Slashdot Mirror


Google Tells Glass Users Not To Be 'Creepy Or Rude'

An anonymous reader writes "One of the biggest worries about the rise of wearable computing is the ease with which random strangers will be able to record your actions without your knowing. Right now, it's pretty easy to tell if somebody's holding up their cellphone to take some video. But when everybody's wearing Google Glass, or something similar, it will become harder to tell. This has led to preemptive bans on Glass in certain places. Now, Google has published a list of Do's and Don'ts to tell Glass users how they should behave politely in public. Do: ask for permission before recording people. Don't: ignore the world around you, expect that people won't notice, or wear it during a cage fight. Most importantly, don't 'be creepy or rude.' Google says, 'Standing alone in the corner of a room staring at people while recording them through Glass is not going to win you any friends.'"

221 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. But... by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    Creepy and rude nerds are their target market. How's that going to work?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:But... by Frobnicator · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In public, I want ubiquitous recording BY THE INDIVIDUALS.

      If I'm in a club, I want a few cameras running. Inevitably there are fights, and if we can get viewpoints from five different individuals it could clean up a lot of problems.

      If I'm out dealing with a drunk, I want a few cameras running. If anything goes wrong we can get viewpoints from several angles to prove innocence against accusations.

      If I'm dealing with a difficult client, I want a few cameras running. Let's have both of our viewpoints and more besides. If I did something wrong let me know, show me so I can fix it.

      I'm a photographer who insists on having someone present when I shoot women alone, I really want a few cameras running. I once had baseless accusations against me, and a few cameras would have cleaned things up quick.

      If I need to interact with police for anything from a speeding ticket to an arrest, I want a few cameras running. If I'm guilty, I am content to have those cameras show my guilt. If I am innocent, I want those cameras to prove not just to the court, but to show the media, to show facebook, to show youtube.

      There is a HUGE difference between government run CCTV, corporate overlords monitoring our movements, versus individuals who can use recordings to preserve what they see for any use.

      Individuals with cameras in public? Bring them on. When everybody (not just the authorities) have the cameras running the world will be that much better.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      “There will come a time when it isn't 'They're spying on me through my phone' anymore. Eventually, it will be 'My phone is spying on me'.” Philip K. Dick

      “Not enough people know or understand just how little freedom we have left.” Korban Blake

      Great! So when's the next time I can peek in through your bathroom window?

    3. Re:But... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      Obviously not true. Apple has always struggled to gain acceptance with their products, and didn't start succeeding until they actually offered the superior product too. Nerds and the general user base also share one other thing: both tend to like the cheaper option that, while less polished, gives the greatest personal freedom. Witness Android vs. iOS. Very clear what the better product is, but Android is the PC to Apple's Mac.

      It turns out that cool, sociable people are also annoying and less popular than they think.

      I'm all for privacy on your property. But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.

    4. Re:But... by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate replying to myself, but since we don't have a way to edit...

      The ones with the cameras have the power. Governments with CCTV have power. Corporate overlords with CCTV have power.

      Protesters recording police abuses have power if they record it, but if they don't record it usually they lose.

      Activists recording business abuses have power when challenged since they can expose problems, but no recordings and they find themselves sued to oblivion.

      Drivers in Russia with dashboard cameras have power when people jump in front of their vehicles.

      When the people have the cameras, they have the power. Sadly many individuals equate cameras with power so they feel powerless when they see another individual with a camera. Just give everybody cameras, let them record everything. Power to the people, and all that.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    5. Re:But... by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      Curious if you ever look in the mirror.

    6. Re:But... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Creepy and rude nerds are their target market. How's that going to work?

      Clearly I'm not the only one thinking "too late".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In public, I want ubiquitous recording BY THE INDIVIDUALS.

      You seem to have a serious problem with understanding that what YOU want
      may not be what others want.

      Some people are not going to ask you politely to quit taking video of them,
      they are just going to take your device and smash it. Don't believe me ?
      Try taking video of a group of bikers and see how that works out for you.
      ( you will want to make sure your health insurance is in proper order and covers major
      facial trauma before you undertake this experiment )

      .

    8. Re:But... by epyT-R · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Except that they don't necessarily offer the superior product, just the most expensive, trendy one. This actually appeals more to those 'sociable' people the gp refers to, because, for them, social acceptance is the most important factor in every decision they make. They buy apple because their rich friends did. Often, such people aren't very intelligent when it comes to technology, or even basic concepts like reason and logic, because, frankly, they haven't had to be in order to survive.. Often, these people being at the top of the social pyramid, do not have to interface with harsh realities all that often.

      The world, today, is run by such people, and examples of their 'success' in doing so are everywhere.

    9. Re:But... by khallow · · Score: 2

      Not after my mere gaze shattered it into dust.

    10. Re:But... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Define 'loser'. If 'loser' means, "never gets to touch genitals with another", then I suppose you're right, though maybe you can explain why anyone beyond the age of 16 should care. However, if 'loser' means "get raped by family court/false DV accusations/degenerate adult-age 'highschool' drama/STDs/divorce settlements", then I'd say the celibate nerds are the winners, especially the men.

    11. Re:But... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I'd rather avoid people who make baseless accusations than live in a police state.. It doesn't matter who does the recording.

    12. Re:But... by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      And your basis for saying this is what exactly? You seem to state your case like it's fact, when you just seem to hate a group of individuals with different preferences than you. Guess what, not everyone has the same priorities you do, and you are not the smartest person on the planet. I know you think you are, but you aren't. Do you claim that all food you don't like is worthless garbage for the unwashed masses? If you do, my guess is you eat a lot of dinners alone. Get over yourself.

    13. Re:But... by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I certainly don't trust Corporates or governments with power, I trust the average person with power to monitor me a 1000 time less. The average moron has no respect for anyone elses privacy or rights and thinks what they find acceptable trumps everyone elses rights to decency.

    14. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Your own link shows that your source is shit, maybe you should read it? Location tracking is considered a risky behavior, and Android apps collected MORE data, more easily than iOS apps did. Second, it's from a company trying to sell you... a service to manage apps.

    15. Re:But... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind in all this, the camera is just proof of what you saw and likely remembered. It's not like goggle glass is seeing something you didn't see or recording something you couldn't remember. Of course once any like system becomes more universal, the reality of sorting through the petabytes of data generated because quite difficult and in reality just becomes an individuals proof of events especially when dealing with salespersons, government agencies, police and of course passing unruly strangers, acquaintances and even relatives.

      The only real thing about monitoring people is we all know it should be from the top down rather than the bottom up. Those with the greatest responsibilities and the greatest impact should be monitored well before those with the least responsibilities and the least impact ie if Darth Cheney was monitored there would have been no war in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive today. Of course as we all know exposure of the NSA has very much proven that the monitoring is from the bottom up, with the top quite readily able to hide their criminal actions, whilst attempting to gain information on the bottom with a view to extortion. Failure to comply or change behaviour results in the release of the data to law enforcement where you are brutally arrested (injuries ranging from minor to death) and pushed into the trial system where you a threatened with grossly exaggerated crimes and extended abusive prison sentences with homosexual rape alluded too or you plead guilty to circumstantial evidence and are given an arbitrary punishment in order to steal your rights and silence you.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:But... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I use Android because I must, but the iPhone and iPad seem like better products in most measurable ways. However, as Apple has always done, there are a few big gotchas. Price, closed software market, and Apple deciding what kind of apps are/are not acceptable for me. Those last two are showstoppers, I can overlook price for a better product.

      I won't ignore that social factors are a big factor in Apple purchases, that's certainly true and Apple definitely uses it to their advantage.

      But going back to the original point, in spite of having the better product, the cool/social/hip crowd represents the smaller share of the market. A product does not need, and in some ways may benefit from not having, that market segment.

    17. Re:But... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      which is why Glass will never take off.
      Consumer products are only successful if they're marketed to cool, sociable people, not loser nerds with no lives.

      I'm their target market.

      I'm not a creepy nerd either. I'm a middle-aged business man with a nice wife, a nice house, a reasonable car, and a reasonable job that requires me to inspect and manage engineering works in progress.

      I have always obtained and used the best mobile recording tools for the job: Digital cameras as soon as they were available. Those Olympus electronic voice recorders/transcribers. I still have a Compaq Concerto tablet PC from the early '90s, The first Palm Pilot, and several later iterations of the marque. Win CE PDAs and phones. Nokia N800s. Several varieties of Android phones and tablets. If a tool saves me time, it makes me money.

      If I could get a Glass, I'd be using it now. It's a tool, not a toy and will succeed or fail based on how good a tool it is.

      You can call me a Glasshole if you like. I don't care, as long as it's making my job easier and better.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    18. Re:But... by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      How can either be secure if the NSA has already built in backdoors into both?

    19. Re:But... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Why would you want to peek in my bathroom window? If you want to get blind, there are easier and less painful ways...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:But... by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Except acting "rich" and "arrogant" in a Rolls Royce won't send you to the nearest hospital.

    21. Re:But... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    22. Re: But... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Here here.

      I just do a bunch of DIY around the house. Being able to record things as I take them apart or assemble them would be a huge timesaver and make it a lot easier to seek advice/share experiences.

      The benefits of doing this in a chemical lab would be even greater.

    23. Re:But... by retroworks · · Score: 1

      It's simply a matter of statistics. There are millions more individuals than there are 'corporates' or governments. I don't "trust the average person less", but the average person is statistically more likely to be creepy outlier. And creepy outliers are perhaps more likely, at this point, to spend money to obtain google glass (or baidu glass) and are less likely to give a damn over simple admonishments like "don't be evil" or "don't be creepy". At least with corporations and governments, you are more likely to have more people involved, more checks and balances, and filters for risky and litigious behavior.

      --
      Gently reply
    24. Re:But... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Creepy and rude nerds are their target market. How's that going to work?

      Not to mention every teenage boy that wants x-ray vision...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    25. Re:But... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Vibrators and fleshlights are very successful products for loser nerds.

      How does spending all your money/free time trying to attract (usually) the most superficial/uninteresting members of the opposite sex make you a "winner"?

      --
      No sig today...
    26. Re:But... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2

      What, are they afraid the video will end up on some underground bear porn site?

    27. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What is the individual who records you going to do to you? Post video of you fetching your mail on the internet?

      It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition. Curious as to what your employees were doing at 2AM last Tuesday? Just look it up!

      Then you can either fire all your employees because all of them do stuff you don't like at some point, or you can decide there are better things to do with your time.

    28. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.

      I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?

      Somehow I doubt the parent was suggesting that a gunfight in a bar was the solution to somebody being annoyed about somebody else owning a camera. Maybe live and let live is a better solution? The last time I checked everybody at the local bar was carrying a cell phone camera, and I've yet to see somebody get punched in the face over it.

    29. Re:But... by laejoh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to know more, read Gödel, Esher and Bach!

    30. Re:But... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Thats what they said about flying cars...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    31. Re:But... by cmorriss · · Score: 2

      My dad is a home inspector and I was talking to him the other day about how amazing Glass would be for his job. He often has to climb into difficult spots and take pictures or movies. This would be a dream tool for him.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    32. Re:But... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He does have a point - you can buy a phone that is just as well made, does more and has better hardware than an iPhone for half the price. People buying an iPhone are clearly being influenced by something other than a rational evaluation of features and price. Some of it is probably lock-in due to already owning apps for iOS, or having other iOS devices tied into an Apple account. Undoubtedly some of it is also peer pressure and the shiny Apple store's reality distortion field.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re:But... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      How does spending all your money/free time trying to attract (usually) the most superficial/uninteresting members of the opposite sex make you a "winner"?

      It doesn't. But spending some of your money/free time to establish a mutually satisfying relationship with someone to whom you're physically and emotionally attracted, definitely makes you a winner. Cynically dismissing this may not make you a loser, but it certainly makes you "not a winner."

    34. Re:But... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      While I certainly don't trust Corporates or governments with power, I trust the average person with power to monitor me a 1000 time less. The average moron has no respect for anyone elses privacy or rights and thinks what they find acceptable trumps everyone elses rights to decency.

      And that differentiates them from government how, precisely?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:But... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If everyone could review everything then everyone would act very differently.

      It would be horrendous chaos at first, but eventually it would settle out. Notably, a lot of bad laws would fall by the wayside. The only questions are how many generations would it take and is there a better way to improve society. But let's face it, personal accountability is very much what is missing today — not to differentiate today from most times in history.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:But... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Not digging giant holes in the ground with spoons means you're not a winner.

      Have you ever thought that not everyone shares your interests?

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    37. Re:But... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      but the average person is statistically more likely to be creepy outlier.

      Most people are completely unintelligent, though. That's bad enough.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    38. Re:But... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

      Wow... it sounds like it's the non Glass-wearing crowd who are the ones in need of a little lesson in public behaviour.

      I think they get it quite right. You are not suggesting that Google should sell a GG + gun combination? Armed glassholes who give the unwashed masses a little lesson in public behaviour?

      No, that would suck. This is the 21st century dude. Lasers. GG + laser. Besides, guns have a kick, loud noise, and stuff. It would be like hitting your head with a hammer, which, actually is probably not a bad idea either. If I want to shoot somebody bad enough that I'm willing to hit myself in the head with a hammer, then it must be justified.

    39. Re:But... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      Lock in and synergy with other devices are both rational evaluations. I have a mac, Apple TV, and airplay speakers at home, so an iphone is much more functional for me than an android. Not to mention all my music is in the itunes cloud Andy current app library. For me an iphone is a rational choice because it has better features than an android because it plays nice with my other toys, and is a better price because I don't have to buy new apps.

    40. Re:But... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      This is an incredibly stupid thing to do to someone who is recording what you are doing and uploading the recording to the great and mighty cloud in real time.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    41. Re:But... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm all for privacy on your property. But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.

      And because you must assume you are under constant surveillance, you must refrain from doing or saying anything. After all, you never know what political opinion a potential employer might take offence at when it pops out of Google search, or might be grounds to deny you security clearance, or make you a suspected potential terrorist, or whatever. An atmosphere of fear that chills any dissent is pretty much the definition of tyranny.

      Industrial Age saw some truly horrible things that resulted from applying concepts from an earlier era into the new one without considering how the new capabilities expanded the potential for horror exponentially. We stand at the dawn of the Information Era; perhaps it might make sense to learn from past mistakes and adapt our concept of privacy pre-emptively rather than go through something like Fascism or Communism again?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    42. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's say an individual records you smoking a cigarette at some hole in the wall restaurant. So what.

      Let's say a government or corporation records you smoking a cigarette at some hole in the wall restaurant, stores it forever, cross references it too your social media networks, all your public records, criminal, health, financial.

    43. Re:But... by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      Seems odd, considering governments and corporations are simply made up of people, many of which are likely to be below average. Seems like you should trust them less, weakest link in the chain and all that.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
    44. Re:But... by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      But if you're in public, assume you're taped. Chances are you already are, and you just don't realize it.

      This guy does an incredible performance art piece based on that idea. He walks around with a really obvious camera taking videos of people's reactions to him recording them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Funny how with google glass - that'll be everyone.

    45. Re:But... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The irrational decision was to get locked in to iOS in the first place, and to then not switch to a Nexus 5 which is better than the current iPhone but half the price so you can re-buy all the locked-in apps anyway. If you buy Android apps you can take them with you to new devices from different manufacturers in the future, and even different operating systems as some others now support running Android code.

      Also, unless you own a Mac you need to install iTunes to sync media from your computers, which is a giant steaming turd and reason enough on its own to switch.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    46. Re:But... by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      You forgetting women's ubiquitous social powers in public, cops/courts enforcing the former as proxies, handwaved health issues, female-chauvenism derived social expectations and assumptions that don't even necessarily require a women involved, etc.? Dominate aggressor laws don't care if you've never seen your female attacker before in your life. Likewise, plenty of paternity laws don't care if you've even been on the same side of any continent with some mother declaring you the father. We're not really out of much. They just need to want to fuck you up to do so, and, being that most are pathological creepshamers with impunity, they'll often want to just for the hell of it on sight.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    47. Re:But... by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      They buy apple because their rich friends did. Often, such people aren't very intelligent when it comes to technology, or even basic concepts like reason and logic, because, frankly, they haven't had to be in order to survive..

      Funny, I bought Apple because I was given a 3GS to use for a few months and loved it. I bought a 4 shortly thereafter, and finally gave in to buy a 5c on discount several years after that. I've used Android and I hate it - I hate it to the death. Yes, I can do anything I want with it, as long as I'm willing to do a lot more than I feel is necessary. On iPhone, I can wait several months for a Jailbreak if I really want to, or just be happy that it's damn stable and lets me do what I need to do on a phone - make calls, send texts, take pictures of my dogs, and play games. Android doesn't deserve all the hate - the carriers haven't helped it much and tend to hurt it more so that they can push unnecessary upgrades (my wife's old Xperia X10 ran Jelly Bean just fine and it was made some 4 or 5 years before now). I just don't care for the lack of built-in privacy controls that are at all granular and no, I don't want to have to get an app for that. I explicitly can say who does and doesn't get access to my contacts, photos, location, without it affecting my ability to use the app in general.

      Most everyone I know who has an iPhone is not technically challenged, is certainly not rich (nor has "rich friends"), and are some of the most logical/reasonable/intelligent people I know. Same for Android - I just hear those friends cursing at their phones a lot more.

    48. Re:But... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Not digging giant holes in the ground with spoons means you're not a winner.

      Have you ever thought that not everyone shares your interests?

      Of course not everyone has the same interests. But if you weren't engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum, and you think that digging giant holes in the ground with spoons is in any way equivalent to cultivating a relationship with another human being, you might want to seek professional help.

    49. Re:But... by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      The irrational decision was to get locked in to iOS in the first place, and to then not switch to a Nexus 5 which is better than the current iPhone but half the price so you can re-buy all the locked-in apps anyway.

      I don't understand the price arguments. iPhone is basically the same price as other premium phones. It's more expensive than cheapo crappy Android 2.3 phones. It's true that there's no cheapo crappy iphone, so if you want a cheapo crappy phone you can't get an iphone.

      Also, unless you own a Mac you need to install iTunes to sync media from your computers, which is a giant steaming turd and reason enough on its own to switch.

      true, for music and movies you need iTunes. but notably you never need to plug your phone into your computer anymore. It's all done "in the cloud" (tm). Your backup syncs online, your apps sync online. The songs on your computer upload to the cloud (tm), then drop down to your phone. this is nice because I used to go months without plugging my phone into my computer.

    50. Re:But... by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      It's the same logic of "You're not a winner if you don't do X." It's perfectly applicable, and it wasn't really intended to be a reductio ad absurdum, although I don't care for the activity myself.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    51. Re:But... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      iPhone is basically the same price as other premium phones.

      Take a look at the Nexus 5. Half the price of an iPhone, better screen, more features. Available from Google unlocked, both in terms of the SIM and the bootloader so you can replace the OS at will.

      Motorola and Samsung also have iPhone level phones for similar prices, e.g. the Galaxy S3.

      true, for music and movies you need iTunes. but notably you never need to plug your phone into your computer anymore. It's all done "in the cloud" (tm).

      My music and movies synced wirelessly. Android supports SAMBA/Windows shares via apps. I do backup wirelessly too, but to my own server rather than sending all my private data to some untrustworthy cloud. Even if I had to plug my phone in I don't need special bloatware just to copy files to it.

      I don't even use wires for charging any more.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    52. Re:But... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ah, a balanced and reasonable post at last.

    53. Re:But... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In public, I want ubiquitous recording BY THE INDIVIDUALS.

      So do I, but I don't want surreptitious photography by ANYONE, government, corporate, or civilian. If you pull out your phone and aim it at me I know you're taking my picture and I can react accordingly (like hold the joint behind my back).

      And guess what? In Illinois, being a glasshole can put you in jail, at least for audio. It is illegal to record someone without their permission.

      When you're wearing asshole glasses (which is of course where "glasshole" comes from) I don't know if you're recording or not. You are violating my rights. The only way to not be a glasshole is keep the damned things in your pocket, or better yet, don't buy the God damned things.

      Also know that in certain bars I frequent, your asshole glasses may be broken along with your nose by someone who doesn't want his drunken behavior filmed. Of course, the yuppie assholes who will be wearing these stupid looking things would never have the guts to step foot in the neighborhood, let alone one of the bars.

      And if you think iPhone robbery is scary, do you know how easy it would be to get your stupid asshole glasses off of your face?

      If I walk into an establishment and someone is wearing asshole glasses, I will tell the proprieter that he goes or I do, and I'll leave if the glasshole is allowed to stay.

      The only way to avoid being a glasshole is to never wear asshole glasses.

    54. Re:But... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      yes it would be just like living somewhere like North Korea, it is so wonderful when everyone is watching your every move just waiting for you to make a mistake.

    55. Re:But... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      yes it would be just like living somewhere like North Korea, it is so wonderful when everyone is watching your every move just waiting for you to make a mistake.

      Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Everyone can't see everyone. The people at the bottom can't see the people at the top. That's what has to change for the idea of ubiquitous surveillance to have validity — but that'll do it. But as I said, it would still involve significant fallout if instituted today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:But... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what, show up here (that's an old photo, a new one would have fifty Harleys in the lot; it's the HQ of the Outlaws MC, a biker gang who once tried to murder a friend of mine) wearing asshole glasses and see how long it takes for the ambulance to arrive. Actually the fire truck will show up first, luckily for you the paramedics are only a few blocks away.

      In Felber's, the redneck bar caddy corner to the OMC, you'ld probably be laughed out of the place if not thrown out by the bartender (And I'd take Joe on before I tangled with Ruthe, and Joe was an Army ranger).

    57. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Nobody was ever hurt from having a camera pointed at them.

      If it really bothers you try combing your hair.

    58. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It is only a matter of time before everybody's actions get posted online, complete with geotagging and facial recognition.

      If that happens, I'll have to wear a mask constantly. But really, I think we should consider some privacy laws against that. Seeing someone in public is significantly different from recording them and then posting their name and the footage online, complete with geotagging.

      Kind of like how we have laws against posting movies and songs online? Good luck with that. When flash drives hold 3EBs and you have a 15Tbps network connection there is no way the police are going to be able to stop everybody from sharing a few hundred GB of video per day on some consolidation site.

    59. Re:But... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Who's talking violence? I'm just saying that after a few thousand dollars of Google Glass have been removed from your head and stomped underfoot because you don't understand social cues, you'll learn to modify your behaviour.

    60. Re:But... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The last time I checked everybody at the local bar was carrying a cell phone camera, and I've yet to see somebody get punched in the face over it.

      Well, the bars you go to must be too high class then. Try a redneck bar and see how your asshole glass turns out. When someone points a phone or a camera at me I can turn my back or say "take that picture and I'll break your goddamned phone." With Google Glass they're pointing a camera at everyone.

      Once last year a fellow got drunk outside Felbers and passed out, while he was unconscious a woman I detest put makeup on him. Had his picture been taken and he found out about it, there would have certainly been some missing teeth. I'm pretty sure if you walked in wearing a pair of asshole glasses the bartender would make you leave.

      Google glass does have legitimate uses, but wearing them into a bar or restaurant isn't one of them. Wear them hunting, skiing, hiking, sightseeing. Don't take my fucking picture without permission, and don't even make me THINK you're taking my picture without permission.

    61. Re:But... by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Nobody was ever hurt from having a camera pointed at them.

      Did someone seriously just say this?

    62. Re:But... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      my point is it would be an atrocious violation that would tear apart what little freedom people still have. It would not matter if you could see everyone, you don't fix society by making everyone paranoid that they are being watched all the time, that is how you destroy society.

    63. Re:But... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      A good thing the fifty Harleys were on tour at that moment, I'd have hated to read the headline "Angry bikers snapped off Google van's camera pole"...

    64. Re:But... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      And you don't already have a GoPro?

    65. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Try a redneck bar and see how your asshole glass turns out.

      There is probably a reason that most people stay away from redneck bars.

      Don't take my fucking picture without permission, and don't even make me THINK you're taking my picture without permission.

      Sounds like the solution to your problem is a REALLY big guy with a camera and a holster. Apparently testosterone makes right...

    66. Re:But... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There is probably a reason that most people stay away from redneck bars.

      Redneck bars and biker bars are safe, as long as you don't act like an asshole. Go into a yuppie bar and grab someone's ass and you'll be shown the door by a bouncer. Grab someone's ass in a redneck bar and you'll deservedly lose some teeth.

      Sounds like the solution to your problem is a REALLY big guy with a camera and a holster.

      No, the solution to my problem is complain to the bartender and if (s)he does nothing, leave. Actually, the solution to my "problem" is to stay the hell away from yuppie bars. I don't like the company or prices in those places anyway.

      I'm not the one who's going to kick your ass, I'm a pacifist. But I will warn narcissistic morons who think they're better than everyone else that if they don't cool their assholishness someone else surely will.

      Wearing Google Glass is the same as a t-shirt saying "I'm an asshole, please kick my ass."

    67. Re:But... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They weren't on tour, that's a very old shot from when the building (formerly a bar) was vacant.

      The Google van blurs out people, so as not to be invasive. That said, some Germans sued over the google van.

      If glass could blur out faces unless the face's owner accepted being filmed, there would be no problem. Google should work on that.

    68. Re:But... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Wearing Google Glass is the same as a t-shirt saying "I'm an asshole, please kick my ass."

      Whatever. I guess the kids in high school have to go somewhere after high school is over...

    69. Re:But... by laejoh · · Score: 1

      rappy keyboard!

  2. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't be a glasshole.

    1. Re:So.... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1, Funny

      Better a glasshole than an ihole

    2. Re:So.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      There's a very bad goatse joke in there somewhere. Hurry up and produce it to get it over with.

    3. Re:So.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      NO! There's actually a much worse video that just sprung to my mind.

      Thanks a bunch, was that really necessary?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:So.... by fsck-beta · · Score: 1

      lololol you got some apple bashing in this thread, well played sir, I tip my fedora to you.

  3. If only such a list existed for cell phones by Publiu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While the cellphone and Glass are not the same tech, they do seem to share similar bad habits (ie making you tune out the world around you, especially when crossing a street) in how people may ultimately use. So, maybe a similar list should be made to address the do's and dont's of cellphones, maybe in app form

    1. Re:If only such a list existed for cell phones by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Please, the list for transplants is long enough as it is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. That should do it! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I expect that this initiative will be 136.24% more efficient than the already foolproof 'don't be evil' mandate that Google follows...

  5. It's bound to fail in a society that by Nutria · · Score: 1

    considers manners and politeness to be passe', and where bureaucratic rules and regulations are the norms.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:It's bound to fail in a society that by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      considers manners and politeness to be passe', and where bureaucratic rules and regulations are the norms.

      Wait, why are we dragging Britain into this?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:It's bound to fail in a society that by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because they started it. The whole "CCTV everywhere" crap.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:It's bound to fail in a society that by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Because they started it. The whole "CCTV everywhere" crap.

      Well, they do like their reality TV.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  6. You mean like this? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1
    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:You mean like this? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Did you see the Asian guy "oooh you have google glass...".
      as the comments say enjoying a nice nerdgasm.

  7. They must be new here by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be used to make porn. It will be used to game casinos. It will be used to record cops. Someone will use it to case a place for a robbery. It will be used in divorces. It will be used to document various offences as decreed by Jezebel. It will be used by police to enable face recognition of people like they do licence plates.

    What the fuck do they think will happen?

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:They must be new here by davester666 · · Score: 1

      It will have ZERO chance of being used in casino's, unless the "casino" is a back room poker table in the middle of nowhere.

      Course, once they realize what it is, you may wish to have left it in the car.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:They must be new here by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      You are behind the times on most of these, the news stories of police stations experimenting with the tech, and making porn came out weeks ago (there's even an app for making porn already). Crime on the other hand I imagine backfiring rather quickly, gives great easy to access evidence for the police after your arrest, there are better sneakier devices to do that out now, that don't involve ties to a big company that tracks everything you do. But hey we've got people posting their ill gotten gains on facebook and then getting supprised that they are arrested all the time, so nothing new here. Casinos? what kind of dumb casino's are we talking about here. Again tiny hidable cameras have existed for years, glass by comparison is bulky, blatently visible and well known already. Casinos are not known for having poorly trained staff, and being behind the curve on technology (ones that aren't, don't stay in business long). When it comes to illegal actions, glass is just a terrible choice.

  8. Glassholio by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's very smart of Google to recognize that "Glasshole" is an inevitable slang term to be applied to some (most?) Glass users. They're trying to get ahead of the term and define it to apply to only the worst kinds of users.

    Still, they face an uphill battle if they hope to create a positive public image for Glass. If only 1 in 10,000 Glass users behaves in a socially unacceptable way, that one person will be the focus of endless sensationalist news coverage.

    1. Re:Glassholio by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. "Glasshole" is just a term created by a bunch of individuals so obsessed with themselves that they think that every Google glass user is recording them all the time when the reality is you're very likely to be an incredibly boring nobody. It's amazing how obsessive people are about their own privacy because "OMG Camera" without realising that if someone wanted to video tape them without their knowledge there's nothing they can do to prevent it. Seriously there's hundreds of small spy cam style products and Google Glass is definitely not the first company to put a camera in a set of glasses, and then at least they are distinctive glasses and some fancy frames with a hidden camera.

      The reality is recording consumes a shitload of battery life. GG lasts about an hour of continuous recording, but for some reason people seem to think that's all the device is for / capable of.

    2. Re:Glassholio by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If only 1 in 10,000 Glass users behaves in a socially unacceptable way, that one person will be the focus of endless sensationalist news coverage.

      I'm pretty sure more than 1 in 10,000 iPad users behaves in a socially unacceptable way. Go to a London exhibit and you won't be able to see it because of the wall of iPads taking photos. Didn't seem to do sales any harm though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Pot meet Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot.

  10. Little Red LED by Brawlking · · Score: 1

    Has no one thought to just put a little forward facing LED on the damn thing that lights up when it's recording, so people know? Every old video camera I've owned has had a little red light to show when it's recording. How did no one make this connection?

    1. Re:Little Red LED by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yes. And my old video camera had a menu option to turn off that little red LED.

    2. Re:Little Red LED by the_B0fh · · Score: 2

      because the people who made it didn't want it. That's why.

      That should tell you a lot about the mentality of the people who created it.

    3. Re:Little Red LED by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Funny

      you'll be happy to know Google Glass has similar option to turn the red on, activated by a hard punch to the a face of the glasshole

    4. Re:Little Red LED by sir1real · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like you graduated from the Sean Penn school of social interaction.

    5. Re:Little Red LED by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      IIRC something like that is mandatory for recording devices around here, but I may be wrong.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Google being social retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humorous that Google is having to tell people to not be creepy or rude. They've finally woken up to the fact that Glass is inherently antisocial, just like all those people who hover over their phones in public as they do constant texting/facebook updates/emails. If someone's gonna do that at a dinner out then they might as well have stayed at home on the bed eating dorito's and watching some mindless flick on tv.

    Commonsense bottom line: If you're wearing Glass when you're supposed to be doing something social, then it should be taken off. Everyone should understand in their guts what a social gaffe it is to wear a rig that could be constantly recording while doing something in a supposedly-relaxing social situation - like a party. If they don't then they come out on the lower end of the bell-curve for empathy and on the higher end of the bell-curve for the massively socially inept.

    1. Re:Google being social retards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Only 'til they are beaten into a pulp a few times. People learn differently and at different speeds, maybe it just takes a few good punches to make them learn.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Google being social retards by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Like I said, nothing a few good punches couldn't fix.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Google being social retards by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's problems with "take it off". First, there's been talk of Google Glass with prescription lenses, which is the only way I'd wear it. Taking it off then means going largely blind (I'm very nearsighted). Second, there isn't automatically a good place to put it, particularly if we insist that it not be in a possible recording position. Third, taking it off becomes a social signal itself, and that will have implications. What if I'm busy and don't want to be social at the moment? Will it become necessary to take off Google Glass while using it to politely brush somebody off?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  12. NO by Sigvatr · · Score: 2

    Don't tell me what to do, Google!

  13. If only... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    George Zimmerman or Trayvon martin had been using Google Glass at the time.
    Think of all the political disruption we would have avoided.

    1. Re:If only... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The glasses would have been broken and Martin would still be dead. You don't leave witnesses, and "accudentally" stepping on them in the rain would go a long way to making them unusable.

  14. Glassholes by koan · · Score: 1

    People driving cars routinely use their phones and that's against the law, what makes you think Google "asking you to be nice" is going to do anything.

    Just watch how much trouble and misery Glass and the Glassholes are going to cause.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Glassholes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you shouldn't have the right to record what you can see.

  15. How do I get what I want, not what Google wants? by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 2

    Google with their insistence on a camera-based social-media augmented-reality creepy-invasive experience is going to set back the cause of direct human-computer interaction by years.

    Honestly I don't want a camera in my "glass". I want a link to something like my desktop computing resources. It's an intimate experience between me and the computer, not between my computer and the environment around me. Sure there are some cute apps you can do with the camera, but the creepy factor is going to make people as self-conscious and obvious as a Segway rider (and we know how that turned out).

    When I can PAY for a device that has MY interests at heart rather than the latest data power grab by Google then I'll be interested.

    Connect me with the Internet then get the fuck out of the way. I don't need you to mediate every interaction I have, not only with information from the net but with the real world around me.

    G.

  16. No worries about creepy or weird here by Khyber · · Score: 1

    We're just as strange as soylentnews.org as far as quirky stories goes!

    Bet the mods figured out what happens if they filter me by word/sig. Almost 1/300th of the site goes away.

    Bring it boys.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:No worries about creepy or weird here by Zynder · · Score: 2

      I went and registered with the site. It's horrible. You need to replicate Slashdot functionality if you want to take the users away. The way it is now, there isn't really much of a feed and the site is like going to the Help Forum of a cheap ass tech website. I want the front page scrollable. I don't want stories boxed up into different forums. I thought slashcode was open source. Just get the code and reskin it so once Beta goes live we can just slide right over and not have to retrain anything. We are complaining because Beta is going to throw away what we already have. If you want readers, make the new site look like what we already have! I do wish you luck and I'm ready to jump ship when you've cleaned it up.

      Also are you claiming that Dice is deleting your posts?

    2. Re:No worries about creepy or weird here by Khyber · · Score: 1

      We've caught DICE deleting posts and submissions in the firehose that are red and have 90+ comments with regards to the new site.

      Yes, DICE or /. editors are actively wiping posts mentioning Soylent News.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:No worries about creepy or weird here by Soulskill · · Score: 1

      No comments or submissions have been deleted. If you've lost track of something, feel free to let me know what it is, and I'll help you find it.

  17. Don't be rude by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Like calling us commenters/submitters an audience when we provide the content, you assholes?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  18. Re:Degausse by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Working on a ranged degausser for any glass user pointing it in my direction.

    Wow. I didn't realize google glass was storing its data on magnetic media. Or do you mean that the eye piece is actually a mini CRT?

  19. Re:The design is so wrong by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

    Use it as a reminder that you are almost always being recorded in public. I was bored at the mall, waiting for my wife to do whatever it is one does in curio stores and started counting cameras. I gave up in the low double digits when i started seeing very subtle cameras and realized for every one I saw, there was another one I had initially missed.

    Glassholes are your friend, they remind you that big brother is always watching.

  20. Re:Friends? by afgam28 · · Score: 2

    A lot of those points could be made about the iPod. Can you imagine yourself listening to one at the dinner table? At dinner with a date at a restaurant?

    There's nothing stopping people from taking off their Glass when it is socially inappropriate to wear it.

  21. Be Rude by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Be rude. Because this idea is stupid.

    You think in 15 years everyone won't be recording all the time? They will be.

    Whether it is Google Contact Lense, Apple Retina Display Phone or Acme Eyeballs --- there are going to be cameras everywhere.

    So let us adjust.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Be Rude by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      - there are going to be cameras everywhere. So let us adjust.

      By buying lots more storage for tons of video that never gets watched? Seriously, who has time to watch all this stuff? Doesn't matter how much of it you have, it's value is still (mostly) zero.

  22. Re:Friends? by kwbauer · · Score: 2

    "Friends don't really give a shit about each other," says the Google Glasses owner.

  23. What will places that ban it do when it's unseen? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Ultimately, technology is going to progress far enough for the form factor of this thing to be indiscernible to all but the most attentive of individuals. Places will be able to politely ask that patrons not use such devices, but unless they install xray and full-body scanners at the entrances to them, I'm not terribly sure what they are going to do about users of such technology when they don't even know for sure who even has it on their person, let alone who is actively using it.. We are, I think, less than 10 years away from this.

  24. My hopes about google glass? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    I hope that there's a dedicated force watching the video that sends the owners of google glasses tickets for speeding - or whatever other accidental infractions of the law they do on a day to day basis.

    Want to live under an Orwellian 1984? Then hopefully you die under an Orwellian 1984.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  25. Re:Degausse by weilawei · · Score: 2

    It's intended to degauss the glasshole, not the glass. ;)

  26. Google by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google Tells Glass Users Not To Be 'Creepy Or Rude' ... and then they reminded users that they'll be watching so they'll know.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    1. Re:Google by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      They see you when you're sleeping
      They know when you're awake
      They know if you've been bad or good
      So be good for goodness sake

      Christmas carols have never been this creepy before...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Google by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You forgot to welcome our Glass-wearing overlords and you didn't ask whether it runs Linux. But don't take my word for it, let's better wait for Netcraft to confirm it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Re:Degausse by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Just shine a laser at their eyepiece, solely to disable the camera of course.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  28. Re:Dos and don'ts by sir1real · · Score: 1

    I should want to cook Brocktoon a simple meal, but I shouldn't want to cut into him, to tear the flesh, to wear the flesh, to be born unto new worlds where his flesh becomes my key.

  29. Re:Surveillance cameras? by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure. But video from those CCTV cameras don't readily get uploaded to youtube.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  30. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    We'll pass laws to prevent the sale to the general public if they lack a anti-concealment feature (light, color, shape, whatever). Police, of course, will be free to use them. So don't worry about that.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  31. Google tells Glass users by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Google tells Glass users not to use Glass.

  32. eh hem... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Everyone (besides me) that actually has glass right now - show of hands...? Great, thanks. The rest of you - STFU & bite me.

    1. Re:eh hem... by fsck-beta · · Score: 1

      Yea you aren't perpetuating at the GlassHole thing at all. How sad is your life?

    2. Re:eh hem... by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Try saying that again, within arm's reach.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
  33. Needs a recording LED, like everything else by Etcetera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google needs to put in a hard-wired LED that's on when recording. Yes, you'll look like a Borg when you're recording, but that's a small price to pay for others' comfort.

    Can people still obscure it? Yes... but if I see someone walking around with a Google Glass *and* a bit of black electrical tape over the front, I know I'm dealing with a complete d-bag and can treat them accordingly.

    1. Re:Needs a recording LED, like everything else by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      Google needs to put in a hard-wired LED that's on when recording. Yes, you'll look like a Borg when you're recording, but that's a small price to pay for others' comfort.

      Can people still obscure it? Yes... but if I see someone walking around with a Google Glass *and* a bit of black electrical tape over the front, I know I'm dealing with a complete d-bag and can treat them accordingly.

      Finally we know why the terminators have red eyes!

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re:Needs a recording LED, like everything else by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If somebody wants to covertly record things, there are far more effective ways to do it than by wearing Glass. There are lots of ways to conceal cameras - why stick it on your face?

    3. Re:Needs a recording LED, like everything else by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      Exactly this.

      I find the juxtaposition of "you have no privacy in public" and "glassholes invade my privacy" by many a peculiar one. Not just based on the premise alone, but because most of them will complain that if they see a glasshole, they'll do/feel X.

      But how many people with smartphones whipped out recording video do they not care about because they can't easily see them? How many security cameras do they not care about because they're squirreled away? And how often do they wonder to themselves whether that vest button is really a button or a $15 480p spycam off of ebay?

      Ignorance truly is bliss in the context of ubiquitous recording, it seems, with suggestions like "if only it had an indicator LED" pandering to their placebo sense of security.

  34. Best advice by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    Don't use it.

  35. Sounds like Mobiles by giorgist · · Score: 1

    When mobiles came out there where similar rules to be said. People where making fun at people seemingly talking to them selves in public. Now days you can seem a whole dinner table swiping away and that's the old people !

  36. better list by slashmydots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. don't buy it
    2. get a life outside of social networks and the internet

  37. Youtube by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

    You haven't been on youtube lately have you?

  38. Re:oxymoron by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Yes it would. Care to make a wager on if Apple will include one?

  39. Re:Friends? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Wow. How sad to be you.

  40. Re:Degausse by ComputersKai · · Score: 2
    A new device that can instantly impair any glasshole recording you! You go up to them, point the hole at them, and press down! And that's all!

    Of course, I'm talking about spray paint.

  41. Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?

    1. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There is a great fun 1-hour TV show called Black Mirror - The Entire History of You which deals with what it would be like to be able to record every minute of your private life and review it at any stage. Didn't have entirely positive things to say. Worth a watch one evening - might temper your view?

      Honestly, I think what has to change is our expectations. The only reason people value privacy is because we're accustomed to having it. We don't want people to see us naked, or doing things our parents might not approve of (even if they've already died of old age), and so on. And yet, everybody does that stuff (in one way or another).

      Sooner or later recording and storage technology will reach a point where we just won't have a choice. Everything, everywhere will be recorded, stored forever, indexed, and posted online. Distributed databases will mine all that data. When you do a Google search for Fred Smith it will ask you whether you meant the guy you used to spend a lot of time with when you were 12, or the creepy guy who urinated on your garden last Tuesday.

      How exactly would we be worse off if we were aware of everything that goes on behind closed doors?

    2. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I think what has to change is our expectations.

      If by "our" expectations, you mean you glassholes' expectations.

      The only reason people value privacy is because we're accustomed to having it.

      The only reason people value cell phones is because they're accustomed to having them. When I was your age, they didn't exist. But guess what? Privacy has existed since the beginning of our species, if it were worthless it would have gone away millenia ago.

      Everything, everywhere will be recorded, stored forever, indexed, and posted online.

      Welcome to Orwell's dystopia, glasshole.

    3. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I suppose if there was not such a thing as 'guilt', then it could not be used as power against other people. Not sure if 100% sociopathy is an acceptable outcome, though.

      So, is the issue that people do certain things all the time, or is the issue that we can't pretend like we don't?

    4. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Orwell's dystopia, glasshole.

      Care to define the term, "glasshole?" I'd tend to think that to be one you'd have to at least own a Google Glass.

      There is a word used to describe somebody who takes a discussion about the merits and need for privacy and peppers it with personal attacks, and that would be "asshole."

    5. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When I use the term "glasshole" I'm not referring to any specific person, I'm referring to those who use google glass inappropriately. They're not for sale to the general public yet, so I would extend the term to someone who wants a pair.

      Not that there won't be glass users who aren't glassholes; if you use them in place of a helmet cam biking, motorcycling, skiing, etc you're not a glasshole; it would be safer than a helmet cam, which can weaken your helmet.

      If you take someone's picture or record them without permission, you ARE an asshole. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?

    6. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you take someone's picture or record them without permission, you ARE an asshole. Didn't your mother teach you any manners?

      Uh, my mother never taught me anything about getting model releases before taking photos. Apparently neither did the mothers of those who deployed the approx 30M security cameras currently in use across the US...

    7. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Your mother apparently neglected to teach you to not do things to people that they don't want you to do to them. Maybe she thought you were smart enough to figure it out yourself. If so, she was wrong.

    8. Re:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Your mother apparently neglected to teach you to not do things to people that they don't want you to do to them.

      Well, of course you should respect the preferences of others within reason. However, simply wearing a display and camera isn't doing anything to anybody. Their paranoia that you might be secretly recording them doesn't really change that.

      I'm not too worked up about this stuff though - it is just a matter of time until this sort of thing is so ubiquitous that trying to stop it won't make any sense at all. I think my employer still has a policy on the books that nobody is allowed to bring a camera into work, but they wouldn't dare to enforce it in a day where everybody from the CEO to the janitor carries a cell phone camera.

      Once upon a time you could go someplace and not have the fact that you did it logged in a database somewhere. Those days are long gone. Soon those databases will be accessible to everybody. There really isn't anything that anybody can do about it - that's the nature of Pandora's box. Pass all the laws you like, and punch as many people in the face as you care to. History marches on...

  42. Re:Baidu has no such restrictions... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The biggest joke will probably be that both Google's and Baidu's glasses will probably be made in the same factory.

    I wouldn't be too surprised either if the design is curiously similar.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Q about glass by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

    I assumed that when google glass is recording, a noticeable LED is lit on the front. is this the case? Similarly, recording isn't on by default, but rather turned on by the user at specific intervals. Yes / no?

    A truly scary situation would be if recording were always on, and it was always capturing / filling / refreshing a 8GB buffer or something like that. This would mean at any point you could look at your glass and flip through the last 10-15mins of video. This would mean that whenever a glass person looks at you, they have recorded you.

    Can anybody confirm?

    1. Re:Q about glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The camera exists on the device. You should assume that people will have rooted it so that any notificiation of recording will be disabled while still allowing recording.

    2. Re:Q about glass by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank goodness there is absolutely no way known to science or man of disabling a small LED.

    3. Re:Q about glass by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I assumed that when google glass is recording, a noticeable LED is lit on the front.

      People with creepy and rude intentions will stick some tape over it.

      (Duh)

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Q about glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Now imagine Obama watching you masturbate in the bathroom.

      That is how I get it up.

    5. Re: Q about glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They already side load. They've (as in users/devs/hackers) have already figured out a way to record without any indication and even made an app to snap pictures with a simple wink (I believe Google may have introduced the ability to do that also now, but the users introduced it long ago when Google said it wasn't possible)

    6. Re:Q about glass by rvw · · Score: 2

      Obviously. How much battery life or storage space do you think would need to fit in this device to be permanently recording? Permanent recording, or even frequent recording by user choice, is not practical in a device this size with current technology.

      You don't need to be a rocket engineer to connect it to a larger battery in your pocket. If people want it, someone will make it.

    7. Re: Q about glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cameras exist. You should assume that when you're out in public, someone could record you, possibly without telling you. Fuck you and stay inside if that bothers you.

    8. Re:Q about glass by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      "rooting" the device to disable an LED that could be blocked by $2 bottle of black enamel paint (ie nail polish, figurine paint, etc)

    9. Re:Q about glass by pepty · · Score: 1

      Now imagine if it records to the cloud.

      Now imagine who has access to your data in the cloud.

      No need to imagine: Google Glass records to Google's Cloud and the data can be analyzed by Google for its own purposes.

    10. Re: Q about glass by pepty · · Score: 1

      don't 'be creepy or rude.

      That admonition and constantly pointing a camera at whoever you are looking at are already at odds.

    11. Re:Q about glass by tsa · · Score: 1

      I don't find that a disturbing thought. If he wants to, just let him. It's my bathroom. I can do what I want in there as long as I don't hurt people.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    12. Re:Q about glass by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      If Obama has nothing better to do with his time. like say fix the economy, then watching me masturbate, then he should be impeached.

    13. Re:Q about glass by beefoot · · Score: 1

      > You should assume that people will have rooted it so that any notificiation of recording will be disabled while still allowing recording. That or a piece of black tape :-)

  44. Re:Surveillance cameras? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    There is a difference between "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and "reasonable expectation to be monitored every single moment of your life".

    People and quantum particles have one thing in common: They behave differently if observed. Want proof? Take the average car driver and watch his reaction to a police car starting to drive behind him. They don't want anything from him, he has done nothing wrong, still he starts to feel uneasy. Nothing really changed, it's just that he feels now that he's being monitored. Whether he is being followed by them (actually, with them being so obvious about it, quite unlikely) is irrelevant.

    Being observed puts people in a stress position. Take your average test at school and you know what I mean. You know the answer, you knew it 5 minutes ago, but now, in front of everyone and under "observation" from your teacher, suddenly you draw a blank.

    CCTVs are already troubling, but at least they're far away and they are not so obvious. Glass would be much more obvious, since it's literally in your face. Try picturing walking across town and getting the feeling that everyone you meet is watching and recording you.

    If you ain't paranoid yet, you sure will be.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  45. Re:Surveillance cameras? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    People are mad about the cameras too. But the cameras are less fragile and the people who put them are harder to find.

    The Glass will give those mad people the chance to address their anger in a less passive way.

  46. Load of garbage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Right now, it's pretty easy to tell if somebody's holding up their cellphone to take some video.

    Yeah except that's not how people discretely take footage. Google is not the first company to introduce a camera into something wearable. There a literally hundreds of products out there that include wearable spy cameras. Yet people are freaking out about a device which has many other purposes, not to mention a shithouse battery life when recording.

    It's very easy to spot a Google Glass viewer who records everything, they stop every few minutes to put their glasses on charge.

    1. Re:Load of garbage by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Heck, the iPhone 5 was taller than the earlier ones, so when I have my 5S in my shirt pocket it peeks out a little. Right now, just from casually putting it in my pocket, the camera is pointed roughly in the direction I'm facing. How is anybody else to know I'm not recording? Are people likely to ask me to turn my camera around in my pocket (so the front camera is peeking out)?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Google itself is creepy... by peppepz · · Score: 1

    ...with its obsession for spying every personal detail of every individual of the world with every possible means and gathering the collected data into their archives forever. The only difference between Google glass and all the other products of Google is that glass makes the espionage physically evident.

  48. Re:Surveillance cameras? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/results...

    "About 2,720,000 results"

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  49. Suddenly a problem? by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    While I can understand that people have a problem with being recorded everywhere and by everyone, why has this never been a problem with those camera sunglasses you can get in your "toys for spies and other grown up kids" shop for years now?

    These are actually designed to a) record more than a few moments of video and b) to do that hiden without arousing any suspiscion. And c) they are available for everyone for $30

    And all of a sudden everyone is up in arms that people could buy a $1500 device that can't record longer than a few minutes and is highly visible to make SECRET (or at least unnoticed) video recordings? Come on guys...

    The usual argument is the one about the slippery slope that the introduction of wearable video cameras will lead to ubiquitous video surveillance, but I can't see how that could lead there when wearable, hidden cameras is actually where we're comming from! Wearble cameras getting are getting bigger, more noticeable and less recording capacity and suddenly everyone is WORRIED?!?

    --
    bickerdyke
  50. Google Analytics by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

    Don't be creepy says the creepiest company on the web, spying on people worldwide to a degree that I'm sure the NSA envies.

    Google analytics > Google glass, pot kettle black.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  51. If you don't want to be creepy or rude by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Don't buy Google Glass. It's inherently creepy and rude, at least within a social setting.

  52. Re:How do I get what I want, not what Google wants by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Google with their insistence on a camera-based social-media augmented-reality creepy-invasive experience is going to set back the cause of direct human-computer interaction by years.

    Honestly I don't want a camera in my "glass". I want a link to something like my desktop computing resources. It's an intimate experience between me and the computer, not between my computer and the environment around me. Sure there are some cute apps you can do with the camera, but the creepy factor is going to make people as self-conscious and obvious as a Segway rider (and we know how that turned out).

    When I can PAY for a device that has MY interests at heart rather than the latest data power grab by Google then I'll be interested.

    Connect me with the Internet then get the fuck out of the way. I don't need you to mediate every interaction I have, not only with information from the net but with the real world around me.

    G.

    If it weren't Google it would be some other company because while you don't want this functionality there are no doubt many who do.

    I would like the functionality that you describe - but I have no compunction whatsoever about recording with the same device, my son playing sports, for example.

    The technology is there and like any other technology there are good uses and bad.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  53. Who needs Glass ? by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Funny
    FTFA :-

    Google says, 'Standing alone in the corner of a room staring at people while recording them through Glass is not going to win you any friends.'"

    Funny, that sounds like me at any social function, and that's without wearing Glass :-(

  54. Re:Degausse by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Its not, its storing it in little nutshells archived by squirrels

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  55. If google has to do this... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ...Now, Google has published a list of Do's and Don'ts to tell Glass users how they should behave politely in public....

    ... then google glass is worse than I had thought.

  56. Phonehole by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    While the cellphone and Glass are not the same tech, they do seem to share similar bad habits

    I was almost in a head-on collision last night with a Prius(!) that just *had* to be in front of that truck.

    Just as he got back into the other lane in the nick of time, I noted he was still talking on his phone.

  57. Re:How do I get what I want, not what Google wants by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you just want a monitor strapped to your face. That isn't going to be very useful. Say you are on holiday and see a sign or menu that you want to translate. If you don't have a camera to do OCR your options are either try to read it out (good luck if you don't read Chinese) or "type" it using the touchpad on the side of your glasses.

    Say you see a product you are interested in and want to see some reviews. You can try to enter the product name into a google search by speaker or "typing", looking like a total dick in the process, or you can let the camera read the barcode/OCR the product name.

    Maybe you are at a restaurant with some friends and want to split the bill three ways, adding a 5% tip. No need to get the calculator out, just look at the bill and your glasses figure it all out.

    Even augmented reality has very obvious real word uses that many people would benefit from. How about sat-nav you don't need to look away from the road for, or that overlays directions on the ground as you walk around? How about a real-world AdBlock+ that blacks out the annoying billboards and messages bombarding you?

    If all you want is a screen just buy a tablet. The touch UI will be a much better fit for what you want anyway.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  58. Re:Degausse by fsck-beta · · Score: 2

    This is what, your third threat of violence towards those who don't like glass in this thread?

  59. Re:Degausse by fsck-beta · · Score: 2

    Such an internet tough guy.

  60. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by mark-t · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't necessarily concealed... just not necessarily obvious.

    And the reason for their inobviousness would have far less to do with actually wanting to hide that one is using them and much more to do with simple comfort and ergonomics... something that a person can be comfortable with wearing them an entire day, probably putting it on in the morning and taking it off at night, like clothes.

  61. It might be worthy to add to the discussion by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    that cyclists, especially commuters, have been strapping GoPros and the like to their helmets for a while now, and they don't try to conceal them in any way, hoping that motorists will behave better on the road, knowing that they are being videorecorded.

  62. Hold on a minute... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    So a company is telling purchasers what they can and cannot do with the hardware after they purchased it? Are we talking about Apple here or Google?

  63. Corrections . . . by Kimomaru · · Score: 1

    "Right now, it's pretty easy to tell if somebody's holding up their cellphone to take some video."

    No, it isn't pretty easy - they could be taking a picture or just looking at their phone.

    Also, if Google has to actually tell people to not be creepy or rude, it's a bad product from the start and that they should scrap it.

  64. Re:Degausse by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    Yep, because threatening to spraypaint and/or lase someone in the face because they wear Glass isn't violent or out of proportion at all?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  65. Re:Friends? by Pope · · Score: 1

    There's nothing stopping people from taking off their Glass when it is socially inappropriate to wear it.

    Sounds like there's a lot of Glass owners who don't know what "socially inappropriate" means. Hence the etiquette list?

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  66. Re:oxymoron by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Because in the history of electronics, there has never been a way to conceal or disable an LED.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  67. Re:Degausse by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

    Do not try this in a stand your ground state.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
  68. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't necessarily concealed... just not necessarily obvious.

    And the reason for their inobviousness would have far less to do with actually wanting to hide that one is using them and much more to do with simple comfort and ergonomics... something that a person can be comfortable with wearing them an entire day, probably putting it on in the morning and taking it off at night, like clothes.

    The reason doesn't matter. You simply ban them if they are not obvious or have some pre-defined feature to make people aware you are using them (i.e. for contacts red iris color, or a forehead tattoo, something like that). The police state does NOT want citizens to have always on cameras when they interact with officers of the law. So your privacy is saved by the all seeing, all wise government overlords.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  69. Not me by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    "Everybody" won't be wearing Google glasses because I never will.

  70. anti corruption tool? by superfast-scooter · · Score: 1

    These could serve as a better tool to capture transactions than hidden cameras. It would be more convenient, the person/groups on the other side know the transaction's being recorded and make them think twice.
    Maybe once something like this becomes more commonplace, the authorities catch on and ban its use in official surroundings. I
    nstead, what would be better is, like a 3D movie where the glasses are provided at the entry to the theatre, these kinds of glasses are provided to anyone entering an office, and returned on the way out. If the patron has any grievances, it's immediately available for recall.

  71. CueCat Mark 2? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    I sometimes wonder if Google Glass is going to be another CueCat. Somebody thought it was a really neat idea and pushed it hard, but nobody else thought it was a neat idea and it died.

    People view Google Glass as creepy and weird. That's hard sell, even for Google.

    ...laura

    1. Re:CueCat Mark 2? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Or maybe Glass will be another Segway, theoretically useful and cost-effective but socially unfashionable and dorky.
      Fashion counts for widespread social acceptance even if the average slashdaughter pretends to not care about fashion.

  72. Glass needs to go. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    The only way they can avoid being creepy or rude is to not wear them at all. Staring at someone in public is offending. Doing it while wearing google glass is ten times worse. It's possible that even I could be driven to violence over it, and I'm a pretty peacible guy.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  73. Re:Degausse by tsa · · Score: 1

    The neat thing about it is that the Glass will have a perfect recording of the perpetrator.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  74. Standing alone in a corner as opposed to... by KingTank · · Score: 1

    walking right up to people and putting a camera in their face? Nah, that's not creepy at all.

  75. Re:Degausse by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    A new device that can instantly impair any glasshole recording you! You go up to them, point the hole at them, and press down! And that's all! Of course, I'm talking about spray paint.

    Coke and electronics hate each other.

  76. Fake website by seeker160 · · Score: 1

    Has nobody else noticed the site is fake? The url is https://sites.google.com/site/.... Google proper wouldn't use something that was sites.google.com. The proper glass site is glass.google.com or http://www.google.com/glass. So no google didn't use the term glasshole some random person who stole their theme/style and is trying to pass themself off as google did. This just all seems sketchy as hell and bothers me that two major sites are passing this off as "real"

  77. Re:Surveillance cameras? by firewrought · · Score: 1

    Being observed puts people in a stress position.

    It's true with animals too... modern zoo design tries to take this into account by giving the animals places to hide, which benefits their mental health in addition to creating more immersive/meaningful exhibits. It's tricky though, because too much animal hiding => pissed off visitors.

    --
    -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
  78. Good for Google, etc. by avm · · Score: 1

    Good on Google to attempt to combat rampant bad manners using their tech. Unfortunately I don't think it'll work. Tact and social graces have been dead since long before Google even existed

    Bad to all you brain-dead cave dwellers who are so damn hung up on this piece of tech somehow taking your picture that you think physical violence is ok. Here's a news flash for you bright sparks:

    1. Nobody in the public sphere gives a fuck about you. Not me, not them, not anybody. Don't believe me? Go walk down a sidewalk in Manhattan and start randomly complaining to passers by about oh, cameras or something.

    2. You're already on quite a few cameras, whether you're in public or on private property. Lots of them are manned by underpaid staff whose only bright spot to the day is uploading footage they find amusing to social media sites.

    3. You assaulting someone who happens to possess a piece of hardware you don't like does, in fact, make you a criminal in a whole lot of jurisdictions. As opposed to your glass wearing nemesis, whose mere inclusion of you in the background of his photo of something else is either not typically culpable, or at the most a slap on the wrist.

    I personally have a use case that I'd like to try Glass out for. It does involve wearing them in public. However, I do possess sufficient tact to remove them when interacting with someone. Were I to be assaulted for possessing them, or threatened with such, my response would be very much the same as to an attempted mugger. Being that I do reside in a country with rather widespread firearms ownership, engaging in this sort of self expression could earn you a well deserved perforation.

    So far it seems as if the number of assholes wearing Glass are vastly outnumbered by the assholes who consider physically assaulting someone for such to be acceptable.

  79. Re:Friends? by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Sounds like there's a lot of Glass owners who don't know what "socially inappropriate" means. Hence the etiquette list?

    Even more absurd is that we're talking about proper social etiquette on slashdot. ha ha ha.
    What sort of tie should I wear to a Justin Bieber concert?

  80. Re:How do I get what I want, not what Google wants by chihowa · · Score: 1

    While many people are interested in a device that interacts with the world around them, I doubt that many people want every interaction to be funneled through, and dependent on, Google (or any other data siphon). The MO of "cloud" companies seems to be all about unnecessarily inserting themselves into every activity as a creepy middleman.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  81. Re:How do I get what I want, not what Google wants by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Pedantic nerdy self-correction: It's not really "cloud" companies per se that do this, but "internet of things" companies and the intersection of the two categories.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  82. Hello? by easyTree · · Score: 1

    "Don't be creepy or rude"; we'll be monitoring all your email, notes, video and audio to ensure that you're nice :P

  83. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by mark-t · · Score: 1

    So basically, ban everything that can be used to augment and improve the human memory beyond what is feasible without instrumentality unless it is visible?

    What does that do for people who will some day have chips installed in their brains? The first generation of which will doubtlessly be for medical purposes, such as perhaps preventing dementia in old age, but as the technology advances, such implants would likely ultimately end up offering a mnemonic advantage over unassisted memory.

    If you think that future is too far away to worry about, you are probably mistaken. I give it maybe as much as 20 years. Tops.

  84. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    So basically, ban everything that can be used to augment and improve the human memory beyond what is feasible without instrumentality unless it is visible?

    What does that do for people who will some day have chips installed in their brains? The first generation of which will doubtlessly be for medical purposes, such as perhaps preventing dementia in old age, but as the technology advances, such implants would likely ultimately end up offering a mnemonic advantage over unassisted memory.

    If you think that future is too far away to worry about, you are probably mistaken. I give it maybe as much as 20 years. Tops.

    If it can record and play back, yes. As for how? I already covered that: See "Forehead tattoo".

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  85. If I want to record you candidly... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    If I want to record you candidly I'm not going to use Glass. Everybody seems to expect Glass users to be so interested in violating their privacy. The poor people are probably just checking their text messages!

    If I want to record you and I don't want you to know about it I am going to be sneakier than that. It isn't going to be a camera that is out front on the side of my head for you to see. Probably I will put my cellphone in a holster and put a little hole where the camera is. You will never see me coming.

    Or.. for a pointless challenge, maybe I will get a bit hackier with it. How about a Raspberry Pi in a mint tin in my pocket. I can run a wire up my shirt from the Raspi to a tiny camrea module. Why does that one button on my shirt look a little different than the others? Better put on your tinfoil hat! The whole setup would probably cost me less than $50 off of Deal Extreme or Ebay.

    But I am not going to do this. And that guy with Glass over there probably isn't recording you either. Why? You aren't that interesting. You are just a mama's basement living technophobe mouthing off about somebody else's toy. Probably because you can't have one yourself. Get over it!

  86. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I don't think tattooing the elderly is going to go over particularly well.

  87. Re:Degausse by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

    Probably talking about a directional EMP weapon, they're pretty similar, induce enough voltage inside those chips with nm sized tracks and you'll easily fry the device. 30v is probably plenty at the glasshole end of the equation. user wouldn't feel a thing but all of a sudden they're wearing inert glasses and have an inert cellphone watch and credit cards.

  88. Re:Degausse by flyneye · · Score: 1

    I doubt anyones punch would make it that far.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  89. Re:Degausse by flyneye · · Score: 1

    No this is my promise of violence for those Darwinian rejects stupid enough to pick a fight with me.
    If G-glass makes it and most wear it, everyone will get with the program whether they like it or not.
    If G-glass sells only a few( as I suspect) it's wearers will face peer pressure to behave according to pack rule.
    But, there are always those who let a righteous surge of power go to their head, believing the majority will vindicate their actions.
    I am here to present the caveat associated with this flawed premise.
    I personally have no use for G-glass and probably will never bother to own anything like it.
    But, keep in mind, if you should prey from the safety of the pack, that it is an illusion and there is a chance you will be made a messy example.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  90. Re:Degausse by flyneye · · Score: 1

    One of my favorite stories is one of a group of self righeous activists outside a Boulder theater to pitch paint on "animal murderers" wearing their skins.
    The Darwin award goes to the one who thought the biker and his woman needed red paint on their leathers. It didn't matter that it was a woman, broken jaw, collapsed lung, broken ribs and blind in one eye. The bikers were never caught. More animals die everyday. Perhaps an activist is now a thinktivist.
    Don't be stupid, is the moral.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  91. Re:How do I get what I want, not what Google wants by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    While many people are interested in a device that interacts with the world around them, I doubt that many people want every interaction to be funneled through, and dependent on, Google (or any other data siphon). The MO of "cloud" companies seems to be all about unnecessarily inserting themselves into every activity as a creepy middleman.

    On that we agree completely.

    I want a device that records. I do not want a company collecting it behind me.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  92. There are more discreet ways than tape. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Given the size, tape would not be necessary; they would just break the connection of the LED.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  93. Odd guide for a non-public device. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    For a device that has still yet to reach the public at large, it's odd to see such a document from *anyone*.

    That said, it'd be kind of nice to see this at least be available at large to shake these kinds of issues out.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  94. Re:What will places that ban it do when it's unsee by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    I don't think tattooing the elderly is going to go over particularly well.

    If we don't the terrorists will win.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  95. Re:Degausse by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Quit being my pissing post....
    It's like the old Pat and Mike joke.
    Mike: Quit calling me a faggot
    Pat: Quit sucking my rod.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!