×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Should We Be Afraid of Google Glass?

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the watch-your-life-on-youtube dept.

Privacy 307

An anonymous reader writes "An article at TechCrunch bemoans the naysayers of ubiquitous video camera headsets, which seems like a near-term certainty whether it comes in the form of Google Glass or a similar product. The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere, and increasingly sophisticated government drones and satellites mean you're probably on camera more than you think already. 'But there's something about being caught on video, not by some impersonal machine but by another human being, that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk.' However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security, which may not be palatable to others. He references a time he was mugged in Mexico as well as a desire to keep an eye on abuses of authority from police and others. 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

307 comments

No problemo. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190545)

I always wear my infrared LED cap when mugging Google Glass owners.
Then my face is unrecognizable.

wearable displays, not so much wearable computing (1)

sanman2 (928866) | about a year ago | (#43190673)

I'm waiting with anticipation for this next generation of wearable computing devices like Google Glass. I just don't want to be stuck with this stupid voice command interface, however. I'd prefer for these glasses-style devices to simply be display peripherals tethered to a handheld smartphone. Then you could just use the touchscreen as your "mouse" and perhaps even your keyboard (although I'd prefer more thought to go into how to replace the crucial keyboard functionality as well).

Re:wearable displays, not so much wearable computi (4, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | about a year ago | (#43190979)

That's not a bad idea.

But what could possibly be bad about random strangers walking around with cameras attached to their heads which take pictures and instantly upload them to google? Google is building a security camera network made of meat.

Google OWNS you (0)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about a year ago | (#43190695)

The problem is that Google *owns* you. We may think that what they do is free so it's very cool for us (note: on a technology point of view it's very nice).
Anyway, I don't teach you anything, their business model is to know everything about us for advertising purpose (so is Facebook's). And glasses that take pictures of everything we are doing and people around us is very interesting for them, to say the least. It's *way* better than the Google car they used to create Street View.
So if you deliberately choose not to wear glasses for the very reason I said above, it's mostly useless because you're already seen by so many other people around you.
Just my 2 cents

Re:No problemo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190763)

Spray paint.

For a Safe and Secure Society (3, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#43190555)

ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times are necessary.

After all, according Google's CEO, if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (5, Interesting)

Qwavel (733416) | about a year ago | (#43190705)

"ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times" is already happening and it has nothing to do with Google Glasses.

If you care about your privacy, Glass is the least of your concerns - there are already many ways to record everything secretly. And, if you want to invade people's privacy like this, Glass is the last thing you should use since it is so conspicuous.

Britain already went through this debate as they installed their ubiquitous CCVC network. Privacy lost.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (3, Interesting)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#43190967)

Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.

"Oh no someone might get a picture of me looking stupid" versus everyone definitely getting a picture of police abuse.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43190797)

Google's CEO and most of the other morons walking the earth who will allow it. Not to excuse it, I just think it's kind of inevitable even were google to drop glass to focus on not cancelling google reader. People like to spy. I'll just be glad if the government doesn't go big brother with it, demanding warrantless access to everyone's virtual eye.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190835)

ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times are necessary.

After all, according Google's CEO, if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Seriously, are you trolling or are you really such a weak insecure
piece of subhuman waste that you actually believe the bullshit you wrote ?

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#43190909)

My conjecture is that the OP used a rhetorical technique called sarcasm, a technique quite unknown to us Vulcans although we are frequently and incorrectly being accused of using it.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#43190869)

I can't believe anyone would mod that up. That is the oldest one in the book "if you have nothing to hide". Here are some things to thing about:

* If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me

* Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time

* Someone else might do something wrong with my information

* Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions

* Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or abused

* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong

* You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected

* Computers don't "forget" and you can't control how long some system will hold information about you

* Once information is collected, you don't know who that company might share it with, nor why, nor how often

* The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (0)

Qwavel (733416) | about a year ago | (#43190971)

I can't believe anyone would mod your post up - the original was clearly sarcastic.

The thing that was wrong about that original post is the Eric Schmidt hasn't been the CEO of Google for a couple of years.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about a year ago | (#43191053)

* You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong

This, among others on your list, would comprise about 90% of the plot lines in Hitchcock films.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43191075)

The OP was being sarcastic but you are correct nonetheless. The comments from facebook and google about "privacy being a thing of the past" are hilarious. Guess what they're selling? Your information, your privacy, the details of your life. Of course they want privacy gone, they'll have a field day. Both groups are marketing companies, they sell adverts.

Get your legal system in order Americans, if the government was doing this you'd be out on the streets rioting. And don't for one second think that the government won't have full access to all of this data.

Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190975)

if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Not sure if sarcasm... but you are kind of correct, except I would change "you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" to "you should do it discretely". There may be nothing wrong with someone visiting a particular adult toy store, but that doesn't mean they are fine with everyone knowing about it.

This of course holds true regardless of the presence of cameras.

balancing the scales (4, Insightful)

l3v1 (787564) | about a year ago | (#43190563)

" 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless."

Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.

Re:balancing the scales (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43190657)

Benign anonymity is a right. People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right?

Eric-- take your marbles and go home.

Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190697)

People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are?

Jay Leno. He records his entire life "for legal reasons." :) :) :)

Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year ago | (#43190771)

Ah, the paranoid.

Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43190779)

Reminds me of the movie "Freeze Frame." Where the guy, having been falsely accused of a horrendous crime, resolves to have a constant chain of video of whatever he's doing at all times.

Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (1)

LaggedOnUser (1856626) | about a year ago | (#43190843)

Have you ever seen the Memoto (http://memoto.com/)? It's rather like what you're saying. Unlike Google Glasses, the Memoto is unobtrusive (you can clip it on your shirt) and always taking pictures (every 30 seconds it takes a snap). Given that such devices will be available in the near future, I think people will soon get over their worries. On the one hand, you're always on film, like in the movie "Freeze Frame". But on the other hand your pictures are going to be drowned in a sea of similar pictures and so are not likely to get noticed much, unless something important happens, of course. Just don't commit any crimes...

Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190963)

If you think anything is "drowned in a sea of data", you have been ignorant of technological progress for at least 15 years.

Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (4, Insightful)

bdcrazy (817679) | about a year ago | (#43190977)

Just don't commit any crimes...
Just don't be associated with those who commit crimes.
Don't be associated with those who are associated with people who commit crimes.
Certainly don't walk/run/drive/bicycle through any place that has recently had a crime committed.
Don't appear to be doing something worthy of being noticed, even if it is benign.
Don't get in the way of people who would rather have what you have.
Don't make people upset with you.
Don't let people get upset with you even though they don't know you.
Don't have the wrong skin color.
Don't have the wrong gender.

People may argue slippery slope, but most of those are already being used EVERY SINGLE DAY to target people. Collection = abuse. You can't get around having it, if you're not gonna have people use it. Occasional news reports about people at the DMV grabbing celebrities police reports and that is stuff people think is necessary to collect! What about everything else? Also, the security of databases stinks. More so via people than technology.

Re:balancing the scales (1)

thereitis (2355426) | about a year ago | (#43190683)

'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.'

This logic sounds familiar...

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

Re:balancing the scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190687)

Really? Unless you own the restaurant, pub, gym, etc. as you do your home, what are you going to do about it? Assault me? That's a crime. Recording you in a public place is not.
PS. I will have a recording of a crazed person assaulting me.

Re:balancing the scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190731)

If you do it in the UK i'll just start a phone conversation (it might not even need a phone). I can then make a citizens arrest.

Re:balancing the scales (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43190781)

If you do it in the UK i'll just start a phone conversation (it might not even need a phone). I can then make a citizens arrest.

First, I'm pretty sure you need to be a person to make a citizen's arrest, not just anonymous. Second, I'm pretty sure you won't make a citizen's arrest, because you're a coward. Third, you're not entitled to privacy of your side of a telephone conversation in a public place any more than anything else that comes out of your mouth. If they were somehow using their google glass to tap your GSM traffic and record your conversation, that would be wiretapping.

Re:balancing the scales (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190787)

Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera.

Awwww. *pinches your cheeks* Remember when people said that about pagers and cell phones? That was just as cute.

Remember folks, be sure to hug a conservative. They have an irrational fear of change, be it emanicpation or airplanes or suffrage or cameras. They need comforting, not convincing. Just hold their hands as they take baby steps into a brave new world each day.

Re:balancing the scales (1)

LaggedOnUser (1856626) | about a year ago | (#43190851)

Your remarks are absurd. I bet you never once objected to anyone carrying their camera-equipped cellphone or other device to those places. I doubt if you will start actually bullying wearers of Google Glasses either.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43191029)

You can come in with your phone and camera. But if you start to film everything and anything you would wind up with footage of you getting thrown out post haste. My place, my rules. And my rule is: don't be a dick that thinks he has to film everything.

And I post as anonymous for a reason too. I don't need anyone with an axe to grind showing up to my doorstep. I value my privacy.

Re:balancing the scales (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43190895)

Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.

You own a gym, office, restaurant and a pub? Lucky you. Let me rephrase it for you, if this becomes popular as your all-purpose device like the smart phone that people use for all sorts of things and expect to be able to use anywhere they go then society will change. I think 20 years ago it was unthinkable that everybody would carry a "spy camera" everywhere they go, now it's completely normal. If you refuse to be in the same place as Google Glass, you'll be the one asked to leave.

Re:balancing the scales (1)

Qwavel (733416) | about a year ago | (#43190897)

But most of those who wish to record you will be wearing invisible cameras - not Glass. Are you going to search everyone?

Re:balancing the scales (2)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about a year ago | (#43190919)

Insightful? You've got to be shitting me. Only to the extent of this current "privacy" stupidity.

Does he gouge out the eyeballs of all his guests and fellow pint-guzzlers, lobotomize them? "Insightful". The label itself is even ironic. HUMANS ARE ENDOWED WITH RECORDING DEVICES, MORONS.

The First Amendment of the Constititution declares the fundamental right to "record" and playback life's "experiences"...the fact that video cameras, tape recorders, photography, tvs, phonographs, etc did not exist in 1789 notwithstanding. The "freedom of the press" had nothing to do with "journalists" or hardware, it has everything to do with your individual right to describe, via available technologies (pen, paper, print, ink, paint, brush), and disseminate those experiences.

I can't wait to read the paranoid blatherings when the idiots realize there are people who exist who enjoy photographic memories...or when they find out there are creative types so skilled with the pen and brush they can accurately describe anything...or OMG those two types would ever end up together! Oh my! (The inability to -think- rationally seems to be the bigger danger, methinks.)

Re:balancing the scales (2)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43190943)

So if somebody has glasses on, they will not be allowed into MacDonalds? I hope you will be right. I am sure you won't be as all the rest will say how it does not matter.

In several years there might be no difference between Google Glasses and normal ones, so how will you be able to tell the difference?

It is amazing how happy people are when they give up their privacy and with that their rights on privacy. If Honecker and Stalin would be still alive, they would have the biggest hardon right now.

Re:balancing the scales (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190951)

Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.

At least here in the UK, permission is required to film on private property.

The real issue is in public, there's no expectation of privacy unless there is. [sirimo.co.uk]

Corporation or government (1)

memnock (466995) | about a year ago | (#43190573)

I personally oppose a ubiquitous source for recording my activity and any accompanying means of data mining such activity. I don't care if it's just me buying groceries, it's none of anyone else's business.

Re:Corporation or government (1)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about a year ago | (#43190999)

Oppose it or not it will happen. Every time you purchase an item the store will reduce its inventory by one so they are doing data mining on your purchases. As for them know what you purchase, it would not make economic sense to hire a human to keep track of them. It is only a computer that will know and figure out a way to benefit from that knowledge. So I suppose you would oppose the economic value that both you and the store will get from this knowledge. I can see both reduced inventory and spoilage cost. Someone will figure out a way to make them look like ordinary glasses so unless you want to ban all glasses there will be no way to avoid them. As for me, I know I am just one out of a lot of people and no one will pay more than two cents to know what I do or what I look like with or without clothes.

Re:Corporation or government (1)

memnock (466995) | about a year ago | (#43191209)

I know I gave the example of an economic activity, but I also meant stuff like walking through a park where a protest or a crime may be occurring and I had no part in. Now I'm at the scene and nowadays, guilt by association (or presence) is the default reaction of several parties. This is unfair and hard for me to control or counteract.

Be Afraid? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43190581)

Well no, we should not be afraid. We should be thoughtful. We should consider the ramifications. We should act accordingly. I'm not having anyone come into my house wearing those things, but then I'm not having anyone come in with camcorders either. If I were running a business open to the public, I'd love to have people come in while wearing them, as it would provide me an opportunity to demonstrate it.

it's not the video camera that worries me.... (1)

waddgodd (34934) | about a year ago | (#43190595)

Frankly, I'd be surprised if there weren't already a dozen video cameras aimed at me, so another one doesn't bother me, in fact, I kinda welcome it, as more junky videos out there means it's that much harder to find that particular one where I was picking my nose or whatever. What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE. This cannot be good for the person wearing it, nor can it be good for the people around them when they're doing dangerous things that involve, like, you know, NOT HITTING THEM.

Re:it's not the video camera that worries me.... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43190647)

What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.

How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.

This cannot be good for the person wearing it, nor can it be good for the people around them when they're doing dangerous things that involve, like, you know, NOT HITTING THEM.

Your cleverness became clumsy there.

If people are running into people because they're using google glass then I suspect they would otherwise have had their phone out and run into people because they were looking at their phone.

The biggest problem with google glass is the biggest problem with every other technology disruptive to privacy: Who watches the watchers? It's not people running into people. This is only a realistic problem if both people are not paying attention. If someone is about to run into you because they are using google glass, this is your opportunity to step out of the way, but leave your foot behind, then dissolve into a crowd. My usual strategy is to just stand still and brace myself, but I'm 6'7" and weigh about 300 pounds, and I'm not going anywhere. The situation is different when you involve automobiles, but again those people would probably just be texting on their phone. People who don't care enough to pay attention while driving will find something else to do.

Re:it's not the video camera that worries me.... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43190925)

Your cleverness became clumsy there.

I think he's worried that the glasses will evolve into this [thepensivecitadel.com]. I won't be too concerned until they become mandatory, like a blackbox on your car.

Re:it's not the video camera that worries me.... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43190989)

How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.

Actually, that's not entirely true.

The trick, you see, is the fact that the iris dilates or contracts to let in more or less light based on the illumination levels we are being exposed to.

When light is coming directly into your eye from a tiny source, if it does not occupy a sufficient amount of your field of vision, the circumstance occurs where your iris isn't going to contract enough based on the overall average intensity of photons that are hitting it, and the brighter area can appear more washed out than the rest of your vision. This is generally not a problem if you are more interested in looking at other things, but if your attention is actually focused on whatever is creating the extra light, your iris isn't going to magically contract because it still occupies a tiny part of your field of view, but you still end up with what you are focusing on appearing more washed out than what your visual cortex normally works with. The same situation happens when you are in a brightly lit location, and the display is not producing sufficient light to create decent contrast. The lack of contrast in either case creates delays in visual processing and ultimately can lead to fatigue far more quickly than if you are looking at something that has been light by ambient illumination (as long as ambient illumination levels are within a typical range for human eyes in the first place). The problem can be partially mitigated in modern displays by controlling the intensity of light the display produces based on ambient illumination (the brighter the ambient illumination, the brighter the display gets), but nominal human illumination operating levels are diverse enough that you'll still always experience problems in using even very sophisticated displays in certain types of lighting conditions.

Re:it's not the video camera that worries me.... (0)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#43190743)

What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.

How does that differ from every other light source that you happen to see? The eye is meant for seeing LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.

Re:it's not the video camera that worries me.... (0)

EdZ (755139) | about a year ago | (#43190791)

What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.

Have you heard about people going outside? At midday, the sun can put out 1000 watts per square metre! If you ever looked upwards, that would be BEAMED RIGHT INTO YOUR EYES!

There will be no such balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190613)

Power through information doesn't arrive from having access to one camera. It comes from getting data from many cameras. Google Glass will feed Google's appetite for data much more than it will empower you. And since Google is built on analysis of big datasets, unlike you they actually have the equipment and the know-how to turn data into information.

Fat Chance (4, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about a year ago | (#43190631)

then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.

That will never happen. The powerful will always have more ability and opportunity to meddle with the data than the powerless. Just look at how Dick Cheney was able to get his house blurred out of google earth. [wired.com] The occasional powerful dumbass will get busted to "prove" the system is fair, but the really competent criminals will skate just like they do today.

HIV is "already everywhere" (5, Insightful)

epine (68316) | about a year ago | (#43190637)

HIV is "already everywhere". So too was slavery. "Already everywhere" is the pragmatism of the damned.

Sabatogue? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43190659)

Is there any way that nerds could sabatogue these cameras? I know that with the ancient vacuum-tube based vidicon tubes used in early Television Cameras that the tube could be permanently damaged or destroyed by a burst of high intensity light.

Could a form of anti-glasses be designed that flashes high intensity light to disable these head mounted cameras? Invisible light would be the best, and obviously in a bandwidth that doesn't damage human sight. Even if it didn't permanently damage the camera in the glasses, it could interrupt it, or transform it into something that was annoying pulsating.

Just some food for thought.

Re:Sabatogue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190691)

I predict that Wi-Fi and other RF blockers will become much more popular once these devices start appearing in significant numbers. I know I will consider it.

Re:Sabatogue? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43191055)

I predict they won't become any less illegal though.

Re:Sabatogue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43191217)

Someone recording you and uploading what you are doing to Google Inc. is legal but blocking them isn't? Try to catch me.

Re:Sabatogue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190725)

"Is there any way that nerds could sabatogue these cameras?"

Not for dyslexics, alas.

Re:Sabatogue? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43190801)

The classic way to disguise yourself from cameras without being obvious is to put strong IR LEDs on your hat. Of course, that requires that you wear one. It also only works on cameras without an IR filter, but since that includes all the cameras meant to see in the dark and their numbers are only growing, it's a fairly effective strategy. You pulse the LEDs to save power.

You can blind cameras with lasers, but since you can also blind humans with lasers, that is not a working strategy here.

(in)Security cameras (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43190667)

They are everywhere anyway, and a good number of them are open to be used by anyone. And don't forget your own webcam [wired.co.uk].And don't forget that now everyone carries cameras at the very least with their cellphones, ready to take a photo or video and getting uploaded to social networks without you noticing.. and getting tagged.

Is not about cameras what i should be worried about, is the interactivity with them in real time, like fact checking about the people and places you have around, that could be a game changer in social relations.

Re: (in)Security cameras (2)

Pale Dot (2813911) | about a year ago | (#43190829)

True. The cellphone in your pocket (it doesn't even have to be smartphone) already has all the privacy-invading features of Google Glass. How do you know that person who appears to be texting on another table isn't already recording a video of your tryst? Wouldn't you also be alarmed if you see someone using a cellphone inside a public bath? GooGlass should be banned in the very same places where the use of a cellphone is already considered improper or rude.

People using Google Glass (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190671)

Google Glass doesn't invade my privacy.
People invade my privacy.

(Apologies to gun-rights activists.)

Seriously, Google Glass, like existing security cameras or guns for that matter, can be used for good or evil.

How we (or our future (presemt?) robot overlords) use it and what formal or informal rules society adopts to allow desired uses and deter non-desired ises is the issue, not the device itself.

Re:People using Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190807)

You shouldn't apologize to gun rights activists, they're the morons that are so concerned with their own interests, that they won't even permit background checks from being done prior to purchase.

In short, they're pieces of shit that should be dealt with rather than apologized to.

Trade privacy for safety? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190693)

"he also seems happy to trade privacy for security, which may not be palatable to others. He references a time he was mugged in Mexico"

So ... you want a nice video to remind you of that mugging? So you can see what it looked like from his point of view, when he posts it anonymously on Youtube? You're a dumbass if you think a lack of privacy equals security. You think that lack of privacy will catch the criminals? No, they'll just learn to always disguise themselves when out and about committing their crimes. Dumbass.

Prepare to be punished (1)

treadmarks (2528414) | about a year ago | (#43190751)

In day-to-day life videos are mainly used when somebody feels wronged. People are rarely ever as motivated to reward others for good work. I pity the poor customer service worker who could have dozens of people recording him every day, looking for evidence to bring to his manager.

In the past, greater accountability has brought greater bureaucracy and more rules. IF Google Glass is a huge hit I would expect it to make human interactions more robotic and more stressful.

no. (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43190767)

it will just be a transition.
soon enough waving your dick around on a video that's on the internet will not matter one bit.

basically, when there's embarrassing shit about everyone on the net it will not matter one bit. however, it might be bad for your business if you're caught bullshitting every day. but uh, I can't see that as too bad to be honest. cops, robbers, mcdonalds employees, teachers and public servants would at least be expecting to get fucked over if they try to fuck over their clientele.

point I'm trying to get at.. is that there's still a lot of behavioral tabus in the west - which leads to hypocrisy.

Re:no. (1)

Geeky (90998) | about a year ago | (#43191083)

Ben Elton's book "Blind Faith" covers this. Basically, it's a near future in which privacy is considered perverse and everyone constantly posts video of themselves. It's not a great book, but eerily prescient - it came out in 2007, before Facebook was as ubiquitous as it is now. First it's the uncomfortably personal posts and tweets, then it'll be the videos...

"Happy to trade privacy for security" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190783)

Yes, but whose privacy and whose security?

It invariably means my privacy traded for your security.

Or rather, security blankets, not even real security.

And, equally invariably, I get no say in the matter.

reminds me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190815)

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Legal issues. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43190817)

How long is it going to be before somebody tries wearing one of these headsets in a movie theater? If it's a "3D" film, I can't even imagine how they'd be able to tell that someone was even wearing one of these underneath their "3D" glasses at all...

Oh... and I can totally see some people trying to use these while driving.

Typical (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#43190847)

>"The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere"

Typical "justification". So because there are already cameras in many places, there is nothing wrong with having them everywhere, all the time, possibly recording and sharing everything, including audio.... even at your restaurant table.

>"that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk."

Typical again. So anyone that could possibly have a problem could only react by being "irrational" about it?

>"However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,"

Could it get even more typical? Seems all the rage for a long time now to not give a damn about privacy or freedom. The vast majority of people are quick to trade privacy and freedom for convenience and the illusion of safety.

Difficult times are coming. Technology is never bad/evil, but what people DO with it can be. I hope people who are eager to strap on something like Google Glass think about how it might affect others around them. There are a lot of unanswered questions about moving into a world where everyone (and every company/government) knows everything about everyone at all times.

Countermeasures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190857)

So I guess I'll have to walk around everywhere with a blindingly bright spotlight on at all times to blind cameras, or maybe this will introduce the burka for men and woman.

Security (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#43190863)

Ya, because the mugging would of went a whole lot better for him if it started off with him getting punched in the face repeatedly to disable is Google glasses.

I don't like them (2)

fluor2 (242824) | about a year ago | (#43190871)

It's clearly surveillance without warning. In my country, you may only use surveillance cameras in areas clearly marked with CCTV-warnings. The same should count for Google Glass as well.

I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190881)

Having a smartphone: totally normal.
Having a smartphone on your face: omg outrageous!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

fluor2 (242824) | about a year ago | (#43190941)

well it's because it's very easy to see when a smartphone starts recording. google glass can record everything without ANYBODY noticing. If there is some kind of indicator-light for recording, I'm sure it's not much hazzle to disable by either destroying it or patch it.

Re:I don't get it. (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43191081)

Walk around with your smartphone recording video with the red LED blinking all the time, see what happens.

Creepers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190899)

As somebody who tested smartphone based AR in the field I can tell you that the ladies sometimes figure there's a creeper right there. (Doesn't happen otherwise (;->))
In the wild, I predict that glass and similar products will be perceived with similar disdain. Isn't going to happen, not in a long time.

Public Privacy?! (5, Informative)

lemur3 (997863) | about a year ago | (#43190907)

I am surprised to see the push against this, especially in the types of communties like here on slashdot

in the USA to me, this seems just a continuation of the freedom to make photographs in public that people have enjoyed for a long while now. While there have been some challenges.. its been upheld a few times that freedom of speech can include making videos or photographs

not related to photography/video/recording in public in any way at all,.. the supreme court said this in Texas v. Johnson 1989.. a case about whether one should be able to desecrate an american flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [wikipedia.org]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZS.html [cornell.edu]

The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word.

While we have rejected the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea ... we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,"

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether:

[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.

at least, for americans like me.. it seems to me to be 'freedom' issue.. it might be unpleasant to know that someone else can annoy you with their Nazi uniform, or video camera but if its in public.. its likely that they are free to do that.

in a somewhat related issue there was the case of a photographer who was in conflict with people who felt he shouldnt have been allowed to sell images of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia [wikipedia.org]

Nussenzweig v. diCorcia is a decision by the New York Supreme Court in New York County, holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs

it might be annoying, it might creep people out ..but really i just see it as a thing that one might have to deal with in a free and open society

(can one imagine people crying about government crackdowns if we saw China/North Korea banning the use of things like google glass? or am i just being a bit cynical today?)

Irrationally berserk: Seattle's 'Creepy Cameraman' (4, Interesting)

theodp (442580) | about a year ago | (#43190929)

They're going to be banned (almost) EVERYWHERE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190933)

Do you really think you'll be allowed to wear them at work? In bars? At your Doctor's office? Movie theatres? Concerts? Events? They'll be sooooo banned.

Pretty soon it will be implanted and invisible (0)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#43190939)

At this stage the cameras as displays are still visible. Pretty soon, they will be so small that they will be invisible, then they will be implanted and indetectable and shortly after that, practically everyone will have bionic implants. Better get used to it.

say goodbye to your PIN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43190961)

skimming just got a whole lot easier.

People just need to be sensible (1)

NoNeeeed (157503) | about a year ago | (#43191001)

There seems to be a lot of hyperbole going around about Glass, almost makes me wonder if it's Google stirring things up to get more press.

Glass is going to have really interesting effects on how we treat public spaces, but I don't think it's going to destroy privacy for ever in the way some seem to fear.

People are already getting used to the idea that people have cameras ready in their pockets, and are more aware that what they do might not just be seen by others, but may be recorded. I don't think it's going to utterly change behaviour in truly public spaces for most people. Although I fully expect there to be lawsuits, punch-ups and altercations over one off events where people get freaked out because some Glass-wearer is staring at a woman for too long, or watching kids play in a park.

I also expect a lot more "semi-public" places like restaurants, pubs and bar to implement more formal "no-filming" and "no Glasses" policies. These are places that people go to relax and expect a certain level of privacy, and which are private property. Most places I know would probably ask you (politely) to stop/leave if you were constantly filming other patrons with your mobile phone. The same will happen with Glass. No great change here.

Basically it just comes down to people behaving with civility and respect to one another. New norms of society will be worked out and we'll adapt, just as we have with every other technological advance.

Some people will behave like jackasses to each other, just as they already do, while the rest of us get on with being polite and considerate of others.

No. (1)

nathan s (719490) | about a year ago | (#43191013)

This kneejerk fear that you are "being recorded" in public places is irrational and stupid, and only a matter of decades away from being shoved in your face by advances in technology that you are probably not aware of (see http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/ [berkeley.edu] for something thought-provoking). We forget or dismiss that we already are recorded, in a manner of speaking, by the human eye and the human brain whenever anyone else sees us, which is pretty much analogous to cameras and digital memory and is exactly what Glass does. I already refrain from acting in ways I don't want to be remembered by other people when I'm around people (or think I might be around people), and in my opinion this is no different. Personally I hate the idea of stationary hidden surveillance cameras or drones with cameras far more than I'm bothered by the notion that someone who looks at me can remember me tangibly or mentally, since in the long run I have no assurance that someone who's seen me can't someday have their brain imaged while remembering what they saw, and with hidden stationary cameras or drones I simply have no way of knowing that I've been seen in the first place.

I realize people will argue that memory is more fallible (then again, digital imagery can be manipulated) and currently can't be shared with other people (see prior paragraph) and somehow that's more comforting, but we will end up facing this issue as a species one way or another and as a result, Glass doesn't bother me in the least. If you don't want to be recorded, then disguise yourself or stay away from people you don't completely trust, because laws and feelings ultimately cannot -- and never could -- prevent people from remembering you or surreptitiously recording your image in the first place.

I wonder what the police will do (2)

Takatata (2864109) | about a year ago | (#43191023)

From time to time one can read that police in several countries react allergic when filmed. There are reports of confiscated cameras and worse. But what when the film is automatically streamed somewhere out of reach?

+1 interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43191197)

Out of mod point, but parent's comment +1 interesting.

Privacy in public... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43191077)

Unless the place is designed with the intent of giving people some degree of privacy, like bathrooms for example, nobody is entitled to privacy in public places.

FUCK two-way "transparency". (0)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#43191109)

If I don't want to be recorded on video, I don't want to be recorded on video.

Unless I'm committing a crime (and thus abrogating my rights), there is NO middle ground here!

End of discussion.

It beter have a way of telling me that it's on (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | about a year ago | (#43191115)

It better have a way of telling me that it's on. A flashing light, a noise when it's taking a picture also not to mention the laws about recording sound. I know when I put a servalance camera in my front yard I was told by police that in my state I can not record sound without the permission of the people who would be videoed. Also we need to think of the kids. How can we be sure our kids are safe from acvdental looks in windows and such if they can do play back. I can just see the conversation "Oh I'm sorry your kid was in their bedroom changing when I walked by and was already videoing and acdentally caught them underssed. I only saw what I recorded in the play back once and then deleted it. yea yea I'll deleted it." or "Oh I forgot it was recording when I walked into the wrong dressing room. I'll deleted it, yea, yea I'll deleted it."

Also what about other places like museums where you can't take photos of the paintings and such, I guess they will be banned from use, but if they have perscription lenses I guess a refund to the patron will be given.

Anyways

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Camera-phones-noise-photo-Congress,news-3371.html [tomsguide.com]

oh I see! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43191117)

Then we also need to put a camera in this guy's wife's bathroom just to make sure pillowpants behaves!

if i see you wearing it in public (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43191199)

i will publicly make an example of you .
im sure i am not the only one to wonder how much force it would take to actually insert this device into the eye socket of the wearer permanently.
the video feed (of the inside of the person wearing its head) will be cool for everyone to see.
plus the sounds of the victims eye orbit and other facial bones being crunched will be unforgetable.
im thinking youtube can start a new special channel for just this type of random phenomena.
we will all be able to watch them watch us watching each other.....HOW KEWL!!!
CAPTCHA=FRIENDLY

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...