I understand that you didn't see the original point, so let me restate it in terms more favorable to understanding:

1. The "douchenozzle" who runs the establishment as if it is a private space, is probably misinformed.
2. The diner is a public space by virtue of the following, as EXEMPLIFIED by legal justifications on smoking in restaurants, and legal prohibitions of discrimination against customers based on race. "Public" spaces do not afford an "expectation of privacy," therefore "glassholes" should be able to photograph within because other patrons in this public space should not expect to have privacy.
3. I hope "Whiny Nick," despite being laughed at by the Internet, feels better for having drawn attention to his unfortunate experience, and it sounds as if the "douchenozzle" owner, while hopefully cleaning up after himself, will have clarified the policy in such a way that future Google Glass users will be informed before experiencing the unpleasantness of being confronted and ejected from a restaurant on the basis of technology they do not like.

Thanks for the lively discussion.

Unlike you, apparently, I won't mind if the Internet laughs at me, or thinks I mismatched my clothes, or that my haircut isn't very good. But I will feel better for having expressed my righteous indignation at being kicked out of a restaurant (and their lost revenue,) over such a silly and juvenile reason.

Not by much, if at all. We're talking about this in as of a "right to privacy," and there is no such right in a public place, and a restaurant is considered a public, not private, place, even though it is a private business -- as established by these protected class statutes as well as health-related statutes.

And I can be angry about it, justifiably I think considering I wasn't informed beforehand.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Only a complete moron?

See my response to AC regarding restaurants as public spaces. Another corollary might be restaurants being unable to discriminate based on race. That's why some "clubs" exist to skirt public regulations by imposing membership requirements. It is also clear to a random passer-by that an establishment is access-restricted. That is not the case with this diner.

I disagree, they are public spaces.

See this article regarding justification for smoking bans: http://trib.com/news/opinion/blogs/byer/why-restaurants-and-bars-are-public-places/article_ae80681f-3098-5b53-be02-ebb145b95b8b.html

Augmented reality applications would be disabled by the lack of a camera. Is that worth it?

and also misinformed about the right to privacy in the USA (which doesn't afford anyone in public the right not to be photographed.) Some advocate belligerent behavior in response to Google Glass users, in a very Luddite-esque manner. And so many people so self-conscious of being recorded in some manner that they feel their rights extend over the top of the rights of others. Oh, the outrage, the fear, and the insults hurled at the new nerds.

Society's 'norms' once demanded signs that set an expectation of dress for patrons at restaurants, apparently. But wearing a camera on your head isn't as obviously antisocial as some claim (particularly on The Verge comments, but probably elsewhere, even with my social circle,) and if it's so egregious a violation of the decorum of a *diner* (no jacket required,) then it demands to be spelled out with as much clarity as a New York City letter grade so potential patrons can make a decision before they're inconvenienced, rejected, and embarrassed.

Finally, what is this overwhelming panic people feel about being recorded by others? Do they fear being made fun of on social networks? Do they really associate with people who might? And do they care about those around them who may? Few of us are so interesting or important, and those who are likely have obnoxious and obvious people photographing them often.

My right to use Google Glass (if I had such,) or a mobile phone, or a GoPro camera, or whatever may come is not an infringement of your right to be free of recording (for you have none outside your home,) nor is it terribly bright of you to denigrate them or their new toys when you'll likely enjoy something similar once they become openly sold and include some absolutely desirable software that happens to depend on the camera.

Nick was entitled to an respond in anger when he was confronted after being allowed in the restaurant, without a clue that he'd be embarrassed and rejected for something that few could reasonably anticipate. Respect for the customer begins at the front door.

When you travel with your laptop to a public wireless access point, and you probably do - it's visible to attackers. How do you address the dichotomy that you're uncomfortable with your home network being visible to attackers if you're comfortable traveling to public access points?

Sounds good until you're the one at risk of being shot by a trigger-happy psychopath under protection of the US Government. I don't think any of us are concerned about answering a nastygram about some contrived DMCA violation. We're concerned about having our homes invaded because someone thought it was a good idea to attack non-violent crimes with violent reactions in the USA.

in case you need a refresher: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=135680995

Our ancestors had a less ambiguous case of right and wrong to rally around. Here the waters are clouded by crimes many or most of us generally want to fight, but we don't agree with the methods used to fight them. It's a lot more difficult to rally around my right to leave an open access point in my house without fear of being shot by the police than it is to rally around one's right to equality or relief from a distant oppressive government.

Well put. I'm impressed.

I think many of us are overwhelmed by the general idea that law enforcement is abusing the general public out of malice of incompetence, and as a result we become hooked on each one of these incidents as examples of a dangerous slide into a police state.

There's more to the story of law enforcement relating to the public, and it would be good to have or participate in a discourse on some of the root causes and hack out solutions to them.

Trust is a foundation of governance, as you point out. The system, and it's administrators, will work to maintain that trust. In places where the trust breaks down, and I think we have examples of that globally, the populace is subject to great chaos and uncertainty.

I don't think we can have that sort of discourse here, in this forum, and perhaps it's appropriate to have it at a very localized level in a community, but as hackers, geeks, and intelligent people - we can do something about this.

Other than the Post's general issues with content, how is the article wrong?
(Please post citations and sources for your conclusion.)

Note that the article quotes GoDaddy's general counsel as saying "We decided we didn't want to be agents of China."