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?"
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.
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.
Only on Slashdot does someone who's anti-Google has to be pro-Microsoft.
There's not a single Microsoft thing in my house, and I'm concerned with everything Google is doing.
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?
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.
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 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..."
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.
Hmm, his own bio on his page says "Stephen Fry once referred to him as a "cynical, ignorant [expletive]." Also from his Twitter feed, " /. is paying me and The Kernel is no longer trading." when asked if he should be publishing his articles on The Kernel. BTW, The Kernel is no longer trading because it's no longer a company. So in area of character, I'd say this one is definitely not neutral or unbiased.
/. commenter a writer.
As to his article, I can see why other publications like The Guardian considered The Kernel a gossip mag. There is not evidence or foundation in Milo's article. Only the ravings of a man who has shown himself to be firmly against all things big tech. I wouldn't do so far as to affiliate him with MS, I'm sure he hates them too. I will say that, while many people, readers and critics, have spoken of his aptitude with the english language, I found his article to be riddled with hyperbole ("company no one trusts" some of us have no quarrel with Google) and out-right ignorance (Glass is unofficially called Goggles? No.)
As his article appears to have been built to stimulate heated arguments with no enlightenment to be found in it's many words, I will say that he has at least succeeded in this, as I can not find anything else this article succeeds at or any other reason for it's existence. Also, I wouldn't call Milo a "tech journalist" anymore than I'd call a
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.
It's sensationalist to think Glass records and streams everything you see to Google. The way I understand it, it only records or takes a photo when you tell it to, and you can be a lot more discrete with a mobile phone camera (pretending to text) if you really want to record people without their permission. With glass you have to announce, out-loud, that you are recording. Labeling it "surveilance" is simply FUD. The device doesn't even have it's own dedicated internet connection. If the government/whoever wants to track you, there are any number of ways without glass, simplest being your phone or credit cards.
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.
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.
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."
There is nothing wrong with people who think civilization should collapse that cant be fixed by civilization collapsing.
...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.
Do you have a friend or family member who has an account? Did you let them take your picture for their address book on their phone?
Shortly after I got my first Android phone, as an experiment, I'd ask my friends if I could take their picture for my address book. Not a one, from tech savvy to total luddite refused, or even thought twice. They just immediately said "sure," smiled, and held still. So then after I'd take the shot, I'd say something along the lines "you know, Google will have all your contact info and a mug shot, you sure it's OK?" Still nobody has ever objected, even after the warning.
I let people take the photo knowing all this full well because I also realize that there is nothing I can do about it if the person wants to put a picture of me with the contact info -- they can use any photo, even a paper one and get that into the address book.
So anyway, blah blah blah -- my point is that no matter how careful you are with your personal information, you have no control over other people. That's why merely having the infrastructure in place, even if you don't actively participate, can be dangerous to privacy.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good