Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Privacy Crime Displays Government Input Devices Technology Your Rights Online

Should We Be Afraid of Google Glass? 307

An anonymous reader writes "An article at TechCrunch bemoans the naysayers of ubiquitous video camera headsets, which seems like a near-term certainty whether it comes in the form of Google Glass or a similar product. The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere, and increasingly sophisticated government drones and satellites mean you're probably on camera more than you think already. 'But there's something about being caught on video, not by some impersonal machine but by another human being, that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk.' However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security, which may not be palatable to others. He references a time he was mugged in Mexico as well as a desire to keep an eye on abuses of authority from police and others. 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should We Be Afraid of Google Glass?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:32AM (#43190545)

    I always wear my infrared LED cap when mugging Google Glass owners.
    Then my face is unrecognizable.

    • I'm waiting with anticipation for this next generation of wearable computing devices like Google Glass. I just don't want to be stuck with this stupid voice command interface, however. I'd prefer for these glasses-style devices to simply be display peripherals tethered to a handheld smartphone. Then you could just use the touchscreen as your "mouse" and perhaps even your keyboard (although I'd prefer more thought to go into how to replace the crucial keyboard functionality as well).

      • That's not a bad idea.

        But what could possibly be bad about random strangers walking around with cameras attached to their heads which take pictures and instantly upload them to google? Google is building a security camera network made of meat.

        • TFS talks about balancing the scales between the citizen's loss of privacy and some enforced transparency on government.

          Remember who has the power here. What the government can do with pervasive data about you is extensive, from arresting you to disappearing you; none of which are likely to have serious consequences to the government or its actors.

          What you can do with videos of government action is quite limited, both by the difficulty in bringing actors shielded by multiple levels of bureaucracy to bay, an

          • by sjwt ( 161428 )

            What gets me is the following two words.. "public privacy" WTF! by being in public you don't have privacy, that's kind of the definition of public all out in the open...

            When the Cops try and stop someone recording them in public is an outcry.. now that ppl think anyone will be filming everyone the tables have turned.

        • To me that is the sad thing, Orwell didn't need "big brother" as all that was needed to get the people to go to 24/7 surveillance is social networking crap like FB. Now you have people tweeting every second of the day what they are doing [], taking video and pictures everywhere, hell the only thing that keeps it from being big brother heaven is there is so much info overload the feds would need 30 Blue Gene supercomputers just to process all the info!

          To me the only interesting thing to come of this will be to see how the courts react, after all you have cops being more jackbooted than ever and busting people for filming them while you have this explosion of video equipment so it will be interesting to see which will trump in the courts. One thing is for sure the days of authority (or anybody for that matter) being able to pull shit in public without anybody filming is well and truly over, I've seen everything from cops beating the helpless in FLA to tank battles in Libya and the one thing they ALL have in common is dozens of people holding up camera phones to get the shot. In fact I would argue that will probably be the defining image of this decade, the image of dozens of people holding up smartphones recording events.

    • by Richy_T ( 111409 )

      You're laughing now but you'll be sad when this comes true and you didn't cash in on it. Though rather than a baseball cap (or perhaps in addition to), I can see a variation on the hoodie* which has become so popular in surveillance-state Britain.

      *I used to think they were an unfortunate and somewhat menacing piece of attire but I think I would likely wear one myself were I iver inclined (not gonna happen) to move back there.

  • by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:33AM (#43190555) Homepage Journal

    ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times are necessary.

    After all, according Google's CEO, if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    • by Qwavel ( 733416 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:57AM (#43190705)

      "ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times" is already happening and it has nothing to do with Google Glasses.

      If you care about your privacy, Glass is the least of your concerns - there are already many ways to record everything secretly. And, if you want to invade people's privacy like this, Glass is the last thing you should use since it is so conspicuous.

      Britain already went through this debate as they installed their ubiquitous CCVC network. Privacy lost.

      • by Electricity Likes Me ( 1098643 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:39AM (#43190967)

        Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.

        "Oh no someone might get a picture of me looking stupid" versus everyone definitely getting a picture of police abuse.

    • Google's CEO and most of the other morons walking the earth who will allow it. Not to excuse it, I just think it's kind of inevitable even were google to drop glass to focus on not cancelling google reader. People like to spy. I'll just be glad if the government doesn't go big brother with it, demanding warrantless access to everyone's virtual eye.
    • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:23AM (#43190869)

      I can't believe anyone would mod that up. That is the oldest one in the book "if you have nothing to hide". Here are some things to thing about:

      * If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me

      * Other people define what is "right" or "wrong" and that definition changes all the time

      * Someone else might do something wrong with my information

      * Pieces of information, taken out of context, can lead people to wrong conclusions

      * Scanning information, you can always FIND something that might be wrong or abused

      * You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong

      * You can't possibly know what way some information might be used against you at the time it is collected

      * Computers don't "forget" and you can't control how long some system will hold information about you

      * Once information is collected, you don't know who that company might share it with, nor why, nor how often

      * The only "safe" information, is the information not collected or offered

      • * You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time and still have done nothing wrong

        This, among others on your list, would comprise about 90% of the plot lines in Hitchcock films.

      • by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @12:01PM (#43191075)

        The OP was being sarcastic but you are correct nonetheless. The comments from facebook and google about "privacy being a thing of the past" are hilarious. Guess what they're selling? Your information, your privacy, the details of your life. Of course they want privacy gone, they'll have a field day. Both groups are marketing companies, they sell adverts.

        Get your legal system in order Americans, if the government was doing this you'd be out on the streets rioting. And don't for one second think that the government won't have full access to all of this data.

      • Did you miss the whooshing sound of the OP's sarcastic joke flying right over your head?

      • While you make many good points about why privacy is important the fact is that ubiquitous surveillance is here and we need to shape our laws to prevent abuse of this fact. We are not going to make all the security cameras go away. We are not going to get people to only buy phones without cameras. We are being watched and recorded.

        If I get Google Glass can't I opt out of sending them everything I see? Shouldn't there be laws regulating images taken in public? Regulations for both corporations, government

  • by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:33AM (#43190563)
    " 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless."

    Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.
    • Benign anonymity is a right. People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right?

      Eric-- take your marbles and go home.

    • 'If pervasive, ubiquitous networked cameras ultimately make public privacy impossible, which seems likely, then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.'

      This logic sounds familiar...

      "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera.

      Awwww. *pinches your cheeks* Remember when people said that about pagers and cell phones? That was just as cute.

      Remember folks, be sure to hug a conservative. They have an irrational fear of change, be it emanicpation or airplanes or suffrage or cameras. They need comforting, not convincing. Just hold their hands as they take baby steps into a brave new worl

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:27AM (#43190895) Homepage

      Well, may be so, however, I still won't tolerate you coming to my home, to my gym, to my office, to my restaurant, to my pub, etc. wearing a camera. You can choose to loose your privacy somewhere else.

      You own a gym, office, restaurant and a pub? Lucky you. Let me rephrase it for you, if this becomes popular as your all-purpose device like the smart phone that people use for all sorts of things and expect to be able to use anywhere they go then society will change. I think 20 years ago it was unthinkable that everybody would carry a "spy camera" everywhere they go, now it's completely normal. If you refuse to be in the same place as Google Glass, you'll be the one asked to leave.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Yeah, there were some bar owners that enforced some random rules. I think it was something against team shirts on game days. He said it lead to bar fights, and it was for everyone's safety. Oddly, nobody disputed he had the right to make stupid rules, and he went out of business within a year because nobody wanted to go to a place run by an idiotic piece of shit. So yes, stupid rules work out well for the owner and the public. The owner goes broke and out of business, and eventually someone else buys t
    • by Qwavel ( 733416 )

      But most of those who wish to record you will be wearing invisible cameras - not Glass. Are you going to search everyone?

    • Insightful? You've got to be shitting me. Only to the extent of this current "privacy" stupidity.

      Does he gouge out the eyeballs of all his guests and fellow pint-guzzlers, lobotomize them? "Insightful". The label itself is even ironic. HUMANS ARE ENDOWED WITH RECORDING DEVICES, MORONS.

      The First Amendment of the Constititution declares the fundamental right to "record" and playback life's "experiences"...the fact that video cameras, tape recorders, photography, tvs, phonographs, etc did not exist in 1789 not

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      So if somebody has glasses on, they will not be allowed into MacDonalds? I hope you will be right. I am sure you won't be as all the rest will say how it does not matter.

      In several years there might be no difference between Google Glasses and normal ones, so how will you be able to tell the difference?

      It is amazing how happy people are when they give up their privacy and with that their rights on privacy. If Honecker and Stalin would be still alive, they would have the biggest hardon right now.

    • by spire3661 ( 1038968 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @12:39PM (#43191239) Journal
      Please explain what you mean by you wont tolerate it? What gives you the right to stop me from collecting photons in public? In what way is your privacy greater then my right to collect photons? Do you tell the gym or the pub to stop recording on security cams you when you walk in the door? Because the vast majority of them are recording you. Further, the vast majority of places you mentioned, almost every single person is already carrying a recording device via cellphone. If im in the pub and i use my cellphone clipped to my shirt to record something, are you gonna get mad at that too?
    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Ah, Ludditism on Slashdot. All the people that come to a tech site to share their fear and hatred of tech.

      And the answer to the question clearly followed Betteridge's law of headlines. No, we shouldn't fear Google Glass.
    • Why should you get decide If I'm using a camera at a pub you don't own? Sure, I think it is reasonable to demand cameras off in change rooms and similar places, but if I'm in a place were it would be socially acceptable to take picture with my phone why I should have to turn off my future tech constantly running camera?

  • I personally oppose a ubiquitous source for recording my activity and any accompanying means of data mining such activity. I don't care if it's just me buying groceries, it's none of anyone else's business.

    • Oppose it or not it will happen. Every time you purchase an item the store will reduce its inventory by one so they are doing data mining on your purchases. As for them know what you purchase, it would not make economic sense to hire a human to keep track of them. It is only a computer that will know and figure out a way to benefit from that knowledge. So I suppose you would oppose the economic value that both you and the store will get from this knowledge. I can see both reduced inventory and spoilage
      • by memnock ( 466995 )

        I know I gave the example of an economic activity, but I also meant stuff like walking through a park where a protest or a crime may be occurring and I had no part in. Now I'm at the scene and nowadays, guilt by association (or presence) is the default reaction of several parties. This is unfair and hard for me to control or counteract.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          The police sends piles of cameras out, and the news is covering it live, but you object if one of the protestors has Google Glass? I don't understand.
    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      So you turn around at the door of any store that indicates they use cameras? You've never set foot in a Wal-Mart? You've never been to a major supermarket chain? You have all your stuff delivered and only pay by credit card? (because you can't get cash without being on camera, whether it ATM or branch)
  • Be Afraid? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <> on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:35AM (#43190581) Homepage Journal

    Well no, we should not be afraid. We should be thoughtful. We should consider the ramifications. We should act accordingly. I'm not having anyone come into my house wearing those things, but then I'm not having anyone come in with camcorders either. If I were running a business open to the public, I'd love to have people come in while wearing them, as it would provide me an opportunity to demonstrate it.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      The most rude and inappropriate comments here come from ACs. If they weren't anonymous, do you think they'd act more appropriately? So a recorded society is a polite society? The only people against it are people who know they are inappropriately rude and want to continue that rudeness?
    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      As I submitted that, I had the thought that cameras are arms. Anyone that supports the right to bear arms should support the right to carry recording devices. Cameras don't record people, people record people. If you support the 2nd Amendment, you must support recording devices. Or something like that.
  • Frankly, I'd be surprised if there weren't already a dozen video cameras aimed at me, so another one doesn't bother me, in fact, I kinda welcome it, as more junky videos out there means it's that much harder to find that particular one where I was picking my nose or whatever. What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE. This cannot be good for the person wearing it, nor can it be good for the people around them when they're doing dangerous

    • What bothers me is that people who ARE wearing Google Glasses are HAVING A LIGHT BEAMED DIRECTLY INTO THE EYE.

      How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.

      This cannot be good for the person wearing it, nor can it be good for the people around them when they're doing dangerous things that involve, like, you know, NOT HITTING THEM.

      Your cleverness became clumsy there.

      If people are running into people because they're using google glass then I suspect they would otherwise have had their phone out and run into people because they were looking at their phone.

      The biggest problem with google glass is the biggest problem with every other technology disruptive to privacy: Who watches the watchers? It's not peo

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )

        How can your eye tell the difference between a photon which came from far away, and a photon that came from near you? Answer, it can't.

        Actually, that's not entirely true.

        The trick, you see, is the fact that the iris dilates or contracts to let in more or less light based on the illumination levels we are being exposed to.

        When light is coming directly into your eye from a tiny source, if it does not occupy a sufficient amount of your field of vision, the circumstance occurs where your iris isn't going to

  • Fat Chance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jherek Carnelian ( 831679 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:42AM (#43190631)

    then at least we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.

    That will never happen. The powerful will always have more ability and opportunity to meddle with the data than the powerless. Just look at how Dick Cheney was able to get his house blurred out of google earth. [] The occasional powerful dumbass will get busted to "prove" the system is fair, but the really competent criminals will skate just like they do today.

    • If the police officers and border guards were forced to wear them, they perhaps would have an incentive to treat you decently and not to violate your rights.

      If worn by participants in a demonstration, also interesting, especially if streamed live.

      The argument of equalizing the relation between the powerful and the powerless in surveillance does have merit. Especially when the NSA is currently building a 65 Megawatts datacenter, where they will have the possibility to trace everyone whereabouts.

      From another

  • by epine ( 68316 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @10:43AM (#43190637)

    HIV is "already everywhere". So too was slavery. "Already everywhere" is the pragmatism of the damned.

  • They are everywhere anyway, and a good number of them are open to be used by anyone. And don't forget your own webcam [].And don't forget that now everyone carries cameras at the very least with their cellphones, ready to take a photo or video and getting uploaded to social networks without you noticing.. and getting tagged.

    Is not about cameras what i should be worried about, is the interactivity with them in real time, like fact checking about the people and places you have around, that could be a game chang

    • True. The cellphone in your pocket (it doesn't even have to be smartphone) already has all the privacy-invading features of Google Glass. How do you know that person who appears to be texting on another table isn't already recording a video of your tryst? Wouldn't you also be alarmed if you see someone using a cellphone inside a public bath? GooGlass should be banned in the very same places where the use of a cellphone is already considered improper or rude.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Google Glass doesn't invade my privacy.
    People invade my privacy.

    (Apologies to gun-rights activists.)

    Seriously, Google Glass, like existing security cameras or guns for that matter, can be used for good or evil.

    How we (or our future (presemt?) robot overlords) use it and what formal or informal rules society adopts to allow desired uses and deter non-desired ises is the issue, not the device itself.

  • no. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:07AM (#43190767) Homepage Journal

    it will just be a transition.
    soon enough waving your dick around on a video that's on the internet will not matter one bit.

    basically, when there's embarrassing shit about everyone on the net it will not matter one bit. however, it might be bad for your business if you're caught bullshitting every day. but uh, I can't see that as too bad to be honest. cops, robbers, mcdonalds employees, teachers and public servants would at least be expecting to get fucked over if they try to fuck over their clientele.

    point I'm trying to get at.. is that there's still a lot of behavioral tabus in the west - which leads to hypocrisy.

    • by Geeky ( 90998 )

      Ben Elton's book "Blind Faith" covers this. Basically, it's a near future in which privacy is considered perverse and everyone constantly posts video of themselves. It's not a great book, but eerily prescient - it came out in 2007, before Facebook was as ubiquitous as it is now. First it's the uncomfortably personal posts and tweets, then it'll be the videos...

  • by Hentes ( 2461350 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:12AM (#43190795)

    Security cameras don't upload everything to the net.

  • How long is it going to be before somebody tries wearing one of these headsets in a movie theater? If it's a "3D" film, I can't even imagine how they'd be able to tell that someone was even wearing one of these underneath their "3D" glasses at all...

    Oh... and I can totally see some people trying to use these while driving.

  • Typical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:20AM (#43190847)

    >"The author points out, rightly, that surveillance cameras are already everywhere"

    Typical "justification". So because there are already cameras in many places, there is nothing wrong with having them everywhere, all the time, possibly recording and sharing everything, including audio.... even at your restaurant table.

    >"that sticks in people's craws and makes them go irrationally berserk."

    Typical again. So anyone that could possibly have a problem could only react by being "irrational" about it?

    >"However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,"

    Could it get even more typical? Seems all the rage for a long time now to not give a damn about privacy or freedom. The vast majority of people are quick to trade privacy and freedom for convenience and the illusion of safety.

    Difficult times are coming. Technology is never bad/evil, but what people DO with it can be. I hope people who are eager to strap on something like Google Glass think about how it might affect others around them. There are a lot of unanswered questions about moving into a world where everyone (and every company/government) knows everything about everyone at all times.

  • Ya, because the mugging would of went a whole lot better for him if it started off with him getting punched in the face repeatedly to disable is Google glasses.

  • by fluor2 ( 242824 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:24AM (#43190871)

    It's clearly surveillance without warning. In my country, you may only use surveillance cameras in areas clearly marked with CCTV-warnings. The same should count for Google Glass as well.

  • by jjeffries ( 17675 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:28AM (#43190903)

    A few super-bright infrared LEDs scattered about a person and suddenly said person looks like a walking supernova to CCD cameras... like so: []

  • Public Privacy?! (Score:5, Informative)

    by lemur3 ( 997863 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:29AM (#43190907)

    I am surprised to see the push against this, especially in the types of communties like here on slashdot

    in the USA to me, this seems just a continuation of the freedom to make photographs in public that people have enjoyed for a long while now. While there have been some challenges.. its been upheld a few times that freedom of speech can include making videos or photographs

    not related to photography/video/recording in public in any way at all,.. the supreme court said this in Texas v. Johnson 1989.. a case about whether one should be able to desecrate an american flag. [] []

    The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech," but we have long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word.

    While we have rejected the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea ... we have acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments,"

    In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, we have asked whether:

    [a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.

    at least, for americans like me.. it seems to me to be 'freedom' issue.. it might be unpleasant to know that someone else can annoy you with their Nazi uniform, or video camera but if its in public.. its likely that they are free to do that.

    in a somewhat related issue there was the case of a photographer who was in conflict with people who felt he shouldnt have been allowed to sell images of them []

    Nussenzweig v. diCorcia is a decision by the New York Supreme Court in New York County, holding that a photographer could display, publish, and sell street photography without the consent of the subjects of those photographs

    it might be annoying, it might creep people out ..but really i just see it as a thing that one might have to deal with in a free and open society

    (can one imagine people crying about government crackdowns if we saw China/North Korea banning the use of things like google glass? or am i just being a bit cynical today?)

    • I am surprised to see the push against this, especially in the types of communties like here on slashdot

      in the USA to me, this seems just a continuation of the freedom to make photographs in public that people have enjoyed for a long while now. While there have been some challenges.. its been upheld a few times that freedom of speech can include making videos or photographs

      I support peoples freedom to take photos/video in public. To my mind, the problem with Google Glass / Facebook / etc. isn't that people are taking photos, its that they are all being uploaded to a big online database, where they can be automatically analysed in great detail. I don't care that someone took a picture of me; I don't even care that other people(*) might see it; I do care that Google / Facebook / The government / whoever, is analysing millions of photos and can create a searchable database of

    • by hmmm ( 115599 )

      You can walk around today with a video camera in your hand pointing at people. There's nothing stopping you. Try it and let us know how you get on.

  • by theodp ( 442580 ) on Saturday March 16, 2013 @11:34AM (#43190929)
  • There seems to be a lot of hyperbole going around about Glass, almost makes me wonder if it's Google stirring things up to get more press.

    Glass is going to have really interesting effects on how we treat public spaces, but I don't think it's going to destroy privacy for ever in the way some seem to fear.

    People are already getting used to the idea that people have cameras ready in their pockets, and are more aware that what they do might not just be seen by others, but may be recorded. I don't think it's goi

  • From time to time one can read that police in several countries react allergic when filmed. There are reports of confiscated cameras and worse. But what when the film is automatically streamed somewhere out of reach?
  • Unless the place is designed with the intent of giving people some degree of privacy, like bathrooms for example, nobody is entitled to privacy in public places.
  • However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,

    Those who sacrifice liberty for security get and deserve neither.
              -Benjamin Franklin

  • we can balance the scales by ensuring that we have two-way transparency between the powerful and the powerless.

    It tends to balance the scales between some of the powerful and the powerless in some cases. It also creates a new data stream that increases the imbalance of power in other cases. Google, through its government transparency reporting project, has shown that it often gives privileged information access to government agencies. Even if Google and its partners are benevolent and infallible, those agen

  • So what happens if you wear Google Glasses to the movies or a sporting event where you could be transmitting events/data that is protected by some other entity's precious copyright? Will they really allow people to transmit images/replays of the events on the field? How would they prohibit that?

    Also, what if you go into a private area and still have the glasses on - even if it's not intentional? I'm specifically thinking of that time, many years ago, that I drunkenly wandered into the women's room at Wrig
  • We have all along as Americans being so overwhelmingly concerned with big brother looking over shoulder we completely forgot about "little brother" which is of course each of us spying on each other. This wasn't so much of a concerned until the internet and the information age allowed all these little pieces of information to be combined and recorded forever.

    I don't see that much difference between glass and a smart phone doing videos except how it is obvious when someone is recording. Personally I find the

  • Anyone who thinks you get more security by giving up more privacy is entirely mistaken. You don't get security by giving up privacy. You get it in large part by successfully protecting your privacy.

    Just ask the DoD, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc etc etc. The ability to have a secret is fundamental to security.

  • Currently we a imaged by hundreds of low resolution cameras at distance, for non-networkd security equipment that is only going to be scrutinized by the authorities in the case of the perpetration of a crime and through great labor (not to mention that video has a shocking short lifespan before the images are erased for the stream off new incoming images for security.)

    Google is offering a centralized repository of millions peoples' ongoing imaging of you up close and personal in every walk of your life incl

  • The greatest victory is to convince the slaves to enslave themselves. -me
    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

  • In the process of reading this , and especially when responding, I'm already in a public venue exposing a camera lens at an angle where I could have an app running in the background taking regular stills or videos without you suspecting anything. I'd mostly be capturing your feet and your dog, but could easily be recording your small children.

    As it happens I'm already conscious of this and if there are kids running around or something I'll casually rest my finger over the camera or move slightly to reassure

  • If so, it's not the same as the surveillance cameras that are everywhere already. And in some states (including California, Google's home state), recording audio without permission from all parties is illegal (and in California, a felony) under many circumstances.

    I think I'll set up a Cafe Press shop selling t-shirts that say "I refuse you permission to record audio in my presence."

  • I found this article on HackerNews a few days ago to be quite insightful in this respect: []

    The main claim of the articles author is that in the past, there hasn't been any collective agency that pools information anything like Google. CCTV's, and whatnot have always been isolated from each other. The scary case (perhaps this is strawman) is that each Google Glass viewer may record and the collective samples with facial recogniti