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.'"
I can't believe that people are thinking of even testing these Google's glasses. You have to wake up and realize how HUGE privacy loss they are.
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.
Our whole PLANET (not only the nation) will be in danger. 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". Hilariously, when CNET dug up some dirt about Schmidt, they got an year long ban from Google's PR.
I would understand you if this was a product from Microsoft and you could just the software on your own, but this is Google and we all know that Google wants to access and analyse everyones information. At least with Microsoft you would have privacy.
Wake up before it's too late!
does it have kernel support for the HOSTS file?
The kernel of glass is sand.
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.
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!"
Nobody gives a shit about privacy anymore. The whole concept of privacy is outdated, outmoded, obsolete, and irrelevant.
You whining about how privacy is going away is like someone a hundered years ago whining about how most people aren't subsistence farmers anymore. Society is changing. Deal with it or whither into irrelevance.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
"In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these?"
Ubiquity, penetration, and connectivity.
... And which of those do phones lack?
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'
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.
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
> 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.
It connects to your phone dumbass.
A couple days after an end user got ahold of the gadget? Congratulations, you have just violated the GPL.
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.
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
"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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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?
The idea of an always on HUD has been an exciting prospect for years.
nerd.
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.
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.
Does this mean CyanogenMod: Google Glass Edition?
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.
Also, malevonent glass users can easily remove the light with a little dab of paint.
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'
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.