Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google

Google Glass: What's With All the Hate? 775

Posted by samzenpus
from the half-empty-glasses dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Techcrunch takes a look at why so many people seem to make fun of Google Glass. From the article: 'Google Glass isn't even on sale yet and there is already a noticeable backlash against Google's first experiment in wearable computing. It's odd to see a product that was greeted with so much hype a year ago endure the love-hate cycle so quickly – even though there are only a few thousand units in the wild. Sure, we've done our share to popularize "glasshole" as a way to describe its users, but the backlash seems to go beyond the usual insidery tech circles.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Glass: What's With All the Hate?

Comments Filter:
  • Something It Isn't (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:42PM (#43834333)
    Maybe because it isn't so much "wearable computing" as it is "wearable Google-centric media player"???
    • s/media player/media device
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Google Glass is a nightmare because it removes the last vestiges of anonymity.

        Let's say you have a conviction. You walk into McDonald's, and the GG-wearing cashier's face recog app pastes FELON on your forehead. Enjoy your spitburger.

        Or, you're trying to have a conversation with [whoever], all the meanwhile someone else is watching you through those glasses and whispering comments in the other party's ear.

        What little level playing field is left will go away with technology like this. I suppose its inevitabl

    • by peragrin (659227) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:54PM (#43834447)

      More along the lines of wearable google centric real time yelp.

      I don't like google glass of one reason. I hate advertisers why would I want ads transmitted to me just because I walked by a store?

      Oh that isn't a feature of glass yet? just wait it will come right along with the face recognition.

      Glass doesn't solve much. Most people don't need a heads up display. It will be heavily dependent on your limited mobile bandwidth. At least when people hold up their cell phone you can tell when they are recording you. With Google glass you won't be able to tell at a glance.

      • by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:13PM (#43834593)
        I've spent the last 8 months wearing a pair of sunglasses that contain a camera in the bridge, mostly because I see lots of stupid drivers on the road, but also because google glass has been coming along. I'm careful to remove the SD card fairly regularly, but in that 8 months only 3 people have questioned my very chunky glasses with half cm buttons on the left side.

        People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.
        • by peragrin (659227) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:21PM (#43834687)

          I would be willing to bet that if you started telling people you were recording them that you would quickly find your self in the creepy category. Depending on the crowd and location it wouldn't surprise me to find out if you get the crap beaten out of you too.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:17PM (#43835115)

            This is the problem.

            It's not that Glass looks weird.

            It's the idea that everyone and everything may soon be recorded, tagged with facial recognition data, stamped with GPS data, and floated off to the internet forever.

            Wearable computing may have some exciting uses, but it ultimately portends the end of most of what privacy remains from government and others.

            That is what people are reacting against.

            • by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:21PM (#43835145)

              Exactly.

              When you live under a government that will hack reporters' computers and secretly seize their phone records simply for doing their jobs, when they willingly and admittedly use government arms to persecute people who have qualms about their agenda - why wouldn't we believe that Glass could turn anyone into their watchful, ground based drones?

              You don't think the DOJ, the executive branch, or anyone else in government would not have the capability or would stop short of hacking these internet-connected devices?

              Why would we place more faith in those who prove themselves to be less trustworthy the more power we give them?

            • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Monday May 27, 2013 @05:50PM (#43835763)

              The difference here is that it isn't readily obvious if a person is being recorded. it adds a whole new range of 'creepy' to this gear. If you see someone holding a phone, they typically hold it in an almost horizontal fashion as they look down to navigate or browse. If you find someone holding a phone in front of them in a vertical fashion, it would be immediately obvious that they are recording or taking a photo. Glasses turns on the display, which could easily just be someone browsing, or doing any number of other activities. It's the fact that these could become mainstream, and could easily cloak that people are taking photos or videos with their target being unaware of what's going on. Only a fool states that only those doing something illegal have nothing to hide. EVERYONE has something to hide, be that a nasty habit of picking your nose, buying RID at the pharmacy, throwing Chicks with Dicks out in your trash, staring at your brothers wife's ass at the family reunion and having it uploaded afterwards, picking up HIV drugs at the pharmacy, etc. All of these things are potentially in the public view, but they are typically not readily available to be recorded an uploaded to youtube at the whim of a total stranger looking for 'likes' or a few laughs.

              People have a certain expectation of privacy even in public, where a potentially live camera removes all doubt, and it can be uploaded to the net, which NEVER forgets.

              Is it really that hard to understand why there is so much hate? Public surveillance is totally different in that the common public doesn't typically access it, and it's typically not available to upload on a whim to the net where it could potentially live forever.

              • It sounds like it could be easily tackled by mandating any such recording devices to have a standardized outside-facing indicator (e.g. blinking purple LED) that can be used to tell at a glance whether the person using it is recording you at any particular moment.

            • by poetmatt (793785) on Monday May 27, 2013 @11:05PM (#43837333) Journal

              it has benefits just as much as problems.

              imagine if a cop knows he is being recorded by an unknown number of devices. You think he's still going to try to abuse a situation?

            • by bratwiz (635601)

              Yes, except the government and most large businesses will make it off-limits to wear the glasses on their premises, making it, in effect, a one-way data stream-- about you, to them. So it isn't really like it's leveling the playing field. Sure, there will be the odd case here and there where someone catches a government worker or a corporate CEO doing something they shouldn't oughta, but most of the time, it will be them, watching you. And to top it off, they're gonna show you some pretty pictures, a game,

            • by Stripe7 (571267)
              If this has a face recognition system app built into it. See your wife, it brings up anniversaries, birthdays etc.. See a congressman, it brings up a list of all the corporations/organizations that fund him and a list of his voting record. See a random stranger, bring up criminal records if any, etc..
          • by Namarrgon (105036) on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:33PM (#43835247) Homepage

            So recording someone is bad, but beating the crap out of someone is socially acceptable? Do you see tourists with cameras getting punched in the face often?

            Seems to me a case of assault like you describe should be videoed.

            • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

              So recording someone is bad, but beating the crap out of someone is socially acceptable?

              Never. But if someone goes into a bar wearing these things, they might expect some response. Kind of like someone peeoing in your teenage daughter's window at night. You aren't supposed to beat th eguy up, but the perv shouldn't be all that surprised when it happens.

              Do you see tourists with cameras getting punched in the face often?

              Seems to me a case of assault like you describe should be videoed.

              Its all a matter of context, which you seem to be blurring. I'll bet I'm in hundreds of tourist photos, and no doubt some have been posted on the internet. I was there, they were there, no harm done. I could care less. I suspect most people coul

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@NOspAm.world3.net> on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:40PM (#43834859) Homepage

          So when do you stop recording? In public toilets? If you are in earshot of a private conversation in a restaurant?

          Use of secret cameras in public places, especially places where people expect some privacy, is illegal in many places. You need to be careful.

        • by asmkm22 (1902712) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:41PM (#43834867)

          I'm sure people would care more about your creepy glasses if they new what they were. Most people aren't really going to equate chunky glasses with hidden cameras, so of course no one seemed to have minded yours.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:19PM (#43835127)
          I run a motel, and I have hidden cameras in every room. I've been doing this for three years, and not once has anyone complained. This whole privacy issue is way overblown; obviously people just don't care.
        • by skegg (666571) on Monday May 27, 2013 @05:02PM (#43835437)

          I agree, the general public isn't as paranoid about privacy as many are here on Slashdot:
          I've spent the last 8 months filming up women's skirts using a secret, hidden camera built into my shoe. Not one woman has complained yet.

          I find people don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy filming them without their knowledge.

        • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

          People don't care about privacy, not until it's the "creepy" guy staring at them instead of the average guy.

          Congratulations citizen! you may now claim the title of "Creepy".

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@NOspAm.world3.net> on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:17PM (#43834643) Homepage

      Media playback seems to be one of the least demonstrated functions. The mains ones are the camera and notifications. I think it's the camera that has people most upset because when someone wearing Glass looks at you they are pointing it right in your face and you have no way of knowing if it is turned on and streaming live over the internet to other people or being recorded.

      I can see Glass being massive for porn and voyeurism. We had better get the etiquette of removing it before entering the locker room sorted out pretty quickly. Are people going to take it off when entering the men's lavatory too?

    • Misconceptions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Namarrgon (105036) on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:26PM (#43835183) Homepage

      Scanning these first comments, most of the complaints seem based on their own idea of Glass, or perhaps what they fear future devices may end up as, but not what Glass is today.

      For example: It's crap as a media player (sound is poor, video is low-res and washed out) . It's not "always-on recording" or streaming everything to Google, and would rapidly run out of battery if you tried. It does light up when recording or taking pictures, like a regular video camera (and unlike phones or keychain camcorders). And Google specifically forbids ads on the whole platform.

      Maybe one day some people will wear devices that are worth the hate, but Glass isn't it. Personally I see it all as another manifestation of the recent anti-Google narrative that's been so carefully constructed (e.g. ask yourself if you'd have the same reaction to "Apple Glass").

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Chuckstar (799005)

        It does not light up like a regular video camera. A regular video camera has a very obvious red LED the turns on when it's recording. Glass does not. Glass just has the screen light up. And you can't necessarily tell the difference between the screen lighting up because it's recording and the screen lighting up because the guy just go an email.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:43PM (#43834349)

    Remember people walking around talking to themselves? Remember the "I'm not talking to you, I'm on the phone" hand gesture?

    It combined being rude with wearing a dorky looking apparatus.

    And that's what Google Glass is.

    • by icebike (68054) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:05PM (#43834519)

      Remember people walking around talking to themselves? Remember the "I'm not talking to you, I'm on the phone" hand gesture? It combined being rude with wearing a dorky looking apparatus. And that's what Google Glass is.

      Yes, we all remember that, and it took exactly One exposure for people to realize that Bluetooth made a lot of sense in some situations, and didn't impact the privacy of others around the user.

      When you whip out your camera and photograph my desk or back I am forewarned, and have time to rare back with the haymaker that will surely be your next experience. But there is no defense against people walking into your store, your office, your meeting wearing Google Glass.

      Bluetooth affected only the wearer. The camera in google glass attempts to make everyone near it fair game.

      Its odd that Eric Schmidt just a few days ago worried about Privacy in a world of Drones [computerworld.com], yet his company is pushing a product to make everyone Google's Drone.

      We should demand "recording" LEDs indicating when cell phone cameras are on, and the same for Google Glass.
      Either that or remove the camera. 95% of everything Glass was designed to do can be done without the camera.

      • by irving47 (73147)

        I can only imagine how badly retailers are going to hate it. They don't want you photographing in their stores as it is with cell phones...
        I wonder how long before there's a glass app (if that's what they call it) that just scans your camera input for bar codes and qr codes at all times.. As soon as it sees one, it runs the bar code through amazon to get cheaper prices for you. Yeah it already exists on the iphone.. But I'll bet they will hate it even more. I wouldn't be surprised to see more calls for cel

      • by barc0001 (173002) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:40PM (#43834853)

        Get over it. If you're out in public you have no privacy. Any time you go to the store you're captured in dozens of camera views even before you make it into the parking lot.

        "But there is no defense against people walking into your store,"

        When I walk into your store, you're already videotaping ME, why should you have a problem if I level the playing field?

        It's the difference between a surveillance society (which we already have) and a sousveillance society. Already we can be held to account by those running the cameras, but those in power are desperately trying to make sure we can't hold them accountable by the same means:
        http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kern-beating-fbi-20130515,0,760051,full.story

        I think if you're out in public, it's fair game. If you don't want guests coming into your residence or a private function wearing it, tell them to take it off. It's like shoes.

  • 'Simple really... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 (626475)
    It is the always on, always front recording feature that bothers most people.

    We're on camera ENOUGH already....I think a lot of people that aren't even that privacy conscious even are concerned about so many live feeds going to Google (or anyone for that matter, since the govt. will have free access to it too).

    JUst my $0.02.

    • by ThorGod (456163)

      I would agree with you. But I don't. If everything's recorded then effectively nothing's recorded. Sure, all those cameras might be able to pin point exactly where you are at any given moment...but who cares to find out? Who's going to expend all the resources (cpu cycles, MONEY) to track you down? It'd be unfeasible to do that for everyone so only select few people could even be potential targets. And you're not one of those people. Sorry, but you're just not special enough to warrant searching through tho

      • And you're not one of those people.

        Right. It's other people who will be abused, so who cares! As long as it's not me...

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        I would agree with you. But I don't. If everything's recorded then effectively nothing's recorded. Sure, all those cameras might be able to pin point exactly where you are at any given moment...but who cares to find out? Who's going to expend all the resources (cpu cycles, MONEY) to track you down? It'd be unfeasible to do that for everyone so only select few people could even be potential targets. And you're not one of those people. Sorry, but you're just not special enough to warrant searching through tho

    • by sjvn (11568)

      Ah, it's not always on.

    • by Gregg Alan (8487) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:37PM (#43834843)

      Where do you get the idea that it's always on and streaming to google? Glass is aggressive about power savings.

      I had a chance to try Glass last week in Chicago and I believe that the owner stated around 3ish hours of battery life for non-stop video recording. You COULD attach a USB cable while wearing them and keep a battery in your pocket.

      Look at it this way: If Google had developed a new battery technology that fit in the current Glass profile AND was 'always on, always front recording' then Google would have much bigger news than just Glass itself.

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:50PM (#43834401) Journal

    1. It makes you look like a cyborg. The fact that one would do this to their own appearance willingly puts a person so many sigma beyond what is expected in societal norms that it produces an insinctive negative reaction.

    2. Being wearable, it conveys an "always on" notion, that many people find troublesome because although in theory, it does not invade their privacy any more than a person with a cell phone camera can, unlike a hand-held camera, there are no obvious gestures or poses that a utilizer of this technology will typically employ that tells casual observers in an immediately recognizable way that the technology is being utilized. Looking for an LED light is all very well and good, but human beings didn't evolve to look at LED's to tell them what was around them... we evolved to interpret body language.

    3. It's simply far too easy to imagine people using this while they are walking or driving and thus paying insufficient attention to their surroundings to effectively navigate, potentially posing a danger to themselves and others around them.

    4. It's always been socially cool to mock something that's new and different.

  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:51PM (#43834413)

    And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life - so there's no chance of me using this product.

    People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you - you are going to be cleaning them all the time, they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair and the side of your head, they are going to range from being unnoticeable to unignorable literally in minutes all throuout the day.

    That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction, so until it brings the positives without the negatives that I already went to great lengths to avoid, I'm not buying into it.

  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:53PM (#43834439)

    red and blue 3D glasses
    2K-ish "monitor glasses
    2010's 3D glasses
    glasses in general, especially when young

    everyones loves them so much ! why all the sudden, incomprehensible hate towards Google Glass ? I was SO looking forward to wearing glasses AT LAST !

  • by aamcf (651492) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:54PM (#43834449) Homepage

    At the moment Google Glass can't do very much, but it is only a matter of time before it does more.

    I have mild face blindness, and it would be fantastically useful for me to have a pair of glasses that could identify who I was talking to.

    Equally well, it would make life very difficult for me if other people had similar glasses. I run a website that is considered objectionable to some people. If everyone could recognise me every time I went out to buy milk, it would be very difficult for me to live anything like a normal life.

    The passive-aggressive nature of social networks would be magnified if they were in any way integrated with Google Glass or indeed any wearable computer.

  • by Meditato (1613545) on Monday May 27, 2013 @02:54PM (#43834451)

    "Google Glass is scary because it's easier to record others!"

    You have a cellphone in your pocket capable of doing just that, and pinhole surveillance cameras have existed forever anyway.

    "Google Glass is scary because GPS!"

    Your cellphone doesn't even need an active GPS setting in order to be tracked. As an Android App developer, I can just use a Network Location Provider and triangulate your position to within 100-1000 meters. If you have a cellphone, you're being tracked just as easily as with Glass.

    "Google Glass is scary because it might serve me ads!"

    That's from an early video parody of Glass. Ads are against Google's guidelines.

    "Google Glass is scary because they're trying to get us to depend on it, then sneakily put in ads and spyware!"

    Even if they do that, we've already got the dumped firmware for Glass. Just run a custom ROM on it.

    "Google Glass is scary because some pseudo-libertarian tech journalist told me to be scared!"

    Oh ok, I guess that explains the inconsistency in your position. Funny how all these former pro-corporate tech gossip douchebags are suddenly worried about your rights. Where were they 10 years ago? And for that matter, where were you?

  • How would you feel talking to a person wearing this shit?
    She might be recording you and posting it to YouTube.

    I probably sound like my grandpa, but Google Glass just feels to me creepy and invasive.

    There could be some commercial usage of it though, like FedEx finding and signing off a package...

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:09PM (#43834563) Journal

      Architecturally, it isn't all that different from a cellphone(because it mostly is one, albeit wrapped around your head); but it's a cellphone without any of the social cues

      Sure, a cellphone can be used for recording; but the one that's in your pocket, or sitting on the table, or being used by you to check your twitfeed likely isn't. It's just a matter of geometry: one camera on the back, possibly one on the face of the device. Similarly, it's easy enough for you to use your phone to ignore me; but it's also quite obvious when you do so.

      Glass just takes those delightful features and makes "device is turned off; but these glasses don't fold, so I'm storing them on my face" and "device is actively recording and sending to the mothership" and every state in-between functionally indistinguishable. It's the equivalent of somebody holding a cellphone in recording posture, with their finger hovering on the controls, at all times.

  • Don't have a pair yet but already have plans to put them to work!
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:01PM (#43834503) Journal

    "Gargoyles are no fun to talk to. They never finish a sentence. They are adrift in a laser-drawn world, scanning retinas in all directions, doing background checks on everyone within a thousand yards, seeing everything in visual light, infrared, millimeter. wave radar, and ultrasound all at once. You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead. For all he knows, Lagos is standing there measuring the length of Hiro's cock through his trousers while they pretend to make conversation. ..."

    and

    "Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all the attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time. ..."

    Glassholes are essentially a late-alpha/early-beta iteration of the Gargoyles from Snow Crash. The people who managed to bring the dickery that was bluetooth earpieces to an even more vital sense, along with just enough camera to get that 'incipient paparazzi' thing going.

    • Yea but they are always in the metaverse which is awesome. I would compare this more to the HUDs in Diamond Age, where you were still mainly focused on the "real" world yet had a plethora of information available to you at all times.
    • You know I really don't get this. Most people have smartphones (i do not) that do all sorts of monitoring already. The only difference here is that with smartphones, all the monitoring is directed at you, the owner of the smartphone. With google glass, it turns it all around. Now the rest of the world is monitored for my benefit using my choice of augmentations.

      I view a smartphone, and phones in general, as a distraction of little substance, a tiny window into another world, like squinting down a long lanew

  • Anyone with a brain can tell that this level of mobile computer usage is ridiculous. It's bad for memory, concentration, social skill development, social interactions in general. Nobody should be able to have that much information streaming that quickly whenever they want. Then the stress of battery phobia combined with a growing dependence on the device equals a very stressed out user. It's a very, very stupid idea that's detrimental to humans in general.

    It's exactly like Segways. It's convenient an
    • It's a very, very stupid idea that's detrimental to humans in general.

      You look at the evolutionary ladder and think: "I am at the top". I look and see yet more rungs to climb. I am a scientist. If you say these are detrimental, then I will insist that is an untested hypothesis, so long as it is. I share some of your concern, but I'm not arrogant or foolish enough to act on unproven hypotheses...

  • It will be interesting to see what happens with google glass. Even if they release a product with no camera, the media will still report it as a privacy invading device.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Because they could not create something like this.

  • by markdavis (642305) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:16PM (#43834635)

    >"Google Glass: What's With All the Hate?"

    Is it that mysterious? Many people have already posted on many sites as to why. If people would stop asking why and start reading some of the answers, maybe they would understand...

    It presents major issues with privacy, security, and etiquette. It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around a Glass user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reactions ensue. This is nothing like static and unconnected security cameras. Exactly how much private information are we all going to be willing to give Google?

    We just went through this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/05/03/1322242/is-google-glass-too-nerdy-for-the-mainstream [slashdot.org]

    AND

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/26/2316211/eric-schmidt-google-glass-critics-afraid-of-change-society-will-adapt [slashdot.org]

    But I guess we have to hash it out every month now :(

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:17PM (#43834649)
    I don't have a Facebook account. I have a fake name on my Google accounts and Twitter. I don't ever use my real name on forums. I even gave Blizzard a fake name. I take GREAT care to leave my personal life off the internet and preserve my privacy. So now what do we have? Some asshole walking around taking videos or pictures in complete stealth mode with no LED to tell you it's recording or in use. Early adopters are also usually the tech-addicted people that put a picture of everything moderately interesting on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Instagram. If I start saying something funny or interesting to a glass user and they stealthy hit record, I don't want that video of myself out on their 1000-friend Facebook page without my knowledge.

    For those of you about to say any video recording is public and the law says I can be video recorded at any time in public because that's the reasonable expectation of privacy, you're missing the logic of that. I want some basic privacy so then I guess I'll just never go out in public ever. Wait, no, it would be easier to just make Glass and other covert recording devices illegal everywhere.
    • by markdavis (642305)

      I agree with what you are saying but caution on this part:

      >" with no LED to tell you it's recording or in use"

      It doesn't matter if there is an LED or not because it will be easy to mask or disable it or just not easy to see. The issue everyone is having is the popularizing of covert and in-your-face video/audio/photo recording.... and worse yet, something that dumps all its crap to a non-personal network.

      Like you, I find it totally unacceptable. Cell phones and security cameras are already bad enough,

  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:27PM (#43834751)

    I mountain bike quite a bit and often I'll record my ride with a GoPro for later editing and sharing with my non-mountain biking friends/family. It's pretty much on the entire time I'm riding (2-3hrs).

    However...

    I don't wear it in the car, the post-ride restaurant, during long breaks, to the bathroom (either in the restaurant or out in the woods).

    If I showed up with the GoPro recording in a restaurant, I'd be calmly asked to turn it off. As that is behavior that is clearly not accepted.

    Sure pinhole cameras have been around forever, but GoogleGlass will be mainstream, whereas pinhole cameras aren't that common. Plus the modders will come along and put the GoogleGlasses behind a pair of nondescript sunglasses and you'll be able to record (read: blackmail) whoever you want. Your boss tells a dirty joke at work... hello raise.

     

  • FUD (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Luminous (192747) on Monday May 27, 2013 @03:51PM (#43834953) Journal

    Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

  • The "why" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whodunit (2851793) on Monday May 27, 2013 @04:16PM (#43835111)

    People keep on comparing Glass to bluetooth headsets without actually reflecting on why we hate them. It bears repeating: we hate them because of those several awkward seconds where you try to reply, thinking you're being addressed. The "asshole" part comes when the headset user says something like "hold on, this guy thinks I'm talking to him" or something else that implies you're an idiot for not immediately recognizing the headset. It's embarrassing, and insulting, and dismissive. In short, it takes basic social conventions and protocol and rudely slugs it in the face. Said social conventions, even the customary "good morning" a fuel station clerk greets you with, is lubricant for the social gears of society, and those headset users are sand in the works. It's not the headsets at all - its the people using them that never apologize for the misconceptions they cause, or politely put their conversation on hold when they walk up to a pay window.

    Everyone screams and wails about being "recorded in public," which I find hilarious, considering how much we're already recorded, tracked and observed. If you're in public, people can record you freely, and no court of law is going to give a rats ass that somebody was able to SEE you when you went walking around on a public sidewalk. No, the real discomfort comes from having a computer screen between you and the person you're talking to. Google Glass is the first step towards things like augmented reality and other such technologies; but the precedent we've all learned from is the Arrogant Headset Asshole; and so naturally that's the first association we make.

  • Just human nature (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe Tie. (567096) on Monday May 27, 2013 @06:33PM (#43836003)
    People freak out over things that are new and different. Even more so for things that impact one's lifestyle. The same thing happened with the ipad. Additionally it has a lot to do with geek culture in general. For as much as techy people like to pat themselves on the back when it comes to standing outside trends, the reality is that it's a remarkably stagnant and brittle subculture that's even more terrified of change than that of the average person.
  • by WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) on Monday May 27, 2013 @06:43PM (#43836051)

    It's an intersection of concerns with facial recognition, tagging and Big Tech's seemingly callous indifference to our privacy , all of that hitting up against our evolutionarily bequeathed intuition that when we walk along in life, we have more than a modicum of privacy amongst strangers. Basically people fast forwarded in their imaginations to (creepy... or otherwise) people using Google Goggles to look at us on the street and download a ton of information about us by matching our face to social media pictures of us or our house to information about us or our license plate to stuff people have said about our driving.

    Take a picture of something and start talking about it with everyone quickly becomes take of picture of something which identifies us and start gossiping with strangers about us in even ordinary people's minds.

    FB is bad enough. Now we're going to be tagged and bagged as we walk down the street. Hot girl? Who is she? Where does she live? Whoa look as this... DUDE!!!

    That kind of thing is fantastically invasive and creepy and it's exactly what will happen because all new technology becomes porn why? because we're monkeys whose chief and overwhelming concern was is and always will be reproducing our genes with the hottest thing we can land in order to maximize our genetic fitness. Even if you don't think that's the reason all new technology becomes porn, the fact is , all new technology becomes porn of some sort , if only gossip porn.

    So yeah, that's why people hate Google Goggles.

    Google should have, at all times and at all places loudly ferociously and very publicly defended the anonymity of their users come hell or high court subpena.

    Instead, they got Eric Schmidt :

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/217313/googles_eric_schmidt_ex_ceos_most_memorable_quotes.html [pcworld.com]

    "With Street View, we drive by exactly once, so you can just move." (if you don't like your residence being online)

    "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, ...They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

    "If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use Artificial Intelligence...we can predict where you are going to go,"

    "Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the Internet?"

    "One day we had a conversation where we figured we could just try to predict the stock market,....And then we decided it was illegal. So we stopped doing that."

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,"

    If they were uniquely noted for their commitment to privacy, then maybe people would have trusted them with their faces. As it is, it's too late unwind it all and people are rightly concerned.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...