OK, I can just about understand that - fear of being accidentally captured by an inadvertent glance.
But still, even if the wearer happened to glance up at you specifically (out of the rest of the restaurant also saying "hurray"), to the extent where they moved their head to point directly at you rather than just a flick of the eyeballs - they still wouldn't linger on you. You'd appear as a slightly blurred figure for less than a second. And still nobody watching the video would care; they want to see little Timmy's big grin, not some random stranger in the background.
Would that really be so bad? Is it so different from accidentally appearing in the frame of one of last week's LiveLeak videos, or being glanced at by a security guard in the local mall's recording room?
I appreciate the in-depth response, as I'm still coming to grips with this concern some people have. And let me say clearly, I also don't want someone with a camera of any sort videoing me, specifically, in a private place (wouldn't be that comfortable with them following me around in a public place either).
What I still don't understand is the automatic assumption that any Glass user you see is not only always videoing everything they happen to glance at, but that they would bother to focus on you.
The former is highly unlikely, due not only to the battery expiring in a couple of hours, but because very few people care to record all the random crap they glance at, every single place they go. What would you do with all that boring video? Isn't it far more likely that people would only want to record significant moments - special events, friends, maybe a quick glance around a restaurant for context, then focusing on something they actually know and find interesting?
The other point is the apparent belief that a Glass user in particular is likely to point their lens and stare for extended times at all the complete strangers around them. That would be rude as you say, regardless of what sort of camera you use (or even without one) - so why do you think "Glassholes" would invariably lack such ordinary politeness? Because of their choice of technology? Surely if someone actually wanted to video people around them, they'd be far more likely to choose something a heck of a lot less visible than Glass?
I get that there's a potential for a Glasshole to rudely invade people's privacy in the way you are concerned about, just like anyone with a camera or smartphone or keychain camcorder, or even a bored security guard watching a surveillance camera. I don't get why people think it's so much more likely for someone wearing Glass to do this than anyone else. Particularly as it'd be so much more obvious with this weird Glass thing on your face. Glass does have a few other uses besides recording things.
"Rude invasive in your face things" like wear a Glass headset in your vicinity? Maybe even take a picture or video of a friend or landmark that happens to include you briefly in the background? Yeah, totally worth a beating.
Maybe you understand how committing such a heinous act as wearing a device with a lens instead of carrying it is inviting a shorter life; I don't.
That's a reasonable point. A lit-up Glass may be visually obvious, but not necessarily obvious that it's recording.
So.. if Google simply added a commonly-understood red LED that flashed when actually recording, most of this hysteria about "always-on privacy invasion" would disappear? Sounds like a good fix to me.
Oh, I absolutely agree that there are places people don't want to be videoed, and that would be why you don't see people whipping out their SLR or cellphone and videoing you there. It would be rude at the least. So why do you assume that any/all Glass users will be doing exactly that whenever you see one? Just because they could? If someone actually wanted to do that, there are far cheaper, more effective and less obvious ways than using a facially-mounted lens that lights up whenever you take a shot.
And even if they did - like, say, someone at the next table is using a camcorder to video their kid's birthday party. Would you object to that? Would you object if they were doing it with Glass instead? Doesn't seem to bother you if you're in random tourist photos, even if they're on the internet. Does it matter what device takes them?
It's like people are assuming that a) all Glass owners will be rude and intrusive enough to record everyone everywhere for the hell of it, rather than just the things they themselves are interested in, b) their Glass units will have enough battery and storage to allow that, c) all that video is simultaneously being geotagged and uploaded to Google's endless storage banks in their evil volcano lair, and d) Google's quantum facial recognisers will pick you out, staple your face & location to your SSN and forward it on to the IRS so they can audit you for taking your gf out to dinner on a company expense. Oh, and they'll automatically email that shot of you picking your nose to your mother as well.
Sheesh, Steve Mann never got this much backlash, and he actually was doing a), b) and most of c) as well.
Quite true. Recording is looped because 99.9% of recorded video is boring, useless crap that nobody wants to see. Same would apply to any random video that might be recorded just at that moment by a passing Glass user, or a teenager waving a cellphone around.
Of course, if you happened to be doing something unusual and interesting (like getting beaten by police, for example), then anyone nearby with a lens will probably be recording you anyway. And dashcam users (who are recording you automatically) can pull that video out of the loop just as easily. And any nearby security cameras can do the same.
We're surrounded by cameras - what makes a Glass user so much worse? Oh right, it's just a bit too obvious to ignore.
Really not sure where you're getting that idea from. You don't really think it's doing always-on geotagged facial recognition or something, do you? Can you imagine what that'd do to the battery life?
IF the user took a photo of your face (i.e. by staring in your face in public), and IF he geotagged it and uploaded it to Google+, and IF Google's facial recognition was turned on for that account, and (a really big) IF their facial recognition routines were good enough to pick you specifically out of the hundreds of millions of faces that are stored in their secret Evil DataVaults... then they get a single data point for the momentary location of one random person, woohoo. Your own phone in your pocket would probably tell them far more than that, if they cared, and your telco certainly could. If you're concerned about privacy to that level, then there are bigger things to worry about today than what future versions of Glass may one day finally be able to do practically.
On another note, when I first saw your sig (years ago) it led me onto a series of books I enjoyed immensely, so thanks for that:-)
Tourists snap pictures of Times Square - and thousands of people - daily, without permission. Teenagers take videos of each other - and passers-by - at malls & nightclubs and we don't object, though it's pretty likely those shots are getting uploaded to Facebook or YouTube.
What most of us object to is a lens following us around and staring fixedly at us, and if a tourist or teenager or Glass-user did that, most of us would demand they stop. But only a psychopath would punch a tourist or teenager in the face for anything less than extreme provocation, and certainly not for just using their camera as you were nearby.
So you're saying people would "understand" the assault, like when a drug dealer caps someone who scratches his ride? So long as you don't mean "fair enough, he had it coming". Because to me at least, incidental video capture, creepy stalking, and physical assault are all widely separated on the scales of acceptability.
So recording someone is bad, but beating the crap out of someone is socially acceptable? Do you see tourists with cameras getting punched in the face often?
Seems to me a case of assault like you describe should be videoed.
Scanning these first comments, most of the complaints seem based on their own idea of Glass, or perhaps what they fear future devices may end up as, but not what Glass is today.
For example: It's crap as a media player (sound is poor, video is low-res and washed out) . It's not "always-on recording" or streaming everything to Google, and would rapidly run out of battery if you tried. It does light up when recording or taking pictures, like a regular video camera (and unlike phones or keychain camcorders). And Google specifically forbids ads on the whole platform.
Maybe one day some people will wear devices that are worth the hate, but Glass isn't it. Personally I see it all as another manifestation of the recent anti-Google narrative that's been so carefully constructed (e.g. ask yourself if you'd have the same reaction to "Apple Glass").
iOS users are more free, because they are free from worry
You do have some strange definitions, don't you? So long as you define "freedom" to be "anything a non-technical user cares about" which is presumably and far more narrowly defined as "anything an iPhone user is allowed to do", then "worry" about that oh-so-scary malware threat that's rampaging outside the Apple walls (but never ever inside) suddenly becomes the only issue anyone could possibly care about.
You love to characterise all Android phones as cheap and worthless, while not only ignoring the wide range of flagship phones (Galaxy/Note, One, Optimus Pro, Nexus etc) which together easily match combined iPhone sales, but also ignoring all the freedoms and benefits now available to the many people world-wide (particularly developing countries) who can now afford a genuine smartphone with a full range of capabilities for a fraction of what Apple would charge. What a narrow viewpoint you seem to have.
I haven't yet decided whether your constant need to denigrate and spread misinformation about platforms other than the ones you personally are invested in is simply an ordinary character flaw or an actual job. I live in hope you'll one day adopt a more mature viewpoint, or at least find a more fulfilling job.
In terms of internal OS security, both iOS and Android are quite secure. Very few exploits exist for recent versions of each, though older & less-secure Androids are of course more common. In terms of the application stores, both are quite safe, with very low incidences of malware. Apple's store policies are arguably more stringent (though certainly not perfect), but users on either platform are highly unlikely to run into malicious apps, at least if they stick with the default settings.
It is of course true that Android offers more rope for stupid and/or ignorant users to hang themselves with. That's the design decision that was made. Your point about up-front vs on-the-fly permissions is certainly true, though I would add that for every on-the-fly permission request that iOS makes, there are more numerous implied permissions granted to the app that the user is never made aware of. App installs on Android do at least offer you reliable information about what your app is capable of at install time, whereas most iOS users must trust Apple's (often inconsistent) app-checking to shield them from potential abuses. Still, given that genuinely malicious apps are so uncommon in either store, it is very unlikely to come up for any normal user.
However - users that allow & then install untrusted apps on Android, or users that jail-break on iOS, can get themselves into trouble a lot more easily. My point was that you can make a platform fool-proof, but you can't make it damn-fool-proof. User stupidity can conquer all. And in fact, given that running non-Apple-approved apps requires a full rooted jailbreak and thus the loss of nearly all platform security, Android users who wish merely to run apps from outside the Play Store (e.g. to access the Amazon Appstore) arguably have a security advantage - they don't need to root anything to do this.
It is indeed an "actual" limit, just imposed by your ISP instead of by physics. The ISP allocates you a virtual channel to the Internet backbone that supports X bits per month, just like how your cell tower or wi-fi access point allocates you a physical frequency channel with a data rate of Y bits per second (discounting contention).
The only difference is that the ISP channel's data allowance is accounted for over a month - you can have higher peak speeds, and if you don't use your maximum channel capacity (i.e. reach your cap) on a given day, you can use it on a later day. To use your example, "bandwidth" is "this much per second until the end of time", and the ISP is "this much per month until the end of time" (both assuming you maintain your service until the end of time, naturally).
Humans love to bask in the feeling of being in control, especially when it comes to cars.
You forgot about buses, taxis, and also ordinary passengers in your own car. People will happily cede control to a driver they trust.
I enjoy driving as much as the next guy, but not all the time, not when I'm too tired/drunk, and rarely in traffic. A significant majority of driving is done for utility, not enjoyment. Personally I would welcome a car with the option of an autopilot.
For even more geek appeal, Judge Wright also peppered his order with Star Trek references, beginning with this quote:
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
—Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
and hammering it home towards the end:
Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage.
I strongly suspect he deliberately designed this order to get maximum publicity with the tech media.
And they're all great, right? Can never have too much water washing over your cities and farmland, and the more extreme weather, drought & crop failure, species extinction, refugees and political turmoil, the better.
Embrace the climate change! The tsunami of costs to adapt will wash over us, leaving us clean of funds and fresh of heart, ready to tackle the warm new challenges that await us!
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I can just about understand that - fear of being accidentally captured by an inadvertent glance.
But still, even if the wearer happened to glance up at you specifically (out of the rest of the restaurant also saying "hurray"), to the extent where they moved their head to point directly at you rather than just a flick of the eyeballs - they still wouldn't linger on you. You'd appear as a slightly blurred figure for less than a second. And still nobody watching the video would care; they want to see little Timmy's big grin, not some random stranger in the background.
Would that really be so bad? Is it so different from accidentally appearing in the frame of one of last week's LiveLeak videos, or being glanced at by a security guard in the local mall's recording room?
Who would be the constructor?
I can think of a couple of candidates.
some sort of evidence for your claim?
Cnet: you're left with no doubt that you're being recorded.
I appreciate the in-depth response, as I'm still coming to grips with this concern some people have. And let me say clearly, I also don't want someone with a camera of any sort videoing me, specifically, in a private place (wouldn't be that comfortable with them following me around in a public place either).
What I still don't understand is the automatic assumption that any Glass user you see is not only always videoing everything they happen to glance at, but that they would bother to focus on you.
The former is highly unlikely, due not only to the battery expiring in a couple of hours, but because very few people care to record all the random crap they glance at, every single place they go. What would you do with all that boring video? Isn't it far more likely that people would only want to record significant moments - special events, friends, maybe a quick glance around a restaurant for context, then focusing on something they actually know and find interesting?
The other point is the apparent belief that a Glass user in particular is likely to point their lens and stare for extended times at all the complete strangers around them. That would be rude as you say, regardless of what sort of camera you use (or even without one) - so why do you think "Glassholes" would invariably lack such ordinary politeness? Because of their choice of technology? Surely if someone actually wanted to video people around them, they'd be far more likely to choose something a heck of a lot less visible than Glass?
I get that there's a potential for a Glasshole to rudely invade people's privacy in the way you are concerned about, just like anyone with a camera or smartphone or keychain camcorder, or even a bored security guard watching a surveillance camera. I don't get why people think it's so much more likely for someone wearing Glass to do this than anyone else. Particularly as it'd be so much more obvious with this weird Glass thing on your face. Glass does have a few other uses besides recording things.
"Rude invasive in your face things" like wear a Glass headset in your vicinity? Maybe even take a picture or video of a friend or landmark that happens to include you briefly in the background? Yeah, totally worth a beating.
Maybe you understand how committing such a heinous act as wearing a device with a lens instead of carrying it is inviting a shorter life; I don't.
That's a reasonable point. A lit-up Glass may be visually obvious, but not necessarily obvious that it's recording.
So.. if Google simply added a commonly-understood red LED that flashed when actually recording, most of this hysteria about "always-on privacy invasion" would disappear? Sounds like a good fix to me.
Oh, I absolutely agree that there are places people don't want to be videoed, and that would be why you don't see people whipping out their SLR or cellphone and videoing you there. It would be rude at the least. So why do you assume that any/all Glass users will be doing exactly that whenever you see one? Just because they could? If someone actually wanted to do that, there are far cheaper, more effective and less obvious ways than using a facially-mounted lens that lights up whenever you take a shot.
And even if they did - like, say, someone at the next table is using a camcorder to video their kid's birthday party. Would you object to that? Would you object if they were doing it with Glass instead? Doesn't seem to bother you if you're in random tourist photos, even if they're on the internet. Does it matter what device takes them?
It's like people are assuming that a) all Glass owners will be rude and intrusive enough to record everyone everywhere for the hell of it, rather than just the things they themselves are interested in, b) their Glass units will have enough battery and storage to allow that, c) all that video is simultaneously being geotagged and uploaded to Google's endless storage banks in their evil volcano lair, and d) Google's quantum facial recognisers will pick you out, staple your face & location to your SSN and forward it on to the IRS so they can audit you for taking your gf out to dinner on a company expense. Oh, and they'll automatically email that shot of you picking your nose to your mother as well.
Sheesh, Steve Mann never got this much backlash, and he actually was doing a), b) and most of c) as well.
Quite true. Recording is looped because 99.9% of recorded video is boring, useless crap that nobody wants to see. Same would apply to any random video that might be recorded just at that moment by a passing Glass user, or a teenager waving a cellphone around.
Of course, if you happened to be doing something unusual and interesting (like getting beaten by police, for example), then anyone nearby with a lens will probably be recording you anyway. And dashcam users (who are recording you automatically) can pull that video out of the loop just as easily. And any nearby security cameras can do the same.
We're surrounded by cameras - what makes a Glass user so much worse? Oh right, it's just a bit too obvious to ignore.
Really not sure where you're getting that idea from. You don't really think it's doing always-on geotagged facial recognition or something, do you? Can you imagine what that'd do to the battery life?
IF the user took a photo of your face (i.e. by staring in your face in public), and IF he geotagged it and uploaded it to Google+, and IF Google's facial recognition was turned on for that account, and (a really big) IF their facial recognition routines were good enough to pick you specifically out of the hundreds of millions of faces that are stored in their secret Evil DataVaults... then they get a single data point for the momentary location of one random person, woohoo. Your own phone in your pocket would probably tell them far more than that, if they cared, and your telco certainly could. If you're concerned about privacy to that level, then there are bigger things to worry about today than what future versions of Glass may one day finally be able to do practically.
On another note, when I first saw your sig (years ago) it led me onto a series of books I enjoyed immensely, so thanks for that :-)
Tourists snap pictures of Times Square - and thousands of people - daily, without permission. Teenagers take videos of each other - and passers-by - at malls & nightclubs and we don't object, though it's pretty likely those shots are getting uploaded to Facebook or YouTube.
What most of us object to is a lens following us around and staring fixedly at us, and if a tourist or teenager or Glass-user did that, most of us would demand they stop. But only a psychopath would punch a tourist or teenager in the face for anything less than extreme provocation, and certainly not for just using their camera as you were nearby.
So you're saying people would "understand" the assault, like when a drug dealer caps someone who scratches his ride? So long as you don't mean "fair enough, he had it coming". Because to me at least, incidental video capture, creepy stalking, and physical assault are all widely separated on the scales of acceptability.
Right, so that's a future fear, one I can understand and agree with - but it's not an issue today, and it's not an issue for anyone but the wearer.
You'd hate Russia. Every single car that goes past IS recording you.
So recording someone is bad, but beating the crap out of someone is socially acceptable? Do you see tourists with cameras getting punched in the face often?
Seems to me a case of assault like you describe should be videoed.
Scanning these first comments, most of the complaints seem based on their own idea of Glass, or perhaps what they fear future devices may end up as, but not what Glass is today.
For example: It's crap as a media player (sound is poor, video is low-res and washed out) . It's not "always-on recording" or streaming everything to Google, and would rapidly run out of battery if you tried. It does light up when recording or taking pictures, like a regular video camera (and unlike phones or keychain camcorders). And Google specifically forbids ads on the whole platform.
Maybe one day some people will wear devices that are worth the hate, but Glass isn't it. Personally I see it all as another manifestation of the recent anti-Google narrative that's been so carefully constructed (e.g. ask yourself if you'd have the same reaction to "Apple Glass").
iOS users are more free, because they are free from worry
You do have some strange definitions, don't you? So long as you define "freedom" to be "anything a non-technical user cares about" which is presumably and far more narrowly defined as "anything an iPhone user is allowed to do", then "worry" about that oh-so-scary malware threat that's rampaging outside the Apple walls (but never ever inside) suddenly becomes the only issue anyone could possibly care about.
You love to characterise all Android phones as cheap and worthless, while not only ignoring the wide range of flagship phones (Galaxy/Note, One, Optimus Pro, Nexus etc) which together easily match combined iPhone sales, but also ignoring all the freedoms and benefits now available to the many people world-wide (particularly developing countries) who can now afford a genuine smartphone with a full range of capabilities for a fraction of what Apple would charge. What a narrow viewpoint you seem to have.
I haven't yet decided whether your constant need to denigrate and spread misinformation about platforms other than the ones you personally are invested in is simply an ordinary character flaw or an actual job. I live in hope you'll one day adopt a more mature viewpoint, or at least find a more fulfilling job.
In terms of internal OS security, both iOS and Android are quite secure. Very few exploits exist for recent versions of each, though older & less-secure Androids are of course more common. In terms of the application stores, both are quite safe, with very low incidences of malware. Apple's store policies are arguably more stringent (though certainly not perfect), but users on either platform are highly unlikely to run into malicious apps, at least if they stick with the default settings.
It is of course true that Android offers more rope for stupid and/or ignorant users to hang themselves with. That's the design decision that was made. Your point about up-front vs on-the-fly permissions is certainly true, though I would add that for every on-the-fly permission request that iOS makes, there are more numerous implied permissions granted to the app that the user is never made aware of. App installs on Android do at least offer you reliable information about what your app is capable of at install time, whereas most iOS users must trust Apple's (often inconsistent) app-checking to shield them from potential abuses. Still, given that genuinely malicious apps are so uncommon in either store, it is very unlikely to come up for any normal user.
However - users that allow & then install untrusted apps on Android, or users that jail-break on iOS, can get themselves into trouble a lot more easily. My point was that you can make a platform fool-proof, but you can't make it damn-fool-proof. User stupidity can conquer all. And in fact, given that running non-Apple-approved apps requires a full rooted jailbreak and thus the loss of nearly all platform security, Android users who wish merely to run apps from outside the Play Store (e.g. to access the Amazon Appstore) arguably have a security advantage - they don't need to root anything to do this.
16.9 million results.
No platform is safe from user stupidity.
I guess you realise Steam, Origin etc are the same, only with no option to sell at all?
There's a reason we export it all.
It is indeed an "actual" limit, just imposed by your ISP instead of by physics. The ISP allocates you a virtual channel to the Internet backbone that supports X bits per month, just like how your cell tower or wi-fi access point allocates you a physical frequency channel with a data rate of Y bits per second (discounting contention).
The only difference is that the ISP channel's data allowance is accounted for over a month - you can have higher peak speeds, and if you don't use your maximum channel capacity (i.e. reach your cap) on a given day, you can use it on a later day. To use your example, "bandwidth" is "this much per second until the end of time", and the ISP is "this much per month until the end of time" (both assuming you maintain your service until the end of time, naturally).
Same thing - this is just bandwidth expressed in bits/month (with peak speeds a bit higher).
You forgot about buses, taxis, and also ordinary passengers in your own car. People will happily cede control to a driver they trust.
I enjoy driving as much as the next guy, but not all the time, not when I'm too tired/drunk, and rarely in traffic. A significant majority of driving is done for utility, not enjoyment. Personally I would welcome a car with the option of an autopilot.
For even more geek appeal, Judge Wright also peppered his order with Star Trek references, beginning with this quote:
and hammering it home towards the end:
I strongly suspect he deliberately designed this order to get maximum publicity with the tech media.
Was actually supposed to read, "the right to bare arms".
And they're all great, right? Can never have too much water washing over your cities and farmland, and the more extreme weather, drought & crop failure, species extinction, refugees and political turmoil, the better.
Embrace the climate change! The tsunami of costs to adapt will wash over us, leaving us clean of funds and fresh of heart, ready to tackle the warm new challenges that await us!