5 ms·

I am a gadget geek just like any nerds out there. I like the concept of Google Glass but the practical application scares the shit out of me. Google Glass in it

by pavs 14y ago

I am a gadget geek just like any nerds out there. I like the concept of Google Glass but the practical application scares the shit out of me. Google Glass in its current form is every advertisers/data-miners perfect wet dream. I can see myself smacking someone for taking videos/pictures of me without my consent, by holding a camera right in my face. Google Glass almost legitimizes that kind of behavior. "Oh I can record our conversation because the camera is inside the glass and look its shiny." Like the video of this guy holding a camera to random people's face: http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/ http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/ NOT OK!

Samuel_Michon 14y ago
As a consumer, I'd have less problems with Glass if it were developed and sold by a company that has nothing to do with advertising and has little interest in users' data (maybe like Canon, Nikon, or JVC). But even then, I wouldn't want to use it. I also won't interact with people while they are wearing Glass. I do not like it when people take my picture without my permission, and Glass is practically a spy camera. Worse, it not only takes pictures, but video with audio and GPS information.
- Snoptic 14y ago
  This is idiotic opposition. Spy cameras exist. Bluetooth earpieces exist, Glass is interesting for what it receives (the server software integration) and for its HUD, not what it caputures and transmits.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    Maybe for the wearer that's interesting, there's no such distinction to the people being recorded; they can't see what the wearer is up to with the device.
  - jspark 14y ago
    Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable. Spy cameras and earpieces don't exist with the intention of ubiquitous use while Glass does. Can you imagine everyone you know who wears glasses now using a camera at all times?
    - hfsktr 14y ago
      Wouldn't it only be the people who want to use a camera? Unless you are suggesting that all glasses in the future will have video/audio technologies? I don't think much of Glass. Just doesn't appeal to me but I am curious about what makes it special for others.
      - GHFigs 14y ago
        Many people are interested in Glass as a heads-up display or wearable computer, not as a camera. "Many" may end up being a very small number, but it stands to reason that it's larger than the number of people that actively desire to record strangers. Unfortunately, the current model requires both a microphone (to hear you) and a camera (to see gestures), so even well-intentioned users will still be brandishing recording devices in ways that make others uncomfortable.
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable. Or it will result in a literally violent backlash against constant privacy invasion. Or hopefully something in between, like the village who just ran the Google Street View car out of town when they heard it was coming (though it was disappointing to hear that Google later went back and got the footage anyway). Mass surveillance is not OK, and is a Pandora's box situation where once the data is out there, realistically it's never getting deleted again. Privacy has evolved as a valued concept in just about every civilised society for good reasons. It's just a shame that a generation of Facebook addicts are too busy getting their hit to notice all the negative consequences to the kind of culture they're inviting.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
  - smtddr 14y ago
    The glasses are already getting banned... http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-on-google-glass-begins-and-they-arent-even-available-yet/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-... I drink gallons of Google-Koolaid, but even I can see(pun intended?) that Google glasses is going to have some social issues. Even I will be a bit uneasy talking to someone wearing them.
    - mdwrigh2 14y ago
      They admitted it was a publicity stunt: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar-that-banned-google-glasses-admits-it-was-a-pr-stunt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar...
      - smtddr 14y ago
        argh! well now I know. :-) I'm still guessing a ban will happen somewhere.
  - fhars 14y ago
    Then why doesn't it come without a camera?
hosay123 14y ago
The more interesting question is how many multiples of existing growth will it be before Google start to use the data they collect in incredibly unfriendly ways. How will they push their stock price above $1000? $1200? I'd like to suggest another metric: September 11s (or "9/11s"). How many 9/11s will it be before Google's reuse of the data they collect is popularly legitimized, in their new role as the nation's biggest defence contractor? This is an insane idea, but I fear not sufficiently insane. I'd peg it at under a quarter of one 9/11. The company must grow somehow. It must keep growing. As it exhausts its old business areas and sacrifices any ideals it may have once held, you have to at least entertain these crazy outcomes.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  True, Cyberdyne Systems didn't start out as a defense contractor either.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  Maybe they could create an RSS reader, and keep track of analytics and behaviour on how people read and consume their favorite sites' content, then insert relevant ads in that experience?
  - hosay123 14y ago
    Or perhaps they could create designer glasses, and use the two face recognition companies (Viewdle, Neven Vision) they have bought since 2006 to keep track of population behaviour, then sell relevant feeds to panicked (0.25 9/11s) or eagerly demanding (1.0 9/11s) governments.
  - greetings 14y ago
    And then after it is widely used they could discontinue it.
    - silentOpen 14y ago
      As they push their own walled garden to compete with the decentralized model that nurtured them into their power.
redact207 14y ago
The video doesn't prove google glass is invasive. It just shows that people don't tolerate jerks too well. Even without the camera, having some weirdo come up and stare at you without having the decency to respond to you is of course going to annoy people. Nothing to do with technology.
- XorNot 14y ago
  It also ignores many of the things you can currently do. I've recorded more then one meeting by simply leaving my iPhone on record mode in my pocket. Audio is frequently more damning then video, and anyone can do that these days without giving anything away. The right to privacy in public is generally regarded as a right to casual privacy - in the sense that many people can hear and may capture or accidentally record what you say, but won't publish or broadcast these events. It seems the problem with Google Glass is more that it's forcing people to consider what has been true for a very long time: that wherever you go, chances are you're recorded in dozens of ways, by dozens of people, and the only actual defense is essentially social ettiquette in handling this content (and the fact that most people just don't care about who you are or what you do).
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Indeed. The premise is flawed to begin with. From the link: > "If a complete stranger holds a camera to your face you know what he is doing and you have a legitimate reason to tell him to stop doing it, most of you will probably object to it." As a street photographer, that last part is entirely false. The vast majority of people have no objections to being photographed in public - almost all reactions I've ever gotten have ranged between "huh? meh" and "oh cool!". The reactions he got in the video was because he was behaving like Lord Regent of the Universe, not because he was recording someone. My unscientific estimate is that >95% of the people I've ever taken pictures of (all strangers, almost all without seeking permission beforehand), are either ambivalent or downright approving. Which goes towards the point: Google Glass is the vehicle for the problem, not the problem itself. The problem, as it has always been, is with assholes.
Kiro 14y ago
Eveeyone keeps saying that but how is it a wet dream and why is it bad? Give me a concrete example.

by pavs 14y ago

Samuel_Michon 14y ago

As a consumer, I'd have less problems with Glass if it were developed and sold by a company that has nothing to do with advertising and has little interest in users' data (maybe like Canon, Nikon, or JVC). But even then, I wouldn't want to use it. I also won't interact with people while they are wearing Glass. I do not like it when people take my picture without my permission, and Glass is practically a spy camera. Worse, it not only takes pictures, but video with audio and GPS information.

Snoptic 14y ago
This is idiotic opposition. Spy cameras exist. Bluetooth earpieces exist, Glass is interesting for what it receives (the server software integration) and for its HUD, not what it caputures and transmits.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Maybe for the wearer that's interesting, there's no such distinction to the people being recorded; they can't see what the wearer is up to with the device.
- jspark 14y ago
  Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable. Spy cameras and earpieces don't exist with the intention of ubiquitous use while Glass does. Can you imagine everyone you know who wears glasses now using a camera at all times?
  - hfsktr 14y ago
    Wouldn't it only be the people who want to use a camera? Unless you are suggesting that all glasses in the future will have video/audio technologies? I don't think much of Glass. Just doesn't appeal to me but I am curious about what makes it special for others.
    - GHFigs 14y ago
      Many people are interested in Glass as a heads-up display or wearable computer, not as a camera. "Many" may end up being a very small number, but it stands to reason that it's larger than the number of people that actively desire to record strangers. Unfortunately, the current model requires both a microphone (to hear you) and a camera (to see gestures), so even well-intentioned users will still be brandishing recording devices in ways that make others uncomfortable.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable. Or it will result in a literally violent backlash against constant privacy invasion. Or hopefully something in between, like the village who just ran the Google Street View car out of town when they heard it was coming (though it was disappointing to hear that Google later went back and got the footage anyway). Mass surveillance is not OK, and is a Pandora's box situation where once the data is out there, realistically it's never getting deleted again. Privacy has evolved as a valued concept in just about every civilised society for good reasons. It's just a shame that a generation of Facebook addicts are too busy getting their hit to notice all the negative consequences to the kind of culture they're inviting.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- smtddr 14y ago
  The glasses are already getting banned... http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-on-google-glass-begins-and-they-arent-even-available-yet/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-... I drink gallons of Google-Koolaid, but even I can see(pun intended?) that Google glasses is going to have some social issues. Even I will be a bit uneasy talking to someone wearing them.
  - mdwrigh2 14y ago
    They admitted it was a publicity stunt: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar-that-banned-google-glasses-admits-it-was-a-pr-stunt/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar...
    - smtddr 14y ago
      argh! well now I know. :-) I'm still guessing a ban will happen somewhere.
- fhars 14y ago
  Then why doesn't it come without a camera?

hosay123 14y ago

The more interesting question is how many multiples of existing growth will it be before Google start to use the data they collect in incredibly unfriendly ways. How will they push their stock price above $1000? $1200? I'd like to suggest another metric: September 11s (or "9/11s"). How many 9/11s will it be before Google's reuse of the data they collect is popularly legitimized, in their new role as the nation's biggest defence contractor? This is an insane idea, but I fear not sufficiently insane. I'd peg it at under a quarter of one 9/11. The company must grow somehow. It must keep growing. As it exhausts its old business areas and sacrifices any ideals it may have once held, you have to at least entertain these crazy outcomes.

Samuel_Michon 14y ago
True, Cyberdyne Systems didn't start out as a defense contractor either.
mgkimsal 14y ago
Maybe they could create an RSS reader, and keep track of analytics and behaviour on how people read and consume their favorite sites' content, then insert relevant ads in that experience?
- hosay123 14y ago
  Or perhaps they could create designer glasses, and use the two face recognition companies (Viewdle, Neven Vision) they have bought since 2006 to keep track of population behaviour, then sell relevant feeds to panicked (0.25 9/11s) or eagerly demanding (1.0 9/11s) governments.
- greetings 14y ago
  And then after it is widely used they could discontinue it.
  - silentOpen 14y ago
    As they push their own walled garden to compete with the decentralized model that nurtured them into their power.

redact207 14y ago

The video doesn't prove google glass is invasive. It just shows that people don't tolerate jerks too well. Even without the camera, having some weirdo come up and stare at you without having the decency to respond to you is of course going to annoy people. Nothing to do with technology.

XorNot 14y ago
It also ignores many of the things you can currently do. I've recorded more then one meeting by simply leaving my iPhone on record mode in my pocket. Audio is frequently more damning then video, and anyone can do that these days without giving anything away. The right to privacy in public is generally regarded as a right to casual privacy - in the sense that many people can hear and may capture or accidentally record what you say, but won't publish or broadcast these events. It seems the problem with Google Glass is more that it's forcing people to consider what has been true for a very long time: that wherever you go, chances are you're recorded in dozens of ways, by dozens of people, and the only actual defense is essentially social ettiquette in handling this content (and the fact that most people just don't care about who you are or what you do).
potatolicious 14y ago
Indeed. The premise is flawed to begin with. From the link: > "If a complete stranger holds a camera to your face you know what he is doing and you have a legitimate reason to tell him to stop doing it, most of you will probably object to it." As a street photographer, that last part is entirely false. The vast majority of people have no objections to being photographed in public - almost all reactions I've ever gotten have ranged between "huh? meh" and "oh cool!". The reactions he got in the video was because he was behaving like Lord Regent of the Universe, not because he was recording someone. My unscientific estimate is that >95% of the people I've ever taken pictures of (all strangers, almost all without seeking permission beforehand), are either ambivalent or downright approving. Which goes towards the point: Google Glass is the vehicle for the problem, not the problem itself. The problem, as it has always been, is with assholes.

Kiro 14y ago

Eveeyone keeps saying that but how is it a wet dream and why is it bad? Give me a concrete example.