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

321–330 of 470 posts

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

#321

Post by ianstormtaylor »

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…

Completely trashing the victim without taking the time to read anything about who he is—so that you might formulate a real opinion instead of a generic flamewar—could pretty easily be construed as "quick to take sides".

"My comments had to do with manners and common sense." And still they are severely lacking in both.

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

#322

Post by swampthing »

bambax wrote: post #294
sxp wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As I said above, you can take pictures of monuments, outdoors, and of people you know, indoors, where it makes sense (a restaurant, people at your table). But if you try to take pictures of strangers -- anywhere -- you will generate a very aggressive reaction. These rules are not written down so they're hard for strangers to understand; it's very possible for a tourist to feel photography is totally "free" in France…

Out of curiosity, do your fellow countrymen not know that foreigners may not be aware of this cultural norm, or is it that they're indifferent?

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

#323

Post by Xion »

acavailhez wrote: post #243
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…

Little background here (I'm French and grew up in Paris): MacDonald's branding in France are really different in France than it is in the US, especially in Paris. Food is quite tasty, meat is fairly good, and even the colors are different: the flashy red/yellow has been replaced by a classy green/black two years ago. And this specific MacDonald's is one of the biggest and best located in Paris (Champs Elysées) Money…

> (...) the colors are different: the flashy red/yellow has been replaced by a classy green/black two years ago.

I believe it's the same case pretty much in whole Europe. In all countries I've been to for the last two years or so (Poland, Czech Rep., Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland), the McD branding involved dark green background rather than vivid red one.

> Food is quite tasty, meat is fairly good (...)

That's generally correct, too. I have no idea about U.S. but here it seems that most of the shady reputation fast food gets is not because of the quality of ingredients, but the way they are processed to make the meals, i.e. almost exclusively fried with lots of added fat.

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

scotty79 wrote: post #225
ilamont wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incident at Logan airport was big news in Boston in 2007. It involved an MIT undergraduate wearing a piece of art on the front of her shirt that consisted of a circuit board and LED attached to a battery. It freaked out some airport staff, and the Massachusetts State Police came very close to shooting her: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N40/simpson.html

That's funny how wires + blinking led => detonator, something you knead in your hand => C4, cute youg girl with bleached hair => suicide bomber Osama achieved million times more than what he would have dreamed of.

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by coldarchon »

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…

Your post is nonsense. There is no excuse, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY no excuse for ripping up an official document. And excusing this bevaviour is very suspicious to me. Then, obviously you don't understand mafia as a common term, France is FULL of organized crime. There are attacks with RPGs on money transporters at the Swiss border every week. As you lack this kind of information, maybe this link will help you: http://193.252.228.130/personnes1.asp?T=R&P=1 Btw, those people who don't want to appear on pictures are migrants from northern Africa too, not because they are illegal but because of their superstition. Maybe your post is a bit too political correct because you describe the French as backwards people which they aren't.

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

#326

Post by sylvinus »

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…

As a fellow Frenchman I can confirm everything bambax said!

Maybe one other explanation for this incident is the amount of hidden camera documentaries airing on national TV recently. I can imagine these security agent being briefed to avoid at all costs having another Super Size Me shot at their location.

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

#327

Post by rmc »

bambax wrote: post #294
sxp wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As I said above, you can take pictures of monuments, outdoors, and of people you know, indoors, where it makes sense (a restaurant, people at your table). But if you try to take pictures of strangers -- anywhere -- you will generate a very aggressive reaction. These rules are not written down so they're hard for strangers to understand; it's very possible for a tourist to feel photography is totally "free" in France…

The funny thing with these kinds of "rules" / customs is that you internalize them; I can't even imagine myself taking pictures in the subway...

I suppose a UK/US person would never consider it apporpriate to take photos in a bathroom for example.

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

#328

Post by rmc »

rickmb wrote: post #298
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.

Although I agree with you on principle, most Moroccans in Europe identify as Moroccan first and French/Dutch/Belgian second. Also, since they are not "allowed" to disavow their Moroccan nationality, virtually all Moroccans remain Moroccan, even in later generations.

Lots of British people consider themselves British first, European second. Or Welsh people consider themselves Welsh first, British second. People from Catalonia, may not consider themselves Spanish. Someone born in Ireland to Irish parents, but lived all their life in England might consider themselves Irish, not English.

Europe. It's a melting pot, always has been. There are lots of flexible definitions of nationality.

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

#329

Post by keithpeter »

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…

"Second bit of advice: Ask for permission when walking into a private establishment -like a restaurant- with such a rig. It isn't their job to accommodate every nutcase that comes through the door. You are not a nutcase, but your actions may have telegraphed otherwise."

UK Note: anyone planning to attend the Olympics in London; please be careful with home made life blogging equipment of any kind. LEDs, wires, backpacks &c.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4711021.stm

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

#330

Post by rmc »

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…

Another interesting fact is how France borders Brazil.
Post reply on HN