Eric Schmidt: Google Glass Critics 'Afraid of Change,' Society Will Adapt 331
curtwoodward writes "Eric Schmidt came to Harvard this week to discuss his new book, but many students really wanted to know more about the implications for privacy and social interaction once Google Glass starts hitting the market. Schmidt cautioned against jumping to the worst conclusions, saying that society always tends to adapt to new technologies — and he's hoping for etiquette rather than government regulation. Of course, that's what you would say if you used to run a company that has been fined and paid settlements to regulators for the way it scoops up data and tracks users. But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"
Big words... (Score:5, Insightful)
... coming from a man who only has to be a part of this "society" when it suits him. He's not subject to the surveillance culture since he can hang out in his private office or home.
Oh, by the way, people who are afraid of drones being used by the public are just afraid of change [guardian.co.uk]. You should totally try to adapt.
Captcha: Infringe
Sure society may adapt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Change... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
If this is your definition of change, you can shove it up your ass.
Pay attention to Eric (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to your new position as a lowly serf in the new digital order. Shut up and do as you are told.
criticisms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Change... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but if you have something that you don't want anyone to fly a drone over, well, there just may have to be some regulations of drones...
Re:Afraid of change (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the way people used to get annoyed by others using their cell phones in movie theaters. Now we've adapted, and know those old complaints were just fear of change.
Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (Score:5, Insightful)
That's lemonparty.ORG!
The problem is not the product itself (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that it's not running Free Software (as in speech). Such glasses deal with the private data of not only it's wearer, but also other people. Therefore it's of utmost importance that society, in form of at least the people having bought it, can decide what it does.
This clashes with the idea of it running Android which is just Open Source, but not Free Software. You cannot quickly modify your Android, every change is a fairly lengthy process involving the creation of an image and often even finding binary blobs for non-standard hardware and the circumvention of a "secure" boot loader.
So where does that lead us to? A device which watches us all, which sends much of that data to central services provided by Google, where that data will most likely be stored and can most likely be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
Google Glass is the best example why we need Free Software on those device, otherwise it will become a privacy nightmare. If we don't draw the line here, just think how future prostetics will be. Do you really want some company to decide what your brain implant will be able to do?
Re:Change? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about niche needs. I know my use of a hud for motorcycle turn by turn directions would be niche, but I'm pretty sure Google's intentions are anything but. By convincing people to record and upload more data from more personal places, they're looking to greatly expand their data mining. I don't know about "don't be evil", I think their new moto is "just don't be obvious".
Re:Change... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
If this is your definition of change, you can shove it up your ass.
Yeah... If he believes that, when is he putting the web cam in his shower?
Re:Yeah right, students concerned about privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Well played, AC... well played.
No you dolt, they come from adopters too. (Score:4, Insightful)
But Schmidt also doesn't have much patience for critics: 'Criticisms are inevitably from people who are afraid of change, or who have not figured out that there will be an adaptation of society.'"
Fucking idiot. Criticisms don't only come from people who are afraid of change. Personally, I don't even consider my body to be what makes me "me", and would love to replace it all with sturdier mechanical parts. I love the rate at which humans keep making technology smaller and merging with it: Clothes are Wearable Shelters. Glasses are magnifying lenses you wear, and Contacts are glasses IN your eyes. We have titanium hips and even exoskeletons helping the disabled to walk again. Tech is great! Adding a digital camera and HUD to my optical systems sounds awesome!
However, I WANT TO CONTROL MY BODY. I don't value my flesh the same way others do, but I realize that it IS important to be able to control my body in whatever form it takes. I don't want to wear a prison. I don't want to wear a tracking device (unless I can control who can track it). I consider my clothes to be just a part of my body as I consider my bones. My skin is a mobile temperature regulating wetsuit perfect for being born on Earth and exploring a great deal of this Planet; I've grown quite attached to my body and its more temporary parts (shirts, hair, etc), and respect and care for my self-grown or artificial coverings; I would treat any replacement or modification thereof as equally valuable and deserving of care. Most of all, I want to be able to fix things if they break, and a replacement is a ways off -- That's a prime concern for anything I integrate with in a substantial life affecting way.
Fortunately my skin is self healing, it contains the data and systems needed to provide this function and I carry the repair mechanisms with me everywhere -- It's important to my continued exploration of this world. I know how contacts work exactly, their design is fully transparent to me. I know how to fix glasses and the mathematics for shaping their lenses are readily available to me. Where are the damn design documents, technical specs, and and source code for these new optical sensors you're selling me? If they're to become part of my body in a significant degree to change ME then I NEED this basic info, or we're at an impasse. I need to be able to know EVERYTHING about how they operate. If they're not just toys, if they will potentially help me change the life I live, then there are some CONCERNS and Criticisms that need to be addressed -- Firstly, your attitude towards my concerns, and secondly the degree of ownership I have over these new body parts we both want me to adopt.
I want to control my clothes. I don't want what I wear spying on me or sending signals that I don't want them to send. I don't want YOU to own MY BODY or everything that I do; Especially I don't want you owning copyright over all the things I see. There are a host of other concerns I have, but I don't care to voice them all here because I have better things to do than put forth questions into culture that will be ignored by the likes of Schmidt. If you shy away from the concerns of critics then I guess you don't care to reassure the people who are your prime adopters, most ready for change that you actually give a fuck about what's really important. The privacy implications become GREATLY increased the closer I integrate any technology with my brain, you fool!
Seriously, someone ought to filter this fucker's output because he's making himself out to be a fucking idiot. Let me get this straight, I shouldn't be able to give my eyeballs wings and let them soar over the land and see what they can see, but I shouldn't criticize people who want to co-opt my visions for marketing purposes? For someone who advocates adapting to social changes wrought by technological advances, Schmidt seems to be pretty fucking hypocritical when it comes to actually adjusting to the changes himself. That f
how we should treat Eric Schmidt (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't leave anywhere near him. But people who do should start following him around in public. Filming everything he does, with a telephoto lens from afar if necessary. And posting it on the internet.
Because if he doesn't like that, he must just be one of those people afraid of change. If he's afraid of people recording what he's doing, maybe he shouldn't be doing it. Etc.
Re:criticisms (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't being seen in public. It's being seen in public, and identified. And possibly doing something controversial.
First - identification. Google has already announced plans to use facial and clothing recognition to put faves to names (and their Google accounts). Now, whether or not the Glass user gets this information is irrelevant. It just means Google now knows where you are every minute of every day. All it takes is for some Glass user to capture you in the camera.
Next, imagine his argument of busybodies. He's afraid of drones flying over his house because it infringes on his rights to do as he pleases. But how about you? Not a problem.
And don't forget what having all that information tied to you is worth. Insurance companies would love to know what you buy at the supermarket - do you buy chips and pop, or fruits and vegetables? Your heath insurance premiums may depend on it. (Remember how we argue this with supermarket loyalty cards? Glass will be even more accurate).
Nevermind busybodies who keep track of people who buy videogames (videogames cause violence!), alcohol (alcohol abuse! drunk driving!, prohibition!), adult stores, abortion clinics, etc.
Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (Score:3, Insightful)
You know they said the same things about bluetooth headsets. People will think you are crazy!
Actually, we said, "You're going to look like a douche."
And that's what happened. Anyone wandering around talking to nobody looks like a douche. We called it exactly.
He is a hypocrite (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Honest question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you could do something stupid. Everyone has the odd accident every now and then, a glass tipped, a spot of ice on the road where you slip, and let's not forget the good ol' split pants. Yes, these moments can be kinda embarrassing, but they're passing. A few people may see you try to keep your rear end covered as you do your best to get home without being seen, and it's horrible the moment it happens, but afterwards it's over. Some people may laugh about it, but it is forgotten 10 minutes later.
Not so with the internet.
All it takes is you wearing some kind of odd underwear or ... hell, whatever. Freak accidents happen. You slip, try to steady yourself with the table, knock it over, trip the cupboard with all the cake... you get the idea.
How long 'til it's a meme?
It will be embellished with some added photoshop pics and clever editing, making it look like your accident eventually tripped some nuke or something. I have to admit, my imagination for such things is a bit limited, but I guess everyone here can come up with at least one clever thing to do with it. 1% thereof might be funny enough to catch on.
Now multiply with a few million internet users.
Re:criticisms (Score:4, Insightful)
It reminds me of the Isaac Azimov short story The Dead Past [wikipedia.org]. The premise is (spoilers ahead) that there's a government conspiracy to control and limit access to a Chronoscope which can view any arbitrary point in the past like a video recording, allowing them to research things like how the ancient Greeks lived. The protagonists fight to expose this conspiracy and make the technology available to everyone. Only to realize just after they've released the plans for building it to the world that the past begins an instant ago, and the device can be used to watch anyone anywhere in near real-time.
I never thought we'd be seeing a technology with similar consequences developed in my lifetime.
Re:Google Glass is the new Segway (Score:5, Insightful)
You know they said the same things about bluetooth headsets. People will think you are crazy!
People DO think you're crazy when you wear one. And an asshole.
Re:Segway (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is a better example.
How many people post things to facebook every minute that they later regret? Now with google glasses such postings are basically going to be automatic.
Crap I don't like the fact that Amazon has my shopping history from 1997 on there. I don't need to see what books I bought back then and that information isn't even public.
Re:Segway (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the people who buy it will have more of say than people who don't. There's many reasons why one might not buy one other than finding the whole thing to be repulsive. Not to mention that the people using them are selling out the rest of us.
FB was a similar problem and is pretty damning in terms of nipping this in the bud before it gets out of control. With image databases and face recognition technology, those of us that haven't handed over our data don't have any means of opting out of the system, we're included because some other wankers don't value their privacy or ours sufficiently to respect that we didn't ask to be labeled.
So yes, it might fail, but there's no way of guaranteeing that it will fail and or that the rights of people that don't want it will be respected. And Schmidt himself can go to hell.
Message for Dr Twidt: NO One is Afraid of CHANGE (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you mean like Poland was afraid of change, in 1939.
We are, however, afraid of looking like some smug, douche-bag [duckduckgo.com] - wearing these things.
We also don't trust Google to have a 24-hour tap on what we see and say.
If only we could start over... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm reminded of Scott McNealy, formerly top dog at Sun, who (in)famously expressed a similar "privacy is dead" kind of attitude and believed everything belonged on the network rather than distributed/client-based. How's that working out for them?
I'm not sure getting rid of Google or Facebook will be quite so easy, but I am increasingly convinced that the tech world would be a better place if they disappeared tomorrow and we were forced to take a fresh look at how to do the kinds of things they do instead of many people just using them by default. There is way too much power over real people's lives being concentrated in a couple of US corporations with a track record of abuse, some morally questionable people running the show, and very limited (by the standards in most of the first world) safeguards to keep them in check. It is far from clear that if we started over on questions like "How do we find information?" or "How do we keep in touch with friends and family" then we'd decide the current ways of doing various things are the best ones, or even good ones.