What may be the world's first cybernetic hate crime unfolds in French McDonald's

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


Just wanted to clarify that there were two attacks on him. The first one, which caused the photos to be taken, was when one of the perpetrators grabbed a hold of and tried to yank off the EyeTap, which is bolted to Mann's head. This attack was what caused the EyeTap damage, and thereby made it take the photos. The second attack was after the photos were taken, when they grabbed and threw him out of the restaurant.

Other than that, I'll just say, what you say makes sense, but I'm a huge fan of cybernetic technology, and personally I don't think we should let anonymity hold us back from developing the tech. But as I said, what you say makes sense, so, I'm not going to try and push my opinion on you on the issue.

And where is the motive for this assault? The protection of corporate assets?

I found this to be quite an offense - considering that MacDonalds is so cautious about public relations....

Now, I know it is probably and exaggeration, but I have heard that some people in France can become very offensive with Americans in particular due to the powerful stereotyping the popular media and culture engenders.... I recall one account of a boy who went to a bakery to buy baguettes 'practicing his french" and was summarily ejected from the place because he "offended" the clerk with his oafish American mannerisms....

reply to post by CrimsonMoon


The fact you condone their assault is enough for me to ignore you from now on. Toodles, yo.

reply to post by Gauss


Damn! If McDonalds employees respond this violently, imagine how cops are going to respond! Get pulled over while wearing one of those things, and you are in for some real trouble!

I don't see how a boycott of McDonalds makes any sense though? The 3 perpetrators ought to be fired and have assault charges pressed, but the corporation really isn't at fault is it?

reply to post by CrimsonMoon


You do realize they attacked a man for being physically impaired.....right..

You are not just siding with rude French people and they way they piss on tourists?

Even in your view of the world....touching another person is an invasion of privacy and space....destroying their property is a violation of their rights....even in a BS PC world.

reply to post by CrimsonMoon


reply to post by Gauss


Question;

If the device only recorded images as a result of the attack/damage, how then were images of witness 1 and 2 taking during their food order at the counter prior to the incident?

Damage in my mind would result after/during the attack and thus record either minimal footage or nothing of the actual attack unless the images are continuously taken and stored within the device. To me it appears that if recording someone without their knowledge/permission is illegal in France, that information could be conveniently left out of the device's description to avoid legal action against him which is ironic that one law is broken to provide evidence of another law being broken...anyone else see the problem that lies within?

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


Spot on, you can bet we will see variations of these devices on law enforcement and security to "enhance" their abilities.
While I support anyone's use of such a device as a medical necessity I can see the ramifications that might make one uncomfortable about such technology as well.

wow, that's a story right out of amped.

Upon reading the article, it sounds like Mann courts trouble with this thing. I wonder if folks fear that he's spying on them, or their surroundings. In this day and age, with terrorism fears running rampant, a guy with a computer eye attached to his skull is going to draw attention and some fear.

What's most troubling to me, however, is that this guy was in Paris and opted for MacDonalds.

Humans are so sad.

reply to post by Maxmars


I seem to recall that story as well, though that might just be my mind playing tricks on me (Got to get my cybernetics updated to the latest firmware. You know what a hassle that stuff is. ), but I do know that French people are very much (for European standards) sensitive about their language.

From what I've heard (Yeah, it's hearsay so take it with a grain of salt, folks) many will refuse to speak English in favor of French even towards tourists. I also get a feeling that French people do not care much for Americans, so I could definitely see somebody react that way, unfortunately.

I think a case could be made for a "personal witness"
Like a permantent record everyone carries with them, that records 24/7......
Then it would be a matter of rerunning any time sequence to provide proof of what happened....who did what, etc etc....
The Devices are nearly technogically possible, and they would be invaluable for man different applications....
You can bet people woud be a lot more circumspect when they all knew they were on record.....
The crime rate would plummet...people would stop lying a whole bunch....
And the result overa would beneficial to the world...
Acess to ones personal witness device, would be high restricted, and regulated so that personal privacy would be protected but wirth everyones device always with them, witnesses could easily be found who could provide a record...
I am sure ill here big brother cries but it has a certain apeal.....

reply to post by getreadyalready


That's a scary thought indeed. Imagine the kind of damage an overzealous tazering cop could do to someone with that kind of gear. The good part is there'd likely be others with EyeTap as well, in the neighbouring area, which would allow a lot of people to capture events of the tazering cop nature, so in that aspect it would definitely be a good thing.

reply to post by Crakeur


HAHA I hadn't even thought about that....

Well I would too just because its France....they really are scum bags to foreigners....I don't like them too much. Bad times.

But secretly I love their food.....not more than Italy though

Originally posted by Ericthenewbie
reply to post by CrimsonMoon

 

reply to post by Gauss

 

Question;

If the device only recorded images as a result of the attack/damage, how then were images of witness 1 and 2 taking during their food order at the counter prior to the incident?

Damage in my mind would result after/during the attack and thus record either minimal footage or nothing of the actual attack unless the images are continuously taken and stored within the device. To me it appears that if recording someone without their knowledge/permission is illegal in France, that information could be conveniently left out of the device's description to avoid legal action against him which is ironic that one law is broken to provide evidence of another law being broken...anyone else see the problem that lies within?

That is a very good question that I did not think of. I suppose it would be possible that the "buffered" images would be stored for a time period dating all the way back to when they ordered their meals. That would explain that. The other explanation is of course that Mann is lying, but seeing as how big the research around the thing is (Him being a professor at a university and all), I don't see how he could get away with lying about the EyeTap not recording things if it did.

My 2 cents on the issue. Nice job on catching that one, dude.

reply to post by stirling


That would be one possible future with this technology, and an interesting one at that. I can't say that I would mind. I like anonymity as much as the next person, but something like this would probably change how we look at the concept of anonymity altogether, for better or for worse.

reply to post by Gauss


Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult but the justification of two attacks taking place is accurate but still doesn't explain how witness 1 and 2 's images are captured behind the counter as the article indicates that they were not involved in either of the the two attacks that occurred after their order was taken and the man and his family were seated.

Hmmm..How do I say this without offending you, I apologize in advance but the attitude you have towards technology being cool and fascinating and that it should trump one's personal right to privacy is what's wrong with our society today. This attitude will only increase the means by which our population is further enslaved to corporations and governments. Once you realize this fact it will likely be too far gone to change.

reply to post by Ericthenewbie


No worries, dude. I see your point about my attitude towards technology. To me, though, I see things beyond the simple perspective of good, evil, dystopia and utopia. Firstly, I don't see technology as inherently good or evil, but more importantly, I see technology as another step in our evolution. In essence, I guess I'm taking a dozen steps back and look at the huge picture, rather than just the concerns about privacy and safety, and our enslavement to corporations, which may last for a period of human history, but not for eternity, so to speak, whereas technology and human evolution will last til the end of our days as a species.

But, I do acknowledge that they are there, which is why I am careful when it comes to debating this kind of technology on that specific issue. Mainly because I don't want the headache of being responsible for deciding if they're safe or not, but also because there are people much more suited for debating the specific anonymity issue than me.

As for your first question about how the photos of the cashier were taken, CLPrime quoted his blog on the issue, which explains it better than I can:

The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system. As a result of Perpetrator 1's actions, therefore images that would not have otherwise been captured were captured. Therefore by damaging the Eye Glass, Perpetrator 1 photographed himself and others within McDonalds.

So in essence, my theory is that the amount of "buffered" pictures went so far back as to when they ordered the food, and just had not been overwritten yet when the perpetrator tried to yank the EyeTap off his head.

What an idiotic policy when cameras are so easily hidden. To have one in plain sight shows honesty, a trait McDonald's is against. I hope they get what they deserve. A public restaurant has no right to ban filming.

Originally posted by earthdude
What an idiotic policy when cameras are so easily hidden. To have one in plain sight shows honesty, a trait McDonald's is against. I hope they get what they deserve. A public restaurant has no right to ban filming.

Actually a public restaurant has every right to ban filming, but that isn't what this is about. McDonalds didn't ban filming, but some idiots in there attacked a guy on their own.

If McDonalds did ban filming, and they put a sign on their door, and they refused you service and asked you to leave, that would be well within their rights, and I would have no problem with it. BUT, this was just some idiots attacking something they don't understand, it wasn't company policy to beat up everyone with a fake eye, LOL!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'm pretty sure if they had signs there saying "No filming", and if they had asked him to take off his eye or whatever, he would have complied by covering it up or somesuch. I seriously doubt he was looking for trouble. (Though clearly, he wasn't looking for food either, since he was going to McDonalds). So, yeah, this was pretty senseless, and I suspect, a sign of things to come when we in the future will become more and more integrated with technology. Interesting times ahead.

reply to post by Gauss


Unfortunately I think you have made an assumption on my views of technology as I didn't state good or evil in regards to the technology but rather how the technology could be used for evil. Like the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

So the image "buffering" is stored for what seems like an over abundant amount of time...after all stop to think about how many things the eye can see and process in seconds let alone minutes... in this case the man has the opportunity to place his order and then sit with his family prior to the first altercation and then walk over to where the second attack occurs (while all three individuals read the documentation he provides) and still have the images "buffering" in storage?!?

As for your statement in regards to "taking twelve steps back and looking at a bigger picture...." that's your opinion and you are entitled to it however my opinion would indicate you are still only looking through the key hole towards the future.

Also the statement that technology and humanity will be around forever only further proves my statement in the previous paragraph as an EMP blast either from the sun or man made would wipe most if not all technologies out ( unless protect in faraday cages) thus sending humanity back to the stone ages.

Please don't consider this an attack on your personal beliefs but rather as an opportunity to expand the depth and breadth of your thinking.