> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter
This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it.
First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy.
People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to take it off and you can't, then you leave. You are the transgressor, not the people in front of you.
Second bit of advice: Ask for permission when walking into a private establishment -like a restaurant- with such a rig. It isn't their job to accommodate every nutcase that comes through the door. You are not a nutcase, but your actions may have telegraphed otherwise.
I would expect people to react very differently to an actual blind person wearing some hardware than an obviously sighted person under the same circumstances.
There are also details that are not being revealed. Does he "scan" the place and do a bunch of stuff with the hardware when entering a new environment?
I find it hard to believe that someone would outright attack him without prior motive. People just don't do that -not even in France- unless they are seriously provoked or are criminals. We know nothing about the interaction and actions of the cyborg propr to the "assault". Let's say he was "scanning" people at the restaurant and generally acting in an intrusive manner, well, that's just not acceptable behavior in most parts of the world.
Finally, the las bit of advise might be: Be aware of cultural differences when traveling to other countries. While in Canada and parts of the US people might generally go out of their way to be polite, that is not the case around the globe. In some parts of the world you'll gen man-handled and even beaten-up if you act like an idiot and show a general lack of respect. Just because you think what you are doing is OK it doesn't mean that everyone around you agrees.
Times do change. When I was in college I'd walk around with my HP calculator hanging off my belt. Outside of college I'd take it off. Today people walk around with computers in their pockets and little devices with blinking LED's in their ears all day long. That's just the way the world works. Be smart enough to use Aikido, not Karate.
Finally: Get someone to help you with industrial design. When comparing the photos on the linked page, your rig looks intimidating, while the Google rig is almost invisible.
Also, turn the damn thing off when dealing with people so your eye looks normal.
I respect the work and dedication immensely, what I think is off-base here is the assumption that it is OK to stick a camera in everyone's face (or within a private establishment) without permission.
If you decide to down-vote please have the courtesy to explain your reasons so that I and others might learn from contrasting points of view.
There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if it's a camera in your business. Physically assaulting someone over a camera is even worse. All attempts to excuse this sort of behavior immediately fall flat given that "possible witness 1" was given documentation of the device and apparently accepted it, and the perpetrator was also given the documentation.
At the point where you willfully destroy someone else's documents, you can't really hide behind cultural differences.
I'm speaking as a European if not a French citizen, but I cannnot read your post as anything but flamebait, given the prejudice and total lack of empathy.
I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known.
If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible manner. I am not disputing that and don't think anyone would.
Why didn't he go to the police? I would physically go to the nearest police station and file an assault report. Do you really think French police would ignore him, particularly with evidence and witnesses? I think not.
My post was about common sense and manners. "When in Rome", if you will.
I did not place blame nor justify the destruction of property. It is purely your choice to read that into my post. PleAse don't put words in my mouth.
If any of the post wasn't clear: I, nor anyone on HN unless you were there, know exactly what went on. Therefore it is impossible to take sides an feel empathy for him or justify the other party's actions. We just don't know enough, so let's not get overly polarized in one direction or another.
My comments were more about how rude and unreasonable it might be to force yourself onto others or invade their privacy. If you want to walk around with a bunch of tech scanning everything around, you have to be respectful enough to ask permission.
Prejudice? Where? There's a huge difference between prejudice and reality. The Dutch don't have protection from the mechanisms inside windmills. I've done windmill tours with my kids and you simply have to adjust to their reality (when in Rome). Some Americans think this is insane. We might want to have floor to ceiling barriers to prevent anyone from getting their hands into the gears. The Dutch probably think that we are an over-controlling sue-happy society. None of this is prejudiced. It's just the way it is. When in the Netherlands I behave with respect and consideration for their ways. The same is the case in the UK, France, Italy or Germany. I've spent a good deal of time in various places in Europe. I can say that we, Americans, can be total jerks and so can everyone else (except the Dutch, they are always nice).
I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk.
You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory.
You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy?
You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he, a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one would do with this device, especially in the given scenario.
You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had done.
All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.
Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really?
Look/feel: If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. The Google device is easy to ignore. His rig is, well, look at the pictures. I also imagine it having a bunch of wires hanging off of it going to a backpack or something.
If he was blind he'd probably have a cane (well recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired.
It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense.
He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.
It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons.
If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time.
There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.
> The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.
Well for the embassy and the consulate it just means they were doing their jobs despite someone trying to waste their time. They have nothing to do with situations like this. He might as well have called his senator, NASA, the TSA or his personal hairstylist or whatever.
That he "did not have much luck" with the police is very telling, however. Because, if we are to believe the story in the article, the whole scene started when this guy assaulted him out of the blue trying to rip the glasses from his face. A lot of things happen afterwards (tearing up documents, another attempt at removing his glasses, and being pushed out of the door), but if that first thing is strictly true, there's no way he would have had "no luck" at the police.
That either means Paris police are actually not doing their job and ignored him as he tried to file a report for physical assault. OR much more likely: We're only hearing half the story, many other things took place before and after the first guy suddenly jumped him, the whole scene did not, in fact take place in complete silence, words were exchanged, maybe they asked some pointed questions and mr Mann lost his temper ... I don't know it's all speculation.
And even then, that's no reason for the police to ignore a report of physical assault. "An employee of the McDonalds on Champs-Élysées assaulted me and damaged my expensive glasses" is something that no police would ignore, regardless of which side "started it".
Really, the only explanation for that is that he didn't really try and that "without much luck" refers to the fact that the Paris police does not speak English over the phone.
Yes, in this case I really did feel it necessary to call you out for being an exclusionary apologetic.
Being considerate to others includes not punching ugly people. Being considerate to others includes accepting other people in "your" public space. Being considerate to others even includes not affixing assumed motives and behaviors to them.
I certainly hope you taught your oldest son these things. I would not wish to live in a society where everyone is required to wear labels, and I hope you would not, either.
It's certainly good manners not to offend others, but to demand not to be offended is just silly.
No amount of ugliness justifies violence. Can we at least agree on this much?
> Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really?
You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization.
> If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design.
'Basic UI design' would be making sure that a device intended for permanent attachment to a human body was sufficiently supported and padded to prevent physical damage.
Appearance would be a strictly secondary concern, especially given that we supposedly live in a 'pleasant society,' as you put it, where physical assault should be looked down upon as a response to 'looking weird.' Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you might disagree with that idea . . .
> You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization.
I did not attack you personally in any way. You have chosen to resort to name calling without justification. I'll let the reader decided where the ad-hominem originated, which is really obvious.
I never once suggested that a physical attack was justified. You are choosing to read and extrapolate that out of my words. It's wrong, but you are free to use your imagination in any way you care to.
He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him.
I feel empathy for him because I find it very hard to believe that he said or did anything that would warrant physical assault. Indeed, there is nothing that justifies physical assault outside of self defence or temporary insanity.
Do you really think that a quirky famous academic out for a meal with his daughter attacked these employees? Seriously? Because that's the only way you can reasonably side with the McDonalds employees here.
Speaking about common sense, I think it's pretty clear that you don't go ripping up formal documentation and hiding your identity badge if you really think you are acting in the right. That's some common sense that transcends most cultural boundaries.
> He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him
He said:
"I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck. "
It very much sounds like he either did this after he got back or over the phone from the hotel.
He did not GO TO THE POLICE. I would have gone to the nearest police station and planted myself in there. If this was as serious as it seems, that would be the only way to handle it. Also, it would be the best way to explain and show his rig to the police.
By his account this was a serious incident and he had all the evidence and witnesses he needed. I would tell the family to go sight-seeing on their own and get my ass over to the nearest police station to deal with it.
I am still waiting for someone to provide an account from a different perspective. Nobody has the full story. It's silly to defend him (or McD) without more data. I am certainly not doing so. I am pointing out that he, in isolation of this event, seems to be quite inconsiderate about forcing his rig onto people's spaces and invading their privacy.
Even if he was most jerkiest jerk telling sh*t about their mothers nothing justifies physical attack and destruction of property.
If you can't restrain yoursef from physically attacking people and tearing their papers when they open they mouths you shouldn't be working where people are present.
I only said that it is quite possible that he is being inconsiderate and inviting friction due to his insistence in forcing his tech upon everyone around him.
What we don't know is what really happened between him and the staff other than his account of it.
I very seriously doubt that someone resorted to physically attacking him out of nowhere (as he seems to present it) without some provocation. That is simply not the way people behave unless they are criminals. There had to be an exchange of some form between them that led to that happening. I can't even speculate as to what took place, but I'll place my bet on that he wasn't an angelical figure that simply got his food and sat down to eat and then, out of nowhere --as he implies-- got attacked. The French are not that crazy.
Where did I say that you've said that the attack was justified?
I just commented on your claim (if I got you properly) that him potentially being a jerk has any relevance to the judgment about what happened.
> I only said that it is quite possible that he is being inconsiderate and inviting friction due to his insistence in forcing his tech upon everyone around him.
He doesn't complain about someone telling him his inconsiderate or giving him a stinkeye. He complains about getting assaulted.
> What we don't know is what really happened between him and the staff other than his account of it.
If he haven't assaulted anyone then this is irrelevant. IMHO as always.
> I very seriously doubt that someone resorted to physically attacking him out of nowhere (as he seems to present it) without some provocation.
I have my close friends very recent account of exactly that kind of situation. She was walking on the sidewalk with her 9mo baby in a stroller. There was a truck across the sidewalk standing and waiting to enter the property via gate that was wide open. She asked the driver to move but he refused. He said he has delivery to make here but he has to wait in front of open gate because the woman who lives here is crazy. Since the curb was high and road wide she decided to wait to talk to the women about the guy at her service blocking the sidewalk. As the women came my friend entered her property and started talking to the women. Women said "Get the fck out.", my friend said "Wait a moment!" then the women grabbed my friend and her stroller and pulled her inside (fortunately baby was properly secured in the stroller otherwise he might fall out during the struggle). Woman told my friend "So now stay here!" locked the gate and walked a way. My friend was in shock and called the Police. As she was talking to the Police the woman yelled again "Get the fck out." and after a while opened the gate. Police came, my friend described the whole situation. Police asked my friend if she wants to formally charge the woman with assault or if she just wants theem to scare her little bit. My friend chose the second option. In her own words, her world view got seriously shaken that day.
I hope that you'll never experience first-hand that physical attack by ordinary people is not always reasonably provoked.
Disclaimer: Story didn't happen in the US. No "my home is may castle" here. If you leave the door open anyone can get in and you can only ask them to leave or call the Police to make them leave.
The woman did not in fact come out of nowhere. McDonald's wouldn't employ mentally ill people in one of the busiest and most famous streets of Paris. And your friend did in fact immediately call the Police and informed them about the assault situation--I'm not sure what Mr Mann did do, but "help me I just got assaulted" is in every "What & How in French" tourist language guide and no way that the police would ignore that. If I'm to take his story at face value he had "no luck contacting the police", which might as well mean the number was busy or something.
I don't think its victim blaming. For example, I would be seriously offended if someone takes my picture without my permission.
Because I don't why they are taking it. Are they spying? Or is that guy a terrorist surveying the place? Or he might just be a guy who would morph my pic and upload that to a wrong a site.
Regardless, if you are wearing a computing device which will assist you do some things its OK. But plainly shooting pictures of unknown people, their premises and property is not something everybody will be comfortable with.
Or, far more likely than all of the above combined, times ten thousand, that person is documenting.
You know, the style of work made famous by artists like Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Garry Winogrand... or if you want some that are still alive, Bruce Gilden, Daido Moriyama, Trent Parke, Martin Parr, Helen Levitt, Bill Cunningham...
If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing any of this type of work before, I encourage you to look it up and understand that there are entirely non-nefarious reasons for taking a stranger's photo, and in fact this practice is astronomically more likely than terrorists and spies.
... I really wish we didn't live in a society so utterly drenched in constant fear.
What evidence do you have that he did not provoke the incident?
Don't be so quick to take sides.
If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I did not blame him of the incident. How could I? Not one person reading this knows exactly what went on. People who jump at conclusions based on incomplete evidence scare me.
My comments had to do with manners and common sense. Don't go around rigged like a Borg and expect everyone to accommodate your presence. Be humble and respectful of others and seek permission before invading their privacy. It's that simple.
Completely trashing the victim without taking the time to read anything about who he is—so that you might formulate a real opinion instead of a generic flamewar—could pretty easily be construed as "quick to take sides".
"My comments had to do with manners and common sense."
And still they are severely lacking in both.
> People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time.
As he explains in the article, the camera does not (when functioning properly) store anything permanently. His photos were only possible when the computer stopped overwriting the buffered images.
I don't think that's an invasion of privacy. Not being familiar with the device, they might not have known that, but that's hardly justification to assault someone. And he certainly wasn't disrespecting anyone's space/privacy.
Not one person being "scanned" would know what the rig is for. It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces.
A museum or a public place is a different story. If museum security has an issue then you either leave or take it off.
Even in public there's the concept of decorum. Let's say you have a teenage daughter who is also attractive and some guy stars to follow you a few feet in fron while recording her on video. While probably legal in most parts of the world this behavior is almost guaranteed to cause the videographer a lot of trouble, and rightly so.
Then there are other invasion-of-privacy type issues like people who choose to smoke in public. I recently had the experience of having dinner with my family in the outdoor dining area of a restaurant when a group of youngsters sat at the table next to us and started to smoke. They showed total disregard for the fact that we were being forced to inhale their smoke, even my young kids. We had been there for an hour, they just showed up and we were engulfed in a cloud of smoke. Legal? Yes? Incredibly rude and inconsiderate? Absolutely!
> "It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces."
The law says otherwise - and this position is backed up incredibly clearly by copious amounts of case law.
> " Let's say you have a teenage daughter who is also attractive and some guy stars to follow you a few feet in fron while recording her on video. While probably legal in most parts of the world this behavior is almost guaranteed to cause the videographer a lot of trouble, and rightly so."
No, just no. What the fucking fuck? What's wrong with you? What part of "being creepy in public" justifies physical assault?
This is the kind of attitude that results in people getting harrassed at a Parisian MacDonald's. You assume because your daughter is attractive that the stranger must be recording her? There is no innocent explanation? Will you bother verifying your suspicions before flying into a fit of rage at the guy (thereby escalating the entire incident into something quite possibly violent)?
> " Legal? Yes? Incredibly rude and inconsiderate? Absolutely!"
I'm waiting for you to get to the part where this justifies physical assault.
Don't be a douchebag. I get it. What does this have to do with physical violence again? Or are you saying that it is morally correct to assault douchebags? Or, more accurately, to assault people you believe are douchebags, but have not bothered verifying?
One of the fundamental tenets of our free society is the freedom to live without threat of harm or harassment for merely that which is unusual. Those who choose to "be dorks", as you so crudely put it, still have to put up with being ostracized, stereotyped, and distrusted. They should not have to add "fear of physical harm" to that list.
My question to you is this: have you ever belonged to a marginalized group, stereotyped and leered at for your subculture, your race, your sexuality, and more? If you have, you would know how easy it is for much of the population to fly to conclusions about you without even once consulting anyone knowledgeable, least of all yourself.
It is really interesting how those with weak arguments and creative interpretations of what is written resort to personal attacks as their only remaining tool.
I painted a hypothetical scenario where I clearly stated that you have someone a few feet away recording your daughter as you walk down the street. Nowhere in there did I say that I would personally resort to physical violence. I never have in my life. Why are you reading more into it than I have said?
As for the "don't be a dork" bit of advice. I am a dork. Or so says my wife. I am a geek too. Now, the term "dork" can have many meanings. Between dorks it is a little different. When I am doing something stupid or overly geeky my wife will say "You are such a dork!". It is not a pejorative at all. It just means that you are being dumb in a geeky way. Case in point: We had a brush fire in a hill near our house. I took out my RC helicopter, strapped a camera and video transmitter to it and flew it up about 800 feet (not over the fire, people, property or near full scale aircraft) to get a view of what was going on. The fire captain even took advantage of what my video monitor was showing. At the end of that my wife said "You are such a dork!". And she was right.
> I'm waiting for you to get to the part where this justifies physical assault.
And you'll never see that. Again, it's interesting to see how some are choosing to read my comments as though I justify someone getting beaten-up. NOWHERE DO I SAY THAT. READ THE FUCKING POSTS AGAIN.
I am talking about common sense and manners.
This guy decided it was more important to wear all this shit on him while going on a vacation with his daughter? What the hell is wrong with HIM? Unless he is genuinely handicapped (which does not seem to be the case) he is just being an inconsiderate dork. If I go on vacation with my kids I go on vacation with my kids. I might bring some work with me, but it is always in the form of a laptop for coding that I'll only use when they've gone to sleep. I am there for the family and their experience, not to shove my dorky pursuits on their face 24-7.
This isn't even about marginalized groups. IT IS ONLY YOU and others that are choosing to interpret the comments as such. Well, get over it, none of what I said has anything whatsoever to do with marginalized groups at all. It's about the potential of being a jerk by not being in touch with the incursions you might be making into other peoples spaces and privacy. That's all.
> "Why are you reading more into it than I have said?"
Quote: "this behavior is almost guaranteed to cause the videographer a lot of trouble, and rightly so." - you may not yourself resort to violence, but you certainly tried to excuse/justify it.
That isn't a whole lot better.
When, in the context of a thread about alleged physical assault, you say something to the tune of "well, if you do weird/creepy things, bad things will happen, and rightly so", the most obvious interpretation is that you're referring to violence. If you meant something else, you need to disclaim this.
> "Again, it's interesting to see how some are choosing to read my comments as though I justify someone getting beaten-up."
Here we go. You realize that your line of argument is the exact one that comes up inevitably when we talk about other crimes like rape.
When we're talking about certain classes of crimes, most commonly any type of physical assault, excusing the perpetrators in any way is tacit victim-blaming. I realize you seem to think differently, but this is the way you are guaranteed to come across.
There are no "buts" when it comes to physical assault, the perpetrator is in the wrong, full stop. What the victim could have potentially done to prevent the attack is not relevant to the discussion, and people are allergic to this line of reasoning for good reason: 95% of the time when it comes up it's victim-blaming and shifting responsibility away from the criminal.
I'd argue your specific instance of this argument falls into this 95%. In response to "a man was assaulted" you go on about how big of a dork he is, how inconsiderate he is (simply for wearing a strange contraption!), how when a person behaves strangely bad things will happen and rightly so.
How else do you want us to interpret your comments except to draw blame away from the perps?
> "What the hell is wrong with HIM?"
Nothing. As a self-proclaimed geek/dork you ought to understand that.
Or are you that ashamed of your own weirdness, that you will confine it to your home? That you feel the need to be utterly normal when in public, so as not to upset some people's overly-delicate sensibilities?
If author's blog is any accurate, he just finished a whole day of museum touring with his family and enjoying the stereotypical sights and sounds of Paris. If his family doesn't think his contraption is a big deal, the problem is with you for thinking it is.
The world is full of weird and wonderful people, I am very glad they exist. I'm saddened to hear that you feel compelled to bury yours because it may ruffle a few feathers.
> "Well, get over it, none of what I said has anything whatsoever to do with marginalized groups at all"
Person behaving out of expected social norms is attacked for it. How is that not the story of every marginalized group out there? From the LGBT community to the goth community to the BDSM community to, hell, the nerd community?
You seem like a person with geeky inclinations and a predilection for weirdness. Good for you. I challenge you to let your freak flag fly - and observe that 99.9% of the world either celebrates your weirdness or is ambivalent to it, and that 0.1% will fly to a fit of rage for daring to be different.
And that the 0.1% are curmudgeons, irrelevant to anyone. They certainly do not need your impassioned defense.
> It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces.
I'm not sure about that. You go on to talk about decorum and respect for the privacy of others. If someone walked into a restaurant with a glass eye or Pistorius-style prosthetics, I would feel rude asking them about it.
Sure, you and I know his camera is reality-augmenting, but if I didn't know about Mann I would probably assume it was a high-tech medical advice I hadn't heard about; I wouldn't simply assume it was a recording device.
In the same way you wouldn't expect Pistorius to walk into a McDonalds and announce why he has an unusual bodily attachment, I'm not sure Mann has to explain his EyeTap.
Granted, there are serious, qualitative difference between EyeGlass and a prosthetic leg; one might be an invasion of privacy, the other definitely isn't.
I think it's clear from the article's description that his EyeTap, which can be used to record pictures/video, is not constantly invading anyone's privacy. He has the choice (and I think we both agree, the obligation) to use it responsibly. If I don't have to announce that I have a camera in my backpack, he doesn't have to announce the camera-features of his permanent eye fixture.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again, I am a techie. I'd probably strike-up a conversation and try to learn as much as I could. But I am not the general public and my guess is that most HN readers would have the same reaction.
The general public might react differently. There are people who are actively fearful of being on Facebook. I know people who have taken down their entire Facebook photo set because of the potential to be connected through the friend-of-friends mechanism. There are also people who view and value their privacy at different levels.
I believe that in France there are laws about publishing someone's images without their permission. This means that, if you presume that someone might take a picture with you in it and then post it to Facebook they could be doing something that you don't want to have happen and that happens to be illegal in France. Splitting hairs to some and a very serious matter to others.
Private establishments might have a responsibility to their customers to provide a certain type of an environment. I don't know French law, maybe there's something there. Whatever the case may be, they have the right to create whatever standard they deem necessary within their property (so long as it is legal). For example, you can't walk into a theater and video record the screen.
For the numskulls who always choose to read their own fantasy into posts: None of the above means that violence is justified without provocation. It takes two to tango and it should also take two for an encounter to turn into a physical altercation.
> It is the responsibility of the wearer to communicate this and ask permission when entering private spaces.
At some point, I feel the need to be pedantic: any healthy human does have a universal recording device: the eye and the brain. But we're all kinda used to it. My guess is, the real reason the "security" guys were pissed off was primal fear of the unknown. They saw a Borg coming in, then they found a likely rationale for messing with him.
Try walking past a security guard in a clown suit, and see what happens. I bet he will find any reason to mess with you but the fact you are wearing a clown suit.
As for the actual privacy problem, wait for the day we'll have recording devices plugged right to the optic nerve.
Well good on you taking a reasoned but unpopular position. I agree that the description of the events seems to leave out a bit, particularly the emotional content of the interactions. The rig does look intimidating and I'm not sure how I'd react in person.
He goes from "we bought our food and sat down to eat it" to "this guy assaulted me". Really? Unless they have complete lunatics at that establishment I find that hard to believe. There's a large series of events before a non-criminal who isn't absolutely insane decides to attack you.
I'd love to see the store's surveillance video and read their account before choosing sides.
It's probably wise for him not to write about those particular moments, especially given that he's dealing with the laws of a foreign country. If it could remotely possibly matter what was said, then he needs to filter that through a lawyer.
There's a large series of events before a non-criminal who isn't absolutely insane decides to attack you.
Firstly, you are demonstrably wrong, and as evidence, I would put forward around 20% of nightclub door security as exhibit A.
Also I would say it is very easy to construct plausible scenarios around this particular story.
"Remove that camera."
"I can't."
"Stop taking the piss."
"I'm not, it is all part of a medical experiment."
"I said stop taking the piss and take off the camera."
After this it goes downhill rather rapidly.
This is of course a fiction, from someone with no firsthand knowledge of the situation, but to try and make out that being attacked by security for stupid reasons is an unlikely event that does not happen to lots of people with fairly boring regularity, is an even greater fiction still.
"Second bit of advice: Ask for permission when walking into a private establishment -like a restaurant- with such a rig. It isn't their job to accommodate every nutcase that comes through the door. You are not a nutcase, but your actions may have telegraphed otherwise."
UK Note: anyone planning to attend the Olympics in London; please be careful with home made life blogging equipment of any kind. LEDs, wires, backpacks &c.
This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it.
First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy.
People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to take it off and you can't, then you leave. You are the transgressor, not the people in front of you.
Second bit of advice: Ask for permission when walking into a private establishment -like a restaurant- with such a rig. It isn't their job to accommodate every nutcase that comes through the door. You are not a nutcase, but your actions may have telegraphed otherwise.
I would expect people to react very differently to an actual blind person wearing some hardware than an obviously sighted person under the same circumstances.
There are also details that are not being revealed. Does he "scan" the place and do a bunch of stuff with the hardware when entering a new environment?
I find it hard to believe that someone would outright attack him without prior motive. People just don't do that -not even in France- unless they are seriously provoked or are criminals. We know nothing about the interaction and actions of the cyborg propr to the "assault". Let's say he was "scanning" people at the restaurant and generally acting in an intrusive manner, well, that's just not acceptable behavior in most parts of the world.
Finally, the las bit of advise might be: Be aware of cultural differences when traveling to other countries. While in Canada and parts of the US people might generally go out of their way to be polite, that is not the case around the globe. In some parts of the world you'll gen man-handled and even beaten-up if you act like an idiot and show a general lack of respect. Just because you think what you are doing is OK it doesn't mean that everyone around you agrees.
Times do change. When I was in college I'd walk around with my HP calculator hanging off my belt. Outside of college I'd take it off. Today people walk around with computers in their pockets and little devices with blinking LED's in their ears all day long. That's just the way the world works. Be smart enough to use Aikido, not Karate.
Finally: Get someone to help you with industrial design. When comparing the photos on the linked page, your rig looks intimidating, while the Google rig is almost invisible.
Also, turn the damn thing off when dealing with people so your eye looks normal.
I respect the work and dedication immensely, what I think is off-base here is the assumption that it is OK to stick a camera in everyone's face (or within a private establishment) without permission.
If you decide to down-vote please have the courtesy to explain your reasons so that I and others might learn from contrasting points of view.