Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Wanoah]

"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."

[Louella Dougans]

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.

[Casiella]

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.)

[Lyn Farel]

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.

[Louella Dougans]

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.

[Jev North]

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.