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

401–410 of 470 posts

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

#401

Post by vacri »

capitao wrote: post #336
forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #300

The reality is that you are assaulting other people's privacy if you wear this glasses. It does not matter that you have a letter from your doctor, you have to provide a way of switching the thing off. Me, me, me. What about others? What happens if people don't want to be stalked?. This man does not realize what he is doing is not only for good, but is going to be used for the bad, to control other people. This has s…

honestly I don't care about their privacy. They work at mcdonalds not fucking NASA, it no secret what a big mac is

NASA is publicly funded and its mission is to extend human knowledge. Why should anything there be more secret than at McDonlads?

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

#402

Post by vacri »

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…

That being said, France is a civil law country, not a common law one.

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

#403

Post by hammock »

saint-loup wrote: post #378
bambax wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fun fact of the day: It is in violation of the law to publish a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night without permission, because the visual is under copyright.

A French court ruled in June 1990 that a special lighting display on the tower...was an "original visual creation" protected by copyright. The Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, upheld the ruling in March 1992. The Société d'exploitation de la tour Eiffel (SETE) now considers any illumination of the tower to be under copyright. As a result, it is no longer legal to publish contemporary photographs of the tower at night without permission in France and some other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_cl...

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

#404

Post by jakejake »

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…

I was in France recently (Paris) and I took pictures all over the place with a very visible film camera - including on the train.

Of course I didn't go shooting strangers directly in their face. I think I'd you do that most anywhere people will get upset because what business do you have taking a close-up picture of a stranger without their permission? That's an intrusion just about anywhere.

At least in Paris, I found the city to be crowded with tourist snapping photos of everything. I didn't see anybody giving the slightest care. I had always imagined France to be a photo-friendly place considering the reverence for film and art and being the birthplace of photography. Perhaps I didn't see enough but, at least, it's hard for me to imagine people getting violent over photographs just based on my personal experience. Because with the amount of tourist taking pictures there would be blood running on the streets.

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

#405

Post by SilasX »

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…

>They felt entitled to prevent the taking of pictures in the restaurant and felt they were being played with false official documentation.

I naturally assumed that if Mann was going to offer the documentation to defend his wearing of the special glasses, to someone in France, then he would have been prepared with a notarized official French translation (heck, he's from Canada...).

If he seriously tried to give English-only documentation -- and that was really his plan to convince people in France that his glasses were legit -- that seriously changes my opinion of the events.

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

#406

Post by platz »

xyzzyz wrote: post #180
Foy wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In regards to that slashdot article's comment, the comparison to watching a movie screen doesn't really explain it for most of us, I think. There was an experiment[1] that had participants wear vision-inverting glasses for a while. Eventually they started seeing everything right-side up through the glasses. In fact, their vision was upside down after they removed the glasses!! Although they re-adjusted after a little…

I have read the cited paper, and seen no mention of what you described to be there: >As to the relation of the visual field to the observer, the feeling that the field was upside down remained in general throughout the experiment. >On removing the glasses on the third day, there was no peculiar experience. Normal vision was restored instantaneously and without any disturbance in the natural appearance or position of…

I haven't read any papers, but I've heard of this experiment (or one with similar effects) before in a basic psychology class.

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

#407

Post by bambax »

yaix wrote: post #374
bambax wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Beat up", probably not. "Push around", probably yes.

Also, if it were done in front of a policeman, he may do something (or not -- if he's in charge of monitoring traffic he won't do anything about an altercation between pedestrians) -- but in most places there isn't any policeman.

If you go to the police after the fact and say that someone hit you in the face because you were taking a picture of them, then I guarantee you will elicit zero sympathy and will be made to wait a looong time before anyone writes down your complaint (which will go nowhere anyhow).

But of course circumstances matter; if you shoot people in the street then even policemen monitoring traffic will intervene; if someone cuts your arm in half because you were carrying a camera then the police will help!!

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

#408

Post by pfedor »

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're not allowed to take pictures in a restaurant in France? Instagram is going to have a hard time catching on there.

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

#409

Post by Prophasi »

thenomad wrote: post #376
vixen99 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd take it to mean the size of one's vocabulary in practice, not just the words s/he knows. There's obviously still no necessary implication that a swearer's vocab usage is worse than that of a non-swearer.

Strict logic aside, though, I've anecdotally observed that folks who swear publicly among people they don't know tend to swear easily and often, and given the inherent flexibility of most swear words, I think it's fair to say increased usage usually takes a toll on eloquence and creativity in diction. The relationship isn't necessary, but it's intuitive and observably common.

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

#410

Post by sophacles »

rprasad wrote: post #124
waiwai933 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not necessarily as huge a coincidence as you seem to think. If Steve Mann has a medical condition that is not easily rectified by existing technology, and assuming Steve Mann is reasonably intelligent, then it…

True, but the crux of the matter is that no doctor would prescribe such a device.

That is prima facia absurdity. It's like saying "no doctor would just prescribe pain killers without checking for addiction signs", yet it happens all the time. There is a phrase for it - doctor shopping. How hard is it to believe some techie doctor would allow, or formalize a guy doing potentially important research on himself, particularly if it is presented well by a competent scientist.
Post reply on HN