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

Originally posted by Gauss
reply to post by Recouper

 

No, I would not disapprove of that unless you were "in my face", i.e., right in front of me, filming me in an obnoxious way. And if I were uncomfortable with it, or if my girl did not like being filmed, I would ask you to stop. If you didn't, I would take the camera from you.

But, here's the big thing. They didn't ask him to stop "filming", or cover up the thing. They didn't even ask him to leave the premisis. They grabbed his EyeTap, and tried to yank it off his head. Then they tore up his doctor's papers, and then they grabbed him, pulled him out of his chair and threw him out of the restaurant.

See, when I was in the Army, there was something roughly translated to "Escalating stairs of violence" (Much easier to pronounce in Swedish). The concept is fairly easy to understand; Use only as much violence as is required by the situation. Use only as much violence as you can defend the use of in court.

These people used excessive amounts of violence where none was needed. The camera in his face isn't the issue here. The issue is their un-provoked aggression and use of force against a customer, without ample appliance of diplomacy before resorting to violence.

edit on 17-7-2012 by Gauss because: (no reason given)

I agree with that. They were way out of line escalating in that way. I didn't make that clear, sorry.

For me, I'm surprised that a number of commenters here don't seem to see any problem with what this researcher is doing. Having said that, his social indiscretion is somewhat balanced by the fact that it is research and I suspect most would be willing to make allowances for that, but it would not be unreasonable to expect him to show himself to be sensitive towards people’s feelings regarding the position he's putting them in.

The assault was entirely unacceptable, certainly.

So what do you guys estimate the poor dude will receive in damages and compensation, whats the going rate if you are assaulted by a group of french neds with sub 100 IQs(McDonalds staff)? Factor in that its probably the worlds largest fast food chain and im thinking this dude's about to be £2 or £3 million in the black!

Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by Gauss

 

Probably not allowed to film or photograph inside McD's since supersize me they are probably a bit twitchy about it. Beside what right does he have to go round photo graphing and filming people without their permission.

Id assault his ass too if he came round my place and started filming my wife/kids without permission. The French arn't like Americans they stand up for themselves, their culture and their beliefs, they certainly wont put up with some cheeky yank with a fancy camera.

btw I would hardly call McD's a restaurant...

This is one of the major problems, he idea that people have the right to control what others see, think or feel.

If you're that worried about your image, you really should be working on some sort of device to wipe peoples memory of your face.

What difference does it make if there are images of you? Why is so different from a person SEEING you? Why is it so different from the CCTV cameras in every venue you enter? Do you go to management every time and demand that the images of your kids be wiped? Of course not.

And the idea that everyone is a potential sexual deviant is pretty worrying too. No doubt you're one of those people who screams "won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!" at every opportunity too?

You must be terrified of life if you're suspicious of every Human around you.

Originally posted by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by Gauss

 

Probably not allowed to film or photograph inside McD's since supersize me they are probably a bit twitchy about it. Beside what right does he have to go round photo graphing and filming people without their permission.

Id assault his ass too if he came round my place and started filming my wife/kids without permission. The French arn't like Americans they stand up for themselves, their culture and their beliefs, they certainly wont put up with some cheeky yank with a fancy camera.

btw I would hardly call McD's a restaurant...

You sound like you've had your ass handed to you yourself on a number of occasions.
Does it make you feel like a big man, to try & assault a man in front of his family? Would you assault a police officer, a newsman, if they pointed a camera in your direction?
Get over yourself, kid.

Originally posted by Recouper
For me, I'm surprised that a number of commenters here don't seem to see any problem with what this researcher is doing. Having said that, his social indiscretion is somewhat balanced by the fact that it is research and I suspect most would be willing to make allowances for that, but it would not be unreasonable to expect him to show himself to be sensitive towards people’s feelings regarding the position he's putting them in.

The assault was entirely unacceptable, certainly.

I really don't understand what the big deal is. Are you calling for all phones with cameras to be banned in public? How about people taking photos on the beach, or on holiday somewhere, are they permitted?

I just don't understand the mentality here. What harm is being done if you are caught in an image? You're still anonymous, it's not like an image of you automatically adds your bank account details, social security number, age, criminal history and address to be seen by anyone.

The only problem I have with images being taken is when those images are able to be used by government, or by corporations for profit, without consulting me.

I have no problem with someone in the street taking an image of me, because I have other more pressing things to be concerned about. I don't think it's any different to someone remembering me.

Interesting twist on this...
If someone sees you, and they happen to be a remarkable artist with an eidetic memory, and they create a precise image of you, how would you feel about that? Is that an invasion of privacy? Is that breaching your rights in some way?

Like I said, I don't understand what the big deal is.

Originally posted by phroziac
Did you folks know its legal to photograph folks without permission? How else do tabloids exist? Its only when you sell the photos that permission is needed..

Actually, it depends on your local and national laws. Here in the UK, the photographer owns the picture, the copyright, et-al, even if its of someone else, and he can legally sell it without the subjects consent and theres not a thing they can do about it. Except whine.

Some private citizens believe, erronously, that they need to have signed a "model release form", in order for him to sell it. Not true. Thats just a respect thing, asking for permission to sell it. It is not actually required in law (it also makes dealing with any subsequent whining a bit easier).

If it were required, the paparazzi are breaking the law each time they press the shutter release, and they aren't.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I really don't understand what the big deal is. Are you calling for all phones with cameras to be banned in public? How about people taking photos on the beach, or on holiday somewhere, are they permitted?

No, I'm not calling for that. At least where I'm from, people I don't know don't purposefully take pictures or footage of me without warning or seeking my consent during face to face dealings. Much like "ladies first" when going through a doorway, it's such an ingrained social standard that I have difficulty imagining how I would deal with somebody doing that.
I'm sure I've been captured in the background of people’s shots; I may have even been part of a crowd scape for all I know. But that's very different from being the main subject of a picture or video.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I just don't understand the mentality here. What harm is being done if you are caught in an image? You're still anonymous, it's not like an image of you automatically adds your bank account details, social security number, age, criminal history and address to be seen by anyone.
The only problem I have with images being taken is when those images are able to be used by government, or by corporations for profit, without consulting me.

It seems you answered your own question. If somebody you don't know is standing directly in front of you and raises a camera and shoots, how do you know what your portrait image will be used for?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I have no problem with someone in the street taking an image of me, because I have other more pressing things to be concerned about. I don't think it's any different to someone remembering me.

That's your prerogative, why must others be subject to the same complacency?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Interesting twist on this...
If someone sees you, and they happen to be a remarkable artist with an eidetic memory, and they create a precise image of you, how would you feel about that? Is that an invasion of privacy? Is that breaching your rights in some way?

Interesting debating subject, but why does it matter? You could justify anything if unusual exception can be used as justification.

I agree with some of the posters that feel this new technology is something that needs to be looked at carefully. Privacy is a major issue along with the possibility of hacking, by criminals and law enforcement alike. Very easy to see this GPSed and if so that would mean possible laws in the future to allow LE to tap into in "times of emergency". Dispatcher* we have a 418 in progress on the corner of liberty and 80th, patrol* copy that - links into random eye glasses based on GPS proximity...

As matrix like as that may seem it is certainly a possibility. Or how about this, a hacker hacks in and is able to record your comp password, atm, safe combination etc...while you access it in real time or through your cache or something. Or hacks and finds out you are having an affair or are in the closet or are snorting coc aine etc. and blackmails you or exposes you for the lulz.

These scenarios though I'm sure wouldn't be the norm, are exactly the type of scenarios that are possible with this technology. Not to mention all the pervy uses - your wife being videotaped in the beach, the girlfriend being videotaped while on the train sitting crossed legged in a skirt, you being videotaped in the gym locker room by a in the closet perv, or females being videotaped while having sex with that swell guy (watch out ladies) or worse of all your kids being videotaped in a playground.

There are too many situations where this technology can be used for nefarious purposes.

I bet he ordered French Fries, being a non-French cyborg ordering Le French Fries might have been what sent them over the edge.

Edit to add: I think this topic in a sense raises some interesting questions and concerns about being photographed. As a person who comes from a traditional background where there are certain beliefs about having one's image 'taken', it has become part of that delicate dance between the modern world and the world of tradition. Some individuals and cultures still take having one's image 'taken' very seriously, though the reasons may very.

I don't hear much complining about the state recording our every move. i guess it's alright if the state does it, but not people.

Thats America for you. land of hate.
I use't to be a goth.
me and me friend uset to put on all kinds if mad stuff.
in England we never had trouble.
just funny looks.

I Apologies. this has nothing to do with America.
and yes I do hate america, sorry.

Drones flying overhead watching you, no problem.

reply to post by BMorris


That is not completely true. Taking a picture / film on public and publishing it are two different things. I can take your picture on the street and use it for example a street photography book. I cannot however sell it for use in stock image sites or for commercial purposes without a model release.

Originally posted by XeroOne

I guess you think its ok they tried to rip it out of his head while his wife and kids were there?
And the way he looks is really irrelevant and really a sign of peoples immaturity

I read it as a sign of Mann's lack of common sense.

Its funny how he didn't have any problem while he was on his 2 week trip untill he went to mcdonals.

Perhaps because attention-seekers are the norm over there, and Paris is a relatively safe place, as far as muggings, assaults, etc. are concerned.

Your response basically boils down to, "She was dressed provocatively, therefore she was asking for it."

Originally posted by igor_ats
You can't (legally) go filming in private business or private property without permission.

You also can't get physical with someone who does afaik. Forcibly removing their equipment etc.

If he was on the street looking in on the store that would be legit.

Forgive me, but the French privacy laws regarding photography and video surveillance only apply to published photos, from what I've gathered from professional photographers in France. This would make sense, given that the country currently houses between 20k-60k CCTVs.

Has anyone determined if that particular McDonalds location has a public policy posted pertaining to prohibition of photography? (Sorry, sometimes alliteration gets the best of me).

As well, I don't see how a device taking images for the purpose of vision enhancement can be construed as "filming" when the images are only stored in a temporary buffer and continuously overwritten (except, as in this case, when something damages the camera itself).

I didnt read all of the replies.. because there are a lot.
But what I did notice is that a lot of people here are writing nonesence.
For examlpe a couple of people said that it is a well known fact that the french people hate technology.
I want to see where is that well known fact stated, dont generalise people that way. Its stupid.
And how many of you have visited France so you can say something like that.
Im not french and I am certan that if the profesor came here in my contry or any other contry in the world he could encounter the same reaction from some uneducated and close minded person.

Here are some "well known" facts.

France was the third nation, after the former USSR and the United States, to launch its own space satellite.

French ingenuity the world also owes the first mechanical adding machine (1642), parachute (1783), electric generator (1832), refrigerator (1858), and neon lamp (1910). French industry has pioneered in the development of high-speed transportation systems—notably the supersonic Concorde and the TGV high-speed train—and French subway companies have built or provided equipment for mass-transit systems in Montreal, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, and other cities.

France is a leading exporter of nuclear technology and has developed the first commercial vitrification plant for the disposal of radioactive wastes by integrating them in special glass and then encasing the glass in stainless steel containers for burial.

www.nationsencyclopedia.com...


en.wikipedia.org...

So I think there will be protests about this kind of technology and I think its going to be similar to the Deus ex 3 game.
We will have 2 different kinds of humans.... augmented and normal. There is going to be a war.
There will be people that will find this offensive regardless of the nationality.

Originally posted by Kennit

Originally posted by XeroOne

I guess you think its ok they tried to rip it out of his head while his wife and kids were there?
And the way he looks is really irrelevant and really a sign of peoples immaturity

I read it as a sign of Mann's lack of common sense.

Its funny how he didn't have any problem while he was on his 2 week trip untill he went to mcdonals.

Perhaps because attention-seekers are the norm over there, and Paris is a relatively safe place, as far as muggings, assaults, etc. are concerned.

Your response basically boils down to, "She was dressed provocatively, therefore she was asking for it."

Not quite, but the fact is walking through east London with a laptop wide open, or an expensive camera pointing at everyone would be suicide. Yes, I could make all kinds of political statements about how I wasn't 'asking for it', but an attacker wouldn't care less about that.

As well, I don't see how a device taking images for the purpose of vision enhancement can be construed as "filming" when the images are only stored in a temporary buffer and continuously overwritten (except, as in this case, when something damages the camera itself).

If you read my earlier post, and the links someone else posted, you'd find the purpose of the camera might well have been surveillance-related. If that's the case, the professor might have broken the law here.

I would have protested too had I been subjected to being filmed without my consent. Frightening. The fact that it happened in a McDonald's (and even though I am against corporations of this sort) is irrelevant. Those who say this sort of devices are fine are too used to facebook, twitter etc and have a distorted idea of privacy.
And obviously they should have solved the whole thing in a civil manner.

He was not recording ANYTHING! Please read the OP's links!



The staff at the McDICKS should all be sued! McDICKS should be sued! Maybe they will train their staff better for the next time. I hope this guy gets 20 million, the lense (not camera) was fricken ATTACHED to his head! The staff committed assault! NUFF SAID!

reply to post by PsykoOps


Suppose I see you taking my picture and tell you I don't want you to have it, can you simply deny my request and ignore me/keep that image of me? This is very scary.