Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

eyetap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 470 posts

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#51

Post by zheng »

user49598 wrote: post #46
citricsquid wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've looked into how McDonalds franchises work before and have learned about money laundering from Breaking Bad: how would using a franchise make sense? McDonalds (and most other franchise businesses) run very tight ships with stock (and marketing): if a business sells 100 burgers McDonalds is going to know, it seems that if suspicions were ever aroused with this McDonalds all the IRS (or whatever the french tax auth…

and have learned about money laundering from Breaking Bad ... ...

While I agree, that doesn't really effect their point.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#52

Post by pyoung »

pg wrote: post #26

No one at an ordinary McDonald's would even notice such a device. Ergo this was not an ordinary McDonald's, but one with security people looking for cameras. Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras? Possibly because it was a mafia front. If you wanted to launder money, a fast food restaurant in a popular location would be a good place to do it. The way the employees behaved is consistent with…

But why would the Mafia care if you took photos? Money laundering would happen behind the scenes, in the accountants office.

Definitely agree that something is shady though. Not sure what, but this reminds me of a recent article on 'The Big Mac' index, which is used as an alternative measure of inflation. Perhaps McDonald's is under orders by the French government to prevent people from taking photos of their menus (and consequently their burger prices) to hide serious inflation problems. ;)

On a side note, if you are going to be in Paris on vacation, the food capital of the world, why the hell are you eating at McD's?

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#53

Post by aaronblohowiak »

AlexMuir wrote: post #44
pg wrote: post #26

No one at an ordinary McDonald's would even notice such a device. Ergo this was not an ordinary McDonald's, but one with security people looking for cameras. Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras? Possibly because it was a mafia front. If you wanted to launder money, a fast food restaurant in a popular location would be a good place to do it. The way the employees behaved is consistent with…

Without further information I find this very hard to believe. Laundering money through a fast food restaurant with a supply chain outside your control is a terrible idea. Franchises are required to purchase food centrally. Q How much cash are you banking this week? A 1,000,000 EUR Q So you have sold 500,000 Big Macs. A Yes Q Can I see your invoices for 500,000 buns please? The profit margin is not high enough for it…

Cups and soda would be far, far more capital efficient.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#54

Post by ackackackack »

> The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system.

The computer broke and accidentally took these handy photos of his perpetrators? Yeah I don't believe that for a second. I'm betting that it was always recording video and in order to release these images publicly or in a courtroom, he needs a story about how it "malfunctioned" when he was roughed up.

Side tangent, that's exactly what's creepy about this glass technology. There's no physical indication that a picture/video is being recorded, like someone reaching into their bag, pulling out a camera, and pressing a button. Will someone be recording me as I'm talking to them? I'll never know.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#55

Post by colanderman »

heyrhett wrote: post #29
reso wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's well within reason. If you were assaulted by a cashier at McDonald's, would you just ignore it and continue on? I'm pretty sure I would try and get the perpetrators fired and possibly charged, and have the company pay for any damages to my property.

I agree, he is well within reason to get a lawyer and sue the pants off of McDonald's in civil court if his case is accurate as he describes it. He's not asking for that though. What he basically wants is a public apology and for McDonald's to FIX his glasses. This is laughable. Notice how all aspects of this story point to how awesome his glasses are: "they help with a medical condition", "having them fixed is more…

reso wrote:

> have the company pay for any damages to my property.

You wrote:

> I agree

You also wrote:

> he basically wants [...] McDonald's to FIX his glasses. This is laughable.

You have contradicted yourself, unless you can explain how "paying for damages" to the glasses does not entail "fixing the glasses".

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#57

Post by guard-of-terra »

I believe in the future it would be legal to film everywhere 24x365, and it also will be legal to shoot the bad guys (with weapons, not video) if they did some bad thing AND you film it.

And then everybody will behave, because if they don't they might get shot. Sort of a high-tech wild west.

(and you don't have to be a hard ball, just trigger the wearable fire response system).

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#58

Post by SilasX »

polyfractal wrote: post #39
alex_c wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctor's note is presumably to explain that the glasses cannot be removed easily and are actually implanted in him. A few years back he had airport security physically pull out wires out of him. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN... (apparently "a few years back" is 10 years ago. Yikes.) Edit: a link to an old (1997) article about his glasses: http://www.wearcam.org/ieeecomputer/r2025.ht…

I'm trying really hard to understand why these glasses cannot be removed from his body. They are glorified video goggles...not an EEG connected to his brain. There is no good reason that they need to be bolted to his head. Hell, even gluing them on is excessive. Until someone can provide a good reason why this would be chronically implanted into him, I think this all smells like hype to me. And why no pictures of the…

>And why no pictures of the guy trying to grab his goggles off his face? Surely there would be a snapshot somewhere of that?

I think because of the "polar bear in a blizzard" problem: you don't actually see anything informative.

"And here, ladies and gentleman, is a blurry hand covering up most of the camera's view! I promise it's someone trying to rip my glasses off!"

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#59

Post by kleyton »

swang wrote: post #30
rosser wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the person who wrote the "HN is not your mommy" comment, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify a bit what I was trying to say with that. Most importantly, I definitely wasn't decrying all instances of people bringing a situation that has gone some flavor of shitty to the attention of HN. In fact, it's in no small part the fact that the HN community is so willing to help one another out that keeps me here — par…

Do you have a link to the I didn't win the contest article?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4220156

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#60

Post by ktizo »

pg wrote: post #34
heyrhett wrote: post #11

I find it really hard to believe that Steve Mann would have some kind of medical condition that would lead a normal Dr. to prescribe that Steve Mann wears the computer vision glasses that Steve Mann invented. I'm sorry he was harassed, but this story really smells of one of the oldest ways to gain media attention on the internet: Step 1: Get screwed by a big company (this is the easy part) Step 2: Write a blog articl…

This explanation is so uncharitable it crosses over into implausible. It's not "the easy part" to get random McDonald's employees to behave as extremely as this.

confused security + non-compliance = being hit
Post reply on HN