Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Technology

Google Begins Publicly Testing Its AR Glasses (cnet.com) 24

Posted by msmash from the second-time's-the-charm dept.
A decade after Google Glass, Google is getting back to testing smart glasses in public again. From a report: Google's AR glasses prototype testers are prohibited from using the glasses "in schools, government buildings, health care locations, places of worship, social service locations, areas meant for children (e.g., schools and playgrounds), emergency response locations, rallies or protests and other similar places," or while driving or playing sports. Google hasn't revealed where in the US, specifically, these glasses will be tested. According to Google, "an LED indicator will turn on if image data will be saved for analysis and debugging. If a bystander desires, they can ask the tester to delete the image data and it will be removed from all logs."

The glasses don't take photos or videos, but use image data for its assistive AI. Google promises that "the image data is deleted, except if the image data will be used for analysis and debugging. In that case, the image data is first scrubbed for sensitive content, including faces and license plates. Then it is stored on a secure server, with limited access by a small number of Googlers for analysis and debugging. After 30 days, it is deleted." Field-testing for future smart glasses is an increasing trend, it seems. Meta started testing prototype depth-sensing camera arrays on a pair of glasses called Project Aria two years ago, focusing on how smart sensor-filled glasses could be used responsibly in public places.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Begins Publicly Testing Its AR Glasses More

Google Begins Publicly Testing Its AR Glasses

Comments Filter:
  • The return.
  • But they're not prohibited from being worn in the bedroom. This is a small step for a man, a giant leap for Pornhub. (cue 2001 music)

    • But they're not prohibited from being worn in the bedroom. This is a small step for a man, a giant leap for Pornhub. (cue 2001 music)

      Aren't we supposed to start posting links to the best pr0n site now... in seemingly non-english words, endlessly, and consume 80% of the bandwidth available doing so?

  • In the US that's the perfect place. You can simultaneously evaluate the project and gather evidence for tax fraud.

    • I'm the prophet of my own church. My disciples worship the ground I walk on, so wherever I am, there is a place of worship.

      Found your own church now!

    • In the US that's the perfect place. You can simultaneously evaluate the project and gather evidence for tax fraud.

      It does say places of worship. It doesn't mention the office where papers are kept for the financial transactions and inter-departmental communications between elements of a non-corporate entity. The place of worship is in that other building over there. I'm not, like, you know, urging you to go in that office and gather all the info that's in there or anything. I'm just trying to define what is and isn't a place of worship.

      Oh, and it doesn't say they can't be used in a place that, once the information

  • Are the restrictions being enforced with technology?

    • Absolutely. If you try to use them in a restricted area, they explode inward, right on your face.

    • I'd rather say its a health issue.

      • I'd rather say its a health issue.

        You know Google. Let the courts decide if it is or not. If they feel they're losing, offer compensation to the victim: new ocular brain implants embedded with Google Image search technology. After having 'pre-alpha testing' removed from the settlement documents. Oh, and a few million dollars of pocket change just in case the implants explode.

        • I meant dr. Martens on the feet of a victim of being filmed, applied liberally to the AR glasses and/or their wearer.

    • Are the restrictions being enforced with technology?

      I'm shifting screens and my eyes picked that up as "Are the age restrictions being enforced with technology?"

      All I gots ta say is: What happens when little Johnny gets his hands on dad's testing phase AR glasses and decides he wants to play with his mom's iPhone?

  • I'm interested in AR, but I have zero interest in AR that requires you to be connected to some remote server. I really don't trust Amazon, Google, or Apple here. We don't use voice recognition for anything. We don't have a 'smart speaker' or use those features on our phones. Still, I'll get ads or recommendations related to something my wife has said just minutes prior. It's creepy as hell.

    We need to insist that apps do more locally / work offline. Google translate can run offline now, but I'm willin

    • I was sent a .gdoc file the other day. Do you know what was inside? Nothing but a URL.

      We once asked a client to send us their logo. Instead of receiving a vector file of some sort, they sent us a heavily-compressed JPEG... inside a freakin' Word document.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        That's funny and a little sad, but I didn't mean that they sent me a url senselessly wrapped in a .gdoc file. I meant that instead of the actual contents of the document, the .gdoc file, when examined with a hex editor, contained only a url. Following the url shows the content the user believed that they sent in google docs.

        Still, I'll share story of user insanity. I often get sent screen shots, printed out, scanned, and sent to me via email as PDFs.

        • That's funny and a little sad, but I didn't mean that they sent me a url senselessly wrapped in a .gdoc file. I meant that instead of the actual contents of the document, the .gdoc file, when examined with a hex editor, contained only a url. Following the url shows the content the user believed that they sent in google docs.

          Still, I'll share story of user insanity. I often get sent screen shots, printed out, scanned, and sent to me via email as PDFs.

          Man, I guess they assumed most people, you included, would have opened that "document" from within gmail and never asked a question about it. Cuz, ya know, everyone uses gmail. /h

  • If a bystander desires, they can ask the tester to delete the image data and it will be removed from all logs.

    You better ask whether you're allowed to record that data in the first place, or you might notice that the way people "ask" is by stepping on your glasses.

    If you're lucky, they remove it from your head first.

    • You don't own the light just because it reflected off you, don't want me seeing it then keep it to yourself.

      • You don't own the light just because it reflected off you

        According to our law [bka.gv.at], I do.

        • My german/austrian-german might not be the best, but there is a seperation between taking a photo and publishing a photo of someone else.

          In Norway you can take photos in public as much as you'd like, but you can't publish the said photos if someone is identifiable in that photo.

          How is it in Austria?

          • The law itself talks about publishing, but in the past [bka.gv.at] this has been extended to the creation of pictures if it invades the privacy of people.

            In general, the "right to your own image" ("Recht am eigenen Bild") is pretty strict in Austria (and also in Germany). The general consensus is that you can take pictures only if you can show that the motif is not the person (so if you take a picture of, say, an artistic mural in public where there are people around, this would not infringe on the privacy of the peopl

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close