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

Discuss!

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.

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.

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.

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

Hmm? Please clarify.

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.

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.

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

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.

Only if he had tried to use ketchup on his fries.

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.

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.

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.

Unless I missed something and Communism took over, a restaurant is not public property

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.

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

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?"

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

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


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.

Oh, and something I overlooked before:

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.

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.

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.

Polemics.

If you want to extend your analogy, stick to SR. Neo-Luddites may very well demand that.

IRL this isn't a possibility right now, and when some douche decides to stick a camera to his head, then yes, I am very much in the right to demand of him to stop filming me. A right to privacy is present, even in public.

If it were possible to stick cameras instead of eyes into your head, the next question would be if they contain a buffer or if they simply store everything they record.
Records? Very much in the right to demand stopping that shit.
Buffer? It's obviously a measure to regain sight.

'Celebrities' aren't the only ones who are annoyed by people with cameras.
Furthermore, it's not a binary question. If I run around some people who are filming a landmark, it's my own fault. I may then politely ask them (should I really be bothered by it) if they'd consider deleting the footage.
If someone follows me, or stares at me vacantly with his Googgles while he uploads my french fries to some Facespace or MyBook, then yes, he'll get to hear something about his obnoxious behaviour, and should he prove confrontational, I'll ask the manager to throw him out.
Actually, in most stores and restaurants here, it is expressly forbidden to film without permission.
You may ask the owner or manager of the establishment in question, but he has the right to deny your request.

As I said, a severely limited one.


What if it has both? How would you know? If the eyes are outwardly indistinguishable from natural, do you have a right to demand that everyone who crosses your path produce documentation proving they are not recording you? If you're using your cybereyes to record your kid's birthday party, do I have a right to demand you delete that footage because I didn't consent to being filmed? Where does your right to privacy stop and my right to do whatever the hell I please with my hardware begin? I suspect this is a cultural divide.

Getting back to the article, I really don't see where Mann did anything objectionable. He walked into a McDonald's, bought food, sat down, and proceeded to eat his food. The three men who accosted him, on the other hand, are guilty of criminal assault.

In the legal system you are likely used to, which likely is not France.


While an interesting question, given that SR (where such things exist) and reality (where they don't) operate on a rather different legal basis there, this is a bit too hypothetical. But to humor you: Yes, that would be the consequence. Though I highly doubt this product would ever get approval from whoever would be in charge of approving cybernetics.


You don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. If you feel it's okay, fine, but accept that in the juristiction he moved in, it was not okay and, while the men were arguably violent, kicking him out was their perfect right.

You're asking a lot of hypotheticals without any practical value, Tanegar.
In constructing your strawman, you're forgetting that even before such systems would be introduced into the general populace, there will be discussion about all these topics.

For now, it is a very clear thing (at least to me). Your right to privacy may be more limited than mine is. It is a matter of different laws, and I am not a lawyer.

Living in the SR world would be horrible for anyone in a serious privacy debate right now. Each cybereye has a camera. There's no way to prevent a magician from entering your bedroom for the average person. Drones are watching everywhere you go. It goes on and on.


His behaviour is objectionable to some people, me included. He has the camera on his head and even went so far as to fix it there. He documents his every step without consideration or respect for the possible wishes of other people. Instead, he has a doctor's letter he can shove in your face and tell you that he can't put it down. That doesn't make it okay, it just makes it more objectionable, since he performed this procedure willingly. It is not a prosthesis he needs to live normally. He's just a douchebag with a penchant for experimentation.
I've read about Mann before, and in reading this article, I just thought "Yep. This guy had it coming."

This being said, of course it isn't acceptable behavior to manhandle or assault the guy and rip up his letter.
Mann's research is even valuable, in a way. It prompts us to ask questions we didn't know we had, and I can respect that.

However, don't forget that there are always two sides to a story. A lot of employees apparently said that the exchange wasn't quite as rough as it's made out to be. Sure, they may be in cahoots, but honestly, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Which still doesn't make it okay to shove a guy or rip up possessions, but it makes it very okay to tell him to get lost, if he can't put down his stupid camerathing.

Arguably violent? They tried to tear off something that was bolted to his skull. If somebody tried to rip your ear off, I don't think you'd consider that arguably violent.


That's very much your opinion. A hypothetical is just a practical that hasn't come around yet. If I had cybereyes, and wanted to use them to record any or all of my life and experiences, I would do so.

Whether they were even aware it was actually bolted to his skull is not certain. People don't usually attack glasses they wear with screws anchored in their bones.


Really? Like nuclear-driven cars, human-level intelligent supercomputers, and land battleships?


It would be as legal as me trying to rip them out. Which I wouldn't do, but you bet I'd sue your ass and demand the local McD manager to remove you from the place ASAP. In France, this may well mean you getting lifted by two waiters and tossed on the street like in some bad cartoon. I've seen it happen in posh restaurants there.

Again, most of those incidents involved an American asking for ketchup.

My life was boring, they mostly involved a Frenchman being drunk. Except that riot under the Eiffel tower that started when a drunk American came at a bunch of Maghrebians hollering "I'm'a'merican I'm'a kick y'ass!" Ah, good times. Well mostly, the Lady was rather freaked out by the riot and my arm was on fire before long. Ruined a perfectly great New Year's eve and a €200 jacket.

Ah, France.

If you know of a theoretical or technical reason why cybernetic eyes outwardly indistinguishable from organic ones can't be built, feel free to enlighten me.

This incident actually happened awhile ago.

From what I remember, the camera was set to automatically delete all video taken every few minutes. He apparantly didn't have much storage memory to just keep recording.

Ironically, when the resturant employees tried to yank it off his head, they damaged it such that it stopped working, and as such could not engage the auto-delete feature. So he managed to have some nice video evidence that purportedly shows him informing them that he can't take off the camera, it's surgically attached, and then them trying to yank it off anyway. If they'd just left him alone any footage would have been erased by the time he finished eating and left.

As an aside, Google Glass headsets have a nice bright LED on the front of them to indicate when the camera is recording.



-k

what makes you think you have the right to do whatever you want with your hardware when other people are involved?

if i own a tire iron, does that give me the right to bash your head in with it? it's my tire iron, i can do whatever i want with it, right? oh wait, that doesn't work. i can use it to take off the tires on my car, i can use it like a hammer to bash objects that i own with, but the second what i do with that tire iron has an impact on someone else, i no longer have the right to use it however i please.

for the most part, personally i'm not going to be bothered by someone taking a few minutes of random video footage of me or taking pictures of me. but that doesn't mean it's wrong for someone to want their privacy respected.

if someone doesn't want you taking video footage of them, what the hell gives you the right to invade their privacy just because you feel like it? what is it about you purchasing a camera that entitles you to use it on someone else without their permission or especially when it is explicitly against their will? how is it that the exchange of money between you and some third party for a device suddenly strips them of their right to do whatever they want with themselves?

If you are in public one is allowed to photograph you. That is pretty much the law everywhere. You have no expectation of privacy on a public street. And Europe has a pretty extensive CCTV police network.

That doesn't make more it legal in European juristictions, especially on private ground. Nor is this LED bright enough to be seen in daylight (and dependable, given we're talking about an NSA minion corporation here)


As was stated before, that's not entirely correct.


England is not all of Europe.

It has been said before, that this is pretty much not the case here in Europe. For Germany it isn't even a question just about public vs. private, but also a matter of the german version of copyright (Urheberrecht): Every person automatically owns the rights to pictures of himself, regardless of who has taken the picture, thus providing means of denying storage and publication of such material. Ofc there are exceptions like being a person of public interest or interests of executive powers like police. It also can get fuzzy once more than a single person is on a picture (numbers vary between 3 and 7 depending on situation and court decision), but that's more or less a non-issue in this particular case.



Even if all of Europe were 'The Isle' (which it isn't) you'd have to distinguish relations between private person amongst themselves and private person viewed by executive powers.

Walking across someone else's viewfinder doesn't impact you in the slightest; don't even try to claim that it does. If I'm standing on a public street, shooting footage of the Louvre, and you tell me to delete it because you walked through the frame, I'll tell you precisely where you can stick your ludicrously overdeveloped sense of self-important outrage. If I follow you down the street, filming you specifically, then you have a claim. Otherwise, I will laugh in your face.

Unrelated to Shadowrun, since it didn't happen in a world where more than 50% of the population is augmented.

When that happens, I'll get back to you in the discussion.

Your 'practicals that didn't happen yet' are, at the moment, just made up situations to prove a point that's not relevant under current circumstances. Also known as a straw man. Here, have a match

I'll happily discuss SR terms with you, but this 'discussion' is evidently too emotionally charged for some people.

We have told you repeatedly and exactly when this would and wouldn't apply. If you are unable to understand what I and others wrote, you have my sympathies.

The limitations of privacy in a public/commercial space aren't relevant? Lolwut? I'm pretty sure that straw man is your construction.


I understand your position perfectly well. The problem is that your position is ridiculous.

Let me repeat: There are no life like, all-time recording cybereyes. Your hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion. Good bye.

It is the law over here. It does not care what you think of it. And with this, we're done.

On a slightly less tense note, I do wonder how he brought them into the country.

I mean he had to have taken it off before going to the airport in Canada to fly over to France as I can not see security on either side letting that through the checkpoints even with a note from the doctor explaining it can not be removed easily as it was not an actual medical device.

Though it would have been fun watching him try.

Yes he probably had them tucked away in the suitcase, but still...

He screwed them off, then screwed them back on? I suppose they're fixed to anchors, like bridges often are. Which also means he probably could remove it himself if he wanted. Or maybe he can turn the thing off?

The fact that it's the law doesn't mean it's not ridiculous. Do try not to walk in front of any cameras as you're storming off in a huff.

Yes, the article did say they can be removed , just takes special tools and probably takes a bit of time.

As a researcher he would have left a means to remove the article if it was malfunctioning or causing pain, but again it would have been a process to remove and not just slipping it on or off easily.