Slashdot Mirror


Is the World Ready For Facial Recognition On Google Glass?

An anonymous reader writes "Since the first demonstration of the plausible future abilities of Google Glass, instant facial recognition has been one of the most exciting ideas in the pipeline. According the the development group Facial Network, the time for real-time facial recognition through Google Glass is coming a lot sooner than we originally expected. This isn't an app developed by Google, it's a 3rd party developer group — they've gone and done it first!" The application is not on the Play store due to the ban on facial recognition. It performs real time recognition, and pulls information from public databases. The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

469 comments

  1. Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    here I come, you can't hide

    1. Re:Ready or not by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

      How about letting us opt in to the database?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Ready or not by pmontra · · Score: 4, Funny

      +1

    3. Re:Ready or not by freax · · Score: 4, Informative

      I even wonder how opting us all in automatically is even legal in my country. I don't care about the US but I'm pretty sure that here in Belgium there are laws against this. Sorry for the Dutch article, but here is an example of it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht

    4. Re:Ready or not by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I even wonder how opting us all in automatically is even legal in my country. I don't care about the US but I'm pretty sure that here in Belgium there are laws against this. Sorry for the Dutch article, but here is an example of it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht [wikipedia.org]"

      Read it again. It's just the publishing that needs an authorization.
      Just recognizing people on the street is perfectly OK, you do it all the time with your built-in eyes.

    5. Re:Ready or not by ccguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about letting us opt in to the database?

      No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
      Anyway there's good ways to do this, for example ID the person IF they are in one's contacts. I have lousy memory. Of course I know my friends, but in places are a conference I meet lots of people that I eventually find the next year or whatever, they ring a bell and I know we even talked for a bit but I can't remember their names. I don't think it's too intrusive since I've met them and they told me their names that Glass reminds me - maybe even some extra info, such as "You know them from Google I/O 2012.".
      By the way, to all the idiots saying they would punch me if I was wearing Glass close to them: First, eventually you will be outnumbered. Second, the fact that you would hit someone for no reason other than you don't like what they might be doing says a lot about you. And third, things might go wrong for you, Glass is hands free so I'm likely to return the punch.

    6. Re:Ready or not by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      recognizing is not ok, actually. you'll recognize your friend or anyone significant. you won't recognize someone you barely know yet cross every week.
      automated face recognition will (and already does - in case you haven't seen the zillion of cameras on the streets of all countries big cities)

    7. Re:Ready or not by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it were feeding into your own personal storage and prevented from being phoned home I wouldnt even care. But we both know that isnt how it works and isnt how its going to work. And given the reality, your actions constitute assault on everyone around you. You shouldnt really be surprised if some of them defend themselves physically.

      "No one would opt in so it's not a good idea."

      In other words you realize that "no one" consents to this, so what makes you think it's ok to do it anyhow?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    8. Re:Ready or not by ccguy · · Score: 1

      In other words you realize that "no one" consents to this, so what makes you think it's ok to do it anyhow?

      There's a difference between not bothering to opt in and not consenting.

      I don't care if someone who already has me in their contact uses this software on me - I understand, if they're like me and we just talked a few times in some social event most likely my face rings a bell but they can't put a name to it.

      However I'm not going to bother going to a website to opt in. How would that work anyway?

    9. Re:Ready or not by blackest_k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.

      Maybe that should be a social cue, that it is unacceptable behaviour on your part, your attention is unwanted.

      People are not computers most of them have feelings they like some people they don't like others and most people respond negatively to being catalogued and targeted for adverts, this would be similar behaviour.

      knowing my name will not be a positive thing for you, as you obviously do not give a monkeys about me just how you can use me to your advantage. At a minimum I will ignore you, if you persist I may do something negative this might be as passive as choosing your competitors to do business with instead of your company.

      Maybe meeting and greeting is just not your strong suit, perhaps somebody else should be doing it instead? I'm not saying this because I am good with names and faces, far from it. If you want to get people on side with you then you talk to them not stalk them.

      You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.

      Being prepared to enter a situation with relative strangers prepared to assault them is rather worrying. If I had a problem with you and your creepy behaviour. I could complain to the event organisers who would probably ask you to remove your google glass or have you ejected from the building if you refused. There is no need to get involved with you in a physical confrontation. In fact if I really wanted all I need to do is mention to a female colleague that you are scanning her with google glass and you will be ejected and possibly police called.

    10. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not cool to hit a girl

    11. Re:Ready or not by ccguy · · Score: 0

      knowing my name will not be a positive thing for you, as you obviously do not give a monkeys about me just

      I don't give a shit about your name until you already told it to me in the past and for some reason you are again close to me, possibly about to say 'hey, do you remember me?'

      You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.

      You really haven't used it, have you?

      I could complain to the event organisers who would probably ask you to remove your google glass or have you ejected from the building if you refused.

      That's fine. I probably don't want to be with you anyway if you can't leave me alone.

      There is no need to get involved with you in a physical confrontation. In fact if I really wanted all I need to do is mention to a female colleague that you are scanning her with google glass and you will be ejected and possibly police called.

      WTF do you think Glass is?

    12. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or join forces with Facebook, and only recognize those already in the network or something.

      Those of us without a Facebook account can envy the happy members and their face recognition :-)

    13. Re:Ready or not by Evil+Pete · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This will make redundant all those claims of "I value my privacy that's why I am not on Facebook." Well you are now.

      This is definitely not a good thing. OTOH, someone should develop a small projector that will project ads onto my forehead, so I can turn it on when a 'glasser' comes up to me. Yeah annoy the crap out of them, and/or hopefully get my image blocked, and/or earn some ad revenue. Yay, win/win.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    14. Re:Ready or not by ranton · · Score: 2

      You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.

      Well good thing for privacy advocates that early technologies like Google glass can be noticed. But the next generation will not be as conspicuous. Just wait until regular glasses have this technology and are completely unnoticeable.

      And beyond glasses we have artificial retinas. We have had artificial retinas for a while, and they keep getting better each year. Since 2010 researchers have been having success even intercepting the connection from the retina to the brain. I wouldn't be surprised if we are only a decade or two away from putting technologies like the Google glass directly into your eye. It won't need a camera, because it will just record what your eyes are actually seeing and inserting a HUD into your normal vision. It will start with blind patients, but it won't stop there.

      The privacy concerns which arise from these technologies are real, but they are coming and will become a ubiquitous part of our society. Trying to stop constant recordings and facial recognition software from mainstream use will be harder than stopping pirated music.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    15. Re:Ready or not by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No one would opt in so it's an excellent idea... for everybody else.

      FTFY.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:Ready or not by bonehead · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Perhaps not.

      But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.

    17. Re:Ready or not by swillden · · Score: 2

      your actions constitute assault

      That's a very unusual definition of "assault" you have there.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gonna fiiiiiind you

    19. Re:Ready or not by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      recognizing people on the street is perfectly OK, you do it all the time with your built-in eyes.

      I see lots of people on the street without knowing their name and personal profile.

      --
      No sig today...
    20. Re:Ready or not by dkman · · Score: 1

      I want to say two things. First I'll reply.

      It doesn't know anything about you that isn't out in the public. If you put a profile on a dating site, or are in a pedophile database, you're there by your own doing. So glass' ability to pull that up quickly isn't invading anything...it's just saving time and manual effort.

      Quoted from the article:
      It’s not about invading anyone’s privacy; it’s about connecting people that want to be connected.

      In light of what I said above there is a "feeling" of privacy invasion because that dating profile was only intended to be seen by someone interested in looking for a date, not the world at large. The other issue is that it's fine when "people want to be connected", but not so fine if "you want to be connected to me but I want nothing to do with you". aka, the stalker factor. I'm not saying that it should be banned because of that. The stalker can take a random photo and put in the manual effort just the same, it's only saving time for them as well.

      It does have the benefit of not forgetting the name of that person from high school you just ran into on the street who remembers your name while you can't remember theirs.

      --
      I refuse to sign
    21. Re:Ready or not by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      Perhaps not.

      But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.

      So you are going to assault someone and commit distruction on private property because you don't like a app they may or may not be using? Prepare for them to own your ass(ets) after the lawyers get involved.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    22. Re:Ready or not by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      Interesting that you should mention "piracy". If you can store what you see and hear, all media that you consume will be copied.

    23. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not cool to hit a girl

      If you don't want me to hit you, then don't hit me. I will defend myself, gender be damned.

    24. Re:Ready or not by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It doesn't know anything about you that isn't out in the public."

      I find it difficult, nay impossible, to believe that that is *and will always remain* the case.

      This thing is taking pictures and phoning them home for identification. You really believe the system it sends them to will not keep them and store them and use them to the fullest extent?

      I have never put a picture of me on the web. Nonetheless google manages to find a couple (one they grabbed out of my account and put to nefarious use without permission.) How much worse will that get when a significant number of people become walking surveillance points for them?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    25. Re:Ready or not by dkman · · Score: 2

      I find it difficult, nay impossible, to believe that that is *and will always remain* the case.

      That is certainly something to consider, and I cannot argue against that. I hadn't thought about it, but I know far too much to think you're on the wrong track.

      I do know that even if you never upload a picture others will, and once it's tagged back to you the cat's out of the bag. I didn't upload any pictures for a long time, but after someone privacy unconscious (to coin a phrase) tagged by in a photo I said "hell with it, the damage is done". You can try, but you just can't control other people.

      Google Glass, at this point, isn't a constant roaming recording camera. The battery life doesn't permit that. I can't say the same about the future.

      Honestly, I don't think anyone wants a society where you can't do or say something in the moment that is meant to stay in the moment.
      It's nice to have the freedom to do something embarrassing when those who saw it saw it, but no one else will be able to see it out of context. Others can tell stories, but they will often be told in context. Clips on YouTube, however, don't always retain context. Compilations, even less so.

      --
      I refuse to sign
    26. Re:Ready or not by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.

      Rubbish. There's no shortage of narcissists out there. All you have to do is come up with the right marketing strategy ("Let everybody know where you are!") and your database will be full in no time.

      --
      No sig today...
    27. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey if he's ok with it then obviously it's ok for everyone. Everyone stop being so stuck up and get with the program.

      Certainly "recognizing" people you may or may not have met before is crucial. Just imagine having to apologize to people for forgetting their names and asking them for it. The sheer horror...

      If you met me once you better remember me pal, even if it was years ago. I mean what are you an asshole with limited memory capabilities, a busy life filled with stress and worries far more important than me? Why you inconsiderate clod!

    28. Re:Ready or not by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      You must new here. Enjoy your stay on the Earth.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    29. Re:Ready or not by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points I'd mod parent up.

      This is the key. All of the privacy concerns in the world are moot. We now known the NSA has been watching for years, maybe decades. So have for profit businesses like WalMart. Privacy is a dead duck from the start.

      Might as well use that fact to your advantage if you can afford it. Would be incredibly useful to somebody on the run to glance into a crowd and know where all the undercover police officers are.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    30. Re:Ready or not by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Just recognizing people on the street is perfectly OK, you do it all the time with your built-in eyes.

      Way different concept there - let me put it in similar terms: you only recognize those people who have "opted in" and given you (or more specifically, that database behind your eyes) their personal information. Also note that the information those individuals give you is often incomplete.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    31. Re:Ready or not by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between not bothering to opt in and not consenting.

      So, what gives you the right to drag them into something they likely know nothing about, let alone have enough information on it to give/deny their consent?

      That pretty girl at the bar may not necessarily "opt in" to letting you bed her, and you have no idea whether or not she would consent to the act. If she knew your intentions and the nature of the results, the dynamic changes (ranging from disgust to agreement) - however, it does not give you the right to drag her to your house just to find out.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    32. Re:Ready or not by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Likely not as easy as that...

      Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain), and would have to buy a new pair of the things (which aren't cheap), but the rest is pure speculation. I daresay that once the full extent of what Glass can do is known (or projected) in a courtroom by any competent lawyer, most juries would probably have a hard time awarding anything to the newly Glass-less litigant beyond the replacement cost - no matter how pretty or distraught she may look.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    33. Re:Ready or not by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      So it'd be a database full of douchebags and teenagers.

      Not really a useful cross-section of the economy, but okay...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    34. Re:Ready or not by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Hrm.... wouldn't a low-tech solution such as one of those pointer lasers get the point across faster and cheaper?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    35. Re:Ready or not by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      It may be a positive thing for everyone to know everything about everyone else. I am reminded of the episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Malcolm reads from everyones school records over the PA and it stops people from bullying each other because they all know their own embarassing shit is out there too.

    36. Re:Ready or not by bonehead · · Score: 2

      Likely not as easy as that...

      Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain),

      You're assuming the police ever get involved. Unless there happens to be one right there when everything is happening, there's unlikely to even be an arrest. Around here reporting an assault after the fact will accomplish nothing aside from you having a 10 minute conversation with a cop who is annoyed that you're wasting his time with your petty crap.

      As for the broken Glass, he'll fill out a report for you so you can submit it to your insurance company. That's pretty much as involved as the police like to get with minor stuff.

      Regardless of what I, personally, may or may not do, I feel quite confident in my prediction that once people realize the creepy shit Glass is capable of, unpleasant incidents, up to and including violence, against Glass users will not be "rare". I also predict that prosecutions will represent a very, very small percentage of actual incidents.

    37. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am getting bold, and I was wondering what to do about it, thanks.

    38. Re: Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People like you are the reason technology will eventually murder us all.

    39. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe that is the first Malcolm in the Middle reference I've seen on /. Not only that but from a 6 digit. I should put some kind of pithy lamentations for the good ol days here, but I got nothing.

    40. Re:Ready or not by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Someone will release a "dashcam" app that records the last minute constantly so that if you get punched in the face you have video evidence to give to the cops. When there is video they tend to act on it because then they can mark the crime as solved and let the prosecutor deal with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a flying fuck if you're a male, female, martian mix-gender, whatever. If you physically attack me, I will physically defend myself while attempting to retreat, and I will do it with the nearest weapon. I don't know your intentions--I'm not a mind reader. By attacking me (assault AND battery, putting me in fear of my life and then physically making contact in some manner), you trigger my survival reflex, the consequences be damned. I'll survive first, and then I'll happily go to jail, and I won't regret it. But, I also defer to others, avoid confrontation as far as possible, and try to retreat first. I want to NOT hurt you, please don't put me in a situation where it's my life or yours--gender won't stop me from defending myself, and I wouldn't expect it to for anyone else.

    42. Re: Ready or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you really trying to hide? If you're that worried, then I'm worried about what you're doing that you want to hide.
      For us regular people that do no wrong and have nothing to hide there is little to worry about. Track me, please! You'll find out just how normal I am. If tracking me bring new levels of efficiency or financial gains then I'm all in. If you're worries are to protect the complex web of lies that you have spun then take a closer look at yourself. I know I won't care about most of the people my glasses will pick up on a day to day basis. They'd be just additional data for us to process. Who knows we may end up car pooling together.

    43. Re: Ready or not by Brian101 · · Score: 1

      What are you really trying to hide? If you're that worried, then I'm worried about what you're doing that you want to hide. For us regular people that do no wrong and have nothing to hide there is little to worry about. Track me, please! You'll find out just how normal I am. If tracking me bring new levels of efficiency or financial gains then I'm all in. If you're worries are to protect the complex web of lies that you have spun then take a closer look at yourself. I know I won't care about most of the people my glasses will pick up on a day to day basis. They'd be just additional data for us to process. Who knows we may end up car pooling together.

    44. Re:Ready or not by innerweb · · Score: 1

      Opt in could be done individually for each person to each person. Similar to a google+ circle, not a facebook friend list. But the opt in would be at time of contact and be maintained on each others' local glass. No web site needed and no centralized server needed. But how do you monetize that? In the end, the money will drive it anyway. It always does. The track record of the vast majority of businesses does not make me comfortable with this technology, nor does the behavior of the average internet user. To me it seems like another bad combination in an anonymous world. The reason being the end user of the information is anonymous, and the actions they take may be anonymous and certainly nothing they do can be prevented until it is too late. Stalkers, Trolls and other criminals nirvana. It could be a really helpful technology, but it will wind up being used by bad people for bad things quite often.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    45. Re:Ready or not by bonehead · · Score: 1

      In that case, Glass wearers should probably get prepared to be attacked from behind......

  2. Time to start putting make-up on by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This 'might' work now but it's only a matter of a little update in software. next generation probably will have various more sensors to (literaly) go under your skin.

    2. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSM+Wifi jammer is a better idea. I know it's illegal and I couldn't care less.

    3. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      This isn't going to matter. Like all tech, this will be used by governments, and even if you persuade all your friends to wear masks, they are going to have so many cameras that it will come to a point they can know who anyone is by process of elimination.

    4. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

      Okay, then wear a niqab: technically it's not allowed in many countries (for the very reason that the police can't see your face), but it falls in the "religion" category, so niqab wearers often get away with it on the ground that society as a whole is supposed to show the greatest amount of tolerance for religious stuff for some reason.

      With a garment like this, even men can wear one and become virtually undetectable.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's quite ironic the way all this is heading. The best way to avoid being tracked by the New Western Stasi is to join the groups that organization wanted to stop.

    6. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Except it doesn't really make you much harder to track unless a significant portion of the population is doing it.

    7. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Hence the "anonymous" masks.

    8. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      After a while it will be able to recognize your gait and body language.

    9. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Google glass wearers are going to need make-up to cover up that black eye and bloody nose.

    10. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by s.petry · · Score: 1

      That is interesting, but not a feasible way of looking at the issue. Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy.

      The same could be said with any of the snooping that's being done. We are not looking at the problem in the correct way.

      Now one may argue that if I'm in public I have no privacy, but previous court cases have proven this to be false. Unless I am doing something wrong, a person can not demand to see my papers (name, ID card, etc..). This is why the judge slapped the NYPD and removed "Stop and Frisk" from their abilities.

      A person may argue further that Google is not the Police, but what data would a person with Google Glass have on me? My name, my posts, my friends and relationships, etc.. Enough to know my political standings at a minimum.

      When people like Bill Gates and Larry Page give us full access to their lives, I might believe some of their bullshit about "well if you don't have anything to hide". They don't, they are liars, and they can all go pound some sand.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    11. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/10, far too obvious. Go back to Digg and practice some more. You're not ready to troll here.

    12. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      The U.S. Constitution only limits what the U.S. government is able to (legally) do. It does not place restrictions on citizens or companies. Laws are commonly used to address those issues, such as the laws against murder or theft or assault. The Constitution does not protect you from an individual wearing Google Glass, nor from Google providing such a service.

    13. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy."

      In my opinion, the only reasonable way to ensure this is to make ALL these privacy intrusions "opt-in" only. By law if necessary (and I think it will probably be necessary.)

      If somebody wants to be recognized, let them opt in. Everyone else should be excluded. And you should be able to remove your name from the opt-in list at any time.

    14. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Wrong, and quite frankly not even a good try. All members of society are bound by these same basic rules called the Constitution, which is the whole point of having Law. The US Constitution prevents you from stopping me from owning a gun just as it prevents the Government from doing the same. It prevents you from stopping my free speech, just like it prevents the Government from doing this. Your failure to recognize this fact demonstrates quite a bit.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I agree. Luckily, I don't know anyone who has them, or at least they aren't wearing them in public.

      I don't like being photographed or recorded. If I see a camera, I avoid being in front of it. People argue "But every phone is a video camera!" Ya, but unless someone is pointing it at me, it's not a big deal. If you're going to stand in front of me, pointing a camera at me, regardless if it's recording or not, we're going to have some words..

      I'm much nicer than just punching random strangers in the face. It also keeps me out of jail.

      People are going to find that the Google Glass is unwelcome in many places. Pretty much the same places where you aren't welcome to hold a video camera in someone's face. Like, just about everywhere.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by nephilimsd · · Score: 1

      "[T]hese amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

    17. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Try using your had just a little bit. Would the Constitution and Bill of Rights be written so that you, or any "person", can violate my rights while the Government can not? That is what you are trying to claim by looking at a specific sentence that backs your view, instead of looking at the larger philosophical and legal meanings of "Law", "Justice", and even "Guarantee of Rights".

      If you truly have such a belief, I can only feel pity for someone that ignorant. If you are a shill attempting to diminish the law, shame on you.

      The concepts of a Republic are all found in a marvelous work called "The Republic", maybe it's time to read that book (not an excerpt you find on Google). "The Dialogues of Plato" will be helpful in your understanding as well. From there, try reading the Federalist Papers and Constitution again.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So private companies can refuse to serve blacks?

    19. Re: Time to start putting make-up on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great comment. Here is my troll. One of the problems around the internet is not many people have servers at home. You are supposed to according to historical expectations.

      To make the relevance glaringly obvious, for some reason you do not have a mail server at home. Therefore your mail has no expectation of privacy.

      What happened?

    20. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
      Sounds like you should wear a mask, otherwise you're doing nothing to stop the govt from photographing you, and just bitching at the targets (people) that are small enough (smaller than a government), to pick on.

      Personally I think that we have a right to privacy, but that right ends when it comes to you telling someone not to do something in public. You can live your own life in your own space, but you don't own the photons of light that bounce off of you, or the ability to capture that. You do own what you project, so I support you being able to wear a mask.

      I'm actually quite pissed off at anti-mask laws for precisely that reason. I feel most people have not considered this angle. I'm a big "don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do" person.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    21. Re:Time to start putting make-up on by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I'm not so concerned about the gov't. I can be fairly sure they can (if they are so inclined) monitor my phone calls, emails, credit card use, and even know where and when I'm driving thanks to electronic tolls and license plate monitoring at major intersections.

      I'm not so fond of someone standing at my door saying "Hi, we're from the church of buggary, and would like to introduce you to our lord and savior." while recording the whole exchange. Or the "friend" who you knew was a friend, and is sitting on the couch looking you straight in the face when you say "Oh I would trust that asshole any farther than I can shoot him from.", which then shows up on YouTube, and you're labeled as a wackjob with a gun looking for a target. People respond to the quote, not the backing, where he was caught stealing DVDs from my livingroom while I was taking a piss.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  3. are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a punch in the face?

    1. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This sort of application is like file shaing: it's just gonna happen, whether you like it or not. You can't legislate it away, and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face. In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster, and you'll be none the wiser.

      Get ready to live in a panopticon world. It'll happen. It's already happened in fact...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i realize these things. doesn't mean i can't punch some people in the face.

    3. Re:are google glass users ready for... by ApplePy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.

      No. But you can make one person at a time stop using it.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    4. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster

      There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.

      i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.

    5. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, laws about assault, battery etc. mean you can't punch people in the face.

      That and being a decent human being.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    6. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      File sharing is made possible by public indifference and/or silent endorsement. I don't care strongly about filesharing, and certainly not enough to put a blackbox chip in my computer. People around me becoming unwilling walking spybots for large corporations is a much different matter.

      You can't legislate it away

      Actually, we can. What are you going to do, print fancy smart contacts in your garage and put GNU/Glass on them? These things are not going to be easy to manufacture for quite a while.

      and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face

      While it's true that it won't make the technology go away, that would certainly resolve the problem regardless.

    7. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      That... and the fact that some of us carry guns... if you punch us in the face, unless you're prepared to follow through and kill us, we'll shoot you dead...

      Rest assured if someone ever walked up to me and just punched me in the face and knocked me down, if I'm still breathing and able, I'd draw and fire at them, assuming they mean to kill me.

      And the laws here allow me to do it. The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.

      However, I suspect the poster above you was just trying to be a funny troll. :)

    8. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is this primitive obsession in the Western world with respect for a human invention called "property".

      Property is merely an effective convenience. It works excellently where effectively regulated, but awfully when completely unregulated. Just as we don't allow people to build an atomic weapon in their back yard, or stand on the edge of a playground and video children all day, we shouldn't allow them to go around wearing devices which can perform facial recognition.

      If the law stops it, fine. If not, taking the glasses and stamping on them will also work. A preemptive punch is excessive, but if the user fights back, it might be necessary.

    9. Re:are google glass users ready for... by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Be more subtle: you see anyone wearing these, point them out and either ridicule them or say out loud: "Look, they're taking pictures of the children". The rest will be automatic.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    10. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable, then most people will just have to live with it. There are however people who can and will evade this surveillance, simply by owning everywhere they go. Private, gated communities, holiday resorts, beaches, theaters, clubs, boutiques and wherever else the privacy conscious rich flock will forbid this intrusion. The rich and famous have plenty experience in this, as people are already openly trying to invade their privacy at any opportunity. So this will be one more divider between the plebs and the wealthy.

    11. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the laws here allow me to do it. The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.

      "Oh, I'm sorry little Jessica bumped you, sir-" BLAM!

    12. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No put they will be able to get full trajectory and potential kinetic data in enhanced real time as it approaches.

    13. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying we should just shoot the glassholes before they shoot us?

      I'm ok with that. A bunch of glasshole deaths, I think they'd get the hint reaaaaly quick.

    14. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That... and the fact that some of us carry guns... if you punch us in the face, unless you're prepared to follow through and kill us, we'll shoot you dead...

      Rest assured if someone ever walked up to me and just punched me in the face and knocked me down, if I'm still breathing and able, I'd draw and fire at them, assuming they mean to kill me.

      And the laws here allow me to do it. The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.

      However, I suspect the poster above you was just trying to be a funny troll. :)

      Probably, but you are scary. You honestly think it is ok to shoot someone for punching you in the face? I guess this explains why US gun deaths are on par with 3rd world countries and war zones.

    15. Re:are google glass users ready for... by rich_hudds · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep, no thought about the grieving widow, children, parents. BLAM, look at ME! I can pull a trigger.

      Gun nuts are like tweeny boys waiting for their bits to grow.

    16. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Arker · · Score: 2

      The same things that are supposed to prevent you from glassing people to begin with, which at this point in our hypothetical have obviously already failed, are supposed to prevent those people from retaliating when you do?

      Kind of a twisted view of the world you have there.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    17. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really stupid enough to think that if someone attacks you they don't have intent to kill? I surely hope that you are cleaned out of the gene pool because all that evolution clearly produced an anomaly. You don't consider a possible family, you consider your life at that moment. There is no such thing as honor in the real world, if you abandon an overwhelming advantage in a battle with your life on the line (like a gun) it's a gigantic display of arrogance and vanity. You anti-gun nuts are like bros in gyms thinking they can take on the world by flexing their pecs even though the mirror says otherwise. See how easy such one-sided biased stupidity can be turned around on someone?

      And no, I don't own a gun and probably won't. So don't bother with the "Oh hurrrdurr you're a gun nut that'll pull it out whenever an argument happens" crap.

    18. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it ironic that your anti gun post if in response to someone defending themselves from being assaulted. punching someone hard enough in the face can kill as well especially if they already have medical issues. the puncher gave no though to grieving widows, children, or parents either. should we start banning fists now.

    19. Re:are google glass users ready for... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Are you really stupid enough to think that if someone attacks you they don't have intent to kill? I surely hope that you are cleaned out of the gene pool because all that evolution clearly produced an anomaly. You don't consider a possible family, you consider your life at that moment. There is no such thing as honor in the real world, if you abandon an overwhelming advantage in a battle with your life on the line (like a gun) it's a gigantic display of arrogance and vanity. You anti-gun nuts are like bros in gyms thinking they can take on the world by flexing their pecs even though the mirror says otherwise. See how easy such one-sided biased stupidity can be turned around on someone?

      And no, I don't own a gun and probably won't. So don't bother with the "Oh hurrrdurr you're a gun nut that'll pull it out whenever an argument happens" crap.

      This may come as a shock, but sometimes I don't want to kill people. Just beat some sense into them.

    20. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that the law saying "You shall not punch another dude in the face" was the same law that says "You shall not record the actions of another dude without his consent". Are you absolutely sure they're not two separate laws?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    21. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the feeble gasping sounds of the internet tough guy.

      "I carry a knife. And a gun. Because I'm a self-styled badass."
      "So how many guys have you ever killed?"
      "None."
      "So it's more theoretical badassery?"
      "Call it that if you want. I've played a lot of COD, I think I know what's up when it comes to killing someone."

      News flash, champ: There's no place in America where "the minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response." You're simply demonstrating your own shocking ignorance of stand your ground, castle doctrine, and self defense laws if you think that "any" physical act against you is sufficient to warrant "blowing someone's head off" with your little .22 revolver. Use of (legal) deadly force in self defense requires there to be a legitimate existential threat to your own life and safety. In many cases, you have a duty - a legal obligation - to retreat from the altercation before you can legitimately claim lethal force was warranted in self defense. In all cases, responding to someone's fist by shooting them is going to land you in handcuffs, answering a lot of questions - and chances are you WILL have to stand trial for shooting someone.

      But you keep on chubbing up over the idea of shooting someone. I'm sure you're not a desperate, pathetic loser at all.

    22. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Please let me know where you live so that I can avoid the place.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    23. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.

      i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.

      Yes. That's why no one carries around internet-connected, handheld computers in their pockets today, and Google's pie in the sky ultra-tech glasses have never made it outside of lab demos. Because muggers will descend like a plague of locusts to consume them all.

      Putting a knife to someone's throat for money has always been profitable job -- just a high risk one. The reason most cyberpunk scenarios include advances in self-defense is because they are worlds in which the fabric of society has been rent asunder, and human life is much cheaper. Not because the toys are so shiny that otherwise normal, law-abiding people just can't resist robbing people for them.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    24. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Which makes you a complete idiot, because a huge number of people have died from being punched in the head once.

      That's not to mention how you can blind them, create permanent disabilities etc.

      And you know, on top of "beat some sense into them" as a worldview making you functionally indistinguishable to fascists.

    25. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Disagree: what you can't do is carry $40,000 of removable and identifiable technology on your person. But no one can afford that anyway, which is where cyberpunk falls short: the tech people will have is what can be mass produced. It's costs billions to build a modern chip fab, but it costs $100 to buy a processor from it. There's no point trying to make a custom processor, because the fab to build it would cost more then it was ever useful for, but simultaneously would also be able to build 10 million of them.

    26. Re:are google glass users ready for... by ranton · · Score: 1

      you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.

      No. But you can make one person at a time stop using it.

      Seems pretty ineffective. A large fine and possible prison sentence to stop someone from using it long enough to get their replacement in the mail (paid for by you). And that prison sentence would become certain if you have done it repeatedly.

      Perhaps you could get away with it for a short time until images are constantly uploaded to the cloud, but that won't be for long.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    27. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Kijori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gun nuts are like tweeny boys waiting for their bits to grow.

      I agree with this - and I often think exactly the same when reading pro-gun posts on Slashdot.

      I can recognize that there are advantages to allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, the gun proponents often sound like the real reason that they want a gun is that they're really, really hoping that they will get the chance to shoot someone dead.

    28. Re:are google glass users ready for... by blackbeak · · Score: 1

      you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.

      Well, actually you can if people are getting punched so much that all faces become unrecognizable (and with a different appearance each time they get scanned). That would effectively render the technology useless.

      I'm not advocating this.

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    29. Re:are google glass users ready for... by ranton · · Score: 1

      In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster

      There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.

      i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.

      An increased police state should take care of this, and that is also happening. Doesn't make much sense to mug someone if the second you approach them your face has been recorded to the cloud.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    30. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That and being a decent human being.

      That ship sailed when the other guy put on the Glass.

      Punching him in the face is self-defense.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    31. Re:are google glass users ready for... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable,

      But there will be a consensus.

      In fact, it seems that there already is.

    32. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a person in melbourne who wont wear it again
      stupid mellys

    33. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.

      (Concealed Weapons Permit instructor here)

      Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch, nor even to prevent less than deadly force being used. Deadly force is only justifiable to prevent the use of deadly force, plus a few select other violent felonies (e.g. rape).

      If you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you'd better hope that you can convince the jury you had a reasonable fear that they were going to follow up by beating you to death. Personally, I expect (and hope) that you fail to convince the jury.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    34. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock, but sometimes I don't want to kill people. Just beat some sense into them.

      Try it and you'll end up in jail, then we'll see who gets "sense" pounded into them. Violence has no place in civil society. Likewise, deadly force is not an appropriate, or legally justifiable, response to a punch. Attitudes like yours are the reason I teach my concealed weapons students to carry pepper spray or a taser in addition to a gun. It is not right or legal to use a gun to defend against a punch, but it isn't wise to get into a fistfight while carrying a gun, so having a non-lethal tool that will end the fight is smart.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    35. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Please let me know where you live so that I can avoid the place.

      He's wrong. There is no such place.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:are google glass users ready for... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Which makes you a complete idiot, because a huge number of people have died from being punched in the head once.

      That's not to mention how you can blind them, create permanent disabilities etc.

      And you know, on top of "beat some sense into them" as a worldview making you functionally indistinguishable to fascists.

      sarcasm detector: failure indicated.

    37. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Man, I really hope you take the time to verify that the glasses are recording and that it's actually Google Glass and not some hipster look-alikes.

      Otherwise randomly punching people in the face for no reason is hardly self defense. Nor do I think a court would see it that way even if he WAS wearing Google Glass.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    38. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Actually, deadly force IS an appropriate response to a punch or attempted punch by a stranger on the street. There are many cases of one-punch kills, and even more of people simply being beaten to death. Once you're dazed from a solid punch it's very difficult to defend yourself from the next, which will daze you even more. If you don't end the fight immediately your life is at your attacker's mercy.

    39. Re:are google glass users ready for... by tranquilidad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are 19 states that impose some "duty to retreat".

      It is not reasonable to think that deadly force, or any force for that matter, is a justified response when "any" physical act is visited upon you.

      However, a duty to retreat is very complicated and requires a jury to agree with your point of view; whether you are the prosecutor or the defendant.

      I teach defensive firearm classes and concealed handgun permit classes. One of the things I teach is that if you're paying attention you should never have to draw your weapon and, if you do, it is unlikely you will have to fire a shot. However, students always raise a ton of "what if" questions.

      I always answer the "what if" questions by explaining that if you're able to stand there and objectively go through a check list justifying why you're in fear of losing your life or of grievous bodily harm then you are probably not justified in using deadly force. When faced with impending death or serious bodily injury you will not be analyzing legal options; you will be trying to survive. When trying to survive, the firearm becomes one of many tools available to you to aid in your survival. Another tool includes tactically retreating.

      I apologize when someone bumps into me even when it's their fault. I back away from aggressive drivers to avoid road rage incidents. I tend to be quite deferential to jerks and their rude behaviors. I want to avoid trouble and I go out of my way to make sure I do. I understand that someone might be acting like a jerk because they've had a rough morning or are just having a bad life in general. They aren't my problem and I will do whatever I can to keep them from becoming my problem.

      On the other hand, if someone punches me it will be difficult for me to believe it is anything other than the start of an ongoing attack and will do whatever I have to do to survive. If increasing distance from my attacker is possible then I will do so because it is the safest, most efficient way to stop the immediate threat and to ready myself to respond with greater force if necessary.

      In force-on-force simulations it is not unusual to see someone "run away" from the danger presented. The analysis and de-brief after the exercise centers on whether the person being attacked ran away in the safest and most effective way possible. The de-brief doesn't include admonition on why the student should have used their gun to stop the attack. Running away safely is a valid tool to survival.

      I get nervous and become uncomfortable when someone, even joking, threatens violence. I winced when I read the parent post that started this discussion where the poster said, "doesn't mean I can't punch someone in the face." That attitude of justifiable violence for being offended is what scares me and it's fairly prevalent in these comments. Then again, I suspect that most of the people advocating a punch to the face are, as you call them, "internet tough guys" and, I hope, wouldn't actually commit the act of violence they are so quick to advocate.

    40. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      My ccw instructor was of a different opinion.

    41. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Actually, deadly force IS an appropriate response to a punch or attempted punch by a stranger on the street. There are many cases of one-punch kills, and even more of people simply being beaten to death. Once you're dazed from a solid punch it's very difficult to defend yourself from the next, which will daze you even more. If you don't end the fight immediately your life is at your attacker's mercy.

      You'll want some luck when you argue that in court. Absent some other circumstances like wounds on the back of your head from an assailant pounding your skull on concrete, or other evidence that you had reasonable cause to believe the assailant intended to kill you, you're at risk of going to prison. In most jurisdictions it's on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in your position would not have expected deadly intent, but in practice it can seem like the burden ends up on the defendant. In analysis of justifiability of use of deadly force you have to keep in mind that there are many gray areas. If you shoot someone you're committing yourself to a game of chance, with your freedom as the stakes.

      That's why I teach that you should assume that any time you shoot someone, you'll go to prison. That isn't actually true, obviously, but it's a good assumption to make because in the moment of a violent encounter you don't have time to sit back and examine your legal position. You have to react immediately, which means your decision is going to be an emotion-based one. By balancing your fear of what will happen if you don't shoot against your fear of years in prison, and only shooting if the former is greater, you have a very good chance of making the legally-justifiable decision, which won't send you to prison. And if you happen to roll snake eyes in the courtroom, well, you believed at the time that prison was the better option.

      Again, the uncertainty is why it's a very good idea to carry a non-lethal defensive tool beside your lethal one. Pepper spray to the face is approximately as effective as a gun for stopping an assault, but it's dramatically less likely to land you in jail.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    42. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Retaliation, no, of course not. Prevention of a beat down, yes. Every blow that lands decreases a persons ability to flee or defend themselves. If the defender doesn't end the fight immediately, their life is at the attackers mercy.

    43. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      I agree with you entirely. I think the number of "knockout game" deaths of late could help support ones decision to protect themselves though.

    44. Re:are google glass users ready for... by tftp · · Score: 1

      If I see someone in GG I will stay far away. If everyone does that, the GG person would find himself in a vacuum. Nobody would talk to him. His GG will be banned at work. Eventually the GG wearer will realize that his behavior is not welcome. If not... eventually he *will* get his punch in the face, from someone.

    45. Re:are google glass users ready for... by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      A large fine and possible prison sentence to stop someone from using it

      There are always risks. Hell, you could be hanged for supporting the American colonial rebellion against England. Was it the right thing to do anyway?

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    46. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Prevention of a beatdown which a reasonable person would fear to potentially end in death or serious injury (broken bones, serious lacerations, etc.), yes. Prevention of a beatdown which a reasonable person would expect to end in bruises, a bloody nose, a split lip, etc., no.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    47. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you clearly have no idea just how dangerous any violence is.

      'Beating some sense' into someone can easily kill them - you don't know if they have an aneurysm or high blood pressure, or any multitude of other factors which could make a punch to the head deadly (as opposed to the possibility for just regular run-of-the-mill brain damage).

      Let's flip it around - say you were 'beaing some sense into someone' and your punch knocked them off-balance and they fell and hit their head on the concrete and died. Guess what you'd be charged with? Assault & battery, manslaughter (likely voluntary), or negligent homicide. Your life would be fucked.

      Should you be shot simply for hitting someone? No, of course not. But if the person disengaged, said they didn't want an altercation and you kept coming at them and they drew down on you and you kept coming at them? You'd have to be a fool to think you wouldn't be dead.

      Violence is dangerous, don't do it and save your own life.

    48. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FWIW, my friend who is a former LEO who shot someone in the line of duty and is now a criminal defense attorney who has defended civilians who have shot and killed others in self defense, is the primary source of my opinion, backed up by statements from officials at the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigations, who specifically covered these issues in my instructor training course.

      Keep in mind that in many states (such as my current state of residence, Colorado), the only thing that is required for instructor certification is an NRA certificate, and the NRA instructor course is all about teaching target shooting and doesn't address the legalities of self-defense at all. So many CCW instructors, unless they've taken the initiative to personally study these issues or consulted with someone else who has, aren't really any more informed on this topic than any other random person.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    49. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote the great firearms instructor whose name I cannot remember: "Do everything you can to save the other person's life."

    50. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One tactical retreat for you would be not to wear a google glass.

    51. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You honestly think it is ok to shoot someone for punching you in the face?

      Yes, it is...

      What? You think it is ok to just walk around punching people? Or maybe I should carry a baseball bat and I can hit them with that, but not use a gun?

      Violence is not acceptable in any form in first use, you can't hit, punch, kick, stab, or otherwise assault another person who has done nothing to you.

      However, once you have done that to someone else, they have every right to defend themselves.

      You may well be bigger and stronger than me, you might well be able to beat me up. But if you try, a gun levels the playing field.

    52. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yep, no thought about the grieving widow, children, parents.

      Yep, no thought for the fact that you can't just walk around punching people, it's a crime, assualt, you can do real damage by punching someone in the face, etc...

      What kind of savage believes that going around punching people is acceptable in any form or fashion, whatsoever?

      If you hit me, you're a rabid dog and need to be put down, simple as that. If you insult me, call my mamma names, I'll walk away, I don't care. If you employ violence, I have no moral qualms with shooting you.

    53. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      I can recognize that there are advantages to allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, the gun proponents often sound like the real reason that they want a gun is that they're really, really hoping that they will get the chance to shoot someone dead.

      No, real men don't ever, ever want to draw a gun on anyone. I've talked with people who have had to do it, there is nothing "cool" or "awesome" about it, it just sucks. It is not a nice experience in any respect and I have no desire to ever do it.

      However, I also have no desire to be assaulted either, so I'll make the world a promise. You don't walk up to me and punch me, and in return I'll never shoot you. I would only use my gun to stop a violent act that is already in progress, never for any other reason.

      I was raised with guns, they are not toys, you always respect them and the life they can save, and take...

    54. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock, but sometimes I don't want to kill people. Just beat some sense into them.

      First, you do not have the right to "beat some sense into me". (legally, ethically, or morally)

      Second, if you hit me, you can do some real damage, even with just one punch.

      So yea, if you walk up to me and punch me in the face, I'm going to assume my life is in danger. And yes, that means that if I'm still breathing, I'm going to shoot you. (and I have the legal right to do that, in self-defense)

    55. Re:are google glass users ready for... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch

      Counter example: Florida and George Zimmerman

    56. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Likewise, deadly force is not an appropriate, or legally justifiable, response to a punch.

      It totally depends on where you live. I'm in Texas, here deadly force is a legal response to physical violence.

      If you simply make verbal threats or make a fist, then no, you can't do anything. But the minute you actually punch someone, deadly force is a legal response.

      Laws vary from place to place of course.

    57. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      My CCW instructor was rather clear, in Texas, deadly force is allowed when physical violence is already underway.

      Both in defense of yourself, as well as a third person.

      Note that deadly force doesn't always mean gun. The father who beat a man to death with his bare hands used deadly force. He caught the man raping his 5 year old daughter.

      It was ruled justified homicide. It is still the taking of another human life, it is just legal to do it in that situation.

    58. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      You, sir, deserve a +6 for that post...

      You are spot on, in all respects, I can find nothing that I disagree with.

      I wish you were local, I'd love to do my CCW renewal with an instructor like you.

    59. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      To quote the great firearms instructor whose name I cannot remember: "Do everything you can to save the other person's life."

      Yes, wise words... The guy in Texas who beat the other man to death when he was caught raping his daughter... called 911 to try and save the guy's life, he beat the man until he wasn't a threat, then called for an Ambulance and tried to keep him alive.

      That is one reason why it was an easy "no bill" for the Grand Jury, clearly self-defense of a third party, clearly he wasn't trying to murder the guy, he used violence to stop the guy, not to kill him, then he tried to render aid.

    60. Re:are google glass users ready for... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Sure beats the "look at me I can punch people in the face because I'm tougher/bigger", which we as a society should have grown out of by now. But judging from your comment about "gun nuts are like tweeny boys", it seems we are still a primal "might makes right" society. Violence is either warranted or it isn't. A gun equalizes the playing field, and also escalates it, so people need to understand that and temper their reasoning about the situation before resorting to it. With enough piss ant brutes like you out there being shot, perhaps you'll collectively learn that physical violence of any sort is NOT allowed, even if you're stronger than the "tweeny boys waiting for their bits to grow". If anything, such talk makes you sound like a juvenile.

      Punching on the other hand is a very cowardly thing to do. If someone knew the other person had a gun and was willing to use it, they would never initiate a physical unarmed assault against them. The only reason someone would punch someone in that case, is if they were reasonably sure that the other person didn't have a means to escalate the situation with a gun and because they thought they were physically superior.

      On a side note, it sounds like you've obviously never been assaulted by someone physically bigger/stronger than you. In your world, you would expect an individual to just sit there and get pummeled. Perhaps afterwards he can call the police to file a police report after calling his mommy? Yeah, how about no. An individual has rights, just like your hypothetical assailant. And if they choose to violate MY rights and MY safety, then they forfeit ownership of their life. Don't like that? Go cry to mommy about it, tough guy.

    61. Re:are google glass users ready for... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the gun proponents often sound like the real reason that they want a gun is that they're really, really hoping that they will get the chance to shoot someone dead.

      I believe they're called "police officers".

    62. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, punch someone who is wearing a camera that is equipped with facial recognition software and an always-on connection to cloud storage. That gene will weed itself out of the idiot population very quickly.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    63. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Preventing Glass thefts is simple--brick the device, the same way that bricking mobiles removes much of the incentive to steal them.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    64. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it not OK to defend yourself? Someone assaults you. What happens if you get up and they hit you again. How many times should you get hit and fall down before you defend yourself?

    65. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch, nor even to prevent less than deadly force being used.

      Correct, and worthless. You don't use the deadly force "in retaliation" for anything. But to prevent your death when the deadly force of fists and feet continues. In Texas, you may use deadly force in response to no force, if you believe the situation could turn deadly (explicitly listed is use of deadly force is allowed to stop criminal mischief). Yes, Texas law states that you may kill someone for letting the air out of your tires (so long as it's night).

      Being certain in your wrong opinion doesn't ever make it fact.

    66. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1
      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    67. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your CCW instructor was wrong. Mere physical violence is not enough, it has to be physical violence that constitutes deadly force. And, it doesn't need to actually be under way, so he's wrong on that count as well. I strongly suggest you read the law for yourself. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    68. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch

      Counter example: Florida and George Zimmerman

      Not a counterexample. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was slamming his head into concrete, which is clearly deadly force. Zimmerman's story may or may not have been true, but it was consistent with the physical evidence so presumption of innocence meant the decision should go his way.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    69. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1
      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    70. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      I have read it, and I reread it just now...

      And I repeat my position, deadly force is a valid response if you come up to me and punch me in the face.

      I have no idea if you are going to rob me, kill me, punch me again, maybe you think I'm sleeping with your wife, or perhaps you're insane. I know that if I don't stop you, you may well punch me again and try and kill me.

    71. Re:are google glass users ready for... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      You must have another version of English that I don't use. Because I've read that, and it doesn't say I'm wrong, in fact it says I'm right.

    72. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Well since there is no such thing as a true Scotsman, I say there's no such thing as a "real" man. I also have the statistics to back me up (as in our high rate of gunshots, "accidents while cleaning", etc). For every one of your types who profess to be a responsible gun owner, there will be 5 who are literally running around with that thing sticking out from between their legs like a cock, smokin and jokin, showing all their boys how big of a man they are. You guys I don't worry about, it's those assholes.

      Oh and if I recall some of your past posts, didn't you fly helo's in the Army? You cannot possibly tell me that tearin shit up with the chain gun didn't get your rocks off! I had the opportunity to fire a real AT-4 anti-tank rocket one time (in boot camp you get the fake one), and when it blew that Bradley apart (empty of course) I had a hard on for a week! Just hanging on to an M60 is a rush unlike no other that I could go on for days about! Real men, do indeed, love to blow shit up. The smart men only do it when it is absolutely necessary.

    73. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An individual has rights, just like your hypothetical assailant. And if they choose to violate MY rights and MY safety, then they forfeit ownership of their life. Don't like that? Go cry to mommy about it, tough guy.

      What the HELL?! You put me on your freak list and you say some crazy shit like that? Perusing your "friends" list though I see the company you keep. I'll just flatly state that you are one of those guys who is just waiting for an excuse to shoot someone so your ego gets a boner. There is someone who I can guarantee you profess to hold near and dear to your heart and you know what he said about someone violating his rights and safety? Turn the other cheek and be rewarded in heaven. Yet you go on about all of your "God" given rights....I don't think you'll end up where you think you will. Say hi to Stalin for me.

      I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

    74. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess then you, myself, and a good portion of /. are fascists cause America is quite well known for their "liberations" which basically boil down to beating some sense into them. That is, if you're American. If you aren't, well, 9/10 Good show ol chap! :D

    75. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to shoot you. (and I have the legal right to do that, in self-defense)

      No you don't! If I walk up to you, knock the fuck out of you, and then turn and walk away, you aren't demonstrating self defense should you pursue me. Not only that, but if I knock the fuck out of you and then stand there doing nothing, your life isn't in danger. Now of course since you seem so hell bent to shoot someone, you probably will shoot me anyway, which will result in myself (should I survive- here is where you retort: You won't) or my heirs owning your helicopter(s). Just an FYI, but it's hard to like what you have to say when you flip flop every other post. You'll claim that real men don't shoot people unless they have to, but then in the next say how many fuckers you are gonna shoot. You're a real Internet Tough Guy! If whomever doesn't have the right to beat some sense into you then who the fuck are you to think you have the right to end their life? You have the right to bear your arms (and arm your bears), but the Constitution didn't say shit about you having the right to fire them.

    76. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swallow his cock a little deeper why don't ya? You blatantly state multiple times here that if someone punches you in the face then you are gonna shoot them. This guy said the opposite. Return deadly force if your life is in danger but otherwise just get the fuck out. If you have time to think about it, you aren't in danger.

    77. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the GP. However, if you get close enough to punch me, something went south. I've been the subject of an attempted mugging, and I've been jumped more than once. The proper response is similar to professional paranoia. You don't assume the worst, but you remain situationally aware and prepared to deal with it. You should be fully prepared to kill each and every person you meet, IF and ONLY IF, they present a threat to your life. I've avoided more confrontation by rapidly escalating and being intimidating than by throwing a punch. No one wants to attack the person willing to end their life to defend their own. The bar is simply raised too high. That's security in general. I have never had to stab or shoot another person, and I sincerely hope never to do it. That's a line you can't uncross. I don't even hunt--but I am absolutely, 100% prepared to kill each and every person I come across, should the need arise. I don't think about it all the time--you can't, and don't *want* to. It's something that's been ingrained into me to the point of reflex. (I should mention that I also grew up being taught weapons safety from the moment I could comprehend it.) If you swing at me, or come up to me with a knife and a mask over your face (I've had this happen), I'm already reaching for the nearest weapon. I don't think, I don't have time to think. I react. That's it. The only times I've ever had to use physical force on another person, it was followed by intense depression--but I'm still alive and I've never been successfully incapacited to date.

    78. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      I have read it, and I reread it just now...

      And I repeat my position, deadly force is a valid response if you come up to me and punch me in the face.

      I have no idea if you are going to rob me, kill me, punch me again, maybe you think I'm sleeping with your wife, or perhaps you're insane. I know that if I don't stop you, you may well punch me again and try and kill me.

      The law says that use of deadly force is "justified to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force" (emphasis mine), or one of the enumerated felonies.

      You can only act to defend against deadly force, not any force. Unless the context supports the notion that a punch indicates an attempt to kill, or to commit one of the enumerated crimes, you're not justified in responding to deadly force. If someone walks up and yells "You Glasshole! I'm going to smash that damned thing on your face for taking pictures of me!" and proceeds to punch you in the face to break your Glass, then you have no reason to believe his intent is to kill, rob, rape or kidnap you.

      Of course, you can construct other scenarios in which it would be reasonable to believe that was his intent. However, even in those cases, you not only have to prove that you reasonably believed he intended to do the necessary harm, but that he had the capability. Unless you're somehow incapacitated sufficiently to convince the jury that you could not stop him except with deadly force, then you're still going to prison.

      The referenced law does include Castle Doctrine provisions in 9.32(b), which change the rules in particular locations, namely your home, vehicle or place of business. In those locations you have greater leeway if the guy broke or snuck into the place. But that doesn't really seem applicable here.

      By the way, nothing in the Texas statutes around use of deadly force to protect people differs in any appreciable way from other states. Some don't have the Castle Doctrine provisions (but many do), some don't have the Stand Your Ground provisions (but many do), but the core part of the law is no more permissive than any other state. Texans often seem to have this idea that their self-defense and gun laws are considerably looser than the rest of the nation, but it's not true. In fact, Texas gun laws are more restrictive than most. The one area in which Texas is rather unique is that Texas does authorize some narrow uses of deadly force to protect immovable, high-value property at night, and no other state authorizes deadly force to protect property. FWIW, I think that law is immoral and wrong, and y'all should fix it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    79. Re: are google glass users ready for... by Kijori · · Score: 1

      In that case maybe I wasn't talking about you. But if that's your attitude, do you not find the uber-macho, shoot-first rhetoric of a lot of pro-gun posters a little worrying?

    80. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, if you get close enough to punch me, something went south.

      What a lonely and paranoid life that must be. What is the size of this security zone you create around yourself fx in a bar?

    81. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it ironic that your anti gun post if in response to someone defending themselves from being assaulted. punching someone hard enough in the face can kill as well especially if they already have medical issues. the puncher gave no though to grieving widows, children, or parents either. should we start banning fists now.

      It theoretically can, but usually don't. A lot of people throw and receive punches, and live the next day to face perhaps a black eye at worst, families keep their loved ones and sometimes even the people that did the fighting apologize, make up. Not everything needs to be escalated to deadly force at first opportunity. But then, I don't understand this culture of fear.

    82. Re:are google glass users ready for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You honestly think it is ok to shoot someone for punching you in the face?

      Yes, it is...

      What? You think it is ok to just walk around punching people? Or maybe I should carry a baseball bat and I can hit them with that, but not use a gun?

      Violence is not acceptable in any form in first use, you can't hit, punch, kick, stab, or otherwise assault another person who has done nothing to you.

      However, once you have done that to someone else, they have every right to defend themselves.

      You may well be bigger and stronger than me, you might well be able to beat me up. But if you try, a gun levels the playing field.

      It is not ok to hit someone. But I rather wake up with a black eye than the knowledge that I killed someones father because he tried to knock my Google glasses off me.

    83. Re:are google glass users ready for... by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Yet you go on about all of your "God" given rights....I don't think you'll end up where you think you will. Say hi to Stalin for me.

      They're not "god" given rights. They are inherent rights that every individual possesses. And I'll end up exactly where I think I will end up when I die: No where, because I don't believe in your superstitious non-sense. This is our only life, and I choose to live it morally and without infringing other people's rights. Say hi to Santa Claus for me, you'll find him in your head with all your other imaginary friends.

    84. Re:are google glass users ready for... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      This may come as a shock, but sometimes I don't want to kill people. Just beat some sense into them.

      First, you do not have the right to "beat some sense into me". (legally, ethically, or morally)

      Second, if you hit me, you can do some real damage, even with just one punch.

      So yea, if you walk up to me and punch me in the face, I'm going to assume my life is in danger. And yes, that means that if I'm still breathing, I'm going to shoot you. (and I have the legal right to do that, in self-defense)

      I don't just walk up to people and casually decide to punch them.

      On the other hand if they are behaving like aggressive idiots...

      Thank you very much, Mr. Zimmerman!

    85. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      FWIW, my friend who is a former LEO

      You had a friend on the ISS? I'm impressed, officer.

      Protip: You're at slashdot, LEO is an acronym for Low Earth Orbit around here, we call you guys "cops".

    86. Re:are google glass users ready for... by swillden · · Score: 1

      The context here is concealed carry, and in that world LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer.

      Protip: Context depends as much on the content of the thread as on the site.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    87. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      in that world LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer.

      We're not in that world, we're at slashdot. Why use a three letter acronym to replace a single syllable three letter word? Especially when the acronym has more than one meaning?

      Context indeed, officer. LEO is low Earth orbit and the 3 letter acronym for cops is "COP" (Crappy Old Policemen). Shouldn't you be filling out a drug arrest report or something?

    88. Re:are google glass users ready for... by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      3/4 of the class was on legalities and danger level assessment, taught by two professional instructors from Blue Line Defense, both with law enforcement experience. There are many cases of one-punch kills, plus each blow that lands will diminish ones ability to defend ones self and retain ones weapon. The intentions of a seemingly random attacker cannot be reasonably assessed in the time it takes to throw a punch, so if dying isn't an acceptable outcome, sufficient force is required immediately.

  4. As an organiser of events. by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

    I don't much care for face-recognition, in fact I can imagine a lot of venue's banning internet-connected (full-time recording) head mounted camera's (for guests), but AGE-recognition would be a useful feature on the door if you have a liqueur-license or some other age-related barrier.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tech is not going to give a shit if you approve of it or not. It's there, someone is going to use it, and in a way thats not easy to spot.

    2. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need Google Glass to "guess" the age of a person, you really should not have a liqueur-license. If you use Google glass to "guess" the age of a person, you won't for long, the "but gAge told me She was 21" defence wont fly here nor in an underage-sex-trial.

    3. Re:As an organiser of events. by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it clearly says on the tickets and a sign by the entrance (for instance) "No video/audio recordings" or some such, you are of course free to attempt to circumvent our request. We are of course free to remove your ass from the premise if we catch you ; ). As an addendum I would personally do everything to avoid harming a visitor or his / her belongings, but some security or even artists or fellow guests might take offence, so it's also for your own protection that I would discourage it.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    4. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know, I think the technology will be very interesting going forward. Not sure what the technical term would be, but as a memory assistant / aid it would be great, especially if you have a disability or otherwise diminished memory capacity.

      Imagine having 24/7 audio/video recordings for the last day/month/year/life. The video feeds could be automatically marked whenever you have encountered somebody through facial recognition. Voice could be automatically transcribed and then indexed for search. Hell in the future object recognition may get to the point where it's fast and cheap enough to be applied to a video library of your day/month/year/life.

      You've been given some complex instructions, and you've forgotten what to do? Ohh, XXXX told me that around lunch yesterday - with marked up content from facial recognition you can jump to your conversation or you could just search your RL transcript.

      You've forgotten your keys? With object recognition you can simply search for the last time you saw (on your video feed) your keys.

      The flip side is obviously the issue of privacy. There are legitimate concerns about how the information could be used against the individual, their family and their friends by other people, government and corporations. There are so many potential ways for such footage to be abused to the detriment of the recorder.

      Either way, the next 10-20 years will be interesting.

    5. Re:As an organiser of events. by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Signal scramblers. I know it's illegal in several countries, but it's used very effectively (and legally) in some theaters in Paris.
      Of course, that would not prevent someone to take a picture/record a movie of you and then use some facial recognition algorithms at a later time, but it would still mitigate some of the abuse that "instant" facial recognition apps would bring to the table.

    6. Re:As an organiser of events. by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

      If I have six thousand people coming in over a two hour period any second I can shave of the interaction between guest and staff is money. As long as its voluntary (opt-in) I see no problem with an age-identifier glasses-ap (gAge, I like it) instead of carding people. Of course legislation would have to be made. And I think it could actually be a data-point used in court, if the data is retained. Maybe the guest wore a fake gAge e-dentifier?

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    7. Re:As an organiser of events. by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd love facial recognition. I have a really bad memory for names and faces, and I often end up in the embarrassing situation of meeting someone in the street who knows who I am but I only vaguely recognise their face and certainly don't remember their name. Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.

    8. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Discrimination legislation could be a problem when you're using the glasses for medical reasons depending on the country you're in - as in, you need them to see. I imagine google glasses users with prescriptive lenses would reasonably expect to be able to use them in areas where traditional prescriptive lenses are acceptable. For a business to decline entry because they're wearing glasses *could* be considered discrimination.

      I personally think a better stance is to continue to engineer a safeguard for others (e.g.: light indicating you're recording) with prompts for patrons to try to get them to do the right thing. Just like how a cinema won't ask you to hand over your cell phone before you watch a movie, they just give you that prompt before it starts to please turn it off for the other patrons.

      If google wanted too they could advocate some kind of universal standard QR (or similar) code that could be detected by the glasses as well. If the glasses detect the code automatically turn off recording for the user.

    9. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you need Google Glass to "guess" the age of a person, you really should not have a liqueur-license.

      Are you seriously arguing that it's easy to tell someone's age?

      I'm probably an extreme counterexample myself but I've "looked 25" for the last 15 years. In my country, Finland, the alcohol limit is 18 but some clubs have higher age limits simply to select their clientele. When I was 19 I could sometimes enter 25+ clubs because the bouncer didn't ask me for ID and some girls my age thought I was too old for them - being told "I'm looking for someone closer to my age" hurt pretty bad back then. Today, I've "vindicated" because girls still think I'm 25 and being more experienced in talking to them now, I can now experience the "late teens/early 20s flings" that I couldn't when I was that age (the extreme exception being a 19-year-old guessing that I was younger than her).* But more astoundingly, bouncers that are professionals that look at hundreds of IDs every night still occasionally ask me for ID when I enter a place with age limit 20 and end up with an embarrassed laughter for asking. I've had the same haircut all the time and when I needed a new passport I dug through my box of ID photos and realized that I couldn't tell which, if any, were taken less than two years ago, which a passport photo must be. And whilst I might not be the norm, I'm not entirely unique. Once I chatted with a girl that I could've sworn was 21 and who unsurprisingly guessed that I was 25 and said that I was too young for her because she was 35!

      So if it's already difficult for professionals to tell the age of people at least in some cases, you should realize that the situation is becoming more difficult as the cosmetics industry pours billions into research... And furthermore, the trend of not only gay men but also straight men taking more care of their appearance (aka. being metrosexual) will also make it trickier because human biology makes it easier to prevent male complexion than female complexion from aging. Men have beards and therefore thicker, fatter skin (normally) so it is easier to take care of.

      *) I should probably add that I'm not crazy or perverted enough to go for anyone below the age of consent, which is 16 here, although I hadn't exactly expected to sleep with a 17-year-old for the first time when I was 33...

    10. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have six thousand people coming in over a two hour period any second I can shave of the interaction between guest and staff is money.

      Seriously, you're trying to play the time-is-money card when it comes to laws???

      As long as its voluntary (opt-in)

      How is "facerecognition" ever opt in? "If i'm not bashing your head (that wears Google Glasses) in, it's opt-in? (Don't bother with answers like "yeah we and google facerecognized and the immediatly deleted the picture"...)

      I see no problem with an age-identifier glasses-ap (gAge, I like it) instead of carding people. Of course legislation would have to be made.

      What legislation? "If your GooGadget says the user is over 21, you're good"? Not gonna happen. There's a reason for carding, it's the only way to make sure their age is verified that's even remotely secure, and even then it's your risk. No intelligence, neighter human nor artificial can verify your age, and the law makes no difference between "yeah he would be 21 at mindnight, it's 23:30" and "he is 16 but looks like 30."

      And I think it could actually be a data-point used in court, if the data is retained. Maybe the guest wore a fake gAge e-dentifier?

      And exactly at that point your liquer-license is gone (best-case). The cops don't give a rat's ass about tech, they technically don't even care if you carded them, as long as you cant prove in court, that the ID presented would fool a cop, it's your ass.

    11. Re:As an organiser of events. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.

      I have that too and this is still super creepy to me. Learn to deal with it, by replying something like "oh hi how are you" and winging it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:As an organiser of events. by rich_hudds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans aren't designed to have full recall, even actors generally dislike watching their own performances.

      Imagine being able to watch you whole life, it could cause massive mental problems.

      How would you ever get over a broken heart if you could replay all of your happiest moments alongside the mistakes you'd made.

      Recording our lives is just asking for a tsunami of unforeseen consequences.

    13. Re:As an organiser of events. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Some nightclubs in the UK ask to see your Facebook profile as proof of age... because apparently you can't lie to Facebook.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:As an organiser of events. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It's one thing if it uses your personal database with only photos of people that you took with their consent, but not if it goes off hunting Facebook for pictures. If you had to ask people's permission it would kind of defeat the purpose for you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All a business has to do is deny entry to "all those wearing recording devices." If the Google Glass users are too fucking stupid to leave their recording devices at home, then the problem is of their own making - it's not a discriminatory practice.

      Just like how a cinema won't ask you to hand over your cell phone before you watch a movie, they just give you that prompt before it starts to please turn it off for the other patrons.

      And then ask you to kindly get the fuck out of the theater if the presence of your phone is disrupting the experience of watching the film for the other viewers. Let's not forget that this is a standard practice for a host of things - "We state that you're not allowed to do x, y and z. And then if you do, we remove you from the premises and you lose your entry fee."

      This is exactly how Glass users will be handled as well, and it's not discriminatory in the least.

    16. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not why they ask for it.

    17. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine being able to watch you whole life, it could cause massive mental problems.

      Can you tell me where/when you expect to find the time to do this?

    18. Re:As an organiser of events. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Abuse such as?

    19. Re:As an organiser of events. by NEW22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humans are flexible. I'm sure we'll find a way to deal with it, like we have everything else that's come along.

    20. Re:As an organiser of events. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Strange Days had this as a theme.

      But I would say consider the benefits: ever put something down and completely forgotten where it was in the minute since?

    21. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too have a bad memory for names and faces. Doesn't matter. Live with it. Except in certain very rare circumstances, facial recognition is evil. It is a tool of control, of tracking, of fascism. It needs to end, and the sooner the better.

    22. Re:As an organiser of events. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I think he is talking about an opt-in system where your face is the biometric, not a "age-guessing" app. You register, say in person with valid ID, and then you can use your face as your ID for certain venues, etc.

      That said, facial rec technology is going to need to be a generation or two better before this will work with enough accuracy to be acceptable.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    23. Re:As an organiser of events. by stkris · · Score: 1

      So true! We all make mistakes. But with a global recording of everything we never get the chances to forget and move on. Nelson Mandela would only be remembered for the times he hit his wife.

    24. Re:As an organiser of events. by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Does that mean if you don't have a facebook profile, you cannot get in?

    25. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES! We grow & outgrow. We need space & change to do so. If you never leave your hometown, meet various people, pick up new habbits, then you just remain an archive of yesterday.

      Archiving all our yesterdays in detail will create an artificial boundary we may intuitively remain inside. Because we can't forget 'how we were'. (Or worse, powers that be will identify only with our old-selves).

    26. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mixed feelings about the inevitability of this type of pervasive continuous augmenting of natural human memory, as I have some memory problems myself.
      While this could be a boon to people with problems even more severe than mine, eg. Alzheimer sufferers, I've been considering the potential problems of this ever since the mid-late '90s.
      A pal of mine and I did some napkin math considering the falling price of storage and discovered that the ability to record audio of every moment of an average human lifespan would be affordable very soon, ie. by 2000.
      The inability to forget, as an intrinsically value neutral thing, is a challenging concept to consider relative to what we understand as normal human tendencies to 'pave over' the inevitable uncomfortable experiences in life.
      As a coping mechanism, this is not ideal by any means, but it is definitely something identifiable in the profile of qualities we consider 'human'.
      Perhaps this will be one (of many) turning points in how that definition evolves, but I'm betting it will be an uncomfortable transition in several ways, some of which we might not even be capable of anticipating.
      As far as popular culture is concerned, there have already been some really interesting reflections on some of the possibilities, one of which comes to mind is a recent episode of Charlie Brooker's "Black Mirror" called 'The Entire History of You'
      http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-30348/episodes/1065121884

      Highly recommend watching this if you haven't already.. The whole series is particularly dark look at the future potential ramifications of social media in general.. great series.

      Cheers!

    27. Re:As an organiser of events. by Catmeat · · Score: 1

      I'd love facial recognition. I have a really bad memory for names and faces, and I often end up in the embarrassing situation of meeting someone in the street who knows who I am but I only vaguely recognise their face and certainly don't remember their name. Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.

      No, I'm fairly certain you have a memory for names/faces not much better or worse than anybody else.

      It's just that people who appear to be better at it than you are simply more aware if its importance and, have gone to the trouble of employing various memory aids and tricks to help them do it effectively.

      I'm speaking as a snowboard instructor, who must memorise the names of a class of 12 more-or-less instantly on introduction to them at the start of the first lesson. Because teaching a class without being able to address individuals by name is noticeably harder.

    28. Re:As an organiser of events. by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

      All a business has to do is deny entry to "all those wearing recording devices." If the Google Glass users are too fucking stupid to leave their recording devices at home, then the problem is of their own making - it's not a discriminatory practice.

      It becomes a discriminatory practice when the rule is not waived for those who need prescription glasses to manage their disability. Your alternative, of course, is to provide standard glasses with the appropriate prescription strength to those who require them.

      Try putting up a sign in your business denying entry to all those in wheelchairs and see how far you get.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    29. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what you are arguing has been discussed in science fiction. However truth is technology like this never existed and discussing consequences of it is a bit of a speculation. In the end anything that can be invented, will be invented. All we can really do is make the best of it.

    30. Re:As an organiser of events. by Livius · · Score: 1

      No-one has a medical need to wear a recording device. Being inconsiderate does not count as a medical need.

    31. Re:As an organiser of events. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yes. They can't believe someone might not have one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:As an organiser of events. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Humans aren't designed to have full recall

      Humans aren't designed at all. Our bodies are a hodge-podge of randomly accumulated survival traits, all very sub-optimal for much of modern civilized life. That's why we have machines and other technology to help us.

      Maybe the next experimental technology will lead to mass psychotic breakdown, or maybe we'll adapt and it will become another routine part of our unnatural lives.

    33. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if we know everything is being recorded all the time, perhaps we will be free to put it out of our minds and not let things weigh on us so much. Unforseen consequences yes, but some of those may be positive. As with anything else, it will probably greatly depend on the person.

    34. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we could implement some kind of apostrophe abuse detection in Google Glass -- maybe give the wearer a light shock if it detects they're trying to pluralize something with an apostrophe.

    35. Re:As an organiser of events. by Dagger2 · · Score: 1

      No-one has a medical need to be in a wheelchair either. Wanting to get around without being carried does not count as a medical need.

      On the other hand, y'know, maybe it does. As does needing a recording device due to memory-related issues.

    36. Re:As an organiser of events. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now think of all the people who don't actually know you who'll be able to lookup your name as you guys approach each other. The person says "Hi " and you'll look up his/her name and respond back. Now you'll both start having a conversation pretending you're great friends because each person thinks the other actually knows them, but in reality you're both automatically researching the other person and don't know each other.

  5. Killer App by Javal · · Score: 4, Informative

    It will be a god-send for people with prosopagnosia (face blindness). Can you imagine the awkward social situations in which you don't recognize people? Your colleagues, friends or even family?

    1. Re:Killer App by ApplePy · · Score: 2

      Who cares?

      Know what I hate? People in my way. If I just carried an AK-47 around with me all the time, my life would be so much better. People would stay out of my way. I wouldn't actually shoot anyone, I promise... I just want some respect!

      Point is, there will be backlash to people wearing internet-connected face-recognizing cameras, and it won't matter what the excuse.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    2. Re:Killer App by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I don't have this condition but I suck at recognizing faces and remembering names. 15 years ago I thought about how great it would be if I had a wearable facial recognition device, but I always thought it would be a stand-alone thing: I put the pictures and names in, and they stay in the device.

      The problem with this of course is that it constantly does the facial recognition on everyone, and sends the results back to the mother ship. If enough people start wearing these, and only 1 mugshot of you makes its way to the internet, then Google will be able to track your whereabouts throughout the day pretty well. Some of this actually violates our privacy laws, but I suspect legislators won't even bother contemplating a ban on this application; they'll understand that the cat is out of the bag.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Killer App by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have prosopagnosia, but I prefer the stress/awkwardness over people being able to know my name at a glance whether I trust them or not. From firsthand experience, having your name makes it feasible for an unstable, pissed-off, or obsessed individual to track down your contact info, school, workplace, home, and family members; even if they don't do any real damage, the situation can become really fucking creepy and last a very long time.

      I also just don't want to make it any easier for the government or law enforcement to keep track of me everywhere I go.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    4. Re:Killer App by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency. You look, it tells you all you need to know, and from the perspective of everyone else you just remembered unaided.

      Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a low of power, and there are usually quotas on mobile connections too.

    5. Re:Killer App by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      The stand-alone device would basically be Glass minus Google (or minus the radio).

      And sure, currently there are constraints on the number of faces in a Glass database, constraints on power and on the wireless connection used to talk to Google, but that's just a matter of time. If there will be enough apps on these glasses that appeal to those in the mainstream, and unless there is some violent backlash against these things (again, from regular people, not privacy advocates), then I give it 5 years or so before these things become practical and common, and another 5 before it'll be socially acceptable to wear them anytime and anywhere (except of course the cinema, where people with cameras will still be shot on sight).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a low of power, and there are usually quotas on mobile connections too.

      Today. Give it 5 years at the pace mobile is improving battery and radio tech.

    7. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone

      Really? Unless you're a complete moron, failing to recognize someone barely reaches the level of a minor faux pas. I've seen lots of people say some variant of, "I know we've met but I'm awful with names what was yours again?" I've NEVER seen anybody storm off in a huff as a result.

    8. Re:Killer App by NEW22 · · Score: 1

      Recognizing someone is not an assault. Using a computer to recognize someone is not an assault. Also, the state has and will have this technology and will use it. What you advocate strengthens what the state can do, but denies that ability to regular people. You know that is how it would play out, right?

    9. Re:Killer App by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone

      I've never seen that, but if certain people get upset about that, then they're ignoring the reality that the human brain often forgets things. They aren't special, and there's no particular reason that you'd remember their name. I think that social convention, if it exists anywhere, is absolute garbage and should be ignored outright.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Killer App by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency.

      I don't know if you've interacted with a glass user, but i assure you, It's pretty apparent that they are looking into the screen and not at you.

    11. Re:Killer App by s.petry · · Score: 1

      It is a violation of my rights to privacy, and is illegal. It may not be defined as assault, but it is still illegal. The state will have this technology and use it if you continue to be a sheep and follow along. Perhaps it's time to wake up to the game and start playing. You can't win if you don't play, but you can absolutely lose if you don't play.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a violation of my rights to privacy, and is illegal. It may not be defined as assault, but it is still illegal.

      It isn't, and you know that.

    13. Re:Killer App by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "Point is, there will be backlash to people wearing internet-connected face-recognizing cameras, and it won't matter what the excuse."

      I agree with your sentiment, but no matter how much backlash there is, you can't stop the train. Just look at smartphones, tiwitter, facebook. People don't give a shit about privacy at all. 70% of people carry a smartphone now. Things I would have thought unbelievable 10 years ago regularly happen now. People are fucking around on their phones in meetings regularly, putting a real life person "on hold" to pick up a cel phone call, breaking up with people over text message or email, not paying attention walking down the street because you are twiddiling your phone, texting while driving... the list goes on. All of these things are bad judgement, if not outright rude, in my opinion, but smart phone adoption has become so widespread so fast, that the social mores haven't matured along with them.

      Google glass will be the exact same. It will have so big of an adoption rate, one day you will wake up and everyone will have one. Same as smart phones. Make them cheap enough and they will become ubiquitous.

      Disclaimer, i dont have a smart phone, but would really love a google glass type chinese knockoff headset. Why? because I would be in control of the information. So many situations occur where a customer or acquaintance mis remembers a situation. It would pay for itself ten times over to have video recall. Once again, that I and I alone, controlled. None of this big brother cloud BS.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    14. Re:Killer App by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      Not just government. The glasses can be hacked, and then you'll have an *army* of people around the world who spy for others without knowing it. Think botnet with s/bot/camera/. Russian/Chinese/American organized hacker groups selling your whereabouts to the debt collection agencies, who'll track you down to intimidate you, while you're eating at some restaurant or drinking at a party. NSA hackers turned Mafia goons, they'll use the glasses network to break the witness protection schemes, datamine new blackmail opportunities in realtime, etc.

      Knowing where everybody is at any given moment in time offers so many opportunities for manipulation, it's a totally new chessgame.

    15. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a compelling argument... (no, not really). Got any actual rebuttal to s. petry?

    16. Re:Killer App by Zynder · · Score: 1

      No expectation of privacy in public. Haven't you argued that point on /. before? What happened Petry? You used to make informative and insightful posts about actual nerd subjects but now you've joined the ranks of the conspiracy loons and have resorted to calling people sheeple. Have the NSA revelations really shaken you up that bad?

    17. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you may have proso-whatever but what you failed to relay to the readers is that you also suffer from schizophrenia. Get help!

    18. Re:Killer App by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Have the courts already ruled that there is an expectation of privacy while a person is in public? The fact that they have is not difficult to find, so there is no real need to expand on that point. I could have explained the language paradox better, but there is no compelling reason to do so.

      If you don't do anything to protect society from what you know is wrong and simply claim "well, it was coming anyway" what are you? I think "sheep" in this case is a nicer term than many others I can think of.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    19. Re:Killer App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was an actual rebuttal, because the null hypothesis is on my side.

  6. Opt out? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if I don't want my name popping up on some random Glass-hole's screen whenever I have the misfortune to be in one's proximity, I have to go find some random app's website and opt out? How is that supposed to actually work in practice?

    Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      not baseball cap but baseball bat - that works much more effectively and includes lesson in civity too.

    2. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do that to people with smartphones now? What about people who have nearly impossible to detect spy glasses now?

    3. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So because a handfull of people abuse something, we should just throw up our hands and let everyone go nuts with it?
      This is like smoking, a social issue, dont smoke unless you know its acceptable where you are, dont record if its not acceptable where you are.
      It amazes me how often people seem to think that just because it is not illegal to be a jerk, it is 100% acceptable.
      (and opt-out of a system nobody knows exists? how friendly of them)

    4. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do that to people with smartphones now? What about people who have nearly impossible to detect spy glasses now?

      Practically everybody I know has a smartphone but they do not constantly tape everything that moves in front of them and upload it instantly to youtube and I don't think many people are wearing impossible to detect spyglasses in day to day life at the moment. Anybody wearing Google glass is going to discover rather quickly that as ingenious as Google Glass is it is also a privacy violation that many people are not going to be willing to put up with. It will be a pretty annoying development if one will be forced to start wearing a mask in order to escape the Glass-holes.

    5. Re:Opt out? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

      This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
      http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/

      Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    6. Re:Opt out? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work?

      If they did (which they really don't all that well), you run into another problem.

      At some point people are going to have bionic eyes (or contacts) for disability reasons. They are legally blind, but can "see" well enough to move around thanks to this technology.

      If you blind them and they then fall down, you have created legal liability.

      Quite simply, it isn't going to be an option to walk around trying to blind cameras, no matter how much it makes you feel good typing it on Slashdot.

    7. Re:Opt out? by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      And yet if you blind all of the computer vision systems around you are they going to be able to find you? Probably not.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    8. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is run on an opt out basis.

    9. Re:Opt out? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      You do that to people with smartphones now?

      If somebody I don't know is pointing their smartphone camera at me? You bet your ass they're going to get (at least) a talking to.

    10. Re:Opt out? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Do you confront anyone who sits across from you on the subway and has the back of his phone pointed in your general direction while he surfs the web or plays Angry Birds? How about the people who are engrossed in texting as they walk down the street and wind up point their phones at you briefly? The people at the gym using their iPhone to listen to watch a movie while they work out and wind up with the camera waving about as they walk from machine to machine? Do you think that every iPhone suction-cupped on someone's car window to is actually recording you and not just there for GPS?

      No? Congratulations. You understand that an iPhone is not a recording device; it's a general-purpose device that happens to have the ability to record. Now, why is it so hard to understand the same about Google Glass?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    11. Re:Opt out? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Now, why is it so hard to understand the same about Google Glass?

      Because when a smartphone is pointed in the general direction of my feet, it's pretty easy to tell that nobody's taking my picture.

      Not so with Glass. So I'll err on the side of "Get that fucking thing out of my face".

    12. Re:Opt out? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Funny... :) But you'll never get them all, try walking around London without being seen by any cameras...

    13. Re:Opt out? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Anybody who wears nearly impossible to detect spyglasses and gets found out has their nose punched in. That is just the price to be paid. Same with glass-holes, don't play the game if you can't take the blame.

    14. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better option: if you see a Glasshole walk into a public bathroom without removing the glasses, walk in behind them and verify they're still wearing them, walk out, ring the police and complain about the pervert filming in the toilet.

    15. Re:Opt out? by DQKennard · · Score: 1

      And the person punching a person with a recording device buys an assault charge. That is just the price to be paid. Don't play the game if you can't take the blame.

    16. Re:Opt out? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Duh. Of course you first take their glasses off from behind, and smash them on the ground. Give people a modicum of credit, not everybody is a moron.

  7. No opt-out by SuperDre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It shouldn't be opt-out, it should be opt-in.... People wearing google glasses should really be carefull, as more and more people will not stand you wearing one while facing them (and I don't blame them)..

    1. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

    2. Re:No opt-out by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It can't be opt-in. How could it be? Would you opt-in for something that lets you be tracked and recognized everywhere by anybody (and more importantly by evil corporations)? Would you opt-in to receive telemarketer calls at home? Would you opt-in to get spam emails?

      Of course not: even if you only have doubts about something, your doubts make you *not* opt-in.

      That's why every service that people don't want or don't like are opt-out only: for one thing, the bastards who foist it on us hope people will be too lazy to jump through the hoops to opt-out, and as an added bonus, the opt-out database itself can be mined and monetized.

      In any case, even if you opt out, how will you know your mug won't be tracked anyway? Do you believe in corporate morals? Who's the overseeing body? The government? Do you believe in government morals?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:No opt-out by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

      People with demencia live in nursing homes with carers that tell them who's visiting them. They don't walk around in the street with Google glasses on thinking "who the hell's this guy? Oh yeah it's Kevin. Thanks Google!"

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    4. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. If someone stares at me wearing those things without asking me first, I'll punch him or her in the face.

    5. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google glass is and has NEVER been meant to be a real marketable item, it is meant to see if people will accept it into society, and THEN put the lenses of cameras into 'normal' looking glasses, that you can't tell have the camera, or onto breast pocket or necklace deocrations, with the HUD eyepiece being built into normal looking glasses.

      Google glass purposely looks like glasses +(something) so that google can learn how others react to it.

      I thought all this was obvious, but apparently not from seeing everyone's reactions to this... PLUS what is everyone going to do when people have camera implants to give vision to the blind... or just 'body modification/improvement' ... THAT is the real question that we as a society need to address... also... gods... the MPAA/RIAA is going to bitch/moan about replacement eyes... and probably try to have DRM put into them so that they can't record movies/music, or turn off when you walk into a theater :/

    6. Re:No opt-out by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

      These people with dementia are somehow going to remember to put on their Google Glass?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:No opt-out by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google (or any company willing to take these technologies right now) have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands. And while it's true that we should never forget that there is a thing called stupidity, it wouldn't do any harm to go for a what-if. After all, this could certainly be the point where we define just how the technology is going to grow and how is it going to enter our lives, with small adjustments afterwards. Changing course afterwards will be an uphill battle, while people are still thinking and have only just begun to take sides on this issue.

      --
      I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
    8. Re:No opt-out by msobkow · · Score: 2

      Then the technology doesn't fly. They need permission from the person being identfied, so unless they contact everyone they can identify to give them a chance to opt out, they shouldn't be legal. It's not like an email system or an app where the user is being asked for permission.

      No one else has the right to give my permission by proxy -- especially not the glassholes.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:No opt-out by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The only way I can see them getting away with the technology is to restrict their identification to glassholes who've opted in or out to install their software. The general public is not "just data".

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    10. Re:No opt-out by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you will end up in jail. The law needs to catch up fast.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:No opt-out by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.

      These people with dementia are somehow going to remember to put on their Google Glass?

      Dementia takes away functionality piecemeal. For example my grandma can't remember she needs to wipe when she goes to the bathroom, but does remember she needs to wash her hands. It's a condition of gradual impairment and frustration for everyone involved, and anything which can ease that (say, a habit of putting on a headset each morning) would be welcomed by just about anyone.

      I'd go so far to say that in 30 years time, it'll be weird to see nursing home bound people who do not have some form of heads up display online - keeping them up-to-date and reminded of what they need to do, in a manner they'll accept, is very important.

    12. Re:No opt-out by Minwee · · Score: 1

      In any case, even if you opt out, how will you know your mug won't be tracked anyway? Do you believe in corporate morals? Who's the overseeing body? The government? Do you believe in government morals?

      Don't worry. I'm sure that if you ask nicely, and possibly pay a small fee, they will let you opt out without any problems whatsoever.

    13. Re:No opt-out by bonehead · · Score: 1

      What about people are having problems with demencia?

      Know what? Too fucking bad.

      The existence of a problem does not automatically mean that any and every imaginable solution to it is acceptable.

    14. Re:No opt-out by bonehead · · Score: 2

      Plenty of people punch plenty of other people in the face all the damn time and don't end up in jail, or even being talked to by the police.

    15. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google...have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands.

      Oh man, as someone who worked in the same building in NYC as Google, thanks for lightening up my day. I've never seen more clueless people in my life, can't figure out elevator banks, trouble badging through security turnstiles, and buzzword bingo games only take 30-45 seconds to complete if you hear any conversation between two googlers.

    16. Re:No opt-out by swillden · · Score: 1

      Google glass purposely looks like glasses +(something) so that google can learn how others react to it.

      So you're saying that Google could have made Glass completely indistinguishable from normal glasses? Where would they have put the screen? In spite of the fact that people fixate on the camera, the real innovation and purpose of Glass is the screen, you know. And where would they have put the battery and electronics?

      Technology just isn't yet up to creating something like Glass which is indistinguishable from normal glasses. It probably will be in another decade or so, but we're not there yet. Your assumed motive for Google's design is wrong.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone stares at me wearing those things without asking me first, I'll punch him or her in the face.

      You won't, and everyone who read your comment knows it. Especially those trying to convince themselves that they'd do the same.

      What you'll ALL do instead is whimper pathetically and mumble something passive-aggressive, but not loud enough to risk actually being heard.

      You will now prove me right. It is impossible for you to avoid doing so.

    18. Re:No opt-out by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Meh, there are plenty of countermeasures we can develop.

      On the "nice" side, all legally sold cameras should have a certified DRM system coupled with a well engineered peer to peer wifi protocol that will ask all devices within a radius of 50m if any pictures are allowed to be taken. Then everybody can wear a tiny ring on their finger which broadcasts a yes/no response. If you want to get fancy, if the ring is GPS enabled and records the time and place of any mandatory query, and if "legal" photographs must have a time and date embedded, it becomes easy to check after the fact if a particular picture was "legally" taken: do a search on the records for anyone who was within a 50m radius of the photograph's time and place, and verify if all the recorded responses were affirmative.

      On the "dark" side, all such cameras need some way to connect to the internet. That means they are vulnerable to viruses. We simply develop sophisticated viruses that attack cameras and wipe them, or just futz with the settings so they are randomly out of focus etc. The nice thing about viruses is that everyone can carry them on their smart phones, and there's plausible deniability. What? Your camera got fucked with when you came close to me? I'm sorry, I didn't know about them virus thingamajigs. I don't do tech. It will be a never ending measure/countermeasure race, but I'm sure we can find dedicated hackers who are willing to take on this burden.

      It all comes down to the following question: are the spyware industry giants like Google willing to self limit their technology in a foolproof way? (I don't know if that's possible, even for them) If not, the tech community can sabotage it for them, free of charge. It'll be fun, like open source.

    19. Re:No opt-out by Wingman+5 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Google could have made Glass completely indistinguishable from normal glasses? Where would they have put the screen?

      Most likely it would be a small mirror that projected in to a VRD and not use a screen at all.

    20. Re:No opt-out by swillden · · Score: 1

      Well, if VRDs had been demonstrated to work. Even the military has decided to go other directions.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:No opt-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physics is a harsh mistress. Given sufficient time and resources, if it is physically possible, it will happen at some point.

    22. Re:No opt-out by DQKennard · · Score: 1

      I suspect there's an increased chance of jail when the person punched says to the cop "I have video."

    23. Re:No opt-out by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would I need permission to identify someone? Since when is it your right to deny me information about my world? If you don't want to be known, stay hidden in your shadows. When you stand in front of me, I have a right to research you however I feel.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  8. S.l.a.p. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    S.uper L.ight A.mplified P.ulse

    I'm going to develop this just to watch Google Glass, and the like, wearers wonder why their toy stopped working. AAH

    I will SLAP you too... ;)

    1. Re:S.l.a.p. by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a fab crowdsourcing idea.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    2. Re:S.l.a.p. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1304/

    3. Re:S.l.a.p. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory xkcd-sucks

  9. Hardware not YET efficient enough to scare me.. by Barryke · · Score: 1

    The hardware is not ready, at least not until they use hardware to build composite mutation-images that show relevant (pixel) changes only. There is no point in trying to parse a single image a second, or -on the opposite side- a video stream.

    In my opinion, efficient wearable vision software should ignore lower quality versions of what it already saw, it would make a huge efficiency leap. I believe this architecture ultimately would be a software skeleton for a mental world reconstruction much like humans perceive.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  10. the same goes for beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear whoever the hell owns Slashdot now: Stop trying to make Beta happen. It's not going to happen.

    Nobody wants beta. If you force, they will leave.

    1. Re:the same goes for beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this. WTF, Slashdot? Did you specifically hire somebody with special expertise at weilding the uglystick, or were you just fortunate enough to stumble across an applicant with a blackbelt in tactical counter-aesthetics?

  11. 3 strikes and you're out? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    Just thinking about this and wondering how much bird I'll get the first time I punch a Glasshole.

    1. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      Glasshole...! Love it. I would give you points and even some internets if I hadn't posted in this thread.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    2. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      If I'm on the jury, I promise not to convict you! Fully justified, I say!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, that word has been around since at least March 2013...

      http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/04/rise-term-glasshole-explained-linguists/64363/

    4. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can volunteer to be a witness in any assault on a glasshole case. Although I will insist on a line-up in which each suspect candidate re-enacts the assault with full force on the glasshole. And I might still not be sure of which one of them it was but I will try my best and ask for repeating it to refresh my memory because I'm an upstanding citizen doing my best to help.

    5. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by Arker · · Score: 1

      Dont punch him, just take the glasses, disable them, and return them.

      If he resists and gets himself hurt at that point it's on him.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by NEW22 · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand the "Internet Tough Guy" syndrome on this. Yeah, you are going to physically assault people. Congratulations, you are a violent person. No, in case you are wondering, it is not OK to hurt people. Maybe your mother forgot to tell you.

    7. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yeah because property destruction has never been a crime...

    8. Re:3 strikes and you're out? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Oh please.... Most of these idiots on here saying they would punch a glasshole would probably wet themselves in the face or a real altercation. I don't doubt some of them have probably been punched before, but I doubt many (any?) have ever actually had the stones to do it themselves.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  12. I Look Forward To Facial Rearrangement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first story I read of someone rearranging one of these fad video camera's fanboy's faces because they won't turn their fucking camera off, or taking their house in a civil suit because they posted an audio recording on youtube will leave me clutching my sides in laughter.

  13. Glass users! by KliX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.

    I suspect it'll happen so frequently, that the police in any state won't even bother to charge anyone doing so with a crime after a short while.

    Good luck!

    1. Re:Glass users! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.

      So your fear is someone having the capability to record live video, and your response is to do violence against this person? I imagine the first app for Google Glass will be "record the last 10 seconds in a loop, beam to 911 and lawyer's office when glasses are broken".

      Good luck yourself.

    2. Re:Glass users! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people have resisted new technology for hundreds of years. They typically lose, and we cope with the new technology until it's commonplace. Then you wonder how you ever lived without it. But if you want to be branded a Luddite, go for it!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Glass users! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a technological issue, it's a social one. While there's currently little you can do about being photographed in public (in most western countries), camera phones and social networking sites are commonly being utilised for group stalking and bullying. In many cases by adults who should know better.

    4. Re:Glass users! by ukemike · · Score: 1

      I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.

      You don't get it. Give it a few years and Google Glass will be an option you can add at 60-Minute Eyewear or at Lenscrafters. Are you going to try beat up everyone who wears glasses?

      --
      -- QED
    5. Re:Glass users! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Perhaps more importantly, there was never this level of push back against bluetooth headsets, nor mobile phones which can be recording in your pocket constantly. The things you might be slightly embarrassed to be seen doing are nothing compared to how important the things you say about people are if widely distributed or just kept in confidence until you need them.

      Yet we don't worry about either of these things to a large degree.

    6. Re:Glass users! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really care what you brand me. Some things come at too high a price, and this is one place where the line needs to be drawn and very brightly. Not just Google Glass either--any form of passive facial recognition used for any purpose anywhere by anybody. We as a society need to decide, and quickly, whether tracking everybody's movements all the time is acceptable. I like to think most people are smart enough to figure out that it isn't. If they are not, then they can live with the dystopia they deserve.

    7. Re:Glass users! by swillden · · Score: 1

      I suspect it'll happen so frequently, that the police in any state won't even bother to charge anyone doing so with a crime after a short while.

      On what basis are you supposing that the well-established laws against assault and battery will suddenly be ignored, just because someone is doing something perfectly legal that someone else doesn't like? If you're in public I can take all the pictures of you I want, whether it's with my gargantuan DSLR, my cellphone, Glass, or a spycam disguised as a button on my shirt. If you then initiate violence against me, you're committing a crime. If I respond to your violence with violence of my own, then I'm defending myself, and you'll both suffer whatever pain I inflict on you and get thwacked again by the legal system, because I will press charges.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Glass users! by stkris · · Score: 1

      I am a peace loving middle aged lady and I feel really mad when I think about people recording everything I do without asking permission. It is incredible rude. And while my first instinct is to walk away from such idiots my next move if leaving wasn't an option would be inspired by Miss Piggy!

    9. Re:Glass users! by memnock · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it will go as smoothly as you think. I think what would probably happen instead is that Google would lobby states (or probably feds, they got enough pull) to pass laws similar to hate crimes, i.e. punch someone wearing Google glass and the prosecutor will throw an additional charge at you specifically intended to punish would-be glassassins. Google can't have a sub-population threatening the cachet of their new shiny.

  14. Google introduces robot.txt... for your face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just tattoo the standard robots.txt entries on your forehead, and Google Glass will obey. Don't want to be indexed at all? Disallow: * Or perhaps you just don't want people to see your stomach? Disallow: stomach. You can also keep stalkers at bay with a simple "Noindex,nofollow" above your lips.

  15. Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am completely unable to remember the names of people even in my small office. "Oh, you need to talk to Sam about that"... Shit. Sam who? I can't ask; I've been here three years! And the name's gender neutral even!

    The ten or so people I interact with on a daily basis; fine - but beyond that? Argh!

    So yes. Yes please. This is a WONDERFUL aid for an uncommon disability. And pretty much EVERY feature of wearable computing that was promised to be useful; context-based calenders, noting down things you're asked to do as you're asked to do them, showing who you promised to do stuff for and what it was - it all requires recognising who someone is.

    This can't come quickly enough. If this actually works (and I doubt it, facial recognition always goes wrong at first), I'll buy one.

    1. Re:Yes! Please! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Try working in a school. I long ago stopped trying to track the number of times I catch some student destroying school property. There's nothing I can do: I can't identify them, they know well enough to lie if asked for a name, they all refuse to wear their name badges*, and if confronted they run away. Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school), so they can get away with just about anything so long as they aren't in sight of a teacher who can recognise them. There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!

      *The girls in particular have some strange phobia about letting anyone see their photograph, as they all consider it hideous.

    2. Re:Yes! Please! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Actually, google glass wouldn't help here. They'd be forbidden instantly: We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.

      Yes, I live in the UK. The country where everyone is a pedophile until proven otherwise.

    3. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a good Hitlerjugend informer. Your Fuhrer will be pleased.

    4. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!

      Talk about a technological fix for a political problem. The number of students is your problem. Fix that and you fix a host of other problems (probably including most of the vandalism in the school). I worked in a school with 500 students and recognizing the students was no problem at all. Even if I didn't recall their names, I knew who they were. I think all children deserve that kind of environment to study in. I know it seems like you are fighting a losing battle to make this a reality, but don't give up. It's one of the most important things in the world. Using technological fixes to catch a few "bad apples" only compounds your problem as it increases the separation between you and the students.

    5. Re:Yes! Please! by terryducks · · Score: 1

      Sam who? I can't ask

      Why not ? Why are you afraid of asking ? Don't be "ugly" and just ask. It won't kill you.

      I'm sorry i'm having a forgetful moment - who is that ?

    6. Re:Yes! Please! by Khenke · · Score: 1

      I work at a high school with 1400 students and we have a school ID that I'm responsible for making.
      I have made a book with all students with pictures and sorted by classes.

      We have gone from 3 incidents per week of destruction of property to none in 6 month after me and a colleague started working as Student Host (not sure about the English name for it, but we work in the corridor all the time helping students) and introduced school ID (rarely used, mostly as random checks in school restaurant).

      After a full school day I counted 20 trash items (mostly small candy paper) in the whole school. From maybe 2000 or so when we started.

      A facial recognition would be VERY handy when to give the extra by "remember" all the students names and not only a hundred or so (my brain find names hard to remember as they are not unique).

    7. Re:Yes! Please! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We have a school ID. They don't wear it. Ever. If confronted they will reluctantly take it from their pocket and put it on - and then take it off as soon as they are out of sight. The only way to fix this would be to actually enforce the rule, but given that very nearly every single student is breaking it that isn't really practical - it'd mean either putting the entire student body in detention or going for the 'lottery enforcement' where a few are picked at random to scare the others into submission. Not a very fair approach. The only reason they even bring it in is because it's also the cashless payment ID for obtaining lunch.

    8. Re:Yes! Please! by Khenke · · Score: 1

      If I need to know who they are I just look them up in my book with all ID pictures. We have gone from 200 non students at school all the time to a few a day (legitimate visitors and once ever now and then some criminals that we pick instantly) since I now know who are students. We actually don't need them to wear the ID all the time.

    9. Re:Yes! Please! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Try working in a school. ... Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school),...

      hmm, when i was in school, getting "paddled" for bad behavior was the norm. And oddly enough, students didn't arm themselves and go around killing everyone in school back then either. I got thinking about this last sentence and did a google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

      People been killing other people at school with guns since guns were around. It's not new, it's human nature.

      So i guess spanking students don't work anyways. Wonder, is it too late to sue the elementary, & middle schools i went to? 30+ years later. =)

      Though if i was a teacher and I saw kids destroying school property, i'd probably take out my phone and take a picture of them. That way I don't have to remember names and would actually have some proof of what happened. But I wouldn't think of a teacher to think of doing that, it would counter the type of thinking schools teach these days.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:Yes! Please! by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Based on my experience working in schools, a couple of suggestions:

      - You don't need to memorise two thousand students' names; you only need to know enough names to normally recognise one student out of a group who are present when someone is breaking the rules. You can track down the real culprits from there.

      - You don't actually need to be able to put a name to a face - if you know their year group, or form group, or just about anything else about them, you can find out who they were pretty easily.

      - It sounds like you're probably not a teacher. My experience as a teaching assistant was that each school will have some teachers who are strict on discipline, and that they will crack down extremely hard where non-teaching-staff have felt that misbehaviour was serious enough that they needed to report it.

    11. Re:Yes! Please! by Kijori · · Score: 0

      hmm, when i was in school, getting "paddled" for bad behavior was the norm. And oddly enough, students didn't arm themselves and go around killing everyone in school back then either. I got thinking about this last sentence and did a google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

      People been killing other people at school with guns since guns were around. It's not new, it's human nature.

      So i guess spanking students don't work anyways. Wonder, is it too late to sue the elementary, & middle schools i went to? 30+ years later. =)

      Is any of this relevant?

      Though if i was a teacher and I saw kids destroying school property, i'd probably take out my phone and take a picture of them. That way I don't have to remember names and would actually have some proof of what happened. But I wouldn't think of a teacher to think of doing that, it would counter the type of thinking schools teach these days.

      It would be odd for a teacher to take a photograph of a student destroying school property rather than intervening immediately to deal with it. In my experience, the better and more experienced teachers have no trouble intervening, although a new teacher might want to report it to someone more experienced if they aren't sure how to handle it.

      I don't understand your last sentence, and it seems wrong-headed - teachers are obviously not employing "the type of thinking schools teach these days", since they went to school 10 or more years ago. Was there some point you were trying to make?

    12. Re:Yes! Please! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.

      Well, it's a good thing you don't live in --

      Yes, I live in the UK.

      Oh. That's the country where there is one surveillance camera for every eleven people.

      The country where everyone is a pedophile

      Well that would explain why "everyone" puts so many cameras in schools.

    13. Re:Yes! Please! by Kijori · · Score: 2

      Just ask - "I'm sorry, I'm having one of those days - who is that?". If that's too embarrassing, just ask if they can remind you where Sam's desk is.

      Struggling to remember the names of people outside your immediate department is not an "uncommon disability". Yes, it sounds like you have more trouble than most people, but it's perfectly normal to forget peoples' names. That's why people are so impressed when someone knows everyone's name in a company.

      Everyone has been in that exact situation, and they aren't going to think you're a terrible person as long as you are polite about it.

    14. Re:Yes! Please! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      We have cameras in the corridoors and exterior areas. There are none in classrooms. I've been told this is because the teachers' union forbids it. We do have protocols in place to ensure that no staff member is ever alone in a room with a student. This is partly to pervent abuse, but mostly to protect against false accusations of abuse.

    15. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am completely unable to remember the names of people even in my small office. "Oh, you need to talk to Sam about that"... Shit. Sam who? I can't ask; I've been here three years! And the name's gender neutral even!

      Pro tip: Stop being a lazy sack of shit who feels they're "too important" to need to know other people in the office. I joined a company of about 120 people in September. At this point (3 months after starting), I know the entirety of the 70-75 person engineering staff by name, and I've got a pretty good handle on the remaining people in sales, marketing, etc., too. There is NO reason other than laziness that adequately explains your inability to remember a few dozen peoples' names when you interact with them frequently.

      If you have a legitimate learning disability, then it should be no big deal for you to explain that, and ask "Sam who?" when you need to. If you don't have a legitimate learning disability, then you should stop being a smug asshole who doesn't "need to know THOSE people..." and "learn who those people are."

      Because you're too lazy to spend some time learning someone's name, me & mine gotta lay down our rights to privacy? Fuck you, and fuck that.

    16. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop shilling for Google, please. Or at least do it openly instead of this reverse-mole bullshit that you mistakenly think is clever. They don't even pay you; you just do it out of sheer love for everything Google does regardless of what it is or why they do it.

    17. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And oddly enough, students didn't arm themselves and go around killing everyone in school back then either.

      Yes, they did. Your own Wikipedia link proves that, and you yourself admitted it two sentences later:

      People been killing other people at school with guns since guns were around. It's not new, it's human nature.

      So why did you choose to be a liar?

    18. Re:Yes! Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that also the country where students can assault the teachers, and the teacher may take no defensive action whatsoever? A friend of mine works at one, and recently mentioned a teacher being taken away with a stab wound, because he dared to reprimand someone.

  16. Sad mistake of technology-focused people by golodh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The mistake that people focused on technology make is the extent to which unwanted behaviour can be repressed.

    It all depends on what society at large thinks is a worthwhile price to pay. Take file sharing (of copyrighted files) for example. It's perfectly possible to stamp it out: just legislate to allow the MPAA and RIA to demand all ISP's to install monitoring software and match whatever you upload to a database of signatures of copyrighted works. The Snowdon papers show that it's very likely that the infrastructure is available to do just that.

    Encryption is of course to be outlawed for use by private citizens. US-style "damages" will pay for the enforcement effort and file sharing will be killed in short order.

    Of course there are such pesky things like the first amendment that would get in the way, but those are only *legal* and *political* obstacles, not technological ones. Which means they can be removed whenever people feel like it. And people's perception of what is or isn't acceptable can be changed by abuses of technology.

    For example, it's perfectly possible to legislate that whoever uploads your mug without your consent is liable for damages (freeing the ones pictured from having to prove any actual damages) and legislate that all and any ISPs and hosting companies must give their full cooperation and assist anyone who can show that their picture has been uploaded without their consent to identify the perpetrator. That would also necessitate the end of anonymous internet access.

    What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.

    If you thought that no amount of political pressure can effectively take away your rights to upload pictures of people, just wait until the first pedophile ring is discovered scouting schools for attractive "candidates" using Google Glasses and putting the lot online for perusal.

    Unfortunately people have a way of abusing new technology in ways that lead to hitherto unheard of legal constraints.

    1. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.

      No, what I mean is, technology that's simple or natural enough, or hidden enough, will be used regardless of the law because the law is unenforceable.

      It's already forbidden to share copyrighted files but people do it all the time because enforcing the ban is vastly more expensive and time-consuming for copyright holders than getting around it for file sharers. If the **AAs suddenly had the powers to become truly nasty, as you describe, people would encrypt their files. If encryption became illegal, people who use steganography.

      Worst case, ultimately, if the penalty for trying anything to share files on the internet was so stiff that people would truly think twice before attempting it, they'd revert to the sneaker-net. It worked perfectly well before the internet you know...

      In the case of face recognition, how do you know if someone is recording you and processing the image? How do you know if a company does it secretly? If the law prohibits it, who's to say this or that guy does it anyway?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Active Jamming.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Active Jamming.

      Of what? The Internet? Wi-Fi?

      I think you'll find that illegal most places, jammers of almost all kinds and strips are illegal, using one carries more penalties than the activity you're trying to stop.

    4. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      If you really don't like the idea, then fight back: wear a Borg-style headset that scans anyone wearing Google Glasses with a bright (but not damaging, obviously) laser, then makes a loud robotic pronouncement like "you have been assimilated", "convicted pedophile" or "person of no interest".

    5. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by ranton · · Score: 2

      No, what I mean is, technology that's simple or natural enough, or hidden enough, will be used regardless of the law because the law is unenforceable.

      It's already forbidden to share copyrighted files but people do it all the time because enforcing the ban is vastly more expensive and time-consuming for copyright holders than getting around it for file sharers. If the **AAs suddenly had the powers to become truly nasty, as you describe, people would encrypt their files. If encryption became illegal, people who use steganography.

      What the parent post was saying is that if society wanted to legislate against it, we could. It would take measures that make Stalin look like a Nelson Mandela, but it could happen.

      In the case of face recognition, how do you know if someone is recording you and processing the image? How do you know if a company does it secretly? If the law prohibits it, who's to say this or that guy does it anyway?

      All it takes is laws that require all ISPs to actively monitor all downloads to any device, and enough government regulators to catch people who may be using facial recognition software on consumer hardware. And then laws that make the MPAA look tame. Device creators could be mandated to record the last few days of anything the user viewed, and the very fact that you downloaded images of faces to your device could become probable cause for a search warrant. And perhaps life in prison if you are ever caught scanning someone's face without their permission, or for anyone caught with software that is not regulated by the government.

      I think it is incredibly unlikely that any society will ever become this draconic, but it is technically possible. The fact that large companies will probably like these technologies as a way to increase data collection and advertising streams will only make it less likely that regulations will stop it.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of the camera.

      With spray paint.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or lasers

    8. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thought of getting a jammer has occurred to me long before glassholes simply when people shout too loud into their mobiles. I thus wonder how likely it is that you get caught - especially if you know your rights. I could be wrong about laws in the US but I believe that what I know about the law in my country is pretty universal in this context - only the police can search you (so if security at a shopping mall stop you because they have a recording of you shoplifting, all they can do is to hold you until the police come to search you. Furthermore, without sufficient evidence, the police can't search you either. Thus if you can turn the jammer on or off simply by putting your hand in your pocket and are able to bluff it you can make it pretty hard for anyone to create sufficient suspicion that you have a jammer and that it isn't just a temporary network problem or that someone else in the vicinity has one. IF your bluff is convincing enough, the police will hesitate to search you and if the "temporary reception problem" is over, there will be even less reason to do so and thus you might get away with it. Personally, I don't think I could do that though since I'm ridiculously honest and simply getting erroneously suspected for any "wrongdoing" makes me very nervous. The thought is still tempting, though, since I do get annoyed when idiots yell into their phones.

    9. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That's actually rather funny... :)

    10. Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can jam LIDAR legally as well as anything in the 2.4Ghz & 5GHz spectrums as they are for public use. CB can also be jammed and I don't believe there is anything illegal about that other than transmitting power at a level higher than allowed. If I could jam you at a low power level, I doubt I'd have anyone knocking on my door. It isn't even technically illegal to jam anyone really. You usually get a charge for transmitting in an unlicensed band. Jamming police radar, however, does have some special rules. Their LIDAR though is fair game.

  17. Yeah. by ApplePy · · Score: 1

    The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

    Like Facebook lets you "opt out" of stuff?

    Fair warning to Google Glass wearers in near future: people will sucker-punch you and destroy your toy.

    I certainly won't guarantee your safety if I see you with one pointing in my direction.

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:Yeah. by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assault someone in view of a wirelessly connected camera. That's a genius plan.

    2. Re:Yeah. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 0

      Armed with a gun no less... p. But that's ok, frankly most of the "tough guys" here wouldn't punch anyone, half of them are posting as AC.

    3. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amusing seeing the "I'll shoot you" guy calling other people the scare-quotes "tough guys."

    4. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another village idiot that assumes the revenge will happen the second they do it.

    5. Re:Yeah. by Nyder · · Score: 0

      The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.

      Like Facebook lets you "opt out" of stuff?

      Fair warning to Google Glass wearers in near future: people will sucker-punch you and destroy your toy.

      I certainly won't guarantee your safety if I see you with one pointing in my direction.

      Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    6. Re:Yeah. by xelah · · Score: 2

      Look at how many people say this. Look at how many people do stupid things right in front of cameras, or commit obviously detectable crimes because they're very angry. Look at how many people get punched in bars with no legal consequences. Look at how if you get punched in the street in the UK on a Saturday night you'll probably get arrested (a blogging policeman once said this happens because there's always a counter-accusation and it's easier to arrest everyone vaguely related and sort it out in the police station). Hell, look at how people react when you take a picture of them in public....and look at how policemen react to cameras, too. People HATE this. People might end up in jail, but glass wearers are still going to get hurt, pushed around, threatened, stolen from, abused, harassed, thrown out of places and generally maltreated.

    7. Re:Yeah. by bonehead · · Score: 2

      Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.

      On the one hand, sure, there are "Internet Tough Guys" who talk big online but would never back it up in the real world.

      On the other hand, there are "realists". The simple fact of the matter is that the world is full of people who have ZERO problem with assaulting somebody for invading their space. I don't have to claim that I'll punch anyone personally in order to point out that it is an absolute FACT that Glass wearers are going to face physical consequences for their invasive behavior.

    8. Re:Yeah. by rk · · Score: 1

      You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. You could try instead to ask politely to not record you, you know. But you'd rather reach for violence first. I hope you're just playing internet tough guy here, because with your current plan you could very well wind up in jail for assault or even dead if you picked an especially wrong glasshole to mess with. If you go looking for trouble, chances are you'll find it. If you're in public, you have NO reasonable expectation to not be photographed, filmed, or otherwise recorded.

  18. Merry Stasi Christmas! by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    The boys at the Fort Meade KGB (oops, I mean NSA) HQ are throwing a party, while the local pigs are ordering extra sprinkles on their doughnuts as we speak.

    Glass is the ultimate (to date) example of why "because we can" technology is a very bad thing.

    And yes, even though I don't befriend the kind of narcissist that would use Glass, if one shows up at my home or office they will be asked to leave and never return. No exceptions. None.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      >the kind of narcissist that would use Glass

      This doesn't even make any sense, unless you are implying that they'd be staring at themselves in the mirror all the time.

    2. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine the local pigs are looking rather worried. The US has a few issues with police getting carried away with their authority. The use of cellphones made it a little bit harder for them to abuse their power and intimidate people, but only a little - few people pull out their phones to record traffic stops, and if you try it there's a good chance the cop will make up something to arrest you for on the spot just out of annoyance. Add Glass though - potentially a device where recording everything is as easy as a couple of winks - and getting away with things becomes a lot harder. It may help the NSA out, but it'll also provide something of a deterrant against the local cops trying to imtimidate you into confessing to a crime you didn't commit to boost their stats.

    3. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by some+old+guy · · Score: 0

      Kindly familiarize yourself with the full meaning of the word before you further embarrass yourself. Thank you.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    4. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Ultra64 · · Score: 2
      >Kindly familiarize yourself with the full meaning of the word Ok:

      Narcissism is a term that originated with Narcissus in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Currently it is used to describe the pursuit of gratification from vanity, or egotistic admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, that derive from arrogant pride. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism/

      narÂcisÂsism noun 1. excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance. - https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+narcissism

      So...it means exactly what I said in my post. What was the point you thought you were making?

    5. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      One word: dossier.

      The rub is not with the user, but with the records. This sort of thing would make a lovely tool for establishing proximity to a crime scene as part of a contrived case. A perfectly innocent act of common public politeness by a passing stranger involving the actual purp could easily be portrayed as complicity.

      Prosecutors and police routinely lie, distort, and intimidate. It's in their job description.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    6. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by some+old+guy · · Score: 0

      Besides shotgunning a couple of over-generalized links to Google searches (thorough research there!), you might have noticed the part about selfishness, which does not perforce involve mirrors. QED.

      I know, teh googles were tl;dr

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    7. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

      >Besides shotgunning a couple of over-generalized links to Google searches (thorough research there!),

      Thank you.

      >you might have noticed the part about selfishness, which does not perforce involve mirrors.

      No, but the part about the very origin of the word 'narcissism' does.

      Why don't you read up on logical fallacies, especially the one called 'moving the goalposts'.

    8. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    9. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it does not mean exactly what you said.

      fail:parse; fail:read;system:fail

    10. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Narcissists totally hate being outed as narcissists, don't they? Blows the whole self-image to smithereens.

    11. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep digging, glasshole.

    12. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by NEW22 · · Score: 1

      There is nothing inherently narcissistic about Google Glass. It is a piece of technology that could be used by people who are or are not narcissistic. It is a form factor for a computing device. It is like making a personality judgement about people who would use a tablet vs. a desktop computer or something.

    13. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      No true Scotsman would move the goalposts.

    14. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've actually got the full meaning of the word there - you've only looked at the abridged Google definition.

      If you click the down-arrow on the Google definition, the next bullet point is:

      extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type

      Similarly, in psychiatry, it refers to "a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration", and the Dictionary.com definition is "inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity".

      That makes perfect sense in the original sentence, without any need for it to refer to exactly the situation that occurred in the original myth (frankly, if the word only referred to that exact situation it would be useless). You could substitute in a definition like so:

      "And yes, even though I don't befriend the kind of [person with an inflated sense of their own importance] that would use Glass"

    15. Re:Merry Stasi Christmas! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind.

      Now, this isn't specifically the same situation, but it speaks to the same sentiment--simply because we can, does not mean we should. We will learn this the hard way.

  19. re: how could it be opt in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy: UV face tattoo with a bar code linking to your profile.

  20. Trivial to defeat upload matching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just exclusive or two arbitary movies together.

    The upload result matches neither. Only the downloader needs to have one of the two, then they get the other.

  21. Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When did Slashdot become so full of luddites?

    Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.

    Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.

    1. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was a teen sereval teen-cycles ago, and the 1st idiot wearing Glass that I meet will need a good medical team, no discussion, period.
      Tech is great, but in the current climate of mistrust this is a bad, bad idea and technology.

    2. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Ultra64 · · Score: 2

      Do you punch every person you see with a camera?

      No? Hypocrite.

    3. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people with cameras aren't constantly filming and uploading to googles servers.

      tl;dr: You really are a fuckwit.

    4. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't punch them. Put them where glassholes should keep their glasses for safe keeping - where the sun don't shine.

    5. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Neither are Google Glasses... if you were an actual nerd you would realize that the available bandwidth is no where near enough to do that. And if somehow the bandwidth was high enough the battery life would be about five minutes.

      tl;dr: You're afraid of the monster underneath your bed that is too big to fit under your bed.

    6. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by msobkow · · Score: 2

      The NSA's spying is clearly technically feasible. Boston has been scanning license plates to identify vehicles, not people.

      Are you ok with that, too?

      If it's not ok for the government or police to spy on you, why some random stranger?

      Even the TSA doesn't use technology like this.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cameras are hard to carry after 1 hour let alone an entire day. They're easy to see. Capacity is limited. You are not new to slashdot or stupid. Don't act like it.

    8. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Years ago adverts didn't follow you around the web, stalking you. Companies like Facebook didn't create shadow profiles of people who hadn't even signed up. The NSA/GCHQ wasn't known to be spying on everyone and strongly suspected of having access to traffic from this kind of application to build a vast tracking/facial recognition database without the need to get approval for rolling out the technology themselves.

      Basically, there wasn't the abuse that there is now, at least not on such a large scale.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called "growing up".
      People understand that there is consequences to actions. The geeks that created the nuclear bomb were fascinated by their power, but with time they got to understand the dark side of it too.

      You already know it and then use the trick of calling "prepubescent" to mature people to somewhat misled people reading you calling them first what people is going to call you.

      If you disrespect people pointing them with a recording device without their consent, then it is you who have a social problem.

      And yes if you are going to do it anyway, because you want to act macho "con dinero y sin dinero, hago siempre lo que quiero" then people is going to react stopping you anyway, and that includes breaking your prepubercent toy if necessary.

    10. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Nyder · · Score: 1

      When did Slashdot become so full of luddites?

      Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.

      Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.

      Paid shills for other companies?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    11. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did slashdot get so full of shills painting the false dichotomy of technology == your complete loss of privacy? When you can't leave your home without everyone you face knowing your history, your every move or misstep of the day cataloged and added to databases forever for anyone to tie to you, including your friends and your children. The people pushing for this are another magnitude of shortsighted asshole entirely. Fuck every Google glasses shill and every surveiling Google glasses user straight to the hell they're making.

    12. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.

      Years ago we were thinking of the possibilities for recording our own interactions for our own use.

      Today, we are thinking of the possibilities of large corporations/the government recording through us and aggregating it for their use.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      What? You have a low user number so I know you aren't new here so what's up? /. is where you go to see people shit on EVERY story. There could be a story tomorrow about a new technology producing infinite, clean, and free energy, bringing about world peace and the end to poverty and income inequality and slashdotters would find a way to crap all over it. It's the 2nd most negative place on the internet (DPR bring the king).

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    14. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.

      Doubt it.

      Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.

      I think most people are just stating the obvious. One need only look to the rise of cell phone theft in the US. Unlike cell phones Google glass is something you wear, immediately visible and screams "I have money". The cameras in your face position can be an offensive invasion of ones right not to be stalked and catalogued wherever they go.. saying "you will get beat up" is not the same as "I will beat you up" ... there are just things one does not do in public if they want to minimize their chance of being victim of a crime.

      I would not want anyone to get hurt for wearing Google glass but its such a fucking stupid thing to do.

      Secondly I am disgusted by the continued misappropriation of technology for purposes other than providing value to the user. This disgust far outweighs any conceivable incremental benefit of google glass.

    15. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by swillden · · Score: 1

      Cameras are hard to carry after 1 hour let alone an entire day.

      Huh? Virtually everyone I know carries a camera with them pretty much every moment they're not in bed. And even then the camera is on the nightstand next to them, charging.

      They're easy to see.

      Not really. It's easy to prop one in a pocket and turn it on. No one would know it was recording.

      Capacity is limited.

      Well, this is true of anything. Of course, the limits on the most common type of portable camera are on the order of days of continuous recording -- and they have data connections.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman.

      Cameras are not network-connected, always on, recording and analyzing everything automatically.

    17. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False equivalency, try again.

    18. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minority Report came out 12 years ago. Or did people skip it?

    19. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither are Google Glasses, so it's not a strawman at all.

      So either you are lying, or you don't know what you're talking about. Either way, you lose the argument forever, and can ONLY splutter inadvertent confessions to having lost it.

    20. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Meh, 1984 came out 65 years ago, did you skip it? In case you haven't read it, they had two way TVs on practically every wall to both spy on people, and send propaganda messages at random times. Orwell didn't live in and Americanized world full of commercial ads, but in fact ads are a form of propaganda, just not political.

    21. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      You are everything that is wrong with the USA today.

      Good little obedient tool.

    22. Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. On my list, probably get around to it in another 12 years.

  22. Won't be long by Suiggy · · Score: 1

    Until everyone is wearing a ballroom mask.

    1. Re:Won't be long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a Dickian "everyman" suit.

  23. opt out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    person identified:
    - john doe, works at , lives in , , !PRIVACY NUT!, has opted out of facial db

  24. Actually, most live at home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may just have trouble with faces. Or directions, or just current location. Relatively minor.

    Others are normal most of the time... with only episodes where they have to be reminded of where they are, what they were doing, or what they were looking for.

    The ones in nursing homes have a severe problem in they don't remember how to find the bathroom.

    Obviously you have never had to deal with someone with minor problems.

  25. You would get arrested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Assault and battery at a minimum.

    More likely get sued and have to pay their support for a couple of months.

    Some might even see that as a way to make a living. A bit painful for couple of days... but each lawsuit would pay for a months wages for three or four people.

    At your expense.

    1. Re:You would get arrested... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      More likely get sued and have to pay their support for a couple of months.

      Or get shot, depending on where the poster above you lives.

      There is a non-zero chance that if you just walk up to someone and punch them in the face, you might well find yourself shot dead on the spot.

      If course, it is easy to talk tough when posting as AC. :)

    2. Re:You would get arrested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to know. Instead of punching glassholes in the face, we'll just shoot them in the face instead.

      Protect your privacy *and* make the world a better place all at the same time!

    3. Re: You would get arrested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know where people in this thread are getting the idea that it's perfectly legal to shoot someone who punches you, but under most circumstances it's not. If I walk up to you, punch you once in the face, tell you to stop looking at me, and start to walk away, you can't use deadly force because there's no longer a threat to your life. Instead, it would have to be a more sustained assault. You could, of course, have someone arrested and even sue them for punching you, but you can't just shoot people for hurting you. If you do, you'll be the one that ends up in jail.

  26. How bulglary helpers :) by Selur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. goto the airport check for people which take a long distance flight
    2. check a few names
    3. lookup facebook&co to get an idea whether they live alone or not
    4. search the local phone book (or similar) to check where they live
    5. drive over to their home and rob the place if no one is there

    note:
    step 1. could be replaced with a static camera
    step 2.-4. could be replaced with a script

    Also monitoring someones home with a static camera (could also be mounted on a drone) should make it really easy to create a general schedule plan for when which people regularly come and go -> no more man power intensive stake outs! :)

    Face recognition has so many nice applications, can't imagine anything going really wrong. :D

    1. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by will_die · · Score: 2

      Why?
      Far easier to:
      1) Pick an area at around 7pm when it is dark outside and see what lights are not on.
      2) Rob the place.

    2. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm... ever heard of timers?

    3. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing I know will happen is people like Dick Cheney will pulls strings and facial tracking will be turned off for them. In fact, everyone of means will not be included.

      All that shoe-sniffing, for instance, at the airport is not necessary with a private jet. They just board.

      It's really nice and civil of all the potential terrorists to avoid taking the identity of a rich person as an exploit. It's as if the whole justification for all this surveillance were bogus and not a threat.

      But they obviously know what they are doing and we can trust that a surveillance society will bring about more transparency and be used to protect us. // All kidding aside, the NSA had to know about all the nefarious deeds of money-laundering bankers. They had to know about child exploitation. Yet they didn't actually protect anyone where it mattered, did they?

    4. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by indeterminator · · Score: 1

      Counter-strategy: monitor your home with similar technology. Bonus points for automatically e-mailing the burglar's identity to the local law enforcement. Masked burglars walking around the neighborhood would look seriously suspicious to anyone with eyes.

    5. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how risk-averse you are. For one, "pick a place" might get you in trouble --- nervous neighbors seeing the stranger cruising the neighborhood scanning houses and calling the cops; especially if you look out of place in a richer neighborhood. Second, just because someone isn't home at 7 doesn't mean they're not about to arrive home at 7:05. If you're the organized sort of criminal doing this on a regular basis, you don't want a bunch of "small" 1%-level risks of getting caught adding up over a couple hundred attempts.

    6. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Far easier to:

      1) Pick an area at around 7pm when it is dark outside and see what lights are not on.

      2) Rob the place.

      This is why people go to jail. If you want to be successful at robbing houses, just picking houses at random isn't the way to go. You need to find your target, study your target, learn the neighborhood (like it doesn't do you any good to hit a house at 7pm if that is when the neighbor might come over to feed the dog) and plan according.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    7. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ordinary large-brimmed hats and other commonplace articles of clothing, along with pre-planned routes are enough to avoid monitoring in public while en-route to your home.. sorry to say.. you can't deploy your private cctv network out in public spaces, either. burglars can then utilize some pretty sophisticated, yet surprisingly inexpensive and easy-to-use anti-facial-recognition technology when they get close.. .which by the way, are NOT suspicious in public, at all, in many parts of the world for months at a time each year (it's -20F/-29C outside as i type this)

    8. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Minwee · · Score: 1

      burglars can then utilize some pretty sophisticated, yet surprisingly inexpensive and easy-to-use anti-facial-recognition technology when they get close.. .which by the way, are NOT suspicious in public, at all, in many parts of the world for months at a time each year (it's -20F/-29C outside as i type this)

      And if it's too warm for a ski mask, there's always lemon juice.

    9. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by swillden · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Far easier to:

      1) Pick an area at around 7pm when it is dark outside and see what lights are not on.

      2) Rob the place.

      This is why people go to jail. If you want to be successful at robbing houses, just picking houses at random isn't the way to go. You need to find your target, study your target, learn the neighborhood (like it doesn't do you any good to hit a house at 7pm if that is when the neighbor might come over to feed the dog) and plan according.

      Identifying people at an airport wouldn't help you avoid dog-feeding neighbors, either.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine you could infect these with spyware and record private conversations. NSA wet dream.

    11. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why people go to jail.

      No, people go to jail because the vast majority of burglaries are committed by strung-out, desperate junkies who are looking for $200 worth of quick resale-able merchandise that they can trade for a couple hits of crack.

      If you want to be successful at robbing houses, just picking houses at random isn't the way to go.

      Nobody ever suggested it was.

      You need to find your target, study your target, learn the neighborhood (like it doesn't do you any good to hit a house at 7pm if that is when the neighbor might come over to feed the dog) and plan according.

      None of which requires google glass at all. Unless you're breaking into a "very high value target's" home, then watching a neighborhood for a couple nights will easily help you establish patterns, and see who's home and who's not. Again, no google glass required. No facial recognition required. Just need some patience, and a middle-class neighborhood. When a house's lights go off and you see someone get in the car and leave... chances are you've got about an hour or two where you could break in, steal shit, and leave and never run into the occupants.

    12. Re:How bulglary helpers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more fun clockwork orange style.

  27. why so 1984 ? by Tom · · Score: 2

    I want glasses with facial recognition. In fact, if it worked the way I want it to, I'd buy them tomorrow.

    I don't want this 1984 "we'll stalk everyone on the Internet for you" bullshit. I couldn't care less what the guy opposite me on the bus posted on Twitter this morning. I really, really don't give a fuck.

    All I want is my own personal database of the people I know. They come in three categories:

    1. People I know really well - don't need a database on them, already have it in my head
    2. People I know well - I know their names and basic details, but a database that reminds me they had a birthday this week or other additional details I may or may not remember would be cool
    3. People I barely know - this is what I want it for. I have a horrible memory for names even though I almost always remember a face. Show me their name and when and where we last met and my social life would be a lot easier.

    And /. doesn't do ordered lists. wtf?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:why so 1984 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is quite clear you really don't give a fuck - about anything other than yourself.

    2. Re:why so 1984 ? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      It is quite clear you really don't give a fuck - about anything other than yourself.

      No one gives a fuck about the Anonymous Coward.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:why so 1984 ? by stkris · · Score: 1

      People I barely know - this is what I want it for. I have a horrible memory for names even though I almost always remember a face. Show me their name and when and where we last met and my social life would be a lot easier.

      But the probem is if these glasses are used by everyone knowing peoples names and birthdays will no longer impress people. And eventually remembering somebodys birthday will be thought of as rude since you are no longer showing an effort.

    4. Re:why so 1984 ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      But the probem is if these glasses are used by everyone knowing peoples names and birthdays will no longer impress people.

      It's not about impressing people.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:why so 1984 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of this tech is that the mugger sitting in the bus with you can tell your income, workplace, spouse, kids and home address in one ms and evaluate you as a possible target. Imagine the convenience! If he is working with a big team he can just send a guy to your wife's workplace to make sure your house is empty, maybe laying wait to kidnap your kids when they come home or just steal you ATV.

      This technology is GREAT! We should have it right now!

      I just though up an even worse scenario.... Imagine sales guy with this tech...

  28. Arrest mugshot databases by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

    Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Arrest mugshot databases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conversely, I would be more than glad to load a "Wanted Criminals" app on my Google Glass. Especially if I got a reward if my Glass found a wanted criminal.

    2. Re:Arrest mugshot databases by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?

      Hopefully.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Arrest mugshot databases by swillden · · Score: 1

      Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?

      Hopefully.

      Because if you once made a mistake your life should be ruined forever, right. Hell, might as well just apply the death penalty for even minor offenses. It would be kinder.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Arrest mugshot databases by anmre · · Score: 1

      Seems like some of the easiest public sources to recognize and associate faces from would be police mugshot databases and sex offender databases. Will former criminals be actively shunned everywhere they go in public, or even subject to mob violence?

      Hopefully.

      And how about the accused and acquited?

  29. Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anon here... I am so frikin' ready... I have so many customers whom I deal with day-to-day in IM and email, but can't consistently recognize in the hallway... I would be so much more effective at my job if I could "connect" with them when I see them F2F each day. This is one place where Glass will be awesome! My social circle at work is frigin huge - all of my peers/customers are important, and I know them all by what I work on with them, but not by face. Please sanction this, omniscient gods, for the good of humanity...

    1. Re:Oh yes... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're in the wrong line of work......

  30. blinders are effective in low light by marienf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?

    This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
    http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/

    Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.

    I've been playing around with various IR LED types, such as this one, at a couple wavelengths, and I found that in darkness and twilight, you need only very few to become a huge blob of ghostly light, but in good lighting conditions, a good camera like an Axis P3367 and even some of the crappy webcams I tried will see them as merely little points of red light. So I'll integrate a bunch in my backpack's straps and on it's surface, to at least get that commute, including subways etc.. covered, but with little hope of completeness.

    So the real challenge may be: can we build a device that automates lens detection, focuses a small laser on the lens in question, and keeps it there while both the lens and the wearer of the countermeasure laser move along. +1 for a switch that will briefly increase laser power to burning strength. As in using a 2W Laser diode at low power. Capability :-)

    1. Re:blinders are effective in low light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the real challenge may be: can we build a device that automates lens detection, focuses a small laser on the lens in question, and keeps it there while both the lens and the wearer of the countermeasure laser move along. +1 for a switch that will briefly increase laser power to burning strength. As in using a 2W Laser diode at low power. Capability :-)

      Dear god, what an idiot. You're gonna waste half your life developing something, just to take someone's eye out with that.

    2. Re:blinders are effective in low light by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Dear god, what an idiot. You're gonna waste half your life developing something, just to take someone's eye out with that.

      It's hardly a waste.

      Given that the Glass-wearing assholes either don't realize how fucking creepy they are, or just don't care, this is clearly a product for which there is a huge societal need.

    3. Re:blinders are effective in low light by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It might help to pulse the lights randomly to screw up auto exposure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:blinders are effective in low light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In general the IR camera blinding tricks don't work. If you mess around with the color histograms in Photoshop or any other image editing tools there's enough data to recreate the original structure (your face). The colors will be all messed up, but the face will be there.

    5. Re:blinders are effective in low light by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      You crossed the line at burning strength. To simultaneously claim control of every photo that bounces off your body, but then hypocritically want to control every photo that goes into someone elses.... Get a hold of yourself, man. Your anger is cute, and I hope you're joking.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:blinders are effective in low light by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      PHOTON goddamnit, I meant "photon" not "photo". Fucking fuck that fucked my comment up.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    7. Re:blinders are effective in low light by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I MEANT PHOTON. Not photo. damnit.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  31. someone should fund a startup by Escogido · · Score: 1

    that will automate creating a bunch of fake profiles on facebook, twitter, linkedin and whatnot given some photos. this way facial recognition software will drown in the data noise - which of them is real you? something tells me there will be a demand for this service pretty soon.

    just kidding, but only half so.

  32. face blindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have prosopagnosia (face blindness) to the extent where I can’t identify myself in photographs. I’ve been to the store with my mother and got separated from her, only to start talking to a woman who had a similar haircut and clothing to her, who was getting very confused as to why some stranger was calling her ‘mom’.

    Some kind of facial recognition software would be invaluable to me, but I could not in good conscience use something that did not use just a limited, pre-approved, personal database of people.

    1. Re:face blindness by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I have prosopagnosia (face blindness) to the extent where I can’t identify myself in photographs. I’ve been to the store with my mother and got separated from her, only to start talking to a woman who had a similar haircut and clothing to her, who was getting very confused as to why some stranger was calling her ‘mom’.

      Some kind of facial recognition software would be invaluable to me, but I could not in good conscience use something that did not use just a limited, pre-approved, personal database of people.

      You could explain your situation to people and ask them if they mind if you take a photo of them and label it with their name so you can remember them later.

      I watched a show about some kids who had no memory, and one of them walks around with a camera around his neck, taking snapshots so he can try to remember stuff he did. No one goes up and punches him for it.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:face blindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the suggestion, but I have already done this with most of the people that I regularly interact with. However, it is very limited in it's usefulness as I can't easily match pictures to people - a different hairstyle or glasses is enough to make it impossible for me to do this! The worst situations are when I am out with a friend and I am briefly separated from them. I often think I've found them again when I see someone with a similar build who is dressed similarly. Even using a photo to try and check who they are doesn't work (unless it's a photo that I've taken of them that day so that they have the same hairstyle, makeup, and clothing, and I forget to do that often enough).

  33. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is one site on the net that deserves to be continually DOSed out of existance, NameTag.ws is it.

  34. bullshit titles are bullshit by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

    oh yeah that's "the world which isn't ready". not advanced enough!
    right.

    in other news, the world's also not ready for mass murder. eventually people mind will be advanced enough so that this idea will become accepted - when we'll evolve!

  35. Slightly offtopic but regarding camera's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People are so paranoia about glasses with a camera.

    However, if i walk out my street, i already passed a 15+ camera's, since each building block has 3 camera's around the entrance (not counting the camera in the elevator).

    If i continue walking trough the shopping center, i'm observed by a few dozen more 'security' camera's.

    Almost any phone has a camera, and i can't tell if it's on or off.

    So in a 1-hour walk, i'm likely to get recorded on a 100 or more camera's. And that's only a very small city i live in!

    Conclusion: camera's are everywhere already. People afraid of Google's glass are barking against the wrong tree. Where were they 10-15 years ago when everyone was installing those camera's? Almost no-one objected, most people 'felt safer'. We are well beyond that line now, and glasses with a camera add nothing new, just that it's more noticeable.

    If people really cared privacy, they should have started caring 20 years ago.

    1. Re:Slightly offtopic but regarding camera's by Minwee · · Score: 1

      camera's [sic] are everywhere already.

      So are apostrophes, but that doesn't make it right.

    2. Re:Slightly offtopic but regarding camera's by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      People are so paranoia about glasses with a camera.

      However, if i walk out my street, i already passed a 15+ camera's, since each building block has 3 camera's around the entrance (not counting the camera in the elevator).

      If i continue walking trough the shopping center, i'm observed by a few dozen more 'security' camera's.

      Almost any phone has a camera, and i can't tell if it's on or off.

      So in a 1-hour walk, i'm likely to get recorded on a 100 or more camera's. And that's only a very small city i live in!

      Conclusion: camera's are everywhere already. People afraid of Google's glass are barking against the wrong tree. Where were they 10-15 years ago when everyone was installing those camera's?

      You have missed the point entirely. Being noticed in public is not the same as being stalked by the all seeing Eye of Sauron. (e.g. G00g1e, Faceb00c)

  36. Opt out? not really there, is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to be like the LG "opt-out" that isn't really an opt out?
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/11/19/1318212/user-alleges-lg-tvs-phone-home-with-your-viewing-habits

    Once you are in, then you are in.

  37. Want to hack this and change my identity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow, I really want to hack this and change my identity. When people see me, I'll FINALLY get the RESPECT that I DESERVE! Or the respect the guy I change my identity to deserves. I'll be a rock star one day, a billionaire the next, and a sports hero after that. Then I'll be a Navy SEAL (wait, there are too many fake SEALs, that's not impressive any longer). Then I'll be a famous historical figure! Napoleon! Lincoln! I think I'm going to like this. What's the URL of the database?

    1. Re:Want to hack this and change my identity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only true respect is self-respect. If you know yourself to be competent, you don't need the vindication of others, nor desire their attention.

  38. Because .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because technology is constantly being abused to the detriment of the public.

    And over the years, we have seen how recorded information; whether by cell phone, camera or whatever, gets used against us in some form.

    Look at Facebook. It went from folks sharing their lives to it being abused by business and government.

    Having a bad day and lose your temper in front of a Glasshole? Well, that will be recorded and stored in perpetuity and the majority of the time that you're calm, nice, pleasant, etc.... will never be recorded or stored and even if it were, it would be ignored because people like to be titillated.

    And of course, employers are always looking for anything negative about a potential employee.

    No one is ever on their best behavior all the time. And even then, people interpret behavior differently. One person's assertive behavior is another's argumentative or hostile behavior.

    In this day and age, if you want to be employable, you need to keep a low profile. Stay as much as possible as you can out of the public eye.

  39. At last, a cure for prosopagnosia! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Now to get the technology built into contact lenses so we don't get beaten up all the time.

  40. Mirror Shades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is why all the cool characters in 80's cyberpunk novels wear mirror shades - to fuck up the recognizer software.

  41. The world isn't ready by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Still that didn't stopped facial recognition in facebook, phone cameras, vigilance/on street cameras, kinect, silently activated webcams and the whole NSA surveillance ecosystem.Adding something so visible as google glass to the mix is not something that would make a big difference.

  42. Great business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about the wrong person being tagged opting THEM out of their life? It is bound to happen eventually, lots of unforgiving people around, especially among the powerful ones.

  43. That's blatantly illegal in most western countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article doesn't really explain whether it will be an "opt in" or "opt out" system, their statement is actually ambiguous if you read it carefully.

    If it will be an "opt out" system, the app would be blatantly illegal in every EU country and hopefully they would get arrested the first time they put their feet in civil countries like Germany, France, Italy, etc...

  44. Public databases by GrahamJ · · Score: 1

    This is why I never post pictures of myself publicly. Facial recognition would be fine if data was only drawn from private sources (for example a private distributed social network where I might be comfortable sharing information about myself) but as long as there is a possibility of my information used in this manner I will not provide said information.

  45. Imagine the data in the wrong hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would certainly be interesting for human profiling applications that the men in black use. I wonder who will be storing the data and how it will be secured? I can't imagine the damage that a disgruntled employee (snowden and manning come to mind) could do by releasing this information to the masses online. Imagine a system that allows one to locate a person or possibly a "friend" through network centric facial recognition software connected to the internet. High end organised criminals would be able to identify family members of judges, law enforcement officers and politicians and know where they are pretty quickly. There is a "find my phone/laptop" feature for some hardware but it is very easy to opt out of this, its much much harder for you to opt out of a facial recognition program. For example "Fred seems like he could be a potential customer, I will tag him as a contact in my facial recognition glass app" and all of a sudden Fred is part of the system whether he likes it or not.

  46. Just for clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know no one will read this because of level 0 (Anonymous Coward) (Come on DICE, give AC more respect you douches)

    It isn't facial recognition that I am bothered about, but rather Google knowing said faces and the glass apparatus syncing data back and forth so the NSA know precisely who you've seen that day.

    Anyone else think if there were a complete disconnect (air-gap style) from Big Google and Big Advertisers or even Big Government (NSA?), then facial recognition wouldn't be that big a deal?

    1. Re:Just for clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also forgot, add Big Facebook to that list as well as other like minded sites.

  47. Why have a central database at all? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it make more sense for each user to have their own database? I don't want it to display names of people I haven't met. That would be distracting, unhelpful, and a potential privacy violation. And since it scans social networking sites, what keeps people from associating a picture with the wrong name?

  48. opt out with prejudice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll opt out by smashing anyone wearing Google glasses in the face with a baseball bat.

    1. Re:opt out with prejudice by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'll opt out by smashing anyone wearing Google glasses in the face with a baseball bat.

      And you'll be optting in for some serious buttsecks in prison.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  49. Reminds me of the best Abstruse Goose comic by Knuckles · · Score: 1
    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  50. Queue internet tough guys... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...saying they'll punch someone in the face if they wear Google Glass near them.

    Without looking at any other comments, was I right?

    1. Re:Queue internet tough guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue the grammar nazis wondering "Where are they queuing? What are they queuing for?"

    2. Re:Queue internet tough guys... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Because English needs less words that sound the same in my head and mean different things :)

  51. I hope by koan · · Score: 1

    The next shooting I read about involves a Glasshole on the wrong end.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:I hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas?

  52. Uhhh... by Desler · · Score: 1

    instant facial recognition has been one of the most exciting ideas in the pipeline.

    For what party? The NSA? The LEOs?

  53. Why would I want to use this? by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    If I don't recognize a face, what good would it do me to also show me a name I don't know?

    I suppose if you database backed it, you could come up with some interesting applications. For instance, you could hook it to the sex offender registry, the state's list of folks with restraining orders, the list of folks arrested for solicitation, or dontdatehim.com. Still, for your typical unexceptional person, I don't see what good it would do me to have my computer "recognize" them.

  54. it's *face recognition*, goddammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I know, this is my moment for tilting at windmills, but please, at least among the technologically savvy, let's be correct.
    Recognizing FACES is called FACE RECOGNITION, for good and obvious reasons.
    Facial recognition is the ability to recognize why someone has cucumbers on their eyes and soothing lotions on their face.
    (And no, don't bother with the obvious lewd joke. Too easy.)
    What's next, namal recognition when you see a familiar name? Placal recognition for familiar places?

    It's the media who can't get this correct, but let's at least try to set a sound precedent here. Who knows, maybe it will spread.

    in exasperation
        an AI researcher

    1. Re:it's *face recognition*, goddammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointless pedantry. Natural language is not prescriptivist. A language is defined by its use on the whole, in all its ambiguous, overlapping, and contradictory ways. An etymologist.

  55. get your gun ready by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

    With NameTag, Glass users will be drawing from an archive that delves into the library of faces from dating networks, the National Sex Offendery Registry, and a set of criminal databases (public, the lot of them, of course).

    If it recognizes someone you've never met before there is a 2 in 3 chance they are a rapist or other criminal

  56. Creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw someone wearing Google Glass in public for the first time the other day. He looked incredibly stupid and for some reason it was rather disturbing thinking that he could be broadcasting everything he's looking at all the time. Sure, there are cameras everywhere, but the vast majority of the feeds are not publicly available.

  57. That's a pretty safe world you live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time some fuckers attacked me or robbed me I wished I had something like this. To have their faces, to have their photos uploaded, to recognize them later if I meet them again.
    Someone stole the wallet out of my girlfriends bag, and I saw the face, I saw it, but I didn't react fast enough.
    And I can't do shit about it because I don't memorize faces. I can't.

    Privacy-shmivacy...
    If a criminal knows your name - it is somehow bad. Like BAD. As if he needs it to commit a crime in the first place.
    But if you don't know that someone's a criminal - it's okay. It's perfectly okay.
    I don't get you people.

  58. It will definitely help deter crime by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    Especially if there is a 'panic' feature built in. If you are about to be the victim of a crime, you trigger the 'panic' and everything starts being recorded/offloaded to the cloud, including names of offenders, etc. I really like this feature. Of course, it could be taken to extremes, guy cuts you off on the interstate? You have a little road-rage? Get his name, address, etc and go ape shit on him or his property. The possibilities for good & evil are endless. It will depend on what we as a society decide to do with this tech.

  59. Not Responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am positively not responsible for what I may do if I suddenly lose it because someone wearing these spyglasses is staring directly at me in public. I will never assume responsibility for that. No matter what anyone says. Just fair general warning.

  60. You'll be robbing a lot of abandoned houses then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll be robbing a lot of abandoned houses then.
    The key is to find someone with Stuff, that has Left.

  61. O noes! by mpaque · · Score: 1

    Software in a wearable gadget that does what my brain used to be able to do? Oh yes, fear this software! Run away, run away!

    The last thing we want individuals to be able to do is have access to cognitive assistive software.

    Besides, facial recognition of members of the lumpen proletariat is a power reserved to our corporate and government masters. Allowing the proles to do the same thing turns surveillance into sousveillance, which is obviously unacceptible.

    The software should be banned. We should also mandate surgery to as to prevent anyone from using their internal processing capacity to reconnize faces. Harrison Bergeron had it right..

    1. Re:O noes! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Software in a wearable gadget that does what my brain used to be able to do? Oh yes, fear this software! Run away, run away!

      If you were previously able to walk down the street and know the name of every person you saw, whether you had met them or not, then I assume one of two things. Either you have paranormal powers, or an eidetic memory and too much time to browse Facebook for people you may one day meet. In either case, I suggest that whatever you are currently doing as your day job is a waste for someone of you unique gifts.

      facial recognition of members of the lumpen proletariat is a power reserved to our corporate and government masters

      Or maybe, something we want to be restricted for all three groups you suggest.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  62. Look at the other side of it all: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making people personally accountable for all their actions and things they say on a grander scale might actually make for a better human race.

  63. Too much paranoia on this thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, you might in theory be able to walk down the street and see a blizzard of rectangles with people's names on them blocking your view of everything else......

    But who would weant to? The main point that people responding to this thread hysterically seem to have missed is this : are you or anyone you know seriously planning on spending hundreds of hard earned $$ on this product? No, me neither and I suspect that the few who do will feel so awkward wearing it in public after the ridicule they get from everyone, especially their friends, that it ends up in the "tech I no longer use" drawer pretty quickly.

  64. This should never happen.. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine, walking around and knowing all the casual information about someone? What about criminal? Let's say due to some bullshit you're on a sex offender list and walking around in a mall? Seriously, you're life would be over if accidently you ended up on a sex offender list. Jeezus.. This is just playing with fire.

  65. First blush reaction as a GoogleGlass user... by rootrot · · Score: 1

    I'll preface by saying that I've used Glass for several months now and find them to be very interesting/useful and a valuable extension of one's smartphone, etc.

    Personally, facial rec would be *hugely* useful for me. I am appalling with names/faces and having name/company etc available when someone came into the booth at a show or the like would be *wonderful*. I do think, however, such an ability needs to be limited to ones contact list/social media connections...that is, it should 'recognize' people you *know*...but not random strangers on the street.

  66. It's *face recognition*, godammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I know, this is my windmill tilting moment, but sometimes an AC's gotta do what an AC's gotta do.

    Recognizing faces is called FACE RECOGNITION, for good and obvious reasons.
    FACIAL RECOGNITION means noticing that someone has cucumber slices on their eyes and soothing lotion on their skin.
    (And no, don't bother with the obvious lewd joke; we get it.)

    Please help spread technical literacy.

    (ok, ok: the relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/725/).

    An exasperated AI researcher.

  67. No. It's not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We weren't ready for smartphones either. Now people are fucking colliding into each other in the mall because they're messing with their facebook.
    Glass is a really bad idea. Period.

  68. Fine, I'll be happy take your money by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    I was a teen sereval teen-cycles ago, and the 1st idiot wearing Glass that I meet will need a good medical team, no discussion, period.
    Tech is great, but in the current climate of mistrust this is a bad, bad idea and technology.

    Do it to me, and your wages will be garnished for life. You'll be buying me a new airplane if you so much as touch me. It's a public place, they're free photons buddy, and I'm not the government. Get over it.

    You want to go after someone, go after the NSA, or the credit bureaus, or the many, many assholes already selling every aspect of your life you think is secret. Don't go after your fellow citizens who now, at long last, are starting to get the technology that levels the playing field and allows them to in turn start watching the watchers.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  69. Bad To Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glass seems to be a guaranteed one-step method for going from socially awkward geek to completely detested pariah.

    Why would anyone want to further marginalize themselves among real people for the sake of impersonal social media?

    Oh, wait...

  70. Why the intentional misdirection? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

    You make many good point that I agree with but the following threw me for a loop.

    You said:

    Being prepared to enter a situation with relative strangers prepared to assault them is rather worrying.

    But GP said:

    Glass is hands free so I'm likely to return the punch.

    IOW, he didn't say what you said he said. He said he was prepared to defend himself. That's completely different from "prepared to assault" relative strangers. You don't have to make things up out of thin air to bolster your viewpoint; it was pretty solidly right before you went off the rails.

    Besides, if you're not prepared to defend yourself, well, that's what I'd find worrying if I were you.

    1. Re:Why the intentional misdirection? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      I see where you are coming from but there is a difference between being prepared to defend yourself, yes I am, and the gp's hypothetical situation.

      the GP wants to provoke a reaction.

      If you poke a dog with a stick it may well bite you and you may have to kill or injure it as a consequence.
      when the westboro baptists decide to picket a funeral they are goading for a reaction in order to drag someone into court.

      The fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman took place on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States. If George Zimmerman hadn't ignored the Police directions to leave Trayvon to them and goaded Trayvon into fighting with him George wouldn't have been forced into shooting and killing Trayvon. Legally George was in the right because Trayvon did the wrong thing by physically attacking him but George set the ball in motion with his reckless or premeditated actions. Was he stupid or calculating?

      I think you know really it's calling looking for a fight. Something the law doesn't seem to comprehend very well except perhaps Judge Judy, "but for this , that wouldn't happened" she often gets it spot on. She wouldn't condone punching him in the face, you don't take the law into your own hands, but he would get nothing if he sued the guy who got him kicked out.

      The gp knows the gut reaction is for someone to punch him in the face, which if anyone was to do so, would tend to see him winning in court even after pounding on his assailant or shooting him as suggested by another poster. Cooler minds wouldn't take the matter into their own hands but look for a third party to resolve the situation.

      I have in the past worked as a club doorman and been that third party. The job is not about breaking up fights and throwing people out but preventing these situations occurring. Once they occur well innocent bystanders can get hurt, you ruin the venues reputation as a safe place to have a good time ect.

      So what you do is have a word with the trouble maker explain to them that they are creating a problem, everyone's having a good time, I don't want to have to ask you to leave but if you persist... to which they generally agree to be more pleasant and then you keep an eye on them for the rest of the evening, generally their buddies will be quite persuasive and keep him from drawing my attention again. Rarely do you ever need to back that up with the use of physical force.

      The GP seems to be a bit of a socio-path, has trouble comprehending how others feel, that doesn't make him a bad person there are a lot of brilliant minds round here who relate better to computers than people. I mean just look at his reaction to my original post he now thinks he is the victim :). At a conference I expect most people would just complain to the organisers or ignore the "glasshole", thats a perfect term. After all who wouldn't expect to get fired or at least reprehended by their employer if they punched another companies rep.

      In a wider situation, a bar for example, reactions maybe physical. Most of us are too polite to actually do anything about the Glasshole, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear a cheer or a round of applause as he gets kicked out or punched.

      Really what I was trying to get through was that the advantage of having some ones details come up on google glass are out weighed by the negative perception of being a glasshole.

      A lot of conferences may have name badges you could always discreetly google the name , discreetly. Far better would be to do your homework first know who you want to meet and a bit about them, those you meet for the first time, write the name company and context down as soon as you get the opportunity. You really don't need to know about all 2000 or so delegates just the ones that you feel are going to be useful to know.

      People will be genuinely flattered if you remember who they are and a bit about them and have a genuine interest in what they do and who they are, however if its obvious that

  71. Hypocrisy alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You teach assholes to use a gun, get a permit to carry it with them at all times, and then proclaim that violence isn't the solution? I smell something in here and I don't think it's burgers on the grill!

    I'll go ahead and address the usual response, which I'm sure you'll use, cause everyone needs to protect themselves right? It's all about safety and so forth correct? Now go read your sig. That smell is getting stronger...

    ...hypocrisy smells like bullshit!

    1. Re:Hypocrisy alert! by swillden · · Score: 1

      You teach assholes to use a gun, get a permit to carry it with them at all times, and then proclaim that violence isn't the solution?

      First, I don't teach assholes. When I get them in my classes (it's actually only happened a couple of times), I pull them aside at a break, give them their money back and tell them I'm not going to certify them, so while they're welcome to sit through the remainder of the class for free, it won't get them a permit. Being assholes, they leave.

      Second, absolutely. There's nothing contradictory about carrying a gun and proclaiming that violence should be avoided, any more than there is about having a penis and proclaiming that rape should be avoided. In fact, most people who carry find that having a gun on them makes them dramatically more likely to run away, apologize, or do whatever else it takes to de-escalate a confrontation rather than let it become violent, because the gun makes them so much more aware of the risks of violence.

      It's all about safety and so forth correct? Now go read your sig.

      The sig is addressing an entirely different situation. In fact, if you want to relate it to firearms, it's really directed at tyrannical anti-gunners who insist that no one should be allowed to have a gun for safety reasons. Trying to apply it to individuals who want to exercise their human rights is nonsensical.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  72. No, They Wont. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My comment means nothing without a citation, but If i recall correctly, the bar/club or what ever it was will not let you in if they are unable to validate you as a "real" person via your facebook profile.

  73. You thought cellular phones were obnoxious by nensondubois · · Score: 1

    Wow, another threat to privacy. Good grief! Shouldn't we be investing into curing diseases instead? That's sounds more productive than wasting money on ways to freak people out and condition them further into accepting an ever-gaining loss of personal freedom from modern technology.

    Prepare to be beaten severely for wearing one around my proximity.

    --
    http://gamehacking.org/vb/threads/12747-nensondubois-codes http://twitter.com/nensondubois_