Beta
×

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!

YouTube Removes Video of Reactions To Being Videoed

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the now-video-your-reaction-to-the-reaction-to-reactions dept.

Youtube 229

theodp writes "To follow-up on an earlier Slashdot post, GeekWire reports that YouTube has removed Surveillance Camera Man's latest video of people's sometimes-violent reactions to being videoed, citing its policy of prohibiting content designed to harass, threaten or bully ("This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten"). In a neat coincidence, the YouTube ban comes just after similar complaints were lodged against Google Glass. 'Some people also seem to feel threatened by Google Glass,' Philip De Cortes wrote in Google Glass Will Fail. 'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"

cancel ×

229 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really (5, Insightful)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year ago | (#44110717)

People should be this upset about the government doing this too. CCTV's are popping up everywhere, even in rural US cities.

Re:Really (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44110749)

I know. It's getting to be that the only time we have any privacy is when we're online.

Re:Really (1, Offtopic)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#44110889)

You are modded funny, but you aren't actually wrong.

I've long complained that you either have to be very wealthy, or willing to walk (and be wealthy) to avoid waiving your rights to something as fundamentally simple as a trip from New York to LA. The logistics involved (not driving to avoid 'implied consent' and other rights removing stipulations) are enormous even if you just put on a pair of shoes and decided to walk. (12 hour days of 4mph walking would take you 41 days to go 2000miles)

However, online at least, you can take some precautions which sacrifice convenience, but not to the insane levels that your physical presence would require. Obviously if you have the full force of the government looking for you specifically, it's not going to be simple, but in general through the use of VPNs, public access points, and a few other techniques, it's still at least reasonably possible.

That certainly doesn't mean that it is as easy or convenient as it should be, but maintaining your anonymity online to chat with someone cross country is a hell of a lot easier than if you tried to do it in person while maintaining anonymity.

Re:Really (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111551)

You're hilarious. I wouldn't even know where to start. 1st world problems, indeed.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111739)

Fake or stolen ID, rent car, drive with sunglasses.

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44112097)

"to avoid waiving your rights to something as fundamentally simple as a trip from New York to LA. "
example of waving you rights?

Re:Really (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#44111695)

This type of thing is having a negative influence on regular photographer buffs tho...

I'm on forums for photography where people doing the age old activity of "street photography" are getting some very rude and often violent reactions from people, something that never seemed to happen in the past.

I've not really run into it yet, but I've heard of folks in other countries besides the US seeing this too. I hear of it especially in the NE section of the US from the people I've spoken with.

I"m very much against the govt. cameras, but a guy on the street not hassling anyone shouldn't be a problem.

I think maybe this is a side effect of social networking and facebook.

I grew up without worrying about a camera everywhere (thank God) when I was a kid/teen/college student. Everyone knew there was a time for and at time NOT for whipping the camera out.

Sigh, but I guess normal street photography is going to become a casualty of the new times. Sad.

Re: Really (-1, Troll)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#44111933)

If you see someone with google glass on just rip it off their face and smash it. The ironic thing is if they happen to produce video proof showing you smashing the glass then you were right for smashing them because they were recording you which can be considered harassment.

Re:Really (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44112087)

It's a side effect of a failing education system and the reoccurring theme that problem should be answered with fists instead of the brain.

Re:Really (4, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44110805)

I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?

Also the people claiming Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed are dumb. The person buying Google Glass isn't being videoed, so he doesn't have an incentive to not have it; it's everyone else who has an incentive for him to not have it. That doesn't stop the product from selling. If I become a billionaire, a lot of people will be pissed at my private yacht because they have wallets as small as their penises; but their penis envy won't stop me from owning a private yacht. (The fact that private yachts are boring as hell might--wtf am I going to do with a yacht?)

Re:Really (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | about a year ago | (#44110869)

Most people don't buy things to become social pariahs (which describes your Google Glass owner above).

Re:Really (3, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44111121)

Sounds like you're lucky enough not to have met any hipsters

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111415)

I'd be happy to be avoided by the type of idiot who would refuse to associate with me just because I was wearing Glass.

Re:Really (4, Interesting)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about a year ago | (#44110873)

The solution is to purchase music videos of Prince and have them playing clearly visible by the police monitoring. It's illegal for them to make copies, and it's not illegal for you to display the content within your home... for now.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111867)

I'm pretty sure they have immunity to prosecution from stuff like that.

Re:Really (0, Troll)

number17 (952777) | about a year ago | (#44110905)

people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?

A fundamental difference is that the CCTV is over there while google glass and surveillance man are right in your face.

The person buying Google Glass isn't being videoed, so he doesn't have an incentive to not have it

When the person being videoed becomes hostile, punches you in the face, and breaks your new google glasses, you may rethink purchasing another pair. I suspect that calling in an assault to the police would get you laughed at and told not to be an asshole next time.

Re:Really (3, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#44111067)

"When the person being videoed becomes hostile, punches you in the face, and breaks your new google glasses, you may rethink purchasing another pair. "

Then I'll buy something better, designed for me personally with all the money I'll get for that assault, after suing the moron, since the video will be already saved in the cloud before the fist hits my face.

Re:Really (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#44111439)

You're assuming that the person punching you has any assets or income worth anything. Good luck with that.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111629)

Idiot is also assuming he survives the ordeal.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111955)

yes because murder is clearly the appropriate solution, and it did spring to mind when someone video taped you last century?

Re:Really (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44112105)

Since it's not premeditated, it's probably going to be a significantly lesser charge than murder.

Re:Really (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about a year ago | (#44111969)

What makes you so sure a jury will award you anything? If anything, most people I know would consider someone sitting down at their table, while recording their reactions, to be openly hostile, and chances are the person doing the punching will get off on the "assault", and you'll be left holding the bag for the civil suit afterwards.

If anything, the police should be citing Surveillance Man for Disturbing the Peace. These are normal, generally happy people before the "Man with a Camera" shows up.

Re: Really (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#44111991)

Good luck: if you have a video of them punching you then YOU will be sued because they were right, you were recording and harassing them! Ironic isn't it?

Re:Really (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44111103)

You suspect wrong. The puncher would quickly be arrested and buying the punched another pair. That is the beauty of uploading the video as you go.

Re:Really (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44112039)

What kind of stupid. selfish unthinking uncivilized knuckle dragging moron thing assault is the correct way to handle thing?
well you.

And it's assault, just like it would be know, and the person would be arrested. If not, I will just go to the DA and/or make in publicly embarrassing to local politician who let that kind of thuggery run amok.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110907)

Just one comment, it is very likely, that as a billionair, all the money you have on you will be in plastic cards, giving you a very small wallet, while poor people may have a lot more money in coins, which are thicker and add up pretty quickly.

Not that I am insinuating that your manhood is not of monstrous proportions.

Re:Really (-1, Flamebait)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44111171)

Look, a normal, poor city Negro has on average 9 to 11 credit cards depending on the year the census is taken. I've learned that most people have $15,000-$25,000 limits on each card and some of these people are up to 90% of their rolling.

I'm a rich man. I assure you I can handle a hell of a lot more plastic than some poor black kid--and coins don't go in your wallet; they're black, downtrodden, and poorly educated (our government is fail, public school sucks especially for poor kids), not retarded.

Re:Really (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about a year ago | (#44111437)

was this post supposed to make sense?

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111711)

I see you're trying to bring "negro" back. Good luck.

Re:Really (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44112073)

Negro sounds more respectable than Nigger, my friend. The term 'colored' is too old fashioned; and many blacks are quite content with being 'black'. "African American" is too clinical for a PC term; Negro rolls off the tongue better, has neutral connotations, and provides an appropriate substitute if Black is too crude.

The English language is a pile of shit, but it at least brings a broad base to work from by its parasitic vampire bloodsucking consumption of other languages. We may as well mold it, form it, and use it to the fullest extent. There are blacks, and negros, and there are niggers--we can't forget the niggers. But you know, they're not really all niggers, not in the proper sense. If they were, the language would be less useful. And, maybe, the key tool to forming society being language, maybe they don't *want* to be niggers, so maybe if we don't tell them they're all niggers they'll try not to be niggers, without sacrificing the personal pride and heritage of being a negro or black or whatever you want to call it. You know, not being assimilated into a bland, flat society. Keep their individuality.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110937)

CCTV footage isn't uploaded anywhere unless there's a very good reason (general rule). Google glass footage is uploaded by attention prostitutes to everywhere (general rule). It's very different.

Re:Really (1, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about a year ago | (#44110947)

I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

Re:Really (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year ago | (#44111051)

Do you? where do you live? what about private cameras such as shop CCTV?

Re:Really (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a year ago | (#44111303)

In the UK that's all covered by the data protection act, yes including private shop CCTV - for a nominal fee (£20 or so) I can request copies of all records, digital or otherwise, video or otherwise, that they have on me.

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44112003)

IN the US, you can get them free, it's called 'YouTube'.

heh.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111239)

In theory, you may have the right.

In practice, you ain't getting it anymore than you're getting the records on your phone movements from the NSA.

Re:Really (2)

fulldecent (598482) | about a year ago | (#44111247)

I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

I have the legal right to ask for the video from a video camera that is owned and operated by the public sector, I have no legal right to do so from someone with Google glass.

Sir, you have the legal right to ask anyone for anything.

Re:Really (1)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | about a year ago | (#44110953)

For one thing, it's a lot harder to spy on you when you're on your private yacht.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110967)

The first instance was where disincentive was caused by a shift of burden from Google Glass owners onto non-owners. A NAMBY argument would be an appropriate sequitor. However, having a yacht is not an example of shifting a burden, unless your yacht actively diminishes others' penis size - but in your example the penis was already small. wft..

Re:Really (3, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44111273)

My point was people already bitch about shit other people own--big houses, private jets, hummers, stupid donks, animals, etc.

People bitch about things I own. I own a $1400 bicycle with $600 wheels--having upgraded from a $500 bicycle, ho-ly shit who knew?! People think it's their business to tell me I'm a horrible person for not buying a $50 40lb piece of shit from Toys-R-Us which would be "just as good" but fuck 'em.

I'm buying a $5000 piano--a Kawai CA-93--and people are telling me I don't need it and/or that a $300 piano or a plastic Yamaha $500 keyboard is "just as good" and rattle on and on about this like it's somehow hurting their quality of life.

You should see the way some people react when I talk about getting granite counter tops--apparently me having granite makes their quality of life poorer because everybody has granite and it's "overdone" (in the same way, I guess, that everyone having a refrigerator is overdone? Granite is fucking fantastic--yes, cement counter top is respectable, easily repaired, looks good, etc--but granite is really, really fucking awesome).

Vibram FiveFingers [vibramfivefingers.com] .

What the fuck do I care about what you think about my Google Glass?

Re:Really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111827)

You got all that money from spamvertising on Slashdot?

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111847)

granite is only fantastic if you like stains and/or like re-sealing it every 6-12 months.
quartz is far more fantastic.

Re:Really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111935)

Are you constantly telling people about the stuff you own and how much it costs? You sound like a real douche. Maybe they're not complaining about your choice of stuff and are instead complaining about you opening your obnoxious mouth so much.

With the spammy link in your post, their assessment of douchyness may not be far from the mark.

Re: Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112053)

Granite countertops? Everyone and their grandma has granite countertops, what 3rd world country do you live in that someone gave you shit over something as common as granite countertops?

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112159)

You and Marie Antoinette. How'd that work out for her?

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111011)

private yachts are boring as hell ... wtf am I going to do with a yacht?

Invite pretty women to spend some time on your yacht? They'll understand that the yacht is a penis substitute, but they won't care.

Re: Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112083)

Good luck with that - "Hey pretty girl wanna go hang out on my yacht? Hey where u going??" Might as well as her if she wants some candy

Re:Really (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#44111105)

"but people bitch about Google Glass."

I bitch, because they're ugly. I'll wait for Google Shoes.

Re:Really (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44111189)

Google Shoes will have built-in navigation based on the Google Car. No matter how drunk you get, they'll get you home from the bar.

Re:Really (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#44111737)

No no, it'll be connected to Google Glass. Every time you take a step, it'll snap a picture and upload it for Google Street View, Google Home View, Google Hiking View, Google Mountain Biking View, and of course Google Funniest Pictures.

[John]

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111267)

I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass.

'cause two wrongs make a right? Are we in the first grade again?

Re:Really (3, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about a year ago | (#44111327)

I find it funny that we have police CCTV everywhere--there's two on my street watching my house wtf?--but people bitch about Google Glass. Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?

Typical non-sequitur (and looks like a flaimebait to me, not insightful). You can consistently

1. be against CCTV everywhere (and where I live, they are not everywhere)

2. be against Google glasses (unless they'd have a HUGE flashing light plus aconstant BEEP BEEP BEEP sound when they are recording)

3. have no problem with cameras in phones as long as they are clearly indicating when they are recording (and otherwise be against their use)

Moreover, in the country I come from filming people in public without their consent is prohibited, and I greatly appreciate that.

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44111931)

Must be nice for the police as well.

Re:Really (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44111959)

Actually, if you look at the parent post, you'll see it was about CCTV and about how the government putting CCTV everywhere is terrible as well as Google Glass. But then, dash cams everywhere filming you too. Bike helmet cams. And so on.

Re:Really (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#44111427)

wtf am I going to do with a yacht?

Use it to get laid by hot models that wouldn't give you ten seconds of attention otherwise? Just a guess.

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44111945)

AH, but you can get just as laid by lying about having a yacht.
Not on a Yacht, but since you have had too man,e and you are in a hotel anyways..

Re:Really (2)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year ago | (#44111507)

"Yet people don't whine about dash cams or cameras in cell phones?"

We did when they first came out (camera phones). Then it became the norm and even useful once the cameras produced useful pictures and video.

The big difference between Google glass and a camera phone is that no one walks around continuously holding up their phone so the camera can capture everything. You have to be somewhat stealthy if you want to snap a clandestine picture or video with a camera phone. If someone is holding up a camera phone in your direction then it becomes obvious. With glass as long as the wearer is looking in your direction, they may or may not be filming you.

When you say dash cam I assume you mean police dash cams? Or general purpose dash cams like everyone has in Russia? Either way they are much less invasive than glass or even cell phone cameras. They are fixed and only capture a limited view. As for law enforcement, I have never heard people complaining about them. I don't have any strong feeling about them aside from the thought that every police cruiser should have one and it should be illegal for an officer to switch it off.

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44111989)

" If someone is holding up a camera phone in your direction then it becomes obvious."
as opposed to using AR? or map software?

Anyways, I look froward to Google Glass, and how it will change the world for the better.

Re:Really (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year ago | (#44112127)

Sorry but I don't know what AR means. But if you are implying that people hold their phones 90 degrees vertically when they look up maps or text then I would say that no, they don't. More like 45 degrees or less to see the screen when navigating or general use (while standing or walking). Plus it would have to be held up more toward eye level to see the viewfinder on the screen.

I too like the idea of glass, the augmented reality possibilities would be fantastic. Navigation would be amazing: A foot path, arrows or others direction indicators can be overlayed right over your view pointing you in the right direction. Safer than glancing down at a screen. Text messages right in front of you as well as instant heads up information.

But the privacy drawbacks will always overshadow any real usefulness of the device.

Re:Really (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44112095)

I mean like in Russia where 97% of vehicles have a dash cam and you can put together an every-angle-view 24/7 continuously of 100% of what's visible from the road.

Re:Really (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about a year ago | (#44111725)

I can only guess that people are more paranoid about some perv rubbing one off to videos captured with Google Glasses than they are of a government that will rape them using CCTV glasses.

Though I think I'd be more ok with cops wearing or using technology that allowed them to always record what they see than just random cameras recording everything all the time. At least then there is a presence (and not just using technology to spy) and if they were required to do this then there would be a lot less potential for them to claim that the unarmed guy was reaching for a weapon. It should be used more to audit the cops than the civilians.

Re:Really (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#44112101)

OK, glass!

Snap a pic of her panties!

Re:Really (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44112057)

" Google Glass will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed "
alternativly:
YouTube will fail as a product because people don't like the idea of being videoed

Re:Really (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#44110837)

People should be this upset about the government doing this too. CCTV's are popping up everywhere, even in rural US cities.

There is a considerably large difference in a civilian wearing Google Glass and a government agency putting up cameras.

I can merely walk away or choose not to be around the person wearing Glass...or perhaps kindly ask them to remove them or otherwise disable it.

People are upset not because government agencies are doing the same thing, but mainly because there's not a damn thing citizens can do to stop it, or prevent massive abuse.

Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll "create jobs" at battery and motor factories all over the country building tens of thousands of unmanned drones, which will be advertised as a "win" for the job market and the economy to mask the ulterior motive.

Re:Really (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year ago | (#44111191)

I can merely walk away or choose not to be around the person wearing Glass...

Not if both of you want to be in the same place.

or perhaps kindly ask them to remove them or otherwise disable it.

And they're free to ignore your request, to lie to you about the thing being disabled, and/or film your reaction and upload it to YouTube.

People are upset not because government agencies are doing the same thing, but mainly because there's not a damn thing citizens can do to stop it, or prevent massive abuse.

On the contrary, people have the right to interrogate the authorities about the images they're collecting and the scope of the collection. They can propose laws regulating, limiting or even preventing the collection. They can elect politicians who are against it, and vote against, or no longer vote for, the politicians who are in favour of it.

Re:Really (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#44111459)

People are upset not because government agencies are doing the same thing, but mainly because there's not a damn thing citizens can do to stop it, or prevent massive abuse.

On the contrary, people have the right to interrogate the authorities about the images they're collecting and the scope of the collection. They can propose laws regulating, limiting or even preventing the collection. They can elect politicians who are against it, and vote against, or no longer vote for, the politicians who are in favour of it.

Right.

And then the government can continue their classified operations to collect it anyway.

The only thing greater than a lack of privacy is the illusion you still have control to maintain it. You don't.

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111187)

they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way
And just about everyone walks around with little cameras in their pocket.

What do many people do when they see someone doing something massively stupid? Pull out phone... film... up on youtube...

Re:Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111305)

Youtube needs to fix its problems before anything else. I hardly works anymore.

Video everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110731)

Well now ill video the reactions of ppl getting their videos banned of violent reactions of ppl to being videoed.

Hopefully... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110771)

someone will kill the bastard...

Just For Laughs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110773)

Are they going to ban Just for Laughs prank videos, too?

Re:Just For Laughs? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110821)

Most of the time those people sign waivers and they're often paid a small amount as well. My roommate worked on a show similar to "Just for Laughs" in Toronto and most people simply wouldn't permit any footage of them to be used.

Re:Just For Laughs? (1)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year ago | (#44110823)

*shrug* i'm not sure why this is even news. it's their site, they can ban/remove whatever they want.

Two issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110799)

There are two issues at work here but the difference is subtle.

The first is about people being filmed without their knowledge, whether by private individuals, corporate entities, or governments. The latter brings with it a whole bag of nutjob whackos that tends to drown out any focused discussion. This is an issue of the concept of "right to privacy" in private and public spaces and archival of such video for future use.

The second issue is one where people are being filmed with their knowledge and without their consent with the intent to harass and inflame. This is the tool cameraman is attempting to utilize in order to make a political statement. I can only assume the issue he's trying to highlight is the above mentioned issue. I can only assume this because I refuse to spend any more of my valuable time researching the details. He's just not worth it. Regardless of whether it's legal to film random strangers on the street; stalking, harassment, and/or disorderly conduct charges (x1000) will eventually put a damper on his tactics.

So, no more.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110807)

.. "2 girls 1 cup reaction" videos?

irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110825)

... its delicious..

Black mirror (4, Interesting)

mvar (1386987) | about a year ago | (#44110833)

On the subject of surveillance and Google Glass, the British tv-series Black Mirror had a pretty neat episode (s01e03) titled "The Entire History of You", here's a brief description [wikipedia.org] from wikipedia: Set in an alternative reality where most people have a 'grain' implanted behind their ear which records everything they do, see or hear. This allows memories to be played back either in front of the person's eyes or on a screen, a process known as a 're-do'. Very interesting concept

Makes sense - set up the masses for the event (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110893)

Step 1 - pacify people in a certain group (in our case, google glass users)
 
Step 2 - ?
 
Step 3 - profit!

Threatened by Glass, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111025)

"we kinda knew the Govt was spying on us totally, and we're OK with that because, you know, terrorism?" Facepalm

Not for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111119)

Right now, I don't understand what Glass offers. (Then again, I barely understand what smartphones offer either.)

I only understand that they have a high potential of being irritating to wear and use and so I hardly see it as being for everyone. People can't really multitask very well so switching over to using Glass, even though it's right there on your head for immediate use, will always have a delay and take you a bit away from the real world instead of augmenting it.

That said augmented reality is interesting. If it implemented face recognition, coupled with its surveillance capabilities, it seems like a great tool to put on every police officer and other surveillance personnel.

FUCK YOU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111151)

JEWTUBE

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111163)

'Some people also seem to feel threatened by Google Glass,' Philip De Cortes wrote in Google Glass Will Fail. 'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"

No surprise there, the FBI has already claimed they have the "right" to hack into computers in order to turn webcams into surveillance devices. They are already demanding CALEA II: Mandatory Wiretapping On Every Device. The NSA already has surreptitious access to the cell phone network. Put the two out-of-control government agencies together and yes, Google Glass will be used against us by our corrupt government. It's only a matter of time.

Cyborg Steve Mann details alleged McDonald’s (1)

Steve Newall (24926) | about a year ago | (#44111205)

This sounds similar to some of the problems that Steve Mann [nbcnews.com] has run into. He has been experimenting with augmented reality headsets since 1980 and has documented [nytimes.com] quite a few incidents before and been on slashdot before.

Re:Cyborg Steve Mann details alleged McDonald&rsqu (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44111961)

At least Google Glass devices can be removed. Having one surgically implanted is pretty stupid regardless of the tenuous reasons offered for doing so.

pshaw really? (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44111229)

'They wonder if they're being recorded, and they feel like the tool could be used against them in some way.'"

You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day, by your smartphone, by your ISP, by any of a dozen other things probably.

I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss and wacking off to it later than what the government will do with their recordings if they I cross the wrong person.

Re:pshaw really? (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year ago | (#44111379)

You wonder of you are being recorded? You are, by the hundred cameres you walk past every day

And it's highly unlikely anything will come of it. To cameras on the street you are uninteresting.

I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss

You should be concerned about some weirdo using you in an image meme, or of a "friend" incidentally capturing you everywhere you go, and another "friend" tagging you in the videos or photos, making your private business searchable.

Re:pshaw really? (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | about a year ago | (#44111445)

And you should be more concerned that once your "friend" has identified you to his life logging software, it will be able to automatically tag you in every video or photo.

Re:pshaw really? (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#44111897)

Walking in the street is not now, nor has it ever been, private business.

You re already being recorded, and the government and corporations can find out every thing you do. If you become a perosn of interest, then whom every is interested can find out everything you do on a much more personal level then some dorks tagging you from an image.

Google Glass is the citizens number one best protection from abuse.

BTW, I can get a hidden camera that I wear on me for a lot less then Google Glass. So If I want to record you, I could. Well, not you cause I don't want to go through the hassle of tracking you down, but you get my meaning.

Re:pshaw really? (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about a year ago | (#44111501)

dude im not sure what brand smartphone you are using but trust me when i say i know 100% for certain my smartphone isn't videoing me surreptitiously...and if there was any hint it was i'd reflash the rom in 30 seconds...and how is my ISP videoing me when i dont have any cameras connected to my computer?

Re:pshaw really? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44111667)

I said record. Record does not mean a video recording necessarily. Audio, traffic logging, gps logging.. all of these are recording.

Re:pshaw really? (1)

Hypotensive (2836435) | about a year ago | (#44112171)

I am less worried about some wierdo Google glassing me taking a piss and wacking off to it later than what the government will do with their recordings if they I cross the wrong person.

If your weirdo uploads the video to somewhere that vaguely resembles a public forum, the government will get their copy too.

I'm offended (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111315)

The removal of this video is bullying.

Big fuckin joke too. the one time google has a problem with surveillance....

public vs private surveillance (0)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44111407)

I dont think people are so upset about the mans motive; to educate people about surveillance is a good thing. the problem is 90% of the footage captured by public CCTV cameras is different. Municipalities in the US that receive funding for CCTV cameras do so likely as part of a Homeland Security grant from the federal government and will install low-resolution cameras typically at intersections as government buildings have already been covered. These low resolution cameras are typically designed to reduce the cities expenditure on insurance for police and emergency services as they blow through red lights far more frequently and thus have a greater potential for collision with an automobile than does the average driver.

The footage is, in my personal experience as an accident victim, uselessly low quality and low framerate.

as for private surveillance, ATM video is hillariously low quality (check out youtube for a few examples.) higher end DVR systems in stores and pubs however are only used during an altercation or when required in order to prosecute a violation of law. nobody of any importance has interest to this video.

what the privacy evangelist is doing in contrast is uploading people to a distributed global network of video content which is freely available to anyone at any time. It serves to educate the public about google more than anything else, which is good. Given the potential for my boss, my coworkers, or my loved ones to stumble across the video however, I cant say id think twice about landing a haymaker on the first glasshole to shout "record."

Re:public vs private surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111573)

Not sure why anyone is worried about google glass, is it just because it records at eye level? People with bad intentions who want to record other people for creepy or nefarious reasons have plenty of other options for small discrete recording devices which aren't plainly visible on their faces.

Re:public vs private surveillance (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44111907)

Perhaps you are comfortable having facing someone wearing a camera strapped to their heads, who may or may not be recording you, who may or may not even be paying attention to what you are saying, who may even be augmenting your appearance for their private amusement. But I guarantee there are many people who would not. For a similar effect try videoing people on a train or in a social situation and see how they appreciate it. Wearing Google Glass is an invitation to get into arguments and receive free punches by friends and total strangers alike.

Re:public vs private surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111701)

This "evangelist" is wasting their time on members of the public. If they want exposure to get their message out, they need to focus on the rich, powerful, "lobbyists" in action, senior police, reporters (both pulp and TV) et al. It won't take long before the media picks up and runs with these intrusions.

if it can be used against people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111529)

it will.

This is a big problem only because technology today allows to do it for everybody and even if processing is still a mile or two away from real time watching, selecting, automatic decision making and execution we are still on the good way there and while people are working on making processing real time we still keep records of people fiddling with their zippers in public in hope to be used sometime.

Investment Opportunity (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#44111767)

Time to create a pattern shifting mask for general walking around ala Rorschach.

[John]

Reactions? (3, Interesting)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#44111905)

Why do people passively accept the presence of fixed security cameras everywhere, but get agitated when there is a person aiming a camera at them?

I can sort of understand the reaction if he followed them around, but in the few clips I watched, he's in a public place and the people are actively chasing him away.

I'd like to see him sitting somewhere in the direct vicinity of a police camera and point out to people that the government is doing the same damned thing. Maybe people would re-consider their support of government spying.

Know what (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112029)

We need more of those guys. But instead of annoying random strangers, make it International Film an Official Day.
You see any kind of public servant out in the open, start pointing a camera at them. Don't harrass them, or follow them onto private ground. Just make it obvious you're filming everything they do on the street.
It's not like they have anything to hide if they're doing nothing wrong, right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>