Superguy

One of the incidents was on FT and is mentioned here:

http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-...-pictures.html

SeriouslyLost

I can answer that one! They ask you to take them off. You say no and that they're prescription lenses and you cannot remove them for your own safety. They huff and puff and then pretend they never asked you.

relangford

Would Goggle Glass fall under the definition of "electronic devices" banned during taxi/takoff/landing?

Wouldn't be be great to have them act like lenses becoming sunglasses instantly rather than the time it now takes to darken?

jkhuggins

The only devices banned these days are large laptops --- not because they're electronic, but because they're large and would be a hazard if they ended up flying around the cabin during an emergency landing. A headset like Google Glass could hardly be seen as a safety threat in the same manner.

CDTraveler

... or they ask you to prove you are not using them to record, and if you decline you are asked to leave. At some point the ADA might have to issue an opinion on the prescription version, but until then, private entities can prohibit you from recording on their premises.

FredAnderssen

I've never advocated for banning for privacy reasons. Where do you get this stuff? Are you delusional? Are you referring to my wiki link and Las Vegas casinos? That was a response to tomhuber2003's post. Or my supporting a private company (UA in this case) doing what they want on their OWN planes? Not in my wildest dreams do I think it's possible or even right to outright ban Glass, cameras, cellphones etc in public. Try again, buddy.

So what? YOU'RE the one who wrote this, right?:

They did what they wanted to do. As I have also written here:

So as I stated before, So what are you blathering on about?

But, as you say:

What complete and utter nonsense. Please quote where I said that all Glass users are obnoxious and ill-mannered. I called for them to have some manners when filming, and as this was a thread about Google Glass, it would seem appropriate to concentrate on THAT device rather than people's cellphones or cameras. You should just have a conversation with yourself since you seem to be an expert on projecting.

And who are you to say I derailed the thread? Do you think you own this thread? If you believe so, just click on that little triangle to the left and a moderator will moderate or delete my posts. Then you can go back to having a conversation with yourself.

Yes, I do. When you became an arrogant jerk when you decided you didn't agree with what I was posting.

Superguy

Before you go tossing the arrogant jerk, I'd take a look in the mirror. @:-)

I'm not going to sit here and rehash what's already written and said. It's plain and easy to find for those who are interested.

Have a nice day. :-:

FredAnderssen

Here was your first salvo against me which I ignored: Here was your second salvo which I also ignored: And third and fourth and fifth salvos which I also ignored, not to mention you making up things about what I wrote. As you continued, you were like an irritating bug that kept flying back and forth past my face; you were bound to get slapped sooner or later.

You might want to go back to see how you could have reworded the above two quotes as not to set up an adversarial dialogue with me. Or maybe you just don't give a crap. However, I hang out here quite a bit and try to be at least a smidgen kind to those who post as to further a productive interchange. Those who know me here understand that I try to be balanced and reasonable, and those who post here understand that a counterpoint doesn't automatically make one stupid or an enemy.

Have a nice day.

SeriouslyLost

The burden of proof is on the entity to prove recording is taking place. They can inquire if recording is taking place. And a 2 second check will show them it isn't. Or is, as the case may be.

Superguy

And it's the same for me as well. I've been here for nearly 10 years, so I know how things work around here. I also think my rep speaks for itself.

It wasn't the fact that you made a counterpoint, it was how you made it. Assuming that people were recording and equating them with face farters is what I was saying about painting with a broad brush.

I'm sorry if pointing out a an overbroad generalization offended you. I won't do it again.

CDTraveler

I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms in recent years. Recording by any means is strictly prohibited. Cameras are not allowed in the building, and you must show that cell phones are turned off before entering the courtroom - security checks you out carefully. I think your personal theory that the burden of proof is on the entity would last about 2 seconds at the courthouse door.

Similar situation at the high tech companies I've visited. You must check your bag at the door and empty your pockets before entering sensitive areas of the facility. Yah, these are the kind of companies that make high tech products, so you really can't call them tech adverse.

Maybe those truly determined to violate the rules could sneak a micro camera a la James Bond in, but don't assume every place is going to quietly acquiesce to allowing in a device capable of recording images or sound.

FredAnderssen

Then I think it's high time that we both dial back the hostility.

That analogy was a little over the top, and my assumption wasn't that people were recording, only WHEN they were recording, but yes, I can see where my comment, meant to be funny and evocative, could elicit a vitriolic response. I look at Google Glass like an unlit cigarette: As long as there isn't smoke coming from it, I don't care if you have it hanging out of your mouth.

Well we both know that wasn't what offended me, but I can see where my face-farting comment might have offended you, especially if you're a Google Glass user. I'll tone it down now for both our sakes.

Superguy

Agreed.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Have a good one.

SeriouslyLost

You and I both know that a courthouse is not the same as a private company premises and neither are the same as public-private space. Any entity can pretty much introduce a ban on X or Y within private space. Any other person that doesn't think that through has only themselves to blame in such instances. But in a public-private space such as an aircraft (let alone a public space) or a bar it becomes a bit more problematic. They can certainly have policy against use and enquire if you are using a such a device and, as I said earlier, in the case of google glass can affirm for themselves in less than 2 seconds whether it is recording or not. If they believe that the device has been tampered with and is operating despite indications to the contrary then the burden of proof is very much upon them to show it - assuming they don't like defamation proceedings, that is. They don't just get to assert it as fact and go nuclear over it "because it is X and therefore Y must be happening" and certainly not in a situation where the device with it's prescription lenses attached conceivably comes under ADA protection.

tomhuber2003

Wrong genie. Google glasses are clumsy early prototypes. Not only can you create recording glassed with off-the shelf parts but soon it will be almost impossible to detect recording or any other techno glasses (what about techno clothes in general)...

Casinos can and will invest tons of money in technological and other techniques to ensure people don't get over the House.

Very few enterprises are as centrally located and manageable as casinos. Can you imagine Starbucks trying to keep out clothes recording technology?

The genie I speak of is technical progress. Google glasses and other similar technologies exist. They will get better. They will soon be all but undetectable.