×

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!

Eric Schmidt: Google Glass Critics 'Afraid of Change,' Society Will Adapt

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the didn't-they-say-the-same-about-the-segway dept.

Google 331

curtwoodward writes "Eric Schmidt came to Harvard this week to discuss his new book, but many students really wanted to know more about the implications for privacy and social interaction once Google Glass starts hitting the market. Schmidt cautioned against jumping to the worst conclusions, saying that society always tends to adapt to new technologies — and he's hoping for etiquette rather than government regulation. Of course, that's what you would say if you used to run a company that has been fined and paid settlements to regulators for the way it scoops up data and tracks users. But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

331 comments

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564505)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dietrich T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner

http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]

Re:http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564799)

Really, Dieter. Must you spam your stupid blog on every /. post?

Not the idea, the implementation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564507)

I love the idea of wearable computing and augmented reality. What I don't like is the tiny monocular display at the periphery of vision, instead of a fully binocular large FOV overlay.

Re:Not the idea, the implementation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564971)

Put another way, he's acting like he's single-handedly brought us Geordi's visor, but in reality he's offering us a Speak-n-Spell that phones home.

Big words... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564519)

... coming from a man who only has to be a part of this "society" when it suits him. He's not subject to the surveillance culture since he can hang out in his private office or home.

Oh, by the way, people who are afraid of drones being used by the public are just afraid of change [guardian.co.uk]. You should totally try to adapt.

Captcha: Infringe

Re:Big words... (4, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#43564575)

Let's not forget that he (Google's Eric Schmidt) is a vindictive bastard, too. When CNET journalists dug out some publically available information on him personally, (read for yourself [archive.org]) he attacked their livelihood [cnn.com] by banning them from talking with the whole of Google for a year.

Frankly, he's a bit of a loose cannon, if I was a Google executive, I'd think about ways to muzzle him.

Re:Big words... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564633)

schmidty really is a wanker.

Re:Big words... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564651)

and you'd be going up against a guy that directly controls your own livelihood, a man who as you describe is a vindictive bastard and the billionaire head of an advertising giant tentacled throughout pretty much everything on the web.

He'll get muzzled by the only people that can, if/when glass fails and/or when google has a bad quarter and the investors come calling looking for a publicly visible head on a spike.

Google Glass is the new Segway (4, Interesting)

DontScotty (978874) | about a year ago | (#43564549)

Radical Change Product= Radical Change Product

Where can it be used legally? = Where can it be used legally?

How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't? = How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't?

Kinda Spend y - people who can't afford it will be all sour grapes. :-)

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564567)

I do not understand your comment in the least. I will just assume I am stupid instead of modding you... I wouldn't even know what to mod it...

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564643)

I wouldn't even know what to mod it...

You do know what to mod it, but there is no '-1 Twat' option

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (1)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year ago | (#43564609)

It is simple, when you enter a place you should not use your google glass you stow it in your google pocket protector or google belt-loop calculator case. There will be a nice secondary market for google glass accessories like the nose-bridge band aid, rhinestone cat glass styling, and librarian style neck chains.

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (5, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | about a year ago | (#43564631)

I like the idea of running up to people and shouting "safe surfing off", "open ten tabs with pictures of goatse and tub girl", "glass, send e-mail to boss, include link to lemon party.com. send now.",

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year ago | (#43564621)

No, google glass is like some motorised unicycle or something. I love the idea of a glasses hud system, i just think goggles answer is awful.

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43564835)

Radical Change Product= Radical Change Product

Where can it be used legally? = Where can it be used legally?

How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't? = How comfortable are people going to be when they see you have one and they don't?

Kinda Spend y - people who can't afford it will be all sour grapes. :-)

You know they said the same things about bluetooth headsets. People will think you are crazy! I guess cell phones too when they were new in the 80s.

Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564871)

You know they said the same things about bluetooth headsets. People will think you are crazy!

Actually, we said, "You're going to look like a douche."

And that's what happened. Anyone wandering around talking to nobody looks like a douche. We called it exactly.

Afraid of change (2)

Camembert (2891457) | about a year ago | (#43564557)

Considering the initial mockery of for example the iPad here on Slashdot, I would say that this condition afflicts this group as much as others.

Re:Afraid of change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564607)

People still mock the iPad, and for good reason.

Re:Afraid of change (2)

Camembert (2891457) | about a year ago | (#43564711)

True, here on slashdot some still do. While the rest of the world has been massively adopting and enjoying iPads and similar Android devices. Who's afraid of change there?

Re:Afraid of change (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#43564845)

Sometimes the geeks are so narrowly obsessed they miss the big picture.

The same geeks laughed at the PC like we do the IPAD when it came out because it was not as cool as the mainframe when doing word processing. Look whom won?

I bashed the IPAD too as I wanted a hip macbook and heard the rumors of a low cost netbook and found iOS a neutered cell phone OS. Boo! I was wrong and misunderstood that some people just didn't give a shit about a full featured OS. I missed the point as I was a geek who was narrow.

Same is true with some Linux folks I see touting how XP users in hospitals who are sticking with their old software due to costs recommend Linux. I hate to tell you guys this but without apps who gives a fuck!? You mean GNU is going to donate the $10,000 required for certification? How sweet etc.

The geeks are afraid of change which is Windows. And the doctors are the ones who rightfully do not want to change as their software only runs on XP and why fix what is not broken?

Re:Afraid of change (0)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#43565053)

Can an iPad make phone calls? Does an iPad fit in a jeans pocket?

Does an iPad include developer tools to self-host development?

It's a niche and as someone with smartphone, laptop and desktop I have enough technology in my life.

Re:Afraid of change (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564665)

Or the way people used to get annoyed by others using their cell phones in movie theaters. Now we've adapted, and know those old complaints were just fear of change.

Re:Afraid of change (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#43564999)

Bulltish.

My local cinema still instructs people to turn off before entering.

With 'flight mode' accessible from the power menu, not disabling calls is still plain rude in 2013.

If you must be on call, sit near the exit and set it to vibrate only.

Re:Afraid of change (0)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#43564777)

If I hit you in the jaw, that is change. But not all change is good, in spite of what software developers want you to think. And fear of being hit in the jaw is not fear of change, it is fear of pain. I can think of more that a few software missteps that were very painful.

Sure society may adapt ... (5, Insightful)

Trongy (64652) | about a year ago | (#43564569)

to Google Glass, but it will never adapt to privately owned drones.

What a self-righteous dick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564583)

For somebody who values his own privacy greatly, I can't believe Schmidt is so eager to take it away from everybody else. He's rich and lives a fairly anonymous life. The rest of us normal people can't afford to do that.

What he wants is a society where privacy doesn't exist, and every last thing anybody does is permanently recorded and made available online for anyone to see. Each time somebody scratches their ass or picks their nose will be recorded forever.

It's almost like Orwell's 1984, except for Schmidt envisions a future where the people observe and record each other instead of the government. What a sick and depraved fuck to want that, and worse yet, to invest in technology to enable it.

Yes, we don't have any expectation of privacy in public. What we don't have to do is dive headfirst into the end of privacy for all of mankind forever.

Change? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43564591)

It's not the problem of change, it's that they're ugly and only fill niche needs.

They are cool, but in the same way wearable computers are cool.

Re:Change? (4, Insightful)

spd_rcr (537511) | about a year ago | (#43564763)

I don't know about niche needs. I know my use of a hud for motorcycle turn by turn directions would be niche, but I'm pretty sure Google's intentions are anything but. By convincing people to record and upload more data from more personal places, they're looking to greatly expand their data mining. I don't know about "don't be evil", I think their new moto is "just don't be obvious".

lonely drone seeking hive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564595)

I am not afraid of change, in truth all I really want to be is a Borg drone, but this is much less efficient then touch screen interfaces, and those suck, until direct brain to machine interface I think I will stick with a keyboard and a monitor.

Change... (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year ago | (#43564611)

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

If this is your definition of change, you can shove it up your ass.

Re:Change... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43564647)

Ah, but if you have something that you don't want anyone to fly a drone over, well, there just may have to be some regulations of drones...

Re:Change... (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#43564781)

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

If this is your definition of change, you can shove it up your ass.

Yeah... If he believes that, when is he putting the web cam in his shower?

Re:Change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564849)

Google Glass to take disingenuous human interaction to a whole new level. We will finally be free from honest opinions when people think every conversion is being recorded.

Re:Change... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564989)

Either you're trolling or just horribly misinformed, but that quote is taken completely out of context. What he was saying is that information that Google has is subject to subpoena by the government, so it's best to better hide the activities you don't want people knowing about.

Re:Change... (1)

gajop (1285284) | about a year ago | (#43565029)

The context in which you say this is really important.
I think he meant that people shouldn't expect privacy from many Web services as it is, which is a good advice!

Pay attention to Eric (5, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#43564615)

Your owner has spoken. It is your responsibility to obey his commands. If you do not, his operation will extract vengeance.

Welcome to your new position as a lowly serf in the new digital order. Shut up and do as you are told.

Re:Pay attention to Eric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564703)

Sorry Mate, I'm Robin Hood^H^H^H^H^HAnonymous.

Re:Pay attention to Eric (1)

phdscam (2901299) | about a year ago | (#43564767)

Hoping that I can record (with risk of myself getting prosecuted) govt. agents now, at least.

Re:Pay attention to Eric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565309)

It's only new if you haven't been paying attention. Get ready for Soma and Malthusian Belts. Behold the Brave New World.

Says the guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564617)

Trying to ban drones

Re:Says the guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565011)

He's not trying to ban drones. Is Google paying you to make its critics look like lying scumbags, or do you do it for free out of sheer love for the company?

Ignoring their arguments. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564623)

Well done on ignoring their arguments. Saying that someone is "afraid of change" is just a dodge and ignores the fact that changes can be good or bad.

Honest question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564639)

Why are people opposed to being recorded doing something that they do not seem concerned about other people they do not know being in-person witnesses to unless they feel they might want to deny that they ever did it in the first place, as if they simply want to keep the option to lie about it in the future and not get caught if they should ever feel the need?

criticisms (5, Insightful)

iamnobody2 (859379) | about a year ago | (#43564645)

glass is a very worrying invention. no expectation of privacy in public is very different then lots of people being able to record everything they see. wait 'til a bunch of peeping tom videos start appearing, or people taking videos of kids on the beach, or until someone with glass gets shot because a dealer thinks they might have recorded that drug deal. the surveillance we have now, we can at least vaguely hope no one is using it for fap material, or won't put it out to embarrass us. does your nose itch? better not scratch it, there's three people with google glass over there and you'd hate for them to record it and put it up on youtube looking like you're picking your nose. is there even a light showing people that its recording? laptops sometimes have those, that'd be something at least

Re:criticisms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564699)

no expectation of privacy in public is very different then lots of people being able to record everything they see.

In what way? Other than the fact that people might be able to lie in absence of the latter situation and probably get away with it?

Re:criticisms (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43564737)

glass is a very worrying invention. no expectation of privacy in public is very different then lots of people being able to record everything they see. wait 'til a bunch of peeping tom videos start appearing, or people taking videos of kids on the beach, or until someone with glass gets shot because a dealer thinks they might have recorded that drug deal. the surveillance we have now, we can at least vaguely hope no one is using it for fap material, or won't put it out to embarrass us. does your nose itch? better not scratch it, there's three people with google glass over there and you'd hate for them to record it and put it up on youtube looking like you're picking your nose. is there even a light showing people that its recording? laptops sometimes have those, that'd be something at least

well, you must be new to the internet, that has long been peeping tom videos (called voyeurism vids), and yes, pictures of kids at the beach. Already online. Hey, even naked kids because you can find nudist pictures easy.

Drug Dealers shooting you because they think you recorded them, sounds like any of the Cop TV Show plots. Chances are if you stumble on any serious enough drug deal that they are carrying guns, they are going to be shooting you regardless if they think you recorded them or not. That of course, is based, like your assumption, off TV cop shows. In reality, the chances of the cops accepting your video as proof to arrest someone for drug dealing is slim, to none, unless they have it out for the dealer. You recording them isn't proof enough, unless it's a recording of an undercover buying drugs.

If you are worried about people recording you in public, get some IR lights, put them around your face while in public (lighted of course), and it should, in theory, shine bright enough on camera that no one can make out your face.

 

Re:criticisms (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43564843)

The problem isn't being seen in public. It's being seen in public, and identified. And possibly doing something controversial.

First - identification. Google has already announced plans to use facial and clothing recognition to put faves to names (and their Google accounts). Now, whether or not the Glass user gets this information is irrelevant. It just means Google now knows where you are every minute of every day. All it takes is for some Glass user to capture you in the camera.

Next, imagine his argument of busybodies. He's afraid of drones flying over his house because it infringes on his rights to do as he pleases. But how about you? Not a problem.

And don't forget what having all that information tied to you is worth. Insurance companies would love to know what you buy at the supermarket - do you buy chips and pop, or fruits and vegetables? Your heath insurance premiums may depend on it. (Remember how we argue this with supermarket loyalty cards? Glass will be even more accurate).

Nevermind busybodies who keep track of people who buy videogames (videogames cause violence!), alcohol (alcohol abuse! drunk driving!, prohibition!), adult stores, abortion clinics, etc.

google glass good; drones bad (2)

asynchronous13 (615600) | about a year ago | (#43564649)

Is this the same guy that wants to ban drones? Egads. Perhaps he should take his own advice.

Re:google glass good; drones bad (2)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about a year ago | (#43565021)

No, you don't get it. You should be allowed privacy so long as you own so much land it can only be violated by aerial devices.

Re:google glass good; drones bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565155)

Drones are weapons, glasses are not.

In any case, Eric is right - we google glass critics are afraid of change: we are, because we consider the resulting changes in society to be undesirable.

Re:google glass good; drones bad (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565403)

I don't mind change. Hell, a wearable computer? Gimmegimmegimme.

But when you do, don't forget to hand over the source. I'm not your Borg drone, technology I wear this close to my body has to be MINE, or you can keep it.

Re:google glass good; drones bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565289)

I don't think he said ban, he said regulate. There is a big difference.

An obnoxious school of argument... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43564669)

I don't know whether it qualifies as a fallacy, or has a name if it does; but arguments of this particular style always annoy me:

It's a selective application of an assertion that(while probably true where you are applying it) is true of so many other situations where you do not and would not apply it as to be completely meaningless.

Are opponents of Glass 'afraid of change'? In some sense, arguably, there is often a tinge of fear motivating a visceral dislike of some novelty. However, is there any new something for which this could not be said? Opponents of virtually anything except the status quo are 'afraid of change' in that weak sense, despite changes being available in every conceivable flavor.

It may not be 'false' in a strict sense; but it isn't usefully true in any meaningful way.

Re:An obnoxious school of argument... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43564755)

It's a type of ad-hominem fallacy.

Re:An obnoxious school of argument... (1)

mvdwege (243851) | about a year ago | (#43565331)

It's actually begging the question. The prior assumption is that change is something you should not be afraid of, that every change is progress.

Well, that is a perspective that died in the trenches of WWI and the camps of WWII.

blowhard shills (1)

epine (68316) | about a year ago | (#43564957)

I don't know whether it qualifies as a fallacy, or has a name if it does; but arguments of this particular style always annoy me

It's absolutely a fallacy, which falls under many names, starting with the Straw Man fallacy.

It's so ridiculous I had to look it up again.

âoeOur goal is to make the world better. Weâ(TM)ll take the criticism along the way, but criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society to it,â he added.

Here's another version:

People who make this kind of argument are blowhard shills (or, apparently, blowhard shill detractors).

I almost count myself as a card-carrying member of personal biometric Total Recall, and yet I'm far from immune from criticizing Google Glass.

Re:blowhard shills (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43565263)

It's absolutely a fallacy, which falls under many names, starting with the Straw Man fallacy.

No. The strawman fallacy is the representation of the opponent's argument under a (perhaps superficially) similar or tangentially related position, one that is usually relatively easily defeated by some additional presented argument, and then presuming that by extension, the flaws that led to that position being defeated by the argument would indicate fatal flaws in the original position that was allegedly being represented.

Rather, suggesting that people who oppose Google Glass are merely afraid of change is most definitely a type of ad hominem fallacy, which is where the person presenting their view somehow attacks the people that disagree with the argument rather than the argument itself. Whether the attack might reflect a true statement is irrelevant, the fallacy lies in the fact that it does not actually address the critic's argument, but instead attacks the critic themselves.

In fact, this particular example is probably most similar to the notion of "poisoning the well", which pre-emptively presents adverse information about a target (who will presumably disagree with the arguer) with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person may be about to say.

Re:An obnoxious school of argument... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565399)

It's called ad-hominem attack and is pretty low on the "how good is your discussion position". It's basically a step up from "YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE, THAT'S WHY!"

A group of people who oppose something (or endorse it, depending on what you want to prove) and who is generally seen as "unfavorable" is picked out, everyone opposing/endorsing it is lumped into that group and then an argument is constructed around this negatively seen group and it is suggested that everyone opposing/endorsing something is in this group. The most infamous recent example would be the "if you're against CCTV, you must be a pedo" statement from ... IIRC a governor.

The attempt is to silence opposition by making them think if they are against/for something, they belong into this group that they don't want to belong in. In this example, nobody "hip" wants to be seen as a tech-hating Luddite, so you better get those Google goggles if you want to stay "hip".

Google karma down (1, Interesting)

Clsid (564627) | about a year ago | (#43564679)

I don't know about you, but I'm despising Google more and more with every passing day. I think they are going to be right there with Microsoft if they continue down this path.

Re:Google karma down (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#43564791)

I don't know about you, but I'm despising Google more and more with every passing day. I think they are going to be right there with Microsoft if they continue down this path.

Yeah... And now that I think of it, this IRS thing might not be that good an idea either...


I think you may be a little late to this party.

Re:Google karma down (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564983)

I don't know about you, but I'm despising Google more and more with every passing day. I think they are going to be right there with Microsoft if they continue down this path.

Frankly, Microsoft rates higher to me. They haven't made hardcore pushes to destroy Internet anonymity; at least nowhere on the level that Google has.

Of course, nobody here cares, because LOLOLOL ANDROID USES LEENUCKS LOLOLOL YEAR OF TEH LEENUCKS DESKTOP LOLOLOL MICRO$$$$$$$$$$OFT HURRR DURRR

I do understand why Slashdotters might be so dense. Google is more developer friendly than Microsoft or Apple. But seriously, is some shitty source code worth destruction of privacy and anonymity?

Re:Google karma down (1)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | about a year ago | (#43565055)

Despite the bad karma whoring by calling Microsoft with a "$" sign instead of the S, I would have to agree with the general consensus that Microsoft is more evil, however Google's evil is more centered on the fact that they are the new masters of our data by doing things with it instead of managing it like Microsoft does. That is just an eventuality: somebody will be reading our emails eventually; if it is not the NSA it will be Google. or somebody else on their behalf. Microsoft lovers should start that instead of being jealous that Google already does. E. Schmidt seems to be getting a lot of hate. It this just because of the drone comments? BTW the reason behind the summary's interjection: "Of course, that's what you would say if you used to run a company that has been fined and paid settlements to regulators for the way it scoops up data and tracks users." was all created by Microsoft and it's cronies anyways. Pretty hard to call a "lemon" a "lemon" when you are one yourself.

Same here (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43565241)

Gonna launch my works site shorly and removed my business youtube account, google+ and still have google local to remove. Singed up for Vimeo Pro to replace youtube, since I'm not a socail retard I don't do google+ and for now have to take it in the ass with search for a little longer. Be.sidees trying to havigate through the google account maze was quite frustrating.

simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564697)

If you see someone wearing google glass, walk up to them and yell "Glass, look up goatse.cx" and walk away. Problem solved.

Yeah right, students concerned about privacy (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564709)

Are these the same students who post every fart on twitter?

There are three kinds of people, a gigantic group wish to share everything they do with as many people as possible. A tiny group that are afraid that aliens are scanning their minds and a miniscule group of people who realize that anything you do in public is public.

Take Googles scanning of Wifi access points. People who have them probably didn't think about someone taking the effort to scan them all BUT you are broadcasting a signal into public space for all to see, why shouldn't someone else be allowed to record it then? It is funny to see people argue that media content broadcasted into the ether should be allowed to be picked by anyone since it is broadcasted into public space yet peoples wifi signals broadcasted into the same ether and public space should be private. Granted, sometimes it is not the same people arguing both but there is an overlap.

Personally I have little need or desire for the camera part of these glasses BUT I am ALSO aware that any public performance, the glow from phone screens as people try to record the show is almost blinding. And from pubs to attraction parks the sight of people recording themselves and others with their phones has become near universal. It used to be that at a company outing, one designated person had a camera, now everybody is snapping away. And not just a group foto or two but everything.

Reality TV has never been more popular and is basically about "ordinary" people showing everything we used to keep private and the entire nation gobbling it up.

So where is this concern for privacy? The general public doesn't seem to care in the least. Maybe they should but as long as the people advocating it remain either the clearly insane or people who scream about privacy while posting their turds to the world begging for everyone to watch... well... I am just not going to worry that much because to be honest, I am on slashdot. The only things people could find out about me that I waste to much time posting on slashdot (which is information publicacly available by checking my history), and my real secret that I am way to unmanly when it comes to cute little cuddly wuffly kitten wittens... ooops.

If you want to get people rightfully worried about the implacations of privacy, you need to come up with a better story then black helicopters AND/OR "I behaved like an ass in public and I don't want to be hold accountable for it".

Take the old "A drunk picture stopped me from being hired" crap... yeah, it happens. So? Don't work for those kind of companies then. I know plenty of employers that when confronted with such evidence would go "you call that being drunk? that is nothing, when I was a student we REALLY got drunk". There have ALWAYS been companies were you weren't hired if they didn't see you in church on Sunday. Anyone who has grown up in a small community knows that the modern age of facebook and twitter is in a way far more private. There is now so much information about, nobody has time to shift through it all but in a small town, you are the only thing to watch for the curtain twitchers.

Give me a million google glass over 1 pair of eyes across the street behind the curtains any day. Nobody is going to bother trying to find me in a million feeds but those eyes are recording and reporting everything and they never forget or forgive.

Re:Yeah right, students concerned about privacy (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43564803)

If you want to get people rightfully worried about the implacations of privacy, you need to come up with a better story then black helicopters AND/OR "I behaved like an ass in public and I don't want to be held accountable for it".

Well played, AC... well played.

The problem is not the product itself (1, Insightful)

Casandro (751346) | about a year ago | (#43564725)

The problem is that it's not running Free Software (as in speech). Such glasses deal with the private data of not only it's wearer, but also other people. Therefore it's of utmost importance that society, in form of at least the people having bought it, can decide what it does.

This clashes with the idea of it running Android which is just Open Source, but not Free Software. You cannot quickly modify your Android, every change is a fairly lengthy process involving the creation of an image and often even finding binary blobs for non-standard hardware and the circumvention of a "secure" boot loader.

So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

Google Glass is the best example why we need Free Software on those device, otherwise it will become a privacy nightmare. If we don't draw the line here, just think how future prostetics will be. Do you really want some company to decide what your brain implant will be able to do?

Re:The problem is not the product itself (4, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#43564881)

So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

This is often repeated, but realize that it can't record all the time. There's not enough CPU power, storage, or always-on network connectivity. This was an intentional decision to get it into the form factor at the right price point. Typically it's for still pictures and streaming really tiny pictures over Google Talk. If your strip club or movie theatre has WiFi in it and allows you to access in the venue, you might end up streaming postage stamps to people, at best.

Plus it will be pretty obvious when you take pictures, since you have to touch it active and say "Glass, take picture". The bouncer will likely throw you out at that point.

It basically doesn't do any more that your ordinary cell phone, and people pretend to text with those while filiming, and they have better net connectivity and local storage, even with no WiFi access.

Re:The problem is not the product itself (2)

Casandro (751346) | about a year ago | (#43564907)

Yes, but why doesn't Google free that protocol so you can run your own servers? I mean just being able to choose my own backend would make that thing much less problematic.

Sure not everybody will run their own servers, but I could choose to not trust Google but trust perhaps the local computer club running such a system.

Re:The problem is not the product itself (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565043)

So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

This is often repeated, but realize that it can't record all the time. There's not enough CPU power, storage, or always-on network connectivity. This was an intentional decision to get it into the form factor at the right price point. Typically it's for still pictures and streaming really tiny pictures over Google Talk. If your strip club or movie theatre has WiFi in it and allows you to access in the venue, you might end up streaming postage stamps to people, at best.

It doesn't need to record all day, just keep a rolling several minute buffer so if you see anything interesting, you can tell it to save that buffer.

The pictures may be low-res now, but will get better - and storage will increase, 64GB microSD cards are readily available now so before long, it may be able to record an entire day of HD video.

Plus it will be pretty obvious when you take pictures, since you have to touch it active and say "Glass, take picture". The bouncer will likely throw you out at that point.

Not if you use a small gesture like a wink or a tip of the head.

It basically doesn't do any more that your ordinary cell phone, and people pretend to text with those while filiming, and they have better net connectivity and local storage, even with no WiFi access.

Except that it's still hard to secretly pull out your cell phone and surreptitiously film someone since they'll see a cell phone in your hand, but when the camera is on your face all the time, how will they know when you're filming and when you're not?

Re:The problem is not the product itself (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565365)

In 1984 (the book), they didn't have the resources to spy on every citizen all the time either. But you never knew when it's your turn to invite The Party into your home, so you better behave all the time!

Re:The problem is not the product itself (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | about a year ago | (#43565061)

So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.

Google Glass is the best example why we need Free Software on those device, otherwise it will become a privacy nightmare. If we don't draw the line here, just think how future prostetics will be. Do you really want some company to decide what your brain implant will be able to do?

Google glasses is the best example why we will need privacy jammers. Without access to the cloud, Google Glasses become next to useless. Of course, cell phone jamming is currently illegal.

Re:The problem is not the product itself (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565367)

I'm not jamming your phone, it's just really bad reception around here, must be all that armored concrete in the walls...

Brave Cowardly Words (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564775)

Society will more likely rise up and kill the shit out of the monster Eric Schmidt fucker.

Not afraid of change. I see no utility. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year ago | (#43564789)

I watch developments with the bionic eye technology. The day when we can have hires video broadcast directly into our optic nerves will be in my life time. And I might well opt for such surgery electively.

I am not afraid of change.

My issue with the google glass is that I don't see the point of it. Am I do wear this thing over my face all the time so I can have a smartphone screen broadcast over my glasses? No thanks.

Now if you wanted to pitch something like this at me, then you might be able to do it with augmented reality. That is like virtual reality but it is instead the seamless blending of virtual and actual reality. You wear a head set and virtual images are super imposed on actual images. So for example you could walk through an empty lot and see a building that is planned to be built there in full scale. You could walk by a restaurant and see reviews for it scrawled on the wall in digital ink. You could have artists re-imagine your neighborhood by changing the architecture etc of the whole area without actually changing the layout.

THAT would be interesting. And I could see the point of that.

But google glass has no augmented reality capability. You need very precise accelerometers location awareness to properly superimpose the correct image over the correct object. who has had their GPS think they're walking a few blocks to the left or right? I've had that with some frequency especially in dense cities with tall buildings. It screws the GPS up. But augmented reality requires accuracy to the inch or LESS. And direction awareness to the degree. Couple inches one way or the other or a couple degrees off and the effect is spoiled.

That is my problem with google glass. Not that I am afraid of technology but that the product itself is lame. It does nothing interesting that my smartphone doesn't already do right now.

Come up with a "killer app" for it or its a stillborn blue baby. You can cry over it if you want but crying won't breath live into the dead.

And kindly don't tell me I'm afraid of change. When you treat my presumption to have an opinion with contempt I can feel nothing but contempt for your presumption to change or influence my opinion.

Try again.

Re:Not afraid of change. I see no utility. (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43564827)

There's one thing that I can see I'd like this for... and that is because probably at least once or twice a week while I'm out, usually while I'm on my way to or from work, I see stuff that I wish I had taken a picture of, or had recorded... where by the time I can get my phone out, switch on the camera function, and press the button, the moment has already gone by, where if I had been recording the whole time, I would have had it already... and could extract the appropriate segments from the video when I get home later. The additional "smart" functionality of Google Glass makes it perhaps only modestly more useful than a portable webcam affixed to my clothing. But the chief advantage over such a webcam is that I can be very certain of where it's aiming at all times.

No you dolt, they come from adopters too. (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43564807)

But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"

Fucking idiot. Criticisms don't only come from people who are afraid of change. Personally, I don't even consider my body to be what makes me "me", and would love to replace it all with sturdier mechanical parts. I love the rate at which humans keep making technology smaller and merging with it: Clothes are Wearable Shelters. Glasses are magnifying lenses you wear, and Contacts are glasses IN your eyes. We have titanium hips and even exoskeletons helping the disabled to walk again. Tech is great! Adding a digital camera and HUD to my optical systems sounds awesome!

However, I WANT TO CONTROL MY BODY. I don't value my flesh the same way others do, but I realize that it IS important to be able to control my body in whatever form it takes. I don't want to wear a prison. I don't want to wear a tracking device (unless I can control who can track it). I consider my clothes to be just a part of my body as I consider my bones. My skin is a mobile temperature regulating wetsuit perfect for being born on Earth and exploring a great deal of this Planet; I've grown quite attached to my body and its more temporary parts (shirts, hair, etc), and respect and care for my self-grown or artificial coverings; I would treat any replacement or modification thereof as equally valuable and deserving of care. Most of all, I want to be able to fix things if they break, and a replacement is a ways off -- That's a prime concern for anything I integrate with in a substantial life affecting way.

Fortunately my skin is self healing, it contains the data and systems needed to provide this function and I carry the repair mechanisms with me everywhere -- It's important to my continued exploration of this world. I know how contacts work exactly, their design is fully transparent to me. I know how to fix glasses and the mathematics for shaping their lenses are readily available to me. Where are the damn design documents, technical specs, and and source code for these new optical sensors you're selling me? If they're to become part of my body in a significant degree to change ME then I NEED this basic info, or we're at an impasse. I need to be able to know EVERYTHING about how they operate. If they're not just toys, if they will potentially help me change the life I live, then there are some CONCERNS and Criticisms that need to be addressed -- Firstly, your attitude towards my concerns, and secondly the degree of ownership I have over these new body parts we both want me to adopt.

I want to control my clothes. I don't want what I wear spying on me or sending signals that I don't want them to send. I don't want YOU to own MY BODY or everything that I do; Especially I don't want you owning copyright over all the things I see. There are a host of other concerns I have, but I don't care to voice them all here because I have better things to do than put forth questions into culture that will be ignored by the likes of Schmidt. If you shy away from the concerns of critics then I guess you don't care to reassure the people who are your prime adopters, most ready for change that you actually give a fuck about what's really important. The privacy implications become GREATLY increased the closer I integrate any technology with my brain, you fool!

Seriously, someone ought to filter this fucker's output because he's making himself out to be a fucking idiot. Let me get this straight, I shouldn't be able to give my eyeballs wings and let them soar over the land and see what they can see, but I shouldn't criticize people who want to co-opt my visions for marketing purposes? For someone who advocates adapting to social changes wrought by technological advances, Schmidt seems to be pretty fucking hypocritical when it comes to actually adjusting to the changes himself. That form of double standard and elitism alone is enough for me to call into question concerns and level criticism at the project. Why the hell would I buy into any tech produced be the likes of Schmidt who advocate the elite's ability to leverage technology for social change, but do not agree that the common man should be able to harness THAT SAME POWER for themselves? Why the fuck would I want a product that's engineered to give someone else powers over my existence that they do not already have? To pull that off I need to be getting something AMAZING in return for such a trade -- Not merely the ability to take hands free photos or check the time and ambient temperature at a glance (my camera tripod and watch and already allow me to do these things). No, your benefits to me are not worth risking the concerns I have over the technology. Put the concerns to rest by fielding the criticisms so I can make an informed decision with regard to my continued existence. If that's too much to ask, the fuck you, buddy.

When I voice criticisms I expect to be treated with respect, have my questions answered as if they are valid and potentially serious concerns; Don't dismiss my concerns out of hand and DO NOT call me the equivalent of a fearful troglodyte. That's retarding progress you dolt. Google Glass may be relatively first in its field, but it will not be the last of its kind. It seems I have no choice but to wait for the technology and those who make it to mature both technologically and ethically.

Re:No you dolt, they come from adopters too. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565359)

That's pretty much it. It also amazes me how he instantly reached so low on the discussion pyramide. In my experience, ad hominem usually only comes on when someone is out of arguments, can't refute the points of his opposite, yet doesn't want to accept that he's wrong.

The Light of Other Days (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#43564817)

This is but the precursor to the concepts in the book 'The Light of Other Days' [wikipedia.org]. Yes, the past is 100 or 1000 years ago. It is also 0.5 seconds ago.

Do we really want to be under that microscope? Oh well...we won't have a choice. Someone will build it, and we will gladly pay through the nose to have it.

how we should treat Eric Schmidt (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564819)

I don't leave anywhere near him. But people who do should start following him around in public. Filming everything he does, with a telephoto lens from afar if necessary. And posting it on the internet.

Because if he doesn't like that, he must just be one of those people afraid of change. If he's afraid of people recording what he's doing, maybe he shouldn't be doing it. Etc.

Sometimes we should fear change. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564837)

If someone threated, for example, to CHANGE the relative locations of his facial features (to rearrange his face, so to speak,) I'd wager he'd be "afraid" of such a change too, the smug, hypocritical bastard.

We don't much like the idea of people walking around having the ability to snap photos without having to do anything making it at least a little obvious that they're taking them, the same way we don't like, 364 days out of the year, people walking around wearing masks and costumes that obscure their faces so you can't tell who they are or what expression they're wearing.

Schmidt's supercilious attitude that anyone who doesn't like people walking around with cameras perched on their heads recording continuously is a Luddite, is an insult, quite frankly. How do you suppose he'd feel about people recording HIM everywhere he goes? For the sake of argument, let's pretend that he, like most of the rest of us, can't go off somewhere to hide from prying eyes and ears, given most of the rest of us aren't rich. He probably would feel different.

I have a bad feeling that people using Google Glass are going to get assaulted, battered, and have their "Glasses" ripped off their heads and shoved up their asses. The Schmidthead apparently thinks etiquette will keep people from misbehaving... he's really living in lala-land if he believes that schmidt.

As for society adapting, I think people will start to take more steps to avoid being photographed, such as with disguises, large sunglasses, etc., which I may have to go out and buy now.

When did Google cross over to the Dark Side (TM)? Does anyone know? They're clearly evil now, but when did it actually happen? When did they start down the Dark Path?

Re:Sometimes we should fear change. (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43565117)

When did Google cross over to the Dark Side (TM)? Does anyone know?

Shortly after their IPO. With shareholders braying for handouts, making money became more important than not doing evil and with no effective competitor, two clever college kids started thinking that they were gods, above the petty concerns of ordinary men.

Not afraid of Google Glass ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43564921)

I'm not afraid of Google Glass, I'm afraid of what could happen with all the footage.
If the Germans had this kind of technology, there wouldn't be a Jew left in all of Europe !

Arrogant Ass (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43564963)

Sounds like Beethoven telling his critics that his music wasn't written for them, but for future generations.

The difference being that Beethoven was one of the biggest creative geniuses of all time, and thus entitled to a bit of arrogance.

Re:Arrogant Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565017)

...- ...- is the distinct pattern of the first few notes of his best known work, the 5th Symphony.

If only he knew that it would some day be Morse code for V, and used to bolster the spirits of troops fighting against Germany.

What would he have thought?

just make it "uncool" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565103)

That's the way to counter this type of elitist marketing ploys.

Perhaps a concerted campaign to call them "peeping erics", or "leering larries" or maybe "sergie specs"...
Or maybe that owners of such things must be "compensating" for some shortcomings...
Or a targetted spam campaign directed at women and lawmakers asserting they can be hacked by nerds to be used as x-ray specs (with some plausible thing like removing IR filters and uploading custom software and a bunch of fake ebay listings offering to sell glasses with this mod)...

This is the best way to nip this trend in the bud...

Re:just make it "uncool" (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565315)

Nobody "cool" knows these names. We nerds do, but the "hip" society doesn't.

Call them "Google goggles", That's uncool enough and everyone knows Google enough that it will catch on.

Change is fine (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43565115)

But I just prefer MY change over YOUR change, since MY change doesn't involve exploiting other people's privacy just to earn advertising revenue. My change would ban most advertising ... and it's time for YOU to stop fearing that.

Adaptation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565181)

I dislike what Google is doing and I don't think a single corporation has the right to tell society how it should adapt, especially one with 'form' on abrogating privacy conventions.

With a bit of luck this will be yet another one of those Google ideas that are stillborn, their recent history is littered with them.

The main problem I can see with Glass initially is that it requires voice input. So far I've found Google's speech recognition to be laughably poor. It will get better of course, but the main problem will remain that glass users have to speak loudly to the device to have the speech recognized. Such people will be ostracised even worse than people using cellphones in the wrong place.

Thinking of some 'adaptations'

1. Etiquette : I don't think this will be adequate, society doesn't work this way any more. People wearing glass will be perceived as breaking social norms and we may see quite a few street beatings as a result.
2. Banning : it might work in places but won't be universal.
3. Jamming : this is a good one, while it might not be legal, I think a lot of people might take the risk of carrying jamming equipment to create privacy, but then content could be cached locally then uploaded later so it can't be 100% effective. This would damage universality of network access for other people as well.
4. Masks : We may have to start wearing masks and veils in public. Perhaps more people will switch to Islam as it provides a credible reason for going around in a veil.

The question is not whether society will adapt (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43565193)

The question is not whether society will adapt. It will adapt, just it adapts to everything else. The question is if the society will be better or worse afterwards.

Why doesn't he just get a webcam at his house, car (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43565259)

and anywhere else so we can see him 24/7 Oh yah he wasn't his privacy. Fuck off and your google (the love didn't last long)

Afraid of change? Hell no! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43565305)

I've been waiting, dreaming, hoping for and a few more verbs that essentially mean the same for wearable computing. I wanted one the first time I heard about it, to some degree it was my initial drive to pick up microcontroller work so I could eventually build it, given enough knowledge.

What I'm not comfortable with is sending the whole data to Google. That's all I'm afraid of. That it may be the case that I don't really own them, in the sense that they will do MY bidding and not their maker's.

society can adapt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43565333)

to about anything. If we go to extremes people live in North Korea and Japan has survived nuclear bombs. It does not mean dictatorship and nuking all around are the way to go.

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...