Coming Soon: Prescription Lenses For Google Glass

When I first tried on an early Google Glass headset, I had to take off my glasses -- that made the Glass display usable, but made the rest of the room a blurry mess. When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return. But now, writes reader rjmarvin, "Google Glass users sporting the eyewear will soon be able to do so with a prescription for $99. Eyeglass manufacturer Rochester Optical will offer prescription options in differents colors and styles, even allowing Glass users to trick out their eyewear with transitions or tinted lenses. They're currently conducting a survey to gauge consumer interest and preference." I look forward to the day that online glasses sources like Zenni Optical have have even cheaper options for wearable computing integration, but Rochester's projected starting price is lower than I would have guessed.

Comments

That's a nice feature for the wearer

[Anonymous Coward]

How about an opt-out feature for the people whom the wearer is viewing?

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[Lumpy]

For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?

You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.

Note, these can be lined with a metal foil to further protect you from the government satellite system as well, contact your local Google Representative for more information on this DIY upgrade.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[BasilBrush]

For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?

Before you try being patronising, you might want to check the Google Glass specs. There is no red record light visible to the person the camera is pointed at. Nor is there on most other video cameras manufactured since the 1990s.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[MightyYar]

It doesn't have a little red light, but it has the light in front of the wearer's eye. If the screen is on, they could be recording you. They also have to stare directly at you to record, and they'd be using voice commands and tapping at the side of their head. It seems like a pretty shitty device for surreptitious recording - you can already fit a camera in almost anything.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[vux984]

You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.

Yeah, that sounds great, except the trend is now to make it illegal to wear something that covers your face in public...

http://www.wtvq.com/content/localnews/story/Lexington-Adult-Masks-Illegal-To-Wear-In-Public/kduA8xtDwE6DV1LdXH5D5w.cspx

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/outrageous-critics-angered-by-new-law-making-it-illegal-to-wear-a-mask-at-unlawful-protests/

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/nypd_uses_law_from_1845_to_arrest_m.php#photo-1

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[BasilBrush]

Right. I'm just correcting the myth that there's a red recording light.

But no one is suggesting it's a spy cam. That's not one of the many objections. It's a straw-man.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[Anonymous Coward]

How come you aren't so sarcastically dismissive of privacy concerns when the story is about the NSA?

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[StripedCow]

Well, you can always opt-out by directing a laser-pen onto the Glass...

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer

[interkin3tic]

There could be a silver lining: you don't really have much privacy right now already, what with facebook, the NSA, and cameras on buildings already. If google glass annoys everyone, privacy could be an issue that people start caring about.

Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[QilessQi]

As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.

The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[RedBear]

As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.

The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.

That will just make it worse.

If it becomes difficult for people to tell that you're wearing something like Google Glass versus just a regular pair of glasses, this is going to become a very unpleasant world to live in for those of us who require corrective lenses and who don't want to or cannot wear contacts. As the technology improves over time it becomes inevitable that "smart" glasses will become indistinguishable from normal glasses, but long before it becomes literally true the public will start to believe that it's already true. We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.

As a wearer of corrective lenses I do not look forward to this brave new world where everyone who wears glasses will be subjected to suspicious glares or even physically accosted for no good reason because no one can tell whether or not you're surreptitiously recording them. As we all know too well, when people aren't sure about something they instinctively default to "Kill it with Fire!".

Thanks a lot, Google. Like we needed another witch hunt trigger. I guess I better start saving up for Lasik treatments.

When we finally perfect wireless bionic retinal implants with decent resolution the world is going to go absolutely apeshit with paranoia about being secretly recorded.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[Nerdfest]

You may want to have a rant against the people spreading the FUD rather than the people creating the technology.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[QilessQi]

The problem you're describing could be mitigated somewhat if the glasses had forward-facing LEDs which turn on whenever the camera is engaged. Then you could be reasonably sure that most people are not, in fact, videoing you all the time. For the small percent who want to do this anyway, sure they could paint over the LEDs, but then they could just wear a buttonhole camera anyway. You're not going to stop surreptitious recording now that the technology is small enough.

Here's one other way it can go down, though:

The next generation of teenagers becomes the first wide adopters of the technology. You can guess the marketing strategies: have pop idols be seen with them, have the next generation's Hannah Montana wearing them. They're fun, kids! Record good times with your friends! Record that important history class for a friend who's sick! Record a POV of your mad skateboarding skills and upload instantly to {hot social media platform du jour}.

In short, produce a generation that is used to filming and being filmed 24/7/365. The same way we've produced a generation that's used to being online all the time. It's possible, right? Especially if the parents are resisting it, the kids'll be wild for it.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[nitehawk214]

Lasik is worth every penny (assuming your prescription allows for it). i don't know why people would want to pay google glass at all, when they could could be completed glasses free for less money.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why we don't see this freakout about pinhole cameras hidden in clothing is beyond my understanding. If anything, the cost factor and ease of availability will make creepers far more likely to use a pinhole camera (50->100 USD, available to anyone with a credit card) than a Glass (1500+ USD, available by invitation only) to do their surreptitious recording.

I bet that (like most Internet outrage) this Glass freakout is largely artificial. So, would you kindly stop spreading the outrage and start spreading rational discussion about the issues at hand?

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[swillden]

Your dystopian future is already here.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[lookingglass]

Lasik is totally useless for presbyopia, one of the most common causes for "older" folks to wear glasses, or for those near sighted folks that need to remove their glasses to read (lasik would introduce the need for reading glasses in those case).

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[RedBear]

The problem you're describing could be mitigated somewhat if the glasses had forward-facing LEDs which turn on whenever the camera is engaged. Then you could be reasonably sure that most people are not, in fact, videoing you all the time. For the small percent who want to do this anyway, sure they could paint over the LEDs, but then they could just wear a buttonhole camera anyway. You're not going to stop surreptitious recording now that the technology is small enough.

Here's one other way it can go down, though:

The next generation of teenagers becomes the first wide adopters of the technology. You can guess the marketing strategies: have pop idols be seen with them, have the next generation's Hannah Montana wearing them. They're fun, kids! Record good times with your friends! Record that important history class for a friend who's sick! Record a POV of your mad skateboarding skills and upload instantly to {hot social media platform du jour}.

In short, produce a generation that is used to filming and being filmed 24/7/365. The same way we've produced a generation that's used to being online all the time. It's possible, right? Especially if the parents are resisting it, the kids'll be wild for it.

This kind of thing always sounds great on paper, until this new adventurous and uninhibited UNDERAGE generation ends up "accidentally" recording and sharing videos of themselves in the nude, showering, taking a dump, and having sexy time with themselves and others in their age group. Until society at large, and especially law enforcement, learns to accept and avoid overreacting to underage nudity and erotic activities that any fool already knows underage people in every generation engage in almost without exception, the advent of truly ubiquitous 24/7/365 recording of human life is going to be an absolute disaster for millions of individuals in coming decades. It's going to set off a whole new epic level of moral panic.

Many young people who had the temerity to turn 18 while in possession of old nude camera phone images of themselves or their girlfriend/boyfriend taken while someone was still underage have already started to get into serious legal trouble, so don't even pretend this isn't going to be a huge issue once everyone starts walking around with a permanently attached and active video camera on their almost-invisible stereo bluetooth headset. Yeah, we'll see lots of cool POV skateboarding tricks and crazy base jumping and stuff like that, but we'll also see a whole bunch of things that tens of millions of really uptight adults are absolutely not ready to see being broadcast to the public on the FaceBooks of the near future.

Mark my words. Universal recording is something that's really going to knock society on its ear, and it will take quite a long time before things settle down. Probably two or three generations at least.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[petermgreen]

Hidden cameras require a level of premediation, they basically require someone to make a concious premeditated descision to record secretly.

Phone cameras allow one to record video on the "spur of the moment" but it's pretty obvious when they are being used because they way you hold a phone when recording is pretty different to how you would hold it when just using it as a PDA.

If glasses with built in cameras become commonplace (and less obviously camera containing) then you will have to seriously consider that whenever you talk to wearing glasses they could make a spur of the moment decision to record the conversation without your knowlege.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[samwichse]

It DOES have a forward facing red LED that comes on if you record something.

The media hate-frenzy has just latched onto "ZOMG THEY COULD BE RECORDING YOU AT ANY TIME!!!!!!!11!!1one"

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not once have I heard someone making the typical anti-cameras-on-glasses argument discuss premeditation or the lack thereof. They have *always* objected to an always-on camera that records them without consent. The nightmare scenario for these folks seems to be running into someone who is *already* recording them in a public place. Go back and read the hypothetical quote from the GP:

We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.

I do agree that placing a pinhole camera in a non-obvious location requires premeditation. I argue that activating the recording feature of Google Glass requires the same amount of premeditation:
  * You have to interact with the device before it will start to record video.
  * You *cannot* run around all day with the thing in record mode. At best, you'll get an hour of video before the batteries are flat.
With a pinhole camera and concealed battery pack and external storage, you *can* run around all day with the thing in record mode and edit after the fact.

Do you see the question I'm trying to raise here? The majority of the language that I've seen the most vocal critics of the device use indicates that they most fear being recorded without their consent in a public place. I'm wondering why they don't direct their rage at cheaper, much more widely available, much more effective, much less obvious recording devices.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[QilessQi]

Yep, I fully agree. But the genie is out of the bottle. If tech companies can stir up a huge demand, and if the technology becomes ubiquitous, it seems a likely future.

There once was a time when store owners would toss you out if they caught you taking pictures of their displays -- especially if they thought you were spying for a competitor. But now, just try to run a business like that where you have to chase after everyone who holds up a phone in the vicinity of your shop. It's over. The Surreptitious Surveillance Society has arrived. And if corporate interests can push more products and services built around it, I don't really see an end. Do you?

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[guises]

We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.

It seems to me that there's a significant call for a wearable display without an integrated camera. Losing the camera would make the glasses less funny lookin', would upset other people a lot less, and given that most of the functionality seems to be notifications and mapping, which don't have anything to do with the camera, there doesn't seem to be much loss.

I, at least, have no desire for Google Glass, but would quite like some otherwise normal glasses that could give me notifications.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[Sez Zero]

It DOES have a forward facing red LED that comes on if you record something.

Yes, there's no way that could ever be disabled or fail to work. http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/mac-camera-exploit-shows-spy-potential-of-all-peripherals/

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[Anonymous Coward]

and then that will be considered a hate crime against those with bad vision. What about people with an Argus Retinal Prosthesis, you going to rip their eyes out for invading your sacred right to not be seen by electronic means?

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it

[nitehawk214]

As I understand when I brought this concern to my optomitrist, even most sighted people would need reading glasses when they get older. However you can operate mostly fine without them, you would just need them for reading (duh) or using the computer.

Great

[Moheeheeko]

So it will be even more expensive to replace when a FUD punches me in the face!

Re:Great

[decipher_saint]

at least you'll see it coming...

Re:Great

[Lumpy]

Easier than pie because the police report will cover the assult. The hard part is getting your pistol back from the police after you shot the FUD that attacked you.

I know that any loser that tries to punch me will get about 4 rounds center mass, "I was afraid for my life officer, he just came at me."

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet tough guy detected

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know that any loser that tries to punch me will get about 4 rounds center mass"

And this is why america has a gun violence problem.

Re:Great

[nbauman]

You'll get a great Youtube video, "Goon punching me in face." Maybe a lot of them.

It'll be a meme, with all the other Youtube videos of people with Google glasses getting punched in the face.

"Here's one from when we went to France."

Re:Great

[nitehawk214]

You'll get a great Youtube video, "Goon punching me in face." Maybe a lot of them.

It'll be a meme, with all the other Youtube videos of people with Google glasses getting punched in the face.

"Here's one from when we went to France."

And makes for an easy police report. This is why dashcams are so popular. This could be a logical extension of it.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you volunteer to be be punched without reacting? There is surly a lot of peoples with anger problem that could use a punching bag. Make yourself useful for once.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

As a CCW permit holder, this psycho does not represent me; my gun is for protecting my life or the life of someone else (and I'm grateful for every day that it doesn't come to that), not a legal way to murder someone.

Re: Great

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it will become necessary to not just smack the gargoyle fuck in the face, but to knock them out, then destroy the offending glasses and the linked cellphone.

It starts to sound almost like a new urban sport craze...
 

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see you will just get the shit beat out of you while you lie there in a fetal position. as a real CCW permit holder, I know for a fact you are full of shit.

Someone attacks you, you react. I would also draw and shoot if attacked by a psycho that tries to punch me.

Re:Great

[Cederic]

Nod, overreaction makes sense. After all, there's no point dodging the punch, defusing the situation, understanding the problem and resolving it when you can assure yourself a lengthy break from work by shooting some idiot in the face with a gun you clearly aren't qualified to use.

cunt.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll send you a harmonica.

uh oh, a Google glass story

[Ultra64]

Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Krishnoid]

Well, they wouldn't be so mean as to hit a guy with glasses.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.

Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value. Just seems reasonable to me.

I'll grant that threatening to cause people harm because they're doing something you don't like, but isn't explicitly prohibited, is a rather prehistoric attitude to have.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Moheeheeko]

Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

> recording your movements at all times

Yes everyone with these are going to be wasting their battery life just to spy on you.

MY GOD - CanHasDIY IS PLAYING ON FACE BOOK, TWEET THE NSA, CIA AND FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW. They must know this vital information.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.

So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?

What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.

I sure hope you never go outside.

Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.

I sure hope you never go outside.

Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'

That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think I would have spent the money on an 8-foot privacy fence, if I didn't want a little privacy in my backyard? Of course not. So don't be a douche about it.

Yes, you might be able to *legally* park a bucket truck on the street, extend it all the way, and look into my backyard, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a nosy asshole who should be universally shunned for doing it.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Forbo]

So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times? What person goes through life assuming that every camera in existence is recording their every move?

Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[msobkow]

The problem is if someone pulls out a cell phone or camera to take a picture, you can see them doing so.

There are no such visual cues with glassholes.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[msobkow]

And, yes, if I see someone wearing them, I'm going to assume they're turned on and active.

What would be the point otherwise?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades. If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

You do realize that 'glassholes' are the absolute tip of the wearable iceberg, right? I could wear 10 cameras on my person and you would never know they were there unless i pointed them out to you.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

And your little story has *what* to do with Google Glass wearers? Do you think that the dinky little camera in the frame can magically see through your 8-foot privacy fence? Or do you think that Google Glass comes with a bucket truck?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[s.petry]

Neanderthal luddite? hardly needed here, anyone with half a brain will give you intellectual reasons not to use this technology and why it's harmful for society. Of course you won't listen, because you know.. we never ever have proven conspiracies and governments can never be dangerous.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

What about the satellites that fly overhead? Are they assholes too? Planes flying over doing land surveys? Are they also assholes? The plain fact is, that if you are outside, you are observable. Your 8 foot fence is not considered to be a legal 'expectation of privacy', no matter how you feel about it.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, can I buy the Google Glass with Bitcoins in my iPhone wallet? Will it interface with my Snapchat?

Did I have enough hipster buzzwords?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times?

When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.

When it's in their pocket, or they're obviously on a call? Don't be obtuse.

What person goes through life assuming that every camera that's pointing at themis recording their every move

Celebrities and other values of person who put value on their privacy.

Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.

Don't use that term. You obviously don't know what it means, and just insulted every person who either suffers from the affliction or at least knows what that term means.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the aspies and hipsters who don't understand why things are so obviously offensive and wrong.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[MightyYar]

Exactly. If someone wanted to surreptitiously record your every move, they could do a very simple Google search for hidden or spy cameras and come up with hundreds of products. They would probably not use a device that emits a glow in front of their eye when recording, makes them look like a sci-fi character, activates when they tap themselves on the temple, and requires voice commands.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[MightyYar]

Add a roof to your fence and we're in agreement.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Holi]

>>What about the satellites that fly overhead? Are they assholes too?

Uhh yes, that's why the operators work for intelligence agencies.

And yes we do have an expectation of privacy in public, granted it's a lower expectation, but we do not lose all privacy just because we leave our house. That is why "Stop and Search" is wrong and, regardless of what NYC says, illegal. But we do have the right not to be followed and recorded, hence the legal definition of harassment.

Please, we live in a society, where we have rules and expectations. One expectation we have of our neighbors is a modicum of respect. That is what the Glassholes forget, respect for your fellow man. If it's obvious this device makes others uncomfortable, why would you insist on subjecting them to it? Sounds extremely disrespectful and rude.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't meant primarily as a recording devices, but as a display for augmented reality. Who the hell has the space to record every damn walk everywhere all the time?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Google Glass is being pushed so that everybody has one, google wants it be the next cell phone.
Hidden and "spy cameras" are a special niche and they have one purpose.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Android user here. I will burn my nexus in my fireplace before I ever let a google glass in my house.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[s.petry]

>

Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.

Well, that assumption is due to you being an imbecile. Grats on that by the way. If Apple had the same product, there would still be the same response because it's an issue of "PRIVACY" and not who made the thing.

And before you cry "ad hominem" you had best re-read your post and ask yourself if I was making a valid observation and not using ad hominem.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Queue the dregs of nerdom who think having a display in their vision as they're out and about is socially appropriate.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV. You are asking the individual to not do something business has enjoyed for a very long time. Does CCTV make you uncomfortable? Do you ask businesses to not tape you while you are out and about every time you see a camera? Do you consider every business with a CCTV setup to be equivalent to a glasshole?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.

There is no such way.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

That's crazy talk! What's next, you gonna say there might be people not interested in every moment of my life? *Snaps Instagram photo* My burger and Cola! *Status update* On the loo, be back soon! *Tweet* You won't believe the size of this log! #imlumberjackandimok

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[bloodhawk]

If they are holding it up with the camera pointed at me and looking at the screen then damn right I assume they are taking photos or recording.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades.

No, smashing cameras would be 'luddite behavior.' Smashing faces because of technological apprehension, while stupid IMO, doesn't exactly fit that definition.

If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.

That statement is equally legitimate to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."

In that, it's not legitimate at all. Every major intersection in my city, for example, has CCTV cameras attached. So to "not go places that have CCTV" would mean to not go places, and that's just stupidly unreasonable.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV.

CCTV is a stationary system that monitors only what the people who own the property have a right to monitor.

Comparing Google Glass to CCTV is like comparing a cheap, Walmart brand telescope to the Square Kilometer Array - the only thing they have in common is the fact they're both telescopes.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[s.petry]

Going to the bank is the same as walking out your frond door? Sure, there are places we expect to see CCTV and accept those locations as a trade off for giving banks the ability to catch robbers. This is not the same as being tracked by your mobile phone, NSA having access to turn on your web-cams, and people volunteering _your_ location and information because they think a gadget is "cool".

The scope of the majority of surveillance has been hidden from view, so claiming "everyone's okay with something" that they have no knowledge of is asinine. The backlash after the whistle blowers from the public should make that abundantly clear, which is why you rarely hear stories on propaganda^wNews about what Snowden revealed, you only hear about the horrible opinion the Government has for a whistle blower.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

Better idea: don't intentionally violate people's privacy.

If someone in a plane flying overhead *happens* to glance out the window and see me sunbathing nude in my private yard, well, that's life - shit happens.

Conversely, if someone is using technology to intentionally circumvent the obvious and reasonable privacy measures I've put up, then they are violating my civil rights and I will do everything in my power to make sure they pay the legal price.

Add a roof to your fence

OK, I've heard some terribly ridiculous suggestions in my day, but this one ranks up near the top.

Ever hear the term, "reasonably prudent?" Yea, it's a jurisprudence thing, and one I'd be sure to know by heart before making silly statements like that one.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[LordLimecat]

Dont forget folks looking for any excuse to bring up the NSA.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?

To fill in the gaps in your education, electronics are powered by this little technology we call "batteries". Unfortunately, these "batteries" don't hold much charge and the smaller ones, like the ones in smartphones and Glass, hold even less charge and so people can't afford to keep every single function available in their electronics powered on all the time, especially extremely power hungry things like cameras and cellular data links.

No need to thank me; educating the ignorant is my raison d'etre.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[MightyYar]

I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to become peeping Toms and such. But to suggest that a fence protects you from being photographed is just as absurd as my suggestion that he add a roof. I have a friend who shows up on Google Maps. 1 in 1000 shot, but there you go.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

The intended message isn't "You should be fine with this," it's "You are a hypocrite, because if you aren't fine with this, you should be not fine with ALL THIS OTHER STUFF that you've been putting up with all your life without complaining". There is practically no functional change in privacy invasion that Glass brings, the only difference is that it's in a new package. Complain about privacy all you want, and I'll post on slashdot supporting you (but not do anything about it in my daily life because I don't want to be singled out as a kook), but don't pretend you had significantly more privacy two years ago.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.

I sure hope you never go outside.

Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'

That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think I would have spent the money on an 8-foot privacy fence, if I didn't want a little privacy in my backyard? Of course not. So don't be a douche about it.

Yes, you might be able to *legally* park a bucket truck on the street, extend it all the way, and look into my backyard, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a nosy asshole who should be universally shunned for doing it.

Actually you've got it backwards. At no point in history was your 8 foot privacy fence effective at providing you with privacy. Anyone who cared could have arranged to find out what you did in your back yard, likely without your noticing.

Similarly all glass odes is make it easier to create a record of things that the person waring it can already see. If them seeing you isn't a violation of your privacy than why is them recoding it?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

I believe i have the right to record anything my eye can legally see. If it can be seen and remembered, it should be recordable. That is not to say i believe in the absolute right to DISTRIBUTE everything i see. Those are different conversations. There are some points I agree with you about the redistribution of my image taken without my consent. However, the fear of redistribution should not override the right to record. We should find a middle ground.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe i have the right to record anything my eye can legally see.

There are plenty of cases where it is not lawful to record things that you see/hear, regardless of whether you distribute them. Your belief is baseless.

Re: uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Neal Stephenson already covered this in Snow Crash. If you want to be one of the pathetic Gargoyles from his book, grab at the chance.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Forbo]

Thank you for assuming that I haven't ever suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. If anything, you've just insulted the very group you were trying to "defend". When you believe that every person in a crowded room is watching you and can read your thoughts, then you can talk to me about the suffering. When you're afraid to turn on the radio because the advertisements are specially crafted secret codes trying to tell you the secrets behind reality, then maybe you'll understand what I've suffered from. When I went to DefCon and could hear people whispering my name as I wandered through the crowd, being scared to the point where I needed to retreat to my room, is a pretty recent reminder of how constant a presence this mental illness has in my life. So please, don't belittle me.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.

So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?

What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?

Because, derp, recording video with Glass is battery intensive, memory intensive, and produces heat. Contrary to popular paranoia, there is not a "Stream to internet" option that is turned on by default whenever someone is wearing it. Its not trivial to just record everything. They. Have. To. Go. Out. Of. Their. Way. To. Record. Your. Stupid. Face. Just. Like. Any. Other. Camera. Get it?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus christ dude, what's it like to piss into the wind so hard that it actually rains on you later? If/when you see someone wearing Google Glass and your scowl doesn't make them want to spend as little time as possible around you, please come back and complain about it. Until then you are seriously wasting a shit ton of your own time.

Just trying to help.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

OK, so it appears you do know what schizophrenia is, but can't distinguish it from good ol' fashioned, regular paranoia.

Take your meds. And maybe a nap, you sound like you could use a nap.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

I believe i have the right

OK, well there's the crux of the issue - you believe you have a right, when you really don't. How does this make you any different than, say, a religious fundamentalist that wants to ban homosexuality, because he believes he has a right to do so?

I believe i have the right to record anything my eye can legally see.

Well, aside the fact that you don't, a video camera sees a lot more than your eye does, such as the IR spectrum. Remember when Sony first came out with the HandyCam, and it was discovered that if you turned on the night-sight during the day, it could see through people's clothing? Do you honestly think you have a right to digitally undress people? Do you think they have the right to do the same to you?

How about FLIR cameras? Those can see right through a solid wall, so when they become cheap enough to be ubiquitous, are you really trying to tell me that you think you have a right to stand in front of someone's house, recording everything they do inside (something the government has decided even they can't do legally, without a warrant)? Think, man.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

Didn't even bother to look at the 'reasonably prudent' link, did ya?

Personally, I still can't get over the fact that you think roofing a quarter acre of open space is a reasonable suggestion. I guess I can say goodbye to my garden, and grass, and trees...

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[spire3661]

I said i can record what i see and you build a FLIR straw man. Further, just because the government is not allowed to use FLIR in law enforcement in no way reflects MY ability to use it. You constructed a shitty argument. As I said, i believe I have the right to record any spectra my eye can detect, IR and FLIR are not things a normal eye can detect.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

I said i can record what i see and you build a FLIR straw man.

Just because you can't come up with an argument for it, doesn't make it a straw man argument.

Fact is, FLIR cameras are real, people can buy them, they very much can see through solid walls (being IR and all), and it is quite illegal for cops to use them without a warrant. But you seem to think either A) you can use them to spy on people in their own homes with impunity, or B) that the technology doesn't exist (even though it obviously does). Or maybe C) you're just angry and spouting off whatever foam happens to hit your mouth at the moment.

As I said, i believe I have the right to record any spectra my eye can detect, IR and FLIR are not things a normal eye can detect.

So... you don't understand how cameras work, then? Color me not surprised.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[MightyYar]

Personally, I still can't get over the fact that you think roofing a quarter acre of open space is a reasonable suggestion.

Re-read my response - I called it "absurd".

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story

[CanHasDIY]

So you did; I hereby apologize and retract my previous rant.

Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

But the hundreds, if not thousands, of other cameras you pass each day are okey-dokey.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[NatasRevol]

They're fiiiiiiine.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/reflected-hidden-faces-in-photographs-revealed-in-pupil

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the CCTV cameras? The ones whose footage is usually kept private, as opposed to getting uploaded to YouTube?

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

...no? You have to be a paid shill if you're so clueless as to believe any significant amount of slashdotters are okay with public CCTV cameras.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people like you REALLY not get the difference?

You really don't get the difference between random strangers walking around filming us and security cameras?

Do you need it explained... or what?

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the CCTV cameras? The ones whose footage is usually kept private, as opposed to getting uploaded to YouTube?

"The wicked flee where none pursueth." -Proverbs 28:1

In other words, what the hell are you doing IN PUBLIC that you'd have to worry about it showing up on YouTube? 'Cause whatever it is, the mall rent-a-cops monitoring the existing security cameras would probably snag a copy and upload it to YouTube anyway.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

But the hundreds, if not thousands, of other cameras you pass each day are okey-dokey.

First: Citation for your contention that people think that ubuquitous surveillance by non-Google Glass wearers is "fine"? Yeah. That's what I thought.

Second: Surveillance cameras have a purpose. Even if I don't like them, I can still weigh their intrusiveness against the benefit of crime reduction/loss prevention, etc. Not so, with Google Glass. I am left to weighing my desire to avoid gratuitous surveillance against some random dweeb's unknown and unstated motives.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a time-traveler from the past? Have you not been around for, oh, 10-15 years? Because I have news for you buddy, there's an internet-connected camera in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's pocket, and if they want to film you, they're going to film you. There's nothing that Glass does that people haven't been able to do for years now. Sorry for the rude awakening.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you be okay if I followed you around a store with my camcorder on? Don't mind me, just filming you. (licks lips).

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[spire3661]

This argument is incredibly tiresome, its a complete logic fail. There is no barrier to uploading CCTV video to the net.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

First:
When was the last time you even *heard* about someone throwing a fit in a store due to the presence of a security camera?
Compare that to the last time you heard someone complaining about even a *hypothetical* someone wearing Google Glass.
There's your citation about how 'people' feel about "ubuquitous [sic] surveillance by non-Google Glass wearers".

Second:
That's not the only purpose of surveillance cameras. And even where it's the only *intended* purpose, they're often used for less savory purposes as well.
Google Glass has an equally valid purpose (if not more so). Recording interactions between police and civilians.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[checkitout]

So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face - No problem? I think you'd get annoyed rather quickly.

Also, let's be honest, the security camera argument is a false argument, since we all know how crappy the footage from security cameras are and that there are more controls over the purpose and use of that footage.

With Glass you may become part of some weirdo's "art project" or have your image stored with Google in perpetuity for them to eventually add to their facial recognition database and who knows what else.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[cayenne8]

Say what you want about privacy matters. But if they're ONLY wanting $99 per lens, I might get this to save money on my freaking glasses!!

My eyesight is so poor, my lenses are quite $$$ and take month or more to get them made any time I buy glasses.

Even with the Glass fee, these may turn out to be comparable to my normal glasses with decent designer frames cost wise.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[cayenne8]

Not to mention...I'm sure the NSA is already figuring a way to suck up all the data from Glass type video recorders, store it and run some nifty face recognition to really help track down the populace....err....terrorists.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[neoritter]

It's $99 PLUS the cost of the frame (ie the glasses).

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[checkitout]

The barrier is getting fired from your job.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[cayenne8]

It's $99 PLUS the cost of the frame (ie the glasses).

I know...like I said, my eyes are REALLY bad. My lenses alone are like $300-$350+ each normally.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC here.

So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face - No problem? I think you'd get annoyed rather quickly.

Indeed I would. However, I don't assume that everyone who has their cell phone out is recording me. And that's the critical difference here; everyone is acting as though anyone wearing a Glass must ipso facto be uploading everything they see to YouTube constantly, despite the fact that the Glass clearly indicates when it is recording.

That's the proof that the Glass hate is largely class-based. Deep down, most of you don't really care about the recording. That's just an excuse to hate someone who's reminding you that they have more money than you do. You actually WANT them to be the evil creepy spies you're imagining, so that you can justify your prejudice.

And no, I don't have a Glass myself, nor could I afford it if it were offered, nor would I buy one even if I could.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[hodet]

Don't be glib. There is a difference and you know it.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there isn't. But here, let me test the waters a bit. Here's just a straight-up compact, wearable cam, no additional AR features or application integration. It just records and uploads:

http://www.looxcie.com/looxcie-2/

Ok, now show me some hate. Show me some glorious, frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for this product that's been out for years whose only purpose is the very thing many here seem to despise so much. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Loaded questions much?

I'd be annoyed if you'd just walked up to me and got in my face with camera or without.

I wouldn't be annoyed, wouldn't have much legal standing to do anything, and, probably, wouldn't even notice you if you'd film me in public place from a polite distance.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[hodet]

Class-based? Seriously? Everybody just pining for Glass and we hate anyone who has it because we don't? I will have you know that I can afford a rainbow of Glass colored frames and I still do not care for this technology and prefer to not be around people wearing it. Not everybody records you without your knowledge, but sooner or later there is going to be one douche who just can't help themselves. They would never stick a phone or a camcorder in your face but will happily record away with their glasses.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're afraid that while they're recording a video tour of the city for Grandma Ethel, he'll catch a three-second glimpse of you dancing the Macarena to Menudo on the metro? You're not that interesting man, sorry to say.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, disagreeing with you = paid shill. Sound logic there, sparky.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[checkitout]

I can assure you I could buy a whole fleet of Google Glass if I wanted to. The class argument is laughable.

Also, unlike you, I've actually tried Google Glass and I can say that the only worthwhile feature was the ability to record video by taping the side of it. The very small display (it's like 8 lines max, maybe 5 words per line) and constant looking up and to the right do not make for a good user experience for any real information, imho.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[jcochran]

Interesting, there seems to be plenty of CCTV footage on youtube. Did everyone in this compilation get fired? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSFQxxJaZk
 

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've got nothing better to do with your life (and clearly you don't) then come on over.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

>how crappy the footage from security cameras are

Legacy cameras aren't as good as modern cameras, surprise!

Security cameras are getting better at the same rate every other digital camera is. Some of the professional units, i.e. not the junk marketed to home users, are pretty good and not particularly expensive.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[JDG1980]

Would you be okay if I followed you around a store with my camcorder on? Don't mind me, just filming you. (licks lips).

In that case the creepy part is "followed you", not "camcorder". It would be equally objectionable to follow around one specific, unwilling person even if you didn't take any recordings or photos.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

>So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face?

Go for it. Between powering the camera, compressing the stream, and uploading it wirelessly, you'd be out of battery in about 30 minutes, even if the battery were brand new. We'll laugh in your face when that happens.

All the whiners apparently have never used a cellphone before. Do they not have them in the Libertarian paradise of Somalia or something?

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you should be able to explain it pretty simply.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

>and prefer to not be around people wearing it.

So, never go out in public again. Problem solved.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but lack of reading comprehension = moron.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least you can admit you have a problem. Go read a couple more books, should clear that right up.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes surveillance cameras exists. Too bad it doesn't validate your argument. Most of these cameras are in public areas, used for security, and aren't expected to post videos on YouTube.

Compare that to Google glasses which are directly linked to Google, follow the wearer into non-public places, capable of posting to YouTube, and aren't useful for anything but the wearer's enjoyment.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think the $99 per lens is the single focal length price.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you fucking morons forgotten that there's a camera installed in just about every other device being produced that isn't intended for surveillance? I mean come the fuck on, I have seven devices with cameras built into them within a 10' radius from where I'm sitting on my sofa.

Why the fucking hell are you people strictly focused on CCTV and security appliances? What fucking alternate reality are you from that Google Glass is apparently the only compact, affordable, consumer-grade and web-enabled camera? Jesus fucking Christ.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[hodet]

Why would I hate that? It's pretty obvious and and would never become ubiquitous. You won't see all kinds of people wearing these things downtown. You don't really get it do you. You just don't see the problem with Google Glass which is totally different then this. Glass is going to evolve to the point where you won't even be able to distinguish them from regular glasses. Oh did you think I was totally against being caught in a video at some point in my life? What I hate is the idea of being swept into recordings on a daily basis. Glass as it is today is just a prototype for what it could potentially become. But hey, there are alot of other things I don't like in the world and I am sure life will go on.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[hodet]

Yes I could actually, but your mind is already made up so what is the point.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I hate that?

Exactly.

1) It's not branded by Google, and
2) Having just learned about it, you haven't had the time to come to any wild, speculative conclusions about its usage.

And that's all you have now, wild speculation about a product that's still under development.

But of course, Google-bashing is all the rage here on the surprisingly technophobic Slashdot, so enjoy being modded up.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Spy Handler]

All the whiners apparently have never used a cellphone before. Do they not have them in the Libertarian paradise of Somalia or something?

No, they're from the socialist paradise of North Korea.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[hodet]

Well it's a good thing some of us remain skeptical. You just make it too easy. This isn't about Google, I would feel the same about it if it were .

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree.

If I saw some guy walking around with a camcorder I'd be all like "Wow, what a loser."

If I saw some guy walking around with Google Glasses I'd be all like "Wow, what a loser, but at least he's not that camcorder guy who's living in the 90s."

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google

[RockDoctor]

Reading TFA (yeah, I know ; not the way it's done this decade.), it's significantly different to what TFS says :

The prescription lenses will be available in an array of styles and colors that clip onto Glass and cost as low as US$99

To be honest, that sounds rather like the "clip on" sunglass covers that you've been able to get for 40+ years that I can remember. Which would also mean that they're almost certainly single vision (probably almost useless for you, given the way that you describe your vision), made of moulded or cast plastic (useless for me - I have to remove and replace my glasses multiple times per minute when I'm in the lab, switching between the microscope and the hand specimens ; and there's a lot of grit in that environment, which destroys even "hard coated" plastic lenses in a matter of hours), and will look like shit and fall off at the slightest opportunity (useless for almost anyone).

When I got a single-vision prescription SCUBA diving mask made (under a month before getting prescribed for bifocals! Typical!), it was about £100 for the two prescription ground surfaces in glass, plus another £75 for the mask body (comparable to the plain glass version's street price ; good quality mask) ; that's something like USD 70 per prescription grinding. So I'd guess you're getting triple-vision lenses, or double-vision with an astigmatic correction?

What do you do for safety spectacles at your worksites?

Coming soon after

[Anonymous Coward]

Google glass being relegated to the fuck-up collection of "soon to be the big thing" tech gadgets.

Google Glass in my eye

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone punches me I'll have horrible eye damage along with my bruise! Thanks Google!

Stop doing that. You'll go blind.

[stevegee58]

Can I do it until I need Google Glasses?

Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Gothmolly]

Outside of some sort of Tron: Uprising style AR view of things for mechanics and the like, why would a person wear these in their normal day?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So that they don't get hit by a train while looking down at their smartphone?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[spire3661]

ill pose the equal question of, 'why wouldnt they'?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically the only useful application is maps and the camera. Even browsing the Internet is a pain in the ass that's significantly worse than just using a smart phone. It hasn't even caught on at Google and the only people praising it are marketing dregs like Scoble. It will find some uses in industry, but it's never going to catch on among normal people.

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Holi]

I don't know, common respect for those around them?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, common respect for those around them?

common respect from those around me would be that they do not use their cellphone. Yes i am a old-timer when it come from cellphone, just like you are a old-timer when it come to wearable computer.

I bet you are one of these anti-google glass 'get-out-of-my-lawn douche bags' that always speak loudly on his cell because 'oh my god, i am so important'.

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you are one of these anti-google glass 'get-out-of-my-lawn douche bags' that always speak loudly on his cell because 'oh my god, i am so important'.

That's one of the dumbest assumptions you could possibly make based on his previous posts.

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb comment deserve dumb reply.

Why are you defending him? Do you think dumb comment deserve a well thought rebuttal, or do you actually think that wearing computer is a lack of common respect?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[timeOday]

For me it would be getting prompted with people's names.

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech?

[petermgreen]

Prior to the iPhone and andriod taking off I suspect people said similar things about smartphones.

Just because one generation of an idea isn't well enough executed to really take off doesn't mean the idea itself is doomed.

$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900

[Joe_Dragon]

$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900 for them

prescription lenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anyone personally who wears glasses any more. all my friends and family have laser eye surgery or wear contacts. the others have 20/20 vision

Re:prescription lenses?

[Lumpy]

And I know people that have had to have it twice and are wearing glasses again. I refuse to as it's not worth the risk. Unless the doctor has $10M in cash waiting for me if he screws up, I am not risking my eyesight for vanity.

Re:prescription lenses?

[mythosaz]

Then you have a small circle of people you know personally, of you're young.

Laser eye surgery isn't particularly effective as you get older, and as your eyesight changes more rapidly.

Re:prescription lenses?

[Antipater]

You could make the same argument about sunglasses with prescription lenses, but people still use those.

Contacts can only be made so strong, and there isn't as much precision in the prescriptions as with glasses. Laser surgery should only be done if/when your prescription has been stable for 2-5 years, which for some people never happens and for others can take decades (my father's eyes didn't stabilize until age 40). It's also expensive.

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$

[james_shoemaker]

$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).

Google Glass with Transition Lenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't make glasses that just say "ASSHOLE" on them.

Another nail in the coffin...

[matbury]

Yet another nail in the coffin for personal privacy. Please read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-four." Please look at how countries like N. Korea and the former German Democratic Republic used dissolving the concept of personal privacy to implement the most oppressive and hated regimes in human history (there are many other examples). Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al, are helping governments around the world to build the infrastructure that can allow the most oppressive, totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen come into existence.

Here's Christopher Hitchen's attempt to get across the idea of the dissolution of personal privacy from his own and others' experiences of despotic regimes (also find out why chess is banned in Iran): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-rTT8TPcck (Fora.tv, running time: 01:00:52).

How about we allow them in public when every executive administrator of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al, and the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, Congress, and the Senate (federal and local, which would include meetings and lunches with lobbyists and special interests) agree to wear them all the time while they're working and all those video and audio streams are openly available to US citizens?

New!

[msobkow]

Now with blind glassholes! :P

I Fail to See the Appeal

[CanHasDIY]

I guess maybe I'm the odd duck here, but I just don't see what's so appealing about paying Google to become one of their pet, Snow Crash style gargoyles.

Re:I Fail to See the Appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lack of enthusiasm isn't such a big deal either way. If Glass is useful enough, you'll just get outproduced by those more willing to adapt. If Glass is a flop, you'll be just like the other 99.9% of people who don't have it.

Re:I Fail to See the Appeal

[Overzeetop]

Absolutely, I expect to be their pet free of charge. ;-)

I find the non-glass versions of their products exceptionally helpful and useful. Glass would mean I don't have to carry a second gadget (I wear prescr. lenses). Right now, google can sift through my email at will, see where I'm going and what I'm doing (calendar), and know who I'm contacting (voice). Verizon knows the rest - they're my telephone provider and have access to all of the calls - home and mobile - and any texts I make. They even know where I am, via triangulation to their towers. I know they sell that information. Short of setting up my own, parallel cell network and landline phone system, that will never change.

I view it as a symbiotic parasitism. Is is creepy? Perhaps. But I'd like to find out where this rabbit hole leads, rather than throwing a poison bomb down the hole and covering it up.

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$

[RabidReindeer]

$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).

I've almost always paid for glasses out of pocket. Only 2 or 3 times have I had optical insurance paying. And while $99 sounds about right for the blanks, the grinding that comes afterwards is pretty creative. Plus it's either tint or do the whole thing over for sunglasses.

Still, it's the frames that are the real ripoff.

Prescription lenses...

[cDarwin]

Will not fix a myopic product.

Re:Prescription lenses...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for a crowded streetcar or something, where someone just starts yelling "Ok Glass send a message to " and all the trendy hipster douchebags wearing these things have just blown up some random cellphone.

Re:Prescription lenses...

[swillden]

I'm waiting for a crowded streetcar or something, where someone just starts yelling "Ok Glass send a message to " and all the trendy hipster douchebags wearing these things have just blown up some random cellphone.

Only the owner's Glass will activate. My MotoX already does this very well... I've get to find another person to whose voice it will respond.

Re:Prescription lenses...

[swillden]

s/get/yet/

Refractive index?

[Flymo2]

$99 isn't going to buy lenses which are useful to me.

Re:Refractive index?

[mythosaz]

Why not? $99 can buy you nearly the most complicated lenses no-line bifocal lenses anyone wears on their face unless you demand a brand-name photochromic+progressive (instead of generic branded) as long as you don't insist on buying them from the mall.

Re:Refractive index?

[bsolar]

With 99$ you can buy full-coated single-correction lenses with "entry-level" refractive index, but if you want a very high RI material the price can rise easily to 300$ or more. You can go with the cheaper material, but above a certain correction the lenses become very thick and heavy which makes a high RI material *much* more desiderable.

In my case, I have around -9.00 myopia so I wear my glasses all day. I bought the highest RI material available which made the lenses *much* thinner and lighter, but very expensive... At this level of myopia you also have to chose a frame requiring a small enough cut, since concave lenses grow larger and larger the farther from the center.

Re:Refractive index?

[mythosaz]

1.74 polymer is still under the magic $99 price point at Zenni, which, at a glance is a fairly high RI for eyeglass material.

I'll certainly concede, however, that if you require a very special prescription and don't want to wear coke bottles, you might have to pay more.

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$

[MightyYar]

You guys need to check out Zenni. My wife is in coke-bottle territory, but we still pay nowhere near $100 for glasses. I'm only a -3 or so... my glasses are $7.

What about Bifocals

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to offer bifocals? What about if someone has two pairs of glasses, one for reading and one for driving? Are they going to be able to switch between them without buying a new set of google glasses for $1500 or whatever the price was?

Re:What about Bifocals

[Holi]

Go to the site. It seems like you get one special lens for dealing with the actual Glass unit. I believe you could easily have a normal lens installed for the other eye.

You've read a different book, or failed English

[Overzeetop]

No, I'm not talking about the missing y in the title ("Nineteen Eight-four.")

If you've read the book you'd realize that while certain elements have come to fruition due to the march of technology the actual content of the story is about governmental control of what occurs, keeping people in intentional poverty, controlling the media, modifying history to support the changing governmental priorities, and imprisoning and brainwashing anyone who does not conform.

Quite the contrary, the government has little or no hand in the all the above mentioned things which are occurring - but at the behest of corporations and the voluntary lack of engagement by the public (well, okay - the books proels are really society at large today - point taken). The EU and the US (to a *far* lesser extent) have even set limits on what the corporations can an cannot do. Politicians do try to "adjust" the past in their speeches, but the internet has led to an explosion of fact-checkers which point out their historical rewrites. Often before the speech is even over.

Re:You've read a different book, or failed English

[matbury]

Good points... When corporations get to a large enough size, e.g. the big financial corporations, big pharma, agribusiness, and defence contractors, they become effectively indistinguishable from government. They corrupt the democratic processes and manipulate them to their own advantage, changing laws, giving themselves more powers and access to the levers of power. In effect, it's as if the US government is in the process of privatising itself. Yes, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Viacomm, AT&T, et al are building the infrastructure for mass surveillance but the government are happy to let them do so because they want to "piggy-back" on all the systems. It's a great way of getting people to want and pay for the subversion/destruction of their own societies.

It's not exactly what George Orwell predicted but the underlying principles are still there: constant surveillance, dissolving the concept of privacy, impoverished masses, continual war, rewriting history (and/or ignoring it all together), extreme state sanctions against "thought criminals", etc.

And who fact checks these days? Most people (the proles?) still get their news and form their opinions from the TV which mostly means Fox News and other News International outlets and almost every other outlet follows along with the same formulae. Have you seen the news on TV lately?

We don't need to pay any attention to those silly, inconvenient "fact" thingies. Hey look! Miley Cyrus twerking!

Re:You've read a different book, or failed English

[Overzeetop]

Fair point. I don't watch the news. I troll the wire stories, but I usually fact check anything out of the ordinary - at least with a quick online search. That's one good thing about MSNBC and Fox. They have it "in" for the other side so bad they're almost rabid with their fact checking. Usually when the dust settles there's actual truth lying around. Sadly, truth is neither simple nor direct, but far more nuanced that what can be used to control the masses. Which is why it's almost never seen all by itself.

Everyone at Google has 20/20 vision

[sir-gold]

"When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return."

So not a single person on the design and engineering team wears glasses, and it simply never occurred to them that there would need to be a prescription version?

Great, more expense to destroy

[JamieIanMacgregor]

when someone rips your google glass off your face and stamps it into the footpath

I'll sign up...

[mi]

If/when I ever need glasses, I'll certainly get the "loaded" ones like Google's or whatever the technology will be by then.

I am one of those people, who always lose things (gloves, umbrellas), so I like to carry as little as possible. Heck, I even sacrifice some privacy and carry only the employer-provided smart-phone — because I loath having to carry one more device. And I read e-books on it too — so as not to carry a separate item.

FSA

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you put $2500 a year in FSA account - you can get multiple Google RX Glass!!!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher indexes get expensive but there are a LOT of online shops out there. Zenni for sure but there's quite a list at eyeglassretailerreviews.com for alternatives. I checked goggles4u just now and a cheap -12 was about $55 and that was the first place I looked so easily you should be able to find others for WELL under the $99 that was mentioned even at that high prescription.

More of a niche tool than an always-on one

[blackanvil]

I've been interested in Glass for it's potential utility as a "POV" camera for documenting what I do in the workshop (knifemaking, blacksmithing, etc). I don't view it as a "everyday all the time" tool, but it is one I'd like in my toolbox, and since I wear corrective glasses, incorporating lenses is a step in the right direction. I wonder if they'll offer a "safety glasses" version (side shields and heavy frame construction, they already have the extra-durable lens material mentioned in the survey.)

Classic case of a misunderstood product

[TomGreenhaw]

I got Google Glass for Christmas and what I've read doesn't really align with reality.

While I suppose you could roll the video recorder nonstop, the glasses get warm and wear the battery out pretty fast. Glassholes as walking surveillance cameras is not reality. There are lots of clandestine cameras out there already and that's not what Glass is about. You can take a picture by winking, but that's pretty obvious, and also potentially unnerving.

I need reading glasses so prescription lenses will be a big help.

Glass without the lenses makes you look like a cyborg sticking a camera in everybody's face all the time. Glass with the lenses clipped on makes them look like a lot more like normal glasses that most people don't immediately care about. Adding a neck strap and putting the glasses on (which by the way powers the device up) pretty much eliminates you being a big glasshole.

I wore it for a full day and was surprised at what I actually found useful. Its nice to glance up and see the time - they are more comfortable for me than a wristwatch. While I was exercising, having a timer right above my field of vision was really nice; this helped when cooking a meal too. I'm looking forward to having it show my heart rate with a Bluetooth Polar monitor strap. I found myself googling information I wouldn't have bothered to look up otherwise. I was pleasantly surprised that I liked the hands-freedom of it acting as a Bluetooth phone headset.

Google Glass is both a glimpse of the future and not ready for the mass market. Google calls early adopters willing to experiment and write applications for Glass explorers. Criticizing Glass at this point would be like telling the the Wright brothers that their plane was lacking in so many ways in the early days of flight.

I'm not sure Glass will have an immediate consumer killer app, but the business use cases are very much there. Taking inventory in a store or a warehouse where having both hands free, but looking at a barcode and speaking the quantity is interesting. A cashier or a warehouse worker having a scanner and speech input device with both hands free could be compelling. Anybody who is not sitting in front of a computer but needs to monitor process status or receive alerts is another obvious use case for many business applications; yes you can do that now with a phone, but you have to operate the device with your hands as opposed to glancing up.

correction

[Anonymous Coward]

No, much better to be glib-common :)

Zenni Optical sux

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time we ever ordered from them, we spent ~$90 on some seriously tricked out glasses for my MIL. They couriered them to her apartment block, and the fucking idiot who delivered it *left the pair in the hallway*.

So, of course, she never received them. I call Zenni, and they say "No - you cannot have a 'signature required' delivery, and no, we're not refunding your money or shipping another pair."

Fuck Zenni Optical. They're not cheap glasses if you don't get what you paid for.

Re:Zenni Optical sux

[craighansen]

So, you tell your credit-card company, and they'll do a charge-back. Then you order another pair delivered to a secure location. I've ordered more than a dozen pairs of glasses from Zenni (for myself and family), and I've always had good results. I've also had them check with me via email when they were concerned that I might have made a mistake specifying the glasses - I didn't, but I appreciate their level of care. And frankly, they're way less than half the price of glasses from my local optometrist - I get my vision plan to pay for one pair from my optometrist and then use Zenni to get a variety of specialty lenses (for reading, computer use, dark sunglasses (photochromics don't work inside cars). I usually get faster service from Zenni even with the overseas shipping than I do from my optometrist (who sends the order to an outside lab).

I'll close with a final tip - your optometrist in most states is legally obligated to provide you with a written prescription, particularly when you ask for it. Make sure she includes the PD (pupilary distance measurements). Zenni only accepts a single value for PD - if the optometrist provides two numbers, add them together. If you've got a bifocal prescription, add the spherical numbers to the strength of the reading addition to get reading glasses (keep track of the signs), and add about half the amount to get "computer glasses."

False, it currently responds to any voice...

[earls]

If I take off Glass and give it to someone else - they can instantly use their own voice to issue commands without any calibration. If I or other people shout out commands while a random person is wearing them, it will respond.

The chink in his example is that the target device would have to be a contact in Glass already - and at this current time, Glass contacts are exclusive to Glass - they're not pulled from Google Contacts. As far as I know, you have to say "make a call " versus "make a call to 555-555-1234".

Yes, maybe one day we will be able to shout "ok glass allah allah jihad" for great fireworks, but that ain't even close to reality at this time. Wait, now I have an idea for an app...

Re:False, it currently responds to any voice...

[swillden]

I'm extrapolating from what my MotoX does. I think it will be highly useful to have personalized voice recognition for Glass, so strongly suspect that's the way it'll go. Like on my phone it'll probably be optional, but I think most people will turn it on.

Changes

[tripwire45]

Cool, but what happens if your prescription changes? You might have to switch to contact lenses to use glass over time.