Slashdot Mirror
Google Releases Glass Kernel Source Code
hypnosec writes "Google has released the kernel source code of Google Glass publicly just a couple of days after the wearable gadget was rooted by Jay Freeman. Releasing the source code, Google has noted that the location is just temporary and it would be moving to a permanent location soon saying: 'This is unlikely to be the permanent home for the kernel source, it should be pushed into git next to all other android kernel source releases relatively soon.'"
does it have kernel support for the HOSTS file?
Protip: When you leave your Mom's basement and go out into the world, you "lose privacy" and so does everyone else.
If you don't want Google Glass down in your dungeon lair, don't let people bring it in.
Protip 2: Smartphones are everywhere and have both video and audio recording devices built in, which can be secretly activated by the user! ZOMG!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
On the plus side, Singularity?
The kernel of glass is sand.
"Microsoft" and "you would have privacy" don't really fit well together, at all.
High UID: check
Ranting against Google: check
Rooting for Microsoft: check
Now why did that last sentence not surprise me? At least with Microsoft you would have *what*?
--frank[at]unternet.org
I couldn't really care less about the source being released. BUT, where's the article about it being rooted? Am I the only one that missed this?
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
Protip: putting your cell phone in people's faces to record them will result in you being shunned at the least, and having your face punched in at the worst.
Protip: walk away from a Google glass wearer, and cover part of your face, before returning to punch in their face. We'll teach google and them, we just have to take basic precautions as we launch them, on their serendipitous journey to social norms and sensitivity, back of the head first.
All of our actions will be recorded and analysed by company whose CEO said "if you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
We should all get on Schmidt's lawn, masturbate furiously, shit on it, and scream "I have NOTHING to hide!"
This isn't even only limited to YOU, personally, but everyone around you. Google Glasses will see everything you do and they will run facial recognition on EVERYBODY AROUND YOU. Not only will YOU lose privacy but EVERYONE ELSE TOO.
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces and private locations are free to ban video and photography just like they've always been, if they don't want it. I don't see what the big deal is.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Any privacy fear that apply to Glass applies to any smartphone as well. If anything, it's a lot less obvious when a smartphone user takes a picture or shoots a video than when a Glass wearer does the same.
If you worry about this aspect of privacy, you should have spoken out at about the time phones first started getting cameras.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Nah, privacy was never the complaint against Microsoft; not unless you just decide that because you hate one thing about Microsoft they must therefore also do anything else you hate.
I live in Europe. Here privacy doesn't end when you step outside. Hence the many problems Google is having in Germany and other EU countries.
Am I the only one INCREDIBLY bothered by the fact that I have seen this article at least 4 times, on different pages, and they all mention that it's compressed .tar.ZX?
Except that it you have to activate video recording manually.
And it would kill your battery in an hour if all that was running without your notice.
And source code is published so you could check that it's not happening.
As pointed out many times before, you can do much more stuff with your smartphone and you can still enforce "no glass" policy on your property.
I think you forgot two.
First post from a new account: check
First post on a thread: check
If it smells like a shill and it posts like a shill then I'm betting it's a shill.
Ah, then I'll just install a camera in your bathroom...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If I wear them while biking on a trail, how is it any different than GoPro or the like?
Sure, I can do all sorts of abusive things with them but if I am actively trying to respect people's privacy while wearing them I don't see the problem.
This may come as a shock, but you have no expectation of privacy when you're out in public. There are similar arguments that could be made about surveillance cameras (in the UK and elsewhere), but you have to look at the big picture. This is a good thing in the long run. The trend towards inter-connectivity continues.
seems /. is going the way of digg
make crap stories and the user base will dissolve.
Check out this same story reported here.
http://www.ijailbreak.com/jailbreak/google-glass-jailbroken/
While out in public it is a intrusion of privacy, or almost anywhere really but I can see many practical uses for this in work environments. For example people who do product transport being able to read bar codes and know where to stock at or place in proper bin etc... One of thousands of practical applications.
Our whole PLANET (not only the nation) will be in danger.
There are issues with privacy from Google Glass, but you're going a little far. Even in the worst imaginable case, that we all end up living in a panopticon when we go outside, the PLANET is not going to be destroyed.
Re-adjust, recalibrate yourself to reality so people take you seriously again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They released the source code - so it'd be easy enough to make sure the glasses doesn't send imagery to google, At that point, someone wearing the glasses is no different from someone running around with a camcorder. Making street movies is ok.
There are other uses than filming though. I want a wearable monitor - so I can read stuff while walking. Or see maps of where I am. A small device on my glasses is ideal. Camera is not needed - except perhaps to provide transparency.
Nah, the late MS pro-privacy campaign is more of a PR stunt (aka "we are doing something different than google"). Their record is more or less on par with Google (they have Bing that is just as information hungry).
The only reason we didn't see many headlines about that is because MS don't really do much innovation these days and no one cares.
I downloaded it and it's mostly just a Linux kernel source tarball, complete with HOWTOs and documentation from the Linux developers. And lots of hardware drivers.
Yeah there's probably Google Glass-specific stuff in there somewhere, but you'd need to be practiced at building the Linux kernel to spot them, because Google apparently decided not to point it out for us.
Which is why I want to see Google and several other large corporations pool their money and fund a private army to overthrow Germany and the EU.
The corrupt Cultural Marxists in charge have had it coming for a long time. Remember their recent attempt to ban porn in the EU?
As I live in a country where corruption is rampant and where police officials openly ask for bribes and misbehave with people, I can't wait for thousands of people to be wearing these babies all the time.
It's about time we started watching our government publicly. This will revolutionize things, make no mistake.
Google guns
rewriting history since 2109
But the release of the code provided the means to find out there is code in there for controlling glass via facial gestures such as winking. Combine this with the earlier concern of people taking pictures or videos say in a restroom or up skirt up steps where the people who claimed oh you have to push a button or say a command to do so... Well just wink and its on.
And it's funny this is all being developed by a guy who doesn't want people owning drones that could film others.. Such as the parrot ar.drone.
On a side note, with all the reviews and ads it seems the main focus and feature being demoed is its ability to take phots and video......
The only guy I know who uses "Cultural Marxists" is Breivik, the crazy norwegian that killed about 70 people ...
If you want to see me shitting dancing naked, and smoking in the shower go ahead. And those are the more normal things i do. WATCH AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION.
Not so. You're more likely to notice someone holding out a smartphone taking pictures and stuff, where as with glass it was discovered there's code and an apk with facial control features such as winking to take a picture etc. Since someone could much more easily just turn their head and wink to snap a picture vs holding a phone out.. Pretty sure you could do so much more covertly with glass than any phone (restrooms, up skirt, etc)
Europe also has the U.K in it. Which with all the CCTV cameras pretty much nullifies your point. Before you throw out blanket statements about what "Europe" does, you might want to double check what your neighbors are doing.
There is where I live. The fact that you do not know what the big deal is, is the big deal.
Remember how they got to Big Brother? Not by going to war. They got there because people were not interested in their privacy.
Or to quote from yet somewhere else: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I think Google Glass would be more acceptable in public (if still nerdy) if there were a version with no camera embedded, for use just for display to the user. I realize that limits its use somewhat, but if you just want to surf the web or watch videos it should be fine. Or perhaps have a detachable camera that's obvious that it's been detached.
It is creepy to have that little camera eye pointed at me, whether or not it is recording. Even if there is a red recording light (I don't know whether or not there is), I still don't know that it's not recording surreptitiously (with software that turns off the red light).
I would be greatly annoyed by anyone with a phone camera constantly pointed at me while I'm talking to them (unless I've consented to an interview or photo). Google Glass is no different.
Literally nothing in your post is true, you twat.
Google glass meet duct tape.
Pretty sure you could do so much more covertly with glass than any phone (restrooms, up skirt, etc)
Should I remind you why some countries, like Japan, demand all camera phones to make a shutter sound when snapping a pic?
Because lowering your arm with a phone camera-side up and pressing the button is too damn easy, so you're about decade too late with your OMG UNDERSKIRT VOYEURS scare.
Now imagine nonchalantly doing the same with Google Glass.
PS: "OMG taking photos by winking" + "OMG covert upskirt photos" make a nice combination. Covertly peek under her skirt and wink! Alternatively, smoothly put your Glass under her skirt and say aloud "OK, Glass, take a picture!"
The only guy I know who uses "Cultural Marxists" is Breivik, the crazy norwegian that killed about 70 people ...
You should get out of your mom's basement more
Just insert a disallow line in your personal robots.txt file. - Maybe we can end up having some sort of robots.txt to wear, recognizable from devices such as glass. All this technology is new, so there's much things to try and invent.
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
A smartphone in a belt case with the camera on is effectively the same as Glass. I'm pretty sure you'd notice someone taking an "up-skirt" shot with Google Glass much more than with a cell phone, especially if they were actually wearing them at the time.
"In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these?"
Ubiquity, penetration, and connectivity.
Even in "first-world" countries this may help a little with some police abuse. Conversely though, you may find you get a "warning" for speeding, etc, less frequently.
... And which of those do phones lack?
Yeah right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union
'Eurnion, Fuck Yeah!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
All this hyperbole about invasion of privacy is nice and all, but isn't anyone interested in the fact that they open-sourced the code? This means that if you want you can probably get custom firmwares in the near future that have no internet connectivity at all and do exactly what *you* want like a good piece of hardware should. Stream video to your own servers for example?
They're wearing a fucking camera on their fucking head.
It doesn't get more obvious than that.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Considering Google's price point compared to other devices with all of the same capabilities, do you genuinely feel that there is still a high danger of ubiquity?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's funny how people rationalize the spread of privacy-loss by saying theres some privacy loss out there already.
This will revolutionize things, make no mistake.
Just as the democratizing influence of the internet has finally pulled national politics out of the sewer /bs
Really? The surveillance cameras in the UK beg to differ. Obviously there has to be a balance between freedom and privacy, we're just going to figure it out as we go, as we always have.
In your rush to make a point, you didn't sniff test your logic (lol). You're worried about secret up skirt shots being taken by glasses THAT ARE ON SOMEONE'S FACE.
Start over. Try again. So you made an embarrassing post on the Internet. It's not the end of the world. You will eventually get it right.
What will stop a corrupt police official from removing your google glass, stepping on it and then further misbehaving? If you are relying on other people in the vicinity to record the misconduct then the ubiquitous cell phone camera already serves that purpose.
CCTVs in UK are owned by local authorities. They can do pretty much what they want with the cameras. You, OTOH, as an individual, cannot.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Assuming we try to differentiate between the EU and the USA this EU mass surveillance is something the USA has had in place for many years without the political discussion and legal basis Europe is trying to give it.
An other big difference is the average EU citizen might not particularly like mass surveillance but given the choice he'd much rather have it done by their own regulated government institutions than by a bunch of unregulated (rogue) private/commercial/foreign companies that in many cases are in bed with the US government.
--
Teun
The form factor is a lot different. Someone wearing Google Glass is basically carrying a video camera and mic at eye level everywhere they go, and are actively uploading the content. Contrast that with a cell phone camera which has to be taken out of the users' pocket and aimed, and then manually uploaded. Yeah, the latter could be done unobtrusively by an expert, but with Glass, the wearer can be basically oblivious to his surroundings (I chose the masculine pronoun which should be sufficient) and still be recording in full detail, which I'm sure is considered a HUGE advantage by the c----py folks in Mountain View with their data centers all over the world crunching petabytes of data.
Two things:
1. Instant video streaming to my private youtube channel will preserve everything. So destroying my glasses will just make things worse for them.
2. It's far easier for other people to activate recording via google glass without drawing attention to themselves. The police can pick out people who are recording with cell phone cameras. Not with this.
There is where I live. The fact that you do not know what the big deal is, is the big deal. Remember how they got to Big Brother? Not by going to war. They got there because people were not interested in their privacy.
Or to quote from yet somewhere else: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
So I guess you don't live in the United States. I am really concerned about protecting these rights, which you seem to want to constrict.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
How is this any different than being a photographer? It's not.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
No. They aren't. It lacks the battery power to do it "everywhere you go".
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Wow, how to tell when people are ignorant:
They get all their ideas about government from novels.
Or from high-quality Hollywood entertainment.
Various Greek states had democracy that wasn't forced on them (unlike, say, Germany), and wasn't in the imagination of the maker of popular kids movies. Why don't you look at how they lost it, and what problems they had? You'll end up much wiser.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> everywhere they go, and are actively uploading the content
> the wearer can be basically oblivious to his surroundings (I chose the masculine pronoun which should be sufficient) and still be recording in full detail
[citation needed]
Especially about the part where they built in a microscopic GPRS/WiFi card into the frame with free Internet access to constantly upload it to Creeps from Mountain View and a microscopic fusion reactor so all-the-time-recording-and-uploading Glass will have battery live over an hour or two.
Otherwise, do go on with your FUDdy ramblings.
Dear European proud of your privacy laws,
You do realize, don't you, that innocuous privacy loss to corporations may be thwarted, but that complete loss to governments proceeds unhindered?
Ask your elderly grandma before she slips away about he primary problem of all history: government spying on citizenz, and not to sell your name off in an advertising list to Depends Undergarments.
Morpheus: You've...missed the point.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I imagine a bunch of french people holding signs in protest of Google Glass saying "don't look at me! don't look at me!"
Staring up skirts of someone up the stairs is considered pretty rude, you know, whether you wear Google Glass or not, as is staring at the dick of the guy at the next urinal.
Holding a phone oriented in needed direction in your hand in those cases is pretty much unnoticeable.
Seriously, think your FUD through.
stepping on it and then further misbehaving?
Always online streaming upload.
staring at the dick of the guy at the next urinal
... and then winking.
Yeah, what could go wrong?
you have no expectation of privacy when you're out in public
This is such a common, glib statement, but let's put it in a way which makes it clear how evil this is:
This basically means there is no way for a bunch of free people to go out and expect to discuss in private what they think. This means that people who live in small houses with their stay at home parents have no way to have personal privacy at all. I know this comes as a quote from decisions of US courts. You should think about the threat that puts freedom in the USA under.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Photos generally make a noise when they take a picture due to regulations that require them to in order to make it more obvious when someone is being a creep. There is a fine line between harassing people and taking public pictures and I think some google glasses users are going to find that out the hard way.
You're also likely to get punched in the head for constantly recording someone if they find out. Maybe it's illegal if they do it but it won't mean much while your head is bouncing off their fist.
So, if someone takes a picture of you in the bushes, you're gonna do as a freedom loving USAian should and sue the hell out of the photographer?
If somebody sits behind you when you "go out and expect etc.", will you tell the eavesdropper to wipe his memory?
Do you behave like that now? What's gonna change? I hope you won't roll out quantitative (and questionable for this case) "it's always recording!" and "it's everywhere!" and "it's uploading everything for all to see!" - it's all possible even now, but explain what's the qualitative difference between your "privacy" in public places now and your "loss" of it in the future.
The only guy I know who uses "Cultural Marxists" is Breivik, the crazy norwegian that killed about 70 people ...
You should get out of your mom's basement more
Point of order: Breivik is a person who lived with his mother and used that term.
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
The Kinect is only affecting the homes of people who choose to install the things. Glass is designed to be worn on the go. That's probably why Glass is seen as being more controversial and invasive.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
No worries. They will be released in the US and thousands of US citizens will be using them.
Both of you are somewhat wrong - the UK has a lot of CCTV cameras, certainy, but absolutely no where near the amount that "study" showed. We also have the Data Protection Act, which allows individuals to ask any and all CCTV operators to supply them with a copy of every capture they have made of you, for a minimal fee.
Also, out of the CCTV cameras installed, I'd say much less than half of them are local authority owned, most of them are privately owned and operated - and those that are owned and operated by the LA are still answerable to the DPA.
Yes, smartphones are usually in men's pockets or women's purse. If the VENDOR secretly activated those cameras, they'll likely see pure black.
If glasses secretly activate, they'll see what people are seeing.
In any case, I expect to see "no google glasses" signs appearing in banks, geek's house, etc soon.
Interesting how you write like you know so much more than the GP, and yet your post contains absolutely no actual specific knowledge -- much less reasoning why the GP is wrong.
It connects to your phone dumbass.
The quote is from Star Wars Episode 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM
So your phone has free, unlimited, unmonitored uplink, and it wirelessly transfers power to Glass to mitigate battery drain from recording and transmitting?
Seriously, did you even try to understand my point before trying to be smartass?
With smartphones it is usually clear when someone is recording someone else because of the physical location of the camera. It is not common or socially acceptable to record a person that you are interacting with. And glass has the potential to be recording all the time while it is very inconvenient to walk around recording everything with your cellphone.
A person who wears a spycam all the time and is found out will generally be shunned. Google glass has the appearance of legitimacy.
Video cameras by the government or private companies are governed by some set of regulations that mean they can't just post something you said to facebook or youtube.
The end result of Google glass is that now you have a situation where, so long as you are interacting with a person wearing Google glass, you may be being recorded. This will end up being very tiresome as people have to "watch what they say" all the time. The change is not a qualitative change: whenever people interact with others, in private or public, what they say or do may become known in another context. It is a quantitative change: now there is only one context: your boss can hear the dirty joke you tell at a party. Your friends and coworkers can hear the awkward one liner you use on a girl at a bar. Every political statement you make must be vetted for "racism", "sexism", "homophobia" and "anti-semitism", or you will be thrown out of university.
Btw I'm not saying they should be banned, I'm just explaining why I think Google glass does raise novel concerns about privacy.
Sure you know when you're being recorded, when the red light's on. As far as I know from comments on ArsTechnica, light and camera use the same opening in the case, so simple "tape it over" is not viable. And would be damn suspicious anyways. And if someone'd go to those lengths to covertly record you, he could do it cheaper and inconspicuously with a phone (which doesn't have convenient red light). That phone slightly peeking out of my shirt pocket, is it sleeping or is it filming?
And if you mean "don't know when you're recorded" as in "someone behind me across the room", well, do you casually scan your surroundings to check whether anyone has his phone up?
The more covert you get, the more obvious it is that you were doing it covertly and intentionally. If you were caught sneaking a spy cam into a locker room it's a lot more damning than if you "forgot" to deposit your smart phone since there's so many oblivious people who actually do. Google Glass will be the same, say people at the gym are using it to watch body monitors or follow a fitness schema or record their amounts of exercise or whatever, then they just "forgot" to take it off as they walk through the changing area to their locker. You're of course free to go ballistic but the vast majority will just be people that were exhausted, thoughtless or ignorant of the issue and it will be just a slap on the wrist. It'll to do pointing a camera what cell phones did to carrying a camera, make it totally normal and impossible to ban from most areas.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Anyway, I guess that gadget will not be welcome in cinemas.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Interesting how you write like you know so much more than the GP, and yet your post contains absolutely no actual specific knowledge
It had specific knowledge: it mentioned that the Greeks had democracy then lost it. I willingly admit that's not much, but it is sadly more than the post in question.
much less reasoning why the GP is wrong.
The reason he is wrong is because his knowledge is based on imaginary stories. You can't argue with that, all you can do is try to help him get his foot back in reality.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
You don't see the difference between a stationary recording device that people choose to place in their own homes versus a mobile device others wear that can record you anywhere without your consent?
#DeleteChrome
"Rooting" means exploiting a security flaw to get root privileges in a device that is designed to prevent users from doing that (e.g. the iPhone or the Android phones sold by some US network operators).
Bootloader unlocking and root access was available and well documented on the first Android device designed by Google (the Nexus One), simply by running the command "fastboot oem unlock".
The same command worked on the second Android phone by Google, the Nexus S, and all subsequent devices, including tablets: Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and Nexus 10. Unsurprisingly it also works on Glass.
It's just a well know feature of all the devices created by Google. Details: https://plus.google.com/112413860260589530492/posts/jYHhKHYwUJ2.
Google's documentation on how to "root" your Android devices: http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
It's the CIA's dream, dumbass
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
agree, strongly. Thanks for the vocalizing of the issue which has been remarkably off the public debate radar for the last 10 years.
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
agree again.
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Well, I guess I addressed them by agreeing with them. And I think the emphasis of my remaining 'criticism' here (other than being a Google critic for network neutrality hypocrisy[1]), is that I find enlightening the recent lawsuits against android manufacturers that they patch or replace known insecure consumer mobile phones in operation. That issue, and at least what makes it a real issue even if you disagree with the prescribed solution, is a big deal. And Google Glass is just a little I/O attachment for mobile phones. Bluetooth headset +video in/out. Ok, whatever.
[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3643919&cid=43438341
Various Greek states had democracy that wasn't forced on them (unlike, say, Germany), and wasn't in the imagination of the maker of popular kids movies.
Please. The number of citizens in those Greek states - total - was in the few tens of thousands. The number of slaves was many, many times that.
Greek "democracy" was a farce.
#DeleteChrome
Punching a Google glass wearer isn't practical: 1) hitting folks with glasses is bad form, and 2) they got first hand video evidense of you hitting them (not a victimless crime, like hitting someone in the dark :-).
If nobody gives a shit about privacy, then why are we having those discussions? Apparently somebody gives a shit about privacy (and indeed, probably more people than you think). And it doesn't matter if they are the majority or the minority. You don't lose your basic rights just from being in the minority.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
A word to the wise.
Be sure to turn off the Glass or look straight ahead when you pee, guys. No unnecessary live stream, please.
I don't see why there's a huge panic over it when wearable recording devices have been on the market for at least 10 years, including I believe one from Microsoft quite a while ago. I seem to remember the discussion at the time being amazement that someone would sacrifice their own privacy, not that of others. As others are stating here again and again, people have been able to, and have actually been recording you without your consent for decades.
The difference is secrecy, you can hardly pass as a spy if in the middle of a conversation you take out your phone, unlock it, select the camera (yes, some stoopid people don't know you can reach it from the lock state), wait for the camera to focus and make a picture. On the other hand you can presumably record with google glasses an arranged meeting maybe without raising suspicious. To put it in other way, when you call a company the robot says "For monitoring purposes this call may be recorded". It's a big deal to record private conversations or walk into somebody's property and record everything. Just because technology makes it easier doesn't mean you should. But if you've never given a crap, you clearly have what you deserve.
Protip: Punching someone in the face who is legally recording in public can result in large fines, lawsuits and prison time. Are you willing to wreck your life over it?
And all of those people who "worry" about privacy are hypocrits.
Google(search, gmail, etc..), Facebook, and others are a much bigger threat to privacy.
They know your friends, your conversation with your froends, your deepest thoughts, your most secret desires, they know you more about you than any person close to you.
Somebody recording on video what you do in public is nothing compared to that.
So save the bullshit.
First you go "take a picture", then you go "record a conversation", huh?
If you'd be so intent on recording a conversation, you'd do it easily with a phone. Just say you've got to switch it to silent, start filming and then leave it on the table. You could even fidget with it to get better view and most wouldn't pay attention (rest would go "You're annoying, stop it.")
With Glass you have a red LED behind the same hole with the camera, and if Google people are any smart, hardwired into camera's power.
So yeah, from this and the fact that our privacy didn't crumble with introduction of cameraphones I infer whole this problem is overblown.
The difference lies in the degree of efficiency provided by the combination of a permanently recording device with a database. Labeling your environment nowadays means taking out your cellphone, photograph the scenery, upload it online and do some research about all people visible. This takes too much time for someone to seriously exploit it. Google Glass on the other hand is supposed to do all this stuff in real time and label and upload the currently recorded data too even from complete strangers you don't know or care about but others do. Incidents, that would go unnoticed otherwise would be immediately escalated to the worst possible level in Google's intent to make the info available to everyone who might be interested. Like "Watch photos of Steve getting drunk on a distant mountain resort where he hoped nobody knew him".
Until the government shows interest in recordings predominantly featuring your friends and you.
This "kernel" actually has a name, it's called "Linux".
He's still correct though.
Free? Doesn't matter.
Unlimited? Doesn't matter much but yeah I could get upload with no data cap for a cheap price.
Unmonitored? Why does it matter? How "unmonitored" is enough? But I guess I'd say yes. I suppose you can encrypt the stream any way you want.
The battery was my issue. Even if it hooked up to a phone. But then again there's battery packs.
I'll just link you here and hope _you_ can finally tell me what magic do they use to keep it always on and always uploading, adding also a [citation needed] on "intent to make the info available to everyone who might be interested"
Seriously, parroting same set of FUD arguments not even giving it a single critical thought gets kinda boring.
The harder it gets to tell when you are being recorded, the more of a problem it potentially poses society. That is, if you think privacy is worth protecting.
All of those wouldn't matter if it was you building device for yourself.
Telling people to get a better Internet (because Big Brother has trouble watching you, you insensitive clod!) and especially "Well, you should lug around a few battery packs, because instead of activating when you ask for we're constantly draining the battery" won't sell very well.
And how's "he's still correct" when he (well, just as anyone claiming that's how Glass behaves) didn't provide a citation for this behaviour?
You have neither the legal or moral right to hit anyone, unless you are protecting you or yours from an immediate danger to their life/ well being. Your attitude reeks of being a violent bully, modern society has no place for them. Get with the program.
The reason he is wrong is because his knowledge is based on imaginary stories.
Which aren't necessarily an inaccurate reflection of reality, if they are then yes he would be wrong, but since you can't explain, or don't know, why there is no reason to put any more stock in what you say than what he says.
isn't anyone interested in the fact that they open-sourced the code?
Well it's hardly surprising, they are legally required to do so under the license.
Ok I suppose you do make a good point, I didn't even think about it that way.
The Luddites are out in force today. Try putting a little thought into it instead of letting your imagination run riot with doomsday scenarios.
First of all Google glass does have a recording light. Secondly, Google Glass stands out like dogs balls making it a very poor choice for surreptitious recording. A smart phone in a shirt pocket with it's camera peeking out over the top makes a much better choice. It doesn't have a recording light, it doesn't look out of place, and its larger storage capacity battery means it might last a useful amount of time.
The idea of an always on HUD has been an exciting prospect for years. Google is trying to make it a reality. In theory it could mean never having to take your phone out of your pocket to access information - it would be right there, in front of you, when you need it. In practice this iteration isn't likely to make the promise a reality. It is to constrained by battery power, CPU power, storage capacity and weight, so much so that they haven't put a 3G radio in it. It is unlikely it will have enough battery to survive a short evening outing. My guess is people in Google are scratching their heads, wondering how they are going to dampen the hype that has built up around glass down, as there is no way this first attempt can live up to it.
I thought Linux was GPL 2, not 3, and it wasn't required, but I may be mistaken.
I thought Linux was GPL 2, not 3, and it wasn't required, but I may be mistaken.
Yes, Linux is GPL v2, but it is still required, v3 just prevents Tivoization.
A couple days after an end user got ahold of the gadget? Congratulations, you have just violated thePL.
Can we please stop tolerating these "I promise, we'll release real soon now" excuses for violating the GPL? Sure, some companies (like Google) have a pretty good track record of actually following through, but so many, MANY others don't. The source code has to be made available before or at the same time as the binary (i.e. the devices shipped). Either directly, or through a written offer. "We'll release it shortly" is not a valid excuse.
The product has not actually shipped yet. Some early models have been released in a limited beta test. While this is a technicality, so is your point about the supposed GPL violation.
Of course, this being Google, a beta test product could be in public use by millions of people for many years... Google uses the phrase beta-test from a business model perspective (as in "we are testing to see if there is a viable business use case for this product") as opposed to the engineering perspective (as in "we are testing the functionality and/or looking for bugs in the code").
Doesn't GPL 2 mean you don't need to release your own changes, just make the original source available?
On the light, I see now that Google glass comes with a "recording" light. However, this could be changed in the future. Smartphones generally do not have such lights anymore.
The Luddites are out in force today. Try putting a little thought into it instead of letting your imagination run riot with doomsday scenarios.
Try dropping the attitude, mate.
Google Glass stands out like dogs balls making it a very poor choice for surreptitious recording.
When lots of people are using Google glass, they won't stand out very much. A person holding up their smartphone constantly to record things will. The light exists now, but since smartphones no longer all have "recording" lights, how long will Glass?
Protip: if you're really concerned about privacy, you stay in the medieval 'root' cellar and have no education except by dead tree books, transact everything in cash, and never get sick.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
No, with the GPLv2 if you are distributing a derivative work you must make the source code of the derivative work available. Tivo did that with their changes however the argument against their practice was not about source code but about hardware, whilst you could modify the source code you couldn't modify the binaries running on the Tivo hardware. The GPLv3 imposes requirements on the vendor such that in the Tivo situation had the software been under the v3 they would be required to provide the tools and instructions necessary to replace the shipped GPLv3 software with a modified version of it.
This has widely been seen as overly restrictive, particularly when you have an intermediary - like Tivo - that has to balance the demands of content producers with the demands of customers. It's all well and good to say 'open open open', but until major content producers are happy with that it will remain a non-starter for these types of applications.
Speaking for myself, if I had to choose between government surveillance and private surveillance (thinking Google, Facebook), I'd choose the private, even if unregulated. The government is going to try to control me, while Google is going to try to sell me stuff.
Granted, I don't want either situation.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
People have smartphones out in their hands all around me every day. On my commute half a dozen people could be taking my picture or filming me every second of the time without any way for me to know or avoid it.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Google Glass flashes an LED at you whenever the camera is operating. Phones, meanwhile have lots of ways to stop the fake shutter sound (including apps, and just simply cover the speaker), and they don't make any sound at all for movies.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
Lovely Slashdot logic: don't trust a company that has never abused their user's privacy (they've done other bad things, but not that), but do trust a company whose almost every product is predicated on the removal of privacy for profit.
But Google uses Linux and you're just a git clone away from compiling the source, so the nerds don't care. (Yet somehow, they deride everyone else who gives away their privacy on Facebook...)
Not accepting that Glass is extremely privacy-invasive is foolish. People would take us nerds more seriously if we weren't so absurd.
Citations please. Otherwise, this is just fanboy fantasy bullshit.
You're right that Scroogled is a PR stunt, but the reality behind it is true, even if exaggerated. Google has very little sense of privacy. For them, all the data they can collect on you is fair game for them to analyze any way they want, they just don't give it to others too much. Other tech companies, like MS and Apple, do collect and analyze data, but they show actual respect for the user's privacy.
I'm personally not too worried by Google most of the time (they do cross my own personal lines from time to time, and one recent line-crossing is keeping me from using Android devices, even though I quite like them), but they are in a whole league of their own when it comes to being big brother without the guns. Head and shoulders away from MS (and I don't terribly like defending MS, but they do have some positive qualities).
I think what you mean is, "if it disagrees with me, it's a shill post".
Ironic that an AC would complain about someone else's lack of established posting history...
Greek "democracy" was a farce.
And yet it was still infinitely more real and instructive than Star Wars. Do you disagree?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
One mike think you are an extremist, but this is the true nature of it. MS does not care about your privacy.
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -Albert Einstein
that's the whole point, isn't it? they're wearing the glass all the time, so you never know if they're snapping it or not.
The idea of an always on HUD has been an exciting prospect for years.
nerd.
The moderation of the parent and grandparent comments speaks volumes about the stupidity of people on this website. To me that appears like confirmation of the parent's assumption that people here really *do* believe they aren't being trolled and that this is all some corporate campaign targeted at slashdot comments, though oddly enough they don't ever seem to have any moderation points.
It's so bizarre that nowadays on this website a story about Microsoft or Apple or Google, technical or otherwise, will quickly turn into 600+ comments of "shill" this, "evil" that, gpl vs bsd, fuck you xyz fanboy, etc. and yet the technical aspects are rarely mentioned. Scientific or technical advances are lucky to get 100 comments. Posters here would rather argue about the radius of a rounded rectangle and who invented it than they would discuss anything technical, it's frankly pathetic.
Because the mark of the beast is now available not just on your right hand, but also on your forehead!
And so, it becomes clearer why the Google Chrome logo has the "666" hidden in it - so you can have not only the name of the beast on your chosen device... but also.. the number of his name!
Kind of a shame really, cause I was totally sure that Steve Jobs was the Anti-Christ. Eric Schmidt is a bit of a let down.
"In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these?"
Those cheap devices are not connected, aside from an SD Card.
Glass is connected, pretty much all the time...
Big difference.
PhamNguyen nailed it -- this is exactly the problem.
Its like every moment of your (public) life will be recorded. Everyone says something stupid from time to time.
I wonder how many marriages will go down because someone statements were recoreded in a "friendly round with a couple of guys".
Also on many cameras (the Kinect for instance) the "Recording Light" is software controllable. You can activate the camera and still have the light set to off.
"high-quality Hollywood entertainment."
Ho-ho-ho.
Good one.
Last time I checked, the UK was part of Europe.
I also noticed that those cameras did not stop the subway bombing.
Glass is on and recording all the time - everything the wearer sees and does.
Phones still require a good bit of manual fumbling, and it would be very inconvenient to have one rigged to record your every move.
Glass is not on and recording all the time and requires manual fumbling to record (as in press button to record 10 second clip and tap the side to extend those 10 seconds), but thank you for playing.
Seriously, repeating same bit of misinformation over and over gets pretty old.
Aren't there a billion cameras on the streets of london?
Does this mean CyanogenMod: Google Glass Edition?
AC has been posting here for YEARS.
The bits where 1) they're visible clearly to everyone else, and 2) they're clearly visible to everyone else.
Clearly the only thing that could make the Glass more dangerous is duct-taping a laser pointer to the side, or possibly painting them black.
Yea recording lights are really difficult to defeat. *sigh*
If you goofball nerds wanna walk around with head gear, go for it. Just plan on being foolish looking and somewhat outcast, though I guess you're probably already.
Shouldn't you be taking a dump in the streets right now? Or perhaps bathing in cumin instead of soap. Filthy creature.
Also, malevonent glass users can easily remove the light with a little dab of paint.
You know whats amazing? If I point my SLR at people: they get out of the way! If I'm inside many places of business taking photos? They tell me to stop.
I can take photos on the street, yes. Public parks, yes. It will just creep people out. But stores, offices? That's entirely their call.
Privacy died before you were even born, get over it.
To b fair, you can hardly pass as a spy wearing google Glass either... They are rather obvious-looking.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I my country their are certain constitutional guarantees of privacy. Privacy is important to normal human beings, regardless of what nearly socially lifeless geeks might think
You didn't consider Episode 3 to be the epitome?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
what about passive glasses with no camera? passive cameras with a pinhole camera that no one short of a jewler could tell? or prescription devices that use cameras because otherwise the person will be blind. Or we go into the realm of scifi and devices that can tap the optic nerve to inject data into the sensory data going into it, or extract sensory data from it.
We get into some serious problems and issues that just saying "PERVERTS!!! BAN IT ALL!!" will cause more problems then it will solve.
The owner doesn't even have to participate to spy. Who knows who will be trying to insert spyware into those things.
Do keep in mind the the Constitution is a set of constraints binding the federal government.
Except where otherwise tweaked by law, private companies have a great deal more leeway, e.g. refusing service and escorting you off premises if they don't like what you're saying.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
assume they are all the time and you'll be fine.
Wake me up when I can use it for walking or biking directions and fitness tracking for at least 6 hours, and can charge it via solar panels and I'm in. I'd gladly take somethnig like that backpacking with me. Being able to take a panorama shot without getting a camera out or removing hiking poles or taking the bag off would be handy, but it needs to be light weight, and have very long battry life, and be weather proof.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
AC has been posting here for YEARS.
Correct. I've been posting since before they even implemented the UID feature or the delaying posting feature. I can post more often than any other user. Slashdot is my life.
assume they are all the time and you'll be fine.
I will be like the OP and if I see someone wearing them i will give him a pop. then all will be fine.