Anti-Cyborg Bigotry, Real Life Article Germane To "Cyberware Gives Social Penalties" Options

[Neurosis]

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented...sian-mcdonalds/

Discuss!

[Sendaz]

I would not call this so much an attack on cyborg, though that is some fine sensationalization by the writer btw. Let's also be clear. These glasses while 'permanently' attached do NOT feed into his brain or otherwise into his nervous system, so he doesn't even qualify as cyborg despite the cutesy claim that he is effectively one because he is wearing it. He is testing the wearability and has them bolted on so to speak to test endurance and problems that long term wear can impose on both himself and the ware.

They were objecting to the rampant use of camera, which could be taking anyone's picture and of the area. A problem that the French McDonalds have had problems about in the past so it probably boiled over a bit from that as well. If I had walked in there with a big video camera taped to a helmet they would have asked me to remove it the same way.

There was a similar fury here in the UK about GoogleEarth vans driving around getting all those 360 degree pictures of all streets and lanes. Many people objected as they were not asked if they wanted to be in the shots taken. or that of their property.

Did the employees overreact? Most Certainly and management probably will be having a chat with them about this. Course it IS France so rude service is sort of expected. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If they had an issue they should merely have asked him to leave as he was not able to remove the camera or limit the range of viewing (aka side blinders not unlike a horse) while inside. Remember while it sounds good to say he can go anywhere, if someone felt the camera was a touch too intrusive odds favour they wouldn't just go after the guy, they would have gone after McDonalds for letting it happen as that would be the bigger money.

Was the guy stupid to think a note from the doctor is a blank pass to every area? Yep.
Imagine if you and your son are in the bathroom of a restaurant and a stranger comes in with that set-up. How comfortable would you feel? How about the child?
Would an assurance that he isn't looking and hey he has a note from a doctor IN ANOTHER COUNTRY (he is from Canada remember) be sufficient?
How many movie theatres do you think would let him go in to watch a new release?

Do not get me wrong, I applaud the doctor for live testing this, but he should have also realized that he will run into situations where people will object and rather than wave a piece of paper in their face, he could have also taken it in stride and gotten it to go and enjoyed fine Micky D's cuisine in the fresh air.

And he can actually remove the device, it just takes tools and time so maybe he has planned other outings better as its been about a year since this article first came out so things probably went better.

[Neurosis]

Wow, didn't think anyone would get behind the idea of those McDonalds employees assaulting that poor "cyborg".

Anyway, interestingly, I think if he was just wearing GoogleGlass, no one would have batted an eye. Kind of like the difference in SR between stylish ImageLink Glasses and a big honking first-generation cybereye.

[Umidori]

A more apt story would be something wherein a person with a prosthetic limb was mistreated, but oddly enough you don't really hear a lot of those stories.

Limb loss can evoke a sort of freakout impulse and make people around the prosthesis user uncomfortable, but I imagine it'd take a rare and special kind of jackass to develop actual bigotry or hatred toward such people. The overwhelming response is either pity or unease, not resentment or the like.

~Umi

[Sendaz]

Wow, didn't think anyone would get behind the idea of those McDonalds employees assaulting that poor "cyborg".

Hmm? Please clarify.

[CanRay]

A more apt story would be something wherein a person with a prosthetic limb was mistreated, but oddly enough you don't really hear a lot of those stories.

~Umi

Also, they have a convenient club available right then and there to beat those idiots with, so it's less likely to occur in the news.

That said, people have threatened to beat me with my own cane... But that's for different reasons.

[White Buffalo]

A more apt story would be something wherein a person with a prosthetic limb was mistreated, but oddly enough you don't really hear a lot of those stories.

Right or wrong, if i see someone with a prosthetic limb I assume they're a vet (unless it's obviously a child or something). Its harder to harass trained combatants.

[Sendaz]

That said, people have threatened to beat me with my own cane... But that's for different reasons.

Aye yes, Bella Donna the Dominatrix Dwarf. Worth every nuyen.

[hermit]

They were objecting to the rampant use of camera, which could be taking anyone's picture and of the area. A problem that the French McDonalds have had problems about in the past so it probably boiled over a bit from that as well. If I had walked in there with a big video camera taped to a helmet they would have asked me to remove it the same way.

There was a similar fury here in the UK about GoogleEarth vans driving around getting all those 360 degree pictures of all streets and lanes. Many people objected as they were not asked if they wanted to be in the shots taken. or that of their property.

Did the employees overreact? Most Certainly and management probably will be having a chat with them about this. Course it IS France so rude service is sort of expected.

And violence. He's lucky nobody tried to stab him or light him on fire. Believe me, that can happen fast in France.

That said, I have little sympathy for someone who goes around recording everyone without their consent. Apparently he didn't offer to delete the footage and turn his camera off? At least it doesn't seem to have occurred to him. And unless his camera were medically necessary (like some experiments with people replacing lost eyesight via such a thing), the doctor's voucher is worth nothing. I recon he had it to discourage demands he take his camera off, but ... I don't really know what he thought. that people would be okay with a peeper if the cam he was recording everyone with was bolted to his skull? Not that trying to rip it off was terribly smart, either, or I condone that behavior; there are less violent and more effectve ways of dealing with this.

I hardly would have tried to rip the thing off him, but I very well would call the cops on him and file a harrasment, stalking and sexual offense charge (the latter because he sure recorded some women and/or children like this). And a charge that he delete any footage with me on it, documented. My personal outrage is with his and other glassholes' utter disregard for anybody's privacy. I won't boycott McDonald's over this either.

Not all Europeans like to have their privacy invaded like this. Google ran into this wall in Germany too, and now, the US government has. I just hope our governments show some spine for once.

[Sendaz]

And violence. He's lucky nobody tried to stab him or light him on fire. Believe me, that can happen fast in France.

Only if he had tried to use ketchup on his fries. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tanegar]

And violence. He's lucky nobody tried to stab him or light him on fire. Believe me, that can happen fast in France.

That said, I have little sympathy for someone who goes around recording everyone without their consent. Apparently he didn't offer to delete the footage and turn his camera off? At least it doesn't seem to have occurred to him. And unless his camera were medically necessary (like some experiments with people replacing lost eyesight via such a thing), the doctor's voucher is worth nothing. I recon he had it to discourage demands he take his camera off, but ... I don't really know what he thought. that people would be okay with a peeper if the cam he was recording everyone with was bolted to his skull? Not that trying to rip it off was terribly smart, either, or I condone that behavior; there are less violent and more effectve ways of dealing with this.

I hardly would have tried to rip the thing off him, but I very well would call the cops on him and file a harrasment, stalking and sexual offense charge (the latter because he sure recorded some women and/or children like this). And a charge that he delete any footage with me on it, documented. My personal outrage is with his and other glassholes' utter disregard for anybody's privacy. I won't boycott McDonald's over this either.

Not all Europeans like to have their privacy invaded like this. Google ran into this wall in Germany too, and now, the US government has. I just hope our governments show some spine for once.

So, if you walk in front of somebody's camera, they're stalking you? That's an... interesting position.

[hermit]

So, if you walk in front of somebody's camera, they're stalking you? That's an... interesting position.

If they record me without my consent, it's at least not perfectly legal (me with my face, recognisable, ect). I'm not saying I expect those charges to go through easily or at all, but I'd definitly not accept a peeper just like that. It's an invasion of private space, especially since he was doing so on private property. Kicking him out was McD's perfect right.

Sousveillance just means everyone is a stalker.

[Tanegar]

What private space? You have, at best, a severely limited expectation of privacy when you're in public. That's kind of what in public means. If I'm using a directional microphone to record your conversation from across the room, sure, you've got a claim. If I'm recording video and you happen to walk across the shot? Get real.

[Cochise]

What private space? You have, at best, a severely limited expectation of privacy when you're in public. That's kind of what in public means. If I'm using a directional microphone to record your conversation from across the room, sure, you've got a claim. If I'm recording video and you happen to walk across the shot? Get real.

He is very "real" in terms of what european / german laws do say about stuff like that.
As for your question about you taking an accidential shot of him when he walks across? As long as you'd not publish the video to the public he can merely politely ask you to delete the picture. If you're releasing the video to the public, he'll be able to demand the removal of the scene under certain conditions.

[hermit]

If I'm recording video and you happen to walk across the shot?

If I mind, I can ask you to delete the shot, and little else, as Cochise says (not if you fotograph or film me several times and do so in a private space, though). If you refuse, I can press charges against you in certain cases, like if you publish it ("post on facebook" counts, btw), even if you took the image in a public space, unless you anonymize me (pixelated face, ect).

That's kind of what in public means

A franchise restaurant is private property in Europe as well as in the US. It is not a public space.

[Sengir]

What private space?

Unless I missed something and Communism took over, a restaurant is not public property (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tanegar]

If I mind, I can ask you to delete the shot, and little else, as Cochise says (not if you fotograph or film me several times and do so in a private space, though). If you refuse, I can press charges against you in certain cases, like if you publish it ("post on facebook" counts, btw), even if you took the image in a public space, unless you anonymize me (pixelated face, ect).


A franchise restaurant is private property in Europe as well as in the US. It is not a public space.

It's not your private property. McDonald's has standing to tell the guy to stop recording. You don't.

[hermit]

It's not your private property. McDonald's has standing to tell the guy to stop recording. You don't.

In the article, they, represented by their employees, did. Which is what these glassholes complain about.

And if he is recording me, see the first paragraph for legal options. I could also complain to the McDonald's manager and ask THEM to put a stop to his recording, and then the store could send the glasshole on his merry way. They probably would anyway, though, as seen in the article.

[Sengir]

It's not your private property. McDonald's has standing to tell the guy to stop recording. You don't.

Employees represent the owner, hence the bouncer at the local bar can tell you to get lost despite not owning the place.

Anyway, TL;DR version: Attention whore who likes to call himself cyborg gets confronted over behavior not even acceptable in Airstrip One, but manages to make the best out of it with another tearful attention whoring piece. I feel used for even replying to this thread (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

[Tanegar]

What "behavior," exactly? You guys are acting like he was sticking a camera up womens' skirts. To put it in Shadowrun terms, is anyone with cybereyes (which, as of SR4, include Image Link as standard) a "glasshole?"

[bannockburn]

Yes. Very much so. One of the reasons, why SR is so dystopic.

[hermit]

What "behavior," exactly? You guys are acting like he was sticking a camera up womens' skirts.

Filming people without their consent. This is an issue in Europe.

To put it in Shadowrun terms, is anyone with cybereyes (which, as of SR4, include Image Link as standard) a "glasshole?"

By SR4, with it's eye recording unit, yes. Before, no, since no data was stored by default. Soemone with glasses with a recording unit would be one too. Though Shadowrun, being a dystopia, operates on a more ... lax understanding of privacy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Oh, and something I overlooked before:

Anyway, interestingly, I think if he was just wearing GoogleGlass, no one would have batted an eye.

Where do you get that from, Devon? On the countrary, if he had an implant that wasn't recording people (say, a functional limb), he'd not have been thrown out of the store. The issue is with his violation of peoples' privacy, not with an augmentation.

[Sendaz]

Anyway, TL;DR version: Attention whore who likes to call himself cyborg gets confronted over behavior not even acceptable in Airstrip One, but manages to make the best out of it with another tearful attention whoring piece. I feel used for even replying to this thread (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

I think the whole reference to cyborg is what first made me respond. I have a friend who had a severe spinal injury in a car crash. Basically he has literal wires running into his spine attached to a box worn on his side that honestly I can not understand all of it, but basically think of it as a signal enhancer and coordinator. With it he can walk around and function, if a bit slowly. When the thing's processing starts to drift motor control drops considerably requiring recalibration and such. The whole thing is painful and he had years of problems, including rejection of early models and so on. And unfortunately his system will reach a point where it just won't work anymore, but at least he got some extension on mobility for a few years.

Having the guy in the article lauded as a cyborg hero when basically he is just ratcheting on a primitive pair of Google glasses and waving a note from his doctor just stuck a sour note.

Both sides could have handled this a bit better, in a social environment courtesy and respect for each other are necessary skills.

[Tanegar]

Yes. Very much so. One of the reasons, why SR is so dystopic.

So, to extend the analogy, if (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) something were to happen to you that caused you to lose your eyes, and you got them replaced with cybernetic prostheses, I would suddenly be within my rights to demand that you close your eyes anytime I crossed your field of view?

[hermit]

So, to extend the analogy, if (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) something were to happen to you that caused you to lose your eyes, and you got them replaced with cybernetic prostheses, I would suddenly be within my rights to demand that you close your eyes anytime I crossed your field of view?

If the hypothetical prosthetic eyes would be recording and storing what they see on more than buffer memory: yes. Which is why I doubt prosthetic eyes that do this would have a real chance to be even available as an option in Europe, and why I see a lot of issues with Google Glasses and the upsurge of glassholes. It'll be Google Streetview again, only worse.