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

391–400 of 470 posts

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

#391

Post by robomartin »

potatolicious wrote: post #204
robomartin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not one person being "scanned" would know what the rig is for. It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces. A museum or a public place is a different story. If museum security has an issue then you either leave or take it off. Even in public there's the concept of decorum. Let's say you have a teenage daughter who is also attractive and some guy stars to…

> "It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces." The law says otherwise - and this position is backed up incredibly clearly by copious amounts of case law. > " Let's say you have a teenage daughter who is also attractive and some guy stars to follow you a few feet in fron while recording her on video. While probably legal in most parts of the world this b…

It is really interesting how those with weak arguments and creative interpretations of what is written resort to personal attacks as their only remaining tool.

I painted a hypothetical scenario where I clearly stated that you have someone a few feet away recording your daughter as you walk down the street. Nowhere in there did I say that I would personally resort to physical violence. I never have in my life. Why are you reading more into it than I have said?

As for the "don't be a dork" bit of advice. I am a dork. Or so says my wife. I am a geek too. Now, the term "dork" can have many meanings. Between dorks it is a little different. When I am doing something stupid or overly geeky my wife will say "You are such a dork!". It is not a pejorative at all. It just means that you are being dumb in a geeky way. Case in point: We had a brush fire in a hill near our house. I took out my RC helicopter, strapped a camera and video transmitter to it and flew it up about 800 feet (not over the fire, people, property or near full scale aircraft) to get a view of what was going on. The fire captain even took advantage of what my video monitor was showing. At the end of that my wife said "You are such a dork!". And she was right.

> I'm waiting for you to get to the part where this justifies physical assault.

And you'll never see that. Again, it's interesting to see how some are choosing to read my comments as though I justify someone getting beaten-up. NOWHERE DO I SAY THAT. READ THE FUCKING POSTS AGAIN.

I am talking about common sense and manners.

This guy decided it was more important to wear all this shit on him while going on a vacation with his daughter? What the hell is wrong with HIM? Unless he is genuinely handicapped (which does not seem to be the case) he is just being an inconsiderate dork. If I go on vacation with my kids I go on vacation with my kids. I might bring some work with me, but it is always in the form of a laptop for coding that I'll only use when they've gone to sleep. I am there for the family and their experience, not to shove my dorky pursuits on their face 24-7.

This isn't even about marginalized groups. IT IS ONLY YOU and others that are choosing to interpret the comments as such. Well, get over it, none of what I said has anything whatsoever to do with marginalized groups at all. It's about the potential of being a jerk by not being in touch with the incursions you might be making into other peoples spaces and privacy. That's all.

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

#392

Post by robomartin »

tensor wrote: post #184
robomartin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible…

He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him. I feel empathy for him because I find it very hard to believe that he said or did anything that would warrant physical assault. Indeed, there is nothing that justifies physical assault outside of self defence or temporary insanity. Do you really think that a quirky famous academic out for a meal with his daughter attacked these employees? Seriously? Bec…

> He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him

He said:

"I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck. "

It very much sounds like he either did this after he got back or over the phone from the hotel.

He did not GO TO THE POLICE. I would have gone to the nearest police station and planted myself in there. If this was as serious as it seems, that would be the only way to handle it. Also, it would be the best way to explain and show his rig to the police.

By his account this was a serious incident and he had all the evidence and witnesses he needed. I would tell the family to go sight-seeing on their own and get my ass over to the nearest police station to deal with it.

I am still waiting for someone to provide an account from a different perspective. Nobody has the full story. It's silly to defend him (or McD) without more data. I am certainly not doing so. I am pointing out that he, in isolation of this event, seems to be quite inconsiderate about forcing his rig onto people's spaces and invading their privacy.

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

#393

Post by spitx »

rmc wrote: post #328
rickmb wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nationali…

Its not useful to include the British to imbue some meaning to the conversation. I single out British because although they claim to a governance described as unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy they have some of the most decidedly backward understandings on race (esp race-based-class), ethnic origins (Highlanders vs rest), religious denominations (Protestant-Catholic strife) & the concept of nationhood in all of the western world. For such a modern society their outlook on these matters is striking and confused. For a nation that made its business to civilize more than half the world at one time, she shows some forbiddingly contradicting understandings on these matters.

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

#394

Post by vacri »

spitx wrote: post #317
nakkiel wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

'Valid accusations'? You gave an example of one person being obnoxious and used it to condemn all others of the same origin. It is profoundly unscientific and illogical to build an argument the way you have.

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

#395

Post by datalus »

tspiteri wrote: post #245
datalus wrote: post #189

Go to Paris. Eat at a McDonald's. o_O

Maybe it's a fast meal at midday when there are still places to go, and a good meal in the evening to wind down.

I spent sometime in Lyon last summer, the cafes aren't too slow when you want to grab a bite to eat. However, I can only assume one would go to McDonald's to get a Royale with Cheese ;)

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

#396

Post by robomartin »

sesqu wrote: post #192
robomartin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible…

I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk. You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory. You claim you'd treat his ri…

A few points:

Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really?

Look/feel: If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. The Google device is easy to ignore. His rig is, well, look at the pictures. I also imagine it having a bunch of wires hanging off of it going to a backpack or something.

If he was blind he'd probably have a cane (well recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired.

It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense.

He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.

It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons.

If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time.

There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.

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

#397

Post by vacri »

rmc wrote: post #333
pyoung wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why would the Mafia care if you took photos? Money laundering would happen behind the scenes, in the accountants office. Definitely agree that something is shady though. Not sure what, but this reminds me of a recent article on 'The Big Mac' index, which is used as an alternative measure of inflation. Perhaps McDonald's is under orders by the French government to prevent people from taking photos of their menus (…

But why would the Mafia care if you took photos? Money laundering would happen behind the scenes, in the accountants office. In order to launder money you need to pretend you have more customers than you do have. A good way for the police/tax man to catch you is to record your business to prove that you don't have that many customers.

Surely the police could find a better way to do it than send in a guy with a camera-eye for lunch one time?

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

#398

Post by robomartin »

scotty79 wrote: post #227
robomartin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible…

> What if he was a complete jerk? Even if he was most jerkiest jerk telling sh*t about their mothers nothing justifies physical attack and destruction of property. If you can't restrain yoursef from physically attacking people and tearing their papers when they open they mouths you shouldn't be working where people are present.

Where did I say that the attack was justified?

I only said that it is quite possible that he is being inconsiderate and inviting friction due to his insistence in forcing his tech upon everyone around him.

What we don't know is what really happened between him and the staff other than his account of it.

I very seriously doubt that someone resorted to physically attacking him out of nowhere (as he seems to present it) without some provocation. That is simply not the way people behave unless they are criminals. There had to be an exchange of some form between them that led to that happening. I can't even speculate as to what took place, but I'll place my bet on that he wasn't an angelical figure that simply got his food and sat down to eat and then, out of nowhere --as he implies-- got attacked. The French are not that crazy.

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

#399

Post by ececconi »

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…

when I was at a McDonald's in Madrid Spain, it was the only place that a person at the front told me to put my camera away and delete the pictures that I had on my camera. I proceeded to walk out of the building. The man inside followed me for a few steps before letting me go.

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

#400

Post by vacri »

strstr wrote: post #190
TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #175

Complete aside - Comment about posted pictures from Digital Eye Glass I noticed from his posted pictures (labelled as Possible Witness 2) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RnoG7dHRDjY/UASnGzPFkSI/AAAAAAAAAD... There's some nasty spherical lensing effects there. I'm noticing that from the signboard on the right middle side. The menuboard should be flat across, with perhaps a deviation of where the signage isnt exactly flush t…

This could be intentional, as it may increase his peripheral vision through the Eye Glass.

It may also be corrected when the image is projected into his eye.
Post reply on HN