Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt: Google Glass Critics 'Afraid of Change,' Society Will Adapt
curtwoodward writes "Eric Schmidt came to Harvard this week to discuss his new book, but many students really wanted to know more about the implications for privacy and social interaction once Google Glass starts hitting the market. Schmidt cautioned against jumping to the worst conclusions, saying that society always tends to adapt to new technologies — and he's hoping for etiquette rather than government regulation. Of course, that's what you would say if you used to run a company that has been fined and paid settlements to regulators for the way it scoops up data and tracks users. But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"
...
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
... coming from a man who only has to be a part of this "society" when it suits him. He's not subject to the surveillance culture since he can hang out in his private office or home.
Oh, by the way, people who are afraid of drones being used by the public are just afraid of change. You should totally try to adapt.
Captcha: Infringe
Radical Change Product= Radical Change Product
Where can it be used legally? = Where can it be used legally?
How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't? = How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't?
Kinda Spend y - people who can't afford it will be all sour grapes. :-)
Considering the initial mockery of for example the iPad here on Slashdot, I would say that this condition afflicts this group as much as others.
to Google Glass, but it will never adapt to privately owned drones.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
If this is your definition of change, you can shove it up your ass.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Welcome to your new position as a lowly serf in the new digital order. Shut up and do as you are told.
Why is Snark Required?
glass is a very worrying invention. no expectation of privacy in public is very different then lots of people being able to record everything they see. wait 'til a bunch of peeping tom videos start appearing, or people taking videos of kids on the beach, or until someone with glass gets shot because a dealer thinks they might have recorded that drug deal. the surveillance we have now, we can at least vaguely hope no one is using it for fap material, or won't put it out to embarrass us. does your nose itch? better not scratch it, there's three people with google glass over there and you'd hate for them to record it and put it up on youtube looking like you're picking your nose. is there even a light showing people that its recording? laptops sometimes have those, that'd be something at least
nobody's perfect
Is this the same guy that wants to ban drones? Egads. Perhaps he should take his own advice.
I don't know about niche needs. I know my use of a hud for motorcycle turn by turn directions would be niche, but I'm pretty sure Google's intentions are anything but. By convincing people to record and upload more data from more personal places, they're looking to greatly expand their data mining. I don't know about "don't be evil", I think their new moto is "just don't be obvious".
- tensions in our lives that are attacking our minds, unite themselves together to make our consciousness blind - op'ivy
I don't know about you, but I'm despising Google more and more with every passing day. I think they are going to be right there with Microsoft if they continue down this path.
Yeah... And now that I think of it, this IRS thing might not be that good an idea either...
I think you may be a little late to this party.
Well played, AC... well played.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"
Fucking idiot. Criticisms don't only come from people who are afraid of change. Personally, I don't even consider my body to be what makes me "me", and would love to replace it all with sturdier mechanical parts. I love the rate at which humans keep making technology smaller and merging with it: Clothes are Wearable Shelters. Glasses are magnifying lenses you wear, and Contacts are glasses IN your eyes. We have titanium hips and even exoskeletons helping the disabled to walk again. Tech is great! Adding a digital camera and HUD to my optical systems sounds awesome!
However, I WANT TO CONTROL MY BODY. I don't value my flesh the same way others do, but I realize that it IS important to be able to control my body in whatever form it takes. I don't want to wear a prison. I don't want to wear a tracking device (unless I can control who can track it). I consider my clothes to be just a part of my body as I consider my bones. My skin is a mobile temperature regulating wetsuit perfect for being born on Earth and exploring a great deal of this Planet; I've grown quite attached to my body and its more temporary parts (shirts, hair, etc), and respect and care for my self-grown or artificial coverings; I would treat any replacement or modification thereof as equally valuable and deserving of care. Most of all, I want to be able to fix things if they break, and a replacement is a ways off -- That's a prime concern for anything I integrate with in a substantial life affecting way.
Fortunately my skin is self healing, it contains the data and systems needed to provide this function and I carry the repair mechanisms with me everywhere -- It's important to my continued exploration of this world. I know how contacts work exactly, their design is fully transparent to me. I know how to fix glasses and the mathematics for shaping their lenses are readily available to me. Where are the damn design documents, technical specs, and and source code for these new optical sensors you're selling me? If they're to become part of my body in a significant degree to change ME then I NEED this basic info, or we're at an impasse. I need to be able to know EVERYTHING about how they operate. If they're not just toys, if they will potentially help me change the life I live, then there are some CONCERNS and Criticisms that need to be addressed -- Firstly, your attitude towards my concerns, and secondly the degree of ownership I have over these new body parts we both want me to adopt.
I want to control my clothes. I don't want what I wear spying on me or sending signals that I don't want them to send. I don't want YOU to own MY BODY or everything that I do; Especially I don't want you owning copyright over all the things I see. There are a host of other concerns I have, but I don't care to voice them all here because I have better things to do than put forth questions into culture that will be ignored by the likes of Schmidt. If you shy away from the concerns of critics then I guess you don't care to reassure the people who are your prime adopters, most ready for change that you actually give a fuck about what's really important. The privacy implications become GREATLY increased the closer I integrate any technology with my brain, you fool!
Seriously, someone ought to filter this fucker's output because he's making himself out to be a fucking idiot. Let me get this straight, I shouldn't be able to give my eyeballs wings and let them soar over the land and see what they can see, but I shouldn't criticize people who want to co-opt my visions for marketing purposes? For someone who advocates adapting to social changes wrought by technological advances, Schmidt seems to be pretty fucking hypocritical when it comes to actually adjusting to the changes himself. That f
I don't leave anywhere near him. But people who do should start following him around in public. Filming everything he does, with a telephoto lens from afar if necessary. And posting it on the internet.
Because if he doesn't like that, he must just be one of those people afraid of change. If he's afraid of people recording what he's doing, maybe he shouldn't be doing it. Etc.
If someone threated, for example, to CHANGE the relative locations of his facial features (to rearrange his face, so to speak,) I'd wager he'd be "afraid" of such a change too, the smug, hypocritical bastard.
We don't much like the idea of people walking around having the ability to snap photos without having to do anything making it at least a little obvious that they're taking them, the same way we don't like, 364 days out of the year, people walking around wearing masks and costumes that obscure their faces so you can't tell who they are or what expression they're wearing.
Schmidt's supercilious attitude that anyone who doesn't like people walking around with cameras perched on their heads recording continuously is a Luddite, is an insult, quite frankly. How do you suppose he'd feel about people recording HIM everywhere he goes? For the sake of argument, let's pretend that he, like most of the rest of us, can't go off somewhere to hide from prying eyes and ears, given most of the rest of us aren't rich. He probably would feel different.
I have a bad feeling that people using Google Glass are going to get assaulted, battered, and have their "Glasses" ripped off their heads and shoved up their asses. The Schmidthead apparently thinks etiquette will keep people from misbehaving... he's really living in lala-land if he believes that schmidt.
As for society adapting, I think people will start to take more steps to avoid being photographed, such as with disguises, large sunglasses, etc., which I may have to go out and buy now.
When did Google cross over to the Dark Side (TM)? Does anyone know? They're clearly evil now, but when did it actually happen? When did they start down the Dark Path?
So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
This is often repeated, but realize that it can't record all the time. There's not enough CPU power, storage, or always-on network connectivity. This was an intentional decision to get it into the form factor at the right price point. Typically it's for still pictures and streaming really tiny pictures over Google Talk. If your strip club or movie theatre has WiFi in it and allows you to access in the venue, you might end up streaming postage stamps to people, at best.
Plus it will be pretty obvious when you take pictures, since you have to touch it active and say "Glass, take picture". The bouncer will likely throw you out at that point.
It basically doesn't do any more that your ordinary cell phone, and people pretend to text with those while filiming, and they have better net connectivity and local storage, even with no WiFi access.
People (drunk, ignorant, criminal, other, or any combination of the aforementioned) will attempt to shove it up your ass...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcdonalds-digital-eye-glass-photos_n_1680263.html
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Yes, but why doesn't Google free that protocol so you can run your own servers? I mean just being able to choose my own backend would make that thing much less problematic.
Sure not everybody will run their own servers, but I could choose to not trust Google but trust perhaps the local computer club running such a system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Compare his comments about the hobby of building and flying model airplanes http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/private-drones-pose-privacy-threat-says-googles-eric-schmidt-1C9340969 with Schmidt cautioned against jumping to the worst conclusions, saying that society always tends to adapt to new technologies — and he's hoping for etiquette rather than government regulation.
No. The strawman fallacy is the representation of the opponent's argument under a (perhaps superficially) similar or tangentially related position, one that is usually relatively easily defeated by some additional presented argument, and then presuming that by extension, the flaws that led to that position being defeated by the argument would indicate fatal flaws in the original position that was allegedly being represented.
Rather, suggesting that people who oppose Google Glass are merely afraid of change is most definitely a type of ad hominem fallacy, which is where the person presenting their view somehow attacks the people that disagree with the argument rather than the argument itself. Whether the attack might reflect a true statement is irrelevant, the fallacy lies in the fact that it does not actually address the critic's argument, but instead attacks the critic themselves.
In fact, this particular example is probably most similar to the notion of "poisoning the well", which pre-emptively presents adverse information about a target (who will presumably disagree with the arguer) with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person may be about to say.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's called ad-hominem attack and is pretty low on the "how good is your discussion position". It's basically a step up from "YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE, THAT'S WHY!"
A group of people who oppose something (or endorse it, depending on what you want to prove) and who is generally seen as "unfavorable" is picked out, everyone opposing/endorsing it is lumped into that group and then an argument is constructed around this negatively seen group and it is suggested that everyone opposing/endorsing something is in this group. The most infamous recent example would be the "if you're against CCTV, you must be a pedo" statement from ... IIRC a governor.
The attempt is to silence opposition by making them think if they are against/for something, they belong into this group that they don't want to belong in. In this example, nobody "hip" wants to be seen as a tech-hating Luddite, so you better get those Google goggles if you want to stay "hip".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because you could do something stupid. Everyone has the odd accident every now and then, a glass tipped, a spot of ice on the road where you slip, and let's not forget the good ol' split pants. Yes, these moments can be kinda embarrassing, but they're passing. A few people may see you try to keep your rear end covered as you do your best to get home without being seen, and it's horrible the moment it happens, but afterwards it's over. Some people may laugh about it, but it is forgotten 10 minutes later.
Not so with the internet.
All it takes is you wearing some kind of odd underwear or ... hell, whatever. Freak accidents happen. You slip, try to steady yourself with the table, knock it over, trip the cupboard with all the cake... you get the idea.
How long 'til it's a meme?
It will be embellished with some added photoshop pics and clever editing, making it look like your accident eventually tripped some nuke or something. I have to admit, my imagination for such things is a bit limited, but I guess everyone here can come up with at least one clever thing to do with it. 1% thereof might be funny enough to catch on.
Now multiply with a few million internet users.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I guess it wasn't your English teacher.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm reminded of Scott McNealy, formerly top dog at Sun, who (in)famously expressed a similar "privacy is dead" kind of attitude and believed everything belonged on the network rather than distributed/client-based. How's that working out for them?
I'm not sure getting rid of Google or Facebook will be quite so easy, but I am increasingly convinced that the tech world would be a better place if they disappeared tomorrow and we were forced to take a fresh look at how to do the kinds of things they do instead of many people just using them by default. There is way too much power over real people's lives being concentrated in a couple of US corporations with a track record of abuse, some morally questionable people running the show, and very limited (by the standards in most of the first world) safeguards to keep them in check. It is far from clear that if we started over on questions like "How do we find information?" or "How do we keep in touch with friends and family" then we'd decide the current ways of doing various things are the best ones, or even good ones.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.