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

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

#281

Post by pg » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:22 AM UTC

bambax wrote: post #273

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…

Is this the real PG throwing around conspiracy theories? Wow. I'm French and have been living in Paris my whole life. In France you're not allowed to take pictures or movies of people without their consent. If you try to take pictures of strangers in the subway you will be heckled and possibly assaulted, and the police will do nothing to stop it. I'm not defending my country here -- I'm a photographer and resent this…

You make a convincing case. I didn't realize attitudes toward photography (and security in shops) were so different in France. I've taken quite a lot of pictures there, including inside shops and restaurants IIRC, but somehow I must never have tripped this rule.

How embarrassing to have produced an instance of the indignant and uninformed speculation that I so often groan to find at the top of HN comment threads.

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

#282

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:23 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #164

nikatwork wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What evidence do you have that he did not provoke the incident? Don't be so quick to take sides. If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I did not blame him of the incident. How could I? Not one person reading this knows exactly what went on. People who jump at conclusions based on incomplete evidence scare me. My comments had to do with manners and common sense. Don't go around rigged like a Borg and expect…

Why would he decide to escalate to physical violence? There is no evidence that he did and it would not have made sense to do so.

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

#283

Post by sxp » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:24 AM UTC

jbarham wrote: post #167

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…

Call me crazy, but operating the highest profile McDonald's franchise in Europe is probably not the first thing I'd consider if I needed to launder some money. But setting up a venture capital fund in Silicon Valley, given today's ridiculous valuations, seems like an excellent way to launder money.

This seems unlikely given how little physical cash is used in VC funding.

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

#284

Post by gori » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:25 AM UTC

spitx wrote: post #194

patio11 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just so we're all on the same - very ignorant - page, are you talking race in 2012? Come on, todays French are a big mix of whatever. This mix is what is French.

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

#285

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:25 AM UTC

pavedwalden wrote: post #238

rdl wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different incident from the Steve Mann airport incident. I actually think the Star Simpson incident was caused by her bring really clueless about how paranoid airport security are, getting a dumb guy scared, and then being as rude to security as many civil libertarians can be. (Star is also a friend of mine, and I think she is a lot less likely to almost get killed by security now too :) I don't understand the benefi…

Whenever the Star Simpson incident comes up, I'm surprised how quick people are to blame her. From the accounts I've read, I don't thing she did anything wrong, or even suspicious. (Contrary to reports, the "suspicious substance" in her had was a hardened clay sculpture, not something that could be reasonably mistaken for a block of explosive.) Since you say she's a friend of yours and might know more details, I'm cu…

When airport security told her to jump, she neglected to ask, "How high?"

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

#286

Post by Tuna-Fish » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:26 AM UTC

writetoalok wrote: post #207

gcb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you say that until some terrorist screw a bomb to his head and kill YOUR CHILDREN!!!!1!!

calm down, more people have been killed on roads than due to terrorism.

I'd like to point out that this is a huge understatement. Roughly 10 times more people are killed on the roads in each year than have died as a result of terrorism on us soil (or us airplanes) in the past 50 years.

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

#287

Post by bambax » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:30 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #281

bambax wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the real PG throwing around conspiracy theories? Wow. I'm French and have been living in Paris my whole life. In France you're not allowed to take pictures or movies of people without their consent. If you try to take pictures of strangers in the subway you will be heckled and possibly assaulted, and the police will do nothing to stop it. I'm not defending my country here -- I'm a photographer and resent this…

You make a convincing case. I didn't realize attitudes toward photography (and security in shops) were so different in France. I've taken quite a lot of pictures there, including inside shops and restaurants IIRC, but somehow I must never have tripped this rule. How embarrassing to have produced an instance of the indignant and uninformed speculation that I so often groan to find at the top of HN comment threads.

Yes, isn't the picture on your front page from Paris?

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/paulgraham_2208_5897

You can take pictures of monuments; you can take "general" pictures in the street; you can take pictures of people sitting at the same table as you in a restaurant.

But if you specifically target a stranger in the street, or take pictures in a shop, etc. then it will cause a stir.

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

#288

Post by throwaway5252 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:32 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…

I believe it was at this McDonald's that I was deliberately short-changed without a recepit. This is a big tourist point where daily sales must easily reach five thousand. These guys are probably trying to cover a simple operation to rip people off.

If I recall correctly (murky here, I didn't really care and may be mixing this with another memory or a different location) the cashier even nonchalantly covered the front-facing display with his hand (this actually took a very unusual gesture), so I couldn't see what the entered amount was. I paid in cash, the sum was tiny, and I didn't really care. It's McDonald's.

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

#289

Post by antoncohen » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:35 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…

> 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.

Not the case. McDonald's employees in Prague, CZ got pretty pissed at me for taking picture, and were quite rude about it. I think it's McDonald's corporate policy to not allow pictures, at least in EMEA. Lots of stores in high-traffic areas have private security. I think this incident was probably caused by power-crazed security implementing McDonald's policy in an inappropriate way.

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

#290

Post by guard-of-terra » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 7:39 AM UTC

westicle wrote: post #178

guard-of-terra wrote: post #57

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).

There is a difference between filming in public and private spaces. In most common-law jurisdictions filming in public is completely legal, even filming an event put on by a private entity (ie a sports game - there is no property in a spectacle). Note also the proliferation of CCTV in public spaces in many countries. On private property you have the right to set rules and effectively dictate who is welcome and who is…

Stranger following you with a cam is not much worse than stranger following you 24/7, period.

But now you would be able to film that fact and then sue him for annoying behavior.