Using Google Glass: A series of awkward encounters

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 235
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 762editor

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coollector View Post


    Thank you, I did not know that.


     


    I hope that Google made it very hard to hack, otherwise it's useless.



     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    Hey, it's open!



     


    The Glass themselves are very easy to hack, although modifying will prevent them from getting the automatic over the air update.


     


    At Google i/o 2013, there was a session which showed putting Ubuntu Linux on Glass and using the temple trackpad as the mouse for a desktop linux environment.


     


    The bootloader is unlockable, and it is easy to root. I do not know if the light that turns on with camera use is hackable in software.

  • Reply 62 of 235
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vmarks View Post


    ... At Google i/o 2013, there was a session which showed putting Ubuntu Linux on Glass and using the temple trackpad as the mouse for a desktop linux environment. ...



     


    image


     


    I think that sums up perfectly who will want these.

  • Reply 63 of 235
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,698member


    ... Unfortunately, getting over the idea that wearers aren't ignoring the people around them ? and convincing everyone else that wearing a camera in public isn't a violation of privacy ? is going to be difficult. In my early tests, I'm not sold.


     


    You are not alone...



    http://www.hulu.com/watch/486603


     


    If Google is managed by adults, they will not release this product.   LOL


    There are thousands of No's for every Yes...


    Glass is a definite No.

  • Reply 64 of 235
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    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.  



     


    We're just beginning to figure out what this kind of tech might be useful for.


     


    One of the pioneers of personal devices like these was a shy researcher who could never remember people's names.  But, just like the Big Bang Theory guys, he needed to do so in order to help get grants at university mixers.


     


    So he built a portable computer hooked to a camera in his glasses, along with face recognition software.  When he met someone, he recorded their face and introduction.  Later, the process was reversed so that his earpiece would read back the intro for that person.


     


    Now imagine if he had to hold up his phone and say, "Wait, let me snap another picture of you so I can remember who you are"


     


    Also imagine how nice this will be for the deaf and hard of hearing, if they had a constant text to speech view... and visual alerts of approaching emergency vehicles.


     



    Quote:


    Glass is slightly more hands-free than the cell phone in some situations, but so what?  Is that really worth $1600?



     


    Maybe not now.  It's early tech.  It's like when microwave ovens or VCRs first came out.  It'll get smaller, cheaper, better and less noticeable.


     


    One thing for sure... we cannot imagine today what will be considered normal ten years from now, much less in fifty or a hundred.


     


    Perhaps one day everyone will have recorders, and you'll have opt-out field areas around you set up.  Who knows? 


     

  • Reply 65 of 235
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coollector View Post


    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.



     


    I HATE ONIONS! (which is about as relevant as your comment to this discussion).

  • Reply 66 of 235

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    I HATE ONIONS! (which is about as relevant as your comment to this discussion).



    Seriously?

  • Reply 67 of 235
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member


    I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.

  • Reply 68 of 235
    esoomesoom Posts: 155member


    I just had a flash of the demographics that use BT earpieces using GG.


     


    Sigh.

  • Reply 69 of 235
    applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,698member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.



     


    http://www.hulu.com/watch/486603

  • Reply 70 of 235
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    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:


     




     


    Well perhaps I didn't make it well, but this is part of my point about Google glass in general.  Despite the fact that none of us particularly *want* to be recorded, recording in a public area has always been allowed and there is simply no reasonable expectation that it shouldn't be so.  There are cameras everywhere nowadays and while most people don't notice them (and to that degree they are "secret"), they are no different from Google glass.  


     


    There aren't always giant signs like this to indicate that cameras are present either.  This is more the "old-school way of doing it. These signs exist primarily to scare off criminals or make them see that going somewhere else would be more profitable.  In many cases, heavy use of signage is actually a bluff and an indication that there aren't any real cameras present.  


     


    For instance, (again in my country/area), there are cameras in all the public areas of the building that I live in.  There are cameras at all the train and transit stations.  There are cameras on the busses and trains themselves.  There are cameras in every public area of the Institution I currently work at.  There might be some signs in some of these areas, but I don't recall ever seeing them and there is certainly no legal obligation (again, at least in my area/country) that they be marked or that warning signs be placed.  Other than when I'm home, or when I'm actually in my office, I'm recorded pretty much 24/7.  


     


    Signs or not, visible cameras or not, audible shutters or not, I think the bottom line is that there is simply no expectation of privacy in a public area and one should assume that one's activities can both be seen by others and recorded by others. It's not like *knowing* that you are being recorded, you can opt out of it or do anything about it.  It's not like there is somewhere else you can go where you *aren't* recorded.  Every public area is recorded or has the possibility of being recorded.  


     


    There is no "danger" from allowing people to record or take pictures in public surreptitiously or otherwise.  


     


    Perverts will be perverts regardless of the laws or technology.  A guy who wants to film your kids playing in the park, or take pictures up someones dress is still going to do it regardless.  There are more than enough ways around it technologically and guess who knows those ways?  That's right, Mr. Pervert. The danger is the pervert themselves and the fact that he's sitting in a public park, not whether he has cleverly figured out a way to take a picture of your kid.  It's not like stopping him recording makes it safer for your kid.  He'd just sit there and "mentally" record your kid.  


     


    The danger is the pervert not the camera. 

  • Reply 71 of 235
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coollector View Post


    Seriously?



     


    Well you just made what I thought was a weird emotional response that contained no information or argument.  


    And yes, I seriously hate onions. 


     


    Anyway, I've made my point a few times so I'm going to shut up now although I find it disturbing how easily you people are willing to give up your freedom based on an emotional response to technology.  If people didn't want to be recorded the line in the sand should have been drawn a long time ago when the first camera went up.  


     


    If it's okay for the "authorities" and businesses to have cameras (secret or otherwise), in a public area, then surely it's alright for a private citizen is it not?  What the heck was World War II about then?  


    (Freedom and Democracy being the correct answer)


     


    I also find it heavily ironic that it always ends up being me arguing for freedom on a forum that is supposedly dominated by Americans.  image

  • Reply 72 of 235

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    There are cameras everywhere nowadays and while most people don't notice them (and to that degree they are "secret"), they are no different from Google glass.



    The personal managing the public cameras have to follow strict rules. When you're filmed by public cameras, the video won't end up on the net.

  • Reply 73 of 235
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I'm about "this close" to deleting this site from my bookmarks.



     


    Unless...? (All threats are idle threats. If that was something you were going to do, you'd have done it by now.)

  • Reply 74 of 235
    cyniccynic Posts: 124member


    I also don't think this will become a successful product. Technology isn't there, yet. People aren't there, yet. Without the first it will be even harder to achieve the latter.


     


    For now, there are very, very limited uses for this technology. I haven't seen anything Glass can do, my Smartphone can't do multiple times better and faster. Even simple things such as calling someone or looking something up. Speech instructions are problematic and still don't work that well. Apart from the fact that you might not always want to tell everyone around you what you're currently doing or whom you want to call. Again, technology isn't there, yet. Input and interaction is just too limited.


     


    Classic computing devices, even those so called post-PC devices have an interesting characteristic. Whenever you use them, you clearly indicate those around you, that you do so. You don't look suspicious. You look "normal" and your posture tells everyone around you "hey, i'm not available for a chat at the moment, cause i'm clearly checking my email". This is even true for other forms of wearable computing, such as watches, etc.


     


    Glass is just different, it's creepy. It is not immediately apparent whether you are engaged into something or not. You look stupid. When you stare at your screen for longer than a second you look like a creep or a zombie. Most of all however, people feel threatened by this face mounted device more than they feel threatened by Smartphones, Cameras or even Smart Watches. Simply because taking a picture with any of those other devices requires a clearly distinctive gesture. Doing this with Glass doesn't. I really don't blame people for rejecting it. I wouldn't want to talk to anyone with Glass, either.


     


    Purely technologically, I don't think it is there, yet either. Not even close. I also don't think having a device mounted permanently in your field of view on one eye only is good or healthy, and there have been opinions about that as well. I believe it will take at least another decade for the technology to mature, similar to how tablet PCs have taken a long time to get to what they are today. When the day comes, where we can keep on wearing regular glasses, however with a built in HUD, which comes up whenever we want to and when interaction comes to a level of really advanced eye tracking or brainwaves or whatever, then the world might be ready for it.


     


    As it stands, this is simply a creepy toy with questionable benefits.

  • Reply 75 of 235


    I don't care when I'm filmed by public cameras. Probably nobody will ever see the images unless a drama happens.


     


    But it's a completely different situation if a guy takes a video of me with his GG. He's not doing it for security purposes. What's his purpose?

  • Reply 76 of 235
    cyniccynic Posts: 124member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    What the heck was World War II about then?  


    (Freedom and Democracy being the correct answer)



     


    Yes, and God was on our side... oh please, those are fairytales for children...

  • Reply 77 of 235
    bobborriesbobborries Posts: 151member


    The technology will improve to the point they will look like normal glasses, the cost will go down and most people who enjoy to wear glasses will buy them. With everyone wearing them everywhere you go, privacy issues will disappear, since the offended will be recording as well and those who still complain will never go out in public. Eventually you won't need to wear anything as they will become implants and the NSA will know your every move!

  • Reply 78 of 235


    Personally I think Google is on the right path with wearable computers. It will be several years before the world as a whole embraces this and accepts it as common place. But I love the idea and believe it will be huge, but will take a while to gain momentum with the main crowd, not just tech geeks like us :)


     


     


    Check out our tech related blog at


     


    TechNowNews.com


     


    or find us on Facebook at


     


    TechNowNews.com/Facebook

  • Reply 79 of 235
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post



    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! image (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.)


     


    Of the 5 watches I've purchased over the past 2 decades, I think 1 cost less than $200.  So what was your point?

  • Reply 80 of 235
    I've been a tech-geek since the early '60s, but Glass seems too invasive (potentially). I think it will be viewed as with suspicion even by those who understand the underlying technologies.

    Just as one has to ask permission to record a phone call, I think Glass will need at least a conspicuous blinking red light so that the person or persons being photographed, recorded or videoed will know and the wearer will need to get either their recorded or written consent.

    The example of Glass's use in surgery is a great one. Nevertheless, I believe it will be viewed as intrusive and illegal on the streets - as well it should be!
Sign In or Register to comment.