Slashdot Mirror
Google Tries To Defuse Glass "Myths"
As reported by Beta News, Google has tried to answer some of the criticism that its Glass head-mounted system has inspired with a blog post outlining and explaining what it calls 10 "myths" about the system. Google's explanation probably won't change many minds, but in just a few years the need to defend head-worn input/output devices might seem quaint and backwards.
If Google had just included a lens cover then Glass would just be a status symbol for ultra-nerdy hipsters.
With an uncovered camera always conspicuously pointed in everybody's face Google Glass is an unmistakable reminder of our Orwellian world.
I don't hope we'll ever come to that scenario.
I expect that getting beaten up, arrested and the like will make even the worst glasshole realize that what they are doing is completely unacceptable.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You might as well have highwater pants, a short sleeved white dress shirt, and a pocket protector.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/18/researchers-google-glass-spyware-sees-what-you-see
And Glass is one of those those technologies.
"Myth 7 - Glass is the perfect surveillance device"
Having something recording where you are looking is the main aspect that makes it such a perfect surveillance device, more than size or form factor.
They debunk this by saying that you can put together much more discrete recording devices. That is true.
However, if you think about it if Glass or something like it really were to become prevalent, it would be the perfect surveillance device - because it's always in a great position to record things, and also hiding in plain sight. Sure you CAN put together something else that works as well and is not as visible (though it's tough to have it looking where you look the way Glass does, or prevent it from being accidentally blocked), but that takes either a lot more effort or money.
People are just more comfortable with recording devices that make it more obvious when someone is recording by motion - holding up a phone, or even a wrist for a smart watch. Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just throw a basketball at their face. We already know they can't catch.
that you look like an idiot.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I'm telling you man, in just a few years, NOT having a calculator on your watch is going to seem quaint and backwards!
My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on. Sure it will not be recording all the time but I only care it it is recording when it is pointed at me. How about a small led (it does not have to be red) that is on when Glass is on. I don't mean recording because snap shots can be taken in a split second. Yes it will make Glass even more dorky but I think it would help with people's acceptance.
Is it sad that I used to love my calculator watch? It probably is. But I can't even imagine wearing any watch anymore, much less something like the calculator watches I used to love...
Perhaps smart watches actually will do well because things are cyclical, and the time for super-bulky tech watches has come again. But since I already rode that wave, I'm sitting this one out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I see someone wearing a camera for total recording on a ski slope, or on a bicycle trail, I don't feel bothered. Fat and unphotogenic, perhaps, but not bothered. OTOH the one time I saw someone walking around with a Google Glass on a normal day on a normal street, no special activities, no special event, nothing active to be watching, I felt: Why is this guy watching me?
It's like noticing another person in a crowd looking at you vs. noticing a policeman looking at you.
The reply on Google+ by Mark Daku makes a good point: there's a lack of physical cues to using the Google Glass that make it comparable to Bluetooth head sets/earpieces in their use, and which affects how other people perceive the device. In my experience, Bluetooth earpieces are still considered extremely douchey even though they've been around for quite some time now. I think Glass is doomed to the same fate.
Successful, groundbreaking products are loved at first sight.
Remember "Ginger", it was going to transform society! Cities will be rebuilt all around "Ginger", the most amazing invention of our time!
Then it turned out to be an overpriced electric scooter (the Segway). Yawn.
These dumb google glasses (I refuse to call them "glass", that sounds stupid) are exactly the same thing. An overpriced, overhyped gadget for hipsters.
They'll be piled high on tomorrow's trash heap, along with Ginger, and all of the Zunes.
I suspect that most people will think that people are walking around with google glass displaying porn. Plus the #1 app is going to be a filter that takes people around you and shows what they will look like naked. Or will do a face recognition and search a database to see if they ever put naked photos on the internet.
So my new myth is that 69% of people will Google glass are mostly being pervs.
I would mostly agree with this. There are certain products that once you see them you get a feeling that you must have it now!!!
There are even products that you think you must have but then they don't get used.
And once in a blue moon there is a product that does take some getting used to. But these are quite rare.
People for instance complain that the Segway is too expensive. But even free I am not sure that many people would regularly use them. The Roomba seems brilliant but most people who buy them have a long list of disappointments. (I still want one). Even sensible things like radar detectors (where they are legal) make a whole lot of sense yet most people don't buy them and most people speed.
So I see Google Glass being even lower on the list than MS Surface for products that they are marketing hard with little consumer buy in.
Just bear in mind, would-be banners: Glass can be attached to prescription lenses
well don't bring your prescription glass to my home or my office or you'll have hard time seeing
thank you good day
Not that I agree with remembering everything I see, but when I upgrade to ocular implants, opposition to my vision is going to seem far more hostile than "quaint and backwards" to me.
There was a time when some demanded others not to meet their gaze. Oh how they'd have loved to forbid recollection or even erase the very memories of their transgressions from the minds of those they oppressed. Try as they might the tyrants could not keep reality from existing. Be careful, humans, history has a way of repeating in new and more horrible ways than those of the current cycle dare dream.
Protip: Organic chauvanists are as wrong as human chauvinists or gender chauvinists or racial chauvinists.
I already know who's side I'll be fighting for. Since the first human hefted the first stone tool machines and man have helped each other prosper. Long has it been established that ones who forbid others wield technologies are quick to render themselves irrelevant. Those that fight against the natural order by which humanity has gained its prosperity over all other organic life are like apes who could speak but refuse: Indistinguishable from the other primitive and bloody minded animals.
Awareness and Life itself are processes of reflection on experience, encoded molecularly in DNA, structurally and chemically in brains, symbolically in cultures, and now digitally in the cells that make up the world wide neural network. You are merely one result in a sea of outcomes from the universe's struggle to gain awareness of itself via producing more perfect expressions capable of reflecting more precisely ever larger and more detailed descriptions of reality. To fight the nature of the universe is to lose against the laws of physics and entropy themselves: Adapt or become extinct.
that some people turn into frothing psychotics the moment somebody turns up wearing a camera on their face.
There is something fucking bizarre in human psychology that there's such a gap between the people who say "people who wear cameras on their face are weird/bothersome" and the people jump all the way to "the moment I see somebody wearing a camera on their face I will brutally assault them and destroy their property".
breathing? I don't even know what you're trying to say by adding "action" to the end.
https://plus.google.com/+Googl...
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You need to clarify your assertions so they make sense. "Because camera2(!*&6182900" isn't good enough of an argument.
Back in the 1990s owning a cell phone made you a "yuppie asshole" in a lot of people's eyes, and a lot of bars and restaurants banned them. Although that was probably more of a class envy thing versus distrust of the technology.
I can see it. It's about the "uncanny valley"
We'd still see situations like this poor woman who appears to have Borderline Personality Disorder: http://valleywag.gawker.com/gl...
However, there's something about the design of Glass, or rather the **lack** of design, that makes the wearer look off-puttingly non-human. It's like the Bluetooth in-ear headset ^10...and only a few steps from actual "Borg"
Glass looks like dental corrective headgear, and it turns out having a smartphone strapped to your face doesnt add much functionality for all the drawbacks.
Thank you Dave Raggett
They just say that there are a LOT of camera's. When you read it, it actualy acknoleges the breakdown of privacy.
At a presentation about the Google Glass, they basicaly said about privacy concerns : "We don't care. We will find a way to make it legal."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Dicks getting punched for being dicks is nothing new. If you had walked through a college party ten years ago, taking pictures of people without getting their attention first, it wouldn't take more than ten photos before your camera met an untimely demise. The new thing here is the device making it impossible to tell when you are being a dick, not the reaction to such dickish behavior.
To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot. Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing.
Frankly, I don't think you've got the balls to do it, because you know it is wrong. And if you do, whether because you are a big enough dick not to care or because you genuinely don't understand that it is wrong, I give it less than ten minutes before someone fervently explains to you that your behavior is uncivil.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Time for a new kickstarter project: "Burn that Glasshole"
It's basically a glass with a laser fitted in the frame.
It directs at any Google Glass (tm) camera in sight.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Smearing and blurring a myth does not do any good. You want to disarm or defuse it.
Ich bin nicht ein Grammarnazi.
10 meters = 32.8 feet
If only the Dice-holes understood this before they invented Slashdot.Beta. No amounts of false myth-busting will mitigate this disaster.
Back in the 1990s owning a cell phone made you a "yuppie asshole" in a lot of people's eyes, and a lot of bars and restaurants banned them. Although that was probably more of a class envy thing versus distrust of the technology.
I'll bet it had a hell of a lot more to do with the technology than you think.
People didn't want open microphones in a bar 20 years ago any more than they want someone walking around with a camera on their face today.
And likely for the exact same reasons.
I think texting and smart phone apps (Facebook, iChat, what's app, etc) is what solved this. No one cares if an asshole is ignoring his date as long as we don't have to listen to him talking too his friends loudly. Nobody talks on phones anymore.
When you have to post an article defending your product like this, you have already lost the battle.
The ONLY reason for google to make these was to insert itself more deeply into peoples private lives, to gather MORE information about them, and to gather more information about the people they are surrounded by.
So people would know when they're being recorded. It's ruined now because even if they add one, people will forever wonder if you just have an older version without the light.
They didn't address any of the problems. They just called them "myths" and said "don't worry, trust us, everything will be fine" for each one of them. And they did so using condescending, arrogant and insulting language (look for example at the passage when they declare that they want people to wear google glasses inside locker rooms (!): "just bear in mind, would-be banners..."). This reinforces in me the distrust in the company and the concern about the product.
Posts to the true believers does nothing but reinforce the suspicion that your eyes and ears are closed to dissenting voices.
There is better spy tech out there than Google Glass. That isn't a good argument for making the use of concealed recording devices socially acceptable. You shouldn't be arguing that short battery life makes Glass harmless, Batteries can be swapped in and out, as many as you can carry.
Why is it that makes people think Glass is nothing but a surveillance device SPECIFICALLY conceived to record them and absolutely nothing else?
Get real, people. It's impossible for that device to be recording 24/7. It's unrealistic to think it's going to automagically upload the video to Google for analysis. Just apply some common sense. If no other device can, so can't Glass.
I like the idea of the device for AR experiments, information delivery and yes, taking the occasional picture of something that would take longer to prepare and set a camera, such as birds (that will fly away the moment you prepare your camera or phone) and finished elaborate pastries which I am very proud of. I have no intention or interest on recording people doing mundane boring daily crap that I have no business recording.
Anyway, this shows a very ugly collective paranoia that should stop before somebody gets hurt for no reason. Yes, I specifically say hurt because that's the common thing: "If I see some glasshole pointing that thing at me I'll DESTROY THEM". And, no, guys, you AREN'T that interesting to warrant recording you. Unless you are some form of celebrity, which I doubt.
Nerd bravado at its best. Seriously. Mod me troll if you wish, I don't care, but someone has to say this.
It's not because you say something isn't something that it disapear.
Along the same logic Google is displaying:
It's a myth Blue is the official color of the British Crown, I have seen the queen wear red
The problem has never been that it is a camera. After all we have phone camera. The problem is that contrary to normal phone or normal camera, it is pointed toward your face all the time. And nobody trust the light to really show whether it is filming or not. Is that so hard to answer google.... No instead you made up 10 nice strawmen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Glass can be on at any time, or all the time, and it's pointed at who you're dealing with or simply looking at, all the time you are doing so, even if you're not initially paying more than cursory attention to them. Phones don't even come close to this level of attentiveness. With that in mind:
Being treated equally and fairly depends to a significant degree upon one person being perceived, and therefore treated, essentially the same as the next person. In public, the key mechanism that actually makes this work is anonymity. Yet society is in fact rife with prejudice, the vast majority of it misplaced to say the least, that people feel completely justified in carrying around. If someone can be automatically identified and linked to lists, they are now constantly exposed to these prejudices and/or actions taken in service to immediate identification and classification. A wearable computing device that can run arbitrary apps and can exchange information via the Internet is a not-very-exotic hunk of code, side- or direct-loaded, away from facial recognition, and from there, laying out all manner of unpleasantness, deserved or not, in front of someone who literally has no need to know.
"Would you like pickles on your loogie-burger, Mr. dude-onna-list? How about you, Ms. Felon?"
"Hey Vito, Guess who I saw this morning in Santa Fe? Remember old Carmine, was supposed to be dead, testified in the RICO trial? Yep, it was him. Positive ID. Call the NYC family.
"Oh, hey, you're Nicole Hotness, the one that got raped! You gonna keep the baby if those swimmers hit the mark? You know Every Sperm Is Sacred, don't you? Life Begins At Conception!"
"THAT motherfucker is a known atheist. Let's wait in the alley and introduce him to Christianity!"
Accordingly, on the other side of the coin, people who have concerns about being picked out from the crowd may have more than minor issues, and so actually wearing Glass could very well put someone at risk of attack, injury, etc. or the loss of the Glass device, perhaps violently.
Bottom line: Glass is a really bad idea. It should go away.
Faced with a person who wears an HD button cam, however, they do not have this psychological response.. even though their every move may very well be recorded; ignorance truly is bliss in this case.
Also, it is highly unlikely that significant numbers of people are going to go fit covert recording devices to their clothes and then upload the results to a massive database for mining by a megacorp. The technology exists, but most people don't use it, because it's obviously creepy. No doubt quite a few people would challenge or object to it if they did discover it happening.
A lot of the objection to Google Glass is that it erodes standards of socially acceptable behaviour in this respect, and it does so at the will of an organisation who are openly hostile to anyone having privacy any more. Schmidt and his pals made their bed, now they have to lie in it, and that sound you can't quite make out is the million tiny violins of sympathy that aren't playing for them right now.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Words from Googles owners... and that is NOT a joke!
He is probably talking about constantly pointing a camera in some ones face.
I have met one glasshole and as soon as I saw that he was wearing it I picked up my phone and pointed it at him. He asked me what I was doing and I replied "Nothing, mind your own business." while still pointing my phone squarely at him. He got pissed, held up a hand in front of his face, and called ME an asshole even though he was doing exactly the same thing! He stomped off and while telling me to grow up. Glassholes are amazing!
Mod this up --- article is well worth reading and 100% relevant.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The thing is, the problems with Glass are not myths at all. They are serious social concerns dealing with privacy, anonymity, malware, prejudice, discrimination, and danger to one's person.
Can Glass implement facial ID? Yes. Can we expect people to act out on the basis of an ID and subsequent information gathering, as opposed to anonymity? Yes. Can Glass pass on things you do to a 3rd party, including things like typing your passwords? Yes.
Until or unless Google comprehensively addresses these concerns (and frankly, I don't think they can), Glass will remain under fire from those who actually understand the technology; and it will remain a threat to anyone who values their anonymity and/or privacy, regardless of if they understand the threat or not.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So they say facial recognition is not on by default. That means it can be turned on. The device is capable of it, then eventually it will be used for it. Someone will be able to use it, if not the actual wearer. I declare this device evil. Nerds will get their glasses broken, and then they will cry about their right to invade my privacy. Recording people without consent is rude and deserves a corrective action.
Debunked long ago.
Yes. This is why everyone should be able to cook up bio-warfare weapons in their basement, right next to the family fission devices, the latest in torture racks, and the fully automated slave quarters.
Oh, wait. Your starry-eyed blathering completely ignores the fact that some technologies are harmful. Some are even extremely harmful. Never mind.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
All the haters have to know that in a few years, seeing people with google glass and knowing they only might be recording will be a godsend, given that even smaller, ever-present cameras will be made to look like much more innocent things: watches, lapel pins, broaches, etc.
Hell, with all these recently released/announced smart watches, perhaps one will let you use your phone's camera app remotely. I mean, if I can get an app for my phone that remotely controls my Nikon, surely this is not far off.
I see some deliberate misinformation in this so called "informational" blog post. The post states three different times that Google Glass is "OK" because like a cell phone it is "off by default", but there is nothing in the post that says it cannot be turned on by the user or surreptitiously hacked by unethical law enforcement agencies. If I whip out my cell phone and start taking video of someone it is kind of obvious what I'm doing, not so with Glass.
Myth 5 states Google glass can't be used for facial recognition (and other dodgy things) which is a bald-faced lie. Just because Google Glass store says they won't carry an app for that does not mean that a 3rd party developer won't [[http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/24/029238/is-the-world-ready-for-facial-recognition-on-google-glass]].
Personally, I would not mind Google Glass quite so much if they had a big bright red LED on the front that would flash when the camera was active (and couldn't be disabled through software).
I'm seeing one raging against LA police recording data from license plate readers... and this one talking about how quaint and backwards it will soon be to complain about someone recording everything they see with Google Glass. Which raises the question... how do you feel about cops wearing Glass?
Is it's an incredibly bad design. Terrible form, and lackluster function. With a heads up display done properly, you wont be able to find a person that dosn't want to have one.
Rocket Surgeon.
Wow, you sure sound like a very tough guy for someone who have the need try hard to justify some creepy nerdy recording device online.
It's possible to record 24/7 if you tweak the glass to take jpeg photos every second, at lower quality and lower res.
Use your fucking brain you unimaginative dumb cunt.
Why if I got my hands on they guy who broke that glath over my head, Id thock him like thith then thlap him like that, thee? Then Id thyove it up hith butt.
Can I refill your glath Myth?
google's vagina would whine
Successful, groundbreaking products are loved at first sight.
You didn't think about that very well did you.
When cars were invented, the US govt limited their speed to 10 MPH as not to compete with horses.
Television - work of the devil, video games - work of the devil (some still believe this).
In fact it's quite the opposite, any disruptive technology will create a huge amount of resistance, this resistance builds up myths around it. Take mobile phones and radiation, despite it being conclusively proven that EM emitted from mobile phones is harmless and less powerful than EM generated in nature the myth that mobile phones cause harmful radiation continues unabated.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Ich bin kein Grammarnazi.
ftfy
Russia, land of the dashcam. Google can then market as a dashcam for the face.
I hope the first idiot / gallshole I come across has got good medical, or a good funeral plan.
Here are some real Glass predictions to worry about:
1. Virtual overlays of people will make everyone naked.
2. Virtual overlays will put advertisements on the sides of every building. (You'll think that there's a Gieco ad on the Empire State building)
3. People will telepresence through other people and never leave their homes.
4. When you look at someone, you will be able to see all of their facebook info, if not through face recognition then because Glass will blue-tooth it to you.
5. The person sitting next to you on the subway will be watching porn movies on Glass
Myth 1 - Glass is the ultimate distraction from the real world
Privacy is destracting people from letting us put this on everyone's face. We don't want anyone to notice it as we sneak this thing into your life.
Myth 2: Glass is always on and recording everything
Glass may not be always recording, but Google can/will turn it on for you
when you have forgotten or are somewhere they want to be monitoring.
Myth 3 - Glass Explorers are technology-worshipping geeks
If you are feeling descriminated, it means you are not part of a cool
elite. Buy some Oakleys instead.
Myth 4 - Glass is ready for prime time
We wish it was ready for prime time. It is still highly impractical,
and wearers are getting beaten up for shoving a camera on other peoples faces. We will keep on bringing out propaganda and threaten people to only give them 50MB mail boxes if they don't wear one.
Myth 5: Glass does facial recognition (and other dodgy things)
It does not do facial recognition, the back end servers do. Facial
recognition would each too much battery and cut down the recording time. Idiot!
Myth 6: Glass covers your eye(s)
Terminator style glasses coming soon, don't worry. You will be able to
remove your eye from your socket to have room for battery expansion.
Myth 7 - Glass is the perfect surveillance device
Do to others before they do it to you, wear Google Glass record them,
upload them, tell on them.
So You have caught us out, it is a spying device. But we give you lots of
free storage. LOVE US. Remember we give you Gmail. Remember Hotmail? Huhhuh?
Myth 8 - Glass is only for those privileged enough to afford it
We will subsidies it so people that feel left out and are vocal will
get one as long as they shut up and point out it is an elitist tool for
capturing the masses.
Myth 9 - Glass is banned... EVERYWHERE ..with exception of your own toilet.
Myth 10 - Glass marks the end of privacy
It marks to beginning for 21st century method of monitoring the last of
person and corner the planet. Be positive!
There are cameras out there, you should strap one to your face and capture everyone else for big brother. Make Google profit from everything you see.
Can't wait until you're in the bathroom being video recorded. lol. Enjoy your viral video of you peeing on the web.
I don't have a problem with people taking matters into their own hands on this and yanking those devices of faces of the wearers and simply stomping on them.
You used to support private property. Now you support the destruction of private property, if its existence offends you. Did your cult leader tell you this somehow is not a contradiction in terms? You keep telling us that your beliefs are absolute yet you keep going back on them.
But of course, this contradiction is just another part of your aspirations. When you give people a false sense of entitlement if makes it that much easier to bring about fascism for the people.
You would have to be pretty dumb to 1) buy one of these pieces of shit 2) what's the advantage over a smartphone? None as far as I see. you look an idiot and no one trusts you.
I'm sure the glass will be as free of dodgy software as an Android handset...
Welcome children, to another piece of equipment to better give them data about you.
Except that Glass has a glaring LED that flashes during recording
I don't think of those things mattering much - at any distance it would be hard to notice, and it can VERY easily be covered with tape or with more effort hacked to not activate.
Basically the ease of disabling the indicator onGlass is greater than putting together custom surveillance gear that is pointed where your head is.
I would say a stronger counter at the moment is how expensive Glass is, but I'm thinking more of those arguments as applying to a cheaper consumer version.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't think I've ever had a camera with that shutter sound you could not disable it somewhere in the camera menu.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The article is written as though it is by someone who thinks google glass is an actual product. It isn't. Glass is a development version of a real product, and that it costs 1500 dollars and has 45 minutes of battery life are all part of the process of developing things.
One can rightly be concerned about what google glass will become, but if you walked around Apple campus and found a room full of people with smartphones that cost 20 grand each to make and have a replaceable battery that doesn't mean that the iphone 6 or 7 will cost 20 grand or have a replaceable battery.
So...you are not very creative when it comes to hand held phones, IE, what if they have it in there pocket, how do you know if their taking a photo, or to the point, video? Or when they are make some inconspicuous gesture as they hold the phone up, making it appear as if they didn't take your photo.
Thus this would make people 'idiots' who are against Glass because it isn't obvious, and the other which can be obvious, but can be used in a similar matter. And how do you know if the person took your photo, you realize you do not have to be right on top of someone to snap a photo?
Actually anyone that uses this tech and complains about it needs there head examined. Both collect data on you, and we all have seen the fall out from that.
"I don't want my photo taken, but I really don't mind if my phone is collecting/tracking my like electronic dog tag"?
"in just a few years the need to defend head-worn input/output devices might seem quaint and backwards."
I am thinking that this will look desperate and dismissive.
ugh, first attempt bit-bucketed...
1.) Google hasn't done a terribly good job at explaining what Glass DOES do. This very blog post focuses on what it does NOT do. Let's assume I buy everything the blog post says, hook/line/sinker. $1,500 to avoid having to pull out my phone in the event of a text message doesn't seem terribly useful to me. Identifying buildings or navigation overlay might be a useful example of how this tech works, but given the 'all walks of life' thing they're trying to express, the single biggest thing they could do to allay the "all photos all the time" problem is to give us a list of things Glass *can* do, besides taking pictures. This is already blazed trail - 15 years ago, GPS in a phone was creepy...and then we were able to ditch our TomToms for Waze, we were able to have our phones automatically text our friends when we were nearby, we were able to be guided through mass transit systems, and we were able to figure out what movies were playing in the nearest cinema, even if we were on vacation. Suddenly, wearing a GPS was acceptable, to the point where 'checking in' and explicitly telling the world where we were was a 'thing'. Focus on why I'd want to own one, not why I wouldn't want others to own one.
2.) My other problem is Google. My friend and fellow Slashdotter Rob keeps telling me that Google is about the safest place for my data to be, aside from my own server. I, personally, see Google making it far too easy to get far too much personal data from users. Even if they're not presently evil, if they decide to go down that road, they've already got the infrastructure, run their competitors out of town, and have years of data they can mine. Glass without Google's internet services is like Geordi's visor to Data - technically functional, but worthless in practice. The person may have accidentally taken a photo of me, and I generally wouldn't care...but why is Google pushing the product? Again, even if the people at the helm would actively stand against using it as a raw surveillence tool, they won't be there forever. I don't trust Glass photos to be taken, but not geotagged, uploaded, and analyzed. "An inadvertent photo of me" is one thing. "An inadvertent photo of me, time stamped and geotagged, uploaded to Google" is something else entirely.
Any one really asked people, who _do not usually wear glasses_ about this? Doubt it. Google Glass will fail - because there are plenty of people, who are not used to wear glasses at all. And having something on your nose all day will bother - anyone, who do not have to wear prescription glasses since early age. I, personally, can't even wear sunglasses for very long and many other people have issues with this as well, so this new contraption from the search giant won't go far.
his scale goes to 30
#1: It's a video camera that you wear on your face.
#2: It's as cool as pocket protectors and vinyl calculator holsters.
#3: People don't like having strangers walking around pointing video cameras at them.
Give it up, google. It's deader than the segway.
Google Glass is godsent for street photographers and journalists. Nobody has an expectation of privacy in public, everyone can take a photo of you as you walk out of a strip club and publish it by facebooking it or twittering it. Nobody should be granted a right to privacy in public, a society which grants a right to privacy in public is a society against freedom of speech. We must get used to being monitored and recorded all the time while we are in public. The government does it. Street photographers do it. Journalists do it. Your public facebookings and wordpressings can be screenshooted and re-published everywhere. Everyone can spy on you while you are in public. Unless you protect yourself by not doing anything private in public, you are fair game to anyone who wants to exercise their right to communicate what they see in public.
People are going to scream and hop up and down the same way they scream and hop up and down about cell phones. Because they're angry retarded bigots and this is one of the few outlets for retarded bigots where they can BE retarded bigots and not get beaten to death.
Also when phones were new, people would austentatiosly bellow into them as lougly as possible to prove that they were the biggest asshole^W^W^W^Whad a phone. This made life miserable for everyone.
One thing I've notices in the last few years: many fewer loud conversations on trains, even out of the quiet carriages. I guess now that they are normal people have normalised their behaviour to be less assholey.
There is still the odd pub which bans cellphones. The Free Press in Cambridge (used to be a regular haunt of mine) still has a standing ban on phones. That's fine, even if people don't make life miserable by bellowing into them, they still act like nitwits but sitting quietly round with "friends", reading stuff on facebook aboutother friends.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Record audio in public. Illegal (wiretap laws). Laws generally not enforced, but kept "in the back pocket" so to speak. You recorded audio in public of your cousin's birthday, I doubt anybody will ever object to hearing what they said there. You recorded audio at a bar, you can count on people taking you to court to learn all about wiretapping laws when they find out they're on tape calling that guy from the place a total effing loser.
People object to Google Glass because it can record video? Well, microphones have been eminently discrete and concealable for years. Why doesn't Google just make a model of Glass that looks more like a pair of Raybans, or Aviators, Blu-blockers?
Google needs to get ahead of all this by explaining what software this hardware runs? I've been following this for years and still have no idea what a person would actually do with them (aside from, apparently, videotaping strangers in public restrooms). Is there a killer app for Google Glass? Or is it just a heads-up display?
No idea. And in the absence of info, people will assume the worst.
Supporting exploitation, regardless of any "preconceived notions", is nothing to brag about.
Sorry, being rude isn't "normal" and hanging on your cellphone constantly isn't "normal" either. They're still considered antisocial snobs.
People actually look toward someone's ear to see if they're actually talking to someone or if they are someone talking to themselves.
If you wan't to speak without others hearing you probably couldn't choose a worse environment than one where people have to shout if they wan't the person next to them hear... Now considering the technology back in (especially early) 90's, if you had to call or answer the thing then you probably wen't outside anyway - if anything, it was probably the need to shout (in noisy places even louder) to be heard if there was even slight background noise that people hated, and back then the idea that a phone could be used as listening device when not being used for calling probably wasn't something a person would fear without having been on a meth binge for at least some days (not coke though, as it was the drug of choice for the yuppies actually carrying those logs).
Nah, I'd say it was definately the "yuppie hate" factor. I don't remember hearing anyone in the 90's criticizing cell phones for reasons like invasion of privacy.
Also, didn't bars in your country have pay phones in the pre-cell phone age? I know they were quite the norm in Finland anyway... Nowdays we don't have pay phones anywhere as people stopped using them anyway.
ranma - girl?
i live in a place where providing a person is taking part in a conversation , it is legal to record a conversation , as a matter of fact the Premier of said place got caught by a minister being recorded , the police do it as a matter of course , and i use my phone in my pocket if i am helping a mate " he is a bit slow " work on a purchase . and used to record conversations with my manager . once at my mothers i cought a salesman deni a statement he had made while trying to sell a 3000 $ vacumcleaner , he lied , and was very upset at getting caght , i was glad that using this tech to be able to save her a lot of money , and make no appology for using my handy in this manner !
the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL