Slashdot Mirror
Should We Be Afraid of Google Glass?
An anonymous reader writes "An article at TechCrunch bemoans the naysayers of ubiquitous video camera headsets, which seems like a near-term certainty whether it comes in the form of Google Glass or a similar product. The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere, and increasingly sophisticated government drones and satellites mean you're probably on camera more than you think already. 'But there's something about being caught on video, not by some impersonal machine but by another human being, that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk.' However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security, which may not be palatable to others. He references a time he was mugged in Mexico as well as a desire to keep an eye on abuses of authority from police and others. 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.'"
I always wear my infrared LED cap when mugging Google Glass owners.
Then my face is unrecognizable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8UjcqCx1Bvg
ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times are necessary.
After all, according Google's CEO, if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
" 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless."
Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Like i'm craving for a future where everyone, everything is always recorded, everywhere, all the time.
I personally oppose a ubiquitous source for recording my activity and any accompanying means of data mining such activity. I don't care if it's just me buying groceries, it's none of anyone else's business.
"To stop the terrorists."
Well no, we should not be afraid. We should be thoughtful. We should consider the ramifications. We should act accordingly. I'm not having anyone come into my house wearing those things, but then I'm not having anyone come in with camcorders either. If I were running a business open to the public, I'd love to have people come in while wearing them, as it would provide me an opportunity to demonstrate it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Frankly, I'd be surprised if there weren't already a dozen video cameras aimed at me, so another one doesn't bother me, in fact, I kinda welcome it, as more junky videos out there means it's that much harder to find that particular one where I was picking my nose or whatever. What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE. This cannot be good for the person wearing it, nor can it be good for the people around them when they're doing dangerous things that involve, like, you know, NOT HITTING THEM.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Power through information doesn't arrive from having access to one camera. It comes from getting data from many cameras. Google Glass will feed Google's appetite for data much more than it will empower you. And since Google is built on analysis of big datasets, unlike you they actually have the equipment and the know-how to turn data into information.
auto-fire at red blinking LED or any source of modulated microwaves.
then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.
That will never happen. The powerful will always have more ability and opportunity to meddle with the data than the powerless. Just look at how Dick Cheney was able to get his house blurred out of google earth. The occasional powerful dumbass will get busted to "prove" the system is fair, but the really competent criminals will skate just like they do today.
HIV is "already everywhere". So too was slavery. "Already everywhere" is the pragmatism of the damned.
Is there any way that nerds could sabatogue these cameras? I know that with the ancient vacuum-tube based vidicon tubes used in early Television Cameras that the tube could be permanently damaged or destroyed by a burst of high intensity light.
Could a form of anti-glasses be designed that flashes high intensity light to disable these head mounted cameras? Invisible light would be the best, and obviously in a bandwidth that doesn't damage human sight. Even if it didn't permanently damage the camera in the glasses, it could interrupt it, or transform it into something that was annoying pulsating.
Just some food for thought.
They are everywhere anyway, and a good number of them are open to be used by anyone. And don't forget your own webcam.And don't forget that now everyone carries cameras at the very least with their cellphones, ready to take a photo or video and getting uploaded to social networks without you noticing.. and getting tagged.
Is not about cameras what i should be worried about, is the interactivity with them in real time, like fact checking about the people and places you have around, that could be a game changer in social relations.
Google Glass doesn't invade my privacy.
People invade my privacy.
(Apologies to gun-rights activists.)
Seriously, Google Glass, like existing security cameras or guns for that matter, can be used for good or evil.
How we (or our future (presemt?) robot overlords) use it and what formal or informal rules society adopts to allow desired uses and deter non-desired ises is the issue, not the device itself.
I'm waiting with anticipation for this next generation of wearable computing devices like Google Glass. I just don't want to be stuck with this stupid voice command interface, however. I'd prefer for these glasses-style devices to simply be display peripherals tethered to a handheld smartphone. Then you could just use the touchscreen as your "mouse" and perhaps even your keyboard (although I'd prefer more thought to go into how to replace the crucial keyboard functionality as well).
"he also seems happy to trade privacy for security, which may not be palatable to others. He references a time he was mugged in Mexico"
So ... you want a nice video to remind you of that mugging? So you can see what it looked like from his point of view, when he posts it anonymously on Youtube? You're a dumbass if you think a lack of privacy equals security. You think that lack of privacy will catch the criminals? No, they'll just learn to always disguise themselves when out and about committing their crimes. Dumbass.
The problem is that Google *owns* you. We may think that what they do is free so it's very cool for us (note: on a technology point of view it's very nice).
Anyway, I don't teach you anything, their business model is to know everything about us for advertising purpose (so is Facebook's). And glasses that take pictures of everything we are doing and people around us is very interesting for them, to say the least. It's *way* better than the Google car they used to create Street View.
So if you deliberately choose not to wear glasses for the very reason I said above, it's mostly useless because you're already seen by so many other people around you.
Just my 2 cents
People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are?
Jay Leno. He records his entire life "for legal reasons." :) :) :)
In day-to-day life videos are mainly used when somebody feels wronged. People are rarely ever as motivated to reward others for good work. I pity the poor customer service worker who could have dozens of people recording him every day, looking for evidence to bring to his manager.
In the past, greater accountability has brought greater bureaucracy and more rules. IF Google Glass is a huge hit I would expect it to make human interactions more robotic and more stressful.
it will just be a transition.
soon enough waving your dick around on a video that's on the internet will not matter one bit.
basically, when there's embarrassing shit about everyone on the net it will not matter one bit. however, it might be bad for your business if you're caught bullshitting every day. but uh, I can't see that as too bad to be honest. cops, robbers, mcdonalds employees, teachers and public servants would at least be expecting to get fucked over if they try to fuck over their clientele.
point I'm trying to get at.. is that there's still a lot of behavioral tabus in the west - which leads to hypocrisy.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Yes, but whose privacy and whose security?
It invariably means my privacy traded for your security.
Or rather, security blankets, not even real security.
And, equally invariably, I get no say in the matter.
Security cameras don't upload everything to the net.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
How long is it going to be before somebody tries wearing one of these headsets in a movie theater? If it's a "3D" film, I can't even imagine how they'd be able to tell that someone was even wearing one of these underneath their "3D" glasses at all...
Oh... and I can totally see some people trying to use these while driving.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
>"The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere"
Typical "justification". So because there are already cameras in many places, there is nothing wrong with having them everywhere, all the time, possibly recording and sharing everything, including audio.... even at your restaurant table.
>"that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk."
Typical again. So anyone that could possibly have a problem could only react by being "irrational" about it?
>"However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,"
Could it get even more typical? Seems all the rage for a long time now to not give a damn about privacy or freedom. The vast majority of people are quick to trade privacy and freedom for convenience and the illusion of safety.
Difficult times are coming. Technology is never bad/evil, but what people DO with it can be. I hope people who are eager to strap on something like Google Glass think about how it might affect others around them. There are a lot of unanswered questions about moving into a world where everyone (and every company/government) knows everything about everyone at all times.
So I guess I'll have to walk around everywhere with a blindingly bright spotlight on at all times to blind cameras, or maybe this will introduce the burka for men and woman.
yes, because we could walk right into it, not notice and cause damage to ourselves.
But seriously, 1984 done with completely private technology.
You can't handle the truth.
Ya, because the mugging would of went a whole lot better for him if it started off with him getting punched in the face repeatedly to disable is Google glasses.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It's clearly surveillance without warning. In my country, you may only use surveillance cameras in areas clearly marked with CCTV-warnings. The same should count for Google Glass as well.
Having a smartphone: totally normal.
Having a smartphone on your face: omg outrageous!
As somebody who tested smartphone based AR in the field I can tell you that the ladies sometimes figure there's a creeper right there. (Doesn't happen otherwise (;->))
In the wild, I predict that glass and similar products will be perceived with similar disdain. Isn't going to happen, not in a long time.
A few super-bright infrared LEDs scattered about a person and suddenly said person looks like a walking supernova to CCD cameras... like so: http://hackedgadgets.com/wp-content/2/_IR_LED_Blocks_Security_Camera.jpg
I am surprised to see the push against this, especially in the types of communties like here on slashdot
in the USA to me, this seems just a continuation of the freedom to make photographs in public that people have enjoyed for a long while now. While there have been some challenges.. its been upheld a few times that freedom of speech can include making videos or photographs
not related to photography/video/recording in public in any way at all,.. the supreme court said this in Texas v. Johnson 1989.. a case about whether one should be able to desecrate an american flag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZS.html
The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word.
While we have rejected the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea ... we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,"
In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether:
[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.
at least, for americans like me.. it seems to me to be 'freedom' issue.. it might be unpleasant to know that someone else can annoy you with their Nazi uniform, or video camera but if its in public.. its likely that they are free to do that.
in a somewhat related issue there was the case of a photographer who was in conflict with people who felt he shouldnt have been allowed to sell images of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
Nussenzweig v. diCorcia is a decision by the New York Supreme Court in New York County, holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs
it might be annoying, it might creep people out ..but really i just see it as a thing that one might have to deal with in a free and open society
(can one imagine people crying about government crackdowns if we saw China/North Korea banning the use of things like google glass? or am i just being a bit cynical today?)
GeekWire: 'Creepy Cameraman' pushes limits of public surveillance - a glimpse of the future? (includes interesting video)
Do you really think you'll be allowed to wear them at work? In bars? At your Doctor's office? Movie theatres? Concerts? Events? They'll be sooooo banned.
At this stage the cameras as displays are still visible. Pretty soon, they will be so small that they will be invisible, then they will be implanted and indetectable and shortly after that, practically everyone will have bionic implants. Better get used to it.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
skimming just got a whole lot easier.
That's not a bad idea.
But what could possibly be bad about random strangers walking around with cameras attached to their heads which take pictures and instantly upload them to google? Google is building a security camera network made of meat.
They're using their grammar skills there.
There seems to be a lot of hyperbole going around about Glass, almost makes me wonder if it's Google stirring things up to get more press.
Glass is going to have really interesting effects on how we treat public spaces, but I don't think it's going to destroy privacy for ever in the way some seem to fear.
People are already getting used to the idea that people have cameras ready in their pockets, and are more aware that what they do might not just be seen by others, but may be recorded. I don't think it's going to utterly change behaviour in truly public spaces for most people. Although I fully expect there to be lawsuits, punch-ups and altercations over one off events where people get freaked out because some Glass-wearer is staring at a woman for too long, or watching kids play in a park.
I also expect a lot more "semi-public" places like restaurants, pubs and bar to implement more formal "no-filming" and "no Glasses" policies. These are places that people go to relax and expect a certain level of privacy, and which are private property. Most places I know would probably ask you (politely) to stop/leave if you were constantly filming other patrons with your mobile phone. The same will happen with Glass. No great change here.
Basically it just comes down to people behaving with civility and respect to one another. New norms of society will be worked out and we'll adapt, just as we have with every other technological advance.
Some people will behave like jackasses to each other, just as they already do, while the rest of us get on with being polite and considerate of others.
Paul Leader
This kneejerk fear that you are "being recorded" in public places is irrational and stupid, and only a matter of decades away from being shoved in your face by advances in technology that you are probably not aware of (see http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ for something thought-provoking). We forget or dismiss that we already are recorded, in a manner of speaking, by the human eye and the human brain whenever anyone else sees us, which is pretty much analogous to cameras and digital memory and is exactly what Glass does. I already refrain from acting in ways I don't want to be remembered by other people when I'm around people (or think I might be around people), and in my opinion this is no different. Personally I hate the idea of stationary hidden surveillance cameras or drones with cameras far more than I'm bothered by the notion that someone who looks at me can remember me tangibly or mentally, since in the long run I have no assurance that someone who's seen me can't someday have their brain imaged while remembering what they saw, and with hidden stationary cameras or drones I simply have no way of knowing that I've been seen in the first place.
I realize people will argue that memory is more fallible (then again, digital imagery can be manipulated) and currently can't be shared with other people (see prior paragraph) and somehow that's more comforting, but we will end up facing this issue as a species one way or another and as a result, Glass doesn't bother me in the least. If you don't want to be recorded, then disguise yourself or stay away from people you don't completely trust, because laws and feelings ultimately cannot -- and never could -- prevent people from remembering you or surreptitiously recording your image in the first place.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
From time to time one can read that police in several countries react allergic when filmed. There are reports of confiscated cameras and worse. But what when the film is automatically streamed somewhere out of reach?
You can come in with your phone and camera. But if you start to film everything and anything you would wind up with footage of you getting thrown out post haste. My place, my rules. And my rule is: don't be a dick that thinks he has to film everything.
And I post as anonymous for a reason too. I don't need anyone with an axe to grind showing up to my doorstep. I value my privacy.
Unless the place is designed with the intent of giving people some degree of privacy, like bathrooms for example, nobody is entitled to privacy in public places.
If I don't want to be recorded on video, I don't want to be recorded on video.
Unless I'm committing a crime (and thus abrogating my rights), there is NO middle ground here!
End of discussion.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It better have a way of telling me that it's on. A flashing light, a noise when it's taking a picture also not to mention the laws about recording sound. I know when I put a servalance camera in my front yard I was told by police that in my state I can not record sound without the permission of the people who would be videoed. Also we need to think of the kids. How can we be sure our kids are safe from acvdental looks in windows and such if they can do play back. I can just see the conversation "Oh I'm sorry your kid was in their bedroom changing when I walked by and was already videoing and acdentally caught them underssed. I only saw what I recorded in the play back once and then deleted it. yea yea I'll deleted it." or "Oh I forgot it was recording when I walked into the wrong dressing room. I'll deleted it, yea, yea I'll deleted it."
Also what about other places like museums where you can't take photos of the paintings and such, I guess they will be banned from use, but if they have perscription lenses I guess a refund to the patron will be given.
Anyways
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Camera-phones-noise-photo-Congress,news-3371.html
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
Then we also need to put a camera in this guy's wife's bathroom just to make sure pillowpants behaves!
Out of mod point, but parent's comment +1 interesting.
GeekWire: 'Creepy Cameraman' pushes limits of public surveillance - a glimpse of the future? (includes interesting video)
An 'interesting' video, indeed, that shows how easily irked people become when they realize they are'being videoed. We are *so* going to need laws to protect the first "google glassers".
The difference between surveillance cameras and things like Google Glass is pure manpower. The government, store owners (with security cameras), warehouse owners, etc. don't have the manpower to watch every camera all the time for stupid stuff and upload it to YouTube. Behind every Glass headset is a person who can instantly record an action, from a changeable vantage point, and upload it to youtube seconds after recording with proper captions. This is barely different from cellphone cameras but 90% of the time you know you're being recorded when someone is pointing a cellphone at you. With Glass, you wont be able to tell if they're recording or just looking at you.
This is all coming from a guy who is sometimes clumsy, forgets where he is and what hes doing, and doesn't want to be the next million hit laughing stock on youtube.
However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,
Those who sacrifice liberty for security get and deserve neither.
-Benjamin Franklin
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
If the police officers and border guards were forced to wear them, they perhaps would have an incentive to treat you decently and not to violate your rights.
If worn by participants in a demonstration, also interesting, especially if streamed live.
The argument of equalizing the relation between the powerful and the powerless in surveillance does have merit. Especially when the NSA is currently building a 65 Megawatts datacenter, where they will have the possibility to trace everyone whereabouts.
From another commnent: yes a red LED will blink when recording.
we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.
It tends to balance the scales between some of the powerful and the powerless in some cases. It also creates a new data stream that increases the imbalance of power in other cases. Google, through its government transparency reporting project, has shown that it often gives privileged information access to government agencies. Even if Google and its partners are benevolent and infallible, those agencies will have greater access to the surveillance and metadata that is gathered by these devices than will the powerless. That surveillance and metadata will include a wealth of information about people other than the wearer; many of whom will not have been granted the opportunity of informed consent to the surveillance.
The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere,
Cockroaches and rats are even more commonplace.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
TFS talks about balancing the scales between the citizen's loss of privacy and some enforced transparency on government.
Remember who has the power here. What the government can do with pervasive data about you is extensive, from arresting you to disappearing you; none of which are likely to have serious consequences to the government or its actors.
What you can do with videos of government action is quite limited, both by the difficulty in bringing actors shielded by multiple levels of bureaucracy to bay, and by the government's ability to muzzle you, punish you, and otherwise intimidate and repress. Your life could be ruined in just a few minutes. Is your imagination telling you that "they" won't know where "the video" comes from? Look at your phone. You know it tells anyone who has the power to ask exactly where you are, right? You do know that? Think on that for a bit and how it might affect video. Think about what it means if you're recording "them", but everyone else, including "them", are recording you. Think they can't pick out who took what imaging data simply from the angle of the dangle? Think again.
The privacy some citizens seem so willing to give up for some measure of security (or the illusion thereof) used to allow you to restart your life; keep tragedy personal; rein in the pervasiveness of mistakes; undertake risks without compromising everything, allow innocent bystanders to avoid being entangled in dangerous situations, and much more. The government has willingly taken all these things from us to one degree or another. At the same time, modern "social" media has trained up an entire generation (perhaps more than one) to piss away their privacy on the sidewalks of Facebook and Twitter; it seems to me that the majority of these folks aren't very clear on what privacy used to be -- that's why they don't value it.
But to actively consider trading what little privacy one has left for a mostly illusory power to watch the government back... Be careful what you wish for. You're likely to get it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So what happens if you wear Google Glasses to the movies or a sporting event where you could be transmitting events/data that is protected by some other entity's precious copyright? Will they really allow people to transmit images/replays of the events on the field? How would they prohibit that?
Also, what if you go into a private area and still have the glasses on - even if it's not intentional? I'm specifically thinking of that time, many years ago, that I drunkenly wandered into the women's room at Wrigley Field...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1ZUBrauQW0
We have all along as Americans being so overwhelmingly concerned with big brother looking over shoulder we completely forgot about "little brother" which is of course each of us spying on each other. This wasn't so much of a concerned until the internet and the information age allowed all these little pieces of information to be combined and recorded forever.
I don't see that much difference between glass and a smart phone doing videos except how it is obvious when someone is recording. Personally I find the device ugly but it is definitely a better form factor for a video camera.
But as far as privacy is concerned there is nothing preventing people from having hidden cameras on themselves and secretly recording. The glass just mass markets it.
I think it's actually a good thing. A reminder that when you are in public to not pick your nose or be an asshole to anyone since it will probably be posted and online forever. The positive things will be forgotten but the negative things will follow you the rest of your life. Right down to the breakups between boyfriend and girlfriends.
It is definitely a social game changer. Some people will moderate their behavior but with so much of their negative life history being public many will choose to give up all pretension and just be balls out rude as they feel like it. Actually less two face behavior.
The only way to stop this would take a constitutional amendment in the US which I don't see happening in this millennium. Maybe in some small countries.
If we are concerned, then we should be addressing those concerns through legislation RIGHT NOW. We should not wait until well after the fact, when public video recording becomes even more widespread, to begin to formulate policy.
However, judging by past behaviors, this kind of wise, proactive stance will not ever happen. We are destined, yet again, to suffer greatly again for our foolish procrastinations.
Let's get moving NOW!
Hello? Can anyone hear me? Anyone?
Anyone who thinks you get more security by giving up more privacy is entirely mistaken. You don't get security by giving up privacy. You get it in large part by successfully protecting your privacy.
Just ask the DoD, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc etc etc. The ability to have a secret is fundamental to security.
Really, why? What could you possibly want to do with it that will enhance your life in any meaningful way? Every time you think of wanting to use such a thing, why not think, how about cooking a nice meal, or meeting friends, or making a carving, or drawing a picture, or creating something real instead?
Burkas. Everyone should wear a Burka. Problem solved.
Currently we a imaged by hundreds of low resolution cameras at distance, for non-networkd security equipment that is only going to be scrutinized by the authorities in the case of the perpetration of a crime and through great labor (not to mention that video has a shocking short lifespan before the images are erased for the stream off new incoming images for security.)
Google is offering a centralized repository of millions peoples' ongoing imaging of you up close and personal in every walk of your life including visits to the restroom. They will be able to piece together you entire life in exquisite detail and keep it forever. Nah, I can't imagine this going terribly wrong. Duh!
Super sad true love and Rainbow's end...
In a way... It is scary and exciting to see a prophecy fulfilled.
Anonymous coward cuz I m old and can't remember anything; including but not limited to passwords.
The greatest victory is to convince the slaves to enslave themselves. -me
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Being spied on is bad enough, but what most people have glossed over is that Google Glass post images that you see as if they were in your space. That means while walking down the street near a bar BAM you get a pop up of what the specials are at that bar. BAM You should smoke our brand of cigarette. BAM This Honda is for sale at your local dealer with low low financing. Everywhere you go you WILL be inundated by pop up ads. Looking at the surf at the beach BAM Condos are for sale in this area speak to our realtors today. Do you really want to live in that world?
To me that is the sad thing, Orwell didn't need "big brother" as all that was needed to get the people to go to 24/7 surveillance is social networking crap like FB. Now you have people tweeting every second of the day what they are doing, taking video and pictures everywhere, hell the only thing that keeps it from being big brother heaven is there is so much info overload the feds would need 30 Blue Gene supercomputers just to process all the info!
To me the only interesting thing to come of this will be to see how the courts react, after all you have cops being more jackbooted than ever and busting people for filming them while you have this explosion of video equipment so it will be interesting to see which will trump in the courts. One thing is for sure the days of authority (or anybody for that matter) being able to pull shit in public without anybody filming is well and truly over, I've seen everything from cops beating the helpless in FLA to tank battles in Libya and the one thing they ALL have in common is dozens of people holding up camera phones to get the shot. In fact I would argue that will probably be the defining image of this decade, the image of dozens of people holding up smartphones recording events.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In the process of reading this , and especially when responding, I'm already in a public venue exposing a camera lens at an angle where I could have an app running in the background taking regular stills or videos without you suspecting anything. I'd mostly be capturing your feet and your dog, but could easily be recording your small children.
As it happens I'm already conscious of this and if there are kids running around or something I'll casually rest my finger over the camera or move slightly to reassure anyone wise enough to watch and wonder that no, I'm not filming them.
But I would bet that no, it doesn't cross anyone's minds.
I think it's that secret kind of recording people need to be concerned about, not something strapped to someone's face in plain view with a red light telling you when it's recording. And you wouldn't even know about the secret one
If so, it's not the same as the surveillance cameras that are everywhere already. And in some states (including California, Google's home state), recording audio without permission from all parties is illegal (and in California, a felony) under many circumstances.
I think I'll set up a Cafe Press shop selling t-shirts that say "I refuse you permission to record audio in my presence."
I found this article on HackerNews a few days ago to be quite insightful in this respect: http://creativegood.com/blog/the-google-glass-feature-no-one-is-talking-about/
The main claim of the articles author is that in the past, there hasn't been any collective agency that pools information anything like Google. CCTV's, and whatnot have always been isolated from each other. The scary case (perhaps this is strawman) is that each Google Glass viewer may record and the collective samples with facial recognition can be used to track you around. Your voice can be recorded or transformed into text and stored forever to be harvested later.
This becomes a goldmine for advertisers and what not. This might include where you go, who you're with, what you look at etc... all without your approval and violates the fundamental issue of informational control in privacy.
Perhaps the technology today won't be capable of doing this but what about 3-4 years down the line? Google already works on image recognition (Google Glasses), Voice Recognition, and it knows your searches. What if the argument is that today the technology isn't capable of doing this but if these devices are allowed to saturate the market, what happens 5 years down the road?
It is true that today even cellphone carriers can totally track your location etc... but they seem to be somewhat regulated by governments. But what about Google? Which government or agency controls it? Information wants to be free.
These are purely my concerns about this sort of technology.
Thank you for your time.
So, you're ok with people coming into your house whilst recording everything? Really?
Or are you, as any sane person would be, rather inclined to show that person the door, with force if necessary?
Thought so. You're no different from the person you replied to. You too are acting tough. Only difference is that the other guy actually has a point. Which you obviously missed in your eagerness to post a reply.
They aren't in places of expected privacy, such as the men's room leaning over my shoulder recording my cock, or accidentally walking in to a ladies room. Or the1000's of other places of expected privacy.
Not me, i got better things to buy. And there are already video recorders in most smart phones for alot less money. And remember the Seaway it was going to change the world it was going to change the way we travel. Well theses classes are the in the same category of flopping IMO. And lastly cant get mugged for the glasses if ya don't have any :)
Jack of all trades,master of none
If it was "How women would use google glasses" and showed a women looking through Cosmo or watching Chipndale dancers, people would throw a fucking fit and cry sexist.
Kinda reminds me of that weird headset game in Star Trek TNG, maybe the philosophy behind it is true. Turn everyone into game playing soft-brained drone while the nasty guys come to quietly take over hidden in plain sight.
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
What the hell is that?
I find it somewhat baffling that nobody seems to have mentioned David Brin, who's been writing about the coming surveillance state for about two decades now. Google Glass and like technologies are the means, as this author of the posted article writes (in what reads to me as a paraphrase of David Brin), by which the otherwise universally surveyed masses can shine light upon those with power. Universal surveillance is here whether we like it or not. I understand that many awful things exist to be fought against and should be fought against. However, this does not seem like a fight that can be won through conservative resistance to change. Wearable cameras and storage are relatively cheap. Maybe signal jammers and devices to disrupt surveillance will become cheap and ubiquitous at some point, but it seems like individual cameras are a more actionable solution to the problem at this point.
I'm not afraid of Google Glass.
If Glass becomes ubiquitous, the ramifications could be amazing. However, they could also be quite scary. But just because Glass could become scary doesn't mean that it will. I think that now would be a good time to reexamine our privacy laws and define what is ok and what is not.
This tech has been feasible since the 1990s and hasn't caught on yet. There is just a limit to the nerdy technology that people are going to use.
Google glasses won't catch on outside of the fanny pack geeky fuck crowd. Heck, Bluetooth headsets have declined in use after the initial "neato" spike a few years back.
No. There is no more to be said about this "question headline" than the default.
To Google's competitors: Develop better products, not better spin.
It's a social/legal one. Consider the far SF future where people start to campaign for robot rights. Without knowing what is being processed inside their head, can you trust a pair or two of walking eyes to be roaming the streets with human beings? Or should that right be automatically denied...
More likely, with time the according awareness and judgement of technology should bring along regulations for socially governing their use. Passive, ubiquitous technology can't be punished, only the makers/users. This will be the only deterrent against this type of dystopia, and debate crucial for its progress.
I doubt it.
There is every difference between respecting the usual social norms of looking away from private business, not staring at people etc... and recording what you see and sticking a camera in everyone's face and deliberately invading conversations, behavior and interactions obviously not meant to include you. The content captured may not be much different but the social reaction will be.
The reaction to google glass will be "Cool what's that thing" as long as those wearing it don't bring it into sensitive areas (lockerrooms) and don't shove it into other's buisness.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
SMACK
A boot to da head disables Google Glass ! XD
I removed the letters, 'gOoGle' from his name and spelled 'rewler' with the letters that were left.. THIS is scary!
"at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless"
hahahhahhahha hahhahahhahahhahhahahha hahhahahahhahahhahahah hahahhahahahhahahhahahah hahahahhahahhahahahha hahhahahhahahhahahhahaha ha
Yes, technology is a positive multiplier for power, but ("big number" * X) > ("little number" * X). always. And, eventually the powerful learn even more effective ways to leverage that enhanced power: ("big number" * X') >> ("little number" * X); X' > X
Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.
Isn't "pub" a contraction "public house"?
I think it's that secret kind of recording people need to be concerned about, not something strapped to someone's face in plain view with a red light telling you when it's recording.
Google Glass can be detached from the glasses' frame and installed anywhere else. A ready made spy camera, sold cheaply by the major retailer by the million. Requires zero technical competence to install in every $private_location of pervert's liking. Smaller than an iPhone. Automatic. Not lame.
I'm FAR more concerned with the fact that this kind of tech will enable "Enhanced Reality", which means corporate powers will be in control of your surroundings, 24/7, the ultimate in mind-control tools.
And I'm FAR more concerned that kids, especially girls, may be unable to resist the pull to wear these things; as it stands, girls are already heavily driven to be part of the text-verse. To be left out of the social information network is genetically anathema to their makeup. If the cool girls are wearing these things, having the inside track on what's going on in their social world, then EVERY girl will feel compelled to be in on the deal.
Sci-fi scenario: The poor girl everybody wants to tease can be dressed in some stupid digital costume to make fun of her, everybody with glasses in the share loop will see the joke, and unless she's got her own glasses, she wouldn't even know it. EVERY girl will want these damned things just to know what the hell is going on. That's just one small example.
And over top of it all, fucking Sony, Apple and Coca Cola will be in charge of their visual reality.
So yeah, I hate the idea of these things.
But hey, if everybody is scared of being caught on video, then maybe, just maybe there's a chance this horrid tech will arrive stillborn. I HOPE the cool kids will think, "Only nerd losers wear those things."
So I'm pinning my hopes on this being a bad sell. Please, please do not make them pink or look like cute animal hair berets.
Google: Not being evil means trash-canning this idea for the good of humanity. But patent the damned thing first, so nobody else can bring it to market.
Pass regulation to require a red "recording" light activate when recording video, and a shutter sound when taking a still. Of course someone can ignore the regulation, but it wound be just like states to require posted signs for CCTV surveillance.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Uncle Sam doesn't make a habit if posting to YouTube.
From the geekwire article: "How is what he’s doing different than those stationary surveillance cameras tucked away in buildings and public places?"
The difference is that his act violates the subject's "space". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_space
Respecting the "illusion of privacy" becomes more, not less, important as our surveillance technology advances.
For a peek into how Google Glass will affect things, I recommend taking a look at BBC's "Black Mirror" episode S01E03 "Memory Grain".
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#Episode_list
Constantly logging video, either on the device or pushed to a server farm, is going to fundamentally change people's relationships with their significant others. Having memories that never fade, are always available for recall and introspection may just make our species go entirely bonkers.
Because they can. But that doesn't make it socially acceptable.
Same with Google Glasses. In the absence of legal fights, wearers will have to get used to abuse, being punched in the face and otherwise insulted until they get the message: this is socially fucking unacceptable
So what! Right now if the US government suspects you are a terrorist, they can put spy equipment on your property without a court order - to spy on you!We are slowing losing our freedoms...... I fear our government more than any terrorist
i'm not the OP but if i ever find anyone recording me and uploading it to google he will need medical assistance to get the google glasses out of his butt
I'm afraid of Americans....wearing Google Glass.
I just think its a stupid idea, period. I can't stand the type of people that feel they need this kind of persistent connection to the internet and social networking, who feel they need something to aid them in every decision they make and direction they take in life.
Its actually from a growing fear I have that society is dumbing down. For instance there is a significant rise in pedestrian vs car accidents and deaths, both from the drivers texting while behind the wheel of a 2 ton vehicle, and from pedestrians that no longer bother to look both ways before crossing the road because they are texting on their phones. I have actually heard people say that they don't bother looking because pedestrians always have the right of way, but I mean the law isn't going to save you when a car sends you flying 100 feet into the air and land as a jumble of broken bones. Pedestrians can stop being hit if they simply have more respect for themselves and put the phone away while trying to cross busy roads or intersection.
I do fear a society feeling the need to have content and information beamed into their eyeballs. What is the point, so they can read their Tweets 5 seconds faster then it takes to look down at a phone? So they can have advertising more directly tied to their brain? So they can be told directions to a place they drove to 100 times already without the use of navigation aids? Some might say this might fix the growing problem of pedestrians launching themselves into cars, but really this means more people will be distracted by little things popping up in their eyeballs telling them where the nearest Pho restaurant is, or asking their glasses what Pho is..
Also what is ultimately the motive of Google. EVERYTHING Google has done so far has been about exposing people to more advertising, period. Google is not about the innovation of new technology, its about finding innovative way to increase advertising exposure. A laptop based on a web browser is only guaranteed to get more ad impressions then an OS that simply hosts a web browser that may or may not be running. Android was solely about getting a phone into people's hands that offers more advertising through ad and media stores. I don't believe Google truly believes that the Glass project is about aiding society or coming out with something innovative we all need, its about getting more advertising into people's eyes, period.
So we should all fear Google Glass because I think its insincere in its intent and duping millions into believing this is the next big thing when all it is doing is opening up another ad revenue stream for a company already making billions in profit.
Finally, or course, I fear the pending Douchocalypse of bearded men wearing these things.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.