Less than two weeks ago, Seattle’s 5 Point Cafe became the first known establishment in the United States (and possibly the world) to publicly ban Google Glass, the highly anticipated augmented reality device set to be released later this year.

The “No Glass” logo that the café published on its website was developed and released (under a Creative Commons license) by a new London-based group called “Stop the Cyborgs.” The group is composed of three young Londoners who decided to make a public case against Google Glass and other similar devices.

“If it's just a few geeks wearing it, it's a niche tool [and] I don't think it's a problem,” said Adam, 27, who prefers only to be identified by his first name. He communicated with Ars via Skype and an encrypted Hushmail e-mail account.

“But if suddenly everyone is wearing it and this becomes as prevalent as smartphones—you can see it becomes very intrusive very quickly. It's not about the tech, it's about the social culture around it. If you think about what Google's business model is, it started as a search engine, and then Google Analytics. [Now, Google is] almost characterizing its [territory as being] the rest of the world. It's a loss of space that isn't online. [Google Glass] destroys having multiple identities, and I find that quite a scary concept.”

Adam admitted he has never actually used or interacted with Google Glass in person, but he said he has extensive experience with augmented reality and currently is a post-doctoral student specializing in "machine learning" at a London university that he declined to name. He added that he and two friends are behind Stop the Cyborgs.

Google has yet to release much detailed information about Google Glass, only allowing small trials involving its own employees and select journalists and developers.

“Most people [have] no idea what they were looking at”

On the Stop the Cyborgs site, the group raises a significant concern: namely, that there’s no obvious way to know when the device is on or what it’s actually doing (recording or not). Indeed, Adam’s fears may be warranted, based on The Verge’s own experience last month:

At one point during my time with Glass, we all went out to navigate to a nearby Starbucks—the camera crew I’d brought with me came along. As soon as we got inside however, the employees at Starbucks asked us to stop filming. Sure, no problem. But I kept the Glass’ video recorder going, all the way through my order and getting my coffee. Yes, you can see a light in the prism when the device is recording, but I got the impression that most people had no idea what they were looking at. The cashier seemed to be on the verge of asking me what I was wearing on my face, but the question never came. He certainly never asked me to stop filming.

Plus, it’s not hard to imagine a situation where photos taken by Glass could be checked against Facebook, Google+, or another social network. For now, Google hasn’t said what sort of facial recognition capability Glass will (or could) have.

"Google Glass is possibly the most significant technological threat to 'privacy in public' I've seen," Woodrow Hartzog, an affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, told Ars. "In order to protect our privacy, we will need more than just effective laws and countermeasures. We will need to change our societal notions of what 'privacy' is."

For now, at least one privacy-minded senator doesn’t seem worried.

"In the past, Google has taken a principled position in making facial recognition an opt-in service for its social network, Google+,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) in an e-mail to Ars. “This gives me hope that this same kind of thoughtfulness will be applied to its roll-out of Glass. I’m looking forward to talking to Google more about its deployment of Glass and what it means for privacy.”

“You're never going to see a stranger as a stranger again”

Still, though, we can only speculate about how society will react to such an expensive geek toy that will almost certainly spawn copycat devices that will get cheaper and more expansive over time.

“In generation two, when you've got better battery life and apps that do better face recognition—maybe we're crying wolf a little early to a certain extent—but [what happens when] you get to competing products?” Adam said. “The idea that you'll have recognition of objects and infrared tags so it will always know what you're looking at—that kind of thing, it will be gathering information. It's more the face recognition stuff that changes society. You're never going to see a stranger as a stranger again.”

That's a sentiment Hartzog echoed.

"Google Glass simply lowers the transaction costs of taking photos and videos and learning about your surroundings," the law professor said. "If Glass has a high adoption rate, it will significantly increase the likelihood of information that was assumed to be obscure or ethereal being discovered, recorded, and subject to publication. The law has yet to figure out how to unravel the fact that there are many situations where individuals expect privacy in public. So perhaps the best approach to this, at least initially, is a vocal, context-based opposition."

Even more interestingly, Adam admitted that part of why he’s afraid of associating his name with such a campaign is that it might hurt his chances in the industry where he hopes to get a job.

"I want to get a job with Google, eventually,” he admitted. “I'm part of that industry, so anything that I say in regard to that site could come back and bite me. I might not be able to afford my principles.”