4 ms·

I never understood that narrative. Glass's camera was never "always on" (the puny battery would never have been able to mange that) and even if it was, glass is

I never understood that narrative. Glass's camera was never "always on" (the puny battery would never have been able to mange that) and even if it was, glass is the last tool anyone would use to take unconsenting video. Turns out staring at someone with your head perfectly still is uncomfortable for all parties involved and most people aren't worth burning your battery for. Given that you can buy button cams for a tenth of the price, the fact that CCTV cams dominate public spaces in most everywhere people had these concerns, and it's far more comfortable, economical, and practical to record video on a cell phone anyway the privacy panic over glass seems to have been mostly constructed for page views.

ceejayoz 8y ago
It's easier to take a creepshot photo/video on a Glass-style device than it is to whip out your phone and take one, especially where third-party onlookers are concerned. Sure, button cams exist, but the fact that they're concealable whereas Glass was pretty obvious means folks react more to the Glass. There's also more plausible deniability if you get caught with one. "Always on" versus "always potentially on" is a very fine hair to split, and I doubt anyone who didn't actually own one knew what the battery was/wasn't capable of.
- lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, have you actually used Glass or interacted with some one that was using one? In my experience the only place these sorts of concerns came from were tech journalists looking for clicks and tech people clicking. General population just thought it was cool (and this is deep american south), and anyone that owned the thing enjoyed the novelty. I just find it ironic that 15 years ago we were having the exact same pearl clutching about cell phone cameras (which are now totally fine apparently).[0] https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones/ https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones...

ceejayoz 8y ago

It's easier to take a creepshot photo/video on a Glass-style device than it is to whip out your phone and take one, especially where third-party onlookers are concerned. Sure, button cams exist, but the fact that they're concealable whereas Glass was pretty obvious means folks react more to the Glass. There's also more plausible deniability if you get caught with one. "Always on" versus "always potentially on" is a very fine hair to split, and I doubt anyone who didn't actually own one knew what the battery was/wasn't capable of.

lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
Out of curiosity, have you actually used Glass or interacted with some one that was using one? In my experience the only place these sorts of concerns came from were tech journalists looking for clicks and tech people clicking. General population just thought it was cool (and this is deep american south), and anyone that owned the thing enjoyed the novelty. I just find it ironic that 15 years ago we were having the exact same pearl clutching about cell phone cameras (which are now totally fine apparently).[0] https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones/ https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones...