Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

California Cybercafe Regulation Decision Released 392

Posted by simoniker from the good-news-and-bad-news dept.
The Importance of writes "The California Court of Appeals decided an important cybercafe regulation case last week. Read the decision [PDF]. The court decided that cybercafes are deserving of First Amendment protection. and that the zoning regulations used to regulate them in the City of Garden Grove were unconstitutional. However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok. Read more on the decision here and here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Cybercafe Regulation Decision Released More

California Cybercafe Regulation Decision Released

Comments Filter:

  • Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:56PM (#8161787)
    The logic that is seemingly employed by the City of Garden Grove and the appeals court is that CyberCafe's cause crime. Otherwise, why use cameras and guards if that is going to do nothing more than displace the same acts of crime further down the street in front of, say,a Starbucks?

    Happy Trails,

    Erick

    • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:01PM (#8161867) Homepage Journal
      The logic that is seemingly employed by the City of Garden Grove and the appeals court is that CyberCafe's cause crime.

      Nothing increases the reported incidences of crime like noticing it.

    • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 ) * on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:04PM (#8161902)
      Starbucks is allowed to have security cameras. Only when a "publicly" accessable computer connected to the internet becomes involved does it become slashdot news-worthy apparently.

      Why is there no uproar over security cameras in other retail-zoned establishments? Maybe the real issue is that some people's paranoia is strong enough that they fail to realize they're opposing somebody else's *actual* rights while looking out for the rights they incorrectly think they deserve. If you don't want to be on camera, nobody is forcing you to go to one of these cafes.

      • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nate1138 ( 325593 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:22PM (#8162146)
        It isn't that they are ALLOWED. The problem is that these things are REQUIRED. If you run a "cyber-cafe" in this town, you are required by law to have certain security measures in place. Security measures that are a such a major invasion of privacy that they destroy the anonymity that is so essential to free speech.

        • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:27PM (#8162209)
          The problem is this: If you allowed people to wander into the cafe off the street, with no identification or means to identify them later, then you have jsut created a magnificent safe haven for all sorts of criminals. This is basically the same as phone companies stopping incoming calls on payphones in some areas, as they were being used by drug dealers to run business.

          • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by nate1138 ( 325593 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:35PM (#8162289)
            That's not a problem. That's called freedom. The instant that I have to identify myself to make my voice heard, one of the great mechanisms that ensures our freedom has just ground to a halt. This country was literaly built on anonymous speech. The Federalist [johndoes.org] papers were published anonymously, as the authors feared retribution. We cannot let fear of what criminals _might_ do cause us to restrict the freedoms that built this country.

            • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <{yoda} {at} {etoyoc.com}> on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:09PM (#8162779) Homepage Journal
              I hate to tell you this, but Thomas Paine put his name to that little broadside known as "common sense."

              The Declaration of Independence was Signed by numerous merchants, lawyers, and civic leaders, at grave peril to themselves and their families.

              Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the wearing of masks during protests, mostly on the grounds that the constitution protects free speech, not anonymity. You can say whatever you want, but you have to be willing to take the lumps for it.

              It's been my experience that most people crying for anonymity on the internet are not big believers in freedom of expression. They are believers in freedom to not get punched in the mouth.

              • So Alexander Hamilton and the other authors of the federalist papers were "believers in freedom not to get punched in the face"? And what about various corporate whistleblowers, should they be subject to retaliation by their company because you they did the right thing? I don't limit the importance of anonymous speech to the internet. It is a powerful tool for little voices to take on big forces.

              • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Informative)

                by rocketfairy ( 16253 ) <nmt2002@columbia.eYEATSdu minus poet> on Monday February 02, 2004 @07:00PM (#8164036) Homepage
                Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the wearing of masks during protests, mostly on the grounds that the constitution protects free speech, not anonymity.


                No, they didn't. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan [ledger-enquirer.com] wrote that ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in McIntyre v Ohio [eff.org] (1995) that anonymous speech was protected; the majority position referred explicitly to the Federalist Papers. Thank you for not commenting on legal matters about which you know nothing.

                It's been my experience that most people crying for anonymity on the internet are not big believers in freedom of expression. They are believers in freedom to not get punched in the mouth.


                The two are equivalent. Free speech includes the right to speak without being physically harmed (or fired, deported, jailed, fined, whatever). Since state power does not usually prevent such retribution, anonymity is a necessary and valid protection for dissident speech.

                Nate

              • It's been my experience that most people crying for anonymity on the internet are not big believers in freedom of expression. They are believers in freedom to not get punched in the mouth.

                What, and you think you have a right to punch them in the mouth just because you don't agree with what they have to say? Well, excuse me, but fuck you. No one should have the right to harm others. And everyone should have the right to express their opinions without retribution, mouth-punching or otherwise.

            • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:13PM (#8162823) Homepage
              That's true, but the very activity of subverting a government is by definition something that is outside of the city's laws. Though our founding fathers foresaw that we would someday need to topple our own government, and they gave us certain freedoms that would aid us in that fight, there was never any expectation that the government would be complicit. Subversive activity is what this country was founded upon, and it was certainly looked upon as just by the founding fathers in the right situation. The important distinction is between that which is right within the context of a country's laws and what is ultimately right. Many of our country's greatest heroes triumphed by breaking the law...just look at MLK Jr, for example.

          • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by msuzio ( 3104 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:56PM (#8162604) Homepage
            I believe these "safe havens" for "criminals" are intentional and a part of what our country was based on.

            Today's criminals/law breakers/dissidents are often tomorrow's freedom-fighters. It's fairly clear Thomas Jefferson thought that this country was kept free by the assurance that if the government became too corrupt, it could be overthrown again. Unjust laws deserve to be broken... and I want to be assured that our society does not stagnate by trying to crush all actions and opinions that do not suit the current mores.

            Challenge authority. If it is just and fair, it can survive your challenge... if it is unjust, your challenge can be one more crack in the wall.
          • If you allowed people to wander into the cafe off the street, with no identification or means to identify them later, then you have jsut created a magnificent safe haven for all sorts of criminals.

            Becuase criminals wouldn't dream of using the existing safehavens known as public libraries...

            -bs

          • If you allowed people to wander into the cafe off the street, with no identification or means to identify them later, then you have jsut created a magnificent safe haven for all sorts of criminals.

            The most freightening thing about your viewpoint is that you seem to think that it is normal and OK for the police to track and monitor everyone simply based on the justification that there may be some criminals there. For some reasaon you seem to think that surveillance is normal and places where surveillance
        • Security measures that are a such a major invasion of privacy that they destroy the anonymity that is so essential to free speech.

          Sorry but free speech != anonymous free speech

          While free speech is a right, it is not without it's responsibilities and it is not without boundaries either (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.). The right to free speech (in the US) does in no way guarantee you that you can make whatever statement you want, whenever you want to, anonymously (if you want), and face no repe

          • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by swv3752 ( 187722 ) <swv3752&hotmail,com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:57PM (#8162619) Homepage Journal
            Sorry, but without anonymous speech, there is no Free speech. It is too easy for some of the more powerful or influential if you prefer, individuals and organizations to impose sanctions on individuals.

            If I say GWB sucks and is doing x wrong, it would be easy for GWB's supporters to blacklist me. I may find that unacceptable and keep quiet. Not everyone can be Ghandi. In times past, large gatherings will be gathered and it allows for a degree on anonymity. Sometimes one voice is enough. Sometimes though, it is necessary for lots of voices to be heard and lack of anonymous speech prevents that.

            Free speech is a right, one that is constitutionally enumerated. It is not a priviledge. Certain measures have to be taken to garauntee our rights.
        • I'm wondering, what privacy are you speaking about? Why do you have an expectation of privacy in a cybercafe? You are on someone else's property, using someone else's machines and someone else's badwidth. Into a public network.

          So, basically, what privacy that was existent no longer is?

          I don't mean to be antagonistic, and it seems you care very strongly about this matter, so please don't take it that way. I just want to look at this logically.

          -s
          • Prior to the surveilance requirement, the proprietor of such an establishment was free to allow anonymity at his discretion. There is no hard and fast expectation of privacy, but it was optional and available in some of these cafes. I suppose the crux of my argument is this:

            If the owner of such an establishment wishes to allow anonymity, what gives the state the right to say otherwise?
        • Your privacy in a public Internet Cafe, right? Seriously, people think that store owners shouldn't have the right to monitor their own premises. Noone is forcing you to use the Internet Cafe. Protest by going home and getting online, or go to the library. Should it be unconstitutional for you to install security cameras, because you might invade privacy rights of visitors and solicitors?

          As far as them being required, I don't disagree because the anonymous nature of the cafes make them prime ground zero for
      • I might point out that "the people" did not bring this suit forward, but the internet cafe owners themselves who felt their own rights, as well as the rights of their patrons were being violated.

        A later poster writes "My house, my rules."

        But that's exactly the point the cafe owners are seeking to have acknowledged.

        They are now required, all of them, to install video cameras and post guards by law, and it is that law that has been upheld, against the wishes of the owners.

        They wish to have a choice in the

        • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:4, Informative)

          by kevinank ( 87560 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:15PM (#8162845) Homepage
          The rule wrt video cameras was decided by stipulation. If you read the court decision you will see that the Cyber Cafe only considered video camera system installation to be a problem if they would be required to turn over tapes of their customers without court intervention. When the city stipulated that the inspection requirement was only an inspection of the recording system, not of the tapes, and that tapes would not be requested without a court order the Cafe withdrew its objection to that facet of the law.

          Since the court wasn't asked to consider that aspect of the law, it seems bizarre to me to complain that the court 'upheld' that provision. It really hasn't been tested since the controversy was removed in court.

      • Amen, brother. Wake me up when someone starts putting cameras around peoples' houses. 'Till then, I'll just stay out of any *PUBLIC* place that has cameras that I feel are a threat for some reason.

        Real tough conclusion.

      • Though I communicate a lot over coffee, I don't think that Starbucks and cybercafe's are in the same ballpark. One serves coffee and the other one is used for communications.

        Nobody is forcing you into a public pay phone either (I hope). But that does not mean they should be able to listen to your calls.
    • "However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok."

      With the huge number of people I see doing business at cybercafes, I fear the monitoring may make running hotbeds of industrial spying too. I guess this is one more reason to have a good VPN / tunnel when working in those places.

    • Re:Do the cafes *cause* crime? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by rworne ( 538610 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:18PM (#8162093) Homepage
      They certainly can. That is if you consider shooting the patrons a crime.

      There have been several instances of violence at Cyber Cafe's, mainly from playing on-line shooting games.

      One instance that happened here at a local cafe:

      Cafe A is at one physical address, Cafe B at another.
      Player at A frags player at B.
      Player B gets P.O.'d and sees who owns the IP address of the other player.
      Player B then looks up who owns the domain, and finds Cafe A's address.
      Player B drives to Cafe A and asks manager where player "A" is.
      Player B lies in wait in the parking lot and frags Player A (for real) when he leaves.

      --
      The Constitution and laws of the United States forbid all interference with the religious or political concerns of other nations.

      U.S. President Millard Fillmore to the Emperor of Japan, 1852
      • You say "several" but just how common is this?

        Let's compare this situation to a bar? I haven't been to a bar yet that didn't have at least one person threaten or assault another while I was there. (This includes minor incidences like spitting or shoving, or having to be dragged out by bouncers).

        So then by the reasoning of these laws all bars should be equipped with cameras inside and outside.

        Drug deals also happen in bar bathrooms. Let's put cameras in the bathrooms.

        It's just silly when there's a media

  • Yep... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:57PM (#8161794)


    Only people who can afford their own computers should be allowed to look at porn.

    • Why would you look at porn in public? That's why strip clubs don't have windows. They don't want there computers tampered with, nor their internet connection used for hacking, as public terminals often are. Seems perfectly legitimate, if a clothing store can monitor their changing rooms, I think and internet cafe should be allowed to monitor their computers.

      By the way, most stores use 200-500$ cameras that the resolution isn't good enough to see an on screen password, nor even read the screen. Especially

      • Re:Not a privacy issue (Score:4, Insightful)

        by petabyte ( 238821 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:41PM (#8162374)
        By the way, most stores use 200-500$ cameras that the resolution isn't good enough to see an on screen password

        I don't think most people who use public computers and put their passwords through them are extremely concerned about them. Why would they need a camera to see your password when they can just log the keystrokes?

  • Privacy in a cyber cafe? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:58PM (#8161808) Homepage Journal
    What's wrong with that part of the decision? You can't expect to use a "public" computer AND have complete privacy. You want privacy, do it in your own home.

    • Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe? (Score:5, Funny)

      by daemones ( 188271 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:59PM (#8161826) Homepage
      If you want privacy, do it from someone else's unsecured wireless network connection.

    • Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TedTschopp ( 244839 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:59PM (#8161828) Homepage
      That's the rub of it... You are using someone elses computer. And you expect privacy. There is a need to protect the equiptment and the computer.
    • I agree with both sides of the decision. Governments should not be allowed to ban them from communities through zoning, and these places should be allowed to monitor what their customers are up to in their cafe. From a libertarian perspective, it's a double-win, even if it's only a mixed blessing in the eyes of the tinfoil hat crowd.

      • Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe? (Score:4, Funny)

        by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:03PM (#8161889) Journal
        However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.

        I think that the submitter was just pissed off that he couldn't lift the mice and keyboards anymore.
      • I don't understand how an ordinance requiring a certain type of business to employ a security guard or requiring them to monitor how their patrons use there service is a libertarian win.

        Of course, you may have only read the slashblurb, which makes it seem like the decision was that the city couldn't prevent the business from monitoring.

        -Peter
        • This is the similar issue with forcing the hand of liquour stores to ID, they used to not, because they sold more product and they wouldn't get in any trouble for it till there was a law. Similarly, an internet cafe, offering anonymous connections wouldn't be held responsible for illegal things happening, because the computers were open to the public and anyone could have done it. This way getting in lots of people such as, hackers, pedaphiles, flamers(meaning people writing crude or harassing emails), and
      • Cyber cafes are still in their infancy; however, since you can run just about any type of business you want in the guise of a cyber cafe, the cyber cafe will be under a great deal of scrutiny. As cyber cafes can be anything, the worst scenario is that they can quickly become the source of everything illegal in a community.

        One of the obvious uses of cyber cafe's is for conducting ecommerce. The cyber cafe could easily be used as a place for ordering and even shipping items. In this regards, cyber cafe/mai

    • Read the ruling (Score:5, Informative)

      by GreenCrackBaby ( 203293 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:05PM (#8161913) Homepage
      This isn't a case where the cafes wanted to use guards and cameras, but where the city council mandated that each cafe use guards and cameras.

      That is damn scary.

      • Re:Read the ruling (Score:3, Interesting)

        by strobexii ( 601986 )
        You know what is damn scary?

        A 20-year-old man dies in a Garden Grove parking lot after having a screwdriver smashed through his skull. That's scary. My friend gets followed in his car from a cafe and shot at a traffic light. That's scary.

        In these cafes, you have a junior high school students sitting across from gang members. The customers have shown they cannot regulate themselves, the businesses have refused to regulate them, so, unfortunately, it has become the government's task.

        Besides, if privacy
    • Parent post wrote: "You can't expect to use a "public" computer AND have complete privacy."

      You can get close, if they let you boot your own OS from CD. Reboot to Knoppix, and use a VPN or tunnel to connect to whatever you're doing.

      I know people can still look over shoulders or hack your hardware (keyboard cable, etc), but you'd be safe from most software viruses, etc. However of course people could do that to non-public computers too.

    • Re:Privacy in a cyber cafe? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:16PM (#8162076) Homepage
      The wrong part is the city _requiring_ video camera monitoring of these cafes. It's kind of scary when the goverment passes a regulation requiring that people be monitored. I don't have a problem with businesses rights to put up video cameras, I'll just be less likely to go to such places. I do have a problem with required monitoring by the government, since then there's nowhere I can go and not be videotaped. Do you want to be videotaped while you enter in the password to your email account, ssh to your machine, or read "controversial" material on the 'net?

      I might not have much expectation of privacy while using someone elses computer, but how about when I bring in my own laptop and use the wireless internet connection?

      This is a lot more intrusive than videotaping at a retail store, since people don't do anything very private at a retail store. Reading your email, looking up news, etc are private activities and people get understandably nervous when they're taped doing such activities.

  • Easy Hack (Score:5, Insightful)

    by monstroyer ( 748389 ) * <devnull@slashdot.org> on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:58PM (#8161818) Homepage Journal
    Wear an oversized novelty sombrero hat when using a computer in these cafes. California has a lot of mexican restaurants, geeks in sombrero hats will fit in very easily.

    On another note, a 42 page legalese PDF isn't really my idea of News For Nerds but page 36 says:

    "Some considerable space is devoted to refuting the idea that the city has required the video cameras to be pointed at the screens. Well, thankfully, even this majority understands that that would be too much. But then the majority go on to approve of the requirement that there be video cameras at the cybercafes with the ipse dixit that video surveillance is narrow tailoring."

    So, it's not as bas as "The Importance of" makes it out to seem.
    • Wear an oversized novelty sombrero hat when using a computer in these cafes. California has a lot of mexican restaurants, geeks in sombrero hats will fit in very easily.

      ...why did I hear an unspoken "...lined with tin foil" when I read that sentence? I'm spending too much time on slashdot.

      Kjella

  • Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:58PM (#8161819)
    In a public place?

    Maybe. Methinks that this is more of a "cover your butt" issue so that they can track down people who are using their computers for generating spam, or stalking, rather than what particular porn site you're looking at.

    OF course, if everyone's looking at the same porn site that would be good investment information and might constitute insider trading...

    • Re:Privacy? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      RTFA, dipshit. This is about a PRIVATE business being FORCED to monitor their customers, AND hire private security.

      The business didn't want to. It's a mandate of the local government, and it's an infringement on the privacy of a PRIVATE business. Again, RTFA.
  • If Pee Wee Herman used the station before you came in... It's probably not glue on the keyboards...

  • Subversives beware... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday February 02, 2004 @03:59PM (#8161836) Homepage Journal
    In Sov^H^H^H USA, government watches YOU!

    "There he is, the tall goofy looking one, always on that subversive website, writing critiques of party and patriotic goverment policy. How dare he abuse constitutional right!"

  • Terrible Privacy Decision? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saxton ( 34078 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:01PM (#8161857) Homepage
    However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.

    How is this different from video monitoring ATMs, Banks, Gas Stations and the like? I don't think this is a terrible privacy decision at all! You have the right to go where you want to go and when, and if you want to not be monitored using the Internet, go somewhere else... perhaps in the privacy of your own home. I'm sure there are other cafes that don't have cameras all about...

  • Maybe not so bad after all... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:01PM (#8161858)
    I mean, video surveillance might have its good points.

    CafeGrrrl69: "Heya, stud."
    BigMan: "Hi there."
    CafeGrrrl69: "I'm an 18-year old DD blonde. Wanna have some fun?"
    BigMan: "No you're not. You're a 40-year old balding man in a ketchup-stained track suit."
    CafeGrrrl69: "Shit." NO CARRIER

  • Why shouldn't people exercising ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@@@email...com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:01PM (#8161859)
    their First Amendment rights be searched, videotaped, audiotaped? Why shouldn't people exercising their First Amendment rights be forced to provide blood, tissue, and other fluid samples? Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights have every word they read or write be marked down and poured over by government agents? Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights be forced to prove their loyalty to the current administration and be detained indefinitely if they are incapable of expressing the proper amount of shock and awe? What, do you have something to HIDE?!?

    • Indeed, why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by raehl ( 609729 ) <raehl311@@@yahoo...com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:10PM (#8161972) Homepage
      While your blood, tissue, and fluid samples are obviously over the edge, first amendment rights guarantee your right to expression.

      They don't guarantee you the right to pick who gets to listen. If you're going to express yourself, the government listening in and recording it is fair game.
    • Please crawl back inside your cave Mr. Troll.

      Don't pretend for a second that you didn't make an enormous leap when you went from:

      Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights have every word they read or write be marked down and poured over by government agents?

      Where the only thing objectionable about it is the probable waste of money, and:

      Why shouldn't people trying to exercise their First Amendment rights be forced to prove their loyalty to the current administration and be d
      • ivan256 [slashdot.org] wrote:

        Most importantly: There's nothing about privacy in the first amendment.

        Well, that depends on whether you consider fear and intimidation to be an abridgement of your right to freedom of speech. Further, though you are technically correct, the first amendment doesn't specifically address privacy (except as an interpretive issue), the fourth amendment is aprorpos:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

  • Attacking everything but the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DakotaK ( 727197 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:02PM (#8161879)
    Security guards and video surveillance? Yeah, because everyone knows that gangstas are huge on their geekish activities. "Yo homie, I installed mah new Slackwares!" "Fo sheezy mah nigga!" It dosen't seem to me like it's the cafe's problem as much as anywhere in the city, whether it be malls, coffee shops, or parks. Do we need surveillance everywhere else as well to stop these "gang violences" and whatnot? I guess that this all just circulates around the whole idea that Americans are doing everything to curb the problem except attacking the problem itself.

  • Eyes everywhere (Score:3, Funny)

    by TGrimace ( 585248 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:03PM (#8161884)
    Just the other day I was pumping gas, and there were cameras watching me! The nerve! Where's my right to privacy while pumping gas?? I went in to pay, more cameras!! I went to the bank, and I couldn't believe it. Cameras everywhere in there! Beware all! Big Bro is watching you!

  • Having a computer in a public place. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:04PM (#8161896) Homepage Journal
    I recently built a crappy little search engine for the karaoke bar I work at. (Our stuff runs all on PC) anyways the search engine was a simple PII333 64 megs of ram, running IIS and activeperl. It searches a text file database using a little perl script.

    For the most part, when I put it in I thought it was fairly secure, and I also thought that the bar patrons wouldn't destroy it either. I came back one day after putting it in and noticed THE FUCKING ENTER KEY WAS PEELED OFF!

    Jesus... What kind of lamer asshole did that?

    Anyways, I could see this as the main reason cybercafe's would HAVE to use videocamera's in thier shops. Here I am crying about 1 enter key ripped off the keyboard, when those cybercafe's probably lose 10-20 enter keys a week. They probably have to maintain an inventory of enter keys just to keep up with the theft that occurs.

    God, I wish I had it on tape, just so I could rip off the arm of the guy that ripped off my enter key and beat them with it.
  • "However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok"

    Terrible decision? I think this is highly appropriate. I'm certain the cyber-cafe owners want to know what is going on with THEIR computers. You are in public. Not your home, so therefore, you have no privacy.

  • The video provision isn't really that bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:06PM (#8161927) Homepage
    However, in a terrible privacy decision, the court said video monitoring of the computers and patrons was a-ok.

    Y'know, after reading the ruling, it's really tough to share this sky-is-falling sentiment. They basically ruled that requiring video monitoring in cafes (with a 72-hour recording log) is OK, but that the city cannot do more than verify the system is operational without a warrant to inspect the tapes. Their rationale is that this is little different from having adult supervision or a security guard on premesis. Furthermore, the video need only be capable of showing "the activity and physical features of persons or areas within the premises." The cafes aren't required to set them up so that Eye-In-The-Sky can read what your screen says; IMHO, this is even better than having a security guard prowling the cafe at eye level.

    Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with the court on this one. A video system designed for security surveillance would be far less suited for snooping than human supervision. Which do you find more invasive--a grainy, black-and-white security recording from 20 feet away that's going to be wiped in 72 hours, or Bob the Security Guy, who has watched you every day for three months because he has a funny feeling that you're out to cause trouble?

    • Re:The video provision isn't really that bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by owlstead ( 636356 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:32PM (#8162259)
      Dunno, how can you tell if it is a grainy black-and-white security recording (from 20 feet away) that is going to wiped in 72 hours. Is it on the camera somewhere?

      Maybe I should bring a list of security camera's and check against that, and then ask to see the recordings afterwards? We had a video setup in a computer store (of Gateway, the computer company) which saved data on harddisk in perfect color recordings. Wasn't a bit expensive, and it was a full closed circuit recording facility.

      The thing about internet cafe's is that these ARE public places. A telephone boot is private property from a telephone company as well. That does not give them the right to listen in on your calls. These are primary communication means people, don't let them hide behind private property laws the way that they do.

      Obviously vandalism is a problem though. Maybe somebody should check if the equipment is ok after somebody leaves. And a security guy will still be needed to arrest persons that misbehave, or steal other peoples property.
      • Theoreticaly, if the phone booth said "All calls from this booth will be recorded" they might be able to record since you have been notified about it, and still chose to use the phone. Much like the "These premises protected buy closed circuit cameras."
  • I remember reading a while aback that you can temporarily blind CCD cameras by shining a laser pointer into the lens. Apparently you can do this from quite a distance. What we need now are glasses with tiny lasers embedded in them that identify and disable cameras that may be pointed at you.

    I wonder how long it would be before the legality of thwarting observation by wearing such devices would be decided by the supreme court.

  • dupe? (Score:3, Informative)

    by tuanjim_2001 ( 534921 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <mijdrol>> on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:13PM (#8162020)
    To hell with the karma. I say it's a dupe! [slashdot.org]

  • I work at a cyber cafe (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mellzah ( 649115 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:18PM (#8162091) Homepage
    We try to keep it a family environment there (I know, I know, headshots might not be what some consider great for a family, but whatever). All it really takes for our business to fail is one little kid to tell their parents they saw someone looking at porn, or one parent to see it for themselves. Word of mouth would kill us. If we couldn't remotely view customer's screens, this would have happened already.

    It's not something we abuse, it's a tool for us to maintain our business. Signs are posted, informing customers that we can monitor what they are doing, and we also inform first time customers of our policy. So if Mr. A hears and sees all of these warnings, and proceeds to view transgender pornography, I would say at that point it's no longer a privacy issue--if he had wanted to keep his preferences private, he would not have chosen a public venue to satisfy them. Especially considering the warnings he's been given!

    I do understand that there is potential for abuse when monitoring customers, and therefore an invasion of privacy. However, with my job and business at stake, I can only applaud this decision.

    • Re:I work at a cyber cafe (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:56PM (#8162602) Journal
      ...they saw someone looking at porn, or one parent to see it for themselves.

      How about positioning the monitors where people other than the user can't see them? I can't find the link, but remember reading about Cyber Cafes in China.

      To be legal, the screens have to be turned in, where everyone can see what you're doing. The *popular* places take their chances and turn all the monitors towards the wall, with little cardboard slats on the side creating a private environment.

      And, just for curiosity, how do you do the remote viewing? Software or hardware? (I.E. -- a KVM hooked to all monitors or something like VNC or NetMeeting?)

      -Charles Hill

      • Re:I work at a cyber cafe (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Mellzah ( 649115 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:43PM (#8163181) Homepage
        It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it could be successfully applied at our establishment.

        When I lived in Taiwan, I frequented a lot of cafes--ones that were primarily for the internet offered each patron a private cubicle. Game-based cafes were much more open.

        I work at a primarily game-based cafe. Part of the energy that is generated by players at our tournaments would be stifled if everyone were separated.I suppose it would be possible to offer a row of private, internet only cubes, but honestly, I don't see it happening. Providing a 'spank tank' of sorts would still be counter-conducive to the family environment we wish to create.

        As for your other question, our remote view capability is software based. We use SmartLaunch [smartlaunch.net], which has a built-in monitoring tool, which basically takes a screenshot of every machine hooked into the SmartLaunch network. We have no way of monitoring customers that come in with their own laptops and hook in on our Wi-Fi...so I guess if you want privacy, there's your answer.

  • This decision isn't so bad actually (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:21PM (#8162129) Homepage Journal
    Frankly, if patrons work on any public computer, whether at a cafe here in my home town of Garden Grove or wherever, they should expect to be monitored, preferably by the local admins. If I'm running a public network, I don't want some jerkoff downloading kiddy porn on my box - it's a liability to me.

    If however it's for the city government to watch...well, mayor Broadwater, I hope you have a significant nest egg for that retirement.

  • Cybercafes Gangs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by KitFox ( 712780 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:28PM (#8162215)
    While I can understand people being upset about privacy, at the same time, I know WHY this happened. I used to live in Garden Grove, on Gilbert St, about 1/2 a mile from a cyber cafe.

    Now first, for a bit of a disclaimer, I happen to be one of the sort of people who would have run a cyber cafe there myself if I could, and when my internet connection wasn't available for three months here in Colorado, the local Cyber Cafe was a savior. And I happen to like my privacy too.

    However, let's go back in time a bit. It got to the point where cybercafes became literally gang hangouts [time.com] and even resulted in deaths.

    But it was NOT because they were geeky, or because they had computers, or because they had violent video games. (In fact, bear in mind that the Cybercafes there are really NOT all that useful for doing work or such at. They're 99% CounterStrike and UT, and if you ask the workers for SSH or a VPN tunnel, they'll look at you funny ) It was simply because they had "Fun things for bored teens to do, and were open until 4 am.". So they got slapped with restrictions in an attempt to cull the gang activity... and these restrictions also really hurt the cybercafe as a whole.

    Now, bear in mind, there's nothing quite as unpleasant as going past the cyber cafe at the end of the street and finding literally 20 police cars there, lights flashing enough to give a blind man a convulsion, however, at the same time, that police response also netted 4 people who had outstanding warrants out for various violent acts.

    So, really, it was a point of "The cafes didn't do enough to protect folks, so the city came in and overreacted."

    I just hope that sometime, some folks can find a happy medium.

  • RTFA: the cameras are MANDATORY (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:36PM (#8162304) Journal
    Note: This article is a dupe [slashdot.org], and the original version had a much more informative blurb:
    "A California appellate court has upheld, 2-1, a Garden Grove, California ordinance
    requiring so-called 'cyber cafes' to impose a curfew, hire security guards, and install video surveillance cameras capable of identifying patrons. The opinion is a must-read; the dissenting judge called the law 'Orwellian,' and pointed out that 'even the government of Malaysia' was 'too ashamed to enforce' a similar proposal." It appears that the ordinances were enacted in part due to crime involving "gang activity" and to curtail school-children from using the facilities during school hours (unless accompanied by a guardian).

    So to everyone who's saying "so what? my shop, my rules" : NO. Your shop, Government rules. This is a literal Big Brother situation.

  • Privacy filters, cameras, and prying eyes (Score:5, Informative)

    by elflet ( 570757 ) * <elflet @ n e x t q uestion.net> on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:38PM (#8162334)

    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the 3M Privacy Filters [secure-it.com] for laptops. You can read the screen perfectly when you're sitting right in front of it, but the image rapidly goes to black as you move off to either side.

    I've used these on most of my laptops (all except Apple, with the extra-wide screens) for years and it does a great job of killing shoulder-surfing, even when the surfer is a nosy jerk in the next seat in coach class. (I was glad to have one when I was taking a break on an internatiopnal flight back and the attempted shoulder surfer was a teenager with a "What Would Jesus Do" wristband. -- I was writing erotica and didn't want to cope with the potential hassles.)

    I would get the funniest looks from people at conferences too -- these do such a good job of blanking the screen that other people would ask why I was typing into a machine that wasn't even turned on.

  • I live in Garden Grove... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:40PM (#8162351)
    I live in Garden Grove and have been following this one for quite some time. The mayor of Garden Grove (actually, an acquaintance of mine) is, sadly, like most other politicians... he wants to push privatization and expand corporate control as much as possible to ensure more tax dollars flow into the city's coffers. For example, he has tried to use zoning and eminent domain laws to, in essence, give the city control of a large chunk of land so that Garden Grove can... wait for it... build a Theme Park (*boggles*).

    That's right, Garden Grove, which is literally next-door to Disneyland, and has a booming hotel industry in that corner of the city (did I mention he was party to forcing small businesses out to throw up tax-producing hotels?) and is just ten minutes' walk away from Knott's Berry Farm is trying to create a theme park (never mind that the abysmal failure of Disney's California Adventure tells us that the area surrounding Garden Grove is over-saturated with theme parks with Six Flags Magic Mountain, Legoland, Universal Studios Hollywood, Sea World, and probably even more parks I forgot within an hour or two drive).

    I tell you this, and it may seem like meandering, because the mayor and city council are somewhat control freaks and are ESPECIALLY trying to cast the city in a "safe, friendly" light so that tourists will stop there.

    The problem, of course, is that Garden Grove had two or three gang-related shootings at cyber-cafes a couple of years ago. So, in typical bureaucratic/control freak fashion, the city council cracked down on cybercafes instead of gangs (the mayor and the city council are not exactly wise in the ways of technology - remember, he's an acquaintance so I know this firsthand - heck, CBs and Ham Radios are almost too much for him, never mind computers).

    The problem is that this is STANDARD PRACTICE for the City of Garden Grove... they use draconian interpretations of zoning and eminent domain laws, react in a very bizarre way to things that threaten their (imagined, in some cases) tourism industry, and in general, are much more "Big Brother" than I would like.

    The regulations for cybercafes are mostly jeered by the residents here - we aren't complicit, we're lobbying and complaining, but of course, the "paternal government" knows better than the ignorant masses. After all, "look, now that we have armed guards and police patrols at cybercafes, gang violence there is down" (never mind that gang violence is UP at their "newer" hangouts - and residential areas - since they ditched the cybercafes concurrent with the increased police presence - it WASN'T the cameras et al). In other words, what the city doesn't get is that their regulations in cybercafes don't STOP crime; they just MOVE the crime elsewhere (within the city, it's worth noting).

    Fortunately (I guess), the mayor has of late turned his crusade away from cybercafes and is devoting his energy to widening the 22 Freeway (some would say to the point of insanity).

    Check out ocregister.com (the local newspaper) and especially the editorial and opinion section and you'll find out that everyone around here pretty much considers the City of Garden Grove as the most flagrant example of "how government gets WAY too intrusive, abuses laws, and in general tries to bully those it should be protecting."

    This hits close to home for me, but having seen this in action for YEARS, I can't say it's news. Take Garden Grove (and neighbor city, Cypress, the same city that re-zoned land belonging to a local church "out from underneath it" in order to keep it from building a church on a parcel of land -- because the city wanted a Costco on that parcel instead). This is NOT a federal problem exclusively - it happens on state and local levels, too - and the more "career politicians" we have in office - and the more entitlements we as citizens expect, the worse things are going to get. We're fighting to take back Garden Grove; make sure you don't LOSE control of your city!

    --AC
  • If this is such a bad decision (video monitoring), then I suppose we should get rid of cameras in banks, gas stations, ATMs, daycare centers, and stores too, right? This isn't an issue of privacy here. If the cameras were in the bedroom, bathroom, dressing room, or hotel room, that would be different. See where I'm going with this?

  • Terrible for Cyber Cafe's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Linus Sixpack ( 709619 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:46PM (#8162452) Journal
    So many dont get it. City ordinance _requires_ Cyber Cafes to hire private police and install video surveillance in their premises.

    ChaChing! 30-60k added to the cost of your business.
    ChaChing! Lost Customers -- Who wants to go to a prison ward to explore the internet.

    The point made by the dissenting judge is that there is as much (or more) evidence of illegal activities in restaurants but we dont mandate Gestapo there.

    A minority of Cyber Cafe's have some unsavoury clientele so the city wants to make each cafe a small internment camp. Hope they don't target your group next.

    ls

  • Firsthand experience.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:50PM (#8162501) Journal
    I'm involved with an "Internet Center [dmerz.com]" in Temple, Texas. The city itself is pretty tame, so as far as gang problems, most parents will be about 5 times as worried about sending their kids to the local high school than they will to this internet cafe / LAN gaming center. We need parents to trust us if we are going to make any money, so we go out of our way to care....

    The biggest problem with the submission of the story to slashdot is the saying something is "video is O-TAY!" is NOT the same as "the local government forced the cafe to videotape their patrons". I'm not entirely sure there is a government privacy issue here, because not only would videotaping have to be enforced, but there would also have to be a provision forcing businesses to hand over such videotape. The problem I see is not privacy, but rather with forcing only certain businesses to implement such security measures.

    As far as privacy goes, forget it. When you sign up for an account with us, that right is signed away, and we can view your desktop from the register at any time to make sure you aren't surfing pornography or using our internet connection to break the law. They aren't your computers, not your connection, not your liability, no right to privacy. Of course, we don't really care about what you do, as long as it is within the guidlelines.

    In case you guys are wondering, the vast majority of the time when we check people acting suspicious (standing in front of monitors, cranking the monitor over to the wall), it's just people visiting homosexual dating services.

  • Why Asian gangs abuse cybercafes? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @04:51PM (#8162531)
    I think it is an interesting question to ask why Vietanmese youth gangs have latched onto cybercafes as places to meet and get into trouble. Thats not a typical gang venue.

    Background: Garden Grove, Orange County, California has the highest concentration of Vietnamese immigrants in the USA, with the Silicon Valley area second place. Garden Grove is above 1/3 Viet, 1/3 Hispanic and 1/4 Anglo. Ethnic groups in the US has often have disaffected youth groups to socialize and/or make easy money.

    Cybercafes havent really caught on with Anglo youth because they access at home and school. Cybercafes are quite popular in most non-US countries, perhaps due to the lesser InterNet availability in the school and home. Parents probably sanction these as places for kids to hang out because they seem "educational" and not as naughty as bars, malls or ordinary cafes.

    So I guess the youth in Garden Grove starting socializing in cybercafes. More opened in each strip mall to fuel the popularity. Then they became "teritories". Then they became places of making easy money by either computer scamming or other means. It takes a fair amount of money to equip a cycbercafe, so these become big-cash businesses of interest in themselves.

    • Re:Why Asian gangs abuse cybercafes? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FreshFunk510 ( 526493 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:55PM (#8163306)
      I seem to have a completely different perspective.

      First of all, you have to know the history. Vietnamese "youth gangs" didn't suddenly say, "Hey, let's meet up at Cybercafe X for our next gang meeting". You have to live in cities like Garden Grove to understand the reality.

      The first question one should ask is what a "gang" really is. Many white suburban area police have been quick to identify groups of male asian youth as gangs. Today, I think that term might be properly applied, but when places like this started sprouting up 4 or 5 years ago I felt that the majority of kids hanging out were unfairly labeled gangs. In fact the only difference between these groups and groups of lan-gamers were the way they dressed (and may some other bad habits like smoking but, as you all know, "gang members" aren't the only ones who break rules).

      To me a gang represents a group of individuals who partakes in breaking the law as a group. I think it's incorrect to make this blanket accusation amongst all the asian kids that hang out at cybercafes.

      This has noting to do with immigrants who don't have computers and to say that this has no caught on with "anglo youth" because they have access at home and school is ludicrous (if not racist). Parents do NOT sanction tehse places because they seem educational. I dont' know where you got that from. Whenever my parents see places like this they complain about how kids go there to be around bad influences while their parents work hard to make a living income. Any parents with common sense say the same. The truth is these kids probably lie to their parents about where they are (much like I did in high school but in a less harmful way).

  • Expectation of privacy in public (Score:3, Insightful)

    by starX ( 306011 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:14PM (#8162835) Homepage
    Why anybody thinks that they have any expectation of privacy in a public environment is beyond me. Yes, it's nice if they put up a sign indicating that your activity is being monitored by video surveilance, and in some locales it is mandates by law that they do. But if you think about it, the expectation to privacy was never meant to apply to a public setting. How else is it possible to have a free and unrestricted press?

    How many politicians would not "consent" to having their pictures taken at certain times, or having their words recorded in any media if they could claim a right to privacy. Don't even get started on the sort of crap that your average corporate officer would pull. Think about the terrifying implications of a world where Bush and Ashcroft got to have the final say over exactly what sound bites could be played. On the somewhat less extremist end, it's bad enough that companies are trying to claim that their company memos are intellectual property, but if there was a legal precedent for a right to privacy in public, I have a feeling that most of us wuoldn't have heard of Diebold. Hell, we might not even have heard of the collapse of Enron, or the tragi-comical machinations of SCO. They would, after all, have an expectation of privacy in a public settings, and even liberally interpretted, "privacy" could be defined as communication only between directly involved parties. If you aren't comfortable with having your browsing activity recorded, than you should be doing your browsng at home, where you do have an expectation of privacy.

    Let the modding-down commence!

  • Does this apply to Starbucks that offer a WAP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:15PM (#8162850) Homepage
    "The CyberCafe ordinance defines a "CyberCafe" as an establishment that provides Internet access to fee paying customers."

    So if you have a free access point, it's OK, but if you charge, you're a "CyberCafe", and have to have a security guard and video surveillance.

    Now find every WAP in Garden Grove that bills, and insist on strict enforcement.

  • These Cybercafe's are used by Latino gangs (Score:3, Informative)

    by dananderson ( 1880 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:21PM (#8162903) Homepage
    For those not familiar with "Garden Grove" (aka "Garbage Grove :-), the Cybercafe's are not used for email, homework, or recreation. They are gathering places for Latino Gangs. There's frequent problems with fights, stabbings, and drug dealing. I wouldn't go to these places if I had to. I think some people there actually do use a computer sometimes.

    • Re:These Cybercafe's are used by Latino gangs (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Close, but no cigar.

      Some of them ARE used for recreation et al.

      And more often, they are gathering points for VIETNAMESE or KOREAN gangs, not so much for LATINO gangs (Garden Grove has a white-bread, mostly gang-less - and considerably more expensive - no condos, only SFHs - West Side... and a much larger and less expensive (condos and apartments) and much more gang-populated East Side, the North section of which is predominantly Korean, the Middle section of which is predominantly Viet, and the South sect

  • Privacy rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Syberghost ( 10557 ) <syberghost@@@syberghost...com> on Monday February 02, 2004 @05:46PM (#8163223)
    OK, you're saying that if the courts had ruled the government can control whether or not you can put a camera on your own property, that'd be a WIN for privacy rights?

  • Privacy, you have no Privacy... get over it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oldstrat ( 87076 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @06:37PM (#8163802) Journal

    I fail to see how a cybercafe deserves any more protection for privacy of partons than a convenience store.

    For the protection of the patrons, and the owners almost all entertainment, and retail establishments have video recorders these days.

    Look, if they're going to video monitor you going down the interstate, I see no reason that you should be exempt on the Information SuperHighway.

  • Privcay Shields? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MortisUmbra ( 569191 ) on Monday February 02, 2004 @07:16PM (#8164183)
    I couldnt get the article to come up for some reason, but from this thread I've gathered that the city requires the use of cameras and security guards at cyber-cafe's, can anyone tell me if they specifically require video footage of whats on the computer screens?

    If not then why don't these cyber-cafe's just buy those privacy guard monitor covers, looks just like a glare screen, but unless you are directly in front of the monitor theres no way you can see anything.

    It might not be following the spirit of the law, but in this case, the spirit of the law is stepping a bit too far by REQUIRING that they monitor these places.

    Anyway, like I said I can't get the page to come up so this might not be allowed.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close