Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse


Famously strict theater chain says NO to Google's controversial tech toy

Google Glass has been the subject of controversy since the technology debuted, pitting the percieved rights of some to not be filmmed without consent against the percieved rights of others to walk around with a camera strapped to their face. Now, the Alamo Drafthouse movie theater chain has joined the list of private businesses that have decided to not allow the devices on their premises; though in this case for reasons relating to the potential use of Glass technology for movie piracy.

Often refered to only as "Glass," Google Glass is a wearable computer built around an Optical Head-Mounted Display technology. Though not yet widely adopted, institutions with existing bans on recording devices of any kind (like casinos) moved to ban Glass almost immediately. Seperate controversies concerning the use of Glass in spaces like restaurants, mass-transit and restrooms have followed, along with concerns over whether it would be legal to use in countries with especially strict anti-spying laws.

Founded in 1997 in Austin Texas (with more recent expansions throughout the state and now nationwide) by Tim and Karrie League, The Alamo Drafthouse theater chain is highly regarded by devoted film fans for its commitment to inventive programming, popular events like Fantastic Fest and Butt-Numb-A-Thon, trendsetting in-theater food/drink service and association with prominent web-based film journalists like Harry Knowles and Devin Faraci.

Its greatest claim to fame (and cinephiles' hearts), though, comes from its stringent in-theater etiquette policy: Talking, texting and phone use are banned outright, and violators can be removed from the premises - even if they happen to be Madonna. [http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/madonna-alamo-drafthouse-1200724871/] Children under the age of six and unaccompanied minors are also prohibited.

Drafthouse CEO Tim League stated that the ban has been under consideration for "over a year," and enforcement would be conducted on a case by case basis with regard to those using Glass as their primary eyewear. Google has not issued a statement regarding the ban at this time.


Source: Deadline [http://www.deadline.com/2014/06/alamo-drafthouse-bans-google-glass-in-movie-theaters/]

[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/content/e3-2014]

Permalink
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I understand it, even if its a bit dated industry. You don't need a bulky camera anymore, you can record from your glasses.

Cinemas are already dying from on-demand and digital distribution, and those pirates aren't exactly helpful to an already dying industry by scooping up video for incredibly poor people with bad internet. Or things can get creepy with perverts using glass in the dark (you paid to be in a dark room with a sex offender with night vision goggles. Hope you feel good about that choice.), etc. Or they just record it and rewatch that if they are really, really stingy.

Still, kudos for banning toddlers. Can't tell you how many times a parent brings in a crying kid because they can't find someone to dump him with when theaters were still popular. Seriously, who brings a small child to see Silent Hill?

Eh, haven't been to a theater in years since about 2006 because the internet is awesome. Doesn't effect me. I wonder if the new generation finding theaters pointless messes with profit margins for studios. Or is not going to the theater in 8 years abnormal?
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints! And, I have to say I agree with the ban. Unless you're using the Glass as eyewear (although, why would you?), I see no reason to have it on; especially if it turns you into a walking camera.
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.

I'd honestly go to the cinemas more often.
 

RedBackDragon

New member
Apr 22, 2013
100
0
0
VanQ said:
All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.

I'd honestly go to the cinemas more often.
Right on brother , i cant stand the cinemas here they cost a mint and arent worth a echidna for the experience.
 

Fat Hippo

Prepare to be Gnomed
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,991
56
33
Gender
Gnomekin
I understand their reasoning, but I can't really imagine many people doing a very good job of pirating a movie by wearing google glass. I mean, if you wanted it be of decent quality, you wouldn't be able to move your head. At all. For two hours. Just pure hell.

Your best bet would be getting a mannequin in your seat and putting the glasses on him, really.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
I gotta say, this sounds like the heaven of Movie theaters. I wish something like that existed over here, aside from chain-theaters, I've only seen one that is a standalone thing while also not being of the "we so artsy" types.
 

Calderon0311

New member
May 9, 2009
84
0
0
I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.

Likewise, their cell phone policy makes sense since a phone can be deactivated for the duration of a movie. (either by turning it off, or silencing it) Glass is likewise linked to one's phone and so any major changes to a user's phone will also reflect to Glasses' functionality. (Turning off one's phone makes Glass unusable for most tasks.)

While it is too early to say if Glass will become a mainstream tech, banning it outright is only going to push the issues of "patrons with wearable computers" to be decided at a later date as this will only affect the early adopters and prevent any real-world testing of "How do we live in a world of wearables?".
 

Metadigital

New member
May 5, 2014
103
0
0
I've been going to Alamo Drafthouse for over 10 years. It's a fantastic chain. Their attention to detail is amazing and their policies ensure your movie is never ruined. It's one of the only places I'll see a movie that's not my home.

On a related note, their rule on children varies from location to location. For instance, the one near me is strictly 18+. No kids unless there's a movie that specifies children can come see (usually during the daytime).

I'm not shocked they have this ban on Google Glass considering they'll toss you out on your ass just for lighting up your cell phone. They're serious about their customers following basic levels of courtesy and putting away all technology during a movie. Maybe some restaurants should follow this example to encourage people to talk to each other without keyboards more.
 

Ieyke

New member
Jul 24, 2008
1,402
0
0
King Whurdler said:
How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints!
They are.
We have numerous Alamo Drafthouses in Houston.

The only complaint I have is that they used to have EXCELLENT food, and some kind of recent management bullshit fucked that up.
They may have fixed it since then. Been a while since I checked.
 

Revolutionary

Pub Club Am Broken
May 30, 2009
1,833
0
0
Fat_Hippo said:
/snip

Your best bet would be getting a mannequin in your seat and putting the glasses on him, really.
That mental image had me in stitches.
OT: Fair enough, Can't think of a reason why they should be allowed.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
I've joked about it in the past, but seriously, Escapist: get your shit together. These are basic spelling and grammar errors. MovieBob should run a spellcheck of his own, and the editors here should double-check something before publishing it. I enjoy the content, but it is frankly pathetic to see this happening over and over again.
MovieBob said:
Google Glass has been the subject of controversy since the technology debuted, pitting the percieved rights of some to not be filmmed without consent against the percieved rights of others to walk around with a camera strapped to their face.
The words are spelled "perceived" and "filmed".
Often refered to only as "Glass,"
Should be spelled "referred".
Seperate controversies concerning the use of Glass
Should be "Separate".
Its greatest claim to fame (and cinephiles hearts), though, comes from its stringent in-theater ettiquet policy
"Etiquette" and "cinephiles' hearts".
 

Rylot

New member
May 14, 2010
1,819
0
0
I was so excited when I moved down here to Austin and could eat a full meal at a theater. But then it only got better when the Movie House and Eatery opened on 620. You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.
 

Ragnar47183

New member
Mar 5, 2014
117
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
I understand it, even if its a bit dated industry. You don't need a bulky camera anymore, you can record from your glasses.

Cinemas are already dying from on-demand and digital distribution, and those pirates aren't exactly helpful to an already dying industry by scooping up video for incredibly poor people with bad internet. Or things can get creepy with perverts using glass in the dark (you paid to be in a dark room with a sex offender with night vision goggles. Hope you feel good about that choice.), etc. Or they just record it and rewatch that if they are really, really stingy.

Still, kudos for banning toddlers. Can't tell you how many times a parent brings in a crying kid because they can't find someone to dump him with when theaters were still popular. Seriously, who brings a small child to see Silent Hill?

Eh, haven't been to a theater in years since about 2006 because the internet is awesome. Doesn't effect me. I wonder if the new generation finding theaters pointless messes with profit margins for studios. Or is not going to the theater in 8 years abnormal?
I think you've nailed it. I haven't been to the movies in ages. I have more than enough stuff to watch with netflix, youtube, hulu, and amazon there is no reason to go to the movies. Especially since I can have a huge tv, much better food, and don't have to pay 5 bucks for a small drink. I can also pause the movie if I need to use the restroom and I don't even need to have pants on! Cinemas are dated.
 

Rylot

New member
May 14, 2010
1,819
0
0
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.
Isn't that called you house? :)
If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.
 

Ragnar47183

New member
Mar 5, 2014
117
0
0
Rylot said:
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.
Isn't that called you house? :)
If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.
Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.
 

Rylot

New member
May 14, 2010
1,819
0
0
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.
Isn't that called you house? :)
If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.
Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.
Yeah, I'd like a bigger tv but the whole poor thing... I'm also pretty good at cooking so I wind up doing all of it while in a relationship. And I just got out of a three year relationship thing, so no thanks! If only I could get my dog to cook.
 

Ragnar47183

New member
Mar 5, 2014
117
0
0
Rylot said:
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
Ragnar47183 said:
Rylot said:
You get to eat at a theater, have your own recliner and a blanket. If I wasn't so poor I'd be there every weekend.
Isn't that called you house? :)
If only my house had a giant screen and other people to make food for me. I'd never leave.
Big screens arent to expensive anymore. I have a girlfriend that makes food for me. They make a lot of noise but I think they are worth it. You should go pick on up. :p.
Yeah, I'd like a bigger tv but the whole poor thing... I'm also pretty good at cooking so I wind up doing all of it while in a relationship. And I just got out of a three year relationship thing, so no thanks! If only I could get my dog to cook.
I'd love it if my dogs did anything other than sleep and get hair everywhere. Wish they could at least fetch me drinks. lol.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Calderon0311 said:
I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.
It seems to me that having prescription Google Glass is a terrible idea, especially if they are ones only eye wear. Here are some reasons:

1. Theft

If someone robs a person with prescription GGlass, they will not only be out of pocket but blind.

2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.

3. This Cinema problem

For the reasons above.

4. Style

They don't look that great.
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
Individual theaters banning camera-equipped devices is pointless, because as long as one person anywhere in the world is able to snag a copy of a movie and put it online, it won't matter how many billions of people weren't. And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.

Calderon0311 said:
I can understand the sentiment for banning Glass, but I do home that Alamo consider reversing this decision in the future. While the technology isn't widely available in the consumer space yet, the ability to replace one's prescription glasses with a G.Glass augmentation will make it difficult for people to "leave Glass at home" when it's their only mode of vision.
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Steve the Pocket said:
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.
Wouldn't taking a pair of glasses that expensive to record stuff from a theater be considered a textbook definition of 'doing it wrong'?

OT: Well, since a business has the right to refuse service for reasons that it considers viable, and there's already an extreme amount of "Turn off your cellphone, dammit!", this seems to be fairly-reasonable a request.
 

kael013

New member
Jun 12, 2010
422
0
0
OT: Well the only part about this story that's surprising is that it took them this long to finish their considerations.

Flames66 said:
I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.
Can someone please politely explain why people are so worked up about this? Every time you walk into a business you're being recorded without permission - I at least never told Walmart it was OK to record me, but they don't seem to want to turn off the security cameras when I go shopping. Beyond that, think about the types of people who would photograph you with a camera, be it GGlass or a phone. Random people photographing you is slim to nonexistent because, generally, people only record others who are significant to them. That means those who will photograph you can be divided into two groups: the creeps/stalkers and friends. First off the creeps/perverts/stalkers will record you for their own sick, twisted pleasure - which, if my college psych classes taught me anything, [i/]tend to be kept private[/i] - so if one of these guys uses a camera to record you you and the rest of the world will most likely never know. Secondly relatives, friends, or relatives of friends who are capturing a moment they think should be remembered because it's funny, heartwarming, inspiring, etc. care about what you think. So they'll respect your wishes and edit/delete it if you told them to.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Flames66 said:
as opposed to regular glasses being unstealable?
2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.
this is wrong and you should feel bad. it is NOT privacy infringement to take a photo of you. in fact, we do this every single time we look at you, with our eyes, and save it in our memory. taking photos is nothing but a way to remember better and i have every right to take a photo of everything i see. and if your going to hit me for it prepare to meet me in front of a judge.
3. This Cinema problem
So i take it they fixed the multitude of problems of it being in any way better than a hnadheld camera? erm, no they didnt, the point here is moot. if anyone is going to go so far out of thier way to record something with GG, they bloody well deserve to have the recording.
here we can agree, the design looks horrible.




Steve the Pocket said:
And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.
bad camera footage that noone but the most impatient downloads come from cameras in theaters. often you do get a theater print which nowadays often come in BR discs because apparently image quality does not matter for theaters anymore either.
i also laugh at 50 dollar specs. good luck finding quality specs for that price.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
kael013 said:
OT: Well the only part about this story that's surprising is that it took them this long to finish their considerations.

Flames66 said:
I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.
Can someone please politely explain why people are so worked up about this? Every time you walk into a business you're being recorded without permission - I at least never told Walmart it was OK to record me, but they don't seem to want to turn off the security cameras when I go shopping.
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.

Strazdas said:
Flames66 said:
as opposed to regular glasses being unstealable?
My previous post already answers this.
2. Privacy

I have consider slapping GGlass off the face of anyone I see looking in my direction with them because they might be photographing me without my permission. Not being able to take them off will only add to that conflict.
this is wrong and you should feel bad. it is NOT privacy infringement to take a photo of you. in fact, we do this every single time we look at you, with our eyes, and save it in our memory. taking photos is nothing but a way to remember better and i have every right to take a photo of everything i see. and if your going to hit me for it prepare to meet me in front of a judge.
That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.

3. This Cinema problem
So i take it they fixed the multitude of problems of it being in any way better than a hnadheld camera? erm, no they didnt, the point here is moot. if anyone is going to go so far out of thier way to record something with GG, they bloody well deserve to have the recording.
Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.

Steve the Pocket said:
And doesn't said copy usually come from a leak of the actual print, not some douche with a camcorder? If this were a decision mandated by the MPAA that all theaters had to follow, I could understand it.
If you can afford a $1500 pair of techno-glasses, you can afford a $50 backup pair of regular specs.
bad camera footage that noone but the most impatient downloads come from cameras in theaters. often you do get a theater print which nowadays often come in BR discs because apparently image quality does not matter for theaters anymore either.
i also laugh at 50 dollar specs. good luck finding quality specs for that price.
You can buy a pair of glasses for £1 in at least 3 shops near here.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Flames66 said:
The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.
Its not. it does not matter what you want.

My previous post already answers this.
No it didnt.

That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.
you, of course, have a right to be silly. And it is not privacy infringement, no matter how much you wished it was. It would only be privacy infringement if it happened in your private territory (for example in your house). And even then, if the photos taken would be showing you commiting a crime or even public disturbance - they would no longer be privacy infringement according to law.

Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.
Just like you, they also have a right to be silly.

You can buy a pair of glasses for £1 in at least 3 shops near here.
Do tell me in what shop i can buy quality glasses for £1. im sure all those people spending hundreds on glasses would love this!
 

Ten Foot Bunny

I'm more of a dishwasher girl
Mar 19, 2014
807
0
0
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!
 

Saetha

New member
Jan 19, 2014
824
0
0
Meh, I had no intention of getting Google Glass anyway, and Drafthouse is too awesome for me to really care about this.

King Whurdler said:
How have I never heard of this chain? They sound like saints! And, I have to say I agree with the ban. Unless you're using the Glass as eyewear (although, why would you?), I see no reason to have it on; especially if it turns you into a walking camera.
They're pretty cool. I'm lucky enough to live near one and it's always my preferred option, even with the slightly more expensive tickets and slightly less workable movie times... but they're not a very big chain. I think they have about thirty theaters nationwide. Most of them located in Texas.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Strazdas said:
Flames66 said:
The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.
Its not. it does not matter what you want.
Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.

My previous post already answers this.
No it didnt.
Ok, I see what is missing. I'm trying to say that someone with expensive technology strapped to their face is more likely to be robbed than someone with a pair of cheap glasses.

That is why I considered it and decided against it. I have decided that a better response is to disown anyone I know who wears GGlass for anything other than specific uses. Also, it is privacy infringement if I decide I do not want my photograph taken, for any reason.
you, of course, have a right to be silly. And it is not privacy infringement, no matter how much you wished it was. It would only be privacy infringement if it happened in your private territory (for example in your house). And even then, if the photos taken would be showing you commiting a crime or even public disturbance - they would no longer be privacy infringement according to law.
I'm not speaking legally here, I'm speaking morally, according to my moral code/compass. I believe it is wrong to take pictures of someone without their permission. Under certain circumstances I also consider it to be a direct attack.

Let's imagine for a moment that I am a famous celebrity. A paparazzi photographer approaches me and sticks a camera in my face. I would immediately stick my fist in his face because he has just attacked me by deliberately invading my space and taking a picture without my permission.

Not according to the people running this particular cinema chain.
Just like you, they also have a right to be silly.
I don't see anything silly about it. They are both defending their business and enforcing good cinema etiquette.

You can buy a pair of glasses for £1 in at least 3 shops near here.
Do tell me in what shop i can buy quality glasses for £1.
Poundland, Poundworld, 99p shop and others.

im sure all those people spending hundreds on glasses would love this!
Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than £10 on a pair of glasses.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Flames66 said:
Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.
no it doesn't and no it shoun't. the world does not revolve around your wishes. images of your body is not part of your body, therefore not your property. they do not belong to you.

Ok, I see what is missing. I'm trying to say that someone with expensive technology strapped to their face is more likely to be robbed than someone with a pair of cheap glasses.
Ok, thats a fair point. lets stop carrying watches and phones while were at it.

I'm not speaking legally here, I'm speaking morally, according to my moral code/compass. I believe it is wrong to take pictures of someone without their permission. Under certain circumstances I also consider it to be a direct attack.

Let's imagine for a moment that I am a famous celebrity. A paparazzi photographer approaches me and sticks a camera in my face. I would immediately stick my fist in his face because he has just attacked me by deliberately invading my space and taking a picture without my permission.
You can have that moral compass, GabeN knows i have a few myself, that does not however allow you to punch somone, which is actually illegal. you may believe it to be wrong, but majority does not, and since there is no logical arguments against it there is no reason to ban it. I can consdier your post a direct attack, does not make it so.

If you were a famous celebrity and hit a paparazzi you would become even more famous, but not the kind of fame you would love i think. likely would see him in court quite a lot as well when he would be making you pay up for the crime you commited.

Poundland, Poundworld, 99p shop and others.
never heard of those so dont know how true it is. anyone whos been in one here can confurm?

Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than £10 on a pair of glasses.
i guess you dont know what quality is then.
 

verdant monkai

New member
Oct 30, 2011
1,519
0
0
VanQ said:
All I really got out of this article is the mad desire for a place like Alamo to exist here in Australia. Oh, to be able to go to a cinema and not have to listen to the wails of some shrieking child and their idiot mother's phone buzzing away with text messages every other minute.
I think you need to go see films with an older rating mate. Sure there are noisy bastards but they can usually be made to shut up if publicly shamed (stand up and announce they are ruining the film for everyone).
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Strazdas said:
Flames66 said:
Then why don't they shop around themselves? I can understand people with silly eyes having to spend more money on lenses but, for basic prescriptions, I can see no reason to ever spend more than £10 on a pair of glasses.
i guess you dont know what quality is then.
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.
 

Grimrider6

New member
Aug 27, 2008
146
0
0
Strazdas said:
Flames66 said:
The fact that I do not want someone to take my photograph should be enough reason.
Its not. it does not matter what you want.
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.

We are living in a surveillance state, online and off, yet people who adore their GGlass want to become voluntary participants in it. With a smartphone, at the very least it's conspicuous to hold the phone up and snap a photo or take some video. With Glass, I'm not entirely sure how to tell whether I'm being recorded and/or uploaded to YouTube. This isn't the sort of world I'd like to live it. It seems more like a dystopian sci-fi horror story to me. And I'm not even going to touch the field day the NSA will have with voluntary roving security cameras strapped to peoples' faces.

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?

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.
 

drednoahl

New member
Nov 23, 2011
120
0
0
Strazdas said:
Flames66 said:
Yes it does, or at least it should. My body is my property and as such any part of it, including images of it, belong to me.
no it doesn't and no it shoun't. the world does not revolve around your wishes. images of your body is not part of your body, therefore not your property. they do not belong to you.
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.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
drednoahl said:
Corporations like google though aim to profit from knowing everything about me, yet I get nothing from them knowing all that
Well, technically you get to use the services they provide without cost. It's arseholish but that's their business model.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
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?
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
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.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Flames66 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Strazdas said:
Grimrider6 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
Grimrider6 said:
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 said:
Grimrider6 said:
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 said:
Grimrider6 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
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 said:
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 ***** 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 said:
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 said:
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?
 

Flames66

New member
Aug 22, 2009
2,311
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Flames66 said:
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?
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Flames66 said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Flames66 said:
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
Flames66 said:
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.
 

drednoahl

New member
Nov 23, 2011
120
0
0
Strazdas said:
drednoahl said:
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.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
drednoahl said:
Strazdas said:
drednoahl said:
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.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Flames66 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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?