Steve Mann's unanswered letter to McDonalds' Head of Customer Services | Hacker News Reader

Steve Mann's unanswered letter to McDonalds' Head of Customer Services

eyetap.blogspot.com

76 pointskefs27 comments

What a pity.

While I tend to sympathize with his case, for a grievance letter that was just way too long and rambling. So it puts the addressee -- who already faces considerabilities legal liabilities, as well as pressures from above if they respond the wrong way to such a letter -- in a position where they feel justified in seeing silence as a prudent response.

Plus, it just takes lots of time to parse and construct a response to such a torrent of TL;DR like that.

Much better would been to have spend some extra time coming up with something no longer than 1.5x as long as the letter he was responding to. You know, something readable. And then, for political as well as strategic reasons, open his wallet to have it professionally translated into French. Now that might get him the kind of traction he wants on this issue.

All good points.

Being in French and reasonably short would have been made it more adaptable for French media and their law experts too.

In my opinion, the key is to make this seem like a distinctly French problem and conduct it in French public space. Given French pride (and assuming it has no gross legal repurcussions), that could force a response.

I've taken your suggestion as the basis for a proposed shorter letter for translation into French.

I posted this draft letter as a comment to my latest weblog entry in http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/08/unanswered-letter-to-mcdon...

Please take a look at this proposed shorter letter, and I would welcome comments on this proposed draft short letter in http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/08/unanswered-letter-to-mcdon...

Best regards,

Steve

Exactly what I was going to say. Steve Mann comes off as a lunatic in this whole affair.

Is this for real?

The moment you start talking about seeking legal remedy from a corporation, the only interaction you're going to have from said corporation is through their legal department.

Wait - didn't he have a photo that showed the employee tearing up his documents?

Doesn't that mean the McDonalds executive is outright lying?

I have noticed some resistance to filming in businesses in the US. I've been wearing a camera rig recently to do high-res capture of my shopping for some software we are working on. Since I started the data capture I have been asked to turn my camera off by several different businesses. I wonder how this apparent aversion to filming in some establishments will effect the adoption of google glass and similar products.

Some businesses have long had policies against photography, enforced to varying degrees. I was once at a gas station and noticed an increasingly-rare payphone, and whipped out my SLR camera from the backseat to take a picture. As soon as I did, an employee emerged from inside the shop and told me to stop taking pictures.

I'm not sure what damage it could have done, but it is their own private property, so they have that right. I could have elected to stand on the public sidewalk and take a picture of the payphone with a 400mm lens, but I just wasn't that interested.

> I'm not sure what damage it could have done, but it is their own private property, so they have that right.

TFA draws a distinction between cameras and assisted vision systems. It's like asking people to remove hearing aids because no sound recording is allowed. That "right" is going to become unenforceable as technologies like this and google glass become more common.

I'd expect this to become more commonplace as stores fight the "showrooming" trend. Customers walk into stores, try things out, then snap a picture of the barcode to compare to the Amazon price.

I would ask you to turn off your camera out of respect for the other customers. Also, people are less likely to do silly dumb things in a store if they can't show their friends :)

I think a lot of "no photography" is because the store doesn't see any upside, and because a lot of photographers are fucking obnoxious while taking photos (taking up lots of space, bumping into people, obstructing traffic, etc.) -- I know I've done the same while trying to get a shot.

A smart store would recognize that great photos in e.g. a Yelp review are going to help it. I've never had a problem, even in no-photography-usually areas, if I go to the duty manager and say I'd like to take photos for online review sites, wikipedia, etc.

Alternately, people are less likely to attack others, steal or damage something if they know there's video being taken.

Agreed. I always turn if off when asked. Do you think there will be an expectation for people to take their Google glasses off in businesses?

I think that at a certain point, there will be an expectation for businesses to stop asking people to film on their premises.

I can't take my wearable computing rig into your store? Guess I'm going to your competitor who doesn't care.

Or customers will go the store where a dozen busybodies aren't filming them.

I don't think any of us know how this will all shake out in the end.

> Or customers will go the store where a dozen busybodies aren't filming them.

You have this option as a customer, but you don't have this option as a person walking around in a public space.

> I don't think any of us know how this will all shake out in the end.

True, but I'm going to throw my ticket into the "ubiquitous sousveillance" bucket. In the US, at least, a lot of laws would have to change to forbid recording people in public; that's a pretty big barrier to overcome.

Usually the store is filming you anyway.

Yes, but they have an incentive not to be a dick to me if I trip and fall and land on my ass. Other patrons have no such restraint.

I wonder what might happen if you tried to wear them when going to the cinema to watch a film?

I use a small rectangular scope to help me read menus at take away restaurants and have learned to hide the device because it make people very uncomfortable despite not being a camera.

^ non union lawyer.

This dumbass just took his proper private process they've just acquiesced to (silence == acceptance), and made it public in such a way that obliterates his remedy. I would have just slapped a $50k pricetag on my private correspondence, gotten their agreement (with another step for due process on their part) that they owed that money to me, then filed a lien with the US Secretary of State's office. once the lien is perfected, you file a lien against the CFO of McDonald's, and you can use the county sheriffs to seize assets on your behalf. This will work even if you're in France, and you're dealing with an American Corporation (UNCITRAL Convention is your guideline).

If you can script a mod for Neverwinter Nights, you can learn Contract Law. It astounds me how many people refuse to learn it, but allow their lives to be ruined by their ignorance in the subject.

I hear this suggested as a remedy quite often (especially in the 'freeman of the land' circles), but never any stories of it being used successfully. Do you know of any cases where a commercial lien has been used and they actually paid up?

I try to stay away from terrorists, especially "Freeman" types. "Lawful Excuse" does not mean what they think it means, and overall, the movement has been co-opted to promote vexatious litigation.

Once your lien is established, You file a complaint in court (whether County, or CQB if .uk/.au/.nz/.ca), issue a seizure order for the judge to rubber-stamp, and direct the Sheriff to go seize property for you. I've personally witnessed it working in 3 canadian provinces (BC, AB, SK), and 2 states (California and Arizona). I'm hesitant to name names, though; if you're curious, and you can find a public court registry (most canadian provinces have them online), start looking up the names of the current or former chiefs of police, wardens (Maricopa County, AZ is great for this). you'll see lots of proper process and liens.

This is outside of registering your lien with Equifax/Experian/TransUnion (which is also very effective), should you want to affect their overall credit history.

Personally, as I enjoy banking/finance waaay too much, I like to sell my liens to foreign banks. One law enforcement officer I encountered had all his assets seized (including his house/credit cards), but it only satisfied approximately half the debt owed. Once a wage garnishment order was in place, the rest of the debt was sold to a fairly large corporate bank in New Delhi. Now the officer (who currently has a desk job) pays all but $200/month of his wages to this bank until the lien is paid.

TL;DR: don't worry whether or not they'll be honorable. Get the courts to force them to pay.

I wonder what kind of response he wants. "An apology rather than a denial would go a long way toward mending hurt feelings." Oh, ok. I'm right, you're wrong, and don't you dare suggest otherwise.

Well, it seems like fair tactics given the original letter's insulting non-apology: "We regret that our staff’s request that you stop filming in our restaurant offended you."

I guess when asked we should just put the camera away, calmly sit down and begin crushing their heads.

http://youtu.be/8t4pmlHRokg

Reply on news.ycombinator.com