ban | writing notes

I found it difficult not to snigger at The Telegraph article about chefs wanting to ban smartphones and photography in their restaurants.

An example of a chef wanting to ban smartphones in his restaurant is Gilles Goujon (L’Auberge du Vieux Puits, 3 Michelin stars) because “If people take a photo and put it out on social media, it takes away the surprise”…”It takes away a little bit of my intellectual property too. Someone could copy me”… “Plus a photo taken on an average smartphone is rarely a great image. It doesn’t give the best impression of our work. It’s annoying.” So basically, it takes away the surprise, steals his intellectual property and doesn’t even do it to a level of quality to which he approves.

The first is maybe right, the second is wrong as he does not have intellectual property rights in his dishes to prevent photography, and the last bit was a bit whiny and reminded me of the strangest complaint “the food was awful and the portions too small”. But yes, I get it. His reputation is at stake and the amateurs are not helping by taking lousy pictures.

Simple Pleasures by Wrote. CC BY NC

Is it just me? Maybe I have been looking at technology for too long? but haven’t we heard all these arguments before? “Cell phones should be banned on trains, buses etc” seems so 1995. Cameraphones need to be controlled seems so 1998. “Hipsters taking pictures of food are ruining our lives” is so 2009. (Cannot resist mentioning the comic Pictures of Hipsters Taking Pictures of Food).

Against those who want to ban the technology we have those who claim it is all beneficial. The photographs are marketing and show appreciation. The buzz will bring in more business etc. This may be true or not. Proof is not really what it’s all about. What surprises me a decade of technology later is the places where technology use is not allowed or the knee-jerk outrage and attempts to limit technology, like those mentioned in the article.

Sure there are situations where it is called for. For security and safety I will not use my phone where it may cause harm. I even turn my phone off on planes – there is no harm but the security theater demands it and other passengers may feel safer for it. But there are places where I cannot understand the no phone rule. Most annoying? Waiting in the long line for US passport control after a long plane ride and not being able to text and tweet my arrival. Sitting in other American government waiting rooms there are prominent no phone signs. In Sweden banks seem to be anti-phones and carry signs against them.

The phone is not a right, and even if it were private spaces can create rules against them. But the way in which we are conditioned today taking away our phones only increases our stress. Why are so many spaces still anti-phone?

The French have gone and done it! Times Online reports:

Anyone who persists in illicit downloading of music or films will be barred from broadband access under a controversial new law that makes France a pioneer in combating internet piracy.

“There is no reason that the internet should be a lawless zone,” President Sarkozy told his Cabinet yesterday as it endorsed the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” scheme that from next January will hit illegal downloaders where it hurts.

This is, as I have argued earlier (last time in January), a really bad idea. Why is banning people from the Internet a bad idea?

The Internet has been promoted and become our most basic communications infrastructure (my focus here is Europe since this is where the the French are).

1. The punishment does not fit the crime: We have changed the way Banks, Post Offices, ticket sales, hotel booking, insurance (etc, etc) work and banning someone from the Internet will be tantamount to branding a symbol of guilt onto the person. Not to mention the increased costs involved in time and money. Indeed why should copyright violation prevent me from online banking?

2. Group punishment: If an Internet connection is involved in copyright violation this does not mean that all those dependent upon that connection should be punished. The actual violator may be underage or the network may be open to others.

3. Privatizing the law: The ability to punish copyright violators should not be delegated to private bodies. Internet providers are not equipped to mete out legal punishments.

Earlier, when arguing against proposals such as these I wrote:

The proposals seen above are simplistic, naive and dangerous they show a fundamental lack of understanding not only of technology or its role in society but also a lack of understanding of the role of communication in a democratic society. The actions of the politicians proposing such measures show that they are not acting in the interests of the individuals they are there to serve.

Even if the French have chosen to go the other way – I still believe that they are wrong…