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
HIV is "already everywhere". So too was slavery. "Already everywhere" is the pragmatism of the damned.
"ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times" is already happening and it has nothing to do with Google Glasses.
If you care about your privacy, Glass is the least of your concerns - there are already many ways to record everything secretly. And, if you want to invade people's privacy like this, Glass is the last thing you should use since it is so conspicuous.
Britain already went through this debate as they installed their ubiquitous CCVC network. Privacy lost.
>"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.
I can't believe anyone would mod that up. That is the oldest one in the book "if you have nothing to hide". Here are some things to thing about:
* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me
* Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time
* Someone else might do something wrong with my information
* Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions
* Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or abused
* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong
* You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected
* Computers don't "forget" and you can't control how long some system will hold information about you
* Once information is collected, you don't know who that company might share it with, nor why, nor how often
* The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered
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?)