Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Ken on 17 Jul 2012, 10:16
-
Apparently, nobody likes cybernetic monocles in real life either....
http://io9.com/5926587/what-may-be-the-worlds-first-cybernetic-hate-crime-unfolds-in-french-mcdonalds
-
I've been watching this, and Professor Mann has been at the forefront of wearable computing and augmented reality for many years. As much as I hate what happened to him, I can't quite yet comprehend what his assailants' actual complaints were. Maybe they just didn't want to be recorded, and the issue had nothing to do with the equipment that's been surgically attached?
-
FFS.
-
I can't wrap my head around what the assailants were actually perturbed about either. :s
Steve Mann is the friggin' man, though.
[spoiler](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Wearcompevolution.jpg)[/spoiler]
-
I'm a bioconservative, but damn...
-
Steve Mann is the friggin' man, though.
Quoted for truth. I'm also not surprised he's the first guy this has happened to; I remember reading the guy has already routinely had trouble with customs, police, security, etcetera, ever since he started doing this. He's not carrying around notes from his doctor saying "yes, the equipment really is attached to his body" for no good reason.
-
I suspect the reason may fundamentally have been a fear of being recorded / observed, much like walking around with a camcorder recording people.
It would depend if the same McDonalds Employees have done similar to prostheticly equipped persons or not.
-
It's lovely, sweet irony to consider that they probably did not even stop to think about how everything they did was being recorded on Mickey D's security cameras.
-
Maybe they just didn't want to be recorded, and the issue had nothing to do with the equipment that's been surgically attached?
Might be. Of course, if that's the case, they'd better start trying to remove customer's brains, too. After all, the human mind does a fair job of recording events as well (although certainly not an infallible job).
-
I'm not familiar with privacy, electronic surveillance or private property laws in France, so this may not apply.
If they had an objection to being recorded, they could have politely requested he leave the restaurant. I certainly have reservations about the proliferation of recording devices in use these days. However, the dividing line to me is whether you are out in public or on/in private property and other "reasonable expectation of privacy" considerations.
-
I don't know what are the exact laws, but they sure do not make you in your right to agress someone in your property if he does not follow your rules, even if the rules are backed by the law.
The thing I am sure however, is that you will inevitably end up in trouble if you attack someone for whatever reason, even if he is in your property.
And here we are not speaking about the right of self defense, which is by the law authorized if :
- actual danger
- injustified aggression
- real aggression (a simple threat is not enough)
- the defense used must be the only way to defend oneself
- proportionnal to aggression (no excess tolerated)
So, no. I wonder what the aggressors were thinking. And anyway, this is not even their property, its Mac Donald property, and I am pretty sure their policies are slightly different. :3
-
The weird thing is the reactions he says he's getting from officials inside and outside McDonalds, such as the police, etc. His blog says they aren't being very helpful, which does make me wonder.
Kinda like in Eve some folks rage at never getting their stuff reimbursed in petitions. In most cases they are either way off base or they are being unreasonably emotional.
But maybe it's a conspiracy to stave off the Bionic Man.
-
That's what I meant about the motivations: I don't think it's just because he had "weird cyborg shit" attached to him, but that doesn't mean the whole thing isn't odd.
-
He was likely injured more in the long term by the food he ate rather than any roughing up he received.
-
He was likely injured more in the long term by the food he ate rather than any roughing up he received.
QFT. Toilets are not meant for the megaton-scale assplosions caused by American fast food chains.
-
Maybe the police is helpless because his own condition is still pretty unique. I mean, they may not even really know how to react or what to do. How to prove he was aggressed or not, etc. But that surely sounds weird, though.
-
"Kill the beast! Cut his throat! Spill his blood!"
And:
"During the Napoleonic wars, a French ship of the type chasse marée was wrecked off the coast of Hartlepool. The only survivor was a monkey, allegedly wearing a French uniform to provide amusement for the crew. On finding the monkey, some locals decided to hold an impromptu trial on the beach; since the monkey was unable to answer their questions, and many locals were unaware of what a Frenchman may look like, they concluded that the monkey was in fact a French spy. Just to make sure, the animal was thus sentenced to death and hanged from the mast of a fishing boat on the Headland."
-
I don't see how the police can do anything. It's three French dudes opinion vs one foreign person's opinion.
I don't see how the camera can be admissible as evidence either. The man still has it, since he put pictures from it onto his blog thing. Which means there's a question of whether or not the images have been tampered with, or if what they show is actually what it is said is going on at the time. The judge would say "non" and then it's back to 3 Frenchmen vs 1 foreigner.
There's a thing about this whole thing. Stuff like CCTV cameras, and so on, falls under Data Protection laws and so on, but people with cybernetic eyes aren't covered.
Privacy stuff too. Or even confidentiality stuff. You cannot allow a person with a cybernetic eye into a courtroom, and have them taking pictures willy nilly, of people that are accused, but not convicted, and all sorts of other stuff like that.
Cybernetic eyes, the storage of stuff, has ramifications for crime and justice and so on. Something happens, and there's an appeal for witnesses, and Johnny Cyberman turns up, claiming to have seen it. And he's modified the images on his cybereye to frame Ethnica Z. Foreigner for the crime. Even if it's no good for a court of law, Johnny can talk to the press, or blog about it or whatever, putting up the pics. This would screw all sorts of stuff up.
-
That's probably part of why his actual post refers to possible witnesses - as in, other human beings that were present and saw whatever happened.
Also, we have pretty extensive case law about evidence and determining its reliability for court ("forensics", etc.)
-
I don't see how the police can do anything. It's three French dudes opinion vs one foreign person's opinion.
I guess it is true, but crimes against foreigners are still supposed to be punished. If that is the reason, then it is sad.
I don't see how the camera can be admissible as evidence either. The man still has it, since he put pictures from it onto his blog thing. Which means there's a question of whether or not the images have been tampered with, or if what they show is actually what it is said is going on at the time. The judge would say "non" and then it's back to 3 Frenchmen vs 1 foreigner.
Yes. Even more so, as far as I know, video recordings can't be used as proofs in french law, but only as witnesses. I would have to check again on that but I am pretty sure they can't.
-
Here's a few more stories:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/exclusive-cyborg-steve-mann-on-alleged-mcdonalds-assault
http://blog.laptopmag.com/mcdonalds-claims-employees-did-not-assault-human-cyborg-steve-mann
http://blog.laptopmag.com/cyborg-steve-mann-posts-photo-of-mcdonalds-employee-grabbing-his-glasses
and you can decide for yourself.
look at the element where after McDonalds says there was no scuffle, and then the guy posts more pictures, which then adds to the whole thing.
Instead of accusing them of bundling him out into the street, he's now accusing them of being liars.
And that's only possible because he alone has the "evidence".
And the first story is the interesting one. The first employee encountered said "cameras were not allowed", and then the guy gave him the note, which says it's permanently attached and so on. The employee said Ok.
The ones that allegedly assaulted them, however, seem to have been in front of the toilets. The cyberguy says he was going towards the toilets at the time of the incident.
Now, with a policy in place of "cameras are not allowed", and a guy who has a camera thing, going into the toilets, is it any surprise at all that there was an altercation ?
I don't think so. And that's why they might also have allegedly torn up the "doctors note". They're not going to listen to what any kind of weirdie who is seemingly intent on photographing customers in the toilets might say about the camera being attached to their skull.
"Employees Stop Suspicious Person Recording Other Customers In Toilets", is how the story might also have been reported.
It's not about "cyborg discrimination".
Unless people are happy to have strangers take pictures of them when they're using a urinal.
-
Well, one has to note the camera is surgically attached to his skull at the eye point.
If you don't want him to film your weewee.. don't show it to him.