Google Glass Banned From Alamo Drafthouse

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
24,759
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?