Slashdot Mirror
Congress Demands Answers From Google Over Google Glass Privacy Concerns
Today eight members of the U.S. Congress have sent a letter to Google's Larry Page, asking him to address a number of privacy concerns about Google Glass. In the letter (PDF), they brought up the company's notorious Street View data collection incident, and asked how the company was planning to avoid a similar privacy breach with Glass. They also ask how Google is going to build Glass to protect the privacy of non-users who may not want their every public move to be recorded. Further, they ask about the security of recordings once they are made: "Will Google Glass have the capacity to store any data on the device itself? If so, will Google Glass implement some sort of user authentication system to safeguard stored data? If not, why not?" Google has until July 14th to respond.
Google Glass is visible, right there up on the wearer's face. What about all those cell phones that can do video recording, and can do that video recording right there from your shirt pocket, with no visible indication? Cameras are getting pretty small these days. Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons.
Can I ask Congress the same question about the US Governments data collection efforts?
- How is the US Government going to protect the privacy of Citizens who may not want their every public move (phone call, email, etc ) to be recorded?
- What about the security of the recordings that are made - Will the US implement some sort of user authentication system to safeguard stored data? If not, why not?
There's a whole sequence of questions that I'd much rather hear the answer to than similar questions about a dorky headpiece.
And the worms ate into his brain.
You can vote out the government, atleast theoretically, or move outside its jurisdiction. No such luck with people wearing Google Glass all around you in public, in the office, even the bathroom stalls at Google I/O.
Eight members of Congress on Thursday formally demanded that Google address a range of privacy concerns about its new wearable technology device, Google Glass.
Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yah.
Give us some campaign contributions, and use of your private jets and we'll be gone - in the meantime, we'll use this to fool our constituents that we care.
Cynical? Yep.
Am I right? Yep.
They only care because that means a individual may accidentally record them picking up a hooker or something else scandalous. If congress was somehow exempt from the decrease in privacy, they wouldn't give a rats behind.
Where were these questions when LEO and private businesses rolled out CCTV everywhere?????????
Good-bye
When using Google Glass, is it true that this product would be able to use Facial Recognition Technology to unveil personal information about whomever and even some inanimate objects that the user is viewing? Would a user be able to request such information? Can a non-user or human subject opt out of this collection of personal data? If so, how? If not, why not?
Substitute "google glass" with "United States Law Enforcement" and you begin to see how fucking hypocritical this entire endeavor is
Good people go to bed earlier.
Google Glass is merely the public facing tip of a very large iceberg. Wearable cameras arent going away.
Good-bye
Yep, very soon our every move will be monitored. Not much we can do about that, but we could legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution so that most people have nothing to hide, and we no longer create black markets for desirable items. We'd also stop treating peaceful people as criminals.
Here's what might be a more useful link: The Photographer’s Right
You can vote out the government
No, not even theoretically can you do that. All you can do is vote IN leaders, who MIGHT be able to make changes in government organizations... but the organizations are very entrenched, and have many levers to prevent the people voted in from making changes.
This is why it is such a bad idea to form any new government entities, because they exist only to keep existing and to exert more and more control.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No, what happened is that the interest of politicians and the people they're supposed to represent aligned in this one case.
You see, imagine if people were using Glass - and recording stuff around them. Let's say it captures a politician coming out of a less-than-completely-upstanding business (which could be anything someone can raise much about). That image is stored and uploaded to Google, and possibly tagged. Now any political opponent can go and claim that said politician believes in X because they just came from a store that supports it.
Think of anything mildly controversial and see how it can get blown up. Perhaps it was a store selling porn - I'm sure the family first groups will use that at any opportunity (and I'm sure it's probably a common enough event, but one that can be used as leverage).
Basically, they're worried about politicians being captured on film doing stuff. It may be normal behavior that gets twisted around like a quote out of context, or it could be someone capturing actual backroom deals taking place, etc.
And the cynical side of me says it's because the politicians don't want any recording of them doing anything "bad" like being seen with industry executives that support them, or being hypocritical, etc.