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.
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.'"
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.
What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.
How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.
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.
Your cleverness became clumsy there.
If people are running into people because they're using google glass then I suspect they would otherwise have had their phone out and run into people because they were looking at their phone.
The biggest problem with google glass is the biggest problem with every other technology disruptive to privacy: Who watches the watchers? It's not people running into people. This is only a realistic problem if both people are not paying attention. If someone is about to run into you because they are using google glass, this is your opportunity to step out of the way, but leave your foot behind, then dissolve into a crowd. My usual strategy is to just stand still and brace myself, but I'm 6'7" and weigh about 300 pounds, and I'm not going anywhere. The situation is different when you involve automobiles, but again those people would probably just be texting on their phone. People who don't care enough to pay attention while driving will find something else to do.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
Security cameras don't upload everything to the net.
True. The cellphone in your pocket (it doesn't even have to be smartphone) already has all the privacy-invading features of Google Glass. How do you know that person who appears to be texting on another table isn't already recording a video of your tryst? Wouldn't you also be alarmed if you see someone using a cellphone inside a public bath? GooGlass should be banned in the very same places where the use of a cellphone is already considered improper or rude.
>"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.
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.
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)
Just don't commit any crimes...
Just don't be associated with those who commit crimes.
Don't be associated with those who are associated with people who commit crimes.
Certainly don't walk/run/drive/bicycle through any place that has recently had a crime committed.
Don't appear to be doing something worthy of being noticed, even if it is benign.
Don't get in the way of people who would rather have what you have.
Don't make people upset with you.
Don't let people get upset with you even though they don't know you.
Don't have the wrong skin color.
Don't have the wrong gender.
People may argue slippery slope, but most of those are already being used EVERY SINGLE DAY to target people. Collection = abuse. You can't get around having it, if you're not gonna have people use it. Occasional news reports about people at the DMV grabbing celebrities police reports and that is stuff people think is necessary to collect! What about everything else? Also, the security of databases stinks. More so via people than technology.
Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
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.
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The trick, you see, is the fact that the iris dilates or contracts to let in more or less light based on the illumination levels we are being exposed to.
When light is coming directly into your eye from a tiny source, if it does not occupy a sufficient amount of your field of vision, the circumstance occurs where your iris isn't going to contract enough based on the overall average intensity of photons that are hitting it, and the brighter area can appear more washed out than the rest of your vision. This is generally not a problem if you are more interested in looking at other things, but if your attention is actually focused on whatever is creating the extra light, your iris isn't going to magically contract because it still occupies a tiny part of your field of view, but you still end up with what you are focusing on appearing more washed out than what your visual cortex normally works with. The same situation happens when you are in a brightly lit location, and the display is not producing sufficient light to create decent contrast. The lack of contrast in either case creates delays in visual processing and ultimately can lead to fatigue far more quickly than if you are looking at something that has been light by ambient illumination (as long as ambient illumination levels are within a typical range for human eyes in the first place). The problem can be partially mitigated in modern displays by controlling the intensity of light the display produces based on ambient illumination (the brighter the ambient illumination, the brighter the display gets), but nominal human illumination operating levels are diverse enough that you'll still always experience problems in using even very sophisticated displays in certain types of lighting conditions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
Walk around with your smartphone recording video with the red LED blinking all the time, see what happens.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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".
Exactly!
The problem is not "people" recording as much as images sent to Google'a servers. We already know it automatically tries to identify people, so that information is STORED somewhere along with the whole camera frame, whatever might be in it. Like rob here says, the ENTIRE PURPOSE is for Google to gather those ancillary images and sounds and sell ads to the highest bidder. You walk into a bar, what beer is advertized? What song is playing while you're dancing? You can quickly see that turning into ad data sold to beer companies based on who saw their ads, and forwarding a list of bars that didn't pay ASCAP for the DJ last night.
People miss that this ALL PRIVACY being targeted... We already have complaints from PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS that wish people not to use Google Glass there. YOUR HOME is next... I mean all your friends have Googke Glass, they aren't going to look in your medicine cabinet, or see your brand of foot-fungus cream. Remember these are the AUTOMATED images, so Google isn't invading THEIR PRIVACY because their photos, videos, audio tracks are password protected. Google is just racking up EVERYBODY AROUND them!!
THAT is the change here. When I go to a place, I expect them to have cameras in case of robbery or breakin. But MAINTAINING cameras is HARD. Most have a tape or DVR of limited space and keep reusing the space. Generally something from six months ago is "forgotten". Google Glass is you running around taking pictures of everybody else's stuff. And storing it in a vast server farm wher Google is going to use it for their own private purposes.
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...
Like rob here says, the ENTIRE PURPOSE is for Google to gather those ancillary images and sounds and sell ads to the highest bidder. You walk into a bar, what beer is advertized?
So if I wear these, I'll stop getting ads for Miller Lite and Bud, and start getting ads for Old Dominion Oak Barrel Stout? Where can I sign up?
You are not arguing against tech like google glass, you are arguing against a fascist police state. If the government, law, and courts are not set up to be abused by the rich then taking pictures in public cannot be used as a weapon.
Improve society; don't try to suppress technology.
Anarchists never rule
All of the list has been applied for hundreds of years. The only difference is that now, you can examine the evidence, rather than take the word of some blind old racist lady, who seems so nice and genuine to the jury. Many Black people were sent to their deaths in prison from the testamony of questionable eye witnesses, a disturbingly large percentage exonerated as forensics improved (disturbing not because they were exonerated, but convicted in the first place when provably innocent).
But for the love of God, ban Google Glass so we have the freedom to get convicted of a crime we did not commit because eye witnesses are so unreliable, yet considered so highly by juries.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
The problem is not "people" recording as much as images sent to Google'a servers.
Well, no - both are problems. I don't want random individuals recording my interactions with them.
Google IS the bigger problem, admittedly. For one thing I'm pretty sure they never truly delete anything even if you delete it from your account. I've come to believe that because of an experience I recently had. One of our users had uploaded an ical file containing her calendar from another system. She then changed her mind and cleared the calendar of everything, following Google's instructions (I verified this) - so the calendar was completely empty. a couple months later, for collaboration's sake she went to her old system and again exported an ical file. Google would not allow her to upload the events, though, stating "these items have already been uploaded" even though they were not on her Google calendar anymore.
FYI the solution to the upload problem was changing the sequence number for each event in the ical file, as others around the web have found.
#DeleteChrome
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.