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.'"
No problemo. (Score:5, Funny)
I always wear my infrared LED cap when mugging Google Glass owners.
Then my face is unrecognizable.
wearable displays, not so much wearable computing (Score:2)
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).
Re:wearable displays, not so much wearable computi (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
On balancing the scales (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:On balancing the scales (Score:4, Insightful)
The article's premise was that pervasive surveillance can be viewed as acceptable under the aegis of "trading" privacy for government transparency, which, in the surveillance context, means that we are watching them.
I'm suggesting that's very likely a bad idea. You're saying the tech is unavoidable. I'm saying that the use of that tech is governed by law, particularly privacy laws of various stripes (you can't record audio in many cases, you have to have a warrant to record a telephone conversation, you can't convey what you hear on certain radio frequencies, etc.) The idea that we accept pervasive surveillance as a trade for the ability to watch the government, couched as an argument for "transparency", is going to be mediated by law, which in turn we might have a chance to stick an opinion in the mix before pervasive tech turns into pervasive exposure.
Sorry I was unclear, I didn't mean to be. It's a big issue for people concerned with privacy. It's a non-issue for those who don't understand what privacy was and can be. In between, there are a lot of levels of understanding.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Google OWNS you (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly!
The problem is not "people" recording as much as images sent to Google'a servers. We already know it automatically tries to identify people, so that information is STORED somewhere along with the whole camera frame, whatever might be in it. Like rob here says, the ENTIRE PURPOSE is for Google to gather those ancillary images and sounds and sell ads to the highest bidder. You walk into a bar, what beer is advertized? What song is playing while you're dancing? You can quickly see that turning into ad data sold to beer companies based on who saw their ads, and forwarding a list of bars that didn't pay ASCAP for the DJ last night.
People miss that this ALL PRIVACY being targeted... We already have complaints from PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS that wish people not to use Google Glass there. YOUR HOME is next... I mean all your friends have Googke Glass, they aren't going to look in your medicine cabinet, or see your brand of foot-fungus cream. Remember these are the AUTOMATED images, so Google isn't invading THEIR PRIVACY because their photos, videos, audio tracks are password protected. Google is just racking up EVERYBODY AROUND them!!
THAT is the change here. When I go to a place, I expect them to have cameras in case of robbery or breakin. But MAINTAINING cameras is HARD. Most have a tape or DVR of limited space and keep reusing the space. Generally something from six months ago is "forgotten". Google Glass is you running around taking pictures of everybody else's stuff. And storing it in a vast server farm wher Google is going to use it for their own private purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
Like rob here says, the ENTIRE PURPOSE is for Google to gather those ancillary images and sounds and sell ads to the highest bidder. You walk into a bar, what beer is advertized?
So if I wear these, I'll stop getting ads for Miller Lite and Bud, and start getting ads for Old Dominion Oak Barrel Stout? Where can I sign up?
Re:Google OWNS you (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not "people" recording as much as images sent to Google'a servers.
Well, no - both are problems. I don't want random individuals recording my interactions with them.
Google IS the bigger problem, admittedly. For one thing I'm pretty sure they never truly delete anything even if you delete it from your account. I've come to believe that because of an experience I recently had. One of our users had uploaded an ical file containing her calendar from another system. She then changed her mind and cleared the calendar of everything, following Google's instructions (I verified this) - so the calendar was completely empty. a couple months later, for collaboration's sake she went to her old system and again exported an ical file. Google would not allow her to upload the events, though, stating "these items have already been uploaded" even though they were not on her Google calendar anymore.
FYI the solution to the upload problem was changing the sequence number for each event in the ical file, as others around the web have found.
How Guys Will Use Google Glass (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8UjcqCx1Bvg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or this: http://i1024.photobucket.com/albums/y307/sarmadys/daily_picdump_1186_640_78_zps518be7ba.jpg [photobucket.com]
Re:How Guys Will Use Google Glass (Score:5, Interesting)
Or like this. [vimeo.com]
For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Ubiquitous cameras everywhere has also done more to prevent injustice then to perpetrate it.
I'm not seeing it. I bet the government would love it, though. That said, I don't care if the TSA actually was effective; I prefer freedom and privacy over safety any day.
Oh, and it's not necessary to have ubiquitous surveillance in order to capture police abuse on camera.
What exactly do you think the government is going to do with Google Glass that they can't already do?
Conversely, what do you think the average citizen is empowered to do when they have Google Glass or a smartphone camera or any other type of device? The democratization of people carrying cameras means they all have them and that's what's led to the ability to limit abuses of power by authorities because the information is distributed and diverse.
People keep throwing out "oh surveillance, it'll be a tool of
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
* 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.
Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the whooshing sound of the OP's sarcastic joke flying right over your head?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
My conjecture is that the OP used a rhetorical technique called sarcasm, a technique quite unknown to us Vulcans although we are frequently and incorrectly being accused of using it.
Re:For a Safe and Secure Society (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the "party line", Right.
You notice the people that want cameras and guns the most, don't seem to like the cameras and guns pointed BACK. They live in gated communities and send ther kids to private schools with paper-only records.
Lets see Google's boss wear these into a board meeting and keep it ACTIVE while Google's board is discussing stuff. Most board members would not tolerate that kind of interference in board meetings.. Cause they got nothing to hide! Right?
Re: (Score:3)
>Unlike smartphones, it is insanely obvious when Glass is recording because there's a bright red LED.
Talk about failing to rebut.
The guy you're responding to has identified a major problem with Google Glass. You're responding with a mere technical niggle.
All Android phones don't work like the Google Nexus, so why would you think all Glass implementations would work like the current demo model?
You really want to stake everything on an LED lighting up or not?
Re: (Score:3)
Talk about failing to rebut.
The guy you're responding to has identified a major problem with Google Glass. You're responding with a mere technical niggle.
All Android phones don't work like the Google Nexus, so why would you think all Glass implementations would work like the current demo model?
You really want to stake everything on an LED lighting up or not?
Talk about failing to rebut.
How about we have this discussion when it actually becomes technically possible to have a continuously recording device. Because Google Glass is not that device. And the OP has not identified any problem, he *made up* a problem that doesn't actually exist. Google Glass hasn't changed anything. If you want to record everything you see, Google Glass is a worse way to do it than existing methods. Hell, a smartphone in a shirt pocket would work.
balancing the scales (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the movie "Freeze Frame." Where the guy, having been falsely accused of a horrendous crime, resolves to have a constant chain of video of whatever he's doing at all times.
Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (Score:5, Insightful)
Just don't commit any crimes...
Just don't be associated with those who commit crimes.
Don't be associated with those who are associated with people who commit crimes.
Certainly don't walk/run/drive/bicycle through any place that has recently had a crime committed.
Don't appear to be doing something worthy of being noticed, even if it is benign.
Don't get in the way of people who would rather have what you have.
Don't make people upset with you.
Don't let people get upset with you even though they don't know you.
Don't have the wrong skin color.
Don't have the wrong gender.
People may argue slippery slope, but most of those are already being used EVERY SINGLE DAY to target people. Collection = abuse. You can't get around having it, if you're not gonna have people use it. Occasional news reports about people at the DMV grabbing celebrities police reports and that is stuff people think is necessary to collect! What about everything else? Also, the security of databases stinks. More so via people than technology.
Re: (Score:2)
So, since living in a cave is not an option for most of us, and wouldn't really work anyway, we're screwed, right?
Al Sleet lives.
Re:Jay Leno Re:balancing the scales (Score:4, Interesting)
You are not arguing against tech like google glass, you are arguing against a fascist police state. If the government, law, and courts are not set up to be abused by the rich then taking pictures in public cannot be used as a weapon.
Improve society; don't try to suppress technology.
Re: (Score:3)
But for the love
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This logic sounds familiar...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:balancing the scales (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But most of those who wish to record you will be wearing invisible cameras - not Glass. Are you going to search everyone?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:balancing the scales (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the answer to the question clearly followed Betteridge's law of headlines. No, we shouldn't fear Google Glass.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
And I post as anonymous for a reason too. I don't need anyone with an axe to grind showing up to my doorstep. I value my privacy.
Funny thing is that is indistinguishable from being a lying sack of shit.
Corporation or government (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be Afraid? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the video camera that worries me.... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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. [wired.com] 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.
Two-way transparency argument a valid one (Score:2)
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
HIV is "already everywhere" (Score:5, Insightful)
HIV is "already everywhere". So too was slavery. "Already everywhere" is the pragmatism of the damned.
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative is a police state that tells you what you can and can't photograph, what you can and can't say and the like.
This is not even the worst case. As matter of fact, most states, democratic and not, have laws that tell you what you cannot photograph and what you cannot say. Well, you can say it, but you will be punished. Holocaust denial in Germany, for example, is verboten. Theocracies usually have blasphemy laws. Thailand jails people for offending the King.
But this can be lived with, as lo
(in)Security cameras (Score:2)
They are everywhere anyway, and a good number of them are open to be used by anyone. And don't forget your own webcam [wired.co.uk].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
Re: (in)Security cameras (Score:2)
People using Google Glass (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
False comparison (Score:3)
Security cameras don't upload everything to the net.
Legal issues. (Score:2)
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)
>"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.
Security (Score:2)
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.
I don't like them (Score:3)
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.
LED invisibility suit (Score:3)
A few super-bright infrared LEDs scattered about a person and suddenly said person looks like a walking supernova to CCD cameras... like so: http://hackedgadgets.com/wp-content/2/_IR_LED_Blocks_Security_Camera.jpg [hackedgadgets.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the non-existent damage from lower level heat emissions then day to day life?
Public Privacy?! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson [wikipedia.org]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZS.html [cornell.edu]
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia [wikipedia.org]
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?)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Irrationally berserk: Seattle's 'Creepy Cameraman' (Score:5, Interesting)
GeekWire: 'Creepy Cameraman' pushes limits of public surveillance - a glimpse of the future? [geekwire.com] (includes interesting video)
Re: (Score:3)
People just need to be sensible (Score:2)
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
I wonder what the police will do (Score:2)
Privacy in public... (Score:2)
for sake of security? (Score:2)
However, he also seems happy to trade privacy for security,
Those who sacrifice liberty for security get and deserve neither.
-Benjamin Franklin
Which Powerful/Powerless? (Score:2)
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
Copyright Infringement? (Score:2)
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
Bemoan them only because of massive adoption (Score:2)
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
You can't have security without privacy. (Score:2)
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.
Let me see... (Score:2)
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
Freedom? Safety? Privacy? Where? (Score:2)
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
I'm reading this on a public place on a smartphone (Score:2)
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
Does Google Glass record audio? (Score:2)
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."
Insightful article linked via HackerNews (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Charlie Brooker's series Black Mirror did a story about this (3rd in the first season).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The classic way to disguise yourself from cameras without being obvious is to put strong IR LEDs on your hat. Of course, that requires that you wear one. It also only works on cameras without an IR filter, but since that includes all the cameras meant to see in the dark and their numbers are only growing, it's a fairly effective strategy. You pulse the LEDs to save power.
You can blind cameras with lasers, but since you can also blind humans with lasers, that is not a working strategy here.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict they won't become any less illegal though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well it's because it's very easy to see when a smartphone starts recording. google glass can record everything without ANYBODY noticing. If there is some kind of indicator-light for recording, I'm sure it's not much hazzle to disable by either destroying it or patch it.
Re: (Score:3)
Walk around with your smartphone recording video with the red LED blinking all the time, see what happens.