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.

Comments

A lense cover

[bit trollent]

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.

Re:A lense cover

[Luckyo]

Pointing a phone at faces is considered rude in many cultures specifically because it implies you're taking pictures. Vast majority of people who use phones point the camera at a downward angle, so all it could take pictures of is people's feet.

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, we already live in an Orwellian world* and this gives the individual a copy of the video. This is probably the only way to fight such a surveillance state. Who watches the watchers? The watched.

*of sorts

Re:A lense cover

[rolfwind]

Still could be recording conversation though.

Re:A lense cover

[sahuxley]

Go into a bar or strip club and point your camera phone every direction you turn your head. See how long it takes for one of those "idiots" to knock you out.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

People don't generally walk around holding up their phone like they're recording you. When they are, we have the opportunity to say "don't take my picture!" or "don't record me!'

Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.

I like the pattern unlock. People's fingerprinted screens frequently give away their pattern, so the lock is worthless. Just look for the patterned smudge, and you're in.

Re:A lense cover

[Jmc23]

Aren't they just filled with sad wimpy nerds who have to pay to see women get naked?

Re:A lense cover

[Razgorov Prikazka]

Well said!
There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff.
I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop...
I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.

Re:A lense cover

[Applehu Akbar]

Better still: deploy the Glass beta to specialized professionals first, such as surgeons or lawyers, talking Glass up as a source of supplementary information during operations and trials. As soon as the tech gets featured on a few episodes of "Scrubs" or "Suits," the coolness factor is established and everybody will be wanting it.

Re:A lense cover

[Joce640k]

yet idiots have no problems with phones being pointed at them.

It's pretty obvious when a phone is being pointed *at* you instead of being used to play games/text/whatever.

And it will provoke a reaction from "idiots". Try it and see.

Re:A lense cover

[peragrin]

just play candy crush and other such touch and drag games and watch the pattern unlock vanish into a mess.

Re:A lense cover

[currently_awake]

Wimpy nerds have expensive toys, they can't afford stripper clubs. And besides the lights out time on their mothers basement is too early for the bar scene.

Re:A lense cover

[michelcolman]

There was a time when people using mobile phones in the street were mugged not because the thief wanted their phone, but because people using mobile phones were considered to be antisocial snobs and deserved to get beaten up. People would sometimes just take the phone and throw it onto the floor to break it. Nowadays using a cell phone is the most normal thing in the world. When you were making a call using an earpiece, people used to wonder why you were talking to yourself while nowadays, when you really are talking to yourself, people will just assume you're making a phone call. The same will happen to glass.

Re:A lense cover

[currently_awake]

Google sells information, we are the product. The more they know the more money they make. Google glass isn't about what the customer wants, it's all about spying. Putting a lens cap on google glass would undermine their ability to spy.

Re:A lense cover

[aaaaaaargh!]

I don't know which anti-social world you live in, but I have never met anyone who did not have a problem with a phone pointed at him by a stranger without asking - or a camera, for what its worth.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. No, I don't go around recoding people without their permission. People ask me to do it a lot, because they want some nice pictures or video to put online. I've deleted perfectly good pictures I've shot, because someone who I didn't have permission from got in the shot.

And no, I won't own Google Glass, because ... well ... it's a waste of money. And I don't want to piss people off by making them think I'm recording them all the time.

There are reasons I'd like to have a wearable video eyepiece, but Google Glass doesn't fulfill those requirements.

Re:A lense cover

[QuasiSteve]

Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.

And this, of course, is the crux of the problem. Between people keeping glass on when it's probably rude to do so, and people having a psychological response that somebody wearing glass must always be recording them (or at least readily in a position to do so).
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.
Doesn't change that people who use Google Glass can easily decide to take it off in personal situations, of course.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

You'll frequently see discernable patterns. But ya, if the last thing they did was play a game, it may make it harder. So if you want in, wait for them to make unlocking the phone the last drag action.

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff. I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop... I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.

It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.

Re:A lense cover

[master_kaos]

Not to mentiuon, if they have greasy fingers it can be really east to figure out the pattern.

Re:A lense cover

[ericloewe]

Nothing a hidden mic wouldn't do.

Re:A lense cover

[LordThyGod]

Well said! There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff. I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop... I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.

It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.

So in a couple of years when the technology is embedded in lapel pins or other subtle wearables, and they are "always on", what do we do, ban jewelry and clothing accessories? This is like horse owners complaining about them new fangled motorized carriages because they are loud, dangerous and the money all goes to Detroit. Its just humans being humans.

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

That's going to happen with or without Glass. Data aggregators already exist and already do this with other media (Hint: it's the credit bureaus, among other shady businesses). The only difference is the Glass user will have access to the data they record and Google's use of the data (advertising targeting) is a lot less nefarious than the credit bureaus (rating you as a person and selling that data to anyone who will pay).

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

Those devices would run afoul of wiretap laws that are already on the books. The problem here is that whether or not Google specifically provides the software to do the spying, they're providing the hardware to do it. We have no way of knowing when or if the devices are recording things, so there's going to be well justified paranoia. Big data has already run amok online, but this hardware is much more visible than a script running on a server is.

And unlike the security cameras at the local store, there's no way of knowing where the files are going to wind up. A typical shop doesn't have the resources to keep footage on file indefinitely, so unless you're doing something suspicious, chances are good that it's going to be wiped within a month or two. And even then it's not likel to make its way out of the building unless there's a court case.

Horse owners generally wound up buying cars because they were more cost effetive, reliable and expedient in the long term. Cars also weren't spying on people and creating a database of people's activities without their consent.

Re:A lense cover

[O('_')O_Bush]

If Google Glass ever becomes popular, I hope
http://www.amazon.com/Mato-Hash-Military-Shemagh-Tactical/dp/B008G3O45U/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1395615480&sr=8-6&keywords=shemagh

Becomes trendy as well.

Re:A lense cover

[AmiMoJo]

Most people don't see wearing Google Glass as being the same as holding up your phone as if you were about to take a photo. If you were to say "ok glass, take a photo" every few seconds or pushing the touch pad all the time they might get upset. Note that if you start recording video it stops after 10 seconds and for the entire duration the very visible LED is flashing.

Sorry, but most people just don't see the way you do.

Re:A lense cover

[AmiMoJo]

Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.

No it doesn't. Recording with Glass requires you to say "okay glass, record a video". Recording is limited to 10 seconds, unless you are streaming it live as part of a video chat. In any case the LED flashes constantly while recording is in operation.

Recording all the time is impossible anyway as the battery only lasts 45 minutes from fully charged. Maybe if the guy walks around with a really long USB cable attached to his head you would need to worry. Anyway, if someone wants to record you there are much better, more subtle ways to do it than making endless 10 second recordings or trying to stay within range of a wifi network for streaming to a G+ hangout.

Re:A lense cover

[thetoadwarrior]

No really aims their mobile camera directly at someone. It'd be awkward holding it that high and using it for starters and it's generally considered rude because the person doesn't know if you're recording them or not and generally sticking anything in someone's face is rude.

I think a lot of people forget Google is still primarily an advertising company (from a profit point of view) and everything they're doing is largely to protect and build that income. Sure they can't give you the facility to record everyone 24 hours a day but if they could they likely would. Their main interest in Glass and the whole wearables thing is to basically tag and monitor you like an animal to help improve their advertising. That should be enough to at least raise some concern but as part of monitoring your all day means monitoring your friends under certain circumstances and unless they're cool with that then it is understand if it annoys them.

Re:A lense cover

[Jmc23]

I find it interesting that everybody mentions holding the phone to the persons face.

Perhaps everybody fails to understand you can record somebody from 10 feet away or even further. Maybe everybody is fine with being recorded in a crowd and would only be bothered by someone filming them 1 foot away. Or maybe they're just idiots who can't think of anything else.

Or they're doing exactly what I did with the last two sentences.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.

I'm not a Google Glass owner. If I were, I still need my prescription glasses to see normally. Otherwise, people are just a fuzzy blob, and doing something simple like reading a menu in a restaurant is pretty close to impossible. I can kind of guess at what words are based on the general shapes of the blobs.

I guess the option would be to carry a pair of regular glasses along with the expensive Google Glass, which then seems very silly.

So in a social situation, taking them off wouldn't work too well.

As I understand it, the Google Glass interface is the way you'd interact with your cell phone too, so if my phone rings, I'd expect to see it on the Google Glass screen, which would then be in my pocket or where ever.

If they ever become a $25 novelty, I'd probably pick one up, so I could play with it, and I wouldn't feel bad that I rarely used it.

I've actually been looking for button cameras. I have a little RC helicopter that I want to put a very light weight camera on. It isn't very big, and can only lift about 4g, so any solution for that has to be small and light. Either I'm looking in all the wrong places, or the virtually impossible to detect button camera only exists on TV, kind of like the device you wave past a number pad to try every combination of numbers in seconds, and always just in time before [some tragic scenario].

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

Ah. No, I only use techniques like that for legitimate reasons. Like if a lost phone is found, and we have no idea who to return it to. :) That, or doing it on a dare (i.e., with the owner's permission). People are very proud of their security, until someone like me defeats it in seconds.

I have lockpick sets for legitimate purposes also, like to open doors or cheap safes, where people lost the key. Just because I can pick a lock in seconds doesn't mean I'm going to break into someone's house. My last job, we had a mystery safe, that no one could find the key to. That one was tough, it took me 30 seconds to open, just to find some decade old backup tapes.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

According to Google, the 10 second limit is just the default, not the max time.

https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3079296?hl=en

And you could stream for a while via your phone. Mine makes a lovely wifi hotspot, and with my battery pack, I can stay on for over 8 hours.

Blinking LEDs are easily subverted also. Back in the day, with the huge VHS camcorders, I recorded concerts on the request of the musicians. To keep from distracting people, I had cut a small piece of electrical tape to cover the LED. Sure, they saw me with the camera, but the light wasn't on, so I "wasn't" recording. Even when you're shooting with permission, people act differently with the camera pointed at them. The best shots and videos have always been when it doesn't look like I'm shooting.

With film cameras, photographers were known to pretend to shoot rolls of film, just to get the model to loosen up and get used to the camera. It was usually around the 3rd roll of "film" that they'd actually put film in the camera. Now with digital cameras, it doesn't hurt so much to really take the pictures, even though you'll just delete them after. Worst case, you have to swap a few extra memory cards. Any decent photographer has a pocket full when they're out on a shoot anyways.

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect for foot fetishists such as myself!

Re:A lense cover

[noh8rz10]

I guess the option would be to carry a pair of regular glasses along with the expensive Google Glass, which then seems very silly.

So in a social situation, taking them off wouldn't work too well.

well then prepare to be ostracized in a lot of situations. prepare for people to treat you rudely. because your social situations will end rather abruptly

Re:A lense cover

[drinkypoo]

Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.

That's because of poor design on Google's part, not because of inherent limitations of the type of device. And the design was, well, by design: Because in their arrogance, Google decided that they would force people to accept it as they wanted to design it, and did not consider society's natural reaction or did not consider it valid.

Re:A lense cover

[sahuxley]

None of that is necessarily true if it's rooted. http://gizmodo.com/google-glas... Also, "most people" aren't doing something that they mind being recorded doing. The problems come from the situations where they do mind.

Re:A lense cover

[epyT-R]

No. They're filled with despondent middle aged guys who learned about marriage the hard way. These were the guys who thought they were hot shit in college because they were getting laid and foolishly thought that marriage was a continuation of that.

Re:A lense cover

[DrXym]

More likely Glass will find a purpose for drones working in giant warehouses fulfilling orders - go to row X and pick up item Y for order Z etc.

It reminds me a little of Segway - heralded as a social revolution that would transform the way we travel. Then it turns out that riding a segway made someone look like an asshole so it was relegated to specialist roles - oil tankers, warehouses, promenades etc.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

Did you even bother to read to the second line, where I said I don't own Google Glass, and farther down where I said I wouldn't unless it was priced down at novelty prices?

Like I said, If I *were* to get Google Glass, they'd have to be fitted to prescription glasses, so I'd either have to wear it all the time, not be able to see, or carry a second pair of glasses. The last option seems silly. So I'm going with the option that I don't want or need them.

Re:A lense cover

[fisted]

That's for our own good, we just don't understand it.

+1

Re:A lense cover

[Savage-Rabbit]

Well said!
There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff.
I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop...
I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.

It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.

So in a couple of years when the technology is embedded in lapel pins or other subtle wearables, and they are "always on", what do we do, ban jewelry and clothing accessories? This is like horse owners complaining about them new fangled motorized carriages because they are loud, dangerous and the money all goes to Detroit. Its just humans being humans.

Yeah, yeah yeah, cast everybody who wants some privacy as an ignorant Luddite ... It's a cheap shot on your part and he still has a point. Plenty of people are going to be creeped out by Google Glass and the fact that it violates a deeply entrenched social norm probably going to be the greatest adoption hurdle that this device will encounter. It may be that your prediction is correct and that in future nobody will mind having their image beamed to Google's data-centres by an army of Glassholes but I rather doubt it. The more pervasive and especially the more in-your-face the surveillance society gets the more it will piss people off. I'm already beginning to warm up to the idea of following the example of a group of (Dutch IIRC) vigilantes I read about recently who sneak around at night and shoot out CCTV and speeding camera lenses using air guns loaded with glue filled paint-balls.

Re:A lense cover

[Applehu Akbar]

The Segway is another perfect example: if it had been initially marketed as an aid for those people who can stand but not walk, it would have been a "hero" technology, like a wheelchair that can climb stairs, rather than a punchline.

Re:A lense cover

[serviscope_minor]

Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.

Honestly, if you manage to purchase a pair of glasses that points a camera at absoloutely everyone, even if they ask you not to point a pair of glasses at them, then you pretty much deserve to be ostracised. The VAST majority of glasses (a) don't have a camera and (b) are cheaper. You have to go so far out of your way to wear them that it's basically your fault.

Let's have a nice, extreme analogy to demonstrate the point (while channelling the awesome power of Hitler on the internet).

Let's say you decided to go commando and wear a pair of trousers decorated with swastikas with "kill all the Jews" scrawled across the ass. Well, removing them clearly isn't an option since you'd be busted for indecent exposure.

Clearly glass isn't so extreme. However, if you construct an unusual situation and pretend you're "forced" to do something offensive when it was your own, unusual actions which forced the situation, then people will probably be even less sympathetic.

Re:A lense cover

[Blaskowicz]

I've never seen a bicycle rider with a helmet cam yet.
Security cameras are often not so obvious, they suck but hopefully what they film won't leak and be datamined.

And here comes Google which does proselytize and have a facebook-like attitude of preteding they're going to change and dictate the social rules. Of course we can bitch. We don't have to care about your irrational fear of "bias" (go waste your time reading creationist arguments and watch Fox News "fair and balanced")
Even then, Google advertised itself as "Do no evil" and now they want to rape their users by forcing a centralized, real name account on them (instead of having the freedom to have a youtube account, gmail account, google account, android account etc.). So they want to be another facebook. I'm not interested into your facebooks thanks.

Re:A lense cover

[afxgrin]

Google Glass as an assistive device for the legally blind would fit a similar role. Especially with facial recognition enabled and audio feedback to the wearer, and just disable the display or make it a big block of colour output for people who are still 'blind' but can see a bit of light.

I imagine they would need two so they could obtain enough spatial information to aide in navigation.

However, I would feel bad for the legally blind to be assaulted for wearing Google Glass.

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

You've already resigned privacy and anonymity in public by living in America.

It is written in the constitution that citizens of US are to be data- and video-surveilled and geo-tracked at all times? Well, seems in line with recent events.

Re:A lense cover

[tsqr]

Sorry, but most people just don't see the way you do.

If you were right about that, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Maybe you're not quite as in touch with how "most people" see things as you think you are.

Re:A lense cover

[Jmc23]

I do, unfortunately they (like you, even with your AC cloak) don't read mine so they're just a bunch of strawmen and red herrings.

Re:A lense cover

[noh8rz10]

no that's not what you said at all, you said, it would be inconvenient for you to carry a second pair of glasses, so you would keep them on regardless of how uncomfortable it makes everybody else. anything else would be "silly".

Re:A lense cover

[noh8rz10]

that's great for the people wearing the glass but sucks for the people not wearing the glass. the rest of us would prefer that nobody wear the glass.

Re:A lense cover

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Google sells advertising services. Google does not sell information, because then anyone that bought the information would be able to offer the same advertising services that Google does.

Re:A lense cover

[noh8rz10]

and yet people wear their apple earbuds and talk into the mike on that. how is that any different?

Re:A lense cover

[Andy Dodd]

Yeah. There are third-party lens covers like GlassKap, but there are two problems:
1) They don't match Glass in color. So it keeps the tinfoilhatters (an honestly small but vocal and whiny part of the crowd) happier but to everyone else you look really silly. (Yes, there are some that will say you'll always look silly with Glass - but it looks far sillier with a GlassKap on due to the color mismatch.)
2) Google put the light sensor for the device in the camera hole. So with GlassKap, Glass thinks you're always in a dark room and dims the display. :( (I wish I could get a version of http://www.shapeways.com/model... that didn't have the display shield component - I'd put a translucent cover over the camera hole.)

Re:A lense cover

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you not get laid in college?

Re:A lense cover

[tlhIngan]

That's going to happen with or without Glass. Data aggregators already exist and already do this with other media (Hint: it's the credit bureaus, among other shady businesses). The only difference is the Glass user will have access to the data they record and Google's use of the data (advertising targeting) is a lot less nefarious than the credit bureaus (rating you as a person and selling that data to anyone who will pay).

And where do you think credit bureaus are also getting data from? They just pay Google some money and they'll get at the same data you find creepy that they have, but not Google.

Google Glass is a perfect opportunity to get even more information about you so they can rate you better.

You know there is an LED that flashes during recording and when taking photos, right? Did you even read TFA? This was one of the concerns addressed, and it makes the rather obvious point that if someone wanted to take pictures of you without consent there are much better ways to do it.

Except it's not a LED. It's just a lightpipe to a part of the display. Heck, there are spyware apps that take advantage of it - they do one thing but snap a photo every 10 seconds without indication. Hidden rooting works, as well.

It's no LED. It's just a clever spot on the screen that's piped out, and there are apps that simply either display black, or just not highlight the spot.

Yes, in the effort to save a buck...

Re:A lense cover

[DrGamez]

bad day champ?

Re:A lense cover

[DrGamez]

*toot*
You should get some award for this comment. I'm wondering if you're michelcolman posting as AC just to point out the fact that there are idiots who still think like this.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

Right, it would be silly to carry around a spare pair of glasses just so I could take off the Google Glass in ... well ... every situation where I'd interact with people.

So my option is still, don't buy Google Glass. Problem solved. :)

I think of them, the way I think of the video cameras I own. They sit on a shelf charging. When I need them, I use them at the event. When I'm done with them, I put them away. There's no good reason for me to keep the camera up and facing people I didn't intend to film.

I know people love using the "but my cell phone can record video!" excuse. The problem with that excuse is, you aren't holding it up facing them the whole time.

So yes, I won't own Google Glass, because it's simply going to piss people off. Problem solved.

I can think of a few reasons I might want them, but the cost and annoyance problems are still there. The only good reason I can think of to wear them is that I could have the camera in place. I can get a GoPro or whatever for those circumstances. Like, when I was driving car races, I went through some trouble mounting up a camera in the car. That was before GoPro was a thing, and duct taping a video camera to the side of my helmet wasn't really a practical option. :) Even still, if I got Google Glass to do that, there would be too many negative side effects. The last thing I want during a race is for an alert to come up in my vision with an email, facebook post, or phone call.

Come to think of it, the last thing I want to happen while I'm driving normally is for any of those alerts coming into my vision. I leave my phone in a suction cup holder on my windshield. I have the option of glancing over to see who the call is, when I've determined if it's safe (i.e., I've already stopped driving).

Somehow, I can't see any good reason to have Google Glass, except when I'm sitting on my couch waiting for a call or to do something online. I already have a lovely PC for that, and the screen is much larger than their monocle.

Re:A lense cover

[uninformedLuddite]

Yeah, yeah yeah, cast everybody who wants some privacy as an ignorant Luddite

I am always surprised in these discussions on /. about Glass that no one brings up this patent

Re:A lense cover

[Meski]

"Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

Re:A lense cover

[Meski]

The anti-red-eye one? At least that's what Eye thought it was for

Re:A lense cover

[Meski]

voyeurs.com and exhibitionists.com spring to mind. I guess these sites are in use already?

Re:A lense cover

[Meski]

Man, the safes I used to use took longer than that even knowing the combo.

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

More like a cheap fire safe that takes a key.

Lockpicks don't work very well against a knob. :) That takes a different method, unless it has a key backup. :)

Re:A lense cover

[Meski]

Yes, this was a defence something rated safe, 3ccw, 2cw, 1 ccw from memory, and you had to be damned precise about landing on the numbers..

Re:A lense cover

[JWSmythe]

That sounds like a job for C-4. :)

Quaint and backwards?

[Megol]

Like the expectation of not every action being tracked, recorded and analysed? Like the expectation of privacy and freedom?

I don't hope we'll ever come to that scenario.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other people using Google Glass to record information about others, which Google knows about, is not something one can control.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no expectation of privacy in public. And you are likely already recorded 30 times a day by various cameras, license plate readers, and all sorts of other stuff (depending on where you live).

Not sure what freedom has to do with anything. Would you argue that people dont have the right to take photos/videos in public? What about convenience stores and banks with CCTV cams?

Yes, you're quaint and backwards. Glass puts recording in the hands of individuals rather than (just) business or government.

This is like calling someone's dash cam a threat to your driving freedom.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[BronsCon]

There is no expectation of privacy in public action. Nobody ever says the last word, but it makes all the difference.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Joce640k]

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Sure there is. Try going around getting up close to people, looking over their shoulders to see what they're doing, etc.

See how long you can last before being punched in the face and told to "mind your own business".

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Megol]

There is no expectation of privacy in public. And you are likely already recorded 30 times a day by various cameras, license plate readers, and all sorts of other stuff (depending on where you live).

Yes. But don't you see any difference between a camera at a fixed location run by a corporation that (in most locales) have to follow certain laws how to handle cameras and the resulting video streams AND a mobile camera that can essentially film anyone anywhere _and_ is connected to a person of likely questionable morale (as evidenced on the Internet). But I think that being recorded 30 times are already (let's be generous) 28 times too many.

Not sure what freedom has to do with anything. Would you argue that people dont have the right to take photos/videos in public? What about convenience stores and banks with CCTV cams?

Yes, you're quaint and backwards. Glass puts recording in the hands of individuals rather than (just) business or government.

This is like calling someone's dash cam a threat to your driving freedom.

I was trying to show that this is just another step into the control society I and many with me (as evidenced on the Internet ;P ) don't like. With the NSA and other organizations increasingly tapping into private data that Google Glass user you saw can be used for tracking you for the government or private corporations/hacker groups/militant animal protection groups or even (gasp) TERRORISTS! :)

But that's just paranoia right? Me, I think that Andy Grove is right.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Holi]

exactly, In any civil society there is an expectation of privacy in public. this whole idea that there isn't is a ridiculous fantasy told to us by those who care noting about civility,

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[peragrin]

the trick is CCTV' cams aren't being uploaded to the internet for the express usage of using facial recognition to pull up your google + and Facebook pages. In fact most CCTV footage doesn't last more than 24 hours before being over written.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Xebikr]

...an expectation of privacy in public...
...privacy in public...
...public...

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but the amount of mental gymnastics required to accept that statement is beyond my poor abilities. Bravo on your logical elasticity.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[FireFury03]

...an expectation of privacy in public... ...privacy in public... ...public...

Maybe my sarcasm detector is broken, but the amount of mental gymnastics required to accept that statement is beyond my poor abilities. Bravo on your logical elasticity.

Can you not see the difference between a member of the public happenning to see what you're doing while they're going about their own business, vs. you having all your activities recorded, stored indefinitely and automatically analysed?

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Sepodati]

But that's just paranoia right?

Definition of. You know... maybe it's just a dude with a wearable phone on his face. Or at least rail against every single piece of technology, so you can be consistent in your paranoia.

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[Sepodati]

So you logically conclude (assume) that every single GG user is doing this and the concept should be abandoned? It's never just going to be a dude wearing a computer/phone/whatever this thing is?

Re:Quaint and backwards?

[dave420]

You're the only one claiming that.

Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[gweihir]

You are not doing things that you _think_ are illegal _now_. Maybe a bored prosecutor will think differently in a few years and financially ruin you just the same or even manage to convince a jury (of typically: idiots) that you should go away for a long time. Or maybe you develop some ideas that those in power do not like to much the same result.

Also refer to http://online.wsj.com/news/art... "You Commit Three Felonies a Day".

"Glasshole", btw., is already a while old and not my creation.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[gweihir]

That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[khasim]

What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?

Nothing. They just do it without the physical motions that would otherwise provide the visual cues to indicate what they're doing.

Really - the camera on Glass is not useful at all to record or photograph someone without them knowing.

Bullshit.

There's no zoom, no flash... however if I take a $99 camera with a 8x optical focus I can easily take the picture from a distance and no one is going to look at me funny because I'm taking pictures on the street.

Bullshit, again. I'm in Seattle. We get a lot of tourists. They're easy to spot with their cameras. And people do step out of the way of their shots.

So to sum it up: Get a life.

Got one already. Me having a life does not mean that you are not an ass hole.

You being an ass hole does not mean that I do not have a life.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[meerling]

Beating up people is called Assault and is illegal.
Arresting someone that isn't breaking the law is itself illegal.
(Taking pictures in public, as well as using a heads-up display device in public are both totally legal, so long as you aren't driving.)
Calling someone a 'Glasshole' for simply wearing a specific accessory is not only close-minded and uncalled for, but totally rude.
(Try waiting for them to do something to deserve the insult, like insulting people without just cause.)

As far as I'm concerned, the 45 minute battery life is not a 'feature', it's a huge freaking defect.

Also, the price is currently WAY too bloody high. In my opinion it's only worth about $80 new.
Feel free to disagree. ;)

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[ccguy]

That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.

So far no issues. Not everyone is a real asshole worrying about what I do or don't. Everyone that has approached me about Glass just wanted to try it out. Only time I was asked not to carry it (at a posh restaurant where everyone was taking pictures with their phones) I just took it off (note: Now I wouldn't, because I have prescription lenses - if I can't wear glasses at a restaurant I just go somewhere else).

Anyway the fact that you think my moral development has failed because I wear Glass really says a lot about you. Wearing Glass is enough for you? Nothing else matters?

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

I expect that beating up a "glasshole" will get YOU arrested and the like. Note that wearing Google Glass is NOT a crime, nor is it justification for assault & battery.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[DarkOx]

Really - the camera on Glass is not useful at all to record or photograph someone without them knowing. If I take a picture of you at 10 meters the picture is useless. There's no zoom, no flash...

Perhaps not now, but how can we expect anything other than version next to have 18-20 Mega Pixel device with a huge focal range? More and more of the cell phones are moving into that territory. With that kind of sensor density and decent lens you can capture plenty of detail at 10 meters.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[subreality]

What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?

They can walk around maybe recording at any time. Someone who points a phone at me for a moment probably took a photo. Someone who points it at me continuously is probably taking a video. Either action is conspicuous which means that I can choose to leave, or I can confront them if they're doing it inappropriately.

Camera etiquette has been refined for a hundred years. Glass upsets the balance because it doesn't provide those visual cues. People who don't want to be recorded therefore presume it's not recording but feel uneasy because they're not sure, or they assume the worst and confront the wearer.

I'm actually quite enthusiastic about it as a technology, but the couple times I've encountered them in the wild I've fallen into the "uneasy because I don't know if I'm being recorded" group. I'd like to have one, but I'd cover the lens with a piece of tape most of the time.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[gweihir]

It is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of fact, as evidenced by the observation that you do not understand what this is about. Some people do not manage to develop common decency, you are one of them. Unless you want to get into serious trouble, take advice and do not rely on your own feeling of what is acceptable and what is not.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[mjwx]

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.

It looks like you still believe people are rational. Stop that.

The Glasshole who gets beaten up will simply ascribe that behaviour to someone else flaw (well to be fair, they'd be half right, resorting to violence demonstrates that person has a problem) instead of analysing their own behaviour. It doesn't matter how much others try to link the violence to their behaviour with Google Glass, people who are sociopath enough to ignore polite requests will continue to deny that their behaviour is a problem no matter how bad it gets. In fact the more violence that's used against them, the more they will play the victim card.

I strongly recommend against violence for dealing with Glassholes because they'll never link it to their own bad behaviour. In fact I strongly recommend against violence for any reason, it should always be a last resort.

I like the concept of Google Glass, however I'm not a Glasshole and will gladly remove/deactivate the glasses when asked. I certainly understand why a lot of places don't want them used and if I frequent these places I'll comply with their wishes/policies. I like the concept, but I don't like the way some people will use them and it sucks that even polite Glass users will get labelled as Glassholes.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[Rich0]

Nothing. They just do it without the physical motions that would otherwise provide the visual cues to indicate what they're doing.

Yikes, chill out!

Anybody who wants to record everything you're doing is going to use a concealed camera, not one that is mounted on their face. It isn't even practical to do heavy recording on a Glass since the battery life won't handle it.

Besides - you're already being recorded day in and out by everybody and their uncle. It is only a matter of time before that stuff gets posted on the internet regularly...

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[thegarbz]

It's very easy to spot the glass user who is using the camera. Just look for the guy either carrying a big battery pack or who takes his glass off every 5 min to put it on the charger. You can't even get an hour of footage from the device on full charge, so chances are the people who you see with glass on their head all the time actually have zero interest in your so called life.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[cgfsd]

I have a Glass, it is pretty useless actually. It can take pictures but you either need to wink or touch the Glass to do it.
The video is pretty much worthless, it takes a few seconds worth of video and if you want to continue you have to tap the Glass.

You can see where someone points a camera, you can see where the Glass is pointed as well.

Trust me, the Glass is less useful that a tablet that is 1/10th the cost.

Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned

[gweihir]

There is not "polite" way to use glass. The whole concept is a direct insult to anybody else in visible range.

Looking like dork is not a myth.

[angrykeyboarder]

You might as well have highwater pants, a short sleeved white dress shirt, and a pocket protector.

Forbes seems to refute some of Google's claims her

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/18/researchers-google-glass-spyware-sees-what-you-see

Some technologies just rub people up the wrong way

[DrXym]

And Glass is one of those those technologies.

Recording where you are look challenges P7

[SuperKendall]

"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.

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7

[ccguy]

Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.

If you are on the street and I record you with Glass, not only I need to be close but I also need to be stopped and looking at you. Directly. You are going to notice for sure. The option of course is that I just walk by and get a useless shot. You probably won't notice though. However if I take my phone out of my pocket and fake it a bit I can probably get a lot of video before you realize I'm recording you.

About surveillance, I must say I prefer there's lots of cameras on the streets controlled by regular citizens than lots of cameras controlled by the government.

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7

[AmiMoJo]

However, if you think about it if Glass or something like it really were to become prevalent, it would be the perfect surveillance device

Except that Glass has a glaring LED that flashes during recording. You could take it apart and disable it, but it would be cheaper to just get a hidden button or normal glasses camera and a lot less conspicuous. You can get hidden cameras built into normal looking glasses, no need for a big attachment and screen to give the game away.

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.

Or a flashing LED?

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7

[SuperKendall]

Staring at someone causes them to have an instinctive negative reaction

It's not just about video though, also about stills - for stills you just need a glance. Reactions are not triggered by glances, I know because I look around all the time at restaurants or malls or whatever - everyone does.

Basically people watching is very popular, but Glass or something like is easily transforms that into recording.

I personally think the "Glass Hate" is just Google Hate.

I don't think it's that at all, I think any company having the same kind of device will have users running into the exact same issue.

But it's my Right to record what happens in view of the public

While that is technically true, an attitude like that is what makes people less accepting of Glass.

I do a lot of travel photography myself but I moderate it a bit according to context, even though technically as you say you can legally photograph anything in public...

Re:Recording where you are look challenges P7

[thegarbz]

And then there's the battery life for recording. You may want to consider doing speed surveillance rather than mass surveillance. Most people here seem to think that this is some magical device capable of recording every interaction between every person all the time. Well yes... at least for 30min or so and then you best go find a charger.

Too bad they can't dismiss the truth

[Jmc23]

that you look like an idiot.

In just a few years

[artor3]

I'm telling you man, in just a few years, NOT having a calculator on your watch is going to seem quaint and backwards!

Re:In just a few years

[thegarbz]

Ironically enough a calculator is not a default app on the Galaxy Gear watch.

Strange. It would be kind of an obvious application really.

Indicator

[jklovanc]

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.

Re:Indicator

[R3d M3rcury]

My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on.

Except for the light that comes on when you speak a command or record video, there's absolutely no way to know.

Re:Indicator

[jklovanc]

What I mean is the light to be on whenever there is power to the hardware. If it can respond to a voice command it is on and the light should be on. I also can not found anywhere that there is a light visible to someone other than the Glass user. If there is power to the Glass the light should be on.

Re:Indicator

[ericloewe]

How about a Locutus-style laser pointer?

Re:Indicator

[jklovanc]

Just a but more than necessary, lol

Re:Indicator

[Holi]

A light visible to the person not wearing it?

Re:Indicator

[ranmagirl]

That there is a light showing when recording is fairly obviously a light for others to see (also doesn't take too much googling to confirm), why would there be a distracting light for the glass user only anyway?

Also I don't see why it should be anyones business to know if the person wearing glass is currently using it or not, however if I were in position to market this kind of tech I would probably consider such feature just to help gain acceptance for the device - however I would also make a second light to indicate it's recording so people could recognize between it being on for other purposes and it being used for recording.
Also I would carefully consider that this system might not be a good idea after all, for all the ignorance of people (much of it showing here and greatest example of being how many critics don't even know about the recording light), because it might cause people with little knowledge and big concern about being recorded in public to attack (not nesessarily talking about physical confrontation) innocent glass users, blaming them for recording and then lying about not being recording because they see the light.

All in all, a light indicating that it's just on, especially but not limited to if it's without separate light for recording, could result in bigger opposition to glass users and grown unnecessary anxiety for those who oppose being recorded - and as it's clear from even comments on nerdy tech-friendly site like this, the possible harm is not limited to hurt feelings and lowered commercial success but could also escalate into physical confrontations (once again making me shudder in bafflement to insanity of the world), the consideration of adding or changing the light to indicating the device is on becomes hugely an ethical question, not just commercial.

Re:Indicator

[jklovanc]

That there is a light showing when recording is fairly obviously a light for others to see

By the way it is not a light but a display of activity in the viewing prism. Such activity could be sluffed off as a text message. How is an observer to know if they are telling the truth. They also say that the light can be turned off by the recording app. If the light is not hard wired it is of no use.

why would there be a distracting light for the glass user only anyway?

Because Glass users have the capability of recording picture, video and/or sound any time Glass is on.

Also I don't see why it should be anyones business to know if the person wearing glass is currently using it or not

Because it could be used at any time to take a picture or record sound which would be unacceptable to me if I was near them.

separate light for recording,

This could be done easily with an led that is green when on and red when recording.

You don't seem to understand that many people do not want to be surreptitious photographed or recorded. Google Glass just makes it too easy and that makes people uneasy. There is a huge difference between taking out a camera or phone and recording and saying a couple of words to Glass. Do you think it insane that people do not want their lives recorded? Get enough Glasses out there and that is what you get.

the consideration of adding or changing the light to indicating the device is on becomes hugely an ethical question, not just commercial.

I agree. The ethical question is the balance between the freedom of Glass wearers to do what they want and the privacy of the people around the Glass wearers. As of now there is no guarantee that a Glass wearer is not recording. I see that as a problem.

Fond Memories of the calculator watch

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Fond Memories of the calculator watch

[Nyder]

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.

I didn't need a calculator watch, but I still got one. Sort of like a tablet. I don't need one, but I wanted one and got one. And it has a calculator also! =)

My favorite was the pacman watch I had, able to play pacman on the go. http://www.digital-watch.com/D...

Re:Fond Memories of the calculator watch

[Bing Tsher E]

I like having a watch with hands. Just last week when someone asked me what time it was I told them it was about 23 minutes to 1. Time isn't digital, and the circular heuristic is very convenient to work with.

Watches with hands have probably gone 'out of style' which matters a lot to people who worry about shit like that. Fortunately we're on Slashdot.

Re:Fond Memories of the calculator watch

[SuperKendall]

I think all of the smart watches you can buy now have the option of displaying time using hands... though the resolution isn't such they can present numbers very well.

GoPro HD vs. Google Glass

[DutchUncle]

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.

Re:GoPro HD vs. Google Glass

[AmiMoJo]

Did he say "okay glass, take a photo" or use the touchpad? Was the LED flashing? I'm just trying to figure out why you felt he was "watching" you.

Re:GoPro HD vs. Google Glass

[DutchUncle]

No explicit reason; just the sense that a camera was always on. That's the point - it looks like it's on whether it is or not. If someone had been standing there with a camera to his eye, I would have felt the same - that is, outside of a few touristy spots (I live in NYC so there are lots of places where you have to assume you're going to accidentally be in a photograph) (totally aside from security cameras) (don't ever pick your nose in Times Square). And as I said, if I I'm biking and I see someone else with a camera on his bars or helmet, it does *not* give me a feeling of being watched, probably because I assume that the focus of any later watching will be the scenery and trail rather than the other people who happen to get in the picture.

Re:GoPro HD vs. Google Glass

[thegarbz]

This says more about you than the wearer. Interestingly enough the GoPro has probably twice if not three times the battery life of Glass. The vast majority of Glass users may stare right at you and are most probably not recording you, and that's pretty much what they need to do too, stare right at you.

Just like seeing a police officer standing around doesn't mean you're instantly about to get pulled up on some issue. Chances are no one is actually paying any attention to you.

It's actually a quite fascinating trend in society that people think just because someone is a bit different or has something a bit different that they are suddenly very interested in every detail about you.

Re:GoPro HD vs. Google Glass

[dave420]

That's very true. LEDs look exactly the same when they're on or off - that's why they're never used for anything.

If you have to diffuse myths you've already lost

[JoeyRox]

Successful, groundbreaking products are loved at first sight.

"Ginger"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Mobile Porno perving apps

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps

[michelcolman]

You know, I was sceptical at first, but now I can see a great future for glass. Millions of people will buy them once those apps come out!

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps

[EmperorOfCanada]

There could be two settings: 8+ (hotness level) , and chubby chaser.

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps

[fyngyrz]

Truly, you lack imagination. The app could easily limit itself to male or female, slim or fat, blonde or brunette, white or black, etc., ad infinitum. It could use facial recog to check for actual nudes of that person on the net, and if found, map them to or display them with or instead of the person you're looking at, or just take a "best guess." Apps wouldn't have to be Google approved; they could be sideloaded, etc. So Google's "policies" are irrelevant. And a device that takes pictures that can't be uploaded off the device... might as well not have a camera.

These possibilities are not good. Just one of the many, many downsides of this kind of device.

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps

[ranmagirl]

LOL, I actually remember a manga comic with a perverted teacher who had these glasses with very similar filter, though I think it only showed girls without skirts and panties, not totally naked. I think it was in one number of GTO (Great Teacher Onizuka).

Oh and you can bet your ass that eventually when these kind of glasses have the required processing power, an application like that will be developed...

Re:Mobile Porno perving apps

[EmperorOfCanada]

You could also have an app that makes everyone beautiful and happy.

I am certain that when you can do a full overlay that people will be able to alter their reality so that instead of walking down Main St that they are walking in a Star Wars/Star Trek/etc fantasy world. The idea is that everything that they see will be based upon the reality in front of them but Storm Troopers instead of the actual policeman, floating cars instead of the actual car. Then when you cross the street, if you avoid the fake floating speeder then you will also avoid the real Ford Fusion.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Cyborg's Are People Too!

[VortexCortex]

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.

Re:Cyborg's Are People Too!

[Holi]

Thats a little excessive. Wouldn't you start off with something a bit less hostile, like you asking them to remove the device first, preferably in a pleasant no hostile voice.

Why you feel the need to instantly resort to violence makes me wonder whether you need to be in public.
Not defending glass but if you came into my bar with your douche bag attitude, my bouncers would make short work of you before depositing you in the sidewalk. I promise you, how ever big you feel, they are bigger.

Re:Cyborg's Are People Too!

[mark-t]

Smashing someone's face in for wearing such technology, even where it is expressly disallowed, is still assault, and you would still be accountable for that. Contrary to widespread belief, simply being provoked into a physical confrontation by means that were not, by themselves, physically threatening in any way will usually not be sufficient cause to let you off of assault charges. If it is at all, it will usually be on account of some mitigating factor that tends to be an exceptional case, and not the general rule. And even then, you'd better have evidence of such a factor when facing the police for your actions or else it will not go well for you. The decision you make to turn it into something physical is something you would be held accountable for if that is the direction you decide to take it.

But in fact, a far less violent solution would be to ask them to leave or charge them with trespassing when they don't.

So as someone who was so quick to suggest such a solution, can you tell me why is it that some people think violence is an acceptable first response to a situation that is not, on its own, physically threatening in any way?

I, on the other hand, find it more interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:I, on the other hand, find it more interesting

[PhoenixFlare]

I see something similar at work even without Glass involved, although not quite to "frothing psychotic" level - our Dell laptop of choice has a webcam, which leads to a (small, granted) subset of our users being utterly convinced that they are being watched through it at all times....so they tape paper/stickers/etc. over them, and are very resistant to being convinced otherwise.

One user even went so far as to call the IT dept. of a local university in high dudgeon after being asked to remove the obstruction, who told them (jokingly, I hope), that asking them to take the junk off the camera meant that we really were watching them :):P

Re:I, on the other hand, find it more interesting

[Bing Tsher E]

Who asked them to remove the obstruction, and why?

Re:I, on the other hand, find it more interesting

[drinkypoo]

I see something similar at work even without Glass involved, although not quite to "frothing psychotic" level - our Dell laptop of choice has a webcam, which leads to a (small, granted) subset of our users being utterly convinced that they are being watched through it at all times...

No, that is not what led to that. What led to that is that these cameras do not by law have to have an LED which comes on when the device is active. Some few cameras have a LED which is on any time the camera is on. More cameras have an LED which is actually completely separate from the camera itself and which is switched in software and you have only the manufacturer's word that the driver will do the right thing. And then there are the many cameras with no indication of whether they are turned on or not, the majority really.

If all the cameras had to have an LED that came on when the camera was recording, and the LED wasn't software-controlled, then you could simply tell people that and assuage their fears. But sadly, that ain't the way it is, and as I alluded to above, it's gonna take a law to make it so. Frankly, the fact that this didn't happen back when schools were getting busted spying on students pretty much proves to me that the establishment is turning on people's cameras without their permission, and without turning on the LED. If they can do it, then the functionality is probably sitting around for any unscrupulous fuck to discover.

Re:I, on the other hand, find it more interesting

[gweihir]

That he was being told to remove the obstruction is a good indicator that the cameras are actually used to spy on him. Otherwise nobody would care. Nothing funny here at all, you are being naive and stupid.

The actual blog

[houghi]

https://plus.google.com/+Googl...

edge of the Uncanny Valley

[globaljustin]

If Google had just included a lens cover then Glass would just be a status symbol for ultra-nerdy hipsters.

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.

Not realy debunking privacy

[houghi]

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."

Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[Bob9113]

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.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[geekmux]

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.

Uh, sorry but your shitty example here is well, rather shitty.

People pay extra at the DMV for custom license plates to be made. Therefore, that is an object that people are actively trying to get complete strangers to pay attention to them, their plate, or their car (or all three).

I will give you credit for picking the right parking lot. Guaranteed to get some ignorant moron in a Wal-Mart parking lot willing to go to jail on assault and battery charges for attacking someone doing something perfectly legal.

Yup, right parking lot and slice of society indeed.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[QuasiSteve]

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.

With you so far....

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

...and then you lost me.

Is this something 'glassholes' do? They squat down and take pictures of license plates using their Google Glass?

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[Rich0]

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.

But that's the whole thing that gets me about people who are annoyed at Glass - this sort of thing happens all the time. People in the vehicle repossession industry routinely drive through parking lots logging EVERY SINGLE car's plates in the lot, along with GPS and timestamp. They then trade that data with others in the industry. They just aren't obvious about it.

Anybody can wear a camera that is fairly inconspicuous and capture everything going on.

People are just bothered by Glass because it is new, and it is actually noticeable. However, in reality it really isn't anything new. It will most likely fail because in the end it won't do anything useful because Google is afraid of being sued if it does.

In a few years facial recognition and geotagging will become more ubiquitous and all this info will become public. Then something like Glass will take off, since recordings of everything you do will already be plastered all over the internet already, and people won't perceive Glass as being harmful.

Society just hasn't adjusted to the total absence of privacy yet. They will - there is little choice in the matter.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[Bob9113]

Society just hasn't adjusted to the total absence of privacy yet. They will - there is little choice in the matter.

Of course we have a choice in the matter. Long ago we decided that the Post Office could not look in your mail, and we have held them to that for over a century. We extended similar prohibitions to UPS, FedEx, and the voice carriers, and we have held them to it for decades.

It is neither reasonable nor inevitable for us to give up our privacy just because they are infringing it in a new way. Your meek acceptance of their imposition is the only thing allowing them to move forward.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[DutchUncle]

I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you miss the point in being distracted by the detail. When someone is using Google Glass, another person cannot tell whether video is on or not, or whether some kind of plate recognition is on or not (it's a computer, it could do what the police plate scanners do, right?), so it ALWAYS looks like you could be doing that same kind of suspicious activity. One feature of Glass is to have the computer capabilities available to the user at all times; that feature, and the difficulty of an onlooker to know for sure what is or isn't in use, is *precisely* what makes it look suspicious.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[QuasiSteve]

Yes, but remind me exactly why I shouldn't be suspicious of you being on a call walking down the same street as I am? I can't tell if you're really just making a call, or recording everything I happen to be saying. I can't tell if you're just holding that smartphone to your ear, or also having the back side camera record everything that happens in that direction - i.e. ME. I certainly can't tell if your GPS is on and you are logging your position.. which, by 'coincindence' (or so you'll claim) happens to right near where I am, too, and I have no idea whether any of that information is getting shared with Google, Apple, Microsoft, facebook, twitter, the U.S. government, the German government, or just your pet dog.

Let's be honest here, a huge portion of people's dislike for Google Glass is 1. That people don't take the darn things off when they probably should be (somebody else commented about prescription versions and then needing to carry two sets of glasses, I think - sounds like a fair trade-off, if Google won't make a model where you can physically detach something to reassure the people around you that the only thing recording them is the HD button camera) and 2. the 'dork' factor. Same reason a lot of people hate 3D movies - they don't like the 'stupid-looking' glasses. Nevermind that they're in a dark theater and everybody is wearing them. It's out of the norm and thus catches flak, regardless.

Again, I fully understand people's concerns - but I'm saying that a huge part of that is the psychological aspect of being able to see it. right there. on somebody's face. creepy by default.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[Rich0]

Of course we have a choice in the matter. Long ago we decided that the Post Office could not look in your mail, and we have held them to that for over a century.

The USPS is a centralized organization that can be controlled as such. The actions of everybody is not.

We have laws that make it illegal to distribute copyrighted music. How is that working for the RIAA?

A complete history of everywhere you've been in the last month probably would consume far less space than an mp3 file, so how are you going to keep people from sharing it? All you need is a distributed algorithm - like record your own footage with geotagging, process it to generate GUIDs for all the faces in each frame, compress to cut down on redundancy, and upload to some random website where it gets combined with everybody else's data. Distribution could be distributed as with freenet/etc as well.

That was why I say you "can't" stop the destruction of privacy. It isn't a matter of rules/laws/etc - it is a matter of technology, and you just can't stop technological progress.

Re:Dicks Getting Punched Not New

[MadMartigan2001]

UPS and FedEx are both private corporations. The USPS is an independent agency of the Fed. If your point is that government has no problem regulating private corporations or independent agencies then yes, you are correct. If your point is that the people of the united states are still (if they ever were) capable of regulating the government itself, then your examples do nothing to support that claim.

Project idea

[StripedCow]

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.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[Applehu Akbar]

Smearing and blurring a myth does not do any good. You want to disarm or defuse it.

Ich bin nicht ein Grammarnazi.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[geekmux]

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.

They should have just put a damn light on it

[KingTank]

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.

Re:They should have just put a damn light on it

[ranmagirl]

Ignorance is a bliss.

Google arrogance

[peppepz]

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.

Preaching to the choir.

[westlake]

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.

Paranoia

[Windwraith]

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.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that makes people think Glass is nothing but a surveillance device SPECIFICALLY conceived to record them and absolutely nothing else?

Because they don't care what else it does. I don't care if it's an MP3 player and a head massager. Those don't invade my space. People don't like having cameras pointed at them. What kind of geek is so out of touch they can't understand this?

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

Yeah, but I can still sue you for it, and I'll probably win as the device WILL be scanned for evidence of me recording you, and when they don't find it, you'll have to pay me a lot of cash in damages.

Starting to see how things work?

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

And you are a first class idiot for not seeing that's what people says the problem is. Read the comments, including yours.

Also, you do nothing but confirm my post. Paranoia, violence and insulting to top it all.
First, you smartass, when you try to assault someone, they won't quietly wait for their turn, you are likely to get punched too. Second, you ARE going to get sued for assault and/or destruction of someone's property. Evidence of you being recorded will not be found, and you will have to pay good money or even prison time for it. That should teach you a lesson for next time.

Also how is AR or taking pictures of large cakes being "a creepy fuck", did you even read the post? Or you will repeat that argument no matter what I say? You sir, are a creepy idiot I wouldn't like nearby. Prone to violence and paranoid? Hell no, go away.

God damn it's like if you people didn't live in this world.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

They are not made to invade YOUR space. Unless you are famous, and then your face is already everywhere. You sound like some diva who doesn't want paparazzi around. You aren't, Anonymous Coward. You aren't. Learn humility and then you can discuss things with the adults.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

Again, why should I be interested in recording YOU? Why? What do you do that requires my attention, or Google's? All they will know is that you were at some place at some time at best, which they probably know already from your phone. They will just have some machines identify faces at best, they won't be able to know you were reading a certain newspaper to send you ads for it. Software can't make such realizations, and they surely won't have a legion of observers looking at live footage 24/7 to tag it. Be REALISTIC.
You people have some unrealistic expectations for this device. Which is hilarious coming from people that should know about better the state-of-the-art. I'd expect this from some redneck who thinks computers are magical screens powered by little devils in a box, but from a slashdot user? Give me a break.

And yes, have your self-censoring pin ready, I won't even notice it because I don't care about who you are or what you do, because I don't even know you!

Re:Paranoia

[Holi]

answer me this. How do you get video off the glass.

Oh thats right it's uploaded to Google. I for one would prefer that Google stop collecting (spying) on our lives. It serves us no purpose and is extremely intrusive. So when you volunteer to pay a large sum for the pleasure of working against your neighbors for the purpose of enriching the wallets of Google execs please don't be surprised when your neighbors push back.

Put it this way, film my kids, expect a confrontation, and then see how rough the courts are on me. (slap on the wrist if that)
The perception of impropriety is all it takes.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

The device has 12gb of storage. Syncing is optional, as with all android devices. (Not to mention expensive because 3g/4g aren't usually flatrates, and have tight limits on upload speed and/or bandwidth quota, and phone-recorded video is enough to hit the caps with a few minutes of it, after which you are either fined per mb consumed, or throttled to the point of being unusable).
Again, be REALISTIC. And get your facts straight if you want to argue and not sound even more paranoid.

Also. What are you implying? Why should I be filming your or anyone's kids? Man, I am not a pedophile because I want to try a glass for AR. I can't take you seriously after that, I am sorry. That's something one doesn't joke about.
Not to mention, law can and will scan the device for evidence. They won't find it, because I DON'T GO AROUND RECORDING PEOPLE. Read the original post for crying out loud.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

The comments here have made me realize what the problem is here: Slashdot has started to believe in magic. Magical internet connections able to stream video 24/7 at no expense, and more.

Stop believing everyone wants to get you before you get sued for assaulting or stealing from someone, that's my advice.

Re:Paranoia

[Holi]

I disagree, While your intent may not be to invade my space, Google's most definitely is. It's their bread and butter.

Re:Paranoia

[Holi]

And you are not everyone. So really your declaration that you won;t record others must be taking with a grain of salt as I don;t know you. Again its the perception that creates the impasse. Your inability to see that does not help your position at all.

Re:Paranoia

[drinkypoo]

Why is it that makes people think Glass is nothing but a surveillance device SPECIFICALLY conceived to record them and absolutely nothing else?

Straw man.

Get real, people.

Ad hominem.

It's impossible for that device to be recording 24/7.

Effectively false: It's possible for the device to be recording at any time.

It's unrealistic to think it's going to automagically upload the video to Google for analysis.

That is in fact where the data goes. To Google, who analyzes it.

Just apply some common sense.

Propaganda: Bandwagon.

If no other device can, so can't Glass.

Other devices can do the same sort of recording and uploading as Glass.

Anyway, this shows a very ugly collective paranoia that should stop before somebody gets hurt for no reason.

Ad hominem. Begging the question.

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".

It's possible you've seen that. It's likely it was hyperbole. You should be able to recognize that by now.

And, no, guys, you AREN'T that interesting to warrant recording you.

Ad hominem. Straw man.

Nerd bravado at its best

Ad hominem.

Mod me troll if you wish, I don't care, but someone has to say this.

Trolling.

Re:Paranoia

[Rockoon]

Read the comments, including yours.

I have. Nobody is saying "because it records" -- they are saying "because you never know when its recording" --- stop looking for an excuse to be a creepy fuck --- even with the excuse you are still creepy --- nobody is going to shed a tear when your being creepy gets you into a jam

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

Then politely request them to cover the lens with something or take it off, chances are they won't object to it if you do and you aren't being rude about it.

I see Glass as something to use while I am casually working or such, so I don't need to get my phone dirty with flour or sugar (that stuff gets inside everything!). I have the common idea of courtesy, taking that off when speaking to someone directly, that'd be exactly like wearing headphones while doing the same. You put them away around your neck or take them off. You can ask people to put it away and I am sure it'll be like asking them to keep their phones away. If they refuse too stubbornly then you might start getting suspicious with a reason.

My main reason to support this is that the technology is interesting, and could evolve into something actually very useful when displays improve. That's why this whole paranoia thing is bad, it gets in the way of what could be really fun technology.

I know Google are a bunch of crooks, that's obvious by just coming here, but the control people assumes they have on this specific device is almost giving it magical properties that we should know aren't either possible or viable, or are just too cumbersome, expensive or elaborate to be all possible in a single device that amounts to an Android phone with a different form format. If they can't do it with your Android phone, they can't do it with Glass.

As for your example, that's apples to oranges. In your example all the data is being explicitly stored and delivered by Google themselves, in this case you have to purposely upload your data for them to have it. As for Google uploading it against the user's wishes, I am sure such a thing will be found out (and blocked via apps or root tweaks) real soon when the device is in the hand of developers or power users.

As for possible peeping toms, I already said how you can deal with them, just ask, and they will likely comply, if they don't, get suspect. I personally wouldn't even need to be asked.

And this has been the most polite post so far. Thanks for showing there's some sanity left in this topic.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

>stuff

It might be hyperbole, but they sure are convinced of it. Look at the rest of the comments and tell me every single one of those visceral reactions is a joke and nobody will ever be assaulted wrongly just for having the device on. You know someone will take it seriously enough for it, even if it's just a handful of bad apples.

And of course strawman, the device is not even out, every argument about it is a strawman based on an scenario where someone is out to record them (and scenario that hasn't happened yet because it's not out). What do you call that if not paranoia?

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

Why are you calling me creepy just because I want to try a device? I see a lot of potential on the evolution of this technology, specially for AR. You are assuming I am out to get someone. And that's why this is a problem. It's not just a head-mounted camera. Hidden cameras have existed for a long time, look at the press getting inside footage on things. This is not even hidden.

Want me to take it out? Ask me. Want me to not record 101% sure? make me wear a plastic cap on it, or a bandaid or something. I am not going to be the one denying that request. In my line of work that device can be really useful even if it just shows you a few timers (and eye protection is a plus).

Note that I don't specifically mention wearing it while talking to someone, it'd be like not taking off my headphones, therefore kind of rude.
Don't assume so much, that's precisely why I wrote the post in the first place.

Re:Paranoia

[PrimalChrome]

Without your consent, I filmed your kids as their soccer game yesterday...and the birthday party before that...and when we were at Chuck-E-Cheeze last weekend. You didn't get upset then..so why now? You folks are coming off as horn rimmed skinny geek nuts. You're going to walk up to me, confront me, swing that limp noodle of an arm at my Glass.....and then I'm going to double leg you and rip your shoulder out of its socket....in self defense. You won't wipe your ass for about two months and that should give you plenty of time to come to terms with your paranoia.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

But that's already possible with cameras that are actually hidden, why use one that is glaringly obvious?
Look, of course there will be some dick with tech recording stuff they shouldn't record. I thought it was too obvious to mention. But the general attitude, which is what I am criticizing, that transpires to every single discussion about glass in every single site of the internet, which is "punch the glasshole". People doesn't speak about a chance of being filmed, they speak of a 100% chance they will be filmed. Since you have the common sense to not be insulting and condescending about it, you probably are not the type of person I am talking about. I am talking about the ones that take it viscerally, to a fault.

See, you are assuming that because I want it, I will use it all day long. They are just a toy, or a possible source of AR improvements since it's head-mounted. Just because I defend it, I am not going to be recording people out there, but every reply to my post has assumed that I intend to use it that way, or at least wearing them permanently (with varying degrees of insult and menaces of physical violence, well done Slashdot).

My life is too boring to record, unless you want to see 100% accurate pastry baking tutorials, and in that case even google is welcomed to peek, let them know we use proper sanitary measures at my place, in fact let everyone know, that can get us customers!

Jokes aside, I've always been a very vocal supporter of AR technology. This maligned device could make it happen, or be the base for a device that can. As long as I don't use it rudely, I really see nothing wrong with the technology for what it is. Social norms still apply, same way I don't play with my portable console at work, or I remove my trademark headphones when speaking to someone. I don't see where people keeps getting the idea, from my post, that I want to wear it all day long. For one, the battery won't let me, for other, it'll give me a headache. Having a widget with configurable timers at eye range could be great for my job, though, a phone can get flour or sugar inside if you have it around (I wrap it in a plastic bag, but it makes swiping motions difficult), and physical timers take space which isn't abundant when you have to bake 300 muffins or such things.

Re:Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a device that is only used for surveillance on you, then you have no excuses when you get your teeth kicked out of your mouth for using it.

Comments like this make me determined to go ahead and get a clandestine camera, begin recording, and publish geotagged video online anonymously. I'm not sure whether it is your paranoia, your sense of entitlement, or your arrogance that does it.

Face the facts, sooner or later everything you do will be published publicly for everybody to look at. You'll have about as much luck getting it taken down as the RIAA has getting their songs taken down.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

Okay at this point I feel the need to clarify that I don't intend to use glass all day long. The insults from ACs are getting unbearable.

Google can go screw themselves, I don't let them spy on my android phone, and I won't let them spy in my Glass. It's going to be cracked open like an egg in the first weeks, and ripe for fun and games, that don't involve taking the device out of your house or using it when talking to someone. It's a head-mounted display with a camera! Even if it's permanently offline, I am interested on developing something for it. This tech will eventually evolve and become something really interesting over time when the displays get better, and could allow AR to prosper into a great medium. It's just a coincidence that Google happened to be the first, but I won't shun the technology for that. Not yet. Even if it's just a stepping stone or a beginning for that imaginary device, I am interested, it'll get better.

However, you are all assuming I'm going to wear it on your/someone else's presence. Why? All I did was mentioning a few possible use cases that came to mind or counter assumptions of me using the device wrongly, because some people takes the hatred too far, with people casually talking of "kicking the glasshole's teeth out of their mouth". Someone argued that it's all hyperbole but you KNOW someone will take it too far at some point, even if only because of hearsay.

I take any other distracting devices when talking to people, why do you assume I will make an exception with Glass? Some people is even assuming I want to use it to spy on people and calling me creep for no reason whatsoever. And I am sure I am not going to be the only one thinking that, it's just like taking your phone off and start playing sudokus while in a party, it's rude, and anyone doing it will learn soon enough that it's not a thing people will welcome. They will sort themselves out, and if they are still using it and refuse to take it out, then you can suspect they might be up to something.

Not to mention, I mentioned using it at work because I am mostly alone there with the ovens and the mixers and stuff, but I look TERRIBLE with glasses, I wouldn't be caught dead wearing a pair unless I really need them out of old age or something. I want to use the device, not look like a dorky cyberpunk.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

You are welcome to look. I hope you like pastries and robots. There could be some remains of when I worked as a solar thermal technician. I am sure you will find interest on those.
You won't find much porn though, sorry for that.

Re:Paranoia

[Windwraith]

The thing is that the Glass is as inconspicuous as wearing a ferret on your head. Nobody with good intentions will refuse to take it off if requested. Be suspicious of the ones being sneaky about it, not every single person interested on the product. There are actual hidden cameras you should be more wary of.
And the whole point of the post is that some people takes it irrationally, gives it properties it can't possibly have, and considers everyone interested in a HUD with a camera to be ONLY creeps, it doesn't have to be aimed at you, but you decided to take offense for it.
And yeah, it's about me, because someone with that mentality might decide I am coming for them just for using the device for entirely different reasons and try to attack me or break the device. Maybe just because they heard things about it and not having an opinion of their own.
Don't you see a problem with that?
Or maybe someone just learns I own one without seeing me having one and starts assuming I am some peeping Tom when all I am doing is use it as a toy in my own private space, only because of its reputation. You don't see a problem with that either, I assume.

Re:Paranoia

[drinkypoo]

And of course strawman, the device is not even out,

False. A version of the device is on the street now, though in limited distribution. The people wearing it primarily paid for it. The device is out, but only being sold to a limited audience.

Also irrelevant. Because we know enough about the device that will be sold to the general public to have fully-developed concerns.

every argument about it is a strawman

You do not understand the straw man. Not a logical fallacy, you're just not equipped for this conversation. Unless you're being disingenuous, but I suspect you've just failed to comprehend.

What do you call that if not paranoia?

Well, since I own a dictionary, I know we're not talking about paranoia.

Again the bad comparison

[aepervius]

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.

We could, but we don't

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:We could, but we don't

[QuasiSteve]

This is true, and I certainly understand and appreciate the concern - the question is whether that is truly something people should fear; i.e. that Google will somehow switch it to 'always on' or start an interval snapshot, with results uploaded and analyzed to their servers.. or whether that is something that, should it come to be, would be met even by Google Glass owners as "no thanks" with them disabling it, taking Glass off (more often), or just not using it anymore at all.

I just find the psychology of it interesting in that there's a very strong opposition to that potential erosion, vs the very real and existing erosion that things like smart phones (be that people taking pictures, tracking location (my smartphone 'knows' which other smartphones are near if they have their wifi and/or bluetooth on, for example), or just the general intrusion into life as we know it via communication) - not to mention once shared with e.g. Google, facebook, twitter, foursquare (and combinations thereof - somebody on my twitter search results for a particular town keeps auto-tweeting when they get home. If that ever stops, either they finally disabled it, they're dead, or they went on vacation - oh to be a burglar), etc. - have already brought on and made to be quite 'normal', and is also a very visible technology.
I'd imagine a similar response would occur with somebody walking down a street with an obtrusively visible microphone - even though the dozen people walking down the same road yapping on their phones will have the other side hearing everything in the surrounding area as well (though phones try to actually stop that for noise cancelling purposes, of course).

Re:We could, but we don't

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Given the track record of large tech organisations like Google when it comes to both privacy and their willingness to change terms and privacy policies dramatically and in their favour when it suits them, I personally think they exhausted any credibility they might have had there a long time ago. Moreover, given what we now know of various government organisations aggressively trying both to infiltrate these large tech organisations and to take direct control of devices with surveillance applications, we have to assume that even if organisations like Google don't voluntarily abuse the hardware, other hostile actors are trying to and have a fair chance of succeeding.

I don't like the idea that we should have to give up potentially useful technologies because of potential abuses, but as the saying goes, this is why we can't have nice things. I just don't think it's logical to treat such devices as anything other than a serious privacy threat any more.

That being the case, I think the most effective way to defend our privacy from such intrusions (apart from voting with our wallets by not buying these things ourselves) is to make those who do buy and use them around us feel as uncomfortable as possible about doing so and as unwelcome as possible in as many places as possible. Also, when Google post rather weak rebuttals to genuine concerns, like arguing as they do several times in the original blog post here that certain dangers aren't really that dangerous because they pinky-swear not to abuse the new technology, they can and should be called on both their own privacy track record and the kind of precedents they are trying to set where others who aren't under Google's control might follow.

Re:We could, but we don't

[AmiMoJo]

In east Asian countries a lot of people, particularly kids, wear their phones on a neck strap. Stops them dropping it, but also means that it is resting on their chest the whole time. It would be easy to turn the camera on and record, and unlike Glass there would be no indication because the screen and any LED would be on the opposite side.

Also, note that the battery in Glass can only record for 45 minutes from a full charge, so it couldn't be always on even if the user wanted it to be.

I'm far more worried about CCTV. It's on all the time, video is stored for a long time, corporations already use it for targetting and profiling consumers, and the police/government have easy access to it.

Re:We could, but we don't

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote there, but please consider that any technical limitations of early models like today's Glass will probably be overcome by better battery life and improved mobile connectivity tomorrow, at which point all the concerns you rightly raise about CCTV could apply to personal recording devices as well. Relying on the fact that it can't (yet) do something undesirable doesn't seem like a very good plan, because it's much more likely this kind of thing will be stopped now when it's a new idea and a lot of people find it creepy than in five or ten years if it's merely a quantitative extension of universal spying that is already happening.

Glassholes are amazing!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Glassholes are amazing!

[ranmagirl]

Wow, you're really making an effort to be a true real life troll/asshole combination - how great of you!

Why don't you grow up, and no, I'm not Glass user (nor do I think I'll come up with any good use for one in at least 10-20 years).

Re:Forbes seems to refute some of Google's claims

[fyngyrz]

Mod this up --- article is well worth reading and 100% relevant.

Glass has serious, inherent problems

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Glass has serious, inherent problems

[Applehu Akbar]

Whoosh!

Re:Glass has serious, inherent problems

[fyngyrz]

So, your point was to disarm, defuse, smear and blur not-a-myth?

No wonder you wrote:

"Smearing and blurring a myth does not do any good. You want to disarm or defuse it."

Re:No, really....

[aaaaaaargh!]

People do not want to get filmed by strangers without their consent, be it with a phone, camera, or Google glasses. What's so hard to understand about this? Did you grow up in a household with a public toilet cam or what?

Protip: You're an idiot.

[fyngyrz]

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.

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.

interesting combination of slashdot stories

[murdocj]

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?

Re:interesting combination of slashdot stories

[drinkypoo]

Which raises the question... how do you feel about cops wearing Glass?

No, no it doesn't. It doesn't because this question has been raised before, and the answer last time and this time and every time in the future is that a camera on every cop is vastly different from a camera on every street corner.

The real problem with google glass

[Dr Max]

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.

Re:The real problem with google glass

[cgfsd]

Myth #11 - Glass is useful

I have one, I can confirm that the Glass is a $1500 conversational starter, that is about it.

Buy a tablet at 1/10 the cost.

Re:No, really....

[narcc]

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

Re:Fucking idiot

[Windwraith]

Why the hell would you do that? That doesn't sound like a standard use case at all. Do you like 24 hours of nothing? Are you going to spend the time organizing all the photos of your day? Are you out of your mind? Who'd have the time to do that?

All I see is ACs being insulting, this has no semblance of rational thought or discussion anymore. Fine, live with your paranoia if you wish. Good luck keeping your sanity. Although, it seems you have lost that battle already.

I don't specifically defend Glass, I just want to see that technology evolve, and it sure won't with irrational tough guys that believe that punching someone in the face is a valid solution for anything (without thinking of the repercussions for themselves, no less). You are the ones being tough guys with the "punch all glassholes" mantra. That'll only get you sued.

Demand they put a cap on it or something, for crying out loud. Problem solved, no violence required, no litigious consequences for YOU. See how easy it is?

And, dunno, the moment you post AC, your toughness decreases by a lot. Only one named individual bothered to respond and had a more valid example than you lot.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[mjwx]

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.

Sell it first in Russia

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Russia, land of the dashcam. Google can then market as a dashcam for the face.

Re:Not myths

[fascismforthepeople]

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.

Re: Just bear in mind, would-be banners:

[mark-t]

And what will you when said person does damage that could have been avoided if the person were able to see clearly? It was, after all, by *YOUR* insistence that they remove said prescription lenses... In reality, what you should be doing instead of telling such people to take them off is bar entry to your property at all... demand that they leave or hold them accountable for trespassing. If you want them on your property, you may have to just accept whatever consequences might happen as a result of their not being able to see.

Or you could, you know... just ask them to turn it off and take their word for it when they tell you that it's not turned on.

Not a good counter

[SuperKendall]

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.

Pretty sure that can be disabled

[SuperKendall]

I don't think I've ever had a camera with that shutter sound you could not disable it somewhere in the camera menu.

What a terrible article

[Sir_Sri]

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.

Re:By action you mean....

[BronsCon]

When you do something (that is, perform an action) in public, assume someone else can see, photograph, and/or take video of you doing it. By definition, that's what "in public" means. If you happen to be breathing (judging by the apparent brain damage, it's possible that you're not), then yes, I mean breathing. If you're in public, you may be observed, photographed, and/or video taped in the act of breathing.

In the US, which just so happens to be the region we're talking about here, the law is pretty clear, as well; except for areas with peeping-tom laws, where it's illegal to photograph or take video through the window of a private residence without permission, if you can see it from public property, or private property you have legal access to, you have the right to photograph or shoot video of it. Obviously, you can ban cameras from your own property, but even then, it's perfectly legal for someone to stand at the border of your property and photograph whatever they can see from there (with the caveat regarding peeping-tom laws, above), so you may want to make sure you're not doing anything you don't want recorded from anywhere that can be seen from the border of your property.

The word "action" makes all the difference. How do you search someone's actions? You don't, but you sure can observe and record them. "Expectation of privacy in public" is something that is perfectly reasonable, as it implies that you don't expect your personal effects to be searched simply because you're in public; "expectation of privacy in public action" is not reasonable at all, as it implies that you don't expect to even be so much as looked at while you're in public.

I still have two concerns.

[Voyager529]

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.

For people, who do not wear glasses

[dgcom]

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.

No myths just hate

[gelfling]

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.

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Can we step back a step?

[mmell]

Record video in public. Perfectly legal. For the most part, socially acceptable under general circumstances. No upskirts or creepy subjects (40 y/o virgin videotaping pre-teen girls in gym class, for example).

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?

Re:If you have to diffuse myths you've already los

[ranmagirl]

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.

hidden recorders

[perih60]

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 !