I experienced the Yondr phone prison last night for the first time (at a Chris Rock show). While I detest people being disruptive with their phones, I don’t think this is the right solution.
From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and being kept in a small penned off area. There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient.
It doesn’t work. Unless stewards are doing a thorough search (which would be offputting in itself), people will manage to bring phones in. They did last night. Mine got locked up, my fiancées didn’t.
In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. At the extreme end, you’ve got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing. But more likely it’s a fire alarm and subsequent evacuation, where you end up separated from your group. The venue last night (the SSE Hydro in Glasgow) said that in the event of an evacuation you should not attempt to have your phone unlocked but should leave immediately - sensible but if phones weren’t locked up, it wouldn’t even be a concern.
I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict “no phones during the performance” policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Last night we were sitting in front of a very drunken, obnoxious heckler. After several people complained, she was asked to leave. This is how many venues handle it.
Interestingly, all of the venue stewards last night were wearing Yondr hi vis vests. They seem to be on a major marketing push. I really hope it doesn’t become commonplace.
The venue seemed to want to distance themselves from the decision, making announcements along the lines of “At Chris Rock’s request, phones will not be allowed at tonight’s show and will be locked in Yondr cases and given back you you. Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight.”
I think the viscerality of this response is fascinating. Putting your phone in a case is a "prison", and you must check it every time you go to the toilet, and you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.
> Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave.
Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working. A significant percentage of people are not acting like adults. And you can't deal with 1/4 of the audience intentionally misbehaving like you do with a single drunken heckler.
I didn’t say that I must check my phone every time I go to the toilet. Only that being able to check my phone (for example, to check if I have any messages from people I care for at home) is a useful thing.
And I never said that I was worried about terrorism. Only that having ready access to my phone in any emergency situation (again, I pointed out it would be more likely a fire alarm than a terrorists) is helpful.
I don’t think concert venues do anything to enforce any sort of phone etiquette. I dislike that they’ve went for such an inconvenient option when there are softer, policy based alternatives in between doing nothing and locking up phones. Cinemas manage to enforce phone etiquette with much fewer staff per guest. Of course it’s common to see someone light up their row by checking their phone, but if it’s persistent (like the drunken heckler), cinema staff would eject them.
I think the counterpoint is that for some people, the more human experience is not a selling point, and actually a fairly large negative. Beyond the points laid out before, I have multiple children and multiple pets, and I'm the some person responsible for the technology stack at my small company which (means I'm on call for somewhat infrequent but not unheard of issues). Not being allowed my phone might just mean "eh, it's irresponsible of me to go" depending on the situation, and that's with my phone safely ensconced in my pocket except for an emergency.
Also, let's not let this "human" experience stuff slide, what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience". It's not like pyrotechnics, large screens and giant electronic speakers are anything you would experience prior to 100 years ago.
If you don't want people doing certain things with their phones, then make it clear what is and isn't acceptable and combat it directly. For example, give everyone a wristband, and explain exactly what it's for. It's your one warning/get out of etiquette jail free card. If they have to come and tell you to stop doing something you were already warned about, they take the wristband. If they have to tell you again, you're out.
You cannot expect hardened smartphone addicts to follow directives that crossgrain their addiction. The only reason harsh policies like this are being enacted is because wrist-slaps and pleas do not work.
It basically boils down to: if you want to go to the concert, you set aside the smartphone for a while. If not, don't go.
> what it really means is "a late 1990's to early 2000's experience"
Calling it a 'human experience' seems rather apt. When you're plugged into your smartphone frequently, you're not plugged into now; when you're playing on your computer instead of experiencing your immediate surroundings, it'd be more apt that to say that you're not partaking in the human experience, but an internet experience.
'Human experience' is apt, just like 'internet experience' would be apt for those that choose computer interaction.
> 'Human experience' is apt, just like 'internet experience' would be apt for those that choose computer interaction.
Depending on what you're doing on your phone, I would say it's the ultimate human experience, an almost constant connection to a global community. What's more human than being part of a community?
I think the problem is that people assume that more human is better, when any extreme generally has some downsides. Constant connection to the group has its problems. Being spread between many groups and streaming to keep up to date with their news can spread people thin and stress them out.
> You cannot expect hardened smartphone addicts to follow directives that crossgrain their addiction. The only reason harsh policies like this are being enacted is because wrist-slaps and pleas do not work.
I think couching it in terms of addiction and people's inability to control themselves is taking it too far and brushing any problems under the rug. Establish norms. Enforce compliance. Once someone gets kicked out of a concert they spent $100 or more on, they'll think about it before doing it again, and likely do will anyone they tell the story too.
The most annoying thing with phones is that they distract other people. You might be kind enough to not use your phone during a collective event, but other people are not. Frankly I don't care about it in a concert as you go there for the music most of the time, but I've seen people have use phones in every single movie I saw at a cinema and at every single theatre play I've been to, even in post-modern shows in tiny venues with much less than 50 seats. There are lots of idiots that can't look at something interesting without capturing it in photo and video, distracting everybody including the performers, who may indeed not want the performance recorded.
A comment higher up says treat people like adults. Adults are not adult adults. They are more like monkeys that compulsively do things and then maybe, only maybe think if what they did was appropriate or not.
Part of my human experience may include checking how the babysitter is doing with the kids. I'm not going to do that in a way that disrupts the show, but I still want that access.
I spent my whole teenage babysitting, half a dozen regular gigs and also for families in holiday homes. Not once was there a situation where I needed to call the parents or vice-versa. I suppose they have guns in America so maybe you do need to worry about the kids being SWAT raided or kidnapped. However, the general idea is that the parents go out, drink loads of alcohol and come back around 3 a.m. to be hungover the next morning.
Meanwhile, the deal the kids struck with the babysitter was a simple one - they could stay up as late as they wanted just so long as they pretended to be asleep if mummy and daddy come back early. The next morning the kids sleep in and everyone is happy.
So you have to let go. Trust the babysitter. Trust your seven year old daughter to try and stay up extra late by showing the babysitter daddy's secret porn collection, hidden behind the antiquarian book collection but all too easy to find for an adventurous child. Of course none of these things or the strange noises the parents make in bed get to be an issue, you just pay babysitter and make them feel welcome and all is good.
It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.
Most times when babysitters are hired, now or a generation ago, they're trusted to make reasonable decisions so the parents don't have to worry.
> It's interesting they didn't have confidence in the babysitter's ability to take care of you for an evening but still chose to hire them and then monitored them via payphone.
No one questioned the babysitter's competence. They're your children -- you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going.
> you're going to want to call and check to see how things are going
Yes. If you suffer from high levels of anxiety and don't trust your own decisions about who to trust, this is true. Many people, particularly Americans, are this way. It is not true for every parent, however.
I’m not the above poster, but I did babysit for several families in my grad school years a few years ago. The parents would not generally communicate with me when they were out. If they did, it would be to let me know they’d be early or late, and suggestions for food or activity if they were late. There wasn’t a routine check to make sure their kids were alive & well.
No, not really. If someone goes out for drinks, then dinner, then a show and the night is going really well maybe the parents want to call and check in. They want to see how the nights going for the babysitter and kid. Are the kids asleep? Is the babysitter content to make some more money for a few extra hours? I think that's all entirely reasonable. It really has little to do with the matter at hand but having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again seems like overkill. I know that's the only way we've been able to identify that works but I don't think there is any surefire method that will not only please the artists / performers and keep the viewers / fans / people in attendance happy.
"...having to wait in a line to submit or retrieve your phone, be sequestered to a penned in area to use your phone, and then to have to wait in line again to put your phone back into that "prison" system again..."
The vast majority of the time consumed in that process is simply getting out from where you sit/stand and back, which is the same in the "unjailed" phone scenario.
Unless, of course, you were just going to go ahead and conduct that call right there in the venue anyway.
I'm thinking about how annoying this would be at any sort of venue or music event. Someone said prior the main reason they'd use their phone in that situation is to group up with others they came with or met there if they get split up. I can empathize with that 150% and feel that, as someone who will never do more than snap a quick photo of a musical act for nostalgic purposes, the system in place to leave your phone locked up like coat check is mostly just annoying.
It all reminds me of DRM causing problems for legitimate, paying customers when the DRM should only be targeting those who go outside of the rules. That's where someone else's comment about treating everyone like adults and kicking people out who break the rules seems like the best bet, although they also admitted (and I agree) that this system just doesn't work as needed, either.
Phones aren't even that good in gigs for grouping up, vs just walking around.
A lot of the time your mates aren't looking at the phone at the right time, or there are so many people that you don't get good reception. Looking up and just finding people works pretty well.
'How did people do that before there were cell phones?
reply'
I used to sit for my nieces and nephews before mobiles were in common usage. My sister would give me the number of the place they were going in case there was a problem.
Of course, this was useless if they had gone to somewhere where there may be more than a couple of dozen people?
So, in reality, people used to hire baby sitters and just trust them to be able to cope. It's not as if you could do much from the other end of a phone if there actually was an emergency?
Babysitting probably isn't a great example, but cellphones affect the process of communicating so, unless you're expecting not to have the phone on you, it can actually be detrimental when you don't.
The main difference is that you tend to plan less up front. When our children were younger, and we had babysitters, we'd point out where the obvious stuff was but if they needed something, they'd just text. You just don't bother with the 15 min tour that I'd have got when I was doing the babysitting.
As a tangential, vaguely amusing, anecdote. A few years ago, my eldest's phone was a bit dodgy and kept cutting out. He was going to meet up with my wife in town but was meeting friends first. The two of them, my wife and son, spent about 5 minutes trying to work out how they could contact each other.
I, genius that I am, proposed a radical solution. I suggested that they arrange to meet at an agreed time and place. It had been such a long time since this was necessary that it hadn't even occurred to my wife (for which I still won't let her forget). My son had never, in his 15 odd years at the time, needed to do this.
>How did people do that before there were cell phones?
Trust the babysitter to make wise choices. This is actully really tough as cell phones end up lowering the standard expected of babysitters, like the whole GPS/map thing.
Yes, they did; before ubiquitous cellphones killed demand for them, basically every public place of any size (and many small ones, and even just public streets) had banks of payphones, and for many kinds of outings people would leave the phone number of the restaurant or other establishment that they were going to for emergency contact in the other direction.
The last generation that didn't have that “luxury” was whichever one was before landlines were ubiquitous.
Yes, they really did. Both when I was the baby-sat and, years later, when I was the baby sitter. Though more likely about an unexpected delay or need that was omitted in prior communication than just a check-in, IME.
Umm, yea, yea they did. All the time. It was extremely common during those days for an adult at a public gathering or social function to excuse themselves while saying "I've got to go call and check on the kids" -- it was expected and understood.
Except for all the cases in which things didn't turn out fine, but would have if a cellphone had existed, and that you never really heard about. (minor grammar edit)
Sorry but you talk about checking in on the babysitter as if it's some universal law. It's not you don't have to, and if you feel like you can't go out and enjoy a show without checking in then don't go to the show.
Because any leisure is a personal choice which you can choose to do or not if you really are worried that you can't get in contact with your nanny then don't go to the concert where they require you to not bring it, don't go to the movies, don't go anywhere you can loose connection and don't go flying.
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to take that chance but it's hardly an argument for why someone shouldn't do a show where they ban cellphones.
In this context, the collective experience of the concert, engaging with it as your immediate world, cutting off the outside as would a cult, this is the cult of music, let it consume you as you consume it
Of course it's not quite that simple. People using phones at a concert affects everyone's experience. This is a godsend for some of us. It absolutely detracts from my experience in theaters, concerts, shows, etc when everyone has a phone out.
My feeling is that this is a valid choice for artists to make, and if you disagree then avoid shows where this is the policy.
This is exactly why performers seek to stop video recording in the first place.
Or part of why. There are several motivators:
1) use of the recording that could cost paying attendance in the future (e.g. copyright issues)
2) damage control of statements that they regret later (e.g. Michael Richards' racist rant)
3) Protection of the interests of all the attendees positioned behind and around you. When anybody is recording, view from directly behind is outright obscured, and the experience of everybody behind you, where you are in their field of view at all, is impaired by this lit-up screen facing them. People who are recording are inflicting their choice on all others behind them.
You've never worked a job where you might be called in during an emergency? We're in a forum full of sysadmins and devops people and this idea is foreign?
I work freelance film production. I get calls for work at random hours and if I don't respond quickly that offer can expire. I also work on high-pressure, quick turnaround jobs a lot, and part of the deal as a freelancer is that I'm always available. As a result, I keep my phone with me.
I'm sorry that my earning a living is pathetic to you.
It worked at a Nine Inch Nails concert. I saw a couple people get escorted out for refusing to put their phones away, and that pretty much sent the message that they were not fucking around about it.
I was lucky enough to win tickets to a NIN concert from a radio station call-in in the late 1990's or early 2000's (it was around the time the "God is dead and no one cares" song was all the rage). These tickets included access to the soundcheck. I went and saw Trent Reznor with a walkie-talkie going seat-to-seat-to-seat in the venue (and this was a 6k+ seat venue, not counting standing-only areas which he visited as well). At each seat he would have his audio techs play ~15 seconds of a test track (i think it was the Dolby sound samples) and then radio in and have his crew adjust whatever sounded off to him then immediately move on to the next seat. Quite some time later I saw Bono from U2 getting some press for doing the same thing at his shows and always wondered if he learned that from Nine Inch Nails. That show was fucking bonkers too, NIN had a really cool light/laser show going on during the show.
Well, I was at the soundcheck in the morning (not super early, if memory serves me, this was a while ago). The concert was that evening. And yea, he was doing each seat individually, at least while I was hovering around watching everything. I can't say what he did before I got there, but yea for the 3 hours or so that I can remember he was doing each seat. I'm sure he skipped a few rows here and there, he would have to just because of time. Also, it was probably less than 15 seconds of the test track, I'm most likely exaggerating that fact subconsciously because it's a fond memory of mine.
Don't be ridiculous. Fear of terrorism is not the only factor. Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety.
If you want to be antagonistic about the threat of a bombing, how about a more commonplace example: you're a very drunk young girl who's been separated from her friends at the concert and a pushy, aggressive guy you don't know is trying to get you into his car to go home with him. You can't text your friends that you need help because your phone is locked.
Or how about this? You're a parent and you've lost track of your kid in the sea of people. You can't text or call them, because your phone is locked.
Or how about this? You're alone and you have a medical condition and something goes wrong, and you need immediate attention, but you can't call 911 because your phone is locked. Your only option now to hope someone else in the crowd notices that you're passed out on the ground not from drunkenness, but from something much more urgent.
Don't act like cellphones have no practical use and are just social media machines. How absurd. They save lives every day and this policy is insanely dangerous for everyone. People here saying "How did people survive before cellphones," well, guess what, in many cases they probably didn't.
> Or how about this?
> Or how about this?
> Don't act like cellphones have no practical use
sigh Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without cellphones. For any new tech, you can continually imagine scenarios where survival "absolutely depends on" having this tech.
How about this? You're sitting in your ISS sleep capsule and suddenly the station starts to depressurize. You hop into your reentry-safe spacesuit and exit the station, set the suit to auto-reentry and then aero-brake from Mach 18 to 0 and touch down safely in your backyard with your parachute. See? A reentry safe single-person spacesuit is absolute essential to survival.
Your example is that you pass out at a concert with literally thousands of people around and no one helps you. Or you are drunk and a guy is hitting on you. Or your kid is missing.
And you call the person you are responding to ridiculous.
Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.
I find this argument supremely unconvincing. It’s true that humanity survived, but people died in all sorts of awful and now preventable ways. This argument could be used to argue against vaccines, sanitation, or good nutrition. Is that where you want to be?
When it comes to safety, I want to set the bar somewhat above “this will not literally drive the species to extinction.”
sigh, you are not the Human race. Yes, Humans as a race have survived without cellphones, but that doesn't mean for an instance that the same applies to individuals.
You can't simply brush aside the parent's comments because you don't agree with them. A potential rape situation, or a lost and frightened child are very valid, and very real examples of how having a phone could help.
> Cellphones have made people into helpless, scared sheep.
You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right? You also realise that simply being able to contact someone can remove the fear and helpnessness?
> You can't simply brush aside the parent's comments because you don't agree with them. A potential rape situation, or a lost and frightened child are very valid, and very real examples of how having a phone could help.
A lot of things could help too. Like a gun or an epipen. My point is that cellphones have become people's #1 indispensable safety blankets to the point that being without fills them with fear. Why are we so afraid of everything? If you've got ID, keys, and a little bit of money, you're mostly golden. And even taking away one or all of those, you won't die instantly.
> You realise that people can be scared and helpless without being sheep, right?
The fact that people become so uncomfortable and literally afraid when they are separated from their devices that didn't even exist 10-15 years ago is not a good sign.
I wish everyone would just stop pedaling fear like this. You'll be fine without your phone for a few minutes. There aren't rapists, terrorists around every corner; aliens aren't abducting people, and you probably aren't going to have a brain aneurysm and be unable to call for help.
There should be some sort of public phone that people can use, perhaps in booth format. Or maybe some sort of minimal electronic device where text messages can be passed, where you could, in essence, 'page' someone. Hmmm.
"Cellphones are one of the past century's greatest contributions to public safety."
Don't you think that's a bit if a neurotic and control freak way to look at it?
Humans survive splendidly on oxygen and agreeable temperature for days and are really hard to kill.
If we lived in a Syrianesque dystopia all around I would get your anxiety but any above median income metropolis should be just fine for supporting a humanoid lifeform for brief excursions out of ones home environment.
Phones are fantastic for public surveillance, but that's another thing entirely.
I'm a parent and I get the anxiety but worrying too much and helicoptering the children out of all rough spots is really not a skillfull way to worry through ones life.
Lets all just bury all of our light up rectangles and move to the woods. Twitter has brought us so much pain it's time to go back to dirt farming.
I'm only half joking. I've given up my phone for a DIY LTE project that barely works but is fun and I'm off social media for 4 years. Sure there is safety and stuff, but if you wanna watch the white stripes shred or some other exclusive art, maybe that's a thing you can deal with. You can also just not go and buy the Mp3s to load on your precious digital leash.
I'm gonna go walk to the grocery store repeatedly hitting refresh on HN on my kludge phone just to prove how much I don't need it.
But you have a choice. Just don't go to the show. If you think 2 hours without your phone puts your life at risk, simply do not put yourself in these dangerous situations. Let other people enjoy the experience.
> Isn't that what we've been trying for the past 10 years? Clearly, it's not working.
Have we? I've only been to one show in the past decade where a performer called someone out in the crowd for being a jerk with a camera. They wouldn't turn the flash off, so the artist asked them to stop, then they took another flashy picture, so the artist mocked them until they put the camera away for the rest of the show.
It just depends on your definition of not being a jerk. I've been attending concerts since 1980mumble. Trust me, it's a big difference having absolutely zero devices in the air versus a sea of bright screens and waving arms obscuring everyone's view. That might be the norm for some people but to me everyone's being inconsiderate. And really to what end? Those tinny, wobbly videos will never garner more than a few random views on youtube and quickly be forgotten.
I'm not in the "lock away phones" camp because they're an essential part of everyday life now. But I'm saddened by the social norm of them being in the air obscuring views now. Harumph.
Post "no recording" or "no phone use during performance", have security remove them with no refund. After a few removals, most will keep it in their pocket.
Every show I've been to that does this has successfully kept people from using their phones. I don't think checking in your phone is a very good solution from a practical standpoint, considering the downsides.
I saw Lou Reed do this in 2003. It might have even been about cameras at that point and the issue was the flash, not audience experience. But he was not. Having. It. Stopped playing both times and really was about to walk off. It seemed a little too much at the time. But now I get it, and I feel a little bad that the current generation, at least the phone addicted ones, are never going to experience the level of emotion you get with fuller engagement. This is even more acutely real in the theater and it will probably wither in the current... attention economy.
I recently attended a Joey Alexander concert at SFJazz. Aside from a clear "no photograph" policy, there are also attendants watching people and reminding them if they took their phones out. It's working but definitely didn't cover all high-profile concerts like the ones featuring Jack White.
>you're concerned about a terrorist attack -- enough to want your phone, but not enough to stay home, as if your apps could somehow save you.
It should be pretty obvious that a terrorist attack is simply one example of many possible emergencies. There are plenty of things that could happen where having instant access to a phone could save someone's life.
Obviously remember we're talking about a public event here with organisers/security and infrastructure so I'd be interested to hear in what cases only the existence of a mobile phone would save someones life.
Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.
What OP is proposing is to make phones prohibited at a concert. Then it will be misbehaving, and you can eject people who are breaking the rule. I think this would be a fine idea.
> Taking your phone out at a concern is not misbehaving. It's fine and accepted.
No. No it isn't. It's selfish and shows an egregious lack of courtesy to other attendees/the performer. The fact that most people do it just reveals most people are arseholes, not that it's 'fine and accepted'.
Acting like adults is working just fine, unless you get irrationally annoyed at everything that doesn't go 100% the way you want it to.
I went to a movie a few weeks ago where a woman actually took a call and wouldn't shut up for 30-40 seconds while others heckled her. That's the worst incident I can remember in the past decade or so. It doesn't annoy me if someone wants to video a concert on their phone. That's their choice to have a crappy experience.
Having 5% of the audience holding their phones up as high as they can to video tape the concert at any given time makes it harder for everybody to see. Then it's my crappy experience.
I do not have to check my phone every time I go to toilet, but in case performance turns out boring, I like to stay on toilet longer and read on the phone there.
If significant percentage of adults acts certain way, then it is acting like adults by definition. Maybe you are just using "adult" as word of approval and "kid" as insult :).
LOL using the Manchester bombing as reason. First terrorist incidents are so rare you might as well argue that you need your phone in case of a plane crash.
Secondly, these events have security, crowd control, management, etc, all with their own phones. Emergency services doesn't need a thousand simultaneous calls. In a genuine mass emergency there is a lot more important needs for network access than providing people the opportunity Instagram/Facebook about their experience.
If friends and family have to wait a little while longer to hear from you in an extremely rare emergency, that's a small price to pay for the large benefit. You can't fully experience a concert or show when you are distracted by your or someone else phones.
This technology makes the "no phones" policy work. I don't have to be made to feel like an a-hole calling for an usher to deal with phone users, or worry about them or their friends harassing or assaulting me for doing it. It makes the experience better for everyone.
A few weeks ago Joe Rogan spoke about how he's now using Yondr at all of his shows, because despite how expensive it is for him, it has significantly improved the show dynamics for his entire audience.
The Manchester and Bataclan incidents are perfect examples. That's the whole point of terrorism. The groups are not effective enough to influence who they want without fear tacits. They're going to target large groups of people, and events tend to do that.
The situation of the Bataclan, the emergency services does need to know whats going on inside, and at multiple points of the building. For Manchester, they needed to know what exit was being targeted, and which other ones that popped up as well (there could have been more than one attacker)
I emphitise and understand where you're at with the usher part, it sucks and they're going to try to guilt trip you over it. However, that's the right process to go through. (You're esclating). MLB solves this issue by putting a short code to text about bad behavior on the backs of seats. (Again you have to use your phone with this)
I'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist, yet I don't fear going into the shower without my phone. Fearing terrorism is a consequence of innumeracy. Do you carry your cellphone in case you or a nearby person get struck by lightning too? More US citizens get struck (and killed) by lightning every year than die in terrorist attacks since 2001.
Actually, yes, that’s exactly why I carry my phone: for contacting emergency services when something goes awry. Your lightning analogy sort of falls down a bit here (even though I agree with your overall point of not fearing terrorist attacks)
The fact that the risk is comparatively low is no excuse to disregard it. Furthermore, any number of emergencies can be exacerbated by a lack of phone access - medical emergencies, fires, or any other major problem might have significantly higher fatality rates in the absence of telecommunications.
First, let me say that I'm not panicking about the probability of this actually happening, but: "I'm more likely to get killed by a fall in the tub than by a terrorist" is only true of an _arbitrary_ attack at an _arbitrary_ venue and time (and an _arbitrary_ bathtub :)). Events that use Yondr announce it ahead of time, waving a big flag that says "no one here will be able to call for help." The probability of an attack at such an event would be much higher compared to an arbitrary one (although, definitely still small, which is why I'm not exactly panicking...)
Your entire premise is incorrect. Even with Yondr hundreds of people will be able to call for help. Such as ushers, security, ticket takers, concession workers, event management, etc, etc, etc.
Yondr means less (or at least less rapid) social media publicity for a terrorist act, so one could argue that it deters terrorists.
I agree, the safety aspects of this are shocking and the 'be free of phones' puritanism is a bit dull.
A _very_ strict code of conduct for attendees is something that can (and does) work.
Jazz pianist, Keith Jarrett has been known to stop his 4-hour long improvisation sessions in some of the world's most prestigous venues mid-flow to dress down an attendee trying to film him. People don't make that mistake twice. https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keit...
Unrelated, but I'd be way more on board with this if the DVD of the show wasn't £30 afterwards.
My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.
My guess is that if you put your phone away you're less likely to hurt from, you know, other people doing the stupid stuff they do at concerts.
I understand that people want video, so they can post it, and get their dopa-soc on Facebook, or wherever, but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way. Jack White isn't feeling the energy and is doing something about it.
I say, Jack should just take out his phone and sit there recording the audience, until the get the hint.
> My goodness, all those people who went to concerts before cell phones must have been so hardcore, taking risks like that.
I get the point you're trying to make, but to me this just reads like gatekeeping.
Cell phones are useful and they can make people safer. In a world with cell phones not having timely access to one is riskier. In a world without cell phones it's a moot point.
The more interesting issue -- which others in this thread are discussing -- is whether the benefits of having a cell phone outweigh the harms people can cause with them, and whether policy can help strike an appropriate balance.
I'd argue it's more comfort that you can be reached or reach someone than actual safety. But I don't really disagree with your broader point. This system doesn't seem very practical for a whole range of issues.
Plenty of other live events have policies against recording and cell phone use and don't seem to have any serious problems enforcing those policies (or, indeed, need to do much "enforcement" at all). Perhaps rock concerts are different because of the type of crowd.
Sure, cell phones can contribute to personal safety; whether it actually does in a standing-room-only rock concert given the distribution of risks one is likely to encounter in that context is another matter. I have a hard time imagining one, except a medical emergency, maybe? Except that having people find security might truly be more expedient.
Besides, I cam imagine real harm. Everyone simultaneously receiving a false alarm that a ballistic missile is headed there way might actually cause Widespread Panic to come out and play an encore.
Someone mentioned above that, in the event of a fire alarm and being separated from your group, being able to reconnect with them is important. Particularly for vulnerable people (whether due to age, health reasons, or being someone who might be targeted for violence or harassment), being separated from your group for a long time can be a safety issue.
in the context of having to leave the building due to a fire alarm, no, you're not meeting them back inside the building at the phone re-collection point (or in this case one of the phone unlock mechanisms). At least not immediately.
As I mentioned in another comment, it's possible you've never taken someone with a disability or social dysfunction to their first-ever concert, knowing that it's partly enabled by the fact that you can easily reconnect if you get separated (by the crowd, bathroom lines, a fire alarm, etc.) Take away that extra measure of safety and security, and the majority of people can "just deal with it", but people with certain disabilities or vulnerabilities are going to have to opt out.
Personally, I'd rather work to be inclusive. Use social norms, not technological lockouts, to get people to put their phones away.
Do you think maybe the security guards and other personnel at the venue might have access to phones? Do you think that you in particular are going to be the last resort that manages to reach 911 when nobody else can? It's a weird train of thought to me. Venues are required to have their ducks in a row - emergency plans in place, etc. You not having your phone during the show is not a safety concern.
If a fire breaks out and I have to evacuate a venue, there is a _distinct_ difference in the effect on me if I have to have had my phone locked up.
In one case, I leave the facility, get to safety, and then _go home_ (eventually), at which point I have my phone.
In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.
No thanks, I'll keep my phone in my pocket or backpack, and have it with me when I leave with no extra effort. If necessary, this will mean skipping any concerts or similar where that's an issue.
> In the other case, I leave the facility, get to safety, but my phone is either destroyed, or in a pile with 900 other concert-goers' phones, and I need to either wait around (in a place where emergency services probably don't want extra people), or _replace my destroyed phone_.
"Hey throwaway43532, [PERSON] just found out you're at [PLACE] and is on their way with a weapon. I contacted the authorities, but you need to get out of there now!" might be a severe example.
There are many situations where a cell phone can allow you to send or receive information that could tip the scales in your favor.
The possibility of me ever getting a message remotely like that is so remote that the very idea could power the infinite improbability drive and take me to the restaurant at the end of the universe.
Translation: I'm unwilling to put down my phone, and I will conjure any number of nightmare scenarios to justify my addiction.
Or, perhaps, some people are truly terrified to be away from their smartphones. That is itself a scary thought.
If a person's smartphone is removed from the picture for some reason, how would they be able to function? If the cell network went down, would the crowd descend into mindless chaos? There are no more pay phones, no more cozy landlines, so how would people manage if there were an emergency?
It's one thing to say that I like to be reachable by children, babysitter, aged mother, etc. if there's an issue. And OK, I get it. Norms and expectations have shifted with respect to how contactable people should be under many circumstances.
But some of the comments here that make it sound like going out with no way for anyone to reach you was an invitation to mortal peril akin to jumping off a cliff in a wingsuit make me want to either laugh or cry.
There have always been people with (physical and mental) health concerns or disabilities who need to be able to get hold of a caregiver on short notice.
In the age of cell phones, it's much safer for them to go someplace crowded with their caregiver even if there's risk of being separated.
Here in Japan, most concerts have a strict no-photos policy. In smaller venues, I've seen this enforced by guards shining bright focused flashlights at you if you try to take a photo/video. Seems to work well. Some artists stop to do a "ok let's all take a photo together now" bit near the end for those who want a memory.
What I really loved about phone use (or better: not use) in Japan is the rules on trains.
While eating some lovely fermented fish dish out of a bento box is completely acceptable using your phone to make calls is definitely not.
My understanding was (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in the Shinkansen you can move out of the car to make a call, in local public transport it's an absolute no!no! (well, probably the bento box is also not that hot an idea in public transport).
With very, very few exceptions (mostly by foreigners) I've experienced this rule as respected.
I had a hard time adapting back in Europe with all the noise and chatter going on permanently.
>but seriously, musical artists (especially the ones who don't lipsync their concerts) feed off the audience's vibe. Its a two-way, not a one-way.
Which is why Janis Joplin would famously yell at the audience that they better get up and dance in the aisles, or so I've been told by people old enough to be there.
They allow children to get hold of their parents, order transport home, etc. If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.
When I was a child, I managed to go events largely unsupervised and without a phone. I would already be told what to do in the event of getting separated in an emergency, such as having pre-arranged rendezvous points unique to my group.
> If they've run away from the venue without first unlocking their phone, they end up wandering around outside, at night, alone after a significant event such as this.
Only if their responsible adults don't take reasonable precautions. What happens when a child loses a phone or has one stolen? They should have a plan before going, whether phones are restricted or not.
Sarcasm is one of the things which makes comment sections toxic. It's rude, dismissive, and, worst of all, leads to people retroactively claiming a comment which didn't go down well was sarcastic and that everyone who called them out for it was too stupid to notice.
Sarcasm is an ok thing in mediums where there are side channel cues that the user is being sarcastic. Unfortunately, it doesn't carry well in writing, unless you're extremely clear about it.
I don't think it adds anything to an online comments board / discussion. And in some cases, it detracts. It often just comes across as hostility.
I've seen the code of conduct thing work even before smartphones were ubiquitous -- even the open mic night at Eddie's Attic in Georgia was an event where the manager made it very clear that the venue was a Listening Room, not a place for talking over the performance, and if you wanted to use your phone in any noticeable way, you needed to step outside. And I saw him dress down and kick out a customer that decided to ignore the rule.
It's harder with larger crowds, but I think a policy with clear expectations that can result in you losing your privilege of attending is a better choice than asking people to check valuable (and useful) property at the door.
Agreed. This should be a policy and etiquette issue not a forcible restriction of human communication.
Imagine your teenage child attends a concert and needs to call you to escape a dangerous situation. There are so many situations of nuance that a blanket ban disrupts in a negative way.
This is a very shallow way to deal with a complicated issue.
Can you describe a scenario for me? Because I'm having a very hard time imagining one where the teenager is immediate peril (otherwise they could just unlock the phone in the next room) yet the best person to help them is not in the building. Maybe it's unfair, but it just sounds like helicopter parenting to me.
Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating.
If I have my phone, they can text me with some pre-arranged message ("x"), and I will feign an emergency and get them out of the situation ASAP (or arrange for a friend to do similarly).
Sure, they could just leave (or get a taxi?), but having a GTFO script lets them exit a situation without the social losses of having been perceived as "too scared" to cave to peer pressure. They can say, "My dad just called and said something major just came up, and he's on his way to get me. Yeah, I know, parents, right? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
If their phone is locked up (or mine) there's a lot more friction to that interaction.
I don't get the perspective of people who want to have kids and ask the world to accommodate them so that they don't have to make any sacrifices along the way.
Going to an event where you won't have access to your phone is maybe something you can't do while having kids of a certain age. But they'll grow up and then you can again.
It's kind of selfish to ask that no musician have this policy because you want to be able to attend any concert you wish while having young children.
So, during those times when you're "on call" and need to be responsive to such events, you have to make the decision not to go on camping trips or flights or no-phone events like this one. Right?
So your position is that with kids at home, you can't be doing things that cause you to be unavailable/unreachable for durations of time longer than some threshold. Nothing wrong with that. The kinds of recreational events that conflict with that restriction are generally easy to spot ahead of time, and no one's compelling you to participate in them.
> "Let's imagine that my child is at a party or other social engagement and they want deniable reason to escape. [0] There may be excessive peer pressure, illegal activity, or any other pre-arranged reason they may need to bail on something without incurring the loss of face that could be socially devastating."
In that case, I would imagine the child's parents failed in teaching the values of both honesty and courage. Lying is often easier in the short term, but it leads to worse outcomes over time in all but the rarest of situations (e.g. you're hiding Anne Frank and soldiers knock at the door).
Having a great excuse is useful today, but having a spine is useful for all one's days.
"(...) None of us could live with an habitual truth-teller; but thank goodness none of us has to. An habitual truth-teller is simply an impossible creature; he does not exist; he never has existed. Of course there are people who think they never lie, but it is not so—and this ignorance is one of the very things that shame our so-called civilization. Everybody lies—every day; every hour; awake; asleep; in his dreams; in his joy; in his mourning; if he keeps his tongue still, his hands, his feet, his eyes, his attitude, will convey deception—and purposely. (...)"
Doesn't Kant go against your example of Anne Frank? ("To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is therefore a sacred command of reason prescribing unconditionally, one not to be restricted by any conveniences"). Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.
Yes, Kant does. I'm not an absolute Kantian by any means, but I do prefer Kant to Twain. This isn't to say I dislike Twain, though.
> Surely a teenager telling white lies to pushy peers is preferable.
That's not sure by any means. In fact, the habit of telling "white lies" is almost certainly harmful in the long run. The same is true for caving to pushy peers.
I don't think Jarrett is generally considered the voice of reason. In fact, some promoters have gotten so tired of his histrionics that they've ruled out ever booking him again.
And before it was cell phones, he berated people for coughing.
In case of an emergency people should follow staff's directions; preferably without being glued to their phones and without disrupting any ongoing rescue attempts by trying to take a good video...
The only relevant exception are professionals on call (i.e. doctors, police etc) - and they'll make the conscious decision to not attend such a concert unless explicitly exempted from the phone ban.
Everybody else may vote with their wallet. Personally, I'd pay a premium for concerts that enforce a no-phone policy.
> There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient.
"Hey guys, let's stick together, if we get separated meet at the bar. Cool? cool"
And an interesting one you can't easily do anymore without a cell phone (because people don't wear wrist watches):
"Hey, i'm going to checkout X. Meet at the bar in 30 minutes?"
When it’s a venue you don’t know too well and there are 8 bars on each floor, that completely breaks down. Sticking together doesn’t always work, especially when queues are split between men and women for pat downs (as is usually the case in the type of venue that would force you to put your phone in a locked pouch).
Of course we got by OK before mobile phones, but to suggest we give up the considerable benefits because an artist or venue opts for a heavy handed ban over a strictly enforced etiquette policy seems unreasonable.
frequently, these situations are not so much hypothetical as simply explanations of situations some of us have found ourselves in.
Perhaps you have never had the experience of taking a close friend or relative with a disability, social dysfunction, etc. to their first ever concert and knowing it's partly enabled by the fact that if you somehow become separated you are both carrying electronic devices that will let you reconnect easily. (I find many people evaluate situations based on a default expectation that everyone involved is able-bodied, of sound mind, and socially adept, and then get defensive about "hypothetical" situations that are realistic considerations for a lot of us.)
I'm anti phones in gigs, but spent a while overseas and the phone was really helpful... as an offline device.
- Save docs of maps for later.
- Save docs of the names of place you want to go (translated into the local language and in your own language)
- Similar for a few key locations (ok - mostly the hotel).
Makes a big difference when you can't read the local language... but yeah, being connected, not needed - and I could have done all that with bits of paper.
Your selfish benefit hurts everyones experience. So they aren't "considerable", and you have a choice not to go to events with Yondr. People at events without Yondr have to deal with mobile phones making everyones experience worse, and there is little they can do about it.
Of course it is inconvenient, that is kind of the point. To make it harder to use you get to forget about using it. That comes with trade offs, some of them pretty serious.
Going anywhere without a phone is about the whole experience, not just the watching the artist but all the time inbetween too. You don't get to escape the world to a phone, even for a moment, and when things get boring you have to find interest in what's around you.
Your phone is a mental portal to all other things in your life and by having it within reach your mind likes to weasel out of wherever it currently is into those other spaces, even when you don't pick the phone up. It is an interspatial, intertemporal hyper distraction machine and it robs people of being engaged for long periods of time without interruption. Those moments inbetween sets where you have to just be with your friends, that is part of it, when you have to organise how to find eachother after a toilet break, also part of it.
Keep in mind, some people are way better at managing their phones interruption than others, and it doesn't affect them like that. So perhaps the no phone thing isn't 100% for your benefit, but you still have to endure the troubles it takes.
I get the feeling this will be a divisive topic. I am willing to endure the pains because I really really don't want a phone or anyone else to have theirs at the venue. Some people don't feel that way, so the logical pros and cons we can both describe will matter differently and we will find it hard to agree!
I totally agree about emergencies, but for me that's a risk I am willing to take on. Just like I would go hiking with no phone and you perhaps might not.
> Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight.
I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that presents an interesting problem. As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible.
>As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible.
OT, but the centralization of things on smartphones also means you're increasingly SOL if you lose your smartphone or it dies for some reason. Today, I generally still have a wallet with various things in it which likely help me to not be totally screwed without my smartphone. But as more and more of those things are replaced by the phone and what few physical artifacts there are may just be tucked into the phone it starts to become a concern.
Intel had a really funny video of someone losing their phone and what happened to them a few years back. Sadly, I think it was just internal and, when I last looked, I couldn't find it anywhere online.
> I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that presents an interesting problem. As more things get centralized on phones, this will become less & less feasible.
You don't need to have your phone out. Apple Pay works on the watch.
Meeting your friends: You made plans to meet at a certain time and place and you showed up when you were supposed to or you carpooled.
In an Emergency: you'll find out what happened to your friends eventually when you meet at school or call each other then next day. You aren't emergency service personnel. You just need to evacuate.
Going to the bathroom: you go to the bathroom and get out of the stall in an expeditious fashion to let others use it instead of looking at your phone while people wait in line. If you were a real jerk, you read the newspaper on the toilet, but this was rare.
Seeing a show: you watched the show, danced, or crowd surfed if it was a punk show. You never had to wory about your phone falling out of your pocket or getting broken. The place was dark. Someone might kneel on the speaker with a lit cigarette lighter in one hand if it was a special moment.
Turns out life also worked before electricity, but for some reason, if you were to advocate for people to live without it, most people would consider you a lunatic and luddite.
I went to a concert in Mannheim about 8 years ago. They had quite a few fairly reasonable rules, but they also had security guards to enforce them. If you broke any of the rules and refused to get your shit together they would pick your ass up and carry you out. You wouldn't even get a chance to leave. I think good security and enforcement of the rules would be a better solution than taking peoples' phones.
I wonder if, some number of years in the future, when 95% of humans have neural implants that let them connect to the Internet and send telepathic messages to their friends and babysitter, there will be people too afraid to turn them off for the duration of a music concert, because of a possible terrorist attack or a fire?
They’ll probably shake their heads and wonder how people ever got along without neural implants.
Addicted people will always look for excuses and fight with stupid arguments for them. In the '70s and '80s people somehow found themselves at concerts, they were not afraid of security, they did not have to check what "important loved ones" were and any of that shit and they lived happily.
It's hard to even comment on the fact that if the phone is locked, you can't safely leave the building during the alam because you are afraid that something will happen to him... or your contacts in cloud. :)
Now the majority will not survive 5 days without a telephone because someone will surely die, someone will get lost, a terrorist attack will happen, or world will be hit by the meteorite...
Yes, I have a phone, but I do not take it with me, and I do not use it when I do not have to... and it's not a smartphone. :)
You underestimate the impact that people using their phones - as cameras in particular - has in a performance setting. To say nothing about ringers going off. It ruins the experience for everyone, so some inconvenience is well worth it in my book.
Same here, but it had its own set of annoyances. Sitting at home waiting for a phone call, or trying to coordinate meeting up, particularly spur of the moment, was a huge PITA.
Even with cell phone annoyances, I prefer the cell phone world over the pre-cell phone world.
I have to laugh at some these posts. I also lived in a world without cell phones and I (and the rest of the world) did just fine. Turning off your phones at a concert is not a big deal at all.
The irony, despite my prior comments, I don't have an issue with turning my phone off and keeping it with me. I do have an issue with being locked away from it or have it taken away by someone you can't trust.
> I remember life before smartphones. I remember boredom. It sucked. I would never go back to the agonizing pain of sitting in the DMV for three ours or standing in line at a grocery store just for some "missed moment" where I study the shitty tabloids in line or DoT pamphlets.
> Romanticising the past is not new. Whether it's television, hot showers, or smartphones, there will always be cynics who wish a simpler life on the rest of us.
A simple zero-hassle solutions is to have walls that block any cellular and wifi signals. It solves the problems you mention.
I don't know why such walls are not more common in schools too. A lot of parents would be happy to pay for such walls if the learning experience improves substantially.
Edit: about the emergency and possible bomber attack: if the block-signal-mecanism is active (create some sort of interference) then it becomes easy to deactivate the mechanism automatically when the fire alarm or other emergency is triggered: simy cut the power source.
If your venue just happens to block all signals as an effect of its design (working like a Faraday cage), it could legally have repeaters that are powered off during the performance proper.
Some big companies in Europe have such walls for their headquarters, probably for productivity. I guess that their solution is fairly legal, although it may not involve jamming.
> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea.
How difficult is it to defeat the Yondr cases with mechanical force? I'd normally suggest a pocketknife, but places like that probably search for and confiscate those as well.
It doesn't look like the locking mechanism on those cases would be all that strong, such that most people could pull it apart with their hands if they made a real effort.
It appears that how Yondr works is you put your phone in a locking pouch, which you then keep with you. Looking at photographs of said pouch, I think most people could forcibly defeat the latch mechanism with their bare hands.
> In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea.
What did people do when bad things happened at stadia before there were cell phones? Mass casualty incidents at arenas aren't exactly a new thing. (Who concert in Cincinnati, Disco Demolition in Chicago, etc...)
> I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict “no phones during the performance” policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave.
This is precisely how it's done every night at Output in Brooklyn.
"There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient."
Dude.
What do you think people did at Rolling Stones or Zeppelin concerts in the 60-70's?
What do you think people did at Michael Jackson concerts in the 80's?
What do you think people did at Nirvana and Pearl Jam concerts in the 90's?
People have lived without text messaging far longer that we've had it. If this is your chief complaint, I think you need to think harder about the problem space.
Nobody said anything about not being able to live.
But if people attending your 3 random examples had known a mobile phone, perhaps they'd have chosen the convenience over (worst case) spending some of the concert trying to find their friends. We can't know.
I agree. I'm an adult, if you ask me to not use my phone I will comply. If other adults can't do the same, then simply ask them to leave.
Yondr feels patronising, almost like we are being treated like children.
That being said, I generally don't go to gigs anymore because its getting more like flying. Expensive tickets with hidden fees, being forced to queue neatly like school children, searches, and then the overpriced food and drink. This is just one more thing to add to the list.
Agreed ... I mean, this is basically the same as the cinema. You're told not to use your phone. People are asked not to be noisy, and turn off their phones, etc. The majority are civil and there's the occasional bad egg, but hey ... it's a gathering of people - there's always going to be a level of compromise.
Last year I went to a King Crimson concert. There were no "phone prisons", but they repeatedly informed the audience to keep their phones pocketed until the end of the show. This seemed to work wonders, as I didn't see a single phone for the duration of the show.
Now, naturally this was a somewhat different audience than e.g. a Chris Rock show, but it does prove that it's possible. Maybe it all comes down to respect?
Have you ever wondered if they just want you to have a different experience? There are restaurants that require you to eat in pitch black, restaurants where you cant wear sandals, there are shows where you get polaroid cameras and so on.
This is not about not treating people like adults but about what experience you want to give them.
I fail to see what terrorist attacks have to do with anything.
From a practical standpoint, it took a lot longer to get into and out of the venue when phones had to be locked up. Checking your phone when you pop out to the toilet meant waiting in a queue to have your phone unlocked, and being kept in a small penned off area. There have been a number of times when I’ve been split up from friends at large venues - not being able to text each other to meet up is inconvenient.
It doesn’t work. Unless stewards are doing a thorough search (which would be offputting in itself), people will manage to bring phones in. They did last night. Mine got locked up, my fiancées didn’t.
In the event of an emergency, this is a really bad idea. At the extreme end, you’ve got things like the Manchester bombing, where access to a phone would be a useful thing. But more likely it’s a fire alarm and subsequent evacuation, where you end up separated from your group. The venue last night (the SSE Hydro in Glasgow) said that in the event of an evacuation you should not attempt to have your phone unlocked but should leave immediately - sensible but if phones weren’t locked up, it wouldn’t even be a concern.
I think the solution is to simply enforce a strict “no phones during the performance” policy. Treat people like adults. If they break the rules, ask them to leave. Last night we were sitting in front of a very drunken, obnoxious heckler. After several people complained, she was asked to leave. This is how many venues handle it.
Interestingly, all of the venue stewards last night were wearing Yondr hi vis vests. They seem to be on a major marketing push. I really hope it doesn’t become commonplace.
The venue seemed to want to distance themselves from the decision, making announcements along the lines of “At Chris Rock’s request, phones will not be allowed at tonight’s show and will be locked in Yondr cases and given back you you. Consequently, Apple Pay will not be available tonight.”