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

91–100 of 470 posts

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

#91

Post by jlgreco »

citricsquid wrote: post #36
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…

I've looked into how McDonalds franchises work before and have learned about money laundering from Breaking Bad: how would using a franchise make sense? McDonalds (and most other franchise businesses) run very tight ships with stock (and marketing): if a business sells 100 burgers McDonalds is going to know, it seems that if suspicions were ever aroused with this McDonalds all the IRS (or whatever the french tax auth…

You throw out the merchandise with the highest profit margins while reporting fake sales.

Bars are traditionally popular for money laundering because everyone pays in cash, liquor has absolutely insane mark-up, and it's really easy to pour it down the drain. I imagine a fastfood restaurant would not work as well, but who knows.

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

#92

Post by anthonyb »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #69
heyrhett wrote: post #11

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. I'm sorry he was harassed, but this story really smells of one of the oldest ways to gain media attention on the internet: Step 1: Get screwed by a big company (this is the easy part) Step 2: Write a blog articl…

What I don't understand why clearly things have been manually blacked out (or whited out in this case). Why not show their face? I agree this story smells in a dozen different ways. Rather than the mafia I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in order to assert IP rights against a very wealthy company which has made very public announcements about glasses that augment your visi…

I'm pretty sure that it's illegal in France to publish photos of people without their consent.

Also, why would he, if he's after some sort of reasonably amicable settlement?

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

#93

Post by enneff »

supervacuo wrote: post #79

Surely the only take-away from this is that McDonald's is a terrible place. Didn't we all know that already? It's still helpful to try and do as much damage as possible with this story (ideally getting some money or at least an apology for the victim), but make no mistake that the company structure will make this vanish into the æther in no time. The long-term solution: just don't go there.

Do we all know that? Is it true?

I have had hundreds of meals at McDonalds and never witnessed anything like this. The staff have been pleasant and helpful, the environment clean, and the food as advertised. "Terrible," seems ridiculously hyperbolic to me.

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

#94

Post by petercooper »

saboot wrote: post #21

Can someone illuminate why a recording device would illicit such a harsh reaction? I can understand businesses wanting to avoid someone stand there with a video camera, but does France take this more seriously?

There are (sadly) thousands of such stories, YouTube videos, etc. about photographers getting assaulted and intimidated when legally taking photos in certain areas. This is basically the same thing at an even more technological level.

My speculation on this: A lot of people in security have such boring jobs that even if they don't feel intimidated by photographers, they relish a chance to play big, get a buzz out of the day, and look like they're "doing their job."

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

#95

Post by scarmig »

ppod wrote: post #80
[deleted] wrote: post #64

[deleted]

You should delete that right away. What good do you think is going to come of putting his home address, phone number, and wife's name (!?!?!) on the internet?

Flag the comment, moderators should delete immediately. Perhaps the most inappropriate thing I've seen posted at HN before.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

citricsquid wrote: post #36
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…

I've looked into how McDonalds franchises work before and have learned about money laundering from Breaking Bad: how would using a franchise make sense? McDonalds (and most other franchise businesses) run very tight ships with stock (and marketing): if a business sells 100 burgers McDonalds is going to know, it seems that if suspicions were ever aroused with this McDonalds all the IRS (or whatever the french tax auth…

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by Zenst »

ppod wrote: post #80
[deleted] wrote: post #64

[deleted]

You should delete that right away. What good do you think is going to come of putting his home address, phone number, and wife's name (!?!?!) on the internet?

It is already on the internet, blame google and bing for making it easy to find.

EDIT ADD It is also on facebook, and so many other places. Googling his for i email address is a hard one to find but pulls up that address alot.

So write him a letter saying that attacking a disabled person infront of his family is just not acceptable.

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

#99

Post by dr_ »

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…

Whether it's money laundering or underreporting revenues, the implication is that something is awry at this McDonalds. The author is probably doing McDonald's Corp. a service by contacting them. They should address it, immediately.

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

#100

Post by jlgreco »

polyfractal wrote: post #39
alex_c wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctor's note is presumably to explain that the glasses cannot be removed easily and are actually implanted in him. A few years back he had airport security physically pull out wires out of him. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN... (apparently "a few years back" is 10 years ago. Yikes.) Edit: a link to an old (1997) article about his glasses: http://www.wearcam.org/ieeecomputer/r2025.ht…

I'm trying really hard to understand why these glasses cannot be removed from his body. They are glorified video goggles...not an EEG connected to his brain. There is no good reason that they need to be bolted to his head. Hell, even gluing them on is excessive. Until someone can provide a good reason why this would be chronically implanted into him, I think this all smells like hype to me. And why no pictures of the…

Of course it's hype. It's Steve Mann... he bills himself as the first cyborg iirc.

I don't get the point you are attempting to make. Are you doubting that he has in fact done this to himself?

Post reply on HN