Customer Kicked Out Of Restaurant For Wearing Google Glass

Customer Kicked Out Of Restaurant For Wearing Google GlassIn the same way that some restaurants have begun to request that their customers turn off cell phones, one restaurant in Seattle has kicked out a customer for wearing Google Glass. The same person that kicked out the patron for wearing Google’s latest piece of technology had also issued a ban on Google Glass in another bar shortly after the device was unveiled.

The restaurant in question, Lost Lake, is owned by David Meinert, who has previously made the news simply by opposing the use of Glass in any of his establishments.

It’s one thing to take out a camera and capture a moment, people see you doing it, they have a chance to step out if they want to. With Glass people don’t have a chance to do that. We want our customers to feel comfortable, not like they’re being watched. – Meinert’s business partner Jason Lajeunesse

Even though tons of people are criticizing Meinert for making such a big deal over Google Glass and their use within his restaurants and bars, he is not the only manager to come out against the new piece of technology. Numerous Las Vegas casinos have already stated that they are looking to ban Google Glass as well.

We recently had to ask a rude customer to leave because of their insistence on wearing and operating Google Glasses inside the restaurant. So for the record, here’s Our Official Policy on Google Glass – Lost Lake

It is likely that we will see more of these bans before Google Glass is officially released to the public in 2014. Right now, the only people that are running into trouble with Glass are part of Google’s Explorer program, but the public will have access to Glass shortly.

The jury is still out as to whether or not Meinert is justified in banning Google Glass or actually kicking someone out for using it. From a legal standpoint, he may be fine, however the implications of using Glass seem to be no more than what you would find with allowing smartphones.

  1. Washington state law prohibits the operation of recording devices without notification where reasonable privacy can be expected, with exceptions for the press and for public officers engage in official duties. The Google Glass user could potentially be charged for a misdemeanor if the user were operating the device in a restaurant without notifying the patrons.

    The restaurant owner is absolutely in the right in Seattle to prohibit their use and threaten civil trespass, which if charged for unlawful recording would become criminal trespass.

  2. It doesn’t mean he was recording. People don’t seem to understand that it is isn’t recording all the time, not even part of the time. It doesn’t have the battery life for it.

    To me this is like kicking someone out because they happened to be holding a smart phone. It doesn’t even mention if they asked the patron to take it off/turn it off. Like how they would ask a patron to step outside if he was talking on his phone.

  3. The US courts have already ruled there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place. If the club was an exclusive club that said you cannot take photos or when in the bathroom, locker rooms, fitting rooms, etc there would be an expectation of privacy. Otherwise, in a normal public restaurant there is no expectation of privacy. The bar owner is within his right to kick them out. I support his legal grounds for doing it but I think it is completely childish and pointless. There are plenty of ways to photograph people without their knowledge and I would hope and assume (yes, I know what that is) that Google has put some very basic common sense into the design that requires a little red light to be on during any recording. People can take photos of others while appearing to play games, text, read an email, etc. They even have front facing cameras that would allow people to take a shot over their shoulder. There are very inexpensive button or pen cameras that you do not even know the user is recording. To ban this for the sake of banning it, is stupid and as I have pointed out, pointless. Having said that, it is his business and his perogitive.

  4. It doesn’t matter whether it’s recording. Your eye is at the viewfinder of an SLR trained on me. i stop thinking about how delicious the steak on my plate is and start being concerned about whether its going to get stuck in my teeth. I take a bite. Some gravy rolls down my chin. The little red light on your SLR turns on. It may be that you are taking a photo of something else. I don’t really care. I call you out, the SLR gets smashed, you end up with a black eye and we both get kicked out.

    Maybe this happens before the steak arrives.

  5. Waiting until someone decides to make a ‘civil liberties’ issue out of it and then more business owners will find out just how worthless ‘Right to Refuse Service’ truly is these days..

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here