hand.
Click to expand...

Not enough to matter. If I wanted to look like I was just reading my phone while recording someone I could do it, no problem.
 
Crosscheck said:
When someone is holding up their cellphone to text you can't tell if they are taking your pic or not. With so many cellphones out there I imagine we end up in someone's photo background from time to time.
But the Google Glasses there is no doubt what their function is. I think it would be annoying to just be eating your meal with your family and have some guy sitting at another table with a camera pointed at you.

Plus, if you are a guy standing in the restroom using the urinal and Mr Google Glasses walks in and pulls up next to your urinal... I don't know if I like that.
Click to expand...

I've always found the concept of Google Glasses to be more Borg than I'm comfortable with.
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh my god. No one in this thread has said he should be forced to accept people who wear Glass. I'm personally a firm supporter of employer and property owner sovereignty. This isn't what we've been talking about.
Click to expand...

there are some people in our world who believe because a business is open to the public, this somehow gives the public exercisable rights on the property.

yesterday I debated someone who stated a company had no right to make political or social statements, if some employees disagree with them.
 
Sherman123 said:
Is your cellphone a toy? Maybe to you. Not to most of us and we'd be more than miffed if a restaurant told us to leave it at home. This is obviously a generational gap.
Click to expand...

Are you upset you can't use a cell phone inside a bank?
 
Mason66 said:
Are you upset you can't use a cell phone inside a bank?
Click to expand...

You cant? I use my cell phone in banks all the time. I make runs to the bank from our office two or three times a day and I'm usually on the BBC app the entire time. I think there is a sign that says no sunglasses though.
 
I consciously choose not to have a Facebook page or upload my life to Google and I do not want some random person violating my choices.

How can anybody be OK with a random person recording every step you take without your knowledge?

You do know the ugliest pictures you can take of a person is when they are eating, right?

Why didn't the guy just take off the glasses and continue to eat.

Some peoples priorities are screwed up.
 
TheNextEra said:
It is PRIVATE property that they are on. The owner has a right to set the rules. Much like if an owner doesn't permit guns on their premises it is their right to so.
Click to expand...

It's their right as it's their private property.

Ockham said:
Not when it infringes on others privacy. Now, if he asked everyone at the eatery to sign a release form to use their likeness on his social media sites and they all agreed - then fine.
Click to expand...

You're assuming he was filming. Did the article state this?

apdst said:
And he can get his hind-parts off the resturant owners property to do it.
Click to expand...

Sure he can.

Rocketman said:
which the restaurant owner did
Click to expand...

And I entirely agree with his right to do so, or did you not read my first post in this thread?

year2late said:
I they could potentially lose more customers. If I felt I was being videotaped, I would feel ill at ease.
Click to expand...

My guess is, you wouldn't know. :shrug:

Harshaw said:
So . . . if someone decided to bring their bongos, the restaurant should just let them bang away?
Click to expand...

The restaurant can do what it wishes. It's private property (presumably). If they want / don't want bongos, that is their prerogative.
 
Sherman123 said:
You cant? I use my cell phone in banks all the time. I make runs to the bank from our office two or three times a day and I'm usually on the BBC app the entire time. I think there is a sign that says no sunglasses though.
Click to expand...

I live in Mexico and they know here that somebody on a cell phone can be communicating with somebody outside preparing for a robbery.

They also prohibit dark sunglasses and hats of any kind.

You have never seen the sign with a cell phone and the red line through it at a bank?

Maybe people in the US would riot if they couldn't use their phones in the bank.
 
Throwing someone out of a business that is open to the public based on their appearance? I feel like we've been here before.
 
Paschendale said:
Throwing someone out of a business that is open to the public based on their appearance? I feel like we've been here before.
Click to expand...

There is that open to the public fairytale again.
 
Henrin said:
There is that open to the public fairytale again.
Click to expand...

Shop owners, who are inviting the public into their establishment to do business, owe various legal duties to those who enter their establishment. The agreement between the owner and the public at large includes obligations to admit whatever part of the public wants to do business. There are circumstances under which an owner can eject people, but this is not one of them.

What you call a fairy tale, the rest of us call American law.
 
It's the store policy. I havent seen yet the basis for it tho.
 
I guess it's up to the restaurant. :shrug: It seems rather harmless to me, but whatever.
 
Paschendale said:
Shop owners, who are inviting the public into their establishment to do business, owe various legal duties to those who enter their establishment. The agreement between the owner and the public at large includes obligations to admit whatever part of the public wants to do business. There are circumstances under which an owner can eject people, but this is not one of them.

What you call a fairy tale, the rest of us call American law.
Click to expand...

It's a concept that is in fact made up by the government. There is no such thing as a business open to the public. The only that happens is the government violates the rights of business owners and then declares the business open to the public. It's shear and utter nonsense in reality.
 
Sherman123 said:
Which would be silly and technophobic. It's also a sentiment that I'm sure will spike as the technology rolls out and recede as younger generations who are prepared to accept it and are acclimated towards it come to the fore.
Click to expand...

If it's about secretive videoing (all I could come up with from the article), it's probably about privacy, not technology. This is Seattle and that is a trendy, well-off area of Seattle. EVERYONE here is messing with 'technology' all the time in public.
 
Henrin said:
It's a concept that is in fact made up by the government. There is no such thing as a business open to the public. The only that happens is the government violates the rights of business owners and then declares the business open to the public. It's shear and utter nonsense in reality.
Click to expand...

So you don't approve of laws preventing businesses from refusing to deal with blacks or Jews?

And, of course "facts made up by the government" in this case is laws passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people of this country.
 
Sherman123 said:
Your concept of privacy is already dead. Except for some of the older members of my generation we've never known much about it. We accept that FB or Google uses algorithms to monitor our search metadata, we accept that Amazon tracks our purchases, we accept that map applications record routes for data accumulation. Broadly speaking (there are always exceptions) it doesn't really cause that much of a bother. We'll get along just fine.
Click to expand...


Wow.

Truly the response of the young and inexperienced in life. To give up the right to privacy without even a fight....just acceptance....the path of least resistance.
 
Paschendale said:
Throwing someone out of a business that is open to the public based on their appearance? I feel like we've been here before.
Click to expand...

No shoes

No SHirt

No google glasses

No service.
 
Paschendale said:
So you don't approve of laws preventing businesses from refusing to deal with blacks or Jews?

And, of course "facts made up by the government" in this case is laws passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people of this country.
Click to expand...

No, he doesnt and he doesnt care about what the people have elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom