×

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!

Google Glass and Surveillance Culture

timothy posted 1 year,18 days | from the looking-sharp dept.

Advertising 318

Nerval's Lobster writes "Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos asks the question lurking in everyone's mind about Google Glass. 'It's an audacious product for a company no one trusts to behave responsibly with our data: a pair of glasses that can monitor and record the world around you,' he writes. 'But if Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, are we truly to believe that Google will not attempt to abuse that remarkable power?' With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds, 'it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever. And its vision, shared with other California technology companies, is of corporate America redefining societal privacy norms in the service of advertising companies and their clients.' He feels that Google will eventually end up in some sort of court battle over Google Glass and privacy. Do you agree? Does Google Glass deserve extra scrutiny before it hits the market?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

318 comments

minority report (-1, Redundant)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338251)

it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.

Re:minority report (3, Interesting)

BlkRb0t (1610449) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338489)

But you don't have to wear it, unless it is forcefully implanted into your eyes. It's opt in, and you can always chose otherwise. The problem here is the ones who do opt in create to others around them.

Re:minority report (4, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338675)

Like mobile phones are opt in. Like the internet is opt in. Like submitting your CV to recruitment agencies in MS Word or even PDF format is opt in.
It may get to the point where to be a functioning member of society you "have" to wear them.
Hopefully by that stage competition has stepped in and given us other less evil options, but maybe not.

Re:minority report (0)

alen (225700) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338887)

yep

i know millionaires who haven't had smart phones until the last 6 months and rarely use the internet for anything more than checking their gmail. lots of ways to make millions of $$$ without tech

Re:minority report (-1, Troll)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338537)

btw how could the first post be marked as redundant? meta-mods, roll out!

Re:minority report (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338935)

It's redundant because this is the only thing noh8rz posts about. Note the ten at the end of the username? That's because he is on his tenth account, after the others all had posting limits imposed on them due to merciless - and completely justified - downvotes.

The only thing he posts about is how evil Google is, and how awesome MS is. So yes, it is redundant - if you follow Google stories for longer than a few weeks.

Re:minority report (5, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338639)

it's all minority report. every place you look, google glass will pop up a virtual billboard for you to see.

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker, or how to install Linux on it or whatever.

Sometimes I have the impression technophiles' "think of the privacy implications!" is their own version of technophobes' "think of the children!" Me, I can't wait for this kind of think to come fast enough. I've grown reading and watching science fiction showing wearable computing, bionic implants, predictive smart assistants, 24/7 in-brain HUDs etc., and dreaming of it all. Now that part of it is becoming reality, and much earlier than I thought would happen thanks to Moore's Law, all I see in technology forums is FUD, FUD, FUD. What happened that caused technologists to becomes so damn cynical since just a few years ago? Is that just old age kicking in? *sigh*

Re:minority report (4, Insightful)

ChatHuant (801522) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338899)

I don't get this kind of reaction. So what if the one out of the box does this? We'll just learn to jailbreak it (if needed) and install an adblocker

Because the one out of the box does this, and most people won't have the knowledge or time to change it. Google will probably not make it easy either and will add some cheap baubles for users of unmodified glasses, who won't know or care about their privacy. And this will impact you because Google can now argue that many or even most people use their services unmodified and therefore whatever way they destroy your privacy is acceptable under "community values" and should not be legally restricted.

Re:minority report (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338721)

Or Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.

Hey, Google! When a science fiction author describes a dystopian future, you're not supposed to use that as an implementation manual.

Re:minority report (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338997)

I don't know, I was sort of looking forward to being paid in trillion dollar bills.

Re:minority report (2)

Shortguy881 (2883333) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339093)

This is "A Scanner Darkly" clearly. People will start wearing super sophisticated digital masks to hide their identity. Get your Philip K Dick novels right.

That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338257)

Is Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos, by any chance, in some way affiliated with Microsoft? Just guess.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338505)

Only on Slashdot does someone who's anti-Google has to be pro-Microsoft.

There's not a single Microsoft thing in my house, and I'm concerned with everything Google is doing.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338713)

It's one thing to be "anti-google". I have concerns myself, I don't have an account with them, I don't have their products and I block their cookies. TFS, however, takes it up to the next level. Instead of just voicing his/her personal concerns, the author tries to project them onto the public in general and the reader and generate an enveloping atmosphere of terror with broad over-generalisations, unfounded assertions and weasel words. In other words, it stinks of FUD and we all know who is the master of that little game. I bet you all my mod points that this Milo character is somehow on Microsoft's payroll.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (5, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338975)

It's sensationalist to think Glass records and streams everything you see to Google. The way I understand it, it only records or takes a photo when you tell it to, and you can be a lot more discrete with a mobile phone camera (pretending to text) if you really want to record people without their permission. With glass you have to announce, out-loud, that you are recording. Labeling it "surveilance" is simply FUD. The device doesn't even have it's own dedicated internet connection. If the government/whoever wants to track you, there are any number of ways without glass, simplest being your phone or credit cards.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (2)

Mystakaphoros (2664209) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339131)

Having taught public school, I can guarantee that the amount of stuff already photographed, texted, and batted around from here to there without the pictured's consent is pretty ridiculous, even in a school building. Take a picture of someone's tacky outfit, text it across the building, and then have half the school making fun of them by the end of the day. I'm pretty sure Verizon could snoop on those pictures if they chose to. And I'm not sure why putting all this into "glasses" form is the part that's scaring everyone. Cameras and de facto surveillance are already ubiquitous.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (5, Informative)

Hunter Shoptaw (2655515) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338839)

Hmm, his own bio on his page says "Stephen Fry once referred to him as a "cynical, ignorant [expletive]." Also from his Twitter feed, " /. is paying me and The Kernel is no longer trading." when asked if he should be publishing his articles on The Kernel. BTW, The Kernel is no longer trading because it's no longer a company. So in area of character, I'd say this one is definitely not neutral or unbiased.

As to his article, I can see why other publications like The Guardian considered The Kernel a gossip mag. There is not evidence or foundation in Milo's article. Only the ravings of a man who has shown himself to be firmly against all things big tech. I wouldn't do so far as to affiliate him with MS, I'm sure he hates them too. I will say that, while many people, readers and critics, have spoken of his aptitude with the english language, I found his article to be riddled with hyperbole ("company no one trusts" some of us have no quarrel with Google) and out-right ignorance (Glass is unofficially called Goggles? No.)

As his article appears to have been built to stimulate heated arguments with no enlightenment to be found in it's many words, I will say that he has at least succeeded in this, as I can not find anything else this article succeeds at or any other reason for it's existence. Also, I wouldn't call Milo a "tech journalist" anymore than I'd call a /. commenter a writer.

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338897)

If you don't want to be monitored 24/7 by Google and the government you are definitely a Microsoft shill! Fuck you Microsoft, you definitely paid this guy not to mention you!

Re:That sounds like a neutral and unbiased summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338931)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos [wikipedia.org]

Ah yes.. slashdot where anyone can make a claim and have hundred mod without doing fact checks. If a person likes one comapny over another they of course must be on the take... Yet somehow that never applies to the other company...

No (2, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338291)

What are they going to do? Limit sales to law enforcement agencies only? Surveillance is only an issue when it's one way, and whatever is recorded can be used against you by the authorities, public and private.

Re:No (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338365)

You can be pretty sure that, if this does become commonplace, cops will lean on Google to automatically delete any footage of them.

Re:No (1)

click2005 (921437) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338499)

That might happen but I bet it'll be a copyright issue. Some company will force google to add technology that prevents unauthorized (micropayments) recording of a copyrighted song, picture or logo. RFID or QR code would work (as well as any previous copy protection measure in the past) I guess.

Not a problem (4, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338295)

Does Google Glass deserve extra scrutiny before it hits the market?"

No, it deserves scrutiny after it hits the market. Passing judgement before the product is even finalized is just an exercise in fearmongering (how can you judge something when you don't yet know what it does?) and smacks of prior restraint [wikipedia.org].

Re:Not a problem (1)

ADanFromCanada (2809499) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338495)

"how can you judge something when you don't yet know what it does?" I know that it takes photos and videos pretty seamlessly and pretty much all the time. It's also likely that it will tie directly into Google Drive (read: Google's services). And I know that facial recognition software is now good enough to recognize me pretty much anywhere. It doesn't take a product rollout to put two-and-two together.

Re:Not a problem (1, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338533)

But what if it's okay at launch but a software upgrade makes it not okay once it's being used by 20% of the population?

There's fearmongering and there's being blind to potential problems.

Re:Not a problem (2)

Psyborgue (699890) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338989)

The device does not record constantly and doesn't even have a dedicated internet connection. How could it possibly be used as an always on surveillance device as suggested in TFA. It's FUD.

Re:Not a problem (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338727)

It is safe to say there will be downsides to this technology though. Of course, such an observation is obvious: every single thing humans have ever invented have pros and cons. Nuclear weapons, the most destructive power we've got, they prevented wars.

Possible exception: vaccines. I can't see much downsides to them. Idiots being paranoid about their effects aren't worth mentioning, they'd find something to illogically worry about anyway.

Re:Not a problem (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338805)

There's a hypothesis that it caused the spread of AIDS because of the infected needles used during the vaccination campaigns in Africa during the middle half of the last century.

Re:Not a problem (1)

tnk1 (899206) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339109)

Quite possibly true, but not a downside of vaccination, per se, but rather of it's implementation.

The most obvious downside is the eventual removal of certain natural resistances from a population. We don't have to deal with Smallpox any more, but if it got out again, we'd be in big trouble because resistance has been pretty much bred out back down to minimal levels. If some aliens gave us blankets with smallpox on them, we'd go the way of the American Indian in fairly short order.

Re:Not a problem (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338821)

Agree, but perhaps they should think things through rather better than their previous attempts, instead of sticking to the "let's push as far as we can, and then see where we get slapped down" approach.

OK, number plates, and individual houses, were blurred out in Google Street View *after* people complained, personal information (illegally) collected via Wifi snooping was (allegedly) destroyed *after* people complained, and hefty fines levied. Same kind of furore with Google+, Picasa 'identifying' people's faces etc.

Yes, I know Facebook and others are doing, or attempting similar things, but that does not make it 'right'.
I'm also no Luddite; I love tech advancement, and the exciting things it makes possible, (like being able to confirm the exact address via streetview, plug exact co-ordinates into my smartphone and just knowing I'll be on time, in the right place, even if it's raining, or foggy, and visibility is shot to hell).
Yup; I love all the stuff Google gives me for 'free', and realise they have to pay for it somehow.

Just think that as one of the richest, smartest, highest-profile and above-all the self-proclaimed "do no evil" company, they could be leading the discussion on this rather more obviously. That's also part of innovation...

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43339001)

Not to mention the blurred out people and license plates are only blurred for public consumption. I imagine Google still has the original, unblurred details available internally.

Re:Not a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338877)

"Passing judgement before the product is even finalized"

You gotta be kidding me. Cameras hooked up to smart devices were released how long ago?

Still waiting for the first abuse of Googles power (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338299)

They have access to soo much data for such a long period of time now.
There was the Street View wifi-network thing. But for the rest: very little abuse of power. I'ld say that they are doing a good job. Certainly better than the disasters we've seen from Apple (GPS data collection), Sony PSN (leaked almost everything), Facebook ("It's not a leak, we sold your information").

It's a Google product (3, Funny)

Cid Highwind (9258) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338311)

Don't worry too much about the long-term implications, they'll get bored and drop it in a few years.

What am I supposed to be outraged about? (5, Insightful)

John Napkintosh (140126) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338315)

I can opt out of wearing the goggles, so I don't have to be concerned with google pushing ads into my eyeballs. I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces with cameraphones or more traditional video capture devices. Google themselves could pay people to wander around public spaces and collect video, surreptitiously or otherwise.

I don't really get the controversy.

Re:What am I supposed to be outraged about? (3, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338453)

New technology often makes things which were possible but impractical, practical.

People could wander around with traditional video capture devices, but it would be awkward for them to do so and most real-world attempts to do this would be easy to notice, even if it's theoretically possible that someone could have a little hole in their shirt pocket just for the cellphone camera to peek out of. Google could pay people to collect video, but it would be expensive on a large scale.

Re:What am I supposed to be outraged about? (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338577)

Will Google also be able to broadcast in Virtual Reality so that people get to see what they want them to see? Perhaps, if so Google can give them a discount if they don't refuse to have the glasses super-glued to their customer's heads.

Re:What am I supposed to be outraged about? (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338659)

even if it's theoretically possible that someone could have a little hole in their shirt pocket just for the cellphone camera to peek out of

Apple recently re-designed their phone so that it would be tall enough for the camera to peek out at the top of your shirt pocket. The hole is no longer necessary.

The problem is see is in private space (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338465)

I can't opt out of other people capturing me with their goggles, but this is hardly different than people collecting video in public spaces

I totally agree with this point; to me it seems absurd to complain about being recorded in spaces with CCTV's and people everywhere with camera phones already.

The issue I see more is around, you go visit friends or enter other restricted spaces that are not really public, but you are still recording. I feel like in my house I do have an expectation of privacy, should I continue to do so when I have visitors? Part of me thinks not, but I can see room for contention there.

It may end up being a regulatory issue but it should not be; it should be more a social issue we just have to figure out.

Google could go a long way to short-circuiting the outrage if they simply included a very visible red "recording" light in the front that glowed while recording, or for a minute after taking a picture. Cameraphones don't have that today either but it's up to a newcomer in the space to be MORE polite initially, not less.

Re:The problem is see is in private space (2)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338665)

Once upon a time, you were able to ask guests to observe certain behavior while in your home. Please take off your shoes, leave your handgun in the car, don't bring recreational drugs into my home... I really don't see what the difference is in asking a guest to not record or even to leave their Google Glasses at home or in the car.

Re:The problem is see is in private space (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43339009)

This is what I came here to say and you've already covered that base for me. I've never had a problem telling people what is and isn't okay in my home. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Re:What am I supposed to be outraged about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338631)

It's not WHAT you are supposed to be outraged about, but WHEN. As in, you should be outraged before you have assessed the facts in a reasonable and unbiased way.

Private video (1)

Cederic (9623) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338327)

The obvious answer is to not share/broadcast your Glass video to everybody, including Google.

I think even Google would struggle to cope with forty million concurrent video uploads in addition to current traffic (of.. around 5000). The bandwidth would be... substantial.

Re:Private video (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338355)

Comparable, perhaps, to forty million simultaneous Youtube watchers? Given that they can handle Youtube, I expect they could probably handle Glass.

Re:Private video (1)

Cederic (9623) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338449)

Read vs Write, let alone the data overload trying to sift, catalogue, keyword and filter the uploads.

Re:Private video (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338571)

You mean like YouTube?

Re:Private video (2)

Cederic (9623) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338751)

As I said, Youtube is currently in the low 'thousands' of concurrent uploads. Not quite the multiple millions they'd get from Google Glass.

Re:Private video (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338959)

Maybe it is part of their plans. After all, they started to install optical fiber in the USA with plans to cover that country coast-to-coast, if I am not mistaken.

Re:Private video (1)

Joe Behymer (2827761) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338615)

But they *will* do it, and the technology certainly exists. Siri already does it with audio.| There is money to be made in the advertising space here. Just because you or I can't exactly say what will make them money, historically they've been a company that strives to collect as much data as possible and hires experts to figure out how to monetize that data.

Re:Private video (1)

tokencode (1952944) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338607)

From a bandwidth prospective, this would simply level out their traffic. The bandwidth is essentially free since their links are full-duplex.

Re:Private video (1)

timeOday (582209) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338521)

I think the main problem with new technologies like tracking in smartphones (or even the Web in its current form) is that there is practically no way to opt out, because you don't even know who is collecting what information about you in response to any little action you take.

Let's say I want location-aware reminders on my google glass ("you said you wanted Monkey's Uncle Ale, well this store you're walking by has it for $X") OK. Does that mean all reminders I create are mined for shopping-related keywords? Does it mean my location over time is recorded and sold, and to whom?

Re:Private video (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338661)

This is what I didn't understand. It seems that people think that these are going to be sending constant video to Google HQ. That may be the case, but I certainly don't know.

I do know that my Dell laptop has a webcam built in that is absolutely not constantly sending video to Dell. And my Android phone is not constantly sending audio nor video to Google. So why would I make the leap that Google Glass would be sending constant data? Especially if I'm in control of that data network (ie, 3G, wifi, etc) You'll have a tough time sending data if I'm getting charged for it.

That said, Google Maps doesn't work so well on my phone if I don't have a data connection. So Google Glass features may or may not work without a connection, but that all remains to be seen.

To answer the OP: Like Jeremi said above "No, it deserves scrutiny after it hits the market. Passing judgement before the product is even finalized is just an exercise in fearmongering (how can you judge something when you don't yet know what it does?) and smacks of prior restraint [wikipedia.org]."

Re:Private video (1)

Cederic (9623) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338795)

That said, Google Maps doesn't work so well on my phone if I don't have a data connection. So Google Glass features may or may not work without a connection, but that all remains to be seen.

That makes a lot more sense. It may even do regular snapshots or have a 'live' mode for augmented reality, but as with location tracking on Android, I'm guessing it'll be easily switched off.

Re:Private video (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339049)

The device doesn't even have a dedicated internet connection. It can bluetooth tether or use wi-fi, but it's designed to work off-line, only connecting when it really needs a connection.

since everyone will want to punch them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338353)

Google-glass people should record everything they see, because everyone will want to punch them in the face and it's good to have evidence of that after all.

Fortunately, flipping people the finger and calling them a fucking asshole isn't a crime yet. I'd pay good bitcoin to people who steal and then smash Google glass devices. Serves the aspergers-singularity-techno-idiots right.

Personal Recording Is A Good Thing! (1)

wanfuse123 (2860713) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338361)

I for one welcome the ability for individuals to record their lives, so long as they don't reveal that data without a court case(and the penalties for doing so should be high). Having it for ones personal use I don't see a problem with. Tends to hold everyone accountable for their actions. I am sure this statement will create a flood of controversy! http://rawcell.com [rawcell.com]

Building an IR LED hat or necklace (1)

areusche (1297613) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338403)

What is stopping us from creating a line of clothing and accessories adorned with infrared LEDs? I remember reading an article about a hat a guy made that made his head look like a giant white orb to a video camera. It may certainly draw attention to you to the observer on the screen, but I still think it is a great way to combat the surveillance culture. Now if Google starts putting IR filters on the cameras....

Re:Building an IR LED hat or necklace (1)

Kelbear (870538) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339029)

It would be pretty cool to have an IR camera built into Google glass. Being able to see in the dark is pretty nifty. When I watch my son sleep in the crib on my tablet(using the infrared camera mounted in the room) I can see him so clearly, but when I go in there to give him his pacifier, and tuck him back in, I'm blind as a bat. Might be easier to just walk in there holding my tablet to see.

Google Glass, proper noun (1)

alphatel (1450715) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338433)

Can't we just call it GGlass for short or something equally unimposing? Somehow the very repetitive nature of "Google Glass" this and "Google Glass" seems that quite disturbing. Gmail, Android, Chrome - people don't refer to these things with the longer moniker anymore. The product is already so ubiquitous it's time to shorten our references to it.

I want a Glass that *I* control (1)

alispguru (72689) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338477)

Built into my eyeglasses, encrypted link to a server *I* own which anonymizes my queries, nobody gets my data off it without a subpoena.

Google and the government can both go jump off a cliff.

Re:I want a Glass that *I* control (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338621)

Google and the government can both go jump off a cliff.

When you consider the number of people who work at both places, that would make the Grand Canyon a sad place to visit.

Re:I want a Glass that *I* control (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338773)

Ooooooohhhh. The Grand Canyon filled with the corpses of Google and government employees..... Do you have a newsletter or something?

redirection (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338501)

Timothy reposts that Nerval's Lobster writes that Tech journalist Milo Yiannopoulos asks the question? Can we just say the question and stop distancing ourselves from it?

the only solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338513)

Burka's for all!

"A company no one trusts" (5, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338523)

Um, that's a BIT of scaremongering... Did this idiot somehow confuse Google with Facebook? Yes, Google has had some minor screwups (and some, such as the Street View mess, could barely be considered a screwup but more of FUD from clueless users who don't understand that ANYONE can see the MAC address of a wifi AP...), but nothing as major and spectacular as Facebook's routine privacy screwups.

And yes, overall - I trust Google, as do MANY other people.

Re:"A company no one trusts" (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338709)

he adds, 'it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever..

Um, when did it become ANY company's responsibility to do otherwise? And would we trust that it was asking the right questions if it was the only doing the questioning?

Drone Option Installed as Standard Equipment (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338531)

Will Google Glass come with a drone installed option. Now that we must arm ourselves in every social situation, I want to be sure I am prepared to close the "glasses gap".

Narrow sight of abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338545)

'But if Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, are we truly to believe that Google will not attempt to abuse that remarkable power?'

"I mean, the people using it won't abuse it. That's completely unfathomable. People are noble and pure creatures who are mentally and spiritually incapable of doing anything wrong or objectionable. It's just that, as soon as the same technology we, as people, drooled over a month ago gets in the hands of a corporation or a government, it becomes retroactively evil and we have to kill it."

Sure, record me in public (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338559)

But I reserve the right to hack into your image recognition software and replace my face with some other image of my choosing, Ghost in the Shell style.

Re:Sure, record me in public (1)

CodingHero (1545185) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338629)

But I reserve the right to hack into your image recognition software and replace my face with some other image of my choosing, Ghost in the Shell style.

That's truly an interesting concept. You may have the right to record everything around you but I have the right to forcibly alter my own image by gaining access to your systems, encrypted or not. Or perhaps we could extend that to "alter or delete any information about me."

Google in trouble? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338585)

How would Google get in trouble? We don't sue camera manufacturers when a pedophile uses them.

New take on googly eyes (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338603)

Malls already track movement patterns by use of wifi and use this information to restructure the general layout and manipulate foot traffic.

Is it really a stretch to suggest that Google would sell Google glass viewing habit/information to advertisers? Even worse, that many of the advertisers that this incredibly sensitive and invading information is sold to, are not worthy of our trust and are incapable of safe guarding it the information.

Sooooo many judgements against Google (1)

P-niiice (1703362) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338613)

With each new eyebrow-raising court judgment and federal fine levied against Google, he adds,

Yes Google has been the single worst offender in so many cases dealing with privacy, right? So many, there's no use in giving an actual might as well apply it in the most unclear, inaccurate way.... it has to be like a fuckton of judgements. A metric fuckton. Two metric fucktons. Shame on Google.

Re:Sooooo many judgements against Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338775)

google has spent millions and millions legally fighting for user privacy against government, others while others just take some money and hand over, ie yahoo and others.

Really (1)

rcuhljr (1132713) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338655)

It's an audacious product for a company no one trusts to behave responsibly with our data

Hyperbole much? Given the amount of data I already trust google with I think it's safe to say I trust google with this.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338843)

This. I trust them more than any other, and they have fought for user privacy (costing them a lot of money) when other companies just hand it over. I think the whole against Google bandwagon is just plain stupid.

"No one trusts"??? Slashdot editors used to be so anti-fud. I don't know anymore.

Google? Maybe. Others? Certainly. (1)

c (8461) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338701)

I don't know whether Google will abuse it... use it, certainly, but calling it "abuse" might be a stretch.

What I do know is that others will try very hard to abuse it.

You know who I'm talking about...

FTFY (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338733)

'It's an audacious product for a company and no one trusts any company to behave responsibly with our data."

I seriously don't understand the Google hate in the summary. Which company would the OP feel warm and fuzzy about?

Like David Brin's book Earth (2)

bryan1945 (301828) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338735)

A good sci-fi book from around 1990. Half the population wore goggles to record perceived violations caused by others (normally older folks recording younger folks). It was a minor point in the book, but it showed a nifty cat-and-mouse game between the observers and those trying to get away with things like littering, graffiti, etc.

First encounter: GDC Bathroom (5, Funny)

tigeba (208671) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338743)

I was at GDC last week and while I was in the ( eternally disgusting ) bathroom washing my hands a Googler wearing Google Glass walked in to use the urinal. The urge to say 'Ok glass, take a picture' was hard to resist.

A Googler wearing Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338859)

also known as a G-Tard. Spread the mime, share the love.

Google Glass Spies (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338807)

Using these spy glasses publicly, one should be required to wear a bright fluorescent pink jacket that has written in plain english or whatever the local language is that says, "GOOGLE GLASS SPY" front and back of the jacket, of course.. and maybe down the sleeves. >:-D

It takes an army of one (4, Interesting)

six025 (714064) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338823)

The problem with this technology - if indeed it does feature "always on" data capture - is that it takes just one person in a crowd to ruin it for everyone else.

You are at an event with a large crowd. Some of the behaviour in this crowd may be illegal (concert goers smoking marijuana for example) or at least frowned up by the authorities (dissidents gathering to protest). There is an unwritten rule amongst the participants that no one will film or take photos due to the nature of this group behaviour.

At this point, it takes just one person wearing Google Glass to break the unwritten rule. Most of the participants will be oblivious to the presence of the glasses. Yes this could happen with a handheld camera or similar, but the camera is outwardly very obvious. Goggle Glass is designed to blend in with the wearer and the surroundings.

Hyperbole? Perhaps. Do you want to find out? I certainly don't.

Peace,
Andy.

How to kill Google Goggles (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338891)

Provide a few key apps, and wearing Google Goggles will be made illegal.

  • CopWatch Whenever a uniformed police officer or a police car appears, log badge number, faces, location, time, and date. Upload to tracking web site for map overlay. Process face image for face recognition. Match face against other faces seen on any device subscribing to the service. If matching person is in a vehicle, upload license plate info. Add vehicle to tracking list.
  • BribeWatch Like CopWatch, but for elected officials. Preload system with pictures of elected officials from news media. Also preload with list of all lobbyists registered with Congress (a public record). Record who politicians are seen with. Feed lobbyist location data, contribution data, and vote data into a machine learning algorithm to generate probable cause information for bribery investigations.

law enforcement agencies (3, Interesting)

jonpublic (676412) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338893)

How would you feel if I told you every police officer would be wearing these in a couple years coupled with apps that recognize faces and search databases?

Attend a rally for any cause and every law enforcement agency knows.

That's what I'm worried about.

Thank god someone is inventing first and asking (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#43338937)

questions later.

Seems like most large companies invent via legal department first which is just crap.

This coming from a british writer. (1, Interesting)

StormyWeather (543593) | 1 year,18 days | (#43338981)

Who's country records and uses against him every fucking move he makes outside his house. Something most British seem to be pretty cool with so why in the word would he give damn about google?

More innovation please (3, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | 1 year,18 days | (#43339007)

it becomes ever more clear that this is a company hell-bent on innovating first and asking questions later, if ever.

I'm totally fine with that. Make new shit, put it out there. Might be expensive at first but then it'll be hacked, copied, and democratized.

That attitude... Just really grinds my gears. Rant incoming.

I'm tired of the constant handwringing over EVERYTHING. Everything has to be safe, everything has to be second-guessed, everything has to be politicized, everyone has to be sued, but most importantly everyone has to be SCARED of EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

You can't feed the world because "well, can you PROVE GMOs aren't harmful?!" "Um, you sure can't prove they are, and I think the burden falls on you to..." "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!"

You can't power the world because "Climate change!" "Okay, fair enough, I'll give you that one, CO2 does cause global warming. Let's switch to nuclear." "But can you PROVE it'll never blow up?!" "Well we can design plants that won't release radiation. But fine, how about wind?" "BIRDS!" "Uh, waves?" "FISH!"

I wonder if the first caveman to build a fire had to deal with that crap. "Look, Ugh make fire. Fire good, keep warm!" "Ohhhhhh nooooOOOoooOOOooo no no no put it out it's too hot it might hurt the chiiiiiiiiillldren think of the chiiiiiiildren!"

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...