Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it.
As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.
Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time! (I'm predicting that will be the reaction of many bloggers to the iWatch... including those who stayed silent for years as people wore far more expensive watches that did nothing but show off the wearer's credit limit.)
Many would say that we're all dorks for posting on an Internet forum.
Maybe, but our neighbors, coworkers, people on the street don't necessarily know that. It's one thing to be a dork, it's quite another for everyone to realize it. Letting your dork flag fly is probably not the best policy.
There is apparently a little white light that is visible inside the lens display when the Glass camera is recording.
However, light or no light, just the sight of a camera lens will be enough to make people leery or even confrontational. The folks here need to understand that not everyone out there is waiting to see a recording light. They may even ask, "Are you recording me?" and even if you tell them 'no' and explain that there is a light when it's recording, many won't likely trust you even then.
In situations where you're talking to a stranger, it's not really relevant.
Why not a brand new word to differentiate Google users? You know, the kind of person who is truly a sheep and is too stupid to want technology to integrate with their life... instead of the other way around.
Why not just call them googs?
A word describing a Google Glass user and, by associated implication, a dork... could be a "gawk".
From Wiktionary... "gawk" - A Middle-Appalachian Americanism, since late 1800s, possibly misconstruing French "gauche," and leading to use of adj gawky for a person or process that is uncoordinated or awkward.
The product is already dead. Any business owner who doesn't ban Glass is asking for trouble.
You're optimistic. I'm 80% sure that the GG will take off.
I'm not interested the least by this product, but I'm very concerned by the camera, because I'm a camera phobic (I don't even let my family take a picture of me).
I have to disagree with #chadmatic's statement, "Google Glass will become a prime example of a consumer product launch that failed by taking a technology too far." I would say it has nothing to do with "taking a technology too far." Rather, it's failure will come from trying to isolate technology from people. The tech is almost irrelevant. The problem is with people and their psychology. I would contend that people don't want to have the impression, whether true or not, that they are being spied upon. The design of Google Glass allows people to assume that it is a head-mounted camera, and that people in front of it are being photographed without their permission. This also will make people suspicious of the person who appears to be photographing them: "Why do they want to take pictures of me????"
On the other hand, I do agree with #chadmatic's comment, "I can see professional applications where this will prove invaluable." I can see it used in certain specific situations ranging from surgical work to auto mechanics. At the estimated price, it only makes sense as a business expense that can be written off.
Just thinking about the reaction at the cinema....even if you didn't record the movie you could watch it live with your friends / family on a video call!
The red light should definitively be hardwired, and if the led is dead, then the camera is dead too.
Google has to take this privacy issue very seriously, because it could kill the product.
On a side note, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't ban the GG, but I'd probably put some tape on the camera to tranquilize the other clients.
AFAIK, "hardwired" is pretty rare. On computers, late model MacBook Pros do this (the LED is physically hardwired to the power line going to the camera, so the camera cannot be on without lighting up the LED). Most PC web cams have software controlled LEDs.
Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it.
As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.
Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time! (I'm predicting that will be the reaction of many bloggers to the iWatch... including those who stayed silent for years as people wore far more expensive watches that did nothing but show off the wearer's credit limit.)
There's almost no way it could be designed so you can't defeat the light.
There are at least two points in favor of a watch over glasses, one positive, the other negative. First, positively, a watch is much more discreet that a borg headpiece. Secondly, the negative point, is that, as stated previously in this thread, wearing glasses is a pain for a number of reasons, whereas a watch isn't as annoying.
I'm not sold on the watch, though, because it's hard to see how it could be useful enough to be worth wearing. But I'm absolutely certain, that glasses are DOA.
I bought apples square touch screen ipod and an alum wrist band enclosure and used the iPod to listen to music while snowboarding and working out and love it. The iwatch will be a hit. All I needed was the ability to see who was calling my iPhone on it and it would be perfect.
The thing that I notice about all these first person Glass experiences we are hearing about is that there is literally nothing they can do that cannot already be done on the cell phone except … spying on people without their knowledge.
People have a right to be cautious around glass users for that reason. The video hang-outs could be done easier with an iPhone, the "virtual tours" is just a matter of switching to the rear facing camera, and they have the added advantage of being able to switch back to the person anytime they want. Looking things up is just as easy and with Siri can be hands free.
Glass is slightly more hands-free than the cell phone in some situations, but so what? Is that really worth $1600? If it were a $30 add-on for your smartphone that you only use when you want to be hands free (or record people without their knowledge), then I think a lot might buy one, but otherwise it makes no sense IMO.
Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it …
I disagree with this. As much as I don't want to be filmed secretly myself, I think it's an invasion of privacy and personal freedoms to do this. I particularly don't like the way in which cellphone and smartphone manufacturers were forced (yes forced) to make the camera make a shutter sound because of these same over the top concerns. I think it's inherently wrong whenever you are forcing things like that. No one should have the right to tell me what equipment I can use or buy or what I can do with it unless they can prove that I'm some kind of problem or causing some kind of problem.
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse. It would exacerbate an already tense situation. So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie. So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.
A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught. I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming. If I can't, I'm basically living in a Fascist society IMO. Besides which, it's always been okay to film in public up until the big government crackdown after 911. Public space is public space. If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically. Seig Heil.
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
... If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically.
I HATE your reasoning. And your example of thugs harassing an old woman, it didn't convince me. A picture wouldn't have changed anything. Too bad for you it's not possible to buy e-bullocks.
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse. It would exacerbate an already tense situation. So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie. So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.
A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught. I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming.
False dilemma. Secret filming is not the only way to save the old lady on the train and catch the bad guys.
On the contrary: you want more transparency about filming in public:
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
By definition, if you're wearing Google Glass, you're a dork. So, it doesn't matter how cool you are before you put it on, once you do you're a dork.
Many would say that we're all dorks for posting on an Internet forum.
As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.
Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Many would say that we're all dorks for posting on an Internet forum.
Maybe, but our neighbors, coworkers, people on the street don't necessarily know that. It's one thing to be a dork, it's quite another for everyone to realize it. Letting your dork flag fly is probably not the best policy.
There is apparently a little white light that is visible inside the lens display when the Glass camera is recording.
However, light or no light, just the sight of a camera lens will be enough to make people leery or even confrontational. The folks here need to understand that not everyone out there is waiting to see a recording light. They may even ask, "Are you recording me?" and even if you tell them 'no' and explain that there is a light when it's recording, many won't likely trust you even then.
In situations where you're talking to a stranger, it's not really relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why not a brand new word to differentiate Google users? You know, the kind of person who is truly a sheep and is too stupid to want technology to integrate with their life... instead of the other way around.
Why not just call them googs?
A word describing a Google Glass user and, by associated implication, a dork... could be a "gawk".
From Wiktionary... "gawk" - A Middle-Appalachian Americanism, since late 1800s, possibly misconstruing French "gauche," and leading to use of adj gawky for a person or process that is uncoordinated or awkward.
Sounds about right to me ;~)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The product is already dead. Any business owner who doesn't ban Glass is asking for trouble.
You're optimistic. I'm 80% sure that the GG will take off.
I'm not interested the least by this product, but I'm very concerned by the camera, because I'm a camera phobic (I don't even let my family take a picture of me).
On the other hand, I do agree with #chadmatic's comment, "I can see professional applications where this will prove invaluable." I can see it used in certain specific situations ranging from surgical work to auto mechanics. At the estimated price, it only makes sense as a business expense that can be written off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coollector
The red light should definitively be hardwired, and if the led is dead, then the camera is dead too.
Google has to take this privacy issue very seriously, because it could kill the product.
On a side note, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't ban the GG, but I'd probably put some tape on the camera to tranquilize the other clients.
AFAIK, "hardwired" is pretty rare. On computers, late model MacBook Pros do this (the LED is physically hardwired to the power line going to the camera, so the camera cannot be on without lighting up the LED). Most PC web cams have software controlled LEDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it.
As for awkward, the most awkward thing to me would be speaking to it, not just wearing it. Ditto for Siri, which is why in public I use Siri raised to my head like a phone call, or not at all.
Even more awkward: people noticing you with an Apple iWatch, and realizing you're willing to pay $99-$199 for a mere WATCH just because it does a bunch of stuff beyond telling time!
There's almost no way it could be designed so you can't defeat the light.
There are at least two points in favor of a watch over glasses, one positive, the other negative. First, positively, a watch is much more discreet that a borg headpiece. Secondly, the negative point, is that, as stated previously in this thread, wearing glasses is a pain for a number of reasons, whereas a watch isn't as annoying.
I'm not sold on the watch, though, because it's hard to see how it could be useful enough to be worth wearing. But I'm absolutely certain, that glasses are DOA.
I guess it takes one to know one. ;-)
The thing that I notice about all these first person Glass experiences we are hearing about is that there is literally nothing they can do that cannot already be done on the cell phone except … spying on people without their knowledge.
People have a right to be cautious around glass users for that reason. The video hang-outs could be done easier with an iPhone, the "virtual tours" is just a matter of switching to the rear facing camera, and they have the added advantage of being able to switch back to the person anytime they want. Looking things up is just as easy and with Siri can be hands free.
Glass is slightly more hands-free than the cell phone in some situations, but so what? Is that really worth $1600? If it were a $30 add-on for your smartphone that you only use when you want to be hands free (or record people without their knowledge), then I think a lot might buy one, but otherwise it makes no sense IMO.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... and convincing everyone else that wearing a camera in public isn't a violation of privacy — is going to be difficult.
Try this experiment. Hold you iPhone, Galaxy S4, or whatever, at eye level at all times
while you go to the store, get gas, go about your normal business. See how annoyed people get.
I suspect they'll make some snide remarks about getting a life or virtual thumb-sucking.
But Glass, being mounted in a glasses frame, makes it look like you're trying to hide a camera.
And the appearance of hiding it is the issue. If you were walking around holding a DSLR at eye
level instead, you'd get the occasional "no photos here, buddy," and not much else. At least
people around you would know you had a camera and when you were taking photos.
Big difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Google Glass should have a lamp which lights whenever the camera is in use. Hardwired (like Apple does on MacBooks) so the camera can't be powered without the lamp lighting. Also a sensor beside it to check that the lamp hasn't been painted over. Rigging a workaround would be possible, but visible enough that you'd be caught and embarrassed to have done it …
I disagree with this. As much as I don't want to be filmed secretly myself, I think it's an invasion of privacy and personal freedoms to do this. I particularly don't like the way in which cellphone and smartphone manufacturers were forced (yes forced) to make the camera make a shutter sound because of these same over the top concerns. I think it's inherently wrong whenever you are forcing things like that. No one should have the right to tell me what equipment I can use or buy or what I can do with it unless they can prove that I'm some kind of problem or causing some kind of problem.
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse. It would exacerbate an already tense situation. So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie. So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.
A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught. I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming. If I can't, I'm basically living in a Fascist society IMO. Besides which, it's always been okay to film in public up until the big government crackdown after 911. Public space is public space. If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically. Seig Heil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
... If we start saying that no one can film anyone else without their consent then … well we're fucked basically.
I HATE your reasoning. And your example of thugs harassing an old woman, it didn't convince me. A picture wouldn't have changed anything. Too bad for you it's not possible to buy e-bullocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
"Perverted" uses aside … there are lots of times when you want to take a picture and you don't necessarily want to alert the other person to that fact.
Just the other day there were a bunch of thugs on my train harassing an older woman and I knew that taking a picture of them would just make them turn to me, possibly for a beating, or even worse. It would exacerbate an already tense situation. So I had to switch to doing that thing where you take a movie (silent if you turn the sound down), while holding the phone in such a way that it looked like I wasn't taking a movie. So what results is unusable "jelly" video with a thumb in the way half the time.
A clear picture of the thugs would have been very helpful in getting them caught. I want to always be able to turn off the shutter sound if I want or need to and rely on myself to protect myself from any surreptitious filming.
False dilemma. Secret filming is not the only way to save the old lady on the train and catch the bad guys.
On the contrary: you want more transparency about filming in public: