• 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

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.

you have no exercisable rights an another persons property....zero
 
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.

Can you give up something you've never had? It quite honestly doesn't bother me that any of the aforementioned companies record 'my' information (broadly speaking, it isn't like they single you out). It's simply a facet of the internet age that I've grown up with. When people complain about facebook and linkedin stalking, or Google's data collection, and onwards I notice that those of us who've grown up with this really don't tend to raise as much of a fuss. I think that is generational (to refer to your other post) not just issue based.
 
Wearing google glass is the equivalent of camera that is always on. A cell phone might have a camera, but it becomes physically obvious when someone is using it. If someone sat in a restaurant videoing other customers with a camera, they'd probably be asked to leave as well.

Technology shouldn't be feared, but it should be used with respect for others. People have a reasonable right to sit down and have dinner in a privater restaurant without being recorded by random strangers without cause.

Except that many restaurants, gas stations, almost every store...all have security cameras on you anyway. Inside and out. And we all see how confidential those are kept....their videos make the evening news and YouTube all the time.
 
No shoes

No SHirt

No google glasses

No service.

That means you have to have Google Glass to get service.

I think it is the opposite.
 
Can you give up something you've never had? It quite honestly doesn't bother me that any of the aforementioned companies record 'my' information (broadly speaking, it isn't like they single you out). It's simply a facet of the internet age that I've grown up with. When people complain about facebook and linkedin stalking, or Google's data collection, and onwards I notice that those of us who've grown up with this really don't tend to raise as much of a fuss. I think that is generational (to refer to your other post) not just issue based.


And perhaps you have not done anything...legal or illegal...that would motivate someone, including the police, the govt, your neighbor, someone with a grudge, a co-worker, etc...to seek out and use that information? It doesnt have to have legal consequences, it can lose you your job, it can break up your relationship, it can hurt or shame your family, etc.

Not to mention the constant reports of people's confidential information being hacked and exposed. Just happened last week here in Seattle...health records at a major hospital stolen. Identity theft is rampant.
 
No shoes

No SHirt

No google glasses

No service.

The no shoes no shirt rules are based on public health issues. The only issues brought up so far with regard to the glasses is that people might not want to be recorded, but there are no similar rules against smartphones, so it's clearly not a real concern. It would be fine to have a real discussion over the potential harm of these glasses, but no one has yet to articulate any real problem.
 
And perhaps you have not done anything...legal or illegal...that would motivate someone, including the police, the govt, your neighbor, someone with a grudge, a co-worker, etc...to seek out and use that information? It doesnt have to have legal consequences, it can lose you your job, it can break up your relationship, it can hurt or shame your family, etc.

Not to mention the constant reports of people's confidential information being hacked and exposed. Just happened last week here in Seattle...health records at a major hospital stolen. Identity theft is rampant.

It certainly can but its something I've always been aware of and I take steps to mitigate the risk. I think most people (especially those my age) do likewise. But it doesn't really inspire a pervasive fear to be quite honest.
 
So you don't approve of laws preventing businesses from refusing to deal with blacks or Jews?

Nope.

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.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the premise is wrong.
 
You're comparing the choice of wearing video glasses with the non-choice of ethnicity/race? Really? Hyperbole much?

No, I'm not. But the same law that protects one protects the other. People who operate a business like a restaurant or a store are offering a general invitation to the public to come in and do business. The operator cannot revoke that invitation without cause. Neither race nor wearing a pair of classes constitute that cause.
 
No, I'm not. But the same law that protects one protects the other. People who operate a business like a restaurant or a store are offering a general invitation to the public to come in and do business. The operator cannot revoke that invitation without cause. Neither race nor wearing a pair of classes constitute that cause.

I guess you might be right. If the "appliance" is not harmful to the food or the patrons, it might not be legal for the restaurant to have him leave over something like that. I'm not sure though.
 
Are businesses allowed to have dress codes? Some places don't allow saggy pants and get away with it, so I don't see why this would be any different.
 
What's the difference between this and a restaurant that doesn't allow you to be seated if you don't have a shirt or shoes or if you aren't wearing a suit and tie? So the restaurant decides they have rules for serving customers in their establishment, big deal. The sense of entitlement that young people have today is incredible.

Speak for yourself, I'm young and I think the owner was well within his rights to ask the customer to remove the google glass.

YouStar is right about one thing though, we're headed in that direction. Google Glass isn't just a trend, it's gonna get smaller, slicker, and everyone will have something like it.

And in another decade or so, they'll make contact lenses that do the same thing. People won't even know you have them on.
 
I guess you might be right. If the "appliance" is not harmful to the food or the patrons, it might not be legal for the restaurant to have him leave over something like that. I'm not sure though.

He is just making **** up. There is nothing in the laws that deals with these matters. Businesses can remove who they desire for any reason except those reasons otherwise mentioned in law. There is nothing in the law that bars kicking people out for Google glasses or for that matter cameras or phones. Just as there is no law against kicking people out for wearing saggy pants or having a gun on their person.
 
He is just making **** up. There is nothing in the laws that deals with these matters. Businesses can remove who they desire for any reason except those reasons otherwise mentioned in law. There is nothing in the law that bars kicking people out for Google glasses or for that matter cameras or phones. Just as there is no law against kicking people out for wearing saggy pants or having a gun on their person.

Hmmm. Who to believe . . . one of you is going to have to come up with something to support your claims. :mrgreen: This could easily go to court and be found to be unconstitutional or something.
 
Are businesses allowed to have dress codes? Some places don't allow saggy pants and get away with it, so I don't see why this would be any different.

I'm fairly certain that they ask you to leave, rather than throwing you out. But that's a good point, and I don't know the answer. Why don't you find out?

Hmmm. Who to believe . . . one of you is going to have to come up with something to support your claims. :mrgreen: This could easily go to court and be found to be unconstitutional or something.

I'm mainly illustrating portions of trespass law. That includes the rights of the owner of property to eject someone from that property. For some basics, look up the difference between an invitee and licensee with regard to trespass law, and then compare with an actual trespasser. Trespass, of course, includes when one gives someone the right to enter their land and then revokes it. The initial entrance onto the land need not be trespass. It can become trespass later if the invitation is revoked.

When operating a business like a store or restaurant, one's customers are invitees. You can evict trespassers for whatever reason you want. You might even have to for injury liability coverage. But you cannot evict licencees and invitees without certain circumstances.

I'm too drunk right now to spell all of this out any more clearly.
 
I'm fairly certain that they ask you to leave, rather than throwing you out. But that's a good point, and I don't know the answer. Why don't you find out?



I'm mainly illustrating portions of trespass law. That includes the rights of the owner of property to eject someone from that property. For some basics, look up the difference between an invitee and licensee with regard to trespass law, and then compare with an actual trespasser. Trespass, of course, includes when one gives someone the right to enter their land and then revokes it. The initial entrance onto the land need not be trespass. It can become trespass later if the invitation is revoked.

When operating a business like a store or restaurant, one's customers are invitees. You can evict trespassers for whatever reason you want. You might even have to for injury liability coverage. But you cannot evict licencees and invitees without certain circumstances.

I'm too drunk right now to spell all of this out any more clearly.

Okay, I get it. Thanks! :)
 
Speak for yourself, I'm young and I think the owner was well within his rights to ask the customer to remove the google glass.

YouStar is right about one thing though, we're headed in that direction. Google Glass isn't just a trend, it's gonna get smaller, slicker, and everyone will have something like it.

And in another decade or so, they'll make contact lenses that do the same thing. People won't even know you have them on.

That's not a comfortable thought. Are we to have no privacy left at all?
 
I guess you might be right. If the "appliance" is not harmful to the food or the patrons, it might not be legal for the restaurant to have him leave over something like that. I'm not sure though.

As long as the reason is not against the law, such as discriminatory, in WA St a business owner can ask someone to leave their business for any (legal) reason.

It's not breaking the law to enter with, say, no shoes or a gun or Google glasses, but to refuse to leave when asked is trespassing...which is a crime.
 
As long as the reason is not against the law, such as discriminatory, in WA St a business owner can ask someone to leave their business for any (legal) reason.

It's not breaking the law to enter with, say, no shoes or a gun or Google glasses, but to refuse to leave when asked is trespassing...which is a crime.

He is just making **** up. There is nothing in the laws that deals with these matters. Businesses can remove who they desire for any reason except those reasons otherwise mentioned in law. There is nothing in the law that bars kicking people out for Google glasses or for that matter cameras or phones. Just as there is no law against kicking people out for wearing saggy pants or having a gun on their person.

See? We are on the same page here.

Altho there are trespass laws that can apply if a patron is asked to leave and does not.

And that I was polite and constructive.
 
Last edited:
Millions of photos and videos are taken in restaurants, clubs, and the like all the time.

No doubt there are and will be places that Google Glass are welcomed.

Social media and scandal sites thrive on it.

You have just given a reason why the restauranteur doesn't want it in his establishment.
When I slant my phone you have no way of knowing if I'm taking a photo of your food, videotaping your kids tantrum,

Which would be a reason why some other restauranteur would want those placed away too.

or looking something up on wikipedia.

Okay.


It isn't something people think of because they are so inured to it.

I wonder just how many are really inured to it.


This is dramatically new and so it inspires fear and caution. That will change as time wears on until it is ubiquitous.

Perhaps, but I think that there will be places people will want to meet and eat where they can avoid such.
 
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.

The restaurant owner was protecting the privacy of the other diners and I think that can be considered an obligation (as you say) that he has to them.
 
Good for the biz owner. I'd take it a step further and eliminate customers/dorks with that stupid bluetooth bug in their ear and throw out anyone phone consversing at the table.

I want to eat at your restaurant. Do you own a restaurant?
 
Back
Top Bottom