Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by krschultz » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:11 AM UTC

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…

In high school I worked in a McDonalds. There was actually a poster in the back that said cameras were not allowed on the property. This was around the time of 'Supersize Me'.

I don't remember exactly what the instructions said employees were supposed to do. I believe it was asking people to leave and refer them to McDonalds corporate PR for requests to take pictures. It definitely didn't say assault them.

Clearly these guys were acting way outside of what McDonalds intended for them to do, but I think McDonalds' silly 'no cameras' policy might have incited them.

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

#152

Post by ktizo » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:14 AM UTC

hexagonc wrote: post #101

CamperBob2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page is down, but doesn't Occam's Razor handle this situation adequately? He ran into a random violent asshole. It can happen anywhere at any time to anyone.

But it wasn't a random violent asshole. It was three violent assholes which doesn't seem random to me.

That's because, like the majority of people, you are probably quite bad at understanding both randomness, and the normal behaviour of violent assholes.

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

#153

Post by nikatwork » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #126

> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it. First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy. People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to t…

And don't wear your skirt so short, you're basically asking for it!

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

#154

Post by SoftwareMaven » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:18 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #73

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…

A much more plausible explanation of a story posted by a newly created account to a popular tech aggregator about a technology which competes with (and possibly pre-dates) Google Glass, with a picture of Google Glass on the same page, is that a patent [1] suit is about to break out. A cynic might think they were trying to harvest accesses from internal to Google IP addresses so that as of today they could show 'knowa…

If I wanted to show that my technology wasn't "super freaky out there" (which he could easily be accused of by people who don't slurp up Google press releases every day), what better way than to show that it looks almost identical to something that the all-trusted Google is going to be selling in the near future?

It is possible I'm not cynical enough, but if I were trying to gain sympathy for my cyborg-prosthetic plight, the more I could relate it to things people are already comfortable with, the better.

I think the simplest answer is the most likely: That franchise has bumped prices up above what McD's corp allows for and/or has figured out a way to game the computers so they are underreporting their revenue and thus are paying much less in franchise fees than they should be. Given its prime tourism spot, people don't complain, but if pictures got back to corporate, there would be problems.

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

#155

Post by ajays » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:19 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #105

Jach wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in order to assert IP rights… This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this page yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aeyeta...

Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google? On the contrary for someone who has put as much of his life into augmented reality, to see Google Glass hit the press where essentially this giant $250B company is going to change the world with his ideas ? Especially where he is the sole inventor and assignee? I don't know about you but that movie has played out so many times as to be clic…

Jeez man, anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing these days knows all about Mann's work. I'm sure the Google Glasses people know all about it too; I'd be shocked if they did not. He's just too well known. Stop tilting at windmills.

Here's some background reading: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-gla...

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

#156

Post by grimboy » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:21 AM UTC

Zenst wrote: post #18

Complain to the Olympic board as McDonalds are a sponsor of the Olympics and the Para-Olympics. In parallel write/email to the newspapers etc. Also talk to your embassy who can advise how to proceed in other ways. You have a vision problem and need a visual aid to combat that disability. McDonalds not only commited assualt but also did it systematicaly and premeditated way indicating they are not a suitable sponsor f…

Drifitng off topic, but the Paralympics are already sponsored by ATOS, the company the UK government has put in charge of taking social security from the genuinely disabled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-games...

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

#157

Post by DasIch » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:23 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #69

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…

What I don't understand why clearly things have been manually blacked out (or whited out in this case). Why not show their face? I agree this story smells in a dozen different ways. Rather than the mafia I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in order to assert IP rights against a very wealthy company which has made very public announcements about glasses that augment your visi…

> What I don't understand why clearly things have been manually blacked out (or whited out in this case). Why not show their face?

In Europe it is illegal to publish photos of someone without their consent unless that someone is a public figure.

This is also why he might have gotten a rather negative reaction...

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

#158

Post by saraid216 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:24 AM UTC

franzus wrote: post #13

> visit Paris > go to McDonald's

As someone who has actually done this (I was with my parents), I can tell you that the Parisian McDonald's is, in fact, different from the American one.

I think that the one in Beijing was different, too, but I didn't get to go into that one.

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

#159

Post by bdunbar » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:29 AM UTC

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…

Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras?

Never been to France. Been to several McDonald's with security guards. I'm pretty sure they had CCTV. Not a front for money laundering - it was that kind of a neighborhood. Eastern Market has gentrified a bit since then ...

Anyway. A no-camera policy could be put in place to deter snoops. Guys working for the other team (Burger King). Maybe they had a bad experience with guys taking pictures of other patrons.

Ah - you're just trolling, aren't you?

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

#160

Post by robomartin » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #142

robomartin wrote: post #126

> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it. First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy. People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to t…

Christ, that's some quick victim-blaming. There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if it's a camera in your business. Physically assaulting someone over a camera is even worse. All attempts to excuse this sort of behavior immediately fall flat given that "possible witness 1" was given documentation of the device and apparently accepted it, and the perpetrator was also given the docume…

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known.

If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible manner. I am not disputing that and don't think anyone would.

Why didn't he go to the police? I would physically go to the nearest police station and file an assault report. Do you really think French police would ignore him, particularly with evidence and witnesses? I think not.

My post was about common sense and manners. "When in Rome", if you will.

I did not place blame nor justify the destruction of property. It is purely your choice to read that into my post. PleAse don't put words in my mouth.

If any of the post wasn't clear: I, nor anyone on HN unless you were there, know exactly what went on. Therefore it is impossible to take sides an feel empathy for him or justify the other party's actions. We just don't know enough, so let's not get overly polarized in one direction or another.

My comments were more about how rude and unreasonable it might be to force yourself onto others or invade their privacy. If you want to walk around with a bunch of tech scanning everything around, you have to be respectful enough to ask permission.

Prejudice? Where? There's a huge difference between prejudice and reality. The Dutch don't have protection from the mechanisms inside windmills. I've done windmill tours with my kids and you simply have to adjust to their reality (when in Rome). Some Americans think this is insane. We might want to have floor to ceiling barriers to prevent anyone from getting their hands into the gears. The Dutch probably think that we are an over-controlling sue-happy society. None of this is prejudiced. It's just the way it is. When in the Netherlands I behave with respect and consideration for their ways. The same is the case in the UK, France, Italy or Germany. I've spent a good deal of time in various places in Europe. I can say that we, Americans, can be total jerks and so can everyone else (except the Dutch, they are always nice).