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

311–320 of 470 posts

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

#311

Post by forgottenpaswrd »

kghose wrote: post #62

A few people have voiced concern that this is a made up story. I have to admit that I belong to that bunch. I would imagine that if a store had a concern that this was an ... odd individual, carrying a video recording device, recording customers, employees and the store itself, I would send out security to escort the person out. But I would do so with a great trepidation, because of lawsuits. There MUST be something…

"...I would send out security to escort the person out. But I would do so with a great trepidation, because of lawsuits."

This is what they did, but he did not want to go out because of the letter from his doctor(as his doctor's letter is something in France).

So they waited until they could suddenly remove the device from him, they not realizing it was permanent connected to the skull.

He wants it his way or his way.

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

#312

Post by [deleted] »

lsc wrote: post #259
nakkiel wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the more people wonder whether French of Moroccan extraction really are French or Moroccan, the less French they are. I'm French, of no extraction. Please stop. French of Moroccan extraction are French. Regarding the riots, that's also not relevant to the discussion but because you ask, those riots where the results of 40 years of bad policies, social rejection and latent racism.

huh. I thought that France didn't have birthright citizenship like the US has. I thought they had a system more like what some of the more radical right wing parties in the US want, where your parent's status has something to do with it, you know, to prevent 'anchor babies.' Hm. According to the wikipedia[1], it's complicated, and I strongly suspect I'm missing some things. It looks to me like they have a 'right of b…

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by vidarh »

tluyben2 wrote: post #279
harto wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people would be upset if you took their photograph without asking. It's a bit discourteous.

I have never met any of these people; not at events, not at parties, not on vacation (to numerous countries). Where are these 'lots of people' besides at McDonalds France apparently? Most people I know would 'strike a pose' when someone takes a picture, even if they don't know the someone. Note; I don't take pictures, but to get upset about it; isn't that a bit over the top? You could kindly ask to refrain but actual…

If you're at a party or event, having people take pictures is often expected (but not always) and so people will not generally have a problem with it. If someone happens to catch you while taking a general street scene or on the beach, its expected you might end up in their photo.

But if someone pulls a camera and specifically aim it at you, on the other hand?

I'd be pissed off too, as it is something that I'd see as extremely rude for someone to specifically target me for pictures without informing me about why they are targeting me specifically. But I've never had it happen, nor have I've been around other people who have had it happen to them, exactly because in the parts of Europe I've spent most of my life, it's pretty much considered totally unacceptable. People who want to take pictures of specific people generally do come up and ask.

Depending on context I might very well confront them about why they were doing it, and might very well be quite angry.

> Note; I don't take pictures, but to get upset about it; isn't that a bit over the top? You could kindly ask to refrain but actually spend energy and get upset for something so unimportant.

It's highly culturally and contextually dependent. If someone starts taking pictures of you specifically in the street somewhere where taking pictures of strangers is considered unusual and rude, there's every reason to wonder why someone is prepared to break strong social norms to single you out and somehow don't want to ask you first.

If you're somewhere where everyone expects to be photographed, on the other hand, and the typical purpose is known, most people will happily accept it, or stay away.

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

#314

Post by vidarh »

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.

It only takes one random violent asshole in a position of authority to incite his underlings. That might not be the whole explanation, but the fact there were three of them doesn't mean much in a situation where one of them is likely to be in charge of the others.

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

#315

Post by enqk »

tluyben2 wrote: post #279
harto wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people would be upset if you took their photograph without asking. It's a bit discourteous.

I have never met any of these people; not at events, not at parties, not on vacation (to numerous countries). Where are these 'lots of people' besides at McDonalds France apparently? Most people I know would 'strike a pose' when someone takes a picture, even if they don't know the someone. Note; I don't take pictures, but to get upset about it; isn't that a bit over the top? You could kindly ask to refrain but actual…

You need to try this stunt in France then because you are totally misguided about "most people." I've had scared reactions from people in front of me just for looking at my own camera's pictures.

The climate in France is that people should not get photographed without their permission. Even further, some claim that taking photos of their house is too much. So the whole atmosphere is a by-default hostility to photographers, which should be extra careful.

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

#316

Post by enqk »

tluyben2 wrote: post #279
harto wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people would be upset if you took their photograph without asking. It's a bit discourteous.

I have never met any of these people; not at events, not at parties, not on vacation (to numerous countries). Where are these 'lots of people' besides at McDonalds France apparently? Most people I know would 'strike a pose' when someone takes a picture, even if they don't know the someone. Note; I don't take pictures, but to get upset about it; isn't that a bit over the top? You could kindly ask to refrain but actual…

You need to try this stunt in France then because you are totally misguided about "most people." I've had scared reactions from people in front of me just for looking at my own camera's pictures.

The climate in France is that people should not get photographed without their permission. Even further, some claim that taking photos of their house is too much. So the whole atmosphere is a by-default hostility to photographers, which should be extra careful.

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

#317

Post by spitx »

nakkiel wrote: post #297
spitx wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever "Essential Frenchness" is, it most certainly is not centered around the milieu of the "beur". We agree that visitors don't come to France to be greeted by the likes of Galliano but they don't come looking for the likes of Salafists like Mohammed Merah either. Get your act together before its too late. You can only sweep these things under the rug for so long.

There's only one thing I'm sure of. Visitors coming to France certainly don't visit to meet your likes.

What I find elusive is this polite society's fevered need to stomp down any finger-pointing in the direction of certain sections of society. If one were to take a look at their irrational phobia of discussion concerning these sensitive topics it would appear that this brand of furiousness at the very mention of something disagreeable is nothing but an outward veneer to fend off further pointed & valid accusations. It's weak weaponry. It shows you're on tenuous ground. It almost always indicates that you're defending the indefensible. That you're arguments are at best propped up by popular sentiments and not by objective observations. That anything found objectionable by the educated segments of a society is necessarily odious despite the facts.

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

#318

Post by EvilTerran »

foxylad wrote: post #199

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…

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?

Probably because he either believes French law forbids recording people without their permission, or doesn't know one way or the other (I'm in the second camp) -- so he has to emphasise that it was not his intention to take these pictures, to make it clear that he wasn't doing anything wrong in that regard.

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

#319

Post by Zenst »

chris_wot wrote: post #253
Zenst wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you bunch of drama lama's - I deleted it though I'll repeat his email address: CEO's email address jim.skinner@us.mcd.com But seriously his home address along with the other mcdonals executives are a 5 year olds googling efforts away. I reveled nothing new that was not liberly plastered all over the internet. Maybe if they handled complaints better then people would not have to write to them directly and or sue th…

If its so easy to find the information, there was no real need to post it here then.

Nor any harm, given nobody else had then it's relevance was tangable. Just appears people by default assume others are crazed nutters, but in my country we have not assasinated any of our Prime ministers and dont carry guns so the cultural aspect of such information is embrassed in the spirit it is bestowed - in good faith.

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

#320

Post by dante_dev »

sxp wrote: post #280
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…

Does this mean those places also ban people from using smartphones or normal cameras on the premises? There is no indications that Mann was actively taking pictures of strangers. And it would makes sense for a tourist to take pictures of his family at a restaurant. How are tourists normally treated when they try to take pictures of their vacation?

yes, basically if you use your smartphone to take a photo of a dish, they'll complain about it.
Post reply on HN