Google Glass: You'll kiss your privacy goodbye, and you won't mind(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Google Glass: You'll kiss your privacy goodbye, and you won't mind
http://www.zdnet.com/google-glass-youll-kiss-your-privacy-goodbye-and-you-wont-mind-a-bit-7000012254/
26 comments
It's not that Glass is so much "better" at discrete filming - it's that it would be more common. Most people don't buy or carry around pen cameras. Glass, on the other hand, would have so many other uses that many people would already have have them.
Further, even hidden cameras require a degree of boldness to point and position. It's far easier and less conspicuous to record when you simply need to look in the right direction.
Further, even hidden cameras require a degree of boldness to point and position. It's far easier and less conspicuous to record when you simply need to look in the right direction.
I think this is exactly right. The difusion of this tech would give this kind of public recording public legitimacy. While recording in public is legal, it's still viewed as creepy --but ubiquitousness would make this 'normal' and accepted.
Just as 20 years ago appearing that you were talking to yourself would have been odd, now talking out loud is normal because people have internalized that speaking into a phone's wireless mic is normal.
Just as 20 years ago appearing that you were talking to yourself would have been odd, now talking out loud is normal because people have internalized that speaking into a phone's wireless mic is normal.
Google Glasses presumably have more CPU power, the ability to transcribe conversation on the fly, and enhance our reality, use your smartphone for more CPU, and also upload on the fly.
A pen camera, while useful as a sousveillance tool, isn't just as useful as a google glass.
A pen camera, while useful as a sousveillance tool, isn't just as useful as a google glass.
Because the 30 USD pen is hidden? Do you think people would not wreck the 30 USD pen if they found out they were filmed whith that?
Maybe I'm biased, but I don't see a "spy toy" being the same thing as a camera mounted on your head that could potentially film everything you see and directly upload it to youtube.
Maybe I'm biased, but I don't see a "spy toy" being the same thing as a camera mounted on your head that could potentially film everything you see and directly upload it to youtube.
it's enough to make you miss the days of the bowtie camera.
I'm amazed that most of the comments in this thread seem to completely gloss over the privacy impacts of Glass with "you don't have privacy anyway".
The fact is, that while this is inevitable, it's not clear that Glass in it's current incarnation will be successful or heavily adopted. Props to Google for pushing forward on this front, but I'm not sure I'd allow anyone wearing Glass in my house unless they play by my rules.
If someone is arrogant enough to put prescription lenses on their Glass and play dumb when people request him/her to take it off, then they'll get what they deserve.
The fact is, that while this is inevitable, it's not clear that Glass in it's current incarnation will be successful or heavily adopted. Props to Google for pushing forward on this front, but I'm not sure I'd allow anyone wearing Glass in my house unless they play by my rules.
If someone is arrogant enough to put prescription lenses on their Glass and play dumb when people request him/her to take it off, then they'll get what they deserve.
Looking back at history, privacy became a big thing because of the rise of cheap cameras and news papers -- they changed what people were used to share with the general public, which is very little before that.
The privacy law grows more popular and more detailed as we invent new ways to share more personal information (of others) with the public. It'll be interesting to see, will privacy will become a thing of the past? Or will the definition of "private facts" shifts with technology changes, so that what previously was considered private information becomes public?
The privacy law grows more popular and more detailed as we invent new ways to share more personal information (of others) with the public. It'll be interesting to see, will privacy will become a thing of the past? Or will the definition of "private facts" shifts with technology changes, so that what previously was considered private information becomes public?
I'm looking forward to the first video of someone running into a wall and breaking their $1500 google glass.
From both 1st and 3rd person perspectives.
Consider the implications of this with improving facial recognition techniques. Everyone's face is, or will be, tagged, either by facebook and its ilk or governments, and will be readily recognized when streamed into the cloud from someone's wearable device. Just walking down the street wearing these goggles could potentially reveal the location of anyone you see.
I can foresee publicly acceptable disguises and clever obfuscation devices becoming popular. Perhaps burqas will become in vogue ;)
I can foresee publicly acceptable disguises and clever obfuscation devices becoming popular. Perhaps burqas will become in vogue ;)
I'm looking forward to reaction of people who have their prescription lenses fitted into Google Glass trying to gain admission to the cinema.
Trying to fit those 3D glasses over their prescription glasses with the Google Glass attached too. Haha.
I guess you don't realize that the Google Glass device is detachable to fit on many different lenses? There's obviously going to be times when you won't be allowed to wear them. There's no way they would be a permanent device.
I can't understand the point behind this article. There are already so many (more) invisible ways of recording a person in public than Google's Glasses.
"But I don't want to be recorded!"; Fine, that's a valid point to make, but 99,9% of cases no one even wants to record you.
"But someone might hack in my Glasses and then record without me knowing"; Again valid concern, but no one wants to hack into your Glasses to see what's happening around you.
I'm not saying we should just ignore security completely, but saying that Glass are just bad for privacy is kind a over kill in my opinion.
"But I don't want to be recorded!"; Fine, that's a valid point to make, but 99,9% of cases no one even wants to record you.
"But someone might hack in my Glasses and then record without me knowing"; Again valid concern, but no one wants to hack into your Glasses to see what's happening around you.
I'm not saying we should just ignore security completely, but saying that Glass are just bad for privacy is kind a over kill in my opinion.
Your privacy is already gone! In almost all of the places you'll be filmed with Glass, you're already on camera.
Many of your private conversations are already in email and chat, with full logs, on servers that include Google's. That isn't a change either.
The changes that happened when people started carrying cell-phone cameras were dramatic, too, but we aren't worried about that anymore.
Many of your private conversations are already in email and chat, with full logs, on servers that include Google's. That isn't a change either.
The changes that happened when people started carrying cell-phone cameras were dramatic, too, but we aren't worried about that anymore.
"Google promises they will let users browse a map, check their mail, record a video directly from the headset, without lifting a finger"
WHO cares about this? You do these things at home and at work. Just like smartphones, who needs to do these things on the fly? Answer: nobody!
WHO cares about this? You do these things at home and at work. Just like smartphones, who needs to do these things on the fly? Answer: nobody!
The Surveillance Camera Man video (linked in the article) is quite brilliant, but tying that into Google Glass debate is questionable: If someone were videotaping a store or public scene, no one would bat an eye (and it happens everywhere), but in this case he is clearly focusing all of his attention on specific people, clearly upsetting them in exactly the same way it would if he simply followed them around staring at them. The reaction seems to be a paranoia that they have been singled out for some reason.
I see Google Glass and technologies like that as simply inevitable. And while people are sure that their foibles are going to be the laughingstock of YouTube, it will quickly become so pervasive that it becomes irrelevant from that angle.
I see Google Glass and technologies like that as simply inevitable. And while people are sure that their foibles are going to be the laughingstock of YouTube, it will quickly become so pervasive that it becomes irrelevant from that angle.
[deleted]
Solution:
Black overcoat, black pants, black fedora, sunglasses, and mustache. Fake or real, it doesn't matter.
There's no way any eraserhead-sized camera sensor could detect your face that way.
Black overcoat, black pants, black fedora, sunglasses, and mustache. Fake or real, it doesn't matter.
There's no way any eraserhead-sized camera sensor could detect your face that way.
Google Glass: You'll kiss your privacy goodbye, and you won't mind
Some glasshole will almost certainly get punched in the nose for filming the wrong person.
But these future Google ad displays will be extremely limited. Regardless of Google's PR machine, only some wannabe "early adopter" will wear them.
They solve no problem for 99% of people, we can glance at the phone every 5-10 minutes, you know. Unless, of course, you're landing a rover in Mars and need to be updated very second
Some glasshole will almost certainly get punched in the nose for filming the wrong person.
But these future Google ad displays will be extremely limited. Regardless of Google's PR machine, only some wannabe "early adopter" will wear them.
They solve no problem for 99% of people, we can glance at the phone every 5-10 minutes, you know. Unless, of course, you're landing a rover in Mars and need to be updated very second
This isn't necessarily true, really. You're ignoring the utility of this device because you don't personally like it. It also seems like you might think that your life is interesting enough for some wannabe "early adopter" to focus on. In reality, wannabe "early adopter[s]" like myself want to use this make it easier for deaf people to enjoy the world around them. If you'd punch a deaf person in the face for wearing a more powerful hearing aid, you're the asshole.
In reality, wannabe "early adopter[s]" like myself want to use this make it easier for deaf people to enjoy the world around them. If you'd punch a deaf person in the face for wearing a more powerful hearing aid, you're the asshole.
What does this have to do with what I said?
You should state that you work for Google http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5307311 , it's the ethical thing to do before defending them on every thread.
What does this have to do with what I said?
You should state that you work for Google http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5307311 , it's the ethical thing to do before defending them on every thread.
A quick look at your post history shows that you're extremely anti-Google. Is it ethical to knee-jerk hate everything that Google is involved with?
So what? I don't like what Google is doing with search, is that unethical or illegal? Must I like glasses that spy on people and make one look dorky?
Ok, let me state that I work for Google. That doesn't make me automatically defend them in every thread, it's not an echo chamber like that. For example, I'm not a particular fan of the Chromebook or Chromebook Pixel.
> What does this have to do with what I said?
Well, you said the only wannabe adopters are going to want to use glass. And I disagree because I see extra utility in the device beyond the apocalyptic days of people stalking me and recording me. An example of that is giving the device to the hard of hearing. It's just a logical argument backed up by an example.
You also say something about "glasshole[s]" getting punched in the face and it seemed to me that you were projecting so I just wanted to point out that it turns out that you are in the wrong if you assault somebody for wearing these because you have no idea what they're using them for.
> What does this have to do with what I said?
Well, you said the only wannabe adopters are going to want to use glass. And I disagree because I see extra utility in the device beyond the apocalyptic days of people stalking me and recording me. An example of that is giving the device to the hard of hearing. It's just a logical argument backed up by an example.
You also say something about "glasshole[s]" getting punched in the face and it seemed to me that you were projecting so I just wanted to point out that it turns out that you are in the wrong if you assault somebody for wearing these because you have no idea what they're using them for.
I suspect the answer is "tech press don't know pen cameras exist, because they were invented more than five years ago".