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

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

#191

Post by Frozenlock » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 2:54 AM UTC

antihero wrote: post #134

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…

To be honest what fucking business does anyone have for assaulting someone for wearing special glasses?

Exactly! Unless those glasses are shooting dangerous gamma rays, you have no right to remove them.

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

#192

Post by sesqu » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 2:55 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #160

ben0x539 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk.

You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory.

You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy?

You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he, a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one would do with this device, especially in the given scenario.

You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had done.

All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.

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

#193

Post by ktizo » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 2:55 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #163

Oxryly wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well good on you taking a reasoned but unpopular position. I agree that the description of the events seems to leave out a bit, particularly the emotional content of the interactions. The rig does look intimidating and I'm not sure how I'd react in person.

He goes from "we bought our food and sat down to eat it" to "this guy assaulted me". Really? Unless they have complete lunatics at that establishment I find that hard to believe. There's a large series of events before a non-criminal who isn't absolutely insane decides to attack you. I'd love to see the store's surveillance video and read their account before choosing sides.

There's a large series of events before a non-criminal who isn't absolutely insane decides to attack you.

Firstly, you are demonstrably wrong, and as evidence, I would put forward around 20% of nightclub door security as exhibit A.

Also I would say it is very easy to construct plausible scenarios around this particular story.

"Remove that camera."

  "I can't."

"Stop taking the piss."

  "I'm not, it is all part of a medical experiment."

"I said stop taking the piss and take off the camera."

After this it goes downhill rather rapidly.

This is of course a fiction, from someone with no firsthand knowledge of the situation, but to try and make out that being attacked by security for stupid reasons is an unlikely event that does not happen to lots of people with fairly boring regularity, is an even greater fiction still.

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

#194

Post by spitx » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 2:57 AM UTC

patio11 wrote: post #177

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…

So if we swap around a few of the particulars -- say, make the guy with the camera black, relocate the scene to the deep South, and then make the three perpetrators good old boys -- a fairly plausible hypothesis would rush to mind, even if it is outside the experience of the typical white American at the typical McDonalds. Mafia fronts certainly exist in the world, but they are probably greatly outnumbered by petty p…

Just so we are all on the same page, the males look of distinct North-African extraction - Algerian, Moroccan, Egyptian or Libyan.

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

#195

Post by petitmiam » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:01 AM UTC

polyfractal wrote: post #43

heyrhett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed. This should be handled by lawyers and law enforcement. Not by panhandling to the internet about how awesome your technology is. For the record, I totally love his research. When Google Glass debuted I said aloud "Wow! It's Steve Mann's EyeTap!".

"I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck."

He said he already tried getting law enforcement involved.

Maybe he plans to use lawyers as a last ditch effort, if his internet plea doesn't work? I would think it's a bit extreme to involve them first before trying to just settle things with McDonalds directly.

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

#196

Post by lnanek2 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:05 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…

It would be very easy for any ordinary McDonald's to have rules against filming in their store. Heck, just one incident like this and the manager would instantly ban cameras from ever being in his store again. If word of the stink got above the manager's head, then corporate would ban cameras in every store. I get told no pictures allowed in lots of NYC stores that aren't even in tourist areas and aren't good candidates for money laundering. Can I come to a meeting at your offices and film every single thing I see, including the screens of any workstations I pass by walking to the meeting room?

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

#197

Post by lnanek2 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:07 AM UTC

What will be really interesting is when he brings his recording device into somewhere people get naked, like a locker room...that isn't going to go well with a lot of people.

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

#198

Post by petitmiam » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:07 AM UTC

datalus wrote: post #189

Go to Paris. Eat at a McDonald's. o_O

I love eating fast food in other countries. It's always different from home and that fascinates me.

Sure, I'm much more keen to enjoy 'proper' food from the country I'm visiting, but there's still a place for experiencing fast food.

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

#199

Post by foxylad » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:12 AM UTC

Anyone else have alarm bells going off about the statements about buffering? He's very careful to represent storage of the images as an accident caused by the incident, which is slightly odd in itself - why not simply say it records everything it sees and that that was very useful in this case?

Then if there was no storage, how come there are images for several minutes before the assault? It must have been at least a ring buffer, so there WAS storage (albeit temporary).

I'm not condoning the violence that was done to him in any way. But this dissembling makes me want another witness before I take this at face value.

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

#200

Post by rpedroso » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 3:14 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #173

rpedroso wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. As he explains in the article, the camera does not (when functioning properly) store anything permanently. His photos were only possible when the computer stopped overwriting the buffered images. I don't think that's an invasion of privacy. Not being familiar with the device, they might not have known that, but that's hardly justification to assault someone. A…

Not one person being "scanned" would know what the rig is for. It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces. A museum or a public place is a different story. If museum security has an issue then you either leave or take it off. Even in public there's the concept of decorum. Let's say you have a teenage daughter who is also attractive and some guy stars to…

> It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces.

I'm not sure about that. You go on to talk about decorum and respect for the privacy of others. If someone walked into a restaurant with a glass eye or Pistorius-style prosthetics, I would feel rude asking them about it.

Sure, you and I know his camera is reality-augmenting, but if I didn't know about Mann I would probably assume it was a high-tech medical advice I hadn't heard about; I wouldn't simply assume it was a recording device.

In the same way you wouldn't expect Pistorius to walk into a McDonalds and announce why he has an unusual bodily attachment, I'm not sure Mann has to explain his EyeTap.

Granted, there are serious, qualitative difference between EyeGlass and a prosthetic leg; one might be an invasion of privacy, the other definitely isn't.

I think it's clear from the article's description that his EyeTap, which can be used to record pictures/video, is not constantly invading anyone's privacy. He has the choice (and I think we both agree, the obligation) to use it responsibly. If I don't have to announce that I have a camera in my backpack, he doesn't have to announce the camera-features of his permanent eye fixture.