[ExI] cybernetic hate crime?
spike66 at att.net
Wed Jul 18 13:00:56 UTC 2012
On Behalf Of Jeff Davis
Subject: Re: [ExI] cybernetic hate crime?
>...I'm suspicious. Something's missing here. The reason for the
"assault". It reminds me of the kid who says so-and-so hit me, but
neglects to report how he spit in so-and-so's face first.
What "really" happened.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Steve Mann, the "father of wearable computing," has been physically
assaulted while visiting a McDonalds in Paris, France...
Oy vey, I had the same feeling when I read the story, that big important
pieces of it were missing. Whenever two or more people's behavior defies
explanation, we are only getting one point of view. (Claimer: I am a big
fan of wearable computers, and likely will take Mann's side when in doubt,
so feel free to multiply through by that factor, and secondly, why do we
have disclaimers without claimers? What is the opposite of a disclaimer?)
Steve says the restaurant employees questioned him, then, apparently
satisfied, they allowed him to order food, and it sounds like he received
the order and was devouring same, when THREE perpetrators, actual McDonald's
employees, who are trained to be cool with everything, retroactively
approached him, attempted to remove his devices (is that bizarre or what?),
discovered they were surgically attached, then hurled him onto the street,
at which time he apparently urinated in his clothing, causing various
devices to short circuit.
This story, as written, is not believable, and wouldn't hold up in court.
That bit about having to use the restroom when the three perps attacked
stretches my imagination. If one is sitting down to a meal, one gets
comfortable first, ja? And just being hurled out of a McDonald's wouldn't
necessarily cause self-urination. This has never happened to me in all the
times I have been hurled out of a McDonald's. But why is the part about
needing to use the restroom relevant to the story in any case?
I would like to hear an account by the three former McDonald's employees on
what happened in that fine dining establishment. I cannot even imagine any
justification for any employee attempting to physically remove the device,
and their (presumed) firing is amply appropriate. However it is easy for me
to imagine that they were by some means provoked. I am not arguing in their
favor: the three Frog hamburger flippers should not be given their jobs
back. But Steve needs to offer a bit more explanation for why he thinks the
three perps decided to attempt to remove his devices, other than their claim
that photography is not allowed in their establishment (which in general is
not true; I never saw a No Photography sign in a restaurant.) Perhaps a
customer reported that Steve went into the restroom and was apparently
taking pictures in there, perhaps for posting realtime on the internet? If
so, this is an important part of the story.
The reason I write about this is that it is easy to imagine these kinds of
devices becoming common soon, since memory has rather suddenly become cheap
enough and power-frugal enough that wearable computers can do a lot of
useful tasks. As a society, we need to get over the fact that anyone can
digitally record anything we do in public.
More information about the extropy-chat