Don't be a Glasshole

Google Glass bar fights aren't about class warfare — they're about privacy

|
(66)

If one Googled "etiquette for wearing Google Glass" last week, the top search result was news of an incident involving Sarah Slocum, a social media consultant who achieved overnight international fame for winding up in a bar fight.

It started Feb. 22 when Slocum popped into the Lower Haight bar Molotov's sometime before last call. She was wearing Google Glass, a wearable computer that can surf the web, live stream, and record through a computerized prism positioned on a set of glasses in front of the right eye.

Some of those present at Molotov's — known for its cheap Pabst Blue Ribbon and punk overtones — reacted angrily to her gadget, telling her to take it off because they thought she was recording. Based on what she wrote on Facebook, she didn't begin to film until after receiving the unwanted attention.

Conflict ensued. San Francisco Police Department spokesperson Albie Esparza said, "one of the suspects grabbed the Google Glass off her face," according to the police report, "and she ran out of the bar in pursuit. She retrieved the Google Glass," only to discover later that her purse had been stolen.

Based on two separate eyewitness accounts, a male patron did yank the wearable computer off her face, but gave it back to her; that prompted Slocum's male companion to throw a punch at him and the two wound up in a tussle on the hood of a car.

Conflicting accounts aside, the incident made international news — likely because San Francisco has already earned a reputation as being ground zero for popular backlash against the tech sector and the dramatic economic shifts that have accompanied its rise.

"What makes this story special," Slocum wrote on her Facebook page, "is that no one has experienced a hate crime or been targeted for a hate crime, which is what it was, for wearing Google Glass." (Actually, the legal definition of "hate crime" only covers criminal acts motivated by bias against a victim's race, religion, ethnic origin, disability, or sexual orientation.) Slocum did not respond to Bay Guardian requests for comment.

"I get you," one of Slocum's friends wrote on her Facebook page as the bar fight was mushrooming to epic proportions by the hour. "But when you cross boundaries you can't complain if the natives fight back! Are you aware of what it's like to try and LIVE in SF nowadays? What the techies have done to the city and the culture?"

While many have interpreted the now-infamous incident as yet another sign of simmering class tension in a city where neighborhoods are undergoing rapid gentrification, a separate issue will likely cause more flare-ups, particularly as Glass trickles into the mainstream.

Walk into a bar with a computer that doubles as a recording device mounted squarely on your face and you are going to push people's buttons, so to speak.

Glass users could easily wind up in legal hot water. Just as quickly, anyone a Glass user encounters while using the device to record could unwittingly wind up on the Internet.

In California, it's illegal to record a private conversation without all parties' consent. The computerized prism of Glass lights up when it is recording, so third parties can tell if a user is filming because his or her eyeball will be illuminated.

Even so (or if someone hacks his or her way around the light feature), it might not be totally obvious to others whether a Glass user is recording. Not everyone knows what the light means, and the device will remain fixed on the user's face whether it's in use or not.

Comments

Check the full (and growing!) list of establishments which do not permit Google Glass, or otherwise restrict unauthorized audio or video recording, at www.glasshole-free.org

Posted by Daen de Leon on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

Easier to do and easier to conceal. Bingo, result.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 3:46 pm

... when some hairy biker in Zeitgeist spots you filming them and stamps your phone (and hopefully your head) into the concrete before getting you 86ed for life.

Posted by Daen de Leon on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

I can hear the lawyers salivating from hear---

How are these not major privacy infringements.

If I step outside my house, do I have the right to not be recorded and uploaded to the internet? The government does it (with traffic cameras, etc), but in theory I have some oversight over government (I can vote them out of office). I can't vote google / google-glass users out of anything.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 5:13 pm

If you do not want to be photographed, filmed or recorded, stay inside your home.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

... such as a bar which has bans on audio and video recording. That's the law. If you don't like it, don't come in the bars which ban audio and video recording.

Posted by Daen de Leon on Mar. 07, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

If a bar has a "no photo" policy then you have less chance of being recorded. But it's not the law that protects you and only that bar's policy. And the bar cannot do much to enforce it other than throw out the recorders, by which time you have already been recorded.

I do not know what you are up to that makes you that paranoid but my advice to you is to do your bad shit at time, and expect when you leave your front door that your life is public domain.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

Seriously fuck San Francisco. Every decent person is either leaving or being forced out. I jumped ship early. It's tragic it was such a great place. Screw it. I bought a house for half what my rat infested studio in the tenderloin cost. You can have these google glass dummies. God forbid one of them actually interacted with another human being... Those kids creep me out.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 12:04 am

Those folks leaving are losers.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 4:42 am

"Those folks leaving are losers."

Well let's assume that's the case. Then YOU should be leaving with them. When might we expect that to happen? There are trains, planes and buses leaving daily. When might we expect you to be on one? How about today? That shouldn't be too soon for a loser such as yourself.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:23 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:38 am

"I'm making bank here."

So you are a paid troll. You finally admitted it.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:57 am

I thought that was exactly the problem?

Make your mind up.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 6:26 am

"SF is a town for winners"

That's interesting, up until your savior Lee finally got in office after 11 rounds, you said this was a city for whiners and all you did was complain about this city.
I suspect that's a typo on your part. So I'll assume you meant "whiners" and you were the #1 whiner and still are even under your Saint Lee as you whine about anyone who is remotely critical of your savior.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:32 am

but Lee was always 50% ahead of his nearest rival.

A landslide.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:39 am

Wrong. The number of candidates was moot. If your savior Lee was so popular---as you lie and claim---he would have wiped out all the other candidates and received over 51% in the FIRST ROUND regardless of the number of candidates. That's the way rank choice voting works. This has only been rehashed about 3,000 times on here now and you always repeat the same lie to eat the ass of your savior.

No landslide.

"Ballots are initially distributed based on each elector's first preference. If a candidate secures more than half of votes cast, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Ballots assigned to the eliminated candidate are recounted and assigned to those of the remaining candidates who rank next in order of preference on each ballot. This process continues until one candidate wins by obtaining more than half the votes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:55 am

first round when there are a lot of candidates, and particularly in this case because there were several moderate centrists running and only one real leftie, so the results flattered Avalos.

Lee was always 50% ahead of the second place, and that's as good as it gets.

Anyway, he won and you lost, so go eat a shit sandwich.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 6:24 am

Progressives have developed quite a taste for that shit sandwich and don't seem inclined to do what it takes to dine on more appetizing electoral foods.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 7:02 am

in these pages last summer when Steven Hill and Matt Gonzalez wrote a rebuttal to Calvin Welch's earlier critique of the voting system.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/07/16/guest-opinion-rcv-good-progressives

In the comments section marcos made what are probably the best arguments against RCV and these are quite as worth reading as the above essay.

I have to say that marcos seems to know a great deal of local politics and poltical science, but I think his track record in that regard should not be taken to substantiate his opinion on this topic.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 2:31 pm

You can't drill any sense into this guy...he has no understanding of how elections work. We've had run offs forever and now the awful RCV because it is nearly impossible for any one candidate to get 50% in a crowded field. Meanwhile, Lee blew everyone else away.

But, following his logic, John Avalos, the Progressive standard bearer and strongest candidate, only received 19% of the vote. Lee got 60% more votes than Avalos did. Less than 1 out of every 5 voters supported the most popular and best known Progressive. Lee got more votes than Avalos and Herera (#3) combined..

So, by his logic, Progressives are such a marginal group that there is little reason to take their viewpoints seriously. They are a fringe group without any significant following.

They also have a real problem dealing with reality when it doesn't go their way.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 7:39 am

elections.

Then again, they've had so much experience that you'd expect that.

They thought RCV was their passport to winning with unpopular candidates. It kinda worked in Oakland but that was luck, and the results are horrible.

It's hard for a minority to win an election no matter what the system.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 7:58 am

RCV is a big part of the Progressive platform. They tried to vote Christina Olaque off the island when she questioned it.

But when an election is conducted according to RCV, exactly the way that Progressives want, it apparently produces unreliably results if they don't like the winner.

In this case RCV said that Lee got 60% of the votes but, apparently, RCV distorted true voter sentiments according to some Progressives.

This time.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 9:09 am

They just want to find a system that magically turns fringe marginal candidates into lucky winners.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 9:25 am

I wrote the comment about RCV: Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:55 am

I'm NOT a progressive, even though that's the erroneous baseless assumption here from the right-wing/conservative Leebot trolls. And I didn't vote for John A. (so why would anyone bring him up...when I didn't?)

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

of the left, and RCV was supposed to hand him victory over the much more popular Lee.

That was always naive and the actual result had the elft whining about RCV because it denied them an actual runoff.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 4:45 pm

about others based on how (they think) they can cause the greatest distress and consternation. They often mistakenly see a good opportunity for such victories when none exist due to a perverse form of greed.

My biggest complaint about RCV has been that contrary to the promise of the law that was passed a decade ago, there still aren't as many slots as there are candidates so it is still necessary to look at polls to decide who has a chance to be a finalist before voting; otherwise your vote might end up on the cutting room floor as an exhausted ballot.

Only when there are the full number of slots available on the ballots to allow all those running to be ranked will the old problem of too many of any particular type of candidate diluting the votes of their constituencies be completely eliminated.

Aside from labels, it seems to me that it is matter of plain old good government to eliminate the need for an extended campaign cycle and the expense of a second round of voting. It reduces the need for campaign money.

Posted by lillipublicans on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

think most voters would find useful.

If you cannot find three candidates you like, then you are in trouble. And in the end, all votes for anyone other than the winner end up not counting.

You make the classic error of looking for a voting method that will turn a loser into a winner, and alchemy like that is an illusion. It's fool's gold.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 5:18 pm

I agree very much with your comment. I voted for Lee but was in doubt of his winning. It bothered me that he broke his promise to the city and lied by running for mayor. The corruption allegations bothered me. I don't attempt to paint that as something else as the faux-"moderates" on this site portray it. Their attempt it to justify the actions no matter what and rewrite history. That's terribly sleazy and dishonest.

There were 10 other candidates in that election and they had their supporters and their supporters felt just as strongly about their candidate as we Lee supporters felt about our candidate. Those 10 candidates and their supporters wanted someone other than Lee. That's a fact and it's best to be objective about that. Lee eventually won. The mature among us do not rub that victory in opponents' faces as the closet-case conservatives do on this site. They are quite an embarrassment to other Lee supporters such as myself with their snarky 'in your face' approach and style. I take a more objective approach than a "partisan" (for lack of a better word) approach. I should think that Lee would be embarrassed by them as well based on what I've read that they've written on this site. Some of it is just over the top!

So there was not this groundswell of support for Lee, and the closet-case conservatives on here who support Lee know that. As you say, if there had been this tsunami amount of support for Lee city-wide, he would have trounced all other candidates in the first round and that would have been the end of that election. But he didn't. The closet-case conservatives on this site and their continued dishonesty about that election tarnishes and does a real disservice in many ways to our conservative cause and conservative agenda for this city.

Posted by Proud Conservative Michael on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 6:55 pm

1) Lee never promised not to run. He simply stated that, at that point in time, he had no intention to run. He later changed his mind because of support and encouragement from a broad range of people.

Lying or breaking promises might be a problem, but changing your mind when circumstances change is perfectly reasonable.

2) The fact that a majority of voters didn't want Lee doesn't matter because winning candidates rarely have that level of support. Certainly Obama and Bush didn't, but they won anyway. Same with Lee.

What matters, at least under our electoral system, is that we get the candidate that the most people want. Nobody pretends that they have majority support - only that they have more support than any other single candidate. In this case. Lee had 50% more votes than the runner - a huge majority.

The alternative is some kind of PR like they have in some European nations like Italy, with power sharing and constant changes of government as alliances form and collapse. In the US we prefer a strong leader.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 7:19 pm

Absolutely Luducrious comment. You do try so hard to spin things just to suit you---don't let the facts get in your way---and your Saint Lee/Cult Lee. Your legs must be cramped from all the genuflecting you do daily to your savior Lee.

Also, Bush never won, idiot. He was selected for the first term by Bush Family friends on the US Supreme Court after the election was stolen in Florida (how quickly morons forget that!), and the second term was stolen in Florida and Ohio. And no, I didn't vote for Gore so you don't need to drag that out in your partisan attempt, although Gore did eventually win when the media did their independent count.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 8:19 pm

Lee never said he would never run. He said only that AT THAT TIME, he had no intention to run.

And Bush won fairly. The Florida recount vindicated his victory so the SCOTUS decision changed nothing.

You really are a bad loser.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 8:34 pm

Not That It Was Reported, but Gore Won
by Jim Naureckas

IN JOURNALISM, it's called "burying the lead": A story starts off with what everyone already knows, while the real news - the most surprising, significant or never-been-told-before information - gets pushed down where people are less likely to see it.

That's what happened to the findings of the media study of the uncounted votes from last year's Florida presidential vote. A consortium of news outlets - including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tribune Co. (Newsday's parent company), The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and CNN - spent nearly a year and $900,000 reexamining every disputed ballot.

The consortium determined that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the ongoing recount to go through, George W. Bush would still likely have ended up in the White House. That's because the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court - as well as the more limited recount asked for by Democratic candidate Al Gore - only involved so-called undervotes, ballots that when counted mechanically registered no choice for president.

Gore and the Florida Supreme Court ignored overvotes - votes where mechanical counting registered more than one vote - on the assumption that there would be no way to tell which of the multiple candidates the voter actually intended to pick.

But as the consortium found when it actually looked at the overvotes, one often could tell what the voter's intent was. Many of the overvotes involved, for example, a voter punching the hole next to a candidate's name, and then writing in the same candidate's name.

Since the intent of the voter is clear, these are clearly valid votes under Florida law. And Gore picked up enough of such votes that it almost didn't matter what standard you used when looking at undervotes - whether you counted every dimple or insisted on a fully punched chad, the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots.

So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush.

If the first finding was the important news, the consortium was scooped long ago: The Miami Herald and USA Today, working as a separate team, published stories in April that argued persuasively that the particular recounts that were halted by the Supreme Court probably would have produced a Bush victory.

What's new is the finding that, since voters are supposed to decide elections rather than lawyers or judges, the state's electoral votes appear to have gone to the wrong candidate. Given that the outcome in Florida determined the national victor, this is not just news but a critical challenge to the legitimacy of the presidency.

So how did the media report the results of the ballot reexamination?Overwhelmingly, they chose to lead with the news that was comfortable, uncontroversial - and seven months old. "In Election Review, Bush Wins Without Supreme Court Help," was The Wall Street Journal's headline on its story, paralleling The New York Times' "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote." That angle would be fine if you believed that the Supreme Court was the most important aspect of the story; but what about the presidency?

Other members of the consortium emphasized the most Bush-friendly aspects of the story: "Bush Still Had Votes to Win in a Recount, Study Finds," was the Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times' main headline on its report, matching The Washington Post's "Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush" and CNN.com's "Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins." The St. Petersburg Times' Web site put it succinctly: "Recount: Bush." While some of these outlets tried to convey greater complexity in subheads, all these headlines obscure the fact that the outlets' most comprehensive recount put Gore ahead of Bush.

Emphasizing the old and conventional while playing down the new and controversial is a recipe for being ignored, and sure enough, few outlets that were not part of the consortium did much with the findings. A story that may well be mentioned in high school history classes a hundred years from now didn't even merit an editorial comment from most newspapers.

It's tempting to attribute this coyness to Sept. 11, and news outlets' reluctance to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency when the country is at war. But the coverage of the consortium's findings is similar to the way earlier media recounts were handled; even the most preliminary Miami Herald/USA Today ballot stories prompted "Bush Really Won" stories across the country. Similarly, when Bush's inauguration was greeted by raucous marchers contesting his victory, many outlets played down the significance of the protests. The New York Times virtually ignored them.

War or no war, many journalists are instinctively protective of the legitimacy of the institutions they cover, but the job of a journalist is not to promote but to question. The theory behind the First Amendment is that the system will be strengthened by an unflinching look at the system's flaws. In looking back at the results of the Florida election, the media flinched.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of Extra!, the magazine of the media watch group FAIR.

Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

Proud Conservative Michael's writing style is suspiciously similar to lilli's

Hmmmm.....

Posted by Snoozers on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

Trying to stir something up again? You need continual dysfunction?

Hmmmm.....

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 9:51 pm

Stir up what? I can't imagine anyone being surprised that lilli is impersonating a conservative (albeit poorly) in order to bash conservatives. It's straight out of his playbook. He often pretends to be a woman as well. It's called trolling, and he's an expert.

Posted by Snoozers on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 10:11 pm

Even if that's the case, considering what goes on on this forum, what does it matter? I wouldn't be surprised if all of the right-wing "Guest" Leebot trolls are one person writing reams of posts and responding to themselves and washing their own back.

I couldn't care less. If someone thinks someone is "impersonating" someone or someone else and if one has a problem with that, ignore them and move on.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 10:34 pm

It doesn't really matter, I just think it's funny. The whole post was just so implausible. A conservative who's embarrassed by other conservatives bashing liberals? I mean, come on!

Posted by Snoozers on Mar. 22, 2014 @ 11:23 pm

That's not how I interpreted that post at all. It was not that Michael that conservative guy was embarrassed by other conservatives *bashing liberals,* but rather the nastiness of the conservatives here and their hiding behind the word *moderate* when they are conservatives (He called them a closet case conservative). I agree with Michael on that. In other words, the conservative Lee supporters here and the same for the conservative Wiener supporters...they're one in the same often act like assholes on here to other commenters. And some of us give it right back to them because we're sick of it and sick of them. I think any politician would try to distance themselves from an asshole troll even if they privately agreed with them because who wants to have supporters who are known as or come off as assholes? It doesn't speak well at all of the candidate(s). "Ah, so assholes are the type of supporter that candidate attracts....that's all I need to know about that guy." That's what I got from what the Michael guy said. I have a conservative relative who is similar to Michael. She doesn't like the nastiness either. She says it's one thing to disagree with someone but you don't have to be (her words): ugly, uppity and smug about it and in their face (like the conservative trolls are on here) regardless of who you're talking to she says. She's very turned off by that. I don't agree with her on much of anything but even when disagreeing she never has acted to me like these conservatives trolls do on here. She would be repulsed by them. That nastiness/asshole approach is not her style.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 5:48 am

Like that troll for Ed Lee down the page that wrote they are staying here because they can? Talk about self-absorbed! Yeah, that's the mentality. It's all about them. They don't give a fuck about this city or anybody but themselves. They are part of and complicit in the "it's all about me, me, me" society.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:28 am

that Lee running again was not a good thing?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:38 am

Are you saying that 60% of your neighbors are trolls?

Isn't it more likely that someone claiming that is the troll?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 8:27 am

It's all about perspective. The people you claim are conservatives masquerading as moderates would be considered liberals by any true conservative. That's been brought up many times, but it really is true. Therefore, no self-identified conservative would accuse an Ed Lee supporter of being anything other than a liberal (or, at best, a moderate).

Also, conservatives tend to enjoy nastiness. Do you watch Fox news? Have you seen the end of Bill O'Reilly's show where he reads viewer comments? Have you been to a Tea Party rally and actually talked to their supporters? You'll hear some pretty mean shit. The extreme Leftists in this city are the same way. They often say very ugly things to people whenever they encounter anything other than total agreement. Both groups justify their obnoxious, toxic behavior as being "right".

What if I created the handle, "SF man of the people", and posted how "we" Progressives need to stop pretending we're not Communists? Would that not be absurd? A Progressive will almost never admit to being a Communist, despite the fact that his copy of Das Kapital for Dummies has more highlights than a Marina girl's hairdo.

Posted by Snoozers on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

claim that Obama, Lee, Newson, W. Brown, J. Brown, Feinstein and Pelosi are all right-wing conservatives.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 4:14 pm

"The people you claim are conservatives masquerading as moderates would be considered liberals by any true conservative. That's been brought up many times, but it really is true. "

That's Absolute Nonsense. In reality, all of these terms have become meaningless from being abused and overused. Just one example, so-called "liberals" and so-called "progressives" have cheered the same policies under Obama that they protested and screamed against under Bush. Blatant hypocrisy on their part. The right-wing nuts call Obama a "leftist" and a "socialist." He's nothing of the sort. They use terms they don't know the meaning of. Obama has been worse than Bush overall. Did they call Bush a "leftist?" Obama is a corporatist (i.e. corporate fascism where corporations run the government).

These days:

peace = war
up = down
liberal = conservative

One cannot accurately or fairly compare San Francisco to the rest of the nation because we've historically been different in a positive way than the rest of the nation fortunately, a fact that the conservative trolls on here like to conveniently ignore.

In San Francisco, "moderate" = conservative.

Posted by GuestInTheCastro on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:51 pm

Just out of curiosity

Assuming SF is special and does require different political labels than the rest of the country, who in your estimation would qualify as a San Francisco moderate?

Posted by Snoozers on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

Who else still drones on about Gore really winning when he didnt?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:09 am

Does it matter who wrote it, Simple One? Read the article and learn something, rather than "Attack the Messenger." Or do you prefer to remain ignorant as usual?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:25 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:37 am

"...the consortium found that Gore ended up the winner of virtually any full reexamination of rejected ballots."

Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:34 am
Posted by Guest on Mar. 23, 2014 @ 6:37 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.