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

371–380 of 470 posts

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

#371

Post by rmc »

randallsquared wrote: post #359
rmc wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a US person, and on a recent trip in the US South took photos inside a (public) bathroom on more than one occasion, when I saw something entertaining. Not photos of people, of course, but there were other people in the bathroom on both occasions, and no one seemed shocked or worried. I'm confused about how this aversion to cameras can possibly hold when nearly everyone is carrying one or more cameras at all times…

Not photos of people, of course

Exactly, "not of people (in the bathroom)". Would you take photos of people in a bathroom. If you're male, would you take photos of men at the urinal?

Does everyone in Europe avoid using their smartphone except in the privacy of their own home?

No of course not.

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

#372

Post by ktizo »

hexagonc wrote: post #363
ktizo wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Um, sir, I have more than a layman's understanding of randomness, thank you very much. This is Hacker News; all kinds of people post here. I'm not even sure what you mean by "random" in this case; we're talking about one event. I didn't say anything about the distribution of violent assholes in McDonalds or France in general. It certainly wasn't "random" when the first violent guy brings over other employees who happ…

Was just meaning that randomness tends to be clumpy and that violent assholes are more likely to be violent assholes when there are a few of them around, so the fact that they were three of them does not particularly decrease the chance of it being a random incident in comparison to there only being one violent asshole.

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

#373

Post by slurgfest »

rmc wrote: post #337
pyre wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of Moroccans in Paris, from what I understand. Wasn't that what those riots a few years back were about? The Moroccans immigrating but not integrating?

cultural translation: There's a lot of Africans in the USA, isn't there some trouble with them not integratating into the mainstream culture? :P

The closer comparison would be to say that there are a lot of Iraqis in Dearborn, or Vietnamese in Mississippi.

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

#374

Post by yaix »

bambax wrote: post #368
lloeki wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In France you're not allowed to take pictures or movies of people without their consent. "Droit à l'image" covers use, duplication and distribution of pictures of people, and only if said people can be identified on the picture. I don't know about any french law that forbids actually taking pictures of people in a public place. In a private area, there's Code Pénal, Art. 226-1, and even then, the law says that unle…

> There is no legitimate reason for a nearby police member not to try to stop someone physically assaulting someone else In France the photographer is considered the perpetrator. The police are more likely to help the people being photographed to not be photographed (if necessary, by taking the camera by force), than to protect the photographer. ("More likely" is an overstatement; the most likely behavior is that the…

> the most likely behavior is that the police won't do anything either way

Are you serious? So you say that in France, I can just beat up a random guy with a camera and claim that they tried to take a picture of me? And the police will just say "yeah, whatever, carry on. Need a stick?" Not very credible.

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

#375

Post by tkahn6 »

andrewfelix wrote: post #356
johnsea wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happened at few times too me that I experienced quite a 'macho' or aggressive behaviour 'from people of those cultures'. What would you expect, just be quiet?

This getting ridiculous. I've experienced aggressive behaviour from a lot of white Australians. Should I make a judgement of the entire population based on those anecdotal experiences? Aggression is everywhere, it has very little to do with your cultural heritage unless you're a bloody Spartan. If you want don't want to be quiet about your racial prejudices, go find a forum for it. There should be plenty of mindless…

"it has very little to do with your cultural heritage unless you're a bloody Spartan."

The fact that you acknowledge that there exists a culture whose adherents are more prone to be adversarial means you accept OP's point.

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

#376

Post by thenomad »

vixen99 wrote: post #293
urbanjunkie wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What The Actual Fuck? HN is no place for a racist dick. Kindly fuck off. [edited to add - I expect downvotes or even a ban for my language. I will find a way of coping with my grief, so don't worry about it]

It's also no place for gratuitously throwing around words like fuck and dick. Try extending your vocabulary.

What does the size of one's vocabulary have to do with whether you use expletives?

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I've never really understood the "only uneducated people use swearwords" argument.

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

Zenst wrote: post #319
chris_wot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by saint-loup »

bambax wrote: post #287
pg wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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.

Actually, some architects and building owners forbid photography, for intellectual property reasons. Freedom of panorama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama) can be complicated.

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

#379

Post by nikcub »

AlexMuir wrote: post #44
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…

Without further information I find this very hard to believe. Laundering money through a fast food restaurant with a supply chain outside your control is a terrible idea. Franchises are required to purchase food centrally. Q How much cash are you banking this week? A 1,000,000 EUR Q So you have sold 500,000 Big Macs. A Yes Q Can I see your invoices for 500,000 buns please? The profit margin is not high enough for it…

Get a burger with an extra meat patty in it. Money laundering.

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

#380

Post by [deleted] »

potatolicious wrote: post #335
kamaal wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its victim blaming. For example, I would be seriously offended if someone takes my picture without my permission. Because I don't why they are taking it. Are they spying? Or is that guy a terrorist surveying the place? Or he might just be a guy who would morph my pic and upload that to a wrong a site. Regardless, if you are wearing a computing device which will assist you do some things its OK. But plai…

Or, far more likely than all of the above combined, times ten thousand , that person is documenting. You know, the style of work made famous by artists like Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Garry Winogrand... or if you want some that are still alive, Bruce Gilden, Daido Moriyama, Trent Parke, Martin Parr, Helen Levitt, Bill Cunningham... If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing any of this type of w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN