<span style="line-height:1.231;">I've been super excited when I've heard that Google launched the project Glass. But now that I've seen the product, I know that I won't buy it, and even worse, I know that I will be annoyed by the persons who'll buy it </span>
Yea, I wouldn't buy one either but I'm definitely excited that this technology is being pursued. I'll wait until the device is built into a normal pair of glasses, impossible to tell the difference between a normal pair or Google Glasses.
I'd want to see legislation that would exactly prevent that sort of thing. The issue with GG is not that it looks geeky, that's just a matter of morphing fashion ideals, but what it means. GG that's even more stealth would be worse than what GG already is. So any sort of "integrated into regular glasses" technology should be mandated to have neon-green frames or something like that, which warns people from half a mile away that some wanna-be-spook with his "I record my life stream video because I can't handle the fact that I'm mortal" device is approaching.
Everyone seems to be brainwashed into this idea that the loss of privacy is "inevitable". That's like brainwashing serfs into the idea that slavery is "inevitable". Everything is inevitable until people decide that it's undesirable enough to make a ruckus about it. It's high time that people start making a ruckus.
For the moment, people are surprised and don't know how to react, but it'll soon be a know fact that it's ok to break the toy of the GG owners who ask for it. I'll be happy to shatter one or two myself.
I was pleasantly surprised by reading this forum to discover that most of us are not ready to give up their right to privacy.
I'm afraid that it's too late in places like the US or UK, legislation in these countries have already authorized the use of digital surveillance without the need of a warrant. You guys can all come and live here if gets to be too much. I have a spare bedroom, I can install bunk beds if the numbers start to grow.:D Our property is right up against the lake of Zug, very beautiful and majestic. I do have to warn you though, my kids have a problem with clothes, don't worry though we've implemented naked time.
I'm afraid that it's too late in places like the US or UK, legislation in these countries have already authorized the use of digital surveillance without the need of a warrant.
I'm from France, and we also have a lot of security CC cameras. CC cameras are not a problem. The images are only seen by a bored security agent, or not seen at all, and in the future the images will be processed by Artificial Intelligence Programs only. Also, CC means "closed circuit", which is the opposite of "broadcasting to the web".
In France, unless you're a public person, you must be asked permission to be filmed. Whether it's a news report or candid camera, the persons must sign an autorisation to allow the images to be broadcasted on TV. We have a french documentary maker who travels around the word with 3 cameras on his body, it's called "j'irai dormir chez vous", and he has to ask permission to broadcast what he has filmed. If a person just appears in the background, of course that doesn't count, because who cares (I'm probably in the background of several pictures without knowing it).
I'd want to see legislation that would exactly prevent that sort of thing. The issue with GG is not that it looks geeky, that's just a matter of morphing fashion ideals, but what it means. GG that's even more stealth would be worse than what GG already is. So any sort of "integrated into regular glasses" technology should be mandated to have neon-green frames or something like that, which warns people from half a mile away that some wanna-be-spook with his "I record my life stream video because I can't handle the fact that I'm mortal" device is approaching.
Everyone seems to be brainwashed into this idea that the loss of privacy is "inevitable". That's like brainwashing serfs into the idea that slavery is "inevitable". Everything is inevitable until people decide that it's undesirable enough to make a ruckus about it. It's high time that people start making a ruckus.
Better off getting used to the idea of having them around whether you like it or not. Unless you want to pass a law that all cell phones, cameras, and video recorders need to be outlawed or neon green too. These are going to have a big impact on the world, just like twitter had on news. Whether it is for better or worse is the question.
I find it to be a bit rude when people at parties hold up phone cameras and pan them around the room - people should be allowed to freely reach a state of indecency without the fear of it going on the public record. For people to be wearing these casually without it being clear if they are recording is quite obnoxious. What everyone should start doing is holding up their phone cameras at every Google Glasses wearer and see if they like the idea of potentially being filmed without their consent.
I like the idea of Google Glasses from the point of view of wearable head-mounted computing but some people will just use it as a glorified head-mounted webcam and it can get people into a lot of trouble for illegally recording video/audio. It should have an easily identifiable light that shows when video or audio is being recorded or uploaded to the web rather than just passed-through to the user.
I never saw the appeal of Google Glass, and if someone were wearing it on their face while interacting with me, I would be concerned about not having their full attention, or getting recorded without permission.
Mind you, Google Glass is just the beginning and it's only a matter of time before we get a HUD with all types of information integrated into sunglasses, windshields, goggles, binoculars, etc etc.
With Google Glass, it's just not seamless or naturally integrated, so it not only makes you look stupid, but it makes others uneasy.
And given that Google is a personal information peddler, it's easy to see why people would not want what and who they see stored in some Google server for advertisers or the NSA.
There is a big different, having cameras in/on your home/property or business recording what others who visit your home and business are doing is one thing. However, walking into a someone home or business and recording them and than posting it for all to see is a complete violation of people's personal right to privacy.
Put another way, when you are in someone else's home or business you have no right to have expectation of privacy, it is there home, however, owner of the home or business has a complete expectation of privacy. I know a business is a public place, but even law enforcement can not search it without a warrant.
Besides the obvious problems that people think you are either filming them or watching something else, the glasses bear an unfortunate resemblance to those worn by Edward Snowden in his iconic photo. His leaking has hit a nerve with Americans concerning with the government watching and listening to them, and the coincidence that Google Glass may be a tool for just that makes it very unappealing.
There once was a diet candy called Ayds, but then there was a similar-sounding disease (that was actually much more effective weight-loss method, except at the end) that pretty much ended that product's existence. Google Glass looks like spywear, just when that concept has become repellent.
People may get upset but they dont care about their privacy. Look at the NSA stuff. Google spyware is selling by the millions everyday.
People are in denial about the NSA and they don't think it really applies to them. They think, "why would the Government care about my emails or phone conversations?" Plus they don't think there's anything they can do about it. And even though people put all kinds of personal stuff on Facebook and other sites, they're making the decision to do so. But when someone is in your face with Google Glass, it's quite another situation and I think people will exhibit the kind of paranoia exhibited in this article. And the first moron who walks into a public restroom with Google Glass is going to get punched out by somebody. In fact, just as some retail establishments have signs that say, "no cell phones", if GG succeeds, I think we'll see signs saying something like, "To protect the privacy of our customers, Google Glass is not permitted in this establishment."
And while we have gotten used to people talking on their cellphones and we've gotten used to people talking on tiny bluetooth headsets and we've gotten used to all the idiots who cross streets with their heads down looking at a Facebook page or whatever, I'm not sure we're going to get used to someone staring at us from Google Glass, although I suppose some years in the future, this will be an almost invisible accessory to regular eyeglasses and we won't even know.
Personally, I'm hoping for a social backlash to all this stuff or that it's really bad for your eyesight and it will be rejected. Do we really all have to look like the Borg?
The issue isn't just privacy. It's the feeling that, "why does this asshole feel like he has to be connected to the web ALL the time."
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.
Why wouldnt you have just put ur phone on silent? No shutter sound.
There are going to be some bumpy reactions ahead for Glass. It is going to be tough to ban them though. If they try to pass laws against glass they are going to apply to cameras and cell phones with video recorders as well. Try and tell people those are banned >
No such thing. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against devices. You can ban Glass and still accept cell phones. Devices are not people. And a private business can ban anything it wants to, even people, if they are disruptive to the business. So no, it won't be tough at all to ban Glass. Of course some industrious individuals might try to claim some ADA dependence on Glass. We'll see how that pans out in the courts.
Bottom line, though, is the creep factor. We all should know that a certain segment of the techie crowd will flock to this thing, but they are used to being thought of as creepy. Did anyone see the SNL skit about Glass? Imagine if everyone had a Glass (or equivalent) instead of a smartphone. It would look like something right out of the Matrix. Even if this were an Apple device I would be thinking the same things.
This is the money quote from the article...
"I arrived at the paintball shop to fill CO2 canisters for use with my modified SodaStream carbonator. The owner behind the counter viewed me with suspicion, and asked exactly what I was wearing on my head. He had never heard of Google Glass.
"Basically a cell-phone for the head," I explained. "I get driving directions, e-mails and phone calls to it."
Unfortunately, the owner then became concerned that I might be filming him, without even knowing it included a camera. I explained to him that the batteries had died, so I couldn't film anything. But he wasn't buying it, and he became angry."
It will all boil down to public acceptance and THAT is the problem. I think the public will balk at this as too creepy. Smartphones are one thing. Having someone stare at you while wearing this device and you have no idea what they are doing with it is another thing all together. Wearable tech will have to be very careful about crossing social boundaries and red lines.
Comments
I'd want to see legislation that would exactly prevent that sort of thing. The issue with GG is not that it looks geeky, that's just a matter of morphing fashion ideals, but what it means. GG that's even more stealth would be worse than what GG already is. So any sort of "integrated into regular glasses" technology should be mandated to have neon-green frames or something like that, which warns people from half a mile away that some wanna-be-spook with his "I record my life stream video because I can't handle the fact that I'm mortal" device is approaching.
Everyone seems to be brainwashed into this idea that the loss of privacy is "inevitable". That's like brainwashing serfs into the idea that slavery is "inevitable". Everything is inevitable until people decide that it's undesirable enough to make a ruckus about it. It's high time that people start making a ruckus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
I'd want to see legislation that would exactly prevent that sort of thing.
Agreed. I feel exactly the same as you.
I was pleasantly surprised by reading this forum to discover that most of us are not ready to give up their right to privacy.
For the moment, people are surprised and don't know how to react, but it'll soon be a know fact that it's ok to break the toy of the GG owners who ask for it. I'll be happy to shatter one or two myself.
I'm afraid that it's too late in places like the US or UK, legislation in these countries have already authorized the use of digital surveillance without the need of a warrant. You guys can all come and live here if gets to be too much. I have a spare bedroom, I can install bunk beds if the numbers start to grow.:D Our property is right up against the lake of Zug, very beautiful and majestic. I do have to warn you though, my kids have a problem with clothes, don't worry though we've implemented naked time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I'm afraid that it's too late in places like the US or UK, legislation in these countries have already authorized the use of digital surveillance without the need of a warrant.
I'm from France, and we also have a lot of security CC cameras. CC cameras are not a problem. The images are only seen by a bored security agent, or not seen at all, and in the future the images will be processed by Artificial Intelligence Programs only. Also, CC means "closed circuit", which is the opposite of "broadcasting to the web".
In France, unless you're a public person, you must be asked permission to be filmed. Whether it's a news report or candid camera, the persons must sign an autorisation to allow the images to be broadcasted on TV. We have a french documentary maker who travels around the word with 3 cameras on his body, it's called "j'irai dormir chez vous", and he has to ask permission to broadcast what he has filmed. If a person just appears in the background, of course that doesn't count, because who cares (I'm probably in the background of several pictures without knowing it).
Bien sûr, quand et où!
Outside of military applications, I don't see a big need for this product.
They are just plain crap.
First person porn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Bien sûr, quand et où!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
I'd want to see legislation that would exactly prevent that sort of thing. The issue with GG is not that it looks geeky, that's just a matter of morphing fashion ideals, but what it means. GG that's even more stealth would be worse than what GG already is. So any sort of "integrated into regular glasses" technology should be mandated to have neon-green frames or something like that, which warns people from half a mile away that some wanna-be-spook with his "I record my life stream video because I can't handle the fact that I'm mortal" device is approaching.
Everyone seems to be brainwashed into this idea that the loss of privacy is "inevitable". That's like brainwashing serfs into the idea that slavery is "inevitable". Everything is inevitable until people decide that it's undesirable enough to make a ruckus about it. It's high time that people start making a ruckus.
Better off getting used to the idea of having them around whether you like it or not. Unless you want to pass a law that all cell phones, cameras, and video recorders need to be outlawed or neon green too. These are going to have a big impact on the world, just like twitter had on news. Whether it is for better or worse is the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
These are going to have a big impact on the world
It's certainly a device that will hit barriers, but I doubt it's a device that will break barriers. We have more to lose than to gain.
That might be because of the online campaign:
http://stopthecyborgs.org
I find it to be a bit rude when people at parties hold up phone cameras and pan them around the room - people should be allowed to freely reach a state of indecency without the fear of it going on the public record. For people to be wearing these casually without it being clear if they are recording is quite obnoxious. What everyone should start doing is holding up their phone cameras at every Google Glasses wearer and see if they like the idea of potentially being filmed without their consent.
I like the idea of Google Glasses from the point of view of wearable head-mounted computing but some people will just use it as a glorified head-mounted webcam and it can get people into a lot of trouble for illegally recording video/audio. It should have an easily identifiable light that shows when video or audio is being recorded or uploaded to the web rather than just passed-through to the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy
I never saw the appeal of Google Glass, and if someone were wearing it on their face while interacting with me, I would be concerned about not having their full attention, or getting recorded without permission.
Mind you, Google Glass is just the beginning and it's only a matter of time before we get a HUD with all types of information integrated into sunglasses, windshields, goggles, binoculars, etc etc.
With Google Glass, it's just not seamless or naturally integrated, so it not only makes you look stupid, but it makes others uneasy.
And given that Google is a personal information peddler, it's easy to see why people would not want what and who they see stored in some Google server for advertisers or the NSA.
There is a big different, having cameras in/on your home/property or business recording what others who visit your home and business are doing is one thing. However, walking into a someone home or business and recording them and than posting it for all to see is a complete violation of people's personal right to privacy.
Put another way, when you are in someone else's home or business you have no right to have expectation of privacy, it is there home, however, owner of the home or business has a complete expectation of privacy. I know a business is a public place, but even law enforcement can not search it without a warrant.
Without using it, I'd assume it would be similarly dangerous, as it's in your field of view and dividing your attention.
This product is DOA.
Besides the obvious problems that people think you are either filming them or watching something else, the glasses bear an unfortunate resemblance to those worn by Edward Snowden in his iconic photo. His leaking has hit a nerve with Americans concerning with the government watching and listening to them, and the coincidence that Google Glass may be a tool for just that makes it very unappealing.
There once was a diet candy called Ayds, but then there was a similar-sounding disease (that was actually much more effective weight-loss method, except at the end) that pretty much ended that product's existence. Google Glass looks like spywear, just when that concept has become repellent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
People may get upset but they dont care about their privacy. Look at the NSA stuff. Google spyware is selling by the millions everyday.
People are in denial about the NSA and they don't think it really applies to them. They think, "why would the Government care about my emails or phone conversations?" Plus they don't think there's anything they can do about it. And even though people put all kinds of personal stuff on Facebook and other sites, they're making the decision to do so. But when someone is in your face with Google Glass, it's quite another situation and I think people will exhibit the kind of paranoia exhibited in this article. And the first moron who walks into a public restroom with Google Glass is going to get punched out by somebody. In fact, just as some retail establishments have signs that say, "no cell phones", if GG succeeds, I think we'll see signs saying something like, "To protect the privacy of our customers, Google Glass is not permitted in this establishment."
And while we have gotten used to people talking on their cellphones and we've gotten used to people talking on tiny bluetooth headsets and we've gotten used to all the idiots who cross streets with their heads down looking at a Facebook page or whatever, I'm not sure we're going to get used to someone staring at us from Google Glass, although I suppose some years in the future, this will be an almost invisible accessory to regular eyeglasses and we won't even know.
Personally, I'm hoping for a social backlash to all this stuff or that it's really bad for your eyesight and it will be rejected. Do we really all have to look like the Borg?
The issue isn't just privacy. It's the feeling that, "why does this asshole feel like he has to be connected to the web ALL the time."
Why wouldnt you have just put ur phone on silent? No shutter sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
There are going to be some bumpy reactions ahead for Glass. It is going to be tough to ban them though. If they try to pass laws against glass they are going to apply to cameras and cell phones with video recorders as well. Try and tell people those are banned >
No such thing. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against devices. You can ban Glass and still accept cell phones. Devices are not people. And a private business can ban anything it wants to, even people, if they are disruptive to the business. So no, it won't be tough at all to ban Glass. Of course some industrious individuals might try to claim some ADA dependence on Glass. We'll see how that pans out in the courts.
Bottom line, though, is the creep factor. We all should know that a certain segment of the techie crowd will flock to this thing, but they are used to being thought of as creepy. Did anyone see the SNL skit about Glass? Imagine if everyone had a Glass (or equivalent) instead of a smartphone. It would look like something right out of the Matrix. Even if this were an Apple device I would be thinking the same things.
This is the money quote from the article...
"I arrived at the paintball shop to fill CO2 canisters for use with my modified SodaStream carbonator. The owner behind the counter viewed me with suspicion, and asked exactly what I was wearing on my head. He had never heard of Google Glass.
"Basically a cell-phone for the head," I explained. "I get driving directions, e-mails and phone calls to it."
Unfortunately, the owner then became concerned that I might be filming him, without even knowing it included a camera. I explained to him that the batteries had died, so I couldn't film anything. But he wasn't buying it, and he became angry."
It will all boil down to public acceptance and THAT is the problem. I think the public will balk at this as too creepy. Smartphones are one thing. Having someone stare at you while wearing this device and you have no idea what they are doing with it is another thing all together. Wearable tech will have to be very careful about crossing social boundaries and red lines.