Google Releases Glass Kernel Source Code 205
hypnosec writes "Google has released the kernel source code of Google Glass publicly just a couple of days after the wearable gadget was rooted by Jay Freeman. Releasing the source code, Google has noted that the location is just temporary and it would be moving to a permanent location soon saying: 'This is unlikely to be the permanent home for the kernel source, it should be pushed into git next to all other android kernel source releases relatively soon.'"
question: (Score:5, Interesting)
It was rooted? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I imagine article like that would break nda's at this point. Google never opposed rooting in any case, so I just don't see this as being a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
It wasn't "rooted" (Score:2)
"Rooting" means exploiting a security flaw to get root privileges in a device that is designed to prevent users from doing that (e.g. the iPhone or the Android phones sold by some US network operators).
Bootloader unlocking and root access was available and well documented on the first Android device designed by Google (the Nexus One), simply by running the command "fastboot oem unlock".
The same command worked on the second Android phone by Google, the Nexus S, and all subsequent devices, including tab
Other uses (Score:2)
It's just Linux kernel and driver source (Score:2, Informative)
I downloaded it and it's mostly just a Linux kernel source tarball, complete with HOWTOs and documentation from the Linux developers. And lots of hardware drivers.
Yeah there's probably Google Glass-specific stuff in there somewhere, but you'd need to be practiced at building the Linux kernel to spot them, because Google apparently decided not to point it out for us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's just Linux kernel and driver source (Score:4, Informative)
You could diff this kernel with the mainline one and see which files are new.
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone with privacy concerns please respond (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Re:Could someone with privacy concerns please resp (Score:4, Insightful)
"In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these?"
Ubiquity, penetration, and connectivity.
Re: (Score:1)
... And which of those do phones lack?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could someone with privacy concerns please resp (Score:5, Insightful)
With smartphones it is usually clear when someone is recording someone else because of the physical location of the camera. It is not common or socially acceptable to record a person that you are interacting with. And glass has the potential to be recording all the time while it is very inconvenient to walk around recording everything with your cellphone.
A person who wears a spycam all the time and is found out will generally be shunned. Google glass has the appearance of legitimacy.
Video cameras by the government or private companies are governed by some set of regulations that mean they can't just post something you said to facebook or youtube.
The end result of Google glass is that now you have a situation where, so long as you are interacting with a person wearing Google glass, you may be being recorded. This will end up being very tiresome as people have to "watch what they say" all the time. The change is not a qualitative change: whenever people interact with others, in private or public, what they say or do may become known in another context. It is a quantitative change: now there is only one context: your boss can hear the dirty joke you tell at a party. Your friends and coworkers can hear the awkward one liner you use on a girl at a bar. Every political statement you make must be vetted for "racism", "sexism", "homophobia" and "anti-semitism", or you will be thrown out of university.
Btw I'm not saying they should be banned, I'm just explaining why I think Google glass does raise novel concerns about privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The Luddites are out in force today. Try putting a little thought into it instead of letting your imagination run riot with doomsday scenarios.
First of all Google glass does have a recording light [wikipedia.org]. Secondly, Google Glass stands out like dogs balls making it a very poor choice for surreptitious recording
Re: (Score:2)
The Luddites are out in force today. Try putting a little thought into it instead of letting your imagination run riot with doomsday scenarios.
Try dropping the attitude, mate.
Google Glass stands out like dogs balls making it a very poor choice for surreptitious recording.
When lots of people are using Google glass, they won't stand out very much. A person holding up their smartphone constantly to record things will. The light exists now, but since smartphones no longer all have "recording" lights, how long will Glass?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more covert you get, the more obvious it is that you were doing it covertly and intentionally. If you were caught sneaking a spy cam into a locker room it's a lot more damning than if you "forgot" to deposit your smart phone since there's so many oblivious people who actually do. Google Glass will be the same, say people at the gym are using it to watch body monitors or follow a fitness schema or record their amounts of exercise or whatever, then they just "forgot" to take it off as they walk through th
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
agree, strongly. Thanks for the vocalizing of the issue which has been remarkably off the public debate radar for the last 10 years.
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
agree again.
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Well, I guess I addressed them by agreeing with them. And I think the emphasis of my remaining 'criticism' here (other than being a Google critic for network neutrality hypocrisy[1]), is that I find enlightening the recent lawsuits against android manufacturers that they patch or replace known insecure consumer mobile phones in operation. That issue, and at least
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Protip: When you leave your Mom's basement and go out into the world, you "lose privacy" and so does everyone else.
If you don't want Google Glass down in your dungeon lair, don't let people bring it in.
Protip 2: Smartphones are everywhere and have both video and audio recording devices built in, which can be secretly activated by the user! ZOMG!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Protip: putting your cell phone in people's faces to record them will result in you being shunned at the least, and having your face punched in at the worst.
Protip: walk away from a Google glass wearer, and cover part of your face, before returning to punch in their face. We'll teach google and them, we just have to take basic precautions as we launch them, on their serendipitous journey to social norms and sensitivity, back of the head first.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
The Kinect is only affecting the homes of people who choose to install the things. Glass is designed to be worn on the go. That's probably why Glass is seen as being more controversial and invasive.
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it strange that there wasn't a huge outcry when Microsoft release the Kinect, a device that always has a camera on inside your house. Personally, I trust Microsoft a lot less than I trust Google.
You don't see the difference between a stationary recording device that people choose to place in their own homes versus a mobile device others wear that can record you anywhere without your consent?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why there's a huge panic over it when wearable recording devices have been on the market for at least 10 years, including I believe one from Microsoft [wikipedia.org] quite a while ago. I seem to remember the discussion at the time being amazement that someone would sacrifice their own privacy, not that of others. As others are stating here again and again, people have been able to, and have actually been recording you without your consent for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I my country their are certain constitutional guarantees of privacy. Privacy is important to normal human beings, regardless of what nearly socially lifeless geeks might think
Re: (Score:2)
Except where otherwise tweaked by law, private companies have a great deal more leeway, e.g. refusing service and escorting you off premises if they don't like what you're saying.
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Which is why I want to see Google and several other large corporations pool their money and fund a private army to overthrow Germany and the EU.
The corrupt Cultural Marxists in charge have had it coming for a long time. Remember their recent attempt to ban porn in the EU?
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Funny)
Google guns
Re: (Score:1)
The only guy I know who uses "Cultural Marxists" is Breivik, the crazy norwegian that killed about 70 people ...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Both of you are somewhat wrong - the UK has a lot of CCTV cameras, certainy, but absolutely no where near the amount that "study" showed. We also have the Data Protection Act, which allows individuals to ask any and all CCTV operators to supply them with a copy of every capture they have made of you, for a minimal fee.
Also, out of the CCTV cameras installed, I'd say much less than half of them are local authority owned, most of them are privately owned and operated - and those that are owned and operated b
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance#European_Union [wikipedia.org]
'Eurnion, Fuck Yeah!
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking for myself, if I had to choose between government surveillance and private surveillance (thinking Google, Facebook), I'd choose the private, even if unregulated. The government is going to try to control me, while Google is going to try to sell me stuff.
Granted, I don't want either situation.
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? The surveillance cameras in the UK beg to differ. Obviously there has to be a balance between freedom and privacy, we're just going to figure it out as we go, as we always have.
Pervasive cameras in the UK (Score:2)
Last time I checked, the UK was part of Europe.
I also noticed that those cameras did not stop the subway bombing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, smartphones are usually in men's pockets or women's purse. If the VENDOR secretly activated those cameras, they'll likely see pure black.
If glasses secretly activate, they'll see what people are seeing.
In any case, I expect to see "no google glasses" signs appearing in banks, geek's house, etc soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Interesting)
High UID: check
Ranting against Google: check
Rooting for Microsoft: check
Now why did that last sentence not surprise me? At least with Microsoft you would have *what*?
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Informative)
I think you forgot two.
First post from a new account: check
First post on a thread: check
If it smells like a shill and it posts like a shill then I'm betting it's a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what you mean is, "if it disagrees with me, it's a shill post".
Ironic that an AC would complain about someone else's lack of established posting history...
Re: (Score:3)
AC has been posting here for YEARS.
This is what we should do... (Score:1)
All of our actions will be recorded and analysed by company whose CEO said "if you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".
We should all get on Schmidt's lawn, masturbate furiously, shit on it, and scream "I have NOTHING to hide!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't even only limited to YOU, personally, but everyone around you. Google Glasses will see everything you do and they will run facial recognition on EVERYBODY AROUND YOU. Not only will YOU lose privacy but EVERYONE ELSE TOO.
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces and private locations are free to ban video and photography just like they've always been, if they don't want it. I don't see what the big deal is.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is where I live. The fact that you do not know what the big deal is, is the big deal. Remember how they got to Big Brother? Not by going to war. They got there because people were not interested in their privacy.
Or to quote from yet somewhere else: "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
So I guess you don't live in the United States. I am really concerned about protecting these rights [aclu.org], which you seem to want to constrict.
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:4, Insightful)
They get all their ideas about government from novels.
Or from high-quality Hollywood entertainment.
Various Greek states had democracy that wasn't forced on them (unlike, say, Germany), and wasn't in the imagination of the maker of popular kids movies. Why don't you look at how they lost it, and what problems they had? You'll end up much wiser.
Re: (Score:2)
Various Greek states had democracy that wasn't forced on them (unlike, say, Germany), and wasn't in the imagination of the maker of popular kids movies.
Please. The number of citizens in those Greek states - total - was in the few tens of thousands. The number of slaves was many, many times that [wikipedia.org].
Greek "democracy" was a farce.
Re: (Score:2)
Greek "democracy" was a farce.
And yet it was still infinitely more real and instructive than Star Wars. Do you disagree?
Re: (Score:3)
"high-quality Hollywood entertainment."
Ho-ho-ho.
Good one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how you write like you know so much more than the GP, and yet your post contains absolutely no actual specific knowledge
It had specific knowledge: it mentioned that the Greeks had democracy then lost it. I willingly admit that's not much, but it is sadly more than the post in question.
much less reasoning why the GP is wrong.
The reason he is wrong is because his knowledge is based on imaginary stories. You can't argue with that, all you can do is try to help him get his foot back in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Any privacy fear that apply to Glass applies to any smartphone as well. If anything, it's a lot less obvious when a smartphone user takes a picture or shoots a video than when a Glass wearer does the same.
If you worry about this aspect of privacy, you should have spoken out at about the time phones first started getting cameras.
Re: Major source of privacy loss (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so. You're more likely to notice someone holding out a smartphone taking pictures and stuff, where as with glass it was discovered there's code and an apk with facial control features such as winking to take a picture etc. Since someone could much more easily just turn their head and wink to snap a picture vs holding a phone out.. Pretty sure you could do so much more covertly with glass than any phone (restrooms, up skirt, etc)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty sure you could do so much more covertly with glass than any phone (restrooms, up skirt, etc)
Should I remind you why some countries, like Japan, demand all camera phones to make a shutter sound when snapping a pic?
Because lowering your arm with a phone camera-side up and pressing the button is too damn easy, so you're about decade too late with your OMG UNDERSKIRT VOYEURS scare.
Now imagine nonchalantly doing the same with Google Glass.
PS: "OMG taking photos by winking" + "OMG covert upskirt photos" make a nice combination. Covertly peek under her skirt and wink! Alternatively, smoothly put your Gla
Re: (Score:2)
A smartphone in a belt case with the camera on is effectively the same as Glass. I'm pretty sure you'd notice someone taking an "up-skirt" shot with Google Glass much more than with a cell phone, especially if they were actually wearing them at the time.
Re: (Score:1)
They're wearing a fucking camera on their fucking head.
It doesn't get more obvious than that.
Re: (Score:2)
assume they are all the time and you'll be fine.
Wake me up when I can use it for walking or biking directions and fitness tracking for at least 6 hours, and can charge it via solar panels and I'm in. I'd gladly take somethnig like that backpacking with me. Being able to take a panorama shot without getting a camera out or removing hiking poles or taking the bag off would be handy, but it needs to be light weight, and have very long battry life, and be weather proof.
Re: (Score:2)
People have smartphones out in their hands all around me every day. On my commute half a dozen people could be taking my picture or filming me every second of the time without any way for me to know or avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
All this hyperbole about invasion of privacy is nice and all, but isn't anyone interested in the fact that they open-sourced the code? This means that if you want you can probably get custom firmwares in the near future that have no internet connectivity at all and do exactly what *you* want like a good piece of hardware should. Stream video to your own servers for example?
Re: (Score:2)
isn't anyone interested in the fact that they open-sourced the code?
Well it's hardly surprising, they are legally required to do so under the license.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Linux was GPL 2, not 3, and it wasn't required, but I may be mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Linux was GPL 2, not 3, and it wasn't required, but I may be mistaken.
Yes, Linux is GPL v2, but it is still required, v3 just prevents Tivoization.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't GPL 2 mean you don't need to release your own changes, just make the original source available?
Re: (Score:2)
No, with the GPLv2 if you are distributing a derivative work you must make the source code of the derivative work available. Tivo did that with their changes however the argument against their practice was not about source code but about hardware, whilst you could modify the source code you couldn't modify the binaries running on the Tivo hardware. The GPLv3 imposes requirements on the vendor such that in the Tivo situation had the software been under the v3 they would be required to provide the tools and i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass flashes an LED at you whenever the camera is operating. Phones, meanwhile have lots of ways to stop the fake shutter sound (including apps, and just simply cover the speaker), and they don't make any sound at all for movies.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that it you have to activate video recording manually.
And it would kill your battery in an hour if all that was running without your notice.
And source code is published so you could check that it's not happening.
As pointed out many times before, you can do much more stuff with your smartphone and you can still enforce "no glass" policy on your property.
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a shock, but you have no expectation of privacy when you're out in public. There are similar arguments that could be made about surveillance cameras (in the UK and elsewhere), but you have to look at the big picture. This is a good thing in the long run. The trend towards inter-connectivity continues.
Re: (Score:2)
you have no expectation of privacy when you're out in public
This is such a common, glib statement, but let's put it in a way which makes it clear how evil this is:
This basically means there is no way for a bunch of free people to go out and expect to discuss in private what they think. This means that people who live in small houses with their stay at home pare
Re: (Score:3)
Our whole PLANET (not only the nation) will be in danger.
There are issues with privacy from Google Glass, but you're going a little far. Even in the worst imaginable case, that we all end up living in a panopticon when we go outside, the PLANET is not going to be destroyed.
Re-adjust, recalibrate yourself to reality so people take you seriously again.
Re: (Score:1)
They released the source code - so it'd be easy enough to make sure the glasses doesn't send imagery to google, At that point, someone wearing the glasses is no different from someone running around with a camcorder. Making street movies is ok.
There are other uses than filming though. I want a wearable monitor - so I can read stuff while walking. Or see maps of where I am. A small device on my glasses is ideal. Camera is not needed - except perhaps to provide transparency.
Re: Major source of privacy loss (Score:2)
But the release of the code provided the means to find out there is code in there for controlling glass via facial gestures such as winking. Combine this with the earlier concern of people taking pictures or videos say in a restroom or up skirt up steps where the people who claimed oh you have to push a button or say a command to do so... Well just wink and its on.
And it's funny this is all being developed by a guy who doesn't want people owning drones that could film others.. Such as the parrot ar.drone.
On
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Insightful)
As I live in a country where corruption is rampant and where police officials openly ask for bribes and misbehave with people, I can't wait for thousands of people to be wearing these babies all the time.
It's about time we started watching our government publicly. This will revolutionize things, make no mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Even in "first-world" countries this may help a little with some police abuse. Conversely though, you may find you get a "warning" for speeding, etc, less frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major source of privacy loss (Score:5, Interesting)
Two things:
1. Instant video streaming to my private youtube channel will preserve everything. So destroying my glasses will just make things worse for them.
2. It's far easier for other people to activate recording via google glass without drawing attention to themselves. The police can pick out people who are recording with cell phone cameras. Not with this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Google Glass would be more acceptable in public (if still nerdy) if there were a version with no camera embedded, for use just for display to the user. I realize that limits its use somewhat, but if you just want to surf the web or watch videos it should be fine. Or perhaps have a detachable camera that's obvious that it's been detached.
It is creepy to have that little camera eye pointed at me, whether or not it is recording. Even if there is a red recording light (I don't know whether or n
Re:Major source of privacy loss - robots.txt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, then I'll just install a camera in your bathroom...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the late MS pro-privacy campaign is more of a PR stunt (aka "we are doing something different than google"). Their record is more or less on par with Google (they have Bing that is just as information hungry).
The only reason we didn't see many headlines about that is because MS don't really do much innovation these days and no one cares.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How is it different than GoPro? (Score:2)
I'd hire some black hat SEO type. All the girls would then get a label like "Cerberusss: hung well".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And some people kill other people with axes and hammers. We should ban those as well and any other blunt instrument with a density above styrofoam.
Re: (Score:2)
Clubs, doctors offices, and the stores can all ban the use of video recording devices. My gym already does in the locker rooms. I'm still confused about the issue you have with it. I can already do everything you are discussing, I just need to wear a backpack while doing it right now. Would you object to anyone walking around with a backpack?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but is she more likely to win than Miss Australia?