"Oh, I hate Windows 8...I'll never use that... oh? What's that? The next release of my favorite game? Only on Windows 8? I hate Windows 8... oh well... Windows 8 'just so I can play my game.'"
Right, because that sort of thing worked so well with Vista and Halo 2.
It doesn't work because a) computers require a significant outlay of cash, b) computers are used for things OTHER than games, and c) there are numerous alternatives available (consoles, Mac, Linux, portables, SteamBox(?)).
Unfortunately, Microsoft seems well aware that it no longer can depend on gamers to be a major promoter of its new operating systems, which is why it pretty much ignores that segment of computer users and - as the above example seems to indicate - actively goes out of its way to spurn them. It/used/ to be able to depend on gamers as a constant stream of income, but these days computer gamers are becoming increasingly wary of Microsoft's shenanigans and are looking for an escape.
The company only courts gamers when it benefits its console division (and as recent developments show, even they seem to be falling out of favor as it pushes towards its vision of making the XBOne a general-purpose "entertainment device").
99.999% of the Kinects sold were just plugged into an Xbox 360 and used for one or two console game and then left to collect dust after a few months.
Because, neat as the technology is (and I have to give kudos to Microsoft, the Kinect is neat tech), it doesn't really add anything to most games. Hell, in most cases it is more frustrating to use the Kinect to control your character than the regular gamepad. Sure, the Kinect-enabled party-games were fun for a while - mostly to show off to your friends - but they quickly wore out their welcome as everyone gravitated towards more traditional games, be it Rock Band, Madden or Call of Duty. The most use I got out of my Kinect was when playing Mass Effect 3, and then only because yelling "quicksave" was the one thing that the Kinect made easier to do than navigating all those menus with a gamepad.
With Kinect2 built into every XBOne ot will make it easier for developers to add the technology to their games but I have strong doubts that it will make motion-control any more/useful/.
Good ol' times. Back when we were the free world. Remember those times? Life was good.
I do, however, remember when more people bought into that fabrication than they do today.
Mind you, I still think there's a lot of freedom available in the "free world" and - both then and now - more opportunities for the common citizenry than one might find in a more totalitarian regime. That I can write this diatribe without any fear of retribution is only one example.
But that "freedom" came at a price, usually paid by citizens of less successful nations. And even the citizens of the free world were as often censored, monitored and controlled in the past as they are today. Trust in the government (often unwarranted), fear of the Enemy (whomever he might have been) and a lack of a method to widely disseminate any abuses resulted in many of these problems being overlooked.
Thanks to the Internet, the latter problem has been solved, greatly reducing the former (trust in government). That's why they play the terrorist angle so strongly (our new Enemy). And it's why they strive to reduce the effectiveness of the Internet with tactics like the article in question.
So no, the "free world" was never as free as we remember it being in the past. It was always a quagmire of corruption and greed dragging down the principles on which it was built. It's just that those flaws are made more obvious to the layman thanks to the Internet.
You know, China, I have no issue with a sovereign nation looking to its own industry to provide the technologies it needs to defend itself from threats, whether they are of an analog or digital nature. You shouldn't depend on foreign suppliers for your defense, not only because they may be somehow compromised with unknown backdoors, but also because you have no control of the supply. So sure, drop Cisco; it's probably for the best.
Here's the big problem with the government charging this guy: the vast majority of educated people with high IQ, put in the same situation as Snowden, either would have done exactly the same thing or would have resisted solely out of fear of the consequences. They'll be very hard pressed to find any jury remotely resembling his peers who would even be open to the possibility of convicting him, much less who would actually do it.
Sadly, I think you are very much mistaken.
A recent poll (as trustworthy as those are) indicated that 40% of Americans are in favor of NSA monitoring its own citizens in the name of "fighting terrorism". Even if the number is far lower than that (and I earnestly hope it is), the trial lawyers will very likely be able to spin a very convincing case against him. Remember, the trial will not be about whether Snowden was "right" "wrong" in his actions but whether his actions broke the law as it stands, a fact the prosecutors - and the judge - will make very clear to any jury. Given these instructions, many people will likely rule that Snowden did, indeed, break the law and is therefore guilty.
Whether the law was just or not, or the illegal actions the law were protecting are inconsequential to the court case.
So, either by inclination or by instruction, Snowden would likely be found guilty in a trial by peers. Rare is it to find 12 people willing to stand up to the uniformed justicars and oppose the entire system.
On the other hand, I'm reminded of this counter argument...
"Illogical though it seemed, most of the human race had found it impossible not to be polite to its artificial children, however simple-minded they might be. Whole volumes of psychology, as well as popular guides (How Not to Hurt Your Computer's Feelings; Artificial Intelligence - Real irritation were two of the best-known titles) had been written on the subject of Man-Machine etiquette. Long ago it had been decided that, however inconsequential rudeness to robots might appear to be, it should be discouraged. All too easily, it could spread to human relationships as well. - 3001The Final Odyssey by Arthur C Clarke
Which is why I always say "thank you" to my computer when it finishes a difficult task;-)
Actually Universal Access subsidizes low income phones. Your post is the first time I have heard someone say it was used for library equipment, care to cite any sources?
However, this was not paid out of the "Universal Access" fund (which is a tax collected by the phone company that they pocket, nominally to better service in rural areas) but from "Federal funds" (which is monies collected and dispersed by the government, although in this case the goal was similar)
The idea of "Presidential Alerts" annoys me, for some reason. Call it what it is; a "National Emergency Alert"; that's fine. But the idea that the PRESIDENT is somehow so important that he needs his own alert offends my democratic principles. He's not a king and he's not the heart-n-soul of the nation; he's a bureaucrat we've hired to manage the government. He's about as important as a clerk in the DMV (except he has more responsibilities) and he's no more worthy of adulation than that clerk. If the government feels it needs to notify me of an emergency, that's great. But I neither need nor want a direct line from the president.
Yes, I know it's pedantic. Yes, I know that I won't actually be getting a message from Obama or his successors. But there's increasingly a worshipful mystique being woven around our leaders that smacks of monarchism and I think that fits poorly with the ideals of this nation. So rather than name the messaging service after some bureaucrat, call it what it is - "National Emergency Alert" - and let's remember that ultimately, there's nothing special about our head of state; he's just another American.
But the whole Internet/is/ blocked by default. You have to specifically opt-in, usually with credit-card in hand, to get access to it. Sort of like porn (except a credit-card isn't usually needed these days).
Is it just me or does anyone else read Ruppersberger's comments ("He's lying" followed immediately with "He attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go") as "Snowden's is not telling the truth when he says he has information that proves our wrong-doing, and also he wasn't supposed to be able access to that information in the first place."
It seems like the sort of obvious double-speak only an dictator in a bad Hollywood movie would make. It's cliche and cornball. I mean, if our politicians are going to LIE to us, at least can they put some effort into it? I'm sort of insulted that they think people won't see through such obvious tactics.
Then again, maybe they are taking guidance from somebody who knows all about this sort of stuff:
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
Anyway, I'm glad that these guys are doing this. That way when the inevitable alien invasion occurs, we'll know/exactly/ who to blame. (cue pedants reminding us that Earth has been spewing out radio signals for over a century).
Mind you (as we drift further and further off the topic), that's/household/ income, versus personal income (versus personal salaries). Roughly 40% of all reported household income includes 2 wage-earners. And income often includes more than salaries. Your numbers aren't an accurate comparison.
Lest we forget: "Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised."
And would this information have been discovered if we couldn't root the phone and pry amongst its (virtual) innards? (that was a serious question, I don't know).
According to that PewResearch article, 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.
That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for/anything else/?)
If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.
While the above post is a bit extreme, at heart it may have merit.
We are granting our leaders great privilege. We are giving them power over us, and with it they can not only guide the nation in a direction they want it to go, but this position also provides them with influence over others which can help them in their future careers. And we even pay them for it. It's a great deal for them. But there is absolutely no liability on their part if they go directly against the will of their electorate.
My personal life My financial accounts My medical history My reading and viewing habits My sexual orientation My communications. My political stance. etc.
I consider this information my "secrets", available only to those I want to know. I want to "hide" it from everyone else. I even - consciously or not - grade it in a fashion similar to the big agencies (e.g., political leanings: access granted to family, close friends. No access to employers, public at large. Penalties apply to those who disseminate this information outside the allowed circle, usually in the form of broken friendships and lots of yelling).
Why is my information any less important than theirs?
So we're just supposed to trust the govt. on this. IMHO, the govt. hasn't earned that level of trust on this.
Arguably,/no/ government has earned that level of trust. No government should ever be granted that level trust.
I'd have qualms if my best friend did stuff that affected me and refused to divulge his reasons. I'm certainly not going to allow a bureaucracy that sort of license.
Don't trust the government... and every time they ask you to just do so, you should probably suspect them of trying to do you wrong.
It makes me wonder how much control the government really has over its agencies. Can the president or Congress really rein in the NSA, the FBI, the army? Increasingly we are learning that these organizations are powers unto themselves and have little loyalty to the government (much less the people) they supposedly serve. If Congress was to order the NSA to stop, would they really do so? Would they even pretend to stop? And what would we do if they didn't?
The same way it is enforceable with cell-phone cameras in Japan; pass a law that any device sold or manufactured in the US include a "recording" light.
There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light. Whether the actual/recording/ is illegal can be dealt with separately (I expect it will be dealt with in a case-by-case basis). But the majority of users won't bother and will use the machine in unaltered condition.
If worries about recording are the issue; the solution is simple: put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device. Some companies require a similar feature on cell-phone cameras (e.g., they must make a loud "click" sound when a picture is taken). Put a bright red diode on the side of the Glasses that indicate when it is in "record" mode, so that everyone around knows that they are on-camera. They can then either modify their behavior, leave, or note their objections with the user directly.
The problem most people have with this technology, I think, is that currently they can be recorded without their knowledge*. Make the recording more obvious and society will create its own rules and means.
Ultimately though, I hope the technology evolves to the point where recording and uploading are not necessary because the devices can process the data themselves, without utilizing a service to do the background crunching for them.
* I tend to object more that those recordings are being uploaded to a centralized service - in this case, Google - which can be data-mined and profiled.
The short of it: at least for some of their commercial offerings, the software in their routers are old and filled with vulnerabilities long-patched out of the offerings from other companies. They are easy to exploit because the tools have been available for years.
If the NSA's concern is that Cisco routers have a backdoor built-in, then any lack of such in Huawei routers should barely be a stumbling block to them.
No, I believe the NSA's (and the government's concern in general) is exactly as stated: they don't want to use Huawei routers because/anybody/ can access them.
What exactly does the always-on (okay, "on at least once every 24 hours") requirement serve?
I doubt it's for checking game licensing issues. That is better done when the game is actually launched (and probably will be anyway). It's stupid otherwise; you slot in a CD for a game your buddy owns and a day later it informs you that there is a licensing issue (or alternately, if the default is "always deny", you buy a game and you aren't allowed to play until the next 24 hour check-in)? So it's not about the games.
Anti-hack checks to ensure you haven't rooted your own hardware. It could compare the OS signature to some secure key on its servers. But that hardly seems workable; after all, if (when) the XBoxOne is hacked, that will be surely the first thing that is disabled.
Advertising perhaps; after all, the recent Dashboard upgrades have focused on putting more and more advertisements on your screen. Microsoft is surely going to continue in this direction with its newest console. But does that really require an always-on connection?
Maybe it's for uploading game or network metrics (or NSA monitoring, for the paranoid). But surely this is not such a necessary thing as to upset their customers to such a degree.
So, honestly, what makes this "always on" requirement so important that Microsoft is willing to risk sales over its inclusion? Why (aside from the boneheaded stubbornness that prevents them from backing down on any of their dumb decisions like the Ribbon or Metro) does Microsoft feel this is something they/have/ to foist on the public? Better to make the console work like the 360; it will use a network connection if it finds one but otherwise it is not a requirement for operation (at least, not for the console; games may still require an internet connection to license, but we already see that with current games).
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh, I hate Windows 8...I'll never use that... oh? What's that? The next release of my favorite game? Only on Windows 8? I hate Windows 8... oh well... Windows 8 'just so I can play my game.'"
Right, because that sort of thing worked so well with Vista and Halo 2.
It doesn't work because a) computers require a significant outlay of cash, b) computers are used for things OTHER than games, and c) there are numerous alternatives available (consoles, Mac, Linux, portables, SteamBox(?)).
Unfortunately, Microsoft seems well aware that it no longer can depend on gamers to be a major promoter of its new operating systems, which is why it pretty much ignores that segment of computer users and - as the above example seems to indicate - actively goes out of its way to spurn them. It /used/ to be able to depend on gamers as a constant stream of income, but these days computer gamers are becoming increasingly wary of Microsoft's shenanigans and are looking for an escape.
The company only courts gamers when it benefits its console division (and as recent developments show, even they seem to be falling out of favor as it pushes towards its vision of making the XBOne a general-purpose "entertainment device").
And hopefully an indicator that the next iPhone/ iPad will not only allow SD cards but also use a non-proprietary USB3 cable.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Wait, let me fix that for you:
99.999% of the Kinects sold were just plugged into an Xbox 360 and used for one or two console game and then left to collect dust after a few months.
Because, neat as the technology is (and I have to give kudos to Microsoft, the Kinect is neat tech), it doesn't really add anything to most games. Hell, in most cases it is more frustrating to use the Kinect to control your character than the regular gamepad. Sure, the Kinect-enabled party-games were fun for a while - mostly to show off to your friends - but they quickly wore out their welcome as everyone gravitated towards more traditional games, be it Rock Band, Madden or Call of Duty. The most use I got out of my Kinect was when playing Mass Effect 3, and then only because yelling "quicksave" was the one thing that the Kinect made easier to do than navigating all those menus with a gamepad.
With Kinect2 built into every XBOne ot will make it easier for developers to add the technology to their games but I have strong doubts that it will make motion-control any more /useful/.
Good ol' times. Back when we were the free world. Remember those times? Life was good.
I do, however, remember when more people bought into that fabrication than they do today.
Mind you, I still think there's a lot of freedom available in the "free world" and - both then and now - more opportunities for the common citizenry than one might find in a more totalitarian regime. That I can write this diatribe without any fear of retribution is only one example.
But that "freedom" came at a price, usually paid by citizens of less successful nations. And even the citizens of the free world were as often censored, monitored and controlled in the past as they are today. Trust in the government (often unwarranted), fear of the Enemy (whomever he might have been) and a lack of a method to widely disseminate any abuses resulted in many of these problems being overlooked.
Thanks to the Internet, the latter problem has been solved, greatly reducing the former (trust in government). That's why they play the terrorist angle so strongly (our new Enemy). And it's why they strive to reduce the effectiveness of the Internet with tactics like the article in question.
So no, the "free world" was never as free as we remember it being in the past. It was always a quagmire of corruption and greed dragging down the principles on which it was built. It's just that those flaws are made more obvious to the layman thanks to the Internet.
You know, China, I have no issue with a sovereign nation looking to its own industry to provide the technologies it needs to defend itself from threats, whether they are of an analog or digital nature. You shouldn't depend on foreign suppliers for your defense, not only because they may be somehow compromised with unknown backdoors, but also because you have no control of the supply. So sure, drop Cisco; it's probably for the best.
But if you are considering Huawei switches and routers to provide you any sort of security, you may wish to rethink that particular course of action. The NSA doesn't /need/ to install backdoors when the software is vulnerable by default.
Cisco hardware may be compromised with backdoors, but at least they are /competently/ compromised...
Here's the big problem with the government charging this guy: the vast majority of educated people with high IQ, put in the same situation as Snowden, either would have done exactly the same thing or would have resisted solely out of fear of the consequences. They'll be very hard pressed to find any jury remotely resembling his peers who would even be open to the possibility of convicting him, much less who would actually do it.
Sadly, I think you are very much mistaken.
A recent poll (as trustworthy as those are) indicated that 40% of Americans are in favor of NSA monitoring its own citizens in the name of "fighting terrorism". Even if the number is far lower than that (and I earnestly hope it is), the trial lawyers will very likely be able to spin a very convincing case against him. Remember, the trial will not be about whether Snowden was "right" "wrong" in his actions but whether his actions broke the law as it stands, a fact the prosecutors - and the judge - will make very clear to any jury. Given these instructions, many people will likely rule that Snowden did, indeed, break the law and is therefore guilty.
Whether the law was just or not, or the illegal actions the law were protecting are inconsequential to the court case.
So, either by inclination or by instruction, Snowden would likely be found guilty in a trial by peers. Rare is it to find 12 people willing to stand up to the uniformed justicars and oppose the entire system.
Alternately, plug the console into a surge-protector and cut the power to the device entirely when you are done playing. It'll save electricity, too!
On the other hand, I'm reminded of this counter argument...
"Illogical though it seemed, most of the human race had found it impossible not to be polite to its artificial children, however simple-minded they might be. Whole volumes of psychology, as well as popular guides (How Not to Hurt Your Computer's Feelings; Artificial Intelligence - Real irritation were two of the best-known titles) had been written on the subject of Man-Machine etiquette. Long ago it had been decided that, however inconsequential rudeness to robots might appear to be, it should be discouraged. All too easily, it could spread to human relationships as well.
- 3001The Final Odyssey by Arthur C Clarke
Which is why I always say "thank you" to my computer when it finishes a difficult task ;-)
Actually Universal Access subsidizes low income phones. Your post is the first time I have heard someone say it was used for library equipment, care to cite any sources?
I believe he is referring to this story:
West Virginia Library $2000 router
However, this was not paid out of the "Universal Access" fund (which is a tax collected by the phone company that they pocket, nominally to better service in rural areas) but from "Federal funds" (which is monies collected and dispersed by the government, although in this case the goal was similar)
PJ, come back! It's not over yet.
The idea of "Presidential Alerts" annoys me, for some reason. Call it what it is; a "National Emergency Alert"; that's fine. But the idea that the PRESIDENT is somehow so important that he needs his own alert offends my democratic principles. He's not a king and he's not the heart-n-soul of the nation; he's a bureaucrat we've hired to manage the government. He's about as important as a clerk in the DMV (except he has more responsibilities) and he's no more worthy of adulation than that clerk. If the government feels it needs to notify me of an emergency, that's great. But I neither need nor want a direct line from the president.
Yes, I know it's pedantic. Yes, I know that I won't actually be getting a message from Obama or his successors. But there's increasingly a worshipful mystique being woven around our leaders that smacks of monarchism and I think that fits poorly with the ideals of this nation. So rather than name the messaging service after some bureaucrat, call it what it is - "National Emergency Alert" - and let's remember that ultimately, there's nothing special about our head of state; he's just another American.
But the whole Internet /is/ blocked by default. You have to specifically opt-in, usually with credit-card in hand, to get access to it. Sort of like porn (except a credit-card isn't usually needed these days).
I know, I know; /whoosh/.
Is it just me or does anyone else read Ruppersberger's comments ("He's lying" followed immediately with "He attempted to go places that he was not authorized to go") as "Snowden's is not telling the truth when he says he has information that proves our wrong-doing, and also he wasn't supposed to be able access to that information in the first place."
It seems like the sort of obvious double-speak only an dictator in a bad Hollywood movie would make. It's cliche and cornball. I mean, if our politicians are going to LIE to us, at least can they put some effort into it? I'm sort of insulted that they think people won't see through such obvious tactics.
Then again, maybe they are taking guidance from somebody who knows all about this sort of stuff:
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."
I always preferred this explanation
Anyway, I'm glad that these guys are doing this. That way when the inevitable alien invasion occurs, we'll know /exactly/ who to blame.
(cue pedants reminding us that Earth has been spewing out radio signals for over a century).
Mind you (as we drift further and further off the topic), that's /household/ income, versus personal income (versus personal salaries). Roughly 40% of all reported household income includes 2 wage-earners. And income often includes more than salaries. Your numbers aren't an accurate comparison.
Lest we forget:
"Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised."
And would this information have been discovered if we couldn't root the phone and pry amongst its (virtual) innards?
(that was a serious question, I don't know).
According to that PewResearch article, 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.
That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for /anything else/?)
If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.
* presumably the remaining 3% want monitoring for some, miniature American flags for others).
While the above post is a bit extreme, at heart it may have merit.
We are granting our leaders great privilege. We are giving them power over us, and with it they can not only guide the nation in a direction they want it to go, but this position also provides them with influence over others which can help them in their future careers. And we even pay them for it. It's a great deal for them. But there is absolutely no liability on their part if they go directly against the will of their electorate.
Maybe there should be.
I freely admit that I have lots to hide:
My personal life
My financial accounts
My medical history
My reading and viewing habits
My sexual orientation
My communications.
My political stance.
etc.
I consider this information my "secrets", available only to those I want to know. I want to "hide" it from everyone else. I even - consciously or not - grade it in a fashion similar to the big agencies (e.g., political leanings: access granted to family, close friends. No access to employers, public at large. Penalties apply to those who disseminate this information outside the allowed circle, usually in the form of broken friendships and lots of yelling).
Why is my information any less important than theirs?
So we're just supposed to trust the govt. on this. IMHO, the govt. hasn't earned that level of trust on this.
Arguably, /no/ government has earned that level of trust. No government should ever be granted that level trust.
I'd have qualms if my best friend did stuff that affected me and refused to divulge his reasons. I'm certainly not going to allow a bureaucracy that sort of license.
Don't trust the government... and every time they ask you to just do so, you should probably suspect them of trying to do you wrong.
It makes me wonder how much control the government really has over its agencies. Can the president or Congress really rein in the NSA, the FBI, the army? Increasingly we are learning that these organizations are powers unto themselves and have little loyalty to the government (much less the people) they supposedly serve. If Congress was to order the NSA to stop, would they really do so? Would they even pretend to stop? And what would we do if they didn't?
The same way it is enforceable with cell-phone cameras in Japan; pass a law that any device sold or manufactured in the US include a "recording" light.
There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light. Whether the actual /recording/ is illegal can be dealt with separately (I expect it will be dealt with in a case-by-case basis). But the majority of users won't bother and will use the machine in unaltered condition.
If worries about recording are the issue; the solution is simple: put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device. Some companies require a similar feature on cell-phone cameras (e.g., they must make a loud "click" sound when a picture is taken). Put a bright red diode on the side of the Glasses that indicate when it is in "record" mode, so that everyone around knows that they are on-camera. They can then either modify their behavior, leave, or note their objections with the user directly.
The problem most people have with this technology, I think, is that currently they can be recorded without their knowledge*. Make the recording more obvious and society will create its own rules and means.
Ultimately though, I hope the technology evolves to the point where recording and uploading are not necessary because the devices can process the data themselves, without utilizing a service to do the background crunching for them.
* I tend to object more that those recordings are being uploaded to a centralized service - in this case, Google - which can be data-mined and profiled.
Huawei routers don't /need/ backdoor access.
The short of it: at least for some of their commercial offerings, the software in their routers are old and filled with vulnerabilities long-patched out of the offerings from other companies. They are easy to exploit because the tools have been available for years.
If the NSA's concern is that Cisco routers have a backdoor built-in, then any lack of such in Huawei routers should barely be a stumbling block to them.
No, I believe the NSA's (and the government's concern in general) is exactly as stated: they don't want to use Huawei routers because /anybody/ can access them.
What exactly does the always-on (okay, "on at least once every 24 hours") requirement serve?
I doubt it's for checking game licensing issues. That is better done when the game is actually launched (and probably will be anyway). It's stupid otherwise; you slot in a CD for a game your buddy owns and a day later it informs you that there is a licensing issue (or alternately, if the default is "always deny", you buy a game and you aren't allowed to play until the next 24 hour check-in)? So it's not about the games.
Anti-hack checks to ensure you haven't rooted your own hardware. It could compare the OS signature to some secure key on its servers. But that hardly seems workable; after all, if (when) the XBoxOne is hacked, that will be surely the first thing that is disabled.
Advertising perhaps; after all, the recent Dashboard upgrades have focused on putting more and more advertisements on your screen. Microsoft is surely going to continue in this direction with its newest console. But does that really require an always-on connection?
Maybe it's for uploading game or network metrics (or NSA monitoring, for the paranoid). But surely this is not such a necessary thing as to upset their customers to such a degree.
So, honestly, what makes this "always on" requirement so important that Microsoft is willing to risk sales over its inclusion? Why (aside from the boneheaded stubbornness that prevents them from backing down on any of their dumb decisions like the Ribbon or Metro) does Microsoft feel this is something they /have/ to foist on the public? Better to make the console work like the 360; it will use a network connection if it finds one but otherwise it is not a requirement for operation (at least, not for the console; games may still require an internet connection to license, but we already see that with current games).