4 ms·

So instead of working on your memory or coming up with a mnemonic or just asking their name again (everyone forgets a name), you think it'd be less intrusive to

So instead of working on your memory or coming up with a mnemonic or just asking their name again (everyone forgets a name), you think it'd be less intrusive to scan someone without their permission?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Of course. Why would I need permission to analyze the same image that hits my eyes and to consult a digital database I maintain (or public one I have access to)? Going this way I'd end up rejecting bicycles and notepads because they're not "natural" enough. Personally, I believe that your tools are extensions of your body.
- yolesaber 11y ago
  I'm sorry but your social faculties are way out of whack if you think it's a better option to scan someone than to simply ask their name. Do you not understand that I may feel uncomfortable if you've just scanned me and then use that data to try and strike up a conversation? Talk about making me feel like a product or mark. Bicycles and notepads do not actively analyze and reduce people nor do they enable a surveillance state. Don't make such specious extrapolations. Tools are an extension of your body, yes, but you don't go using your hands to feel up someone because you needed more texture data. You don't stare at someone for a long time because that's rude and intrusive. Same goes for using technology like this.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Do you not understand that I may feel uncomfortable if you've just scanned me and then use that data to try and strike up a conversation? Talk about making me feel like a product or mark. Do you feel uncomfortable about the fact that most of your friends don't even know your birthday date or phone number, and have both noted down somewhere (be it a phone or indirectly via profile info of your Facebook account)? Is it weird for you that some may even note down things you like so that they can check them out when looking for a good gift for you? Do you feel "like a product or mark" when a conference badge you wear displays your occupation or interests (sometimes used as an icebreaker)? (Also, you shifted from just scanning to using the results to "try and strike up a conversation"; those are two different things.) > Tools are an extension of your body, yes, but you don't go using your hands to feel up someone because you needed more texture data. By scanning I'm not touching you. That would be a violation, yes. But why should I let you be a master of my eyes, and the (hypothetical, at the moment) tools I use to augment them? People will get used to it, like they do with everything we've invented since dawn of time. Social conventions will adjust. Just because my eye implant can tell me what's your name doesn't mean I get to stop you on the street and start talking to you, no more than it is an acceptable behaviour today.
    - yolesaber 11y ago
      The difference is that for my friends I have granted them explicit privileges beforehand to have access to that kind of data. It's different when a stranger is scanning me, mining me for data. And actually yes I do feel like a product or mark at conferences when people come up to me and just chat me up because of the company I work for (you've heard of it) - they almost always want quid-pro-quo type interactions or otherwise don't care about me per se, but just the quantification of me that exists on the badge. It's one of the reasons I don't enjoy industry conferences that much or when I do go, I prefer not to wear a badge. And honestly, scanning from a distance is still incredible invasive. You can be the "master of your eyes" but don't get offended if I or others think you're a creep. You may not be touching me but you're definitely noticeably staring. The rejection Google Glass actually gives me some faith in the decency of people, but you're probably right, society at large will adjust because the profit motive and law enforcement capabilities for this sort of technology are too great for them not to become entrenched by media and government interests. Personally I find it inhumane and repulsive, but I'm old fashioned like that. I prefer more organic human interactions, nuance, getting to actually know someone beyond a readout on a screen. I'm a private person in an increasingly public circus of society.

So instead of working on your memory or coming up with a mnemonic or just asking their name again (everyone forgets a name), you think it'd be less intrusive to scan someone without their permission?

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Of course. Why would I need permission to analyze the same image that hits my eyes and to consult a digital database I maintain (or public one I have access to)? Going this way I'd end up rejecting bicycles and notepads because they're not "natural" enough. Personally, I believe that your tools are extensions of your body.

yolesaber 11y ago
I'm sorry but your social faculties are way out of whack if you think it's a better option to scan someone than to simply ask their name. Do you not understand that I may feel uncomfortable if you've just scanned me and then use that data to try and strike up a conversation? Talk about making me feel like a product or mark. Bicycles and notepads do not actively analyze and reduce people nor do they enable a surveillance state. Don't make such specious extrapolations. Tools are an extension of your body, yes, but you don't go using your hands to feel up someone because you needed more texture data. You don't stare at someone for a long time because that's rude and intrusive. Same goes for using technology like this.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Do you not understand that I may feel uncomfortable if you've just scanned me and then use that data to try and strike up a conversation? Talk about making me feel like a product or mark. Do you feel uncomfortable about the fact that most of your friends don't even know your birthday date or phone number, and have both noted down somewhere (be it a phone or indirectly via profile info of your Facebook account)? Is it weird for you that some may even note down things you like so that they can check them out when looking for a good gift for you? Do you feel "like a product or mark" when a conference badge you wear displays your occupation or interests (sometimes used as an icebreaker)? (Also, you shifted from just scanning to using the results to "try and strike up a conversation"; those are two different things.) > Tools are an extension of your body, yes, but you don't go using your hands to feel up someone because you needed more texture data. By scanning I'm not touching you. That would be a violation, yes. But why should I let you be a master of my eyes, and the (hypothetical, at the moment) tools I use to augment them? People will get used to it, like they do with everything we've invented since dawn of time. Social conventions will adjust. Just because my eye implant can tell me what's your name doesn't mean I get to stop you on the street and start talking to you, no more than it is an acceptable behaviour today.
  - yolesaber 11y ago
    The difference is that for my friends I have granted them explicit privileges beforehand to have access to that kind of data. It's different when a stranger is scanning me, mining me for data. And actually yes I do feel like a product or mark at conferences when people come up to me and just chat me up because of the company I work for (you've heard of it) - they almost always want quid-pro-quo type interactions or otherwise don't care about me per se, but just the quantification of me that exists on the badge. It's one of the reasons I don't enjoy industry conferences that much or when I do go, I prefer not to wear a badge. And honestly, scanning from a distance is still incredible invasive. You can be the "master of your eyes" but don't get offended if I or others think you're a creep. You may not be touching me but you're definitely noticeably staring. The rejection Google Glass actually gives me some faith in the decency of people, but you're probably right, society at large will adjust because the profit motive and law enforcement capabilities for this sort of technology are too great for them not to become entrenched by media and government interests. Personally I find it inhumane and repulsive, but I'm old fashioned like that. I prefer more organic human interactions, nuance, getting to actually know someone beyond a readout on a screen. I'm a private person in an increasingly public circus of society.