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: What's With All the Hate?

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the half-empty-glasses dept.

Google 775

An anonymous reader writes "Techcrunch takes a look at why so many people seem to make fun of Google Glass. From the article: 'Google Glass isn't even on sale yet and there is already a noticeable backlash against Google's first experiment in wearable computing. It's odd to see a product that was greeted with so much hype a year ago endure the love-hate cycle so quickly – even though there are only a few thousand units in the wild. Sure, we've done our share to popularize "glasshole" as a way to describe its users, but the backlash seems to go beyond the usual insidery tech circles.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Something It Isn't (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43834333)

Maybe because it isn't so much "wearable computing" as it is "wearable Google-centric media player"???

Re:Something It Isn't (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43834447)

More along the lines of wearable google centric real time yelp.

I don't like google glass of one reason. I hate advertisers why would I want ads transmitted to me just because I walked by a store?

Oh that isn't a feature of glass yet? just wait it will come right along with the face recognition.

Glass doesn't solve much. Most people don't need a heads up display. It will be heavily dependent on your limited mobile bandwidth. At least when people hold up their cell phone you can tell when they are recording you. With Google glass you won't be able to tell at a glance.

Re:Something It Isn't (5, Insightful)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | about a year ago | (#43834593)

I've spent the last 8 months wearing a pair of sunglasses that contain a camera in the bridge, mostly because I see lots of stupid drivers on the road, but also because google glass has been coming along. I'm careful to remove the SD card fairly regularly, but in that 8 months only 3 people have questioned my very chunky glasses with half cm buttons on the left side.

People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.

Re:Something It Isn't (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43834687)

I would be willing to bet that if you started telling people you were recording them that you would quickly find your self in the creepy category. Depending on the crowd and location it wouldn't surprise me to find out if you get the crap beaten out of you too.

Re:Something It Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834695)

...but in that 8 months only 3 people have questioned my very chunky glasses with half cm buttons on the left side.

People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.

So based on your sample size of 3 people who questioned what you we wearing you've ascertained that people don't care about privacy? You may want to rethink that.

Wear a T-Shirt stating that you are recording people and you might get a better understanding that many people do care about privacy. Along with a punch in the nose when you try to catch a peek of the next urinal's package.

Re:Something It Isn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834697)

Bill Gates said that people would not need more than a few Kb to use a PC back in the day. Google Glass is just the beginning.

Human body + Machines = The Future

Re:Something It Isn't (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#43834643)

Media playback seems to be one of the least demonstrated functions. The mains ones are the camera and notifications. I think it's the camera that has people most upset because when someone wearing Glass looks at you they are pointing it right in your face and you have no way of knowing if it is turned on and streaming live over the internet to other people or being recorded.

I can see Glass being massive for porn and voyeurism. We had better get the etiquette of removing it before entering the locker room sorted out pretty quickly. Are people going to take it off when entering the men's lavatory too?

Re:Something It Isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834747)

Wrong. It's a wearable Google-centric CAMERA. Even bevore they released it, there is allready software for face-recognition in the cloud. This IS to cause problems, not everyone want's their face in a book, let alone in google face-recognition database.

Well now (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#43834339)

I can think of a few reasons. A device whose sole purpose is to bombard you with ads, which can be used to track you, which destroys the privacy of anyone around you, and that costs well over $1000 and that Google thinks it still retains the ownership of it? No thanks.

Re:Well now (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43834383)

Take the hate for bluetooth earpieces, multiply it by 1000 because now nobody even wants you to look in their direction.

That's Glass. May it die.

Smartphones do everything useful that glass does but you can put them away in your pocket. Winner.

Re:Well now (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year ago | (#43834585)

Take the hate for bluetooth earpieces, multiply it by 1000 because now nobody even wants you to look in their direction.

Bluetooth earpieces are so annoying because for a lot of people that wear them phone conversations seem to outweigh face to face conversations in importance.

Re:Well now (4, Funny)

Alomex (148003) | about a year ago | (#43834673)

Take the hate for bluetooth earpieces,

Bluetooth earpieces are incredibly useful. They readily tag the "people I do not want to talk to" set.

Re:Well now (5, Insightful)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#43834429)

[...]which destroys the privacy of anyone around you [...]

Spot on. That's the main issue with me. And don't tell me "oh but we've got smartphones already".
Glass is a whole new level of invasivity.

Re:Well now (0, Flamebait)

ArcherB (796902) | about a year ago | (#43834499)

[...]which destroys the privacy of anyone around you [...]

Spot on. That's the main issue with me. And don't tell me "oh but we've got smartphones already".
Glass is a whole new level of invasivity.

Says the guy posting his thoughts publicly on the Internet. Want privacy? Stay home with your blinds closed and your computer unplugged.

It always cracks me up to see people PUBLICLY screaming about PRIVACY. If privacy were your goal, you wouldn't be posting.

Re:Well now (5, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year ago | (#43834543)

He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.

Re:Well now (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834679)

If somebody with any camera walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as well. The only difference here is that Google Glass isn't meant to be a camera but a display with a computer inside of it.

Re:Well now (2, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | about a year ago | (#43834691)

He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.

So what? If you're in a public place, you had no expectation of privacy to start with... and a world where you did, where people are prevented from photography in public by virtue of needing to get permissions from every single person near them, is no world I'd want to live in at all.

This is probably just a matter of valuing things differently; I value a person's right to record things which happen around them in public more than I wish to grant a new right not to be recorded in public places (thereby allowing any single member of the multitude present in a crowd to restrict the entirety of the masses nearby).

Re:Well now (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about a year ago | (#43834725)

He chooses what to post on to the internet. If somebody wearing Glass walks up to you, your property, or your workplace, you have no choice in the matter as to which of your activities gets uploaded to Google.

First, if someone walks up to your property, you may firmly order them to leave. If someone walks up to your workplace wearing one... well, so what. Ask him to take a picture of the camera in the corner that is already filming everything you do. If it still bothers you, take it up with whoever is in charge. And although you didn't mention it, if it bothers you when someone wears on in public, you should already be bothered. Google "public web cam" for just a small smidgen of cameras that already out there, recording your movements 24/7.

Also, Glass is not filming ALL the time. The user has to turn it on. It's also not automatically uploaded to Google unless the user tells it to, and even then it's not made public, again, unless the user makes it public.

Finally, it's not like Glass is a hidden camera. You know it's there and with an LED, you know when it's recording. Stop making excuses to hate things other people enjoy.

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834587)

That is completely idiotic.

It is one thing to chose to give up some measure of privacy to socialize, it is another to have a stranger take it away without your consent.

Re:Well now (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#43834661)

I know exactly how to preserve my privacy on the net. I know exactly what the various online services know about me. That's because I have control over my data, for a broad definition of data.
The moment you take away control from me it's over.
I can concede you that's already happening with smartphones: (even though i still don't have one) my friends are leaking data about me.
Glass would be immensely worse.

Re:Well now (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43834749)

I bet the Goog would love that. All dissenters silenced because complaining about their privacy policies in public is what, public? Yes, you have made the entire internet marginally stupider.

Re:Well now (5, Insightful)

Maudib (223520) | about a year ago | (#43834575)

On the ad front, people said the same thing about android. I haven't ever obtrusive ads. Same thing with gmail and search, they are there, but entirely to the side.

Frankly this sort of advertising is far less intrusive then most offline advertising. Consider the omni-present ads on busses and taxis and billboards, the flood of intrusive ads on TV and radio. I would far prefer to substitute those for google's approach: show me something I might actually want in a very unobtrusive fashion.

On the privacy front, your argument is straw-man. Privacy is already destroyed, constant surveillance is the norm now that literally everyone is carrying at least one camera. Glass may well improve the situation by reminding people of that.

Re:Well now (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year ago | (#43834613)

While those are all legitimate points, the 'google retaining ownership' part may change when it becomes a consumer product. Right now it's in a testing phase, so google owning it makes sense. Whether they stick with that plan for commercial release will be harder to say.

Broadly I think is the question of what can google glass add that won't be a giant privacy invasion. You don't particularly need ads, some other company could just try and sell a device. But the ability to discretely record a video or take a picture anywhere is bad enough with cell phones and private investigator cameras wearable glasses just adds a new level to that. Just sticking your cell phone screen in front of your face isn't much of a problem, but to go beyond that its impossible for the data gathered to not represent a serious privacy threat (insofar as cell phone tracking isn't already).

Re:Well now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834681)


"Contrary to widespread thought, Google Glass will not be an advertising platform: 'Google Inc has lately told app developers that they are not allowed to present ads to Google Glass users and they are also not permitted to sell users' personal and private information for the fulfillment of advertising needs. The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever"

Re:Well now (2)

jopsen (885607) | about a year ago | (#43834727)

I can think of a few reasons. A device whose sole purpose is to bombard you with ads...

I think Glass is a good idea... But at least give them the benefit of the doubt when they've clearly said, it won't do ads...

In any event, it's a toy... I don't mind Google experimenting... I seriously doubt they'll get this one right :)

Let worry about potential problems, when they become relevant. I'm fairly confident the EU has the backbone required to protect my privacy, should it come to that.
So why not chill?

Remember Bluetooth Ear Pieces? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834349)

Remember people walking around talking to themselves? Remember the "I'm not talking to you, I'm on the phone" hand gesture?

It combined being rude with wearing a dorky looking apparatus.

And that's what Google Glass is.

Re:Remember Bluetooth Ear Pieces? (0)

prefec2 (875483) | about a year ago | (#43834395)

No it isn't. While those silly ear pieces are there to help you to communicate. The glass camera is there to spy on everybody. Even though no-one wants to do that, Google does. Beside that problem, it is a great thing.

Re:Remember Bluetooth Ear Pieces? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834457)

That's right, and the phone company turns your cell phone on and listens to your talking, your game console is watching you and they REALLY are out to get you!!

Run to the Monsanto Family-Friendly Hills and remember the BEES have EARS

Re:Remember Bluetooth Ear Pieces? (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43834519)

Remember people walking around talking to themselves? Remember the "I'm not talking to you, I'm on the phone" hand gesture? It combined being rude with wearing a dorky looking apparatus. And that's what Google Glass is.

Yes, we all remember that, and it took exactly One exposure for people to realize that Bluetooth made a lot of sense in some situations, and didn't impact the privacy of others around the user.

When you whip out your camera and photograph my desk or back I am forewarned, and have time to rare back with the haymaker that will surely be your next experience. But there is no defense against people walking into your store, your office, your meeting wearing Google Glass.

Bluetooth affected only the wearer. The camera in google glass attempts to make everyone near it fair game.

Its odd that Eric Schmidt just a few days ago worried about Privacy in a world of Drones [computerworld.com], yet his company is pushing a product to make everyone Google's Drone.

We should demand "recording" LEDs indicating when cell phone cameras are on, and the same for Google Glass.
Either that or remove the camera. 95% of everything Glass was designed to do can be done without the camera.

Re:Remember Bluetooth Ear Pieces? (1)

tftp (111690) | about a year ago | (#43834703)

We should demand "recording" LEDs indicating when cell phone cameras are on, and the same for Google Glass.

Those LEDs can be easily covered with black paint, black tape, or simply drilled out and destroyed. LEDs are not visible in bright daylight conditions. You cannot see LEDs in crowd.

Even if you do see the LED, what can you do about it? If a person is so self-centered to activate the camera in public, do you think your humble request will make him stop? If you take the issue into your own hands, that would be illegal.

The only good solution to GG problem is to remove the camera at the design stage. A camera is not needed for the wearer, really - there are very few daily experiences that we want to record and relive. If you are expecting an interesting situation - say, when you are skiing down a slope - you can always wear a headband with a single-purpose HD camera that records 30 fps onto an SD card, so that you have your movie right away, and in the desired resolution. For everything else, like walking down the street and coming across a police who works on another Rodney King, there is the phone.

'Simple really... (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43834355)

It is the always on, always front recording feature that bothers most people.

We're on camera ENOUGH already....I think a lot of people that aren't even that privacy conscious even are concerned about so many live feeds going to Google (or anyone for that matter, since the govt. will have free access to it too).

JUst my $0.02.

Re:'Simple really... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834389)

And it's also why I think a lot of people with these are going to get told to remove them or face risk of bodily harm.

Feel free to give away your privacy, but stay the fuck away from mine.

Re:'Simple really... (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43834525)

What do you do in the future when people have robotic eyes? Wearable cameras aren't going away anytime soon. Google Glass is the very tiny tip of a huge iceberg. Assume you are being recorded at all times outside of your home. You may not like it, but it is a reality we live in.

Re:'Simple really... (2)

ThorGod (456163) | about a year ago | (#43834527)

I would agree with you. But I don't. If everything's recorded then effectively nothing's recorded. Sure, all those cameras might be able to pin point exactly where you are at any given moment...but who cares to find out? Who's going to expend all the resources (cpu cycles, MONEY) to track you down? It'd be unfeasible to do that for everyone so only select few people could even be potential targets. And you're not one of those people. Sorry, but you're just not special enough to warrant searching through thousands and thousands of hours of video to find.

Re:'Simple really... (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43834737)

And you're not one of those people.

Right. It's other people who will be abused, so who cares! As long as it's not me...

Re:'Simple really... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43834553)

It is the always on, always front recording feature that bothers most people

To be fair, it isn't always on, but you can't tell when it is recording, or taking still shots.
So the only defense is to ban them on private property, even public areas of private property.

I think that Glass has its place, but without the cameras.

Hype Cycle /thread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834363)


Fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834371)

I think people are just scared from such a step towards total computization of a human being.
Nowadays there is a wave of resistence to all the technological super-advancements maybe just because people do not feel ready their life to be so rapidly changed...
In my opinion, it is fear of the new and fear of the robotization of a humanity...

Re:Fear? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43834621)

I don't think that's it at all.

Pull the camera out of this device and most objections disappear.

Having helpful information in your view plane could be great in certain situations.

Dork appeal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834375)

Because they make the wearer look like a dork (not a geek or even a nerd).

I rank it right up there with Beats headphones.

Re:Dork appeal (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about a year ago | (#43834465)

Because they make the wearer look like a dork (not a geek or even a nerd).

I rank it right up there with Beats headphones.

So? Why would YOU hate a device that makes ME look like a dork? Why do you care what I look like?

Re:Dork appeal (1)

GrBear (63712) | about a year ago | (#43834541)

Same reason why some get disturbed seeing people with piercings all over their face and giant holes in their ears lobes I'd imagine.

Re:Dork appeal (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#43834607)

Oh, you'll care what you look like after the beating you are going to get for pointing that thing at somebody who will not take kindly to it.

I am not saying that's the right thing to do, to beat you for wearing that around people who don't want to be part of your Googlexperment, but it's just bound to happen at some point. Take it as a free advice that may save your looks, whatever they are (and maybe more than your looks).

Re:Dork appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834663)

Would you care if the people around you were not wearing clothes? If so, then you know why they care. Because it's not what they are used to.

Re:Dork appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834669)

For the same reason I hate a guy holding a camera phone straight at my face whenever he talks to me.

I think the Glass is pretty neat, but the privacy aspects of it are just too invasive to many of us and when a person wears it, it isn't just his privacy that is being invaded, it is his privacy along with anyone who happens to end up within his field of vision. Just too big-brother like for my tastes.

We are already getting tracked due to our cellphones and our vehicles having embedded tracking devises, this takes that and just puts it on steroids.

Surveillance-conscious audience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834377)

Most would probably love to use Google Glass themselves, but right now there are only *other* people using it, and that has a net result of reducing our freedom. Even when it's a mass market product, people are probably less positive about the benefits than they are negative about being under constant surveillance. We've just heard how the mistakes of our youth shouldn't be persistent, but the very same company is now working on making our present mistakes persistent. Is that enough of an explanation?

Chertoff - Rapidscan salesman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834387)

The fact that Chertoff advocated for more full-body scanners in U.S. airports is the kind of irony and cognitive dissonance that has recently been a hallmark of American politics.

Of course he did. He was a salesman for RapidScan ( the X-ray machines ) posing as an expert.

See here [huffingtonpost.com]

Let's see.... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43834401)

1. It makes you look like a cyborg. The fact that one would do this to their own appearance willingly puts a person so many sigma beyond what is expected in societal norms that it produces an insinctive negative reaction.

2. Being wearable, it conveys an "always on" notion, that many people find troublesome because although in theory, it does not invade their privacy any more than a person with a cell phone camera can, unlike a hand-held camera, there are no obvious gestures or poses that a utilizer of this technology will typically employ that tells casual observers in an immediately recognizable way that the technology is being utilized. Looking for an LED light is all very well and good, but human beings didn't evolve to look at LED's to tell them what was around them... we evolved to interpret body language.

3. It's simply far too easy to imagine people using this while they are walking or driving and thus paying insufficient attention to their surroundings to effectively navigate, potentially posing a danger to themselves and others around them.

4. It's always been socially cool to mock something that's new and different.

Re:Let's see.... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43834729)

1) It need not look any different than a normal pair of glasses. The version being show is a prototype, not a mass market version.

2) This is the main point I believe.

3) Having a Heads Up Display hasn't affected Aircraft pilots, and if done right, it won't affect drivers. You would see transparent information about speed and your next turn that would not interfere with driving.

4) Not really. Only when the new and different affects other people. Not seeing anyone mock a prosthesis for amputees

I paid thousands of GBPs... (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#43834413)

And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life - so there's no chance of me using this product.

People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you - you are going to be cleaning them all the time, they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair and the side of your head, they are going to range from being unnoticeable to unignorable literally in minutes all throuout the day.

That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction, so until it brings the positives without the negatives that I already went to great lengths to avoid, I'm not buying into it.

Re:I paid thousands of GBPs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834511)

And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life


Re:I paid thousands of GBPs... (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about a year ago | (#43834547)

I'm laughing so hard. I've worn glasses since I was in fifth grade, and they've never once "hindered" my hairline. There's been mild irritation here and there, but nothing I'd pay thousands nor even hundreds of dollars to allay.

Now the migraines I've suffered...those I'd pay thousands to get rid of permanently.

Re:I paid thousands of GBPs... (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year ago | (#43834739)

Well, I need them even if my vision was 20/20. Keeps stuff from flying into my eyes. They're called safety glasses. Sexier than an eye patch, for most of us.

Because it's not a watch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834419)

Glasses with a front facing camera - glasshole.
Smartphone with a camera on both sides - acceptable.
Watch with a camera - James Bond.

Biased Reporting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834427)

Everyone keeps saying that the hate for Google Glass is based on it being 'new' but that's simply not it, the hate is based on it being yet another way to turn everyone into 'citizen surveillance'. Facial recognition, really? WHY?

People are getting tired of not only the constant intrusion into their private lives by megacorporations, but also the need to constantly stay on guard, a neverending vigil to protect any sense of privacy that they have left.

It's tiring.

What other technology affects others like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834431)

For every person who hates Glass based on how they might use it how many more hate it because of its use against them?

I despise Glass for heralding the beginning of an always-on social surveillance culture.

Glass is so much worse than what we've seen before because:

1. It's always on. Camera phones are everywhere, but you can tell when people are using them. Glass, not so much. You don't know when it's being used on you.

2. Unlike CCTV, whose operators are bound by profit or budgetary constraints, and keep footage long enough for it to no longer be useful (after which it's deleted, such as when the 7-11 wasn't robbed that night) Glass is to be used by people who have no rational reason to delete the recordings. Their motive is social, fun. They'll retain and share the data because it amuses them. The Kwik-E-Mart operator has no such motive.

3. It's pervasive and distributed. Unlike a room of cops monitoring a citywide CCTV service, who have to focus their attention, the millions of forthcoming Glass users have no such time constraints.

4. Participation is mandatory. If you don't like the social networking culture you will still be forced to participate in it by others who will happily snap and tag, uploading to social networks using facial recognition.

Why is Glass so much worse than what we've seen before? Before, you could be recorded anywhere, but more than likely nobody would care enough to retain it unless they were your friend or you were doing something noteworthy.

Glass changes everything.

Glass makes participation in the online social surveillance culture part of the human experience, and it isn't an opt-in activity.

I hope anti-Glass signs appear everywhere.

I, for one, will refuse to patron establishments that let people get away with using this. I'm not doing anything wrong, but what I'm doing is none of anybody else's business unless I choose to share my life with them. I will not quietly accept being an object of someone else's amusement. I'm not your fucking actor, and I'm not your fucking photography subject.

welcome to the 21st century! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834433)

I think it is because this is one of the first outwardly visible examples of the future we have created. Glass may fail as a product. Still, the technology of the internet is already in the material world, and no longer limited to computer console devices we must interact with willfully. There will be a value war that will be played out in coming years. Either we throw away the entire internet (not going to happen), or we leave behind our historical ideals on many things, most notably privacy.

It's what it might do (4, Interesting)

aamcf (651492) | about a year ago | (#43834449)

At the moment Google Glass can't do very much, but it is only a matter of time before it does more.

I have mild face blindness, and it would be fantastically useful for me to have a pair of glasses that could identify who I was talking to.

Equally well, it would make life very difficult for me if other people had similar glasses. I run a website that is considered objectionable to some people. If everyone could recognise me every time I went out to buy milk, it would be very difficult for me to live anything like a normal life.

The passive-aggressive nature of social networks would be magnified if they were in any way integrated with Google Glass or indeed any wearable computer.

It doesn't even make any sense (5, Insightful)

Meditato (1613545) | about a year ago | (#43834451)

"Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"

You have a cellphone in your pocket capable of doing just that, and pinhole surveillance cameras have existed forever anyway.

"Google Glass is scary because GPS!"

Your cellphone doesn't even need an active GPS setting in order to be tracked. As an Android App developer, I can just use a Network Location Provider and triangulate your position to within 100-1000 meters. If you have a cellphone, you're being tracked just as easily as with Glass.

"Google Glass is scary because it might serve me ads!"

That's from an early video parody of Glass. Ads are against Google's guidelines.

"Google Glass is scary because they're trying to get us to depend on it, then sneakily put in ads and spyware!"

Even if they do that, we've already got the dumped firmware for Glass. Just run a custom ROM on it.

"Google Glass is scary because some pseudo-libertarian tech journalist told me to be scared!"

Oh ok, I guess that explains the inconsistency in your position. Funny how all these former pro-corporate tech gossip douchebags are suddenly worried about your rights. Where were they 10 years ago? And for that matter, where were you?

Re:It doesn't even make any sense (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year ago | (#43834693)

"Ads are against Google's guidelines."

Ad's are Google's primary revenue stream

Re:It doesn't even make any sense (1)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43834735)

as I said in another reply in this story, ads were not found on the early days of FM, Cable TV and even iphone apps...give it 18 months, there will be google adsense glass edition - the share holders will revolt if this doesn't happen...

Re:It doesn't even make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834741)

You have a cellphone in your pocket capable of doing just that, and pinhole surveillance cameras have existed forever anyway.

To use your phone in the same manner as Google Glasses you'd have to spend your entire time holding it up in front of you recording video, even when talking to people face-to-face. Quite a bit different from how most people currently use the camera on their phones.

It's very simple actually... (1)

Begemot (38841) | about a year ago | (#43834469)

How would you feel talking to a person wearing this shit?
She might be recording you and posting it to YouTube.

I probably sound like my grandpa, but Google Glass just feels to me creepy and invasive.

There could be some commercial usage of it though, like FedEx finding and signing off a package...

Re:It's very simple actually... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43834563)

Architecturally, it isn't all that different from a cellphone(because it mostly is one, albeit wrapped around your head); but it's a cellphone without any of the social cues

Sure, a cellphone can be used for recording; but the one that's in your pocket, or sitting on the table, or being used by you to check your twitfeed likely isn't. It's just a matter of geometry: one camera on the back, possibly one on the face of the device. Similarly, it's easy enough for you to use your phone to ignore me; but it's also quite obvious when you do so.

Glass just takes those delightful features and makes "device is turned off; but these glasses don't fold, so I'm storing them on my face" and "device is actively recording and sending to the mothership" and every state in-between functionally indistinguishable. It's the equivalent of somebody holding a cellphone in recording posture, with their finger hovering on the controls, at all times.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834475)

This: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4333656/larry-page-teases-robert-scoble-for-nude-google-glass-photo

It's the people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834477)

I don't hate Google Glass. I think it would have some very interesting potential commercial/industrial/medical applications.

I just hate the kind of person who gets giddy over the idea of new tech like this, and thinks there's nothing wrong with wearing such a device all the time in public.

As quoth Neal Stephenson in 1992... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43834503)

"Gargoyles are no fun to talk to. They never finish a sentence. They are adrift in a laser-drawn world, scanning retinas in all directions, doing background checks on everyone within a thousand yards, seeing everything in visual light, infrared, millimeter. wave radar, and ultrasound all at once. You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead. For all he knows, Lagos is standing there measuring the length of Hiro's cock through his trousers while they pretend to make conversation. ..."


"Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all the attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time. ..."

Glassholes are essentially a late-alpha/early-beta iteration of the Gargoyles from Snow Crash. The people who managed to bring the dickery that was bluetooth earpieces to an even more vital sense, along with just enough camera to get that 'incipient paparazzi' thing going.

Re:As quoth Neal Stephenson in 1992... (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#43834539)

Yea but they are always in the metaverse which is awesome. I would compare this more to the HUDs in Diamond Age, where you were still mainly focused on the "real" world yet had a plethora of information available to you at all times.

It's the grammatical incongruity that upsets me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834507)

It should be "Google Glasses" but no, the dimwits insist that it be called "Glass" oh that makes me pig-biting mad, it's worse than a thousand cheese graters to the nads, it makes me mad I tell you!

anyone with a brain... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43834509)

Anyone with a brain can tell that this level of mobile computer usage is ridiculous. It's bad for memory, concentration, social skill development, social interactions in general. Nobody should be able to have that much information streaming that quickly whenever they want. Then the stress of battery phobia combined with a growing dependence on the device equals a very stressed out user. It's a very, very stupid idea that's detrimental to humans in general.

It's exactly like Segways. It's convenient and a good idea on the surface but in reality it isn't practical or a good idea at all and it makes the user fat, unhealthy, and causes hip and knee problems. This is a device that seems nice on the surface but actually causes concentration and social problems and likely vision problems too plus an addictive dependence on technology that makes the user unable to function without it.

Re:anyone with a brain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834567)

Nobody should be able to have that much information streaming that quickly whenever they want.

Holy crap! Thank you so much for defining the limitations of humanity. Someone needed to set that standard. The line has been clearly drawn. Thank you.

Re:anyone with a brain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834699)

This sounds a lot like the kind of short sighted arguments that letter writers would make about the new-fangled telephone thingy.

Re:anyone with a brain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834705)

just cause you have a weak mind and are easily addicted does not mean everyone is

The people at Google are not stupid. (2)

TuckerBag (2644679) | about a year ago | (#43834531)

It will be interesting to see what happens with google glass. Even if they release a product with no camera, the media will still report it as a privacy invading device.

Funded by Microsoft and Apple (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834545)

Because they could not create something like this.

Re:Funded by Microsoft and Apple (1)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43834683)

BS, MS and AAPL could do something like this and I would dare say that they both probably have had things like this in their labs for years - I heard speculation of devices like Glass existing in MS research labs 8 years ago - just rumors, but most rumors about MS tend to have a nugget of truth...

Its all about price point, and who will buy it - if they cant productize it in a way that people will like and can afford/justify, they will not go to market. Being that Gogle is an advertising company that uses tech rather than a pure tech company they can make the money up with ads - they say its ad free but so was FM radio at first, so was Cable TV at first and so were apps on the iphone at first...

Discrimination based on disability (1)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year ago | (#43834559)

I have had low vision all my life, I deal with it the way most of us do, thick wyw glasses and regular consultation with my eye doctor - this opens the door for those of us in this position to be unwelcome in business meetings, family gatherings or other places where people dont want to be bugged - sure, the curent model is big and goofy, but the first laptops weighed like 12 LBS too - as this tech becomes more and more indistinguishable people will assume that anyone with glasses has it!

The solution, we need a law that google glass, or anything f that sort, needs to have a visible LED, not just when recording, but whenever t is powered on to indcate that the eyeglasses re not just eyeglasses.

I can't wait to stare at pretty women with Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834565)

Okay, I'm not going to do that, but most woman are going to be PISSED if a guy does that, especially when he's possibly recording them. Glass is a creepers best friend. At least with a phone/camera it's semi obvious what's going on.

Mostly bad timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834569)

Google should have kept the camera until version 2.

Glass with only the HUD would not have gained hate. Maybe ridicule, but at least a following that would have gained it some access to the general market and maybe acceptance (MAYBE).

Now they are getting the full blow of people being paranoid (reasonably) about the camera capturing issue before they have a following of happy users.

Remember most - perhaps not YOU - really do not care about the privacy issue enough to steer clear of advertising, opt-ins and whatever scheme corporations might want to lure you into.

Maybe people are just plain tired of it. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834597)

Yeah, I know we don't have an expectation of privacy while in public and all the other crap, but maybe people are just getting tired of the whole damn camera culture. I know I am. It's bad enough to be on surveillance cameras all the time but now you can be on everybody's cell phone, google glass and god knows what else. I'm a masters bicycle racer. A couple of years ago USA Cycling decided to allow helmet mounted cameras in races. Now, for all I know, the asshole that can't beat me in a sprint has posted 15 minutes of video of my ass that he took while riding my wheel at the Ontario crit last weekend. Bet that's exciting. For me anyway, google glass is the last straw.

I learned the following from tech sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834627)

This applies to cameras, stereos, computers, phones etc...

It is that, "The time to declare something the best or the worst is before it has been released and before anyone can get their hands on it"

Once, released - who cares?

Google Indexing (1)

mtb_ogre (698802) | about a year ago | (#43834633)

Google has expanded from indexing existing information to indexing people. The more you share with Google, the more value you bring to Google in terms of creating marketing value. They can sell more and more targeted advertising based on where you go, who you are with, what stores you frequent, what hobbies you have, how you travel, how much time you spend in specific places, etc. Google Glass is the ultimate extension of that strategy. I would be far more interested in buying a product like this from a company that makes money selling products as opposed to a company focused on extruding as much information from me in order to resell it.

What's up with the asking what's with? (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about a year ago | (#43834635)

>"Google Glass: What's With All the Hate?"

Is it that mysterious? Many people have already posted on many sites as to why. If people would stop asking why and start reading some of the answers, maybe they would understand...

It presents major issues with privacy, security, and etiquette. It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around a Glass user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reactions ensue. This is nothing like static and unconnected security cameras. Exactly how much private information are we all going to be willing to give Google?

We just went through this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/05/03/1322242/is-google-glass-too-nerdy-for-the-mainstream [slashdot.org]


http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/26/2316211/eric-schmidt-google-glass-critics-afraid-of-change-society-will-adapt [slashdot.org]

But I guess we have to hash it out every month now :(

This is really simple (4, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43834649)

I don't have a Facebook account. I have a fake name on my Google accounts and Twitter. I don't ever use my real name on forums. I even gave Blizzard a fake name. I take GREAT care to leave my personal life off the internet and preserve my privacy. So now what do we have? Some asshole walking around taking videos or pictures in complete stealth mode with no LED to tell you it's recording or in use. Early adopters are also usually the tech-addicted people that put a picture of everything moderately interesting on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Instagram. If I start saying something funny or interesting to a glass user and they stealthy hit record, I don't want that video of myself out on their 1000-friend Facebook page without my knowledge.

For those of you about to say any video recording is public and the law says I can be video recorded at any time in public because that's the reasonable expectation of privacy, you're missing the logic of that. I want some basic privacy so then I guess I'll just never go out in public ever. Wait, no, it would be easier to just make Glass and other covert recording devices illegal everywhere.

This too shall pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834655)

Wait until some bright person invents something you can hide away, say in your pocket and it can secretly record a conversation! Then you'll see the privacy guys up in arms! oh... wait.....

How about Google puts a little green LED on them to show when they are indeed recording. Like I know when my laptop webcam is on (and so does my girlfriend sadly..)

Then everyone can shut up about on the thousand of forums complaining about privacy; the same masses that were pushing for such technology. I am a business owner and I honestly cannot wait to get my hands on one, I do believe it will change the way I work. However, it's not going to do much for you if you sit behind a computer screen all day.

Down with Glasses! Your local Amish community awaits!

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43834707)

I'm indifferent about Glass right now. What bugs me is the same people that are hating on Google Glass right now will go ooh and ah when Apple comes out with their version of Glass and claim its the best thing since sliced bread. As for the hate, I don't think people are hating on Glass primarily, it is just the outlet. Its Google hate partially because Google is no longer the underdog, but also because they're killing products that people actually like and it has started a backlash.

Hate because Its not iGlass (1, Troll)

ThePeices (635180) | about a year ago | (#43834733)

All the hate is because it is not made by Apple.

If it was iGlass, the love-in would be tremendous. Of course, if Apple made it, there would be no customer input, no previews, no leaks and no idea the product even existed until after the "one more thing..." moment arrived.

But after that, the store lines would already be forming.

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