Lost Lake Doesn't Allow Customers to Wear Google Glass, and Here's a Good Reason Why

Comments

1
Nick, you're not going to win a "who is less douchey" contest with that fucking hair.
2
Who fucking cares about this? This kid thrives on attention, so the more he gets, positive or negative, he will stick around.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop feeding into this child's psychosis.
3
Restaurant asks man to leave. Man gets upset. Man takes to social media. Restaurant responds to social media. Its a story as old as time or something.
Honestly, private property is just that. If the proprietor wants you to leave for a non-discriminatory reason, you go. Wear that glass in public places as much as you want.
4
"Draconian", "Luddites"... yeah, that's going to win people over to your side of the argument.

Sorry, "Google Glass" is creepy, since you never know when it's recording. Kudos to Lost Lake, sensible policy.
5
Good, let the glassholes get their own fucking restaurant.
6
Welcome to the future - filled insufferable narcissists.
7
Hey, if I want to follow Nick Starr to every public place he goes with a camcorder pointing directly at him at all times, that is fine, and anyone who thinks differently is just a Nazi Luddite who hates freedom.
8
@2 - Maybe he'll replace Sarah Palin as the next person with pointless opinions we ask about anyway. It's time for a change.
9
Who's the asshole here?

Option #1: Some rich dude (Dave Meinert) who organized the alcohol/restaurant industry to fight against the state income tax for the rich, who lobbied to impose fines against panhandlers, who lobbied to legalize gambling in bars, who successfully fought to change the sick leave law so that he's essentially exempt, who wrote a letter for the alcohol industry to fight against McGinn because he was against a non-union Whole Foods chain (that even his business partner thought crossed a line), who keeps drumming up "human interest" stories so that The Stranger & other websites keep giving him free advertising.


Option #2: Some guy wore a computer on his face.


I'll pick option #1 for the biggest asshole in the city.
10
OMG WE FIGURED OUT WHO RAKU IS! It all makes sense now...
11
@9, all of which may be true, but none of which is relevant to the story. And anyway, it wasn't Dave Meinart who asked the Glasses guy to leave, it was his manager. And his manager did it to make the rest of his customers more comfortable.
12
I'll be watching Cienna's Twitter for the crazy-crazy-crazy reaction that only a Google Glass toting "Social Media Enthusiast" can drum up.

Also, not knowing that the 5 Point and Lost Lake are owned and operated by the same people...
13
I still don't get the "Google Glasses" phobia that seems to be popping up. Yes they can take pictures, but so can smartphones, tablets, (now) watches, and cameras. Was the guy using the glasses inappropriately? Did someone complain? On what basis?
14
option c) everyone is the biggest asshole
15
I'd like to ban Google Glasses in the city limits of Seattle
16
Wearing Google Glass should get you kicked out of any restaurant, and asking to "see the policy" should too. The policy is, if the manager wants you out, you leave.

@9, I'm sorry, dear, but you're a damn fool.
17
I would not demand somebody lose their job for almost any reason. To have a job loss on my head would leave me sleepless, wondering if a child is going hungry or lost their home. To demand it for something so meaningless could only mean Starr is not a very nice person at all.
19
#11: Dave Meinert was the one who banned Google Glass in his chain of bars. He spun it around the national news a while ago. He's incredible at drumming up free publicity for doing absolutely nothing.

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/google-glas…
20
@13 @18 I wasn't doing anything WITH Glass while I was there, simply wearing it. My partner and I had just sat down and started to look over the menu when the 'night manger' came over and the rest of the story played out.
21
Also, Dave Meinert encouraged giving people wearing Google Glass "ass kickings". Classssssssy. At least the computer-face guy didn't threaten to beat up Dave Meinert or his manager.
22
@10, eureka!

This guy is a troll, is all. Last March, Meinert famously banned Glass from his other restaurant, the Five Point. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/google-glas…

So this guy went fishing for attention where he knew he'd get it, and got it.
23
The restaurant probably needs to enact a policy against customers using leaf blowers, too.
24
Do I want my picture taken at Lost Lake at 3am? Noooope. Not that anybody would care to, but I get the same creepy feeling many do on this.

But give it UP. Fighting Google Glass or anything similar that will be coming out (watches, wearables, kits, etc) is like trying to bail out the ocean with a bucket.

Stop thinking short term. Take our tech path and go forward a decade. Then two decades. Three.
25
i am so happy right now. so happy.
26
I'm with @17. I might (might) have come down on the side of the restaurant being the bigger asshole here. Or, if not an asshole, at the very least maybe they should have a written policy or should have explained the rationale for their request better. But... saying that someone should be fired over this (or have her wages docked)? That definitely tips the asshole scales way over to Starr's side.
27
@10 - snork! Seriously.

@1 - funny how all aspects are consistent, no?

28
@24: Maybe, but the "#GlassExplorer" (as he likes to call himself) should probably be aware of people's concerns and not simply try to bully them into accepting it. Like it or not, people are uncomfortable with this right now and throwing tantrums and calling for people to be fired are not acceptable behavior. It just makes him look like an entitled ass. There are legitimate concerns about this technology, and you would think that a "#GlassExplorer" would embrace the chance to assuage people's concerns instead of bullying them and harassing them on Facebook and Twitter.
29
hmm…situational jerk vs. lifetime doucher. Well, at least I know where I won't be eating…and I liked that place. Still, the mini-rant in the restaurant wins that particular moment's "who's the bigger ass."
30
@13 The "phobia" is a couple things, really. One is that you can't tell if you're being recorded or not, there is no visual indicator of recording on the outside of the glass, and no action is required to demonstrate that you are filming, unlike most of other devices, where you have to hold up a phone or watch in order to get the picture. If I walked around a restaurant hold my phone out like I was filming, or stood up and started taking pictures around the restaurant, I expect I would be, at the least, questioned about it, if not ejected. Secondarily, even though you can take a picture or video with a phone, most people aren't doing it non-stop which it's possible to do with glass (and again, without the presence of a phone being held out in an "I'm taking a video" fashion, which acts to let anyone who would rather not be filmed know to stay out of the lens area.)
31
Can't we all call them "Google Glasses"? There's something about saying "Google Glass" that just annoys the hell out of me, like we're all agreeing to call glasses "Glass" so that we can help in Google's worldwide marketing scheme. Am I the only one who feels this way?
32
Oh lord. He's registered here. I can't wait till the Stranger calls me out for being a massive tool in public and I have to register my own name to tell them nasty internet commenters what's what.
33
It's hilarious to watch people freak out over "nonconsensual" video/picture taking via google glass a decade after CCTV recording in private businesses became somewhere between omnipresent and required.

Protip, folks: if you're in a restaurant or a retail establishment, you're on camera. Flipping your shit at the nerd with the stupid toy on his face is not going to change that.
34
@33: Are you a golf pro?
35
A guy I know is in the next round of Glass invitees. I encouraged him to dive in, since not only does he do all sorts of acrobatic xtreme-y sports stuff that's perfect for Glass to tape, he also is extremely well socialized, and would never EVER put others on the spot for the sake of his gadget. Glass needs more users like him.
36
Dude went into Lost Lake looking for a fight. That clearly makes him the bigger douchebag in this scenario.
37
Ooh, this Nick Starr character is coming out with fancy words like "libelous" in his Facebook discussion. Yes, please sue, that would be funny. Make sure your "lawyer" wears his Google specs (I agree with @31, let's stop marketing them for them) when he files the papers.
38
@20 - uhh.. then why not just take them off? problem solved. end of story. Instead you gotta act like a giant douche about the whole thing.
PS - anyone who wears those glasses looks like an idiot.
39
@30 I'd love to see Google Glass take a picture or video "non-stop" with it's 45 minute battery life while recording.
40
This guy is going full douche, no doubt, but I think any establishment that tries to stop customers from Glass holing is trying to beat back the tide. These kind of devices, so visible (and visibly invasive), are going to be invisible within the next two years. Eventually they'll be as universal as smartphones and as innocuous contact lenses. What then?
41
(Er, none of my previous comment should in any way be taken as an endorsement of Nick Starr, who I am choosing for my own sanity to believe is actually an out-of-work actor engaged in an ongoing Andy Kaufman-esque audience-provoking performance art piece. Like "Foreign Man", except without ever breaking into the Elvis impersonation...yet.)
42
@36 not true and I didn't "fight" with the staff. I simply asked if it was their policy written or otherwise to not allow Glass. I know that the 5 Point Cafe has this policy and as such I don't go there.

I went in for dinner not a fight.
43
@39 I stand entirely corrected. I know I for one wouldn't start feeling uncomfortable being recorded by a stranger in a restaurant until at least the hour mark.
44
Maybe we should start calling them Googley Eyes. Has this joke been made before?
45
Walk into a strip club wearing those things. I FUCKING DARE YOU.
46
@44: the proper name for them is actually:

"Segway For Your Face"

Please make a note of it, etc etc etc.
47
@42 Then why didn't you just take the glasses off and eat then? GOSH.
48
When I started seeing them worn by people roaming around inside Bartell Drugs then I knew that the End was near.
49
I'm sure this is exactly the kind of advertising Google was looking for when they rolled out their product to the select few. "Go out there and annoy the crap out of as many people as possible, threaten to sue them and get them fired, call them 'boxy-hipped cunts' if they object. Help us get the word out."

The word being "Google Specs users are douchetrolleys".
50
Absolutely @28, I agree and was never defending any of his ensuing tantrum. All he needs to do is spend/vote with his money elsewhere. Eventually Lost Lake and the rest will allow these in after a few years, when every kid's got one and has money to spend at night.
51
But @24 is completely correct. Glass makes us uncomfortable/annoyed now because it's visible and because its price puts it clearly into "toys for rich boys" territory at a time when everyone outside the tech industry is feeling pinched. Twenty years from now, the equivalent product will be under $100 and will be indistinguishable from a normal pair of glasses. The train has left the station.

Remember, if you're under 60 years old, you weren't promised a jetpack, you were promised an oppressive cyberpunk dystopia with the occasional cool toy. Ta da!
52
@20,

So why didn't you take it off? And why are you such a douchebag that you demanded that the hostess be docked pay or fired?

Congratulations on your new title: The Worst Person in Seattle. I'm sure Lisa Dank is relieved.
53
I think I am with Meinert on this.
1. It's his bar.
2. See #1
3. It is kind of creepy have a stranger film you. Things change when a camera is pointed at you.
4. It is only a matter of time before some lawyer decides to request Google Glass data to make their case.
5. I do believe it is still illegal in our state to record a conversation without consent.
54
Is "Nick Starr" also *this* Nick Starr?

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/n…
55
This conversation seems to call for a Slog Poll. After the successful renaming of Tuba Man Memorial Stadium, what should we call Google's new stupid product?

So far, we have:
Google glasses
Google specs
Googley eyes
Segway for your face
56
@20: Also, why did you put night manager in single quotes? Are you against double quotes? Did you think the person really wasn't the night manager?
57
@54 - if it is the same, then he is a douchebag supreme.
58
Who the fuck is Nick Starr?

FWIW, I'm not sure it's possible to have a name like 'Nick Starr' and not be a douche.
59
@55 Google (gl)ASS
60
@55, is it too late to submit "face testicles"?
61
@60 - We would also accept "Face-ticles" and "Face Balls"
62
Insufferable douche engages in douchebaggery.

News at 11.
63
@57: Why? Because he suffered from a mental illness at some point in his life? While I am not happy about the behavior listed above as far as Google Glass, I think anybody criticizing someone who is undergoing a mental health crisis is a far bigger douchebag. Orders of magnitude greater. People like you are responsible for the common thinking that people that are feeling suicidal can't be helped or that people claim to feel suicidal just for the attention. Stop judging people and promoting these toxic beliefs. You wouldn't say the same thing about a heart attack. So why is mental health any different?
64
@ 55 -

Google Ass
65
@63: Some people do claim to feel suicidal for the attention. I would guess (with no data at all to support it) that people who claim on twitter to be suicidal are more likely to be doing it for attention. Claiming that doesn't happen takes away from your cause, which is noble. As a side note, I'm sure there have been people who faked heart attacks for attention, too.
66
@54: Exactly the one.

Is his claim to fame just being unstable? I'm all for banning vloggers from Cap Hill restaurants regardless.

@63: I'm sympathetic to persons having a breakdown, but much less so when they need negative attention swarming around them as this douchenozzle does. I hope he gets help when he needs it, and stops playing persecuted when he gets bounced from a bar.
67
@20: "@13 @18 I wasn't doing anything WITH Glass while I was there, simply wearing it. My partner and I had just sat down and started to look over the menu when the 'night manger' came over and the rest of the story played out."

Instead of having a titty fit, you could simply take off your novelty fashion accessory like a grown-up.
68
Good for them. Cellphones are bad enough, but at least it's obvious when someone is recording video of you with one. I'm going to treat anyone that walks up to me wearing these the same way I would treat someone who walked up and started taping me with a cellphone.

69
@64 - And for the people wearing them, Glassholes.
70
So, all the other camera glasses that cost a tenth (actually less) what google Glass does, and arent' at all obviously anything but glasses, would be perfectly okay?

If you want to know what I'm talking about, just google "camera glasses".

The techno ignorance of stranger writers and slog commenters is stunning.
71
Mmm...Google ass has a nice ring to it. Still, I can use "Segway for your face" in polite company.

I'm not sure all the objection is in 'toys for rich boys' - it is the sense of constant surveillance. Somehow CCTV cameras - ubiquitous yes - are somewhat invisible to us, and predate the narcissistic age of social media; we have a sense of the fixed positioning and accountability of CCTV owner/operators.

Perhaps if something like google ass becomes cheap and ubiquitous the way cell phone cameras have, we'll come to accept it as the new lack of privacy - being filmed when you don't even know it. Honestly, this is probably true in any urban setting already with cell phones.
72
What on earth did I click on to get the vagina pillow ad in the sidebar?
Oh, and google's glasses are now. 20 years from now there will be something much more annoying. Nick, you should have jumped. Chinaski out.
73
@65: Let me get this straight, you are saying that a person without a serious mental illness (that needs emergency treatment) are willing to identify themselves and claim to feel suicidal for the fun of it? Sorry, I doubt buy your reasoning here. This reminds me of mens rights advocates who claim that there are some women who claim to be raped just for the attention. Both may be true to some trivial extent, but that shouldn't impact how we treat the problem in general, nor should we just assume that it is the case or even plausible without substantial counter-evidence.

Note: I'm not discussing griefers who use their anonymity to rile people up. I'm talking about people who use their real name or a long established handle to make these statements, which is what would be applicable for the Twitter suicide threats.
74
Google glasses (or Face Testicles, as some call them) would be welcome in my establishment, but only if the wearer agreed to wear a comical eyepatch over the one side, and a large pink sombrero.
75
Asking people to take them off isn't enough. I'd prefer a restaurant that would never allow anyone who would even hypothetically want to wear Google Glasses in the door.

Besides, those guys only eat at Olive Garden. They show up at other places just to be a dick.
76
You all know we're only about 2-10 years before comparable tech is available in (and probably obfuscated within) prescription glasses, right?

Are we going to tell people they can't wear corrective glasses in certain venues because they may have cameras in them?

Just tossing that out there. This genie is completely out of the bottle.
77
And no, I don't have any problem with Meinert tossing anyone for any reason like this. But in 10 years, it's going to be a lot harder. I look forward to the day I end up having a camera in my glasses because it will just be cool. My glasses are also prescription, so I look forward to the inevitable lawsuit over rights this will probably spawn.
78
IMO, Nick Starr has always been a media whore and is always the victim. Bing (don't Google!) his name and you'll find lot's of examples of his victimhood in both San Fran and Seattle, this is just another attempt by him for attention. (he should really change his jacket once in a while too)
79
@76,77: I don't think the issue is with some absolute policy that will never change, but with the fact that it makes people uncomfortable right now. I think everybody understands that humans are going to become more like cyborgs in the future and that any recording technology is only going to get smaller and harder to detect. That's understood. But this is the first major step of useful general-purpose wearable computing. The policy that a restaurant adopts is for the purpose of keeping its customers happy, not to predict the technological trends of the future. And right now, people who wear Google Glass in restaurants are pissing people off. If people in the future don't mind everybody using HUDs and minicameras in their restaurants, then they can change the policy. Feel free to leave a message to the future you on this thread so that the future you can make sure the rules of restaurant etiquette are adjusted.
80
@77

See what you did right there? How you took a simple medical need -- corrective lenses -- and turned it into an entitlement for a camera? Right after you admitted the only reason for the camera was that "it will just be cool". But you think there's going to be these awesome lawsuits entitling dudes like you to have video games on your face?

Privileged white men really don't understand the difference between a whites only lunch counter and asking them to take the stupid camera off their face. Just like guys who have zero chance of ever being hungry or homeless in their lives think it's a game to demand somebody be fired from their job.

That right there is what this thing is.
81
It's tools like this guy who really make it hard to date quality gay guys in Seattle. So many of them under 45 are so fucking full of themselves they can only date other douche-bags like themselves. And I don't want to paint a quick picture but I'll just about bet he works at Amazon or MS; those places attract that sort of self entitlement.

Though I do find a certain satisfaction when they go through ugly divorces with themselves.
82
@79, nicely put!
83
The California Supreme Court ruled that restaurants, while open to the public, do maintain an expectation of privacy and that patrons are protected from being photographed or recorded without their consent. Wearing a recording device doesn't necessarily mean you're recording, but are you surprised you were asked to put it away?

I saw my first pair of Google glasses in the wild a few weeks ago on the train. Two men together—the nerdier of the two wearing the Glasses while looking at his phone (?!@!!). The other more put together one, was not only holding on to the bars across the aisle with each hand, but clumsily hit on a woman before returning to his friend. The not-fucking-getting-it-ness between these two was off the charts.
85
@79, right on.

Which is funny, because one of the ways to turn Face Testicles into something that the public will accept is not to be a huge dick about them. But the people who wear them, seemingly 100% of them, are ginormous prongs waving their not-fucking-getting-it-ness (thank you Dougsf) around like a bozo with a ladder in an old silent film comedy.

Which is going to hurt acceptance, I think. I hope.
86
@76: Yes, they should be bounced from establishments if they decide to embed their recording devices in prescription lenses.

The solution, as a nearly from birth glasses wearer is not to embed recording devices in my prescription lenses.

I don't understand how entitled some persons get, I really don't.
87
@85: I love that the combination of the drinking-the-flavoraid in Google and the Social Media circlejerk has led to this set of demands and "EVERYONE WILL OWN ONE, JUST YOU WAIT" aggression. The combination of tech-sociopathy and "do you KNOW who I am?" is absolutely putrid.
88
@84: Businesses want their customers to feel comfortable. I don't feel comfortable around people who are constantly shitvlogging and turning into titty-babies when they are asked, reasonably, to remove their nookie from their mouth.

The world doesn't stop for you.
89
I dunno, guys. I work in tech and if you told me twenty years ago that today I could buy an actual wristwatch computer/phone I would have called you a crackhead. Remember when people bitched about people playing on things like Game Boys in restaurants, and later how they bitched about people using phones (even if not talking) in restaurants?

Commonality breeds acceptance of nearly anything, is all I'm saying, and that sooner or later someone--it won't be me--will embed some sort of computing or recording device into something medically required like prescription eyeglass frames.

I've got no entitlement issues here. I'm just guessing around the notion that by maybe 2020-2025 when we're old and cranky about the days pre-"Glass", the then 25 year olds who are being born today will be arguing online about whether there is an issue of entitlement because people are starting to pilot project on embedded cameras in their skin or contact lenses or whatever the hell else.
90
@89 - Those things (Gameboys and cell phones in restaurants) are still annoying.
91
@89, people still do bitch about asswipes who talk on their cell phones in restaurants. Especially when they do it ON SPEAKERPHONE like a couple of people I've encountered.

And people also still bitch about people who use their cell phones just to look at because I'M RIGHT HERE TALKING TO YOU ASSHOLE. I don't think these behaviors are as widely accepted as you think they are.

Maybe in McDonald's or someplace. You see a lot of that kind of thing in places like that. Maybe the trick is to associate Google Face Testicles with frequent users of McDonald's. Make them seem declassé, like TruckNutz.

Now, if it's super-sekret and no one can tell, fine. You'll "get away with it". Unless someone passes a law mandating a red dot or something. Which sounds like a good idea.
92
This is how I feel about people who want to wear face camcorders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1s…

"It's my bar of chocolate, give it to me now!"

93
@89: I have a temporary solution until the MPAA gets involved (and they will if there is any legal basis here): take out your batteries or put duct tape over the camera, then you can eat. If necessary, require the patron to sign over permission to physically damage or destroy the recording device while keeping the prescription eyewear functional (a drill would work). Voila! No discrimination based on eyesight!
94
@73: So now I'm pro-rapist because I said you shouldn't be so sure that someone who repeatedly tells the social media world he's going to kill himself and never does might be more interested in attention than in killing himself?
You've lost all rights to attempt arguments for at least ten days. You can come back then, after you've thought long and hard about what you've done.
95
Great article on this story in Forbes by Capitol Hiller Matt Hickey - http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthickey/2…
97
@ too many to count: You are freaking out and should calm down.
The main scare people are bringing up is that Google Glasses could be used to secretly record a video of someone. However, if you think out how that would play out, recording a video with GG would require you to stare directly at someone for the duration of the recording, which is the opposite of secret.
"Well sure, but what if he took a picture instead of a video?"
That is a possibility, but if someone wanted to take a picture surreptitiously, all they have to do is pull out a smart phone and pretend to be texting but actually have the camera on. And again for comparisons sake, GG would require someone to stare directly at the person they wanted to take a picture of which is fairly obvious.

IMHO, the night manager had no valid reason to insist that Nick Starr take off his GG and Nick is entitled to be pissed over it (though demanding the person lose their job is excessive).
98
Lost Lake sounds like an awesome place to go, and luckily Nick Starr won't be there to douche everything up.
99
@89: And if you don't put your cellphone down and/or turn it off when the establishment asks you to take it out (as it's bothering the people around you), you should be bounced as well.
100
Google Glasses are a great thing to wear while riding a Segway.
101
@97: Blanket management policy, they already ban GG at the 5 Point.

@96: They don't want the crowd who feels obliged to wear such fashion statements and annoy their clientele, your analogy is incredibly stupid. We deserve privacy and relaxation, so leave the shit at the door. If you can't have fun without your covert surveillance devices, spend your money on businesses where you're actually wanted.
102
@94:
So now I'm pro-rapist
No, no. You just suck at reading comprehension and want to make a really stupid strawman argument.
103
@94: Btw, when you make such a profound exaggeration and misconstruction of another person's arguments, you probably shouldn't in turn argue for something like a posting ban because you claim that person was extreme. Some might come to the conclusion that you are being a little hypocritical and ask you if you would be willing to enact that punishment on yourself.