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.
I would love it if Google responded back stating that it infringes no more than the government already does.
Time to offend someone
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.
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.
There are valid questions to ask, but every time I see "congress demands answers" I imagine clowns piling out of a tiny car and want to root for the interrogated.
How can the media and government put their spin on events when it is documented from various angles by several people?
Maybe I missed the memo where I will be forced to wear these Cyborg looking glasses but, given the news coverage these things are getting, I have the feeling I did.
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.
You will have the very same abilities to surreptitiously monitor and record in real-time the private lives of citizens as you would with any smartphone and most other mobile devices. Data is stored in the cloud and open for government intrusion while providing the theater privacy and security. If you don't bungle your public show feigned concern you shouldn't have anything to worry about from the voters on this issue. Now go back to your hookers and blow and leave your fingers out of it.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Where were these questions when LEO and private businesses rolled out CCTV everywhere?????????
Good-bye
Same capability, same questions, same answers. Up to the user... Maybe we need to go back to the old laws that require a person holding a lamp to walk in front of every horseless-carriage. It would stop speeding, hit and runs and a lot of accidents. In today's world if you don't want to be recorded, stay home! This has no relationship to the "Street View data collection incident" because that was Google. This is the individual who owns the video device doing the recording. They should be asking how Google plans on stopping their Android Operating System from being used by criminals. And to make sure that their OS isn't being used for illegal activities!!! OMFG
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.
I think being in public means you are free to be recorded at all times. You can't enforce this without also enforcing every company take down their outside facing security cameras.
I'm trying to figure out what the actual legal issues are between google glass and a tape recorder or film camera.
Seems like the technology makes things appear more different than they really are. Taping or photoing people already has laws.
Posting it on the internet could be exactly the same as publishing in a paper if they want. Or not.
But there isn't anything new to discuss. It will be the same old discussion: why can I take a picture of anyone in public or a photo of a house from a drone aircraft but I cannot record the words they use unless they give me permission?
The current laws are totally screwed up. Google glass has nothing to do with that.
What possible health effects could there be?
We know cell phones don't cause any problems and we know glasses don't seem to cause any health problems, so I think this is pretty well already covered.
My first thought when I read the summary was that hell had frozen over: Congress is thinking about privacy!
My second thought was that *Congress is thinking about privacy*. This can only be a good thing. I think we should encourage them, saying "you're on the right track, keep going that way" rather than being derisive.
Parent is right, government surveillance/data collection is a huge privacy issue. That does not mean it's the only privacy issue. It is easier for our inherently timid Congresscritters to start by pointing the finger outward from Washington, and I'm OK with that because it at least starts the policy discussion we so desperately need.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
They should just say. "Sorry we are not sure yet. Google Glass is still in Beta. We don't even know if this will be sold to the public. We will get back to you later"
They just want the details so that can hack Google Glass wearers and add to their existing monitoring programs... Especially clear given the authentication questions.
BlameBillCosby.com
Is when they think it has the potential to affect them directly.
So you're telling me to beware when somebody stands at next urinal, stares at my dick and winks?..
Yeah, I thought that was pretty much a given.
Glad to see Congress worried about stupid crap instead of doing their jobs.
Good grief, The US government has turned onto a complete joke.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
explain to me again the parallels between street view and glass. I think we'll avoid a similar privacy breach by not being even remotely the same thing.
Aside from that, we're talking about sticking a camera phone to your face. I don't think that really raises any new issues.
Why do you think that?
We have studied both of these extensively both in laboratory settings and in the real world. Not one reputable and repeatable study has ever shown any danger.
Google glass takes pictures and videos. So what? So does my phone. I could walk down the street holding up my phone recording everybody and everything. Streetview was a google system being operated by a google employee (or contractor.) Google glass is just some guy wearing some glasses. My point is, why is everyone all pissy that "google is invading privacy" when it's actually the person wearing the glasses?
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
"privacy of non-users who may not want their every public move to be recorded"
I wasn't aware people had that sort of privacy. Public is public, and private is private. Pictures are pictures, whether they're taken by a film camera, digital camera, cell phone, or Google Glass.
Google should tell Congress to go fuck off. Congress already exerts more power than they're legally supposed to, and this is just another small step in the erosion of the Constitution if this is allowed to continue.
FC Closer
the shitstorm over patriot groups applying for a form of charity
The real shitstorm is over the IRS also sharing tax data from conservative groups with liberal groups.
If you are OK with that, good luck when Republicans eventually take power again...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What possible health effects could there be?
We know cell phones don't cause any problems and we know glasses don't seem to cause any health problems, so I think this is pretty well already covered.
Perhaps, but what about the health risks of having the shit kicked out of you by angry folks who, right or wrong, assume you're making recordings of their junk?
It'll happen, mark my words.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
question? Were their rights to privacy violated when video of them walking down the street was used to track them down? Was there a way for them to opt out of being photographed? God help us clear the idiots out of congress.
What a pleasant surprise to see Congress asking intelligent questions about a technical topic. I think we should encourage this type of thinking.
People are assaulted all the time. Hopefully those assailants will be found guilty and a civil suit can be used to recover damages.
That is about all we can expect from anything in life. There are folks who will assault you for wearing the wrong color shirt, or hat.
People are assaulted all the time. Hopefully those assailants will be found guilty and a civil suit can be used to recover damages.
So, nothing to say about the criminal pervert secretly taking pictures of people's cocks? Some may find that philosophy telling...
FYI, some states, like the one I live in, have castle laws that deny other rights to those in the process of commissioning a crime. Thus, if a person is actively breaking the law by making illegal, lewd recordings of others, they will enjoy no such legal protections.
I would say, better to err on the safe side and take those stupid goggles off before entering a private area.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I find your belief that people will be doing that pretty telling. You seem very focused on the male genitalia photography opportunities. I think psychologists call that projecting.
I personally am not worried about it. I doubt anyone really wants pictures of flaccid wieners, and I think most people can tell if the recording light is on or off.
tsk!
And the people who commit assault will go to jail.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How would people feel if the guy or gal coming into the bathroom has a camera mounted to their head which is recording? How would glass be treated at movie theaters or live music/theater shows? I would imagine quite a few businesses and other establishments would not want people walking around with video cameras.
I assume you might start seeing "no glass allowed" signs at venues, theaters and other establishments where privacy would be of concern. That or there would be a transmitter or even GPS data which glass reads to let it know it is in a private or camera restricted area and disable the camera. If such privacy barriers were to be implemented I would imagine people selling glass-jammers to shut off glass devices in the surrounding area. But transmitters can break and glass devices can be hacked.
I don't want google glass and I don't want to live in a surveillance society. Glass might be considered too geeky but give it time and Apple or some pop star will make it hip and cool. Then everyone will be lining up around the block to buy one. Reminds me of the newer futurama episode where fry accidently records an embarrassing secret of leela's while in the locker/bathroom and tweets the video to the whole world to gain more followers.
How would people feel if the guy or gal coming into the bathroom has a camera mounted to their head which is recording?
That is already illegal. The question is: How do you feel, knowing that you can no longer tell if someone is packing a cam?
To be honest, we already are at surveillance society. It just is in the form of twitter/facebook updates. In the form of a blog update talking about this or that. Apparently people have the sensibility of not disclosing identities, and while it is easier to just post a picture or a recording... I'm sure that (if you have hope in humanity) people will frown upon doing that. Just like we frown upon bringing a camera inside the bathroom (unless you want to take a photo there, and everyone present agrees) outside of an opaque case.
That is not to dismiss your concerns. I wouldn't want to live in a society where I'd have to hide -- regardless of cameras. I'd like to live in a society where even if there is somebody walking around with a Google glass and I'm recorded coming out of X, and even if he did upload it somewhere, nobody would care I did. That not everyone follows the same moral code and that what they think is questionable may not be for others and it's up to the individual to decide their actions and up to others to judge him.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Hey, these are just the concerns so far. These are just the ones your tiny brained evil representatives can scratch up betwixt themselves.
This is history folks, you're seeing some pretty giant "vaporwear" (wordplay intentional) in the making. Let's hear it for the battle of the evil entities!
The political version of Godzilla vs. Megalon.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Bullshit. Cell phones have been around now quite a while. We would have seen increases by now in something.
We can never know something is safe, we can only know that as far as we can tell it does not harm.
Privacy concerns are nothing new. It may soon become the fashion again to disguise yourself. Masks to prevent facial recognition from street mounted cameras and gloves to prevent embedded fingerprint readers. Private businesses would have the right to ask you to remove the masks just as they do now but there's currently nothing to prevent you from wearing them in public.
Of course that's going to lead to new legislation preventing the wearing of masks in public but it will be a very obvious effort to show they're tracking and recording far too much. It may even be enough for the unwashed masses to turn off the TV and do something about it. Probably not tho.
How is google glass going to prevent public information from being publicly available?
Everything that ended up on the web from streetview was stuff that happened in public. If you expect things you do in public places to be private, you are living in the wrong century.
And I'm proud to report that my congressman, David Loebsack (D-IA) who is part of the privacy caucus, isn't one of the eight idiots going on a pointless smear campaign against Google. I guess this isn't blatent bullshit like the "scroogle" campaign, but it's pretty close. I mean, they point out that A BAR has preemptively banned Google glass. With a citation. Like it matters.
And #3: It has facial recognition. Of some sort. And it could be used "to unveil personal information about whomever... Could a human subject opt out of this collection of personal data?"
Come on, the question they meant to ask is how glass matches facial recognition to personal information, if Google keeps a database of everyone's face, and could people opt out of said database. But no, they don't have a fucking clue when it comes to technology. All they see is point-click-info and they lose their fucking minds.
YAY privacy, but HOLY FUCKING COW are these people making privacy advocates look like idiots being paid by microsoft.
See that tiny speck why out there on the ocean's horizon. That's the ship that's already sailed.
You can get VGA resolution, 30fps Bluetooth camera that looks like a pair of glasses and has 4 GB of memory for something like $30. If the glasses are to obvious, you can get on that looks like an earpiece. And you can already just hide behind a wall and stick the phone out just far enough for the camera to see around the corner. You honestly think a device like Google Glass, that screams "Look! I'm a cyborg!", is going to erode our privacy more that it already has been?
You can even take that recording, crop it to a couple of still shots of people's faces and search the internet for images close to it to see if you can identify who they are.
This is slightly tongue in cheek, but one insidious way Google could address the privacy concerns would be to equip all Glass headsets with a special IR signal beam that would instruct other Glass devices to obscure the face of the person wearing the IR enabled Glass when it was detected. People who were concerned about their privacy would buy Glass as a means of protecting their own privacy. Just switch on the privacy beam switch.
Google has until July 14th to respond.
Or what?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...cell phones have been able to do essentially the same thing as Google Glass, only less conveniently? Seriously, where were all you privacy folks back when the first camera was introduced into the cell phone?
"privacy of non-users who may not want their every public move to be recorded"
... Like the police officer about to "go medieval on my hiney" (with, or without, good cause).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
People are assaulted all the time. Hopefully those assailants will be found guilty and a civil suit can be used to recover damages.
I've always wondered that about people taking photos at playgrounds with kids. We stop it because we must protect the kids. Same logic appears to be applied here. Can you imagine how mentally scarring it must be that someone somewhere may be jerking off to a picture of you, and you have no idea it's happening?
Someone could be doing it right now. Oh my god, what-eh-to-do?
No one else has posted this? Good. http://chainsawsuit.com/2013/02/27/two-magic-words/
But... the future refused to change.
all Google has to do is add a feature to Google Maps where a business/company/location can OPT OUT of Google Glass.
the way it would work is if that location has opted out (and you are standing inside a 2XGPS Error Factor line surrounding the location Google Glass will pop a "NO RECORDING" icon up and prevent you from taking vids ect.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge