Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I'm less interested in the original topic, and more of the conflict of privacy thread that's slowly consuming it. As a transhumanist, in all but (as of now) means, Google Glass is just the start of what I hope to be augmentation technology. My eyes are horrible, and I wouldn't mind tech to give me the ability to lay on a computer over my pupil and fix everything. To see the paranoia of some people, the future'll eat you alive. Once they can bring something like this down to contact size, you plan to punch everyone you see in the face? How will you know you're being recorded?

Does anyone know if Google are still allowing that app that can take a photo of your face and looks online to find you? Because that really shouldnt be allowed, thats stalking and really creepy if they allow a complete stranger to track you online. It always amazes me when companies can get away with stuff that the police cant.

Flames66:

My definition of quality is; Sturdy and durable, looks nice and is reasonably priced. Many of the glasses available in the shops I listed meet all those requirements.

well if you also add fitting the prescription and can get it for 1 dollar - more power to these shops, would live to have something like that here.

Grimrider6:

This is a crossed line here. Shoving cameras in people's faces without their permission is rude, anti-social, and extremely creepy. The fact that not only static photos, but videos can be recorded and almost seamlessly uploaded makes the concept even creepier.

why? because you think its rude, ect? and you get to decide because? thats like these people that think staring is rude. no. staring is admiration. if i didnt like what i see i wouldnt stare, duh.
I can understand some people may not like some things. that is no reason to go around punching people though. which is what the person i quited said he would do.

We are living in a surveillance state, online and off, yet people who adore their GGlass want to become voluntary participants in it.

thats because we dont see it as a negative thing.

Your only concern seems to be "I'm not technically breaking the law, so I'm going to be as much of a douche as I want". Are you seriously that obtuse? Is this how you interact with other human beings? Are you so devoid of common courtesy, manners, and basic ethics that the wishes of people around you has ZERO impact on how you decide to behave around them?

My concern is that a person is breaking the law (punching others) while those other people are not breaking the law. my concern is also that he claims to have rights he does not have. My concern is that he wants to ban what could turn into a very useful item just because HE does not like being looked at.
the impact on my decision is weighted against my own wishes. but we arent talking about me (so why are you trying adhominem?), we are talking whether its ok to punch somone for taking a picture of you, and to that i say no, its not.

Personally, I look forward to the creation and spread of technologies designed to jam or disrupt Glass. I've already seem some Privacy Glasses created by a Japanese researcher designed to scramble facial recognition algorithms, and I'm hoping more technology comes out soon.

Criminals will love this!

drednoahl:

I've trademarked my face and any images of my face are owned by my company. I've had to do this because of folks like you, and I will vigorously defend my right to privacy even though I'm not that bothered about nobodies like you taking images of me without my consent (not that bothered by intelligence agencies doing it either - I'm a nobody myself.) Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that... and I'm not having that, not now, not never. Anyone using glass is just an unpaid corporate drone who while happily violating my right to privacy it makes me wonder just who or what else they are happy to violate just because it suits them.

seriuosly? you trademarked a face? ech, and noone is stopping me from taking your photo still. the only stop you have here is if i were to use it for commercial purpose or a freeware product. you are in public space, i take pictures of public space, i have every right to do that, you dont have a right to do anything about it. regardless of your trademarks. i cant use your face in some kind of video i post on youtube, but then i couldnt do that trademark or no.
Good luck living in fear.

Armadox:
I'm less interested in the original topic, and more of the conflict of privacy thread that's slowly consuming it. As a transhumanist, in all but (as of now) means, Google Glass is just the start of what I hope to be augmentation technology. My eyes are horrible, and I wouldn't mind tech to give me the ability to lay on a computer over my pupil and fix everything. To see the paranoia of some people, the future'll eat you alive. Once they can bring something like this down to contact size, you plan to punch everyone you see in the face? How will you know you're being recorded?

ah, nice to meet you, my eyesight is fine but i would love a computer on my eyes as well. they are working on contact size one too, powered by your own body heat no less. as far as these reactionists go, well, in science fiction they are usually portrayed as fanatics who aim to destroy technology, but then sci-fi isnt always right.

SonOfVoorhees:
Does anyone know if Google are still allowing that app that can take a photo of your face and looks online to find you? Because that really shouldnt be allowed, thats stalking and really creepy if they allow a complete stranger to track you online. It always amazes me when companies can get away with stuff that the police cant.

last i heard they banned that program. not that you cna actually ban any program as long as the physical device is in your hands though.
i know a solution to that though. how about dont plaster your photos on the web if you dont want anyone to find you? because looking at you and remembering seeing your photo on a website is same thing really.

Strazdas:

Grimrider6:

This is a crossed line here. Shoving cameras in people's faces without their permission is rude, anti-social, and extremely creepy. The fact that not only static photos, but videos can be recorded and almost seamlessly uploaded makes the concept even creepier.

why? because you think its rude, ect? and you get to decide because?

I get to decide because it's my body you are photographing.

Strazdas:
thats like these people that think staring is rude. no. staring is admiration. if i didnt like what i see i wouldnt stare, duh.

Staring makes people uncomfortable. It is rude because you are inflicting feelings of discomfort on another person. Don't.

Strazdas:
I can understand some people may not like some things. that is no reason to go around punching people though. which is what the person i quited said he would do.

No, I said I had considered slapping the glasses from their face. I also said I had decided against it as it would be a more serious invasion than the one I was trying to prevent.

Strazdas:

Grimrider6:
We are living in a surveillance state, online and off, yet people who adore their GGlass want to become voluntary participants in it.

thats because we dont see it as a negative thing.

Many people do, including me. I find the idea of someone being able to look out of the eyes of anyone around me terrifying.

Strazdas:

Grimrider6:
Your only concern seems to be "I'm not technically breaking the law, so I'm going to be as much of a douche as I want". Are you seriously that obtuse? Is this how you interact with other human beings? Are you so devoid of common courtesy, manners, and basic ethics that the wishes of people around you has ZERO impact on how you decide to behave around them?

My concern is that a person is breaking the law (punching others) while those other people are not breaking the law. my concern is also that he claims to have rights he does not have. My concern is that he wants to ban what could turn into a very useful item just because HE does not like being looked at.
the impact on my decision is weighted against my own wishes. but we arent talking about me (so why are you trying adhominem?), we are talking whether its ok to punch somone for taking a picture of you, and to that i say no, its not.

No, what we are discussing is whether it is ok to take pictures of people without their permission. I say no it is not. The punching is what it makes me want to do.

Strazdas:

Grimrider6:
Personally, I look forward to the creation and spread of technologies designed to jam or disrupt Glass. I've already seem some Privacy Glasses created by a Japanese researcher designed to scramble facial recognition algorithms, and I'm hoping more technology comes out soon.

Criminals will love this!

So will I. I am already looking into it as an easier alternative to slapping people.

Armadox:
I'm less interested in the original topic, and more of the conflict of privacy thread that's slowly consuming it. As a transhumanist, in all but (as of now) means, Google Glass is just the start of what I hope to be augmentation technology. My eyes are horrible, and I wouldn't mind tech to give me the ability to lay on a computer over my pupil and fix everything. To see the paranoia of some people, the future'll eat you alive. Once they can bring something like this down to contact size, you plan to punch everyone you see in the face? How will you know you're being recorded?

I don't, I mentioned slapping people to emphasise the point of how it makes people who value their privacy feel.

Strazdas:
ah, nice to meet you, my eyesight is fine but i would love a computer on my eyes as well. they are working on contact size one too, powered by your own body heat no less. as far as these reactionists go, well, in science fiction they are usually portrayed as fanatics who aim to destroy technology, but then sci-fi isnt always right.

I have a list of books you can read that might help you understand the opposing view, if you're interested.

Ultratwinkie:

Cinemas are already dying from on-demand and digital distribution

Really? Because everything I've seen, including news stories here, indicate cinema is growing. And is predicted to continue to grow.

This is true of many (perhaps all) of the industries piracy is "killing."

As far as I can tell, you might as well be saying PC gaming is dying.

Ten Foot Bunny:
I'm not surprised by this move, but only because it's in keeping with their classy policies that ensure a great experience for all. For those who haven't been to an Alamo Drafthouse, you really should go if you have the chance!

Oh God, I JUST connected the name with the YouTube videos where people bitch about how they wouldn't let them talk on their cell phones or whatever. I LOVE THAT!

Of course, the closest one to me is in Yonkers, so I probably won't go to one any time soon.

FalloutJack:

Wouldn't taking a pair of glasses that expensive to record stuff from a theater be considered a textbook definition of 'doing it wrong'?

Assuming it's the sole reason, yes. But I doubt anyone came up with the idea solely to pirate movies. Then again, people will spend hundreds of dollars to mod their consoles to play pirated games, so maybe someone really would pay over a grand just to get pirated movies, I don't know.

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason. I do not particularly like being photographed by surveillance cameras in businesses and prefer to shop in places that don't have them, but have accepted that it happens. I am also involved in movements to reduce the number of publicly funded surveillance cameras.

What part of that would allow you to justify assaulting someone?

Zachary Amaranth:

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason. I do not particularly like being photographed by surveillance cameras in businesses and prefer to shop in places that don't have them, but have accepted that it happens. I am also involved in movements to reduce the number of publicly funded surveillance cameras.

What part of that would allow you to justify assaulting someone?

Where have I said I intend to assault anyone?

Flames66:

Zachary Amaranth:

Flames66:

The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason. I do not particularly like being photographed by surveillance cameras in businesses and prefer to shop in places that don't have them, but have accepted that it happens. I am also involved in movements to reduce the number of publicly funded surveillance cameras.

What part of that would allow you to justify assaulting someone?

Where have I said I intend to assault anyone?

The part where you said you were considering slapping the glasses off of people's faces.

That was hyperbole, but it's not clear.

Flames66:

Where have I said I intend to assault anyone?

When you're talking about potentially slapping the glasses off someone's face, you're talking about potentially assaulting someone.

Strazdas:

drednoahl:

I've trademarked my face and any images of my face are owned by my company. I've had to do this because of folks like you, and I will vigorously defend my right to privacy even though I'm not that bothered about nobodies like you taking images of me without my consent (not that bothered by intelligence agencies doing it either - I'm a nobody myself.) Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that... and I'm not having that, not now, not never. Anyone using glass is just an unpaid corporate drone who while happily violating my right to privacy it makes me wonder just who or what else they are happy to violate just because it suits them.

seriuosly? you trademarked a face? ech, and noone is stopping me from taking your photo still. the only stop you have here is if i were to use it for commercial purpose or a freeware product. you are in public space, i take pictures of public space, i have every right to do that, you dont have a right to do anything about it. regardless of your trademarks. i cant use your face in some kind of video i post on youtube, but then i couldnt do that trademark or no.
Good luck living in fear.

In my country taking my picture against my will constitutes harassment, which is against the law.

My local pub has already decided to ban the use of glass within their establishment under advice from their legal team and local police; I checked after reading your post just to make sure I don't have to tolerate crap from people like you in future... at least off the internet anyway. While the laws in the US are probably much different than where I live it wouldn't surprise me that this brand of cinemas had been advised to ban the use of glass for exactly the same reasons as my local bar did.

Good luck living in fear? Where did that come from? I'm not trying to violate anybodies rights. I'm not a technononce - that's the label a copper I know uses for the folks who want glass (because the only people interested in glass are sex pests/pedos/voyeurs etc.) I have nothing to fear, I just object to corporations making money whoring out information/images that should by all rights be mine and mine alone to sell. I've certainly nothing to fear from the likes of you; I know my rights and the proper procedure to enforce them lawfully.

drednoahl:

Strazdas:

drednoahl:

I've trademarked my face and any images of my face are owned by my company. I've had to do this because of folks like you, and I will vigorously defend my right to privacy even though I'm not that bothered about nobodies like you taking images of me without my consent (not that bothered by intelligence agencies doing it either - I'm a nobody myself.) Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that... and I'm not having that, not now, not never. Anyone using glass is just an unpaid corporate drone who while happily violating my right to privacy it makes me wonder just who or what else they are happy to violate just because it suits them.

seriuosly? you trademarked a face? ech, and noone is stopping me from taking your photo still. the only stop you have here is if i were to use it for commercial purpose or a freeware product. you are in public space, i take pictures of public space, i have every right to do that, you dont have a right to do anything about it. regardless of your trademarks. i cant use your face in some kind of video i post on youtube, but then i couldnt do that trademark or no.
Good luck living in fear.

In my country taking my picture against my will constitutes harassment, which is against the law.

My local pub has already decided to ban the use of glass within their establishment under advice from their legal team and local police; I checked after reading your post just to make sure I don't have to tolerate crap from people like you in future... at least off the internet anyway. While the laws in the US are probably much different than where I live it wouldn't surprise me that this brand of cinemas had been advised to ban the use of glass for exactly the same reasons as my local bar did.

Good luck living in fear? Where did that come from? I'm not trying to violate anybodies rights. I'm not a technononce - that's the label a copper I know uses for the folks who want glass (because the only people interested in glass are sex pests/pedos/voyeurs etc.) I have nothing to fear, I just object to corporations making money whoring out information/images that should by all rights be mine and mine alone to sell. I've certainly nothing to fear from the likes of you; I know my rights and the proper procedure to enforce them lawfully.

Question: Who are you? I mean, legitimately, are you a person of importance? Some celebrity or debutant or king? Do you walk in the shadows to dodge Paparazzi on a daily basis? Because if the answer was no, what makes you think that if you're not being followed around now, you will when the tech is there? My phone can take a picture of you, just because it's in a head mounted format doesn't change that. You don't live in a bubble, friend. And the second you're in public, and have left your own property, you have to cope with the issues with being in public.

And no, augmentation technology serves to break out into things that would make the next step in it more then just "take pictures of things" (thought I guarantee you're meaningless to the general user anyways. I've a good idea half it's usage would be to remember brands and the ilk, take pictures of cats, or their meal). People, in general, are mostly focused on their own things to be interested in you, and unless their taking pictures of you in your car or in your home in general you're not what they're taking pictures of.

And really? Freaking really? The only reason someone would want this kinda tech explored is because they're sexual deviants? That is ignorance. That is like saying someone only gets a prosthetic arm to masturbate. Glass is expensive right now, but when it can mimic prescriptions and is small enough? Hell yes I'll get one. I draw for a living, and to be able to do that better then I could alone? Yes, absolutely. You worry you're right to privacy is being hindered, I worry people like you are the cap that holds humanity down.

That being said, trademarking your face sounds kinda awesome. Not for the Joe Blow boogie-men you seem to infer, but for the actual companies like Facebook who do find value in your information. As long as you remember to keep paying up for this indefinitely without fail. Otherwise I'm going to buy your trademark and use your likeness on EVERYTHING. Enjoy being the spokesman for Google Glass in 2025.

Flames66:

I get to decide because it's my body you are photographing.

i photograph you with my mind every time i look at you. no, you dont get to decide. i look where i want.

Staring makes people uncomfortable. It is rude because you are inflicting feelings of discomfort on another person. Don't.

why does it make them feel uncomfortable? is it because of their misconception of me being rude?

Many people do, including me. I find the idea of someone being able to look out of the eyes of anyone around me terrifying.

So your terrified of people looking at you, fine, dont leave your house i guess?

I have a list of books you can read that might help you understand the opposing view, if you're interested.

I understand the opposing view, i just think its wrong.

Zachary Amaranth:

Really? Because everything I've seen, including news stories here, indicate cinema is growing. And is predicted to continue to grow.

This is true of many (perhaps all) of the industries piracy is "killing."

As far as I can tell, you might as well be saying PC gaming is dying.

do you have any sources? because at least in my country cinemas are closing down and consolidating quite a lot.

Also piracy was never killing cinemas, because cinemas are experience. piracy was blamed for killing things like DVD sales, but in reality the problem if not being able to download a movie legally was what was killing them.

Then again, people will spend hundreds of dollars to mod their consoles to play pirated games, so maybe someone really would pay over a grand just to get pirated movies, I don't know.

Ech, what? There are plenty free guides on the internet to mod your consoles to accept pirated games. even technocally illeterate can hire services to do that for something like 20 dollars, plenty of ads about it around.

drednoahl:

In my country taking my picture against my will constitutes harassment, which is against the law.

My local pub has already decided to ban the use of glass within their establishment under advice from their legal team and local police; I checked after reading your post just to make sure I don't have to tolerate crap from people like you in future... at least off the internet anyway. While the laws in the US are probably much different than where I live it wouldn't surprise me that this brand of cinemas had been advised to ban the use of glass for exactly the same reasons as my local bar did.

Good luck living in fear? Where did that come from? I'm not trying to violate anybodies rights. I'm not a technononce - that's the label a copper I know uses for the folks who want glass (because the only people interested in glass are sex pests/pedos/voyeurs etc.) I have nothing to fear, I just object to corporations making money whoring out information/images that should by all rights be mine and mine alone to sell. I've certainly nothing to fear from the likes of you; I know my rights and the proper procedure to enforce them lawfully.

dont know what country you are in, so the laws may very well be different there.

Your afraid that somone takes a picture of you, have to be afraid of that every time your not alone, so your pretty much living in fear.

Oh, and now your generalizing all glass audience, how nice. how about next time you have a conversation dont insult others by calling them pedos, ech?

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.