This crowd, of all people, should see Lifelog as an attempt to do the book (e.g. primer) from Stephanson's novel Diamond Age.*
The point of making this system WEARABLE is that the user has both physical and functional control of what information is given to other systems in the environment. My interpretation of the project is that the data is gathered BY THE SOLDIER, FOR THE SOLDIER. In other words, Lifelog will enable soldiers to remember their training, analyze their own actions, and improve their abilities. Comparing Lifelog and TIA is completely wrong-headed and misleading.
One of the reasons we started the wearable computing projects at Georgia Tech (www.cc.gatech.edu/ccg) and MIT (www.media.mit.edu/wearables) is as a response to the privacy concerns with the ubiquitous computing idea. If sensors and computers are put into the environment, the user has to rely on the trustworthiness of those who maintain the system. If, instead, the user carries his own infrastructure to get the same functionality, he has direct physical control on both the security and privacy of the system. I've been wearing my computer on a daily basis for 10 years now (the longest such experience I'm aware of), and this idea has been one of the design principles since before I put on the first machine. Unfortunately, when the press reports on my former colleague Steve Mann's webcam, they completely ignore the concept that Steve controls the information that he sends out. Any privacy violations are subject to his control - that was the point.
*For those who haven't read Diamond Age, the primer a prototype electronic book falls into the hands of an orphaned girl. The book acts as her companion, sensing and reacting to her environment, teaching her about the world, and allowing her to reflect on her own situation and actions. In many senses, it was designed to be the ultimate educator's tool.
Slashdot Mirror
This crowd, of all people, should see Lifelog as an attempt to do the
book (e.g. primer) from Stephanson's novel Diamond Age.*
The point of making this system WEARABLE is that the user has both
physical and functional control of what information is given to other
systems in the environment. My interpretation of the project is that
the data is gathered BY THE SOLDIER, FOR THE SOLDIER. In other words,
Lifelog will enable soldiers to remember their training, analyze their
own actions, and improve their abilities. Comparing Lifelog and
TIA is completely wrong-headed and misleading.
One of the reasons we started the wearable computing projects at
Georgia Tech (www.cc.gatech.edu/ccg) and MIT
(www.media.mit.edu/wearables) is as a response to the privacy
concerns with the ubiquitous computing idea. If sensors and computers
are put into the environment, the user has to rely on the
trustworthiness of those who maintain the system. If, instead, the
user carries his own infrastructure to get the same functionality, he
has direct physical control on both the security and privacy of the
system. I've been wearing my computer on a daily basis for 10 years
now (the longest such experience I'm aware of), and this idea has been
one of the design principles since before I put on the first machine.
Unfortunately, when the press reports on my former colleague Steve
Mann's webcam, they completely ignore the concept that Steve controls
the information that he sends out. Any privacy violations are subject
to his control - that was the point.
*For those who haven't read Diamond Age, the primer a prototype
electronic book falls into the hands of an orphaned girl. The book
acts as her companion, sensing and reacting to her environment,
teaching her about the world, and allowing her to reflect on her own
situation and actions. In many senses, it was designed to be the
ultimate educator's tool.