Since we’re rephrasing each other’s words, your argument is that it’s all right to refuse to let someone have an assistive device on their person simply because you don’t like one part of it. Or, in the alternative, to suggest that they let you damage an expensive portion of that device, simply because you have an irrational fear of it.
If they can’t be separated, and the portion you fear is not being used in any way that infringes your rights, then you have absolutely no right to demand any physical changes to it.
You realize that your hypothetical test-taking cheater would sort of stand out… having an active, lit-up google glass on their face and repeatedly asking Google questions out loud, while repeatedly stroking and tapping at their temple? Surely, this would be easy to distinguish from a non-cheater who just happens to have Glass integrated into their prescription lenses, but has it off…
Are you really so blinded by fear of Glass that you won’t even take the time to think about what it would actually look like to use it in the ways you object to and, perhaps, look at ways to deal with the problem that don’t involve demanding never to see the device in your presence?
What is your basis for this argument? I’ve already given you the basis for my argument that no discrimination is occurring. I’m curious where in the law your technology is protected from voluntary modification (which may damage it). Feel free to show me where you have the right to watch movies or use the urinals while wearing Google Glass (which would be a good time for a nearby person to use the voice command “OK Glass, send message to Mom I’m a pervert” and “OK Glass, google asshole”).
They aren’t criminalizing it, a private corporation is banning it from their place of business. the state has not done anything in terms of “banning” or criminalizing something. You can argue it’s unfair, but it’s not being criminalized.
Feel free to show me where in the law it says you have the right to demand that someone either remove their assistive devices or submit to you potentially damaging those devices, when those devices (and anything part of them) are not causing any harm to any person.
You’re asking a hell of a lot more than the person who just wants to be able to use the method of their choice in order to see clearly. If they’re not doing anything to you and aren’t breaking any laws, you really don’t have much to stand on.
I ask you to do one thing, you ask me to do the opposite, except that you have a complete misunderstanding of how the legal process works. It is laughable. Laws limit, and in the case where there is no law, the power falls to the owner of the establishment. They can discriminate against you for not wearing shoes or a shirt. They can discriminate against you if you are wearing gang colors. They can discriminate against you if you smell bad or are disrespectful. In some states they can discriminate against you if you are gay. What they can’t discriminate against is codified in law, such as race or disability.
So to summarize, you don’t know how law works and had the gall to accuse me of not proving my point. Just admit it: you don’t know what you are talking about. I doubt you will because at this point in the discussion too much of your pride is dependent on being right.
Protip for the future: if you don’t actually understand how law works, don’t bluff.
I don’t need another argument; your response is stupid. Congratulations, I agree with your assertion that there are multiple ways to be an asshole. That doesn’t mean we just give up and let the assholes take over.
Great. So we should let you ban/restrict a useful tech just because it is almost unusable for some “bad” purposes? Good that your view in this issue will get marginalized in a couple years.
Isn’t this whole merry-go-round pointless in the face of the future? When (not if) wearable wireless tech becomes seamless (i.e. invisible for all practical purposes) and augmented reality ubiquitous, where is the line drawn? Do we make it ok to actively inhibit certain capabilities that any person might have? Check your mods at the door before entering club Luddite? Enjoy the movie, do mind the EMP…
I don’t have Glass --and wouldn’t wear it if I did. It’s clunky, expensive and obvious --but ten (fifteen?) years from now, it won’t be. The only way anyone will be able to call glass-hole on you is if you wear a set that is designed to be noticed.
