Sophos Cloud Optix
Remember when that Seattle eatery told a Google Glass wearer where he could stick his spectacles?
Some Glass users are fighting back against establishments that have the *ahem* audacity to request privacy for their patrons, and negative reviews are their weapons of choice – even if they’ve never stepped foot in the place.
The war kicked off in April, when Glass wearer Katy Kasmai was asked to remove her headgear while at a New York City restaurant called Feast.
Instead of taking off her computerized glasses, she left. She didn’t stop at that, though.
Rather than quietly respecting that other diners have the right to enjoy a meal without possibly being recorded, she posted a one-star review of the restaurant, with this short appraisal:
Got denied service on a Sunday afternoon for wearing Google Glass.
Then, she posted this message to her Google+ page, where she has over 3,300 followers:
For the first time ever this place, Feast, in #NYC just asked that I remove +Google Glass because customers have complained of privacy concerns in the past. Never has happened to me before in the one year I've had Glass. I left.
An epidemic of one-star reviews soon followed, bringing the restaurant’s overall rating down, at its lowest, to a saggy 2.4, according to CNet.
When Feast looked into those bad reviews, it found that none of the abysmal ratings had anything to do with the restaurant’s food or its service.
Rather, all the one-star reviews were about the Glass ban, all coming from people who had commented on Kasmai’s Google+ post.
Some of the negative reviews:
Not tech friendly. Luddites can't serve good food. Do not waste your money there.
Troglodytes with poor attitudes.
Ignorant bigots and hateful. Perhaps being illegally discriminate too. The food is irrelevant as the service is less than poor.
Ouch. Bad reviews, indeed – the type that “can really hurt” a restaurant, the manager of Feast told the East Village blog EV Grieve:
When the first thing that comes up when you search Feast in Google is a 3.1, it can really hurt a restaurant like us. Then you have 13 people, which is about half the total reviews, who have never been to our restaurant let alone live in NYC, leave you one-star reviews ... it's malicious and technically a violation of Google's own terms for leaving reviews. Again I can understand her leaving the one-star based on her experience, but 12 others with no experience on who we are or what we do is unfair.
Since then, Feast has been clicked-up like mad on Google+ by reviewers who’ve actually eaten there, many of whom are quite pleased to have their privacy rights protected.
A sample of the five-star posts that have flooded in over the past week, sending Feast’s rating up to 4.6 stars as of Thursday:
Great place that really embraces the spirit of our constitution. I enjoy the fact that they express a practical knowledge of the privacy concerns of our founding fathers and the freedoms and liberties for all, not just a select (self appointed elite?!) few.
My husband and I ate at Feast last summer and had a blast -- it was the best meal I've ever had in my life! Unfortunately I forgot to leave a review then, but since I heard about the Glass-holes immorally leaving bad reviews without actually eating here, I had to speak up. I enjoy the latest technology, but these over-entitled tech-heads need to think about the privacy and enjoyment of the other guests at the restaurant and learn a little etiquette. Take it off, be present, and enjoy the amazing food, lively atmosphere, and wonderful staff.
Awesome restaurant, kindly asked if I could remove my Google Glass because others were feeling uncomfortable, luckily Im not the kind of entitled douche to refuse that or get butthurt. Had a great meal.
After much chest thumping on both sides of the Glass debate, Feast and Kasmai have come to a truce:
Completely appreciate concerns over @googleglass. Best way to understand it is to try it, and @feastnyc has kindly invited the opportunity.
She posted on her Google+ page that she never asked anyone to post fake reviews, that it’s “not ok to do so” and people should reconsider if they plan to do it.
But while she didn’t ask for fake reviews, she probably should have known that the linguini would hit the fan once she posted her own bad review, based, as it was, solely on Glass policy.
Kasmai is, in fact, the organizer of a Google Glass user group in New York City, which gives her the role of unofficial Glass ambassador, as Mashable points out.
In cases like this, Glass Explorers tend to rely on the often erroneous supposition that those who don’t embrace the technology are in fact ignorant about it.
From the Glass Almanac blog, which lauded Kasmai’s move to “educate” the restaurant about Glass:
Once again, poor Google Glass is caught in the middle of a struggle between those who embrace the technology and those who simply don’t understand it.
Not only did Kasmai and Feast rekindle a relationship, but she is now in a position to educate more people about Glass and how it isn't the "always recording" device many people seem to believe.
The “always on” reference feeds off of Google’s Top 10 Google Glass myths, one of which is that people purportedly think that Glass is always on and and recording everything.
As I said when I rebunked some of Google’s so-called myths, Glass’s green camera-on light can be circumvented via software so that you really can’t tell when it’s recording, while length of recording is irrelevant when you’re talking about privacy violation (think upskirting).
There’s actually been an extremely interesting conversation going on in the comments section of that rebunking article, about ethics, morals, legality, common sense, privacy, and the ownership of light particles when they bounce off us.
It’s the type of nuanced conversation that should be going on – as opposed to one-star reviews of restaurants from people who’ve never sat down to eat in them.
Image of restaurant courtesy of Feast’s Facebook page.
Image of Google Glass courtesy of Hattanas Kumchai / Shutterstock.com.
I wonder how she would like when she is sitting butt naked in the sauna when someone walks in wearing Google Glasses. A restaurant is a place where people should be enjoying food not making a fuss about gadgets. I wonder how many of these people walk out of a data centre and moan about it as their access was denied because they wanted to take their food inside. As someone who wants privacy to be equal to all, I sure would like to hear where the Seattle eatery told the google glass wearer where he could stick it up. Maybe that’s the solution to the over intrusive nature of google and the so called tech savy community.
I’d be inclined to take legal action against Google for permitting malicious reviews. Only it probably works differently in the US, where “freedom of speech” is used to propagate lies, exaggerations, and everything else. I realise that some people, presumably including Ms Kasmai, think they have a “right” to do whatever that please, but would she be so happy if people on nearby tables were to listen in, take notes, publish her conversations on the web… I think not.
Your little rant has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Ms Kasmai didn’t claim to have any right to do whatever she pleases – she was simply asked to remove Glass or leave, and she complied with the request. The people posting fake reviews were nothing to do with her.
And on what grounds are you expecting Google to not permit bad reviews? That sort of defeats the whole purpose of a review if you only allow positive ones through. How are they meant to know people had never been there?
Go back and actually read the article.
His rant DID have relevance to the article. You should read it yourself. The “reviews” posted were from those who never went to the restaurant. That’s a legit review? I could see it if someone tried to go, was turned down, then left and posted a review. That’s different. But the other ones are bogus reviews. It doesn’t matter now, anyway, there are so many legit reviews from customers who actually ate there that their Google rating is now at 4.5 stars. Justice wins.
Well, you don’t really understand anything about freedom of speech or the constitution, so….. yeah…..
re 2nd part of your comment -with this logic someone with a notepad and a pen on a table should be asked to put it away as well, or even someone using a laptop or a phone. All the above devices can be used to record, take notes and listen in. Just because someone is in possession of a recording device doesn’t mean he wants to record and listen to everything. Why people assume that they are interesting and someone wants to listen and RECORD them.
BUT I have to agree that malicious reviews are not a good way to convince people to accept google glass…
“she probably should have known that the linguini would hit the fan once she posted her own bad review”
*SUPREME*
Do they ask people to put their phones away if their phones camera happens to point at another customer? Doubtful.
Using bad reviews as a tool is pretty appalling. But only to be expected from some of the “me” generation. A few months ago, I had a private birthday party at a restaurant and had a great time … spoilt a week later when I found out that one of our younger guests had gone onto TripAdvsior and written a complete and utter rant about it.
The eventual result – restaurants will withdraw from these sites and so we will all be worse off.
The restaurants do have the right now in the EU to require Google to not show pages in search results, so that even if these malicious reviews are posted on somewhere like TripAdvisor, if requested, Google must stop them showing up on Google.
This belief that one person’s right to say/do/show anything with impunity, regardless of the effect on other people’s privacy, will end up with some spectacular issues.
Google Glass – another way to divide humanity. It’s an interesting social experiment, and will act as a marker dye to differentiate people who see tech/gadgets as time savers, and those who dogmatically see them as an unquestioned life choice that everyone else should put up with. Granted, I won’t get lung cancer from sitting next to a Glass wearer, but I find the presumption that I’m happy with this kind of kit being pointed at me in private areas quite repugnant.
If you want people to trust you while you’re walking around with a recording device fixed to your face, you probably shouldn’t build a reputation of reacting maliciously at the smallest of slights.
“Glass Explorers” — they really have the audacity to call themselves that. Sheer, unmitigated gall doesn’t even come close.
I can only hope that, from time to time, they will get the chance to “explore” a close-up of a fast-approaching fist.
The NSA could learn PR spin from the Glass-holes. To stop their being reviled as privacy invaders, they should re-brand themselves as “Metadata Explorers.”
Ms Kasmai’s attitude has a taste of bullying. Wearing Google glass gives a sense of power, and it is understandable that those in this position won’t relinquish their power. This is a case of Ethics and Information Systems.
I find it interesting that you complain of a taste of bullying, when so many of the people opposed to google glass, like the comment directly above yours, talk about how glass will give the use a chance to “explore” a close up of a fast-approaching fist.
Miss Kasmai herself made the issue bigger than even she herself believes it is; she knows she simply could have removed her glasses and respected others, but instead she CHOSE to be offended to make a point, and immediately sensationalized the situation by fabricating a portion of its reporting. Assuming the facts of the article to be accurate, she was asked to remove her glasses for the comfort of others. Her immediate reaction was to report that she was denied service, which does not appear to be true. Lying is almost always self-serving, so one has to wonder what her agenda is.
The store owners can do what they want. No illegal discrimination here. Store and property owner rights. As consumers we can support or shun the business. If what they do is so offensive to the community, the store will suffer. From I have seen though, most people find glass annoying and the attitudes of these militant glass wearers fuel the fire even more. I don’t think the general public wants to push for forced glass acceptance. It falls to the property owners, then the community can support or shun the place.
You know, in Pennsylvania two party consent is required for audio recordings. (Title 18, the PA crimes code, chapter 5703) It’s a felony, third degree, to audio record people where they have an expectation of privacy. I can see some glassholes getting into trouble they never knew about.
The fact that wearers of Google Glass chose to post these fictitious or malicious comments is itself a good indication of the kind of people they are. They’re certainly not helping to convince me that GG is a good thing, in fact they have already done just the opposite.
Interesting that they couch it in terms of either you embrace the technology or you “don’t understand it”. It does not even seem within the realm of possibility to Glass users that someone might understand it and not embrace it.
Which (in the dating world) reminds me of unwanted affections from stalker-y like people: “If only he / she understood me then they would like me”.
Some interesting points made. I certainly see how people fear the unknowing aspect of Google Glass, and its magic ability to record things .. it is obvious, it s on someones face. The comment asking if people are allowed to point their camera phones around never seems to worry people. How many times do groups take pictures at a table without a care in the world from anybody. Imagine if I stood up, DEMANDED they be removed from the premises .. I would be laughed at .. now imagine I took group photos at the table with Google Glass, not wearing them all the time, just to take pictures of the group .. come on now, imagine .. would I be asked to leave??? I have a feeling most people would demand it .. “It isn’t natural, their phone is on a pair of glasses not a phone …” People hate change, hate others different from them, it is natural in all aspects of life. If it is illegal to record someone without consent, let us make it across the board .. no Camera’a allowed. Please refrain from using ANY device that has a camera attached .. fair ? I hear some people now saying “No .. we have always had our camera phones .. why should I be discriminated against?” In time it will blow over, and these little pockets of news will continue .. and no taking pictures of your food .. With or without Glasses on!
There is no expectation of privacy in public. The only privacy you have is in your own home or behind closed doors with no expectation of anyone being around to listen. There are millions of cameras across the US that record us daily and track our moves. Google Glass is the least of these concerns.
Surely you’re not seriously saying that you can’t see the difference between security cameras and Google Glass? Images recorded on security cameras are extremely unlikely to be splashed all over FaceBook and similar sites, unlike those taken by private individuals, including GG users, which all seem to be recorded purely for that specific purpose.
Cameras, including those in phones, at least give some warning to people that they are about to be photographed, because they are not constantly worn on the face, ready for action.
Apart from possible use by emergency and security services, where they could well have a place, I can see no possible need for GG other than to advertise the fact that the owner is self centered, narcissistic, rich enough to buy one, and has absolutely no consideration or respect for anyone else, but obviously still expects everyone to respect their ‘right’ to invade people’s privacy. The word ‘Glasshole’ is perfectly suited to describe such a person.
I’d go to FEAST in a New York minute simply because the place has respect for their “diners” who do not wish to be bothered while they enjoy their dinner and each other’s company. Why is it that this technology wearer demands that she be allowed to do ANYTHING in a privately owned business let alone make others feel uncomfortable? Some “privately” owned businesses demand that “proper dress be required for entrance, Even 7-11 stores have a sign out front “no shoes, no shirt, no service”
I guess I could be talking on my mobile with the speaker on while inside Feast seated at my table while I eat and that technology would also bother some diners there as well? Do I then post a comment like Don’t go to Feast they won’t let you annoy people with your cell phone on speaker or they won’t let me eat there without a jacket and tie? etc, etc.
I have never been to New York or New York City but will definitely eat at this restaurant if I ever go there and there is no way someone can accidentally take your picture with their phone….please!
I’m not really sure where I stand on Glass. However, we may be thinking about it the wrong way.
I can buy a camera/microphone that that a button on my shirt. If it were on, I would record people.
What’s the difference? With my button camera, nobody knows. Whether it’s legal or not, nice or not, nobody knows it’s there. So, I get away with it.
But, with Glass, everybody knows, assuming you haven’t disabled the recording light. And even if you have, the glasses are still pretty obvious.
So, the bottom line in this whole discussion is that Glass is bad … because I know about it? Seems to me that that’s a mark in favor of Glass. They could have made it undetectable without much extra work.
That’s an odd way to justify the use of GG Jim. GG is admittedly not as bad as a secret button camera, but being not as bad doesn’t automatically make it good.
I suspect the whole Glass thing actually relies on the fact that it isn’t undetectable, but can be worn as a status symbol to broadcast the wearer’s over-inflated opinion of himself or herself.
“I’ve got a Glass, and what is being displayed on it is far more important to me than the people around me, so I’ll ignore them all and wear it regardless of where I am or who I’m with, because I’m obviously superior to the rest of the world, and I need constant access to this information”.
Does anyone really need to wear them 24/7, just because they can? If so they’re probably the kind of person whose mobile phone rings during a concert, church service or other event where a little respect should be shown, because they’re just too self important to switch it off for a few minutes.
Sorry, it wasn’t intended to justify GG’s use. I was more trying to compare to other surveillance methods. Glass is higher up the honor “ladder” than the worst of these, but it’s still darned far down there for my comfort.
You post also gives me an idea: How about if establishments that don’t want Glass used simply jam or DoS all Bluetooth? Would that work? It would keep those annoying cellphone/earbud users from talking through my dinner as well.
Jamming Bluetooth and WiFi in restaurants and so on is a reasonable idea Jim, and might work, but an imposed ban shouldn’t even be necessary. A little common courtesy on the part of the Glass wearer is surely not too much to expect, for the hour or so that they are in the restaurant. A polite and respectful use of the Glass could even win people over, but walking in wearing it and refusing to remove it certainly won’t, especially if the wearer harasses the staff, then claims to have been refused service because they’re wearing it. The same applies to the use of cellphones and similar devices, of course. It doesn’t often happen, but if I receive a call on my mobile in somewhere like a bar or restaurant, I immediately go outside to hold the conversation. It’s not difficult, and while the initial ringing might be briefly irritating, at least it shows consideration for other people, which is probably appreciated. Obviously, in sensitive situations, meetings, concerts, etc my phone is turned off before even entering the building.
I applaud the restaurants for upholding standards – there’s just something about the glasses and their wearers that are reminiscent of the types that used to use bluetooth headsets…
Not that it really matters to the people with their minds made up for them already, but the Constitution does not speak to any right to Privacy, that is just pure fiction dreamed up by politicians. Being that this is a private property, the restaurant is well withing their rights to ban the devices.