Slashdot Mirror
Google Glass and Surveillance Culture
Nerval's Lobster writes "Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos asks the question lurking in everyone's mind about Google Glass. 'It's an audacious product for a company no one trusts to behave responsibly with our data: a pair of glasses that can monitor and record the world around you,' he writes. 'But if Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, are we truly to believe that Google will not attempt to abuse that remarkable power?' With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds, 'it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever. And its vision, shared with other California technology companies, is of corporate America redefining societal privacy norms in the service of advertising companies and their clients.' He feels that Google will eventually end up in some sort of court battle over Google Glass and privacy. Do you agree? Does Google Glass deserve extra scrutiny before it hits the market?"
Is Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, by any chance, in some way affiliated with Microsoft? Just guess.
What are they going to do? Limit sales to law enforcement agencies only? Surveillance is only an issue when it's one way, and whatever is recorded can be used against you by the authorities, public and private.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Does Google Glass deserve extra scrutiny before it hits the market?"
No, it deserves scrutiny after it hits the market. Passing judgement before the product is even finalized is just an exercise in fearmongering (how can you judge something when you don't yet know what it does?) and smacks of prior restraint.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
They have access to soo much data for such a long period of time now.
There was the Street View wifi-network thing. But for the rest: very little abuse of power. I'ld say that they are doing a good job. Certainly better than the disasters we've seen from Apple (GPS data collection), Sony PSN (leaked almost everything), Facebook ("It's not a leak, we sold your information").
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/01/the-kernel
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Don't worry too much about the long-term implications, they'll get bored and drop it in a few years.
0 1 - just my two bits
I can opt out of wearing the goggles, so I don't have to be concerned with google pushing ads into my eyeballs. I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces with cameraphones or more traditional video capture devices. Google themselves could pay people to wander around public spaces and collect video, surreptitiously or otherwise.
I don't really get the controversy.
Long signatures suck.
The obvious answer is to not share/broadcast your Glass video to everybody, including Google.
I think even Google would struggle to cope with forty million concurrent video uploads in addition to current traffic (of.. around 5000). The bandwidth would be... substantial.
I for one welcome the ability for individuals to record their lives, so long as they don't reveal that data without a court case(and the penalties for doing so should be high). Having it for ones personal use I don't see a problem with. Tends to hold everyone accountable for their actions. I am sure this statement will create a flood of controversy! http://rawcell.com
What is stopping us from creating a line of clothing and accessories adorned with infrared LEDs? I remember reading an article about a hat a guy made that made his head look like a giant white orb to a video camera. It may certainly draw attention to you to the observer on the screen, but I still think it is a great way to combat the surveillance culture. Now if Google starts putting IR filters on the cameras....
Can't we just call it GGlass for short or something equally unimposing? Somehow the very repetitive nature of "Google Glass" this and "Google Glass" seems that quite disturbing. Gmail, Android, Chrome - people don't refer to these things with the longer moniker anymore. The product is already so ubiquitous it's time to shorten our references to it.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces
I totally agree with this point; to me it seems absurd to complain about being recorded in spaces with CCTV's and people everywhere with camera phones already.
The issue I see more is around, you go visit friends or enter other restricted spaces that are not really public, but you are still recording. I feel like in my house I do have an expectation of privacy, should I continue to do so when I have visitors? Part of me thinks not, but I can see room for contention there.
It may end up being a regulatory issue but it should not be; it should be more a social issue we just have to figure out.
Google could go a long way to short-circuiting the outrage if they simply included a very visible red "recording" light in the front that glowed while recording, or for a minute after taking a picture. Cameraphones don't have that today either but it's up to a newcomer in the space to be MORE polite initially, not less.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Built into my eyeglasses, encrypted link to a server *I* own which anonymizes my queries, nobody gets my data off it without a subpoena.
Google and the government can both go jump off a cliff.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
But you don't have to wear it, unless it is forcefully implanted into your eyes. It's opt in, and you can always chose otherwise. The problem here is the ones who do opt in create to others around them.
Timothy reposts that Nerval's Lobster writes that Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos asks the question? Can we just say the question and stop distancing ourselves from it?
Burka's for all!
Um, that's a BIT of scaremongering... Did this idiot somehow confuse Google with Facebook? Yes, Google has had some minor screwups (and some, such as the Street View mess, could barely be considered a screwup but more of FUD from clueless users who don't understand that ANYONE can see the MAC address of a wifi AP...), but nothing as major and spectacular as Facebook's routine privacy screwups.
And yes, overall - I trust Google, as do MANY other people.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Will Google Glass come with a drone installed option. Now that we must arm ourselves in every social situation, I want to be sure I am prepared to close the "glasses gap".
'But if Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, are we truly to believe that Google will not attempt to abuse that remarkable power?'
"I mean, the people using it won't abuse it. That's completely unfathomable. People are noble and pure creatures who are mentally and spiritually incapable of doing anything wrong or objectionable. It's just that, as soon as the same technology we, as people, drooled over a month ago gets in the hands of a corporation or a government, it becomes retroactively evil and we have to kill it."
But I reserve the right to hack into your image recognition software and replace my face with some other image of my choosing, Ghost in the Shell style.
How would Google get in trouble? We don't sue camera manufacturers when a pedophile uses them.
Malls already track movement patterns by use of wifi and use this information to restructure the general layout and manipulate foot traffic.
Is it really a stretch to suggest that Google would sell Google glass viewing habit/information to advertisers? Even worse, that many of the advertisers that this incredibly sensitive and invading information is sold to, are not worthy of our trust and are incapable of safe guarding it the information.
With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds,
Yes Google has been the single worst offender in so many cases dealing with privacy, right? So many, there's no use in giving an actual might as well apply it in the most unclear, inaccurate way.... it has to be like a fuckton of judgements. A metric fuckton. Two metric fucktons. Shame on Google.
it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.
Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
It's an audacious product for a company no one trusts to behave responsibly with our data
Hyperbole much? Given the amount of data I already trust google with I think it's safe to say I trust google with this.
Like mobile phones are opt in. Like the internet is opt in. Like submitting your CV to recruitment agencies in MS Word or even PDF format is opt in.
It may get to the point where to be a functioning member of society you "have" to wear them.
Hopefully by that stage competition has stepped in and given us other less evil options, but maybe not.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
I don't know whether Google will abuse it... use it, certainly, but calling it "abuse" might be a stretch.
What I do know is that others will try very hard to abuse it.
You know who I'm talking about...
Log in or piss off.
Or Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
Hey, Google! When a science fiction author describes a dystopian future, you're not supposed to use that as an implementation manual.
'It's an audacious product for a company and no one trusts any company to behave responsibly with our data."
I seriously don't understand the Google hate in the summary. Which company would the OP feel warm and fuzzy about?
Koans and fables for the software engineer
A good sci-fi book from around 1990. Half the population wore goggles to record perceived violations caused by others (normally older folks recording younger folks). It was a minor point in the book, but it showed a nifty cat-and-mouse game between the observers and those trying to get away with things like littering, graffiti, etc.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I was at GDC last week and while I was in the ( eternally disgusting ) bathroom washing my hands a Googler wearing Google Glass walked in to use the urinal. The urge to say 'Ok glass, take a picture' was hard to resist.
There is nothing wrong with Google that can't be cured by the collapse of western "civilization".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Using these spy glasses publicly, one should be required to wear a bright fluorescent pink jacket that has written in plain english or whatever the local language is that says, "GOOGLE GLASS SPY" front and back of the jacket, of course.. and maybe down the sleeves. >:-D
The problem with this technology - if indeed it does feature "always on" data capture - is that it takes just one person in a crowd to ruin it for everyone else.
You are at an event with a large crowd. Some of the behaviour in this crowd may be illegal (concert goers smoking marijuana for example) or at least frowned up by the authorities (dissidents gathering to protest). There is an unwritten rule amongst the participants that no one will film or take photos due to the nature of this group behaviour.
At this point, it takes just one person wearing Google Glass to break the unwritten rule. Most of the participants will be oblivious to the presence of the glasses. Yes this could happen with a handheld camera or similar, but the camera is outwardly very obvious. Goggle Glass is designed to blend in with the wearer and the surroundings.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. Do you want to find out? I certainly don't.
Peace,
Andy.
Or more like "B is for Buy'N'Large. your very best friend."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU
[The Universe] has gone offline.
"But for the rest: very little abuse of power."
That you know about.
also known as a G-Tard. Spread the mime, share the love.
It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
yep
i know millionaires who haven't had smart phones until the last 6 months and rarely use the internet for anything more than checking their gmail. lots of ways to make millions of $$$ without tech
Provide a few key apps, and wearing Google Goggles will be made illegal.
How would you feel if I told you every police officer would be wearing these in a couple years coupled with apps that recognize faces and search databases?
Attend a rally for any cause and every law enforcement agency knows.
That's what I'm worried about.
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker
Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.
It's redundant because this is the only thing noh8rz posts about. Note the ten at the end of the username? That's because he is on his tenth account, after the others all had posting limits imposed on them due to merciless - and completely justified - downvotes.
The only thing he posts about is how evil Google is, and how awesome MS is. So yes, it is redundant - if you follow Google stories for longer than a few weeks.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
questions later.
Seems like most large companies invent via legal department first which is just crap.
Who's country records and uses against him every fucking move he makes outside his house. Something most British seem to be pretty cool with so why in the word would he give damn about google?
I don't know, I was sort of looking forward to being paid in trillion dollar bills.
it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever.
I'm totally fine with that. Make new shit, put it out there. Might be expensive at first but then it'll be hacked, copied, and democratized.
That attitude... Just really grinds my gears. Rant incoming.
I'm tired of the constant handwringing over EVERYTHING. Everything has to be safe, everything has to be second-guessed, everything has to be politicized, everyone has to be sued, but most importantly everyone has to be SCARED of EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.
You can't feed the world because "well, can you PROVE GMOs aren't harmful?!" "Um, you sure can't prove they are, and I think the burden falls on you to..." "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!"
You can't power the world because "Climate change!" "Okay, fair enough, I'll give you that one, CO2 does cause global warming. Let's switch to nuclear." "But can you PROVE it'll never blow up?!" "Well we can design plants that won't release radiation. But fine, how about wind?" "BIRDS!" "Uh, waves?" "FISH!"
I wonder if the first caveman to build a fire had to deal with that crap. "Look, Ugh make fire. Fire good, keep warm!" "Ohhhhhh nooooOOOoooOOOooo no no no put it out it's too hot it might hurt the chiiiiiiiiillldren think of the chiiiiiiildren!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
This is "A Scanner Darkly" clearly. People will start wearing super sophisticated digital masks to hide their identity. Get your Philip K Dick novels right.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
One thing is also G Glass is only the first and not much of a first. It is just a slight step in convenience for having the camera at the ready and on. Nearly everyone has a cellphone now.
The thing a surveillance state requires two things. Mass surveillance apparatus and a single large entity behind it. What will end up with more likely is a surveillance or sousveillance society. Where cameras and recording devices are ubiquitous but control over them is not held in any single set of hands.
While privacy concerns are there, we've lived in a society where someone sufficiently motivated/funded can obtain a wearable covert recording device for decades.
This levels the playing field, as previously it has been law enforcement, PI's, corporations and spies exploiting the capability. Institutionally controlled cameras are already everywhere. We read stories about how warrants are being dropped as a requirement into cellular/email/online records, and real time access is something governments ask lawmakers and courts for with a straight face.
Well, now the individual is going to have their own record, one that might be able to counter the convenient loss, inadmissibility, editing or outright destruction of the current recordings controlled by the institutional actors. Some people may not be comfortable with Google handling the data, but how long before someone roots the device, or clones it with an open OS where the output is completely under the control of the wearer?
This has the potential to be a colossal power shift, as the control of the "narrative of record", and history itself may now be wrestled away from the control of large corporations, and state actors, letting everyone be a witness and draw conclusions before the talking heads tell us what to think.
Or Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.
Hey, Google! When a science fiction author describes a dystopian future, you're not supposed to use that as an implementation manual.
They're just taking their cue from the politicians. After all "1984" worked out so well.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I want to come back to the question of... why is it so much more "spoooooky" when it's in glasses form, as opposed to people taking pictures on their camera-phones? One person shows up to a party with a camera phone and posts some things up on Facebook, and we already have a problem of non-consenting recording. And suuuure, you were just smoking flavored tobacco out of that hookah... So the cameras in the phones we're already dealing with, but we get freaked out that people could be secretly watching us with their magic glasses?
>We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker
That's great for the pair that you buy, but I think people here are worried about the pairs that they can't control. You know, the ones that are watching them as they go about their business in the world.
Publicly traded corporations which are the worst of all. Shareholders DEMAND evil and while management can resist for a while, they are only human and will not be able to hold their positions against the nature of the beast. Like a Vampire, they may not want to suck the life out of people but the thirst will win out. As soon as they IPO'd google was inherently evil. The thirst is there and it will take hold eventually.
You might feel fine inviting them into your home, but I won't tempt fate.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
and to be fair, the streetview data thing was a bunch of useless snippets of data -- no one has accused google of sitting around reading people's e-mails through their streetview cars.
Can I take them into a public restroom or gym? Is it against the law, or would I only have to worry about getting them crushed off my face?
Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!"
"Think of the children" is most often a rhetorical shortcut intended to negate rational discussion through appeals to emotion.
"Think of the privacy implications" is exactly the opposite, in that it is an exhortation to think of problems and address them.
What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*
We all read 1984 and you'd have to be blind not to notice the endless expansion of police surveillance cameras.
And go read about the theory behind the panopticon, which undoubtedly influenced Orwell.
The idea that surveillance = power is hundreds of years old, but it's only in the last few decades where it has become feasible.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later
I'd prefer that over sue/patent first and innovate later, or don't innovate at all, which is the direction most tech companies are headed in.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker
Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.
most people don't need to know how to jailbreak it. I look a bulletin boards on campus and I can find people advertising that they will flash your phone for you with the latest cyagonmod or jailbreak idevices for a flat rate. Those that don't know how will be able to find someone who do know if they care that much.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Google Glass looks set to invade not only the privacy of the people who wear it, but also of all the people they interact with, including those who may wish to remain relatively anonymous. The wearer will inform the system about what the names of these people are and where to find them (address, phone numbers), while the system will then learn what these people look like and what their habits are. If all this were only used to sell everyone more stuff then that wouldn't be so bad, but the problem is that it doesn't stop there, since we already know that Google (and Facebook and Twitter, etc) cooperates with government spy agencies.
As time goes on, I suspect Google Glass will become ever more powerful, adding 360 degree vision, ever higher resolutions, night vision, zoom, image stabilization and the ability to hear as well as see. People will become ever more dependent on the advantages that these devices have to offer, but most will not give a second thought to the possibility that at any moment one or more third parties could also be listening and watching the world around you through your headset. Or, that everything you see and hear would get recorded and stored for later use; perhaps for relatively innocuous ends, but it could also be used to gather information against you, or someone in your vicinity (who you might not even know), and used at some later point in time.
Like all technological developments, inventions like Google Glass are a double-edged sword: they have the potential to offer wonderful advantages to society, but also to do great harm to it. The only solution will be to ensure that it is properly regulated: that effective privacy laws are drawn up, passed and enforced to prevent such inventions from being abused. But unfortunately, America's democracy isn't really working that well at the moment. In fact, it's now more of a corporatocracy than anything else; an environment in which the reverse is much more likely... less regulation and more abuse.
"We see you're buying hemorrhoids medication at your local pharmacy! Get discounts when buying hemorrhoids medication online though our convenient advertisement partners!"
Bow before me, for I am root.
it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.
Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*
We became cynical when people started losing their jobs, lives, and reputations due to shit being posted online about them that was not 100% within their control.
And you obviously became a gullible child thinking this technology wouldn't ever be abused or increase risk for damn near everyone in this way.
But hey, you have fun looking for another job...
Until the government asks for it. You have heard of the Patriot Act, right? Or, have you not seen any tv show based on police work in the last 12 years? All cops have to do is ask in most situations, without a warrant, and people automatically give full control of camera footage right over. No, it's not as good as the tv shows say but access to it is pretty much automatic these days.
Seriously, ubiquitous cameras and fear of the police is all that is necessary. Please reference the article on secret compartments for how they instill fear of the police in otherwise reasonably honest citizens.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
So don't use the product.
I am very big on privacy, but we're developing this culture of "inevitable consumerism" where we view these devices as something we MUST have, MUST use, and MUST take advantage of all the features of, rather than something we can choose to use.
It's true that for many professions having a smartphone or other similar technology is more or less mandatory, but there are other ways to earn a living and you can always "vote" by choosing employers which are not so stringent about connectedness. I just don't like this paradigm we're developing where all technological advancement is mandatory to continue to exist. We have the power to resist these devices, but we choose not to. Sacrificing privacy for convenience/features is a trade off that most people are obviously willing to make, so they are getting the technology they deserve.
There's nothing stopping anyone from going out and making devices which do support real privacy. I'm sure it would be well received by the market. The only problem is that it has to be a product which recognizes the market's desire for ease of use, simplicity and features. These are not typically goals which privacy advocates are willing to submit to, but these goals and privacy are hardly mutually exclusive. The trick is finding a simple way to give people choices about how their information is used.
Either way, we should focus our efforts on preventing the *government* from gaining access to and misusing our personal information.
it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.
Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*
You mean you have skipped all the darker Orwellian surveillance no more privacy sci-fi stories? Because there is quite a lot of them too.. ;) Problem is, doesn't help if you jailbreak and ad block yours, if you are filmed by all around you, feeding into a facial recognition capable search and tracking engine... But then, it very well might be that technology will make the notion of privacy something we have to forego, Google has already predicted this, but that sure makes some of the other discussions we have here about online privacy and anonymity rights quite meaningless.
I had forgotten most cameraphones have a shutter sound already (I've disabled mine). But there still is not shutter sound for video on any devices I know of, nor an indicator light...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This gives him away, because it's hardly objective. Too bad he doesn't tell which company he actually does trust, because then we'd know who's paying him.
They don't have to, they read it on their servers. It's the backbone of their business model.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Your tinfoil hat is leaking again - you let the googles convince you to post on /. using your REAL login name!
+1 Disagree
thankfully!
Repeating Microsoft ad campaign messages on Slashdot. ++good.
Please know... you are not alone in this thought.
Just because we can do something, the question is should we do something?
The answer is never easy.
Google Glass has so much useful potential for all sorts of innovative technology, it's hard to say its not the best thing since sliced bread. But for those who relish being able to do things without being monitored by everyone and his brother, have a right to be concerned. When an individual is out in the world, they are indeed in public, but that does not mean that being "in public" waives every single right to privacy. Whatever happened to the old statement of "you had to be there to see it"? Now, you don't have to be there to see it, some one else will post your life on line and another will use it for ad placement and you have no say in the matter.
If I go for a walk in the park, people who are also in the park can see me, thus it's public, but how public must my walk be? Am I no longer allowed to go out and smell the fresh air without x other people filming my every move? Why must the internet know what I'm doing outside? Why must anyone other than those x people in the park be aware of my simple stroll. Since when does someone else get to determine what I want filmed about me and whether I want it made public to the entire world?
I know that the benefits are great for such technology, and it's really almost no different to that of video cameras, but we've seen how video camera have been used to invade privacy in public areas, why do we think that Google Glass would be any less abused? Yes, this is the negative view of the great possibilities that could be and it's a sad way to argue a point, but it is a point that should be considered.
We became cynical when people started losing their jobs, lives, and reputations due to shit being posted online about them that was not 100% within their control.
Many of us could see the implications of ubiquitous surveillance years ago. I remember arguing with David Brin about it in the 90s, when he was convinced it would make the world a wonderful place.
... the flood of lawsuits they're gonna get hit with after the first idiots start driving around while wearing the glasses and end up killing people by "accident."
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"
Where cameras and recording devices are ubiquitous but control over them is not held in any single set of hands.
Have you been ignoring the last decade or so of unprecedented growth in curated computing and and centralization?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There is nothing wrong with people who think civilization should collapse that cant be fixed by civilization collapsing.
Yeah, your take on "opt-in" is right on.
"Hopefully by that stage competition has stepped in and given us other less evil options, but maybe not."
I'll go with the "maybe not." The possible prospects are dim; apart from NoSuchA having stuff that Google doesn't, Google probably has more info about more stuff and more people at their disposal than any other entity on the planet. That they pretty much haven't 'done evil' with it so far is to my ken likely singular in history of business. Meanwhile they sit on a hoard of info that would be the gist for a totalitarian's wet dream.
Can they keep their "do no evil" policy after the founders are gone and through continual board changes? I expect that question keeps a few people up at night.
Kudos, AC. That is both the funniest and most insightful comment here.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
I would like to see a court weigh in on whether photos or videos containing other people can be uploaded to social media sites. Or to other possibly non-private file repositories.
I have a sneaking suspicion that images recorded in private locations without explicit consent will end up receiving substantial awards in civil cases.
As far as recordings in public places are concerned, however, I expect very little.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
If I am under surveillance, I would be delighted if it's a nerdy guy with prominent conspicuous glasses with a blinking red light following me around. Does the writer really imagine Google Glass is the biggest threat to privacy, not the drone flying over your head. Do people really not realize that if someone wanted to put them under surveillance with a tiny camera, there are far better places to hide it in your clothes (buttonholes for example), not blinking at you at eye level? Hell I can stick my phone in my pocket with the camera facing outwards and filming and very few would even notice in a public location.
Google aren't even the only ones working on wearable eye-devices. The technology for clandestine ubiquitous surveillance is already here and around you, and it's not going away. The privacy issues facing us are serious but It's facile to single out Google Glass as some kind of turning point. It's already too late.
this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later
I kinda wish there were more of those.
...the personal jammer. I can see it now. "Jams bluetooth, wifi and all cell bands, plus emits infrared sufficient to blind IR cameras. Small enough to fit on your person, self-destructs on command. Order now, get this wide-band audio jammer, free. Or, step up to our 'Don't Tread On Me' personal EMP line. We have models guaranteed to brick any commercial device in ranges from 10 feet to half a mile. (not for sale in USA; not responsible for collateral damage)"
Viola, Instant black market. :)
What's really interesting about this is that both jammers and EMP emitters are relatively trivial to design and aren't tech that can practically be suppressed.
Perhaps privacy will get a second chance, courtesy of Google's attempt at over-reach, or even just their signal that the Orwellian idea is reaching practical application.
Think of the secondary markets: EMP shielding for your apartment, mil-grade phones, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm more worried about a proliforation of Donglegates. Everyone constantly being videoed in case they say somthing racist, sexist, anti-semitic, or transphobic. Everyone watching what they say all the time in case they get recorded and then fired from their job, or arrested if they live in the UK or Australia
I'm too busy thinking of how useful it will be to *me* to be able to remember everything I did in the day, and the ability to go back and look for minor things that I didn't pay attention to before. Privacy is something to worry about, yes, but we all know someone will think of something as soon as it comes out.
"we see you're buying [insert medical stigma here] medication at your pharmacy. we posted a note to google+!"
That they pretty much haven't 'done evil' with it so far is to my ken likely singular in history of business
fined $22.5 million for hacking safari privacy controls
$7 million fine for street view
$500m fine for rip off pharmacy ads
for a company that you suggest hasn't "done evil", they sure have been censured by government bodies for a lot of evil stuff. Not to mention all the stuff that the agencies haven't fined.
I broke the first link, here you go.
Where cameras and recording devices are ubiquitous but control over them is not held in any single set of hands.
umm, hello, the whole point of this article and discussion is that Goog will have control over technology so ubiquitous it could capture everything about you. That is the single set of hands.
What does that even mean? Are you saying that Google doesn't mine its users' mail for advertising purposes? I use Gmail and it's pretty clear that my email content affects the Adsense ads I get elsewhere.
Microsoft may be worthless scumbags, but that doesn't make Google an angel. Likewise, pointing out the creepy aspects of Google doesn't make someone a Microsoft shill. FFS, it's like the Republican-Democrat team rally garbage in here.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
How much will these Google Glass things cost? Will we have much of a problem? Microsoft is having trouble selling the Surface, and B&N is having trouble selling the Nook. Expensive gadgets have a limited market.
One can claim Google will protect your privacy, in a world full of devices which are all hearing and all seeing everywhere, connected to data stores which can remember all information for a lifetime. Let's trust that claim.
The TSA currently monitors all internet traffic. The FBI is claiming the need to monitor Gmail in real time. Why would they stop there, and not avail themselves of all Google collected information, in real time?
Individual users, it's claimed, will need to choose to upload the Google Glass gathered information which has been collected on you. Let's assume individual users (strangers), will choose to protect your personal information. Why is it desirable to enable strangers to collect unlimited information on you, at all times, without your permission.
Why trust the motives and sense of responsibility of strangers, when they can just as well publish everything they've collected, as not?
George Orwell didn't have enough imagination, as he envisioned the world of 1984 and the use to which surveillance technology would be put. Neither did he evidence enough imagination as to the the cooperation of the innocent in their own demise.
As ubiquitous as the Android OS (or JavaME / Symbian a handful of years ago)?
I mean, any single company (Blackberry, for example) has only ever had a consistent less-than-30% marketshare at it's peak.
They're not. They're using it as a beta version. Implemented one will be more efficient.
Unfortunately, As we get closer and closer to Technological Singularity, these problems will only get worse.
What happens if a tech becomes available to read and write memories? are we going to ban it because .gov will use it to troll through our memories of an event, making our own eyes just a squishy camera? Hook into ears to record a rally to find unamerican activity? Will search warrants be used to toss our central nervous systems, since they would then just be a gooey hard drive with crappy encryption?
We are getting to the point we need a Vested right to one's own thoughts, knowledge, and memories. This includes if said TKM is running on natural or artificial substrates. Anything else is asking to make being a sentient being a crime. Doubly so since Artificial Super-organisms like companies and governments can and will eat you for lunch, even if the individual humans inside of it are nice people.
Okay, how do I opt out of having anyone around me wear Google Glass?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Everyone wear a Niqab. It would make Republican heads explode as a nice side effect!
Oh, they don't need to ask. They'll just get it as it goes by.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Jammers. EMP. Disguises. Stay indoors.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
What we saw in utopian science fiction was people addicted to consuming gimmicks, becoming transparent insects under the watchful, unblinking and increasingly all-seeing (also very, very opaque) eyes of states and corporations, who use information to milk and manage the populations? How about, "LOLNOPE" ?
Or maybe you read dystopian stuff like Nineteen-Eightyfour and thought it was supposed to be a happy tale, or a manual or something. Again, nope..
Uh, so far. Mostly. That we know of. Under the current leadership, who will not live forever.
Don't be so short sighted. You can depend on them abusing the hell out of their data at one point or another.
expandfairuse.org
Seriously, ubiquitous cameras and fear of the police is all that is necessary. Please reference the article on secret compartments for how they instill fear of the police in otherwise reasonably honest citizens.
You know, it just occurred to me that the same sort of behavior might scare people away from recording everything, instead.
You walk down the street, recording with your G Glass, and while you don't notice it, some kind of unobtrusive crime happens in front of you that your camera catches. A few seconds later, you see a cat do something funny, so you post the video to the Internet. Then you get indicted for not snitching on the crime you "saw," sort of like what happened to the secret compartment guy.
Google never "reads" your e-mail. Unless this place has really degraded to the point where indexing a document based on the use of key terms can't be understood to be different from reading. Reading isn't just looking for keywords in flat text - its a systemic analysis of a text with the purpose of deriving meaning. Google "reads" your e-mails like a bird "paints" your car.
And yeah, uncritically repeating an ad campaign verbatim is not at all creepy.
The issue isn't that you use the product (and can therefore opt out), the issue is that the person across from you is using it, and they just found your name on [pick your poison] and your social and/or employment and/or schooling options just narrowed considerably. When people can put your life on the table they will inevitably draw the wrong conclusions. Particularly in a country where the justice system is so radically out of control from coercive plea bargains to commando-style raids (often on the wrong address) to violent, well insulated law enforcement. Screw up? Or simply been railroaded? Privacy out the window? Welcome to the permanent lower class.
"The person across from you is in the felon database" What you're looking at here is a personal mechanism to automatically apply the Jewish star. Or any other kind of star you, or other creatives, decide to implement as the witch hunt of the day.
Sure, that'll work to smooth social interactions. Not.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Which brings to mind noise shelf elevation, whereby you get a few of these $1500 toys together, and chew up CPU time with lots of fast images, as fast as the capture time rate allows.
Several sets of glasses ought to be able to start overloading the identification processors, chewing up the available CPU until it simply crawls. These insertion losses, increasing the noise, then takes up available cache.
I like unprecendented growth. It smells of dirt.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Correct, Google doesn't "sit around reading people's email". You are also correct in that they "mine users's mail for advertising purposes". If you don't understand the difference you may not belong on Slashdot.
it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.
I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.
This is somewhat unlikely, given that the Broadcom chips require a signed bootloader, and most implementations go out of their way to verify boot signatures all the way ufp the stack due to FCC regulations dealing with SDRs (Software defined radios). This either includes kernel modules, or everything gets statically linked and kernel module loading is disabled. If you aren't in the US, you'll have your own SDR regulations courtesy of your local ITU or FCC-alike in your country, since they don't want you to hack the baseband firmware, because as soon as you do, you'll be able to clone IMEI's and skim other people's phone calls, as well as being able to modify the radio tables to create a jammer for military and emergency services radio communications.
That's pretty much a short trip to being labelled a terrorist, or at least getting accused of aiding and abetting them, should your code get used for nefarious purposes. The baseband is firmware is run on the same CPU as the rest of the OS. This is why in the Qualcomm Snapddragon's there's a Hypervisor to keep the baseband isolated in the single CPU phones, and why The single CPU Sony phones aren't unlockable, but the multi-CPU Sony phones are.
If you don't think that a software update would issue as soon as the there was a working jailbreak, you're sadly mistaken. The primary reason for doing a baseband hack has been to do a carrier unlock on most phones, particularly those with Samsung chips in them (like the early iPhone models), since the carrier lock down was stupidly placed in the baseband firmware instead of in user space in the commcenter program. As soon as the unlock was released by the Russians, and then later by the iPhone dev team, it was possible to rewrite the sec zone to do the unlock, at which point it was possible to rewrite the IMEI and radio tables. This is why most iPhones sold in Europe these days are not carrier locked: to disincentivize baseband hacks, which were mostly motivated by it being the only way to get a grey market iPhone in countries where the carrier lock would have prevented them working.
I really hope concern over the glasses will read to people being more conscious of data privacy, but to be honest I have to wonder why people are just now concerned about data privacy. A former senior executive at the NSA was persecuted for trying to speak out against sweeping surveillance against ALL americans and had the espionage act used against him, yet awareness of this issue has remained close to zero. Face it, people, we already live in a surveillance society. Everything you do is associated with you. Here's a video of the former NSA exec speaking: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311537-1 This is already a really important issue.
Actually. I like the Google glass. It is a defense in the hands of citizens. If everyone is wearing them, then how can everyone be stopped from recording some untoward incident? If it is made illegal though, then only the cops would have them. And no one will be able to record them. So guys, take a chill, be careful what you fight for.
The complaint I get when I point that out is that you can't opt out of being in someone else's stored video. If they were available now, I'd likely buy a one. But they aren't, so I don't have to worry about it for now.
Learn to love Alaska
I have, but apparently you have not.
I can record, store it locally, and/or on the could. I can distribute it through many different systems, or create my own distribution network.
The Cloud is not centralized, that's the point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hello, they won't have control.
I can send that data anywhere.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The same way you opt out of ANYONE with a camera when you are in public. You can't. Never could.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Until people start realize that everyone has an embarrassing past, then it won't matter.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
""Think of the children" is most often a rhetorical shortcut intended to negate rational discussion through appeals to emotion.
"Think of the privacy implications" is exactly the opposite, in that it is an exhortation to think of problems and address them."
OR
"Think of the privacy implications"is most often a rhetorical shortcut intended to negate rational discussion through appeals to emotion.
"Think of the children" is exactly the opposite, in that it is an exhortation to think of problems and address them.
really, it's context.
1984 doesn't apply here, and i wish people mwould try to understand the book.
Single group control of information was the issue in 1984. Something that doesn't apply becasue everyone can use a camera. You can record the police, there are many avenues to disseminate the information. Both of which make 1984 and the memory hole a minor problem.
"The idea that surveillance = power "
No. Control of information is power. Control of history is power. The closes thing we have to 1984 is fox news. They change words to change ideas about subjects.
THAT was the power in 1984.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes you can me and some other uber-geeks could do that, but most people will be using a highly centralized service - running on decentralized hardware...but still a centralized, proprietary service they don't control.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
yes yes we all saw THX 1138.
None of them include the people watching the corporations and the state. None of them include the rest of the world, none of them have multiple channels of disseminating information.
They are all great thought experiments for closed systems. We do not live in a closed system.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I had a dollar for every time I heard some piece of electronics can't be hacks or bypassed, I'd have... about a thousand bucks.
"If you don't think that a software update would issue as soon as the there was a working jailbreak, you're sadly mistaken."
based on..what?
get some fresh air and stay off the internet for a week or two.. You are coming across as crazy guy in an echo chamber.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Doesn't gOOFGle abuse the initial concept first, in all their products' inceptions? Maybe that's wrong..
A database of pictures of Bankers and Wall Streeters in NYC and thier familiy members.
Act as a fruit/veggie vendor and refuse to sell to said people.
"The person across from you is in the felon database" What you're looking at here is a personal mechanism to automatically apply the Jewish star. Or any other kind of star you, or other creatives, decide to implement as the witch hunt of the day.
Sure, that'll work to smooth social interactions. Not.
This should be interesting. I look forward to the day that everyone over thirty is packing an EMP generator in their backpack or vehicle. Don't want your tech bricked? Turn it off when you're in public endangering us with your total surveillance society. If no, then talk to your insurance provider. They'll buy you a new one. All your data's in The Cloud, yes?
Good luck to the cops tracking us down when everyone's packing. The whole street will be blanketed with EMP. Their EMP generator detectors will be bricked too. Popcorn!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Please, you're not fooling anybody. You enjoy the benefits of western civilization every day, and if it actually approached collapse in any form you would shriek in panic like a little bitch and unreservedly offer your eternal allegiance to the first person who claimed to offer a way to safeguard it for you. You're like a teenager trying to get Dad's attention by moaning about how much the family sucks while you play video games on the couch.
I would find it deeply amusing if misuse of tech like this effectively drove us back to all-mechanical days. Piss off some willing luddite, and bang, everything goes dark for 16 square blocks. "Smart" pistols wouldn't fire, radios wouldn't work, records couldn't be retrieved, cars wouldn't start. Your local gendarme would be reduced to a billy club with his back against the wall. And here's Clem, with a big smile, singed hair, and a smoking backpack.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yes it will, because not everyone's past is equally embarrassing, and there's always a reason why yours is worse. The "transparent society" idea is wishful thinking at best.
I'm afraid one person's embarrassing past is completely without significance when compared with those who have been railroaded by the state -- or really did something wrong. This is already happening; a felony rap means most job doors close tight, even schools do background checks now, so you can't even improve yourself without walking the autodidact plus entrepreneur path... and if you can't hack that, welcome to the "ditchdigger for life" club.
Then there's the "go live under a bridge" mindset, mainly promoted by people who don't remember the troll stories, I think.
The whole thing is creating a lowest-level underclass; it's a vicious retribution based mindset that shows no sign of coming around to rehabilitation and common sense.
But even your average felon or person on a list can, right now, still walk into McDonalds and get served. Imagine when they're ID'd walking in the door. Or trying to get a date. Or trying to use a library. Think of the children, man. Going to put some stress on the social fabric, it is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And here's Clem, with a big smile, singed hair, and a smoking backpack.
You missed the lamentations of the Hipsters. "Aw, man! That's my third iBauble today! !@#$" Everyone pulls the dead earbeads from their ears, cars roll to a stop at the curb, sidewalks fill with pedestrians, and the smog clears up.
More likely, politicos pass a law making it illegal to use tech in public (in self defence).
Then there's Clem. "T'weren't me. Good one Mom!"
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
lol
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ya got me. Thanks. I knew of two of those.
Just that compared to so many companies whose lapses/offenses/pecadillos I've come across over the years, they don't seem half-bad. ITT, GE, AT&T (look up Narus; that's not even what I had in mind, it's just so much fun to think about), General Dynamics, Bell Systems, Hughes, Sony; hell, a laundry list my tired aging mind can't pull out of memory's store.
But as you'll notice from later in my post, I give them no free ride. Not by a long shot. Shooee, for all I know, they're waiting for the right moment to take over the world. But I use gmail, and when I can figure out how to set it up for my needs, the phone thing.
All these heavy things, man, convenience, accountability, get 'er done, liberty.... cheers.
Yes, thank you.
I left this out from above, it caught my fancy,
"Just over a year later, the FTC sued Google again, this time for circumventing privacy protections in Apple’s Safari browser to place tracking cookies on user’s computers. It did this despite ensuring users that they did not need to take any actions to block its cookies in Safari."
Classic. Is that chutzpah or what? Am I arguing against my 'position' - nah, not really, more like keeping a perspective - however skewed it may be. I note that I started using Ghostery about two hours after I first heard about it.
I'm tired of the posters here that take the position that it doesn't matter because it "doesn't always record".
First of all, it doesn't matter because the ability is always there. Second, its obviously the eventual goal of the project. Eventually these glasses will not only record all the time (and stream), but attempt to recognize things like a kinect box. I give them 6yrs or so.
I'm actually OK w law enforcement and other professions using it (reporters, for example)... But everyone having them would be kind of insane for society as a whole.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard some piece of electronics can't be hacks or bypassed, I'd have... about a thousand bucks.
"If you don't think that a software update would issue as soon as the there was a working jailbreak, you're sadly mistaken."
based on..what?
get some fresh air and stay off the internet for a week or two.. You are coming across as crazy guy in an echo chamber.
Google largely does not control what goes onto the Android cell phones, the partners control the cell phone OS. All productization takes place at Samsung, HTC, and other phone vendors.
In order to have a carrier willing to let a partners cell phone onto their network, there are certain contractual obligations that the partner has to meet in order for the carrier to contract with them.
I worked at Apple on the Mac OS X kernel, which is the iOS kernel, and I left Apple and went to work for Google, where, among other things, I did the cellular modem bring-up on the most recent ARM-based Samsung ChromeBook.
Carriers are OK with tethered jailbreaks, as they are more or less inevitable, but anything untethered like the jailbreakme.com site or similar drive-by jailbreaks gets a security fix so that you can't screw with the baseband without a lot of effort.
If you dick with the baseband, you are looking at some hard time in a Federal prison. I'm not saying that it's impossible to do; I know someone in Korea who used to do it for iphones because he had access to a lab with the equipment to reflow BGA chips after wiring up the JTAG line on iPhone 4GS'. It's not impossible: it's just prohibitively expensive and unwise if you get caught with the modified device.
PS: The regulation you're looking for is Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Section 2.1043 - Changes in certified equipment, dated 2008-10-01, Class I and Class II permissive changes.
I've read the same Si-Fi as you but I never assumed the technology used in those books was flawed or covernments were inconsiderate of your privacy. They were always represented as helpful tools which never could be used against you.
And still, I agree with your comment, I'm looking forward to these new developments but would also like better security of the software used and better privacy laws.
What about the Pizza Delivery Guy with Google Glass who only uses it for heads up navigation? Required to wear it.
He has to stand outside while you pay him?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Their best defense would be then that you had no expectation of privacy because you exposed yourself to them and performed a bodily function voluntarily for them to record.
Wow, harsh much? It appears I have different opinions than you. Skoll! The ticket to a healthy conversation. But some people (such as yourself?) use their mod points so they down vote any opinions they disagree with, resulting in a slashdot monoculture with no dissenting. Voices. N thank you,mi say! I'mm always ready to speak truth to power. As to your shill accusations, yes, I abandoned earlier accounts because of bad karma. I'm not a MS fanboi, although they've been doing a lot of stuff right lately (win7, office2010, bing). I definitely have some concerns about goog's worldview, but before you call me a hater please consider my arguments more carefully.