7 ms·

Stop the Cyborgs was founded in response to Google Glass

50 points by mapleoin 13y ago

aerique 13y ago
I hate to be that guy but I can't even zoom this page using Firefox. The font size is huge and can't be made smaller. Why do people do this? What setting in this page is responsible for this?
- TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
  fontsize is okay and zoom works with chrome...
moondowner 13y ago
Who's behind this campaign?
- DominikR 13y ago
  Whois returns Domains By Proxy, LLC (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy) My guess would be that it is Microsoft hiding behind this "movement".
  - quasque 13y ago
    I very much doubt it. Microsoft have their own interests in such augmented reality devices[1] and such a move would hurt future business in that area. [1] e.g. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120293548.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120293548.pdf
Udo 13y ago
Augmented reality is on its way, and to be honest I've been waiting for it. I will be using it where it makes sense. The point here should not be to play Luddite in a world that is moving too fast for the majority of people, yet I see exactly that as the potential takeaway of this campaign with its generic "Glass is banned on these premises" signs. I am worried that the only company who is trying to market a usable AR product is Google, whom I increasingly have huge trust issues with and who is objectively getting to big and too powerful to be trusted. I would love a hackable AR device with an open interface, one which I could potentially hook up to my own server, a device I could install on whatever I want. You know, like an Android phone of some kind. Categorically banning glass-like devices is not the solution. Attacking Open Source as undermining democracy doesn't sit well with me either. I also didn't like how they're attacking the fledgling movements of participatory politics, which we need more of (and which needs to become more meaningful) - not less. Finally, the campaign's title is misleading and supports a disagreeable sentiment. It implies that extending or repairing the capabilities of our biological bodies is wrong.
- pekk 13y ago
  If I don't want to be covertly recorded everywhere, that doesn't make me a "Luddite". I don't attack Open Source, or extending your body, or nifty Android gadgets or whatever. That's all fine. But I do not accept being recorded in a bar. Can you understand that this is not some sort of crazy reactionary idea?
  - Egregore 13y ago
    I don't know what bars you have in your area, but here a lot of bars have security cameras, which already record everything. In my opinion, the bar is a public place, where you should not expect the same privacy as in your home. While I like the privacy and even worked on software which will help protect it, I'm in favor of the right to film in public spaces, this way we as society can highlight bad things without being afraid of charges just for filming.
    - pekk 13y ago
      You have mis-described the status quo. Socially, a pub is not at all the same as the town square. I don't know the last time I saw a security camera at a bar. At any rate, security cameras are not at every table. And it would not be accepted to upload footage from the security cameras to Facebook and tag me in the footage. The people running a bar have no interest in messing with their security system unless there is a major incident, and they have an active commercial interest in not exposing all their customers (or blackmailing them for making an off-color joke, etc.) as this would tend to inhibit repeat business. I have no worries about the owner of a bar sharing surveillance footage of me with the FBI. The FBI is relatively restrained, under a certain amount of supervision and legal constraint, and not interested in my off-color jokes. These things really don't apply to private individuals. You say you want to "highlight bad things" but maybe you are Adria Richards. I have no idea what you think are bad things. There is no upside for me in every second out of the bathroom being uploaded to Facebook. Taking video of me at a bar against my consent is not a right. That's just something you want to do.
      - 13y ago
rasur 13y ago
The problem here with Glass is it's not really a Sousveillance device (in this context). It's just going to allow slurping up vast streams of data for the benefit of Google (and secondarily for the wearer). This is but one of the reasons I'm more of a fan of Steve Mann's EyeTap tech (which is wearable, personal, mediated-reality computing) - it allows for the idea of Sousveillance to be enacted by the wearer. (edit: for clarity)
- pekk 13y ago
  Sounds great for the wearer to choose where they want to upload their data, but everyone else will still be subjected to continuous surveillance. At least currently this is a rare, unacceptable thing to do, reserved for sting operations and the like. You want EyeTap. I don't want your surveillance. We can't both have what we want.
  - rasur 13y ago
    Sousveillance, not Surveillance. There is a distinction, which is basically one of being anti-Surveillance. But of course, with Google Glass, the concept of Surveillance is being somewhat muddied and spread across the people that will be using it. And you should look into how Police forces are being more regularly equipped with on-person Surveillance.. I'd prefer to have my own version of events that can be compared with the "authorized" version (where you can insert your own value of "authorized" if you want), and I'd prefer it to be under my, not Googles control. (edit: typo)
    - quasque 13y ago
      Sousveillance only really counts when it inverts the usual power imbalance inherent in authority-led surveillance systems. The problem is that if wearable systems like Glass or EyeTap become widespread, this will create a new power imbalance between those who use it and those who don't, raising the same issues brought up by mass surveillance systems but on a more personal scale - which rather spoils the whole ethos of sousveillance that makes it so attractive in the first place.
walshemj 13y ago
As a cyborg (I have a replacement cornea) I have only one working eye What happens when proper implants become viable for people like me?
- Mr_N 13y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2030420/Meet-eyeborg-Film-maker-turns-prosthetic-eye-miniature-video-camera.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2030420/Meet-... We're well on our way. And I wouldn't expect the paranoia to not sully this advance as well.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  As a cyborg (semi-mechanical computer-controlled heart) I don't like where "guilt by association" usually takes these "Stop The Identifiably Different People" memes. Yes, the consternation has an understandable factor. It's technology whose time has come, so society must get used to it and work out suitable applicable ethics & protocols. Wasn't long ago when nobody was broadband-networked 24/7 with instant video connection and chatting with friends everywhere all the time, and the looming prospects of it happening garnered lots of "I'd never do that and would hate anyone who did", leading to some ugly incidents. A movement for responsible & considerate integration of 24/7 augmented reality into society? yes. "Stop The Cyborgs"? let's stay away from burning-at-the-stake terms, please.
- Lexarius 13y ago
  The site has a "cyborg typology" (http://stopthecyborgs.org/2013/03/03/cyborgs-a-typology/ http://stopthecyborgs.org/2013/03/03/cyborgs-a-typology/) and seems to be completely supportive of "type-1" cyborgs like yourself. It's the other ones they have issues with, particularly type-4. I wish they would call the site "Stop the Borg" or "Stop the Hivemind" or something to make the distinction clearer.
- pekk 13y ago
  I assume that proper implants would be ones that improve or provide vision. You should have the full benefit of such medical advances, of course! But should a medical device be designed for covert surveillance?
ok_craig 13y ago
What's funny about this site is that we all love personal surveillance when it helps us do things like bust animal abusers or discover dirty government secrets, but when people are publicly carrying their recording devices, we all feel uncomfortable. Also this site talks about "glass free zones" and "surveillance free zones" and doesn't seem to acknowledge that they aren't the same thing. If somebody wants to record what you're doing today, they don't need glass to do it. Why not make a big deal about devices that are actually undercover? Maybe having these things so easily available will create an etiquette we don't expect and can't predict. I feel like once Glass actually delivers, it will play out as really nothing special in these scenarios, and we'll realize it in short order. All this talk before it gets here about surveillance and privacy violations, not actually knowing how its used or how buyers will want to use it, or what its most popular applications will be; all that is FUD.
- yarrel 13y ago
  I'm familiar with corporate personhood but not state personhood.
  - ok_craig 13y ago
    I don't understand.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jQueryIsAwesome 13y ago
Do the same experiment with television and we I will take you a little bit more seriously.
XorNot 13y ago
While there's been plenty of Google Glass fearmongering posted...this reeks of the modern "link-bait" trend of online monetization. If you want to make a quick buck in 2013 then the answer has always been to make the internet hate you.
antninja 13y ago
The problem with Google Glass is its recording abilities. If I invite a few friends at my home, I don't want them to come with all of Youtube. My home has opaque walls for a reason. I know there will be a LED on while filming but it's way too discreet and can certainly be broken or covered.
- pekk 13y ago
  It's pretty easy to impose a house rule against this, but once it gets into public spaces it will be impossible to contain except by always staying at home.
- betterunix 13y ago
  You can demand that people not wear Google Glass in your home; it is no different than demanding that people not photograph the inside of your home. My college roommate had such a policy: absolutely no pictures of him in our room, and he politely asked that no pictures of him drinking alcohol or being around alcohol be taken. In a public place, you have no such right, with the exception of commercial use of the photo (which requires your permission). A more important concern is whether or not Glass users will be able to choose service providers other than Google. What if Google pulls the plug? What if I want to use Glass in an environment where business secrets might be recorded? That is a far greater issue than the presence of a camera.
mistercow 13y ago
I sympathize with some of their concerns (not that there's anything we can do about it without massively hindering progress), but the anti-transhumanist name really bugs me.
kbenson 13y ago
I view the ubiquitous rise of personal recording devices as linked to other progress that can not easily be (nor should it be) stopped. I also see it as a privacy issue, where the expectation of privacy through anonymity is decreasing through a combination of much more recording of everyday events and future (and current) possibilities for correlating those positively with specific people. I think the natural outcome of this is that we'll just shift our cultural relationship between assumed and explicit privacy and anonymity. In the future, it may not be uncommon to see people in cities go about with some sort of face covering / obfuscation, to achieve some semblance of the privacy and anonymity we currently expect (whether or not we should expect that at this point...)
philwebster 13y ago
If you're interested in the (imagined) implications of always-on recording devices, I'd recommend watching The Final Cut (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343). Although it deals more with memories, the issues of privacy and behavior of those doing the recording are confronted.

50 points by mapleoin 13y ago

I hate to be that guy but I can't even zoom this page using Firefox. The font size is huge and can't be made smaller. Why do people do this? What setting in this page is responsible for this?

TsiCClawOfLight 13y ago
fontsize is okay and zoom works with chrome...

moondowner 13y ago

Who's behind this campaign?

DominikR 13y ago
Whois returns Domains By Proxy, LLC (Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy) My guess would be that it is Microsoft hiding behind this "movement".
- quasque 13y ago
  I very much doubt it. Microsoft have their own interests in such augmented reality devices[1] and such a move would hurt future business in that area. [1] e.g. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120293548.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120293548.pdf

Udo 13y ago

Augmented reality is on its way, and to be honest I've been waiting for it. I will be using it where it makes sense. The point here should not be to play Luddite in a world that is moving too fast for the majority of people, yet I see exactly that as the potential takeaway of this campaign with its generic "Glass is banned on these premises" signs. I am worried that the only company who is trying to market a usable AR product is Google, whom I increasingly have huge trust issues with and who is objectively getting to big and too powerful to be trusted. I would love a hackable AR device with an open interface, one which I could potentially hook up to my own server, a device I could install on whatever I want. You know, like an Android phone of some kind. Categorically banning glass-like devices is not the solution. Attacking Open Source as undermining democracy doesn't sit well with me either. I also didn't like how they're attacking the fledgling movements of participatory politics, which we need more of (and which needs to become more meaningful) - not less. Finally, the campaign's title is misleading and supports a disagreeable sentiment. It implies that extending or repairing the capabilities of our biological bodies is wrong.

pekk 13y ago
If I don't want to be covertly recorded everywhere, that doesn't make me a "Luddite". I don't attack Open Source, or extending your body, or nifty Android gadgets or whatever. That's all fine. But I do not accept being recorded in a bar. Can you understand that this is not some sort of crazy reactionary idea?
- Egregore 13y ago
  I don't know what bars you have in your area, but here a lot of bars have security cameras, which already record everything. In my opinion, the bar is a public place, where you should not expect the same privacy as in your home. While I like the privacy and even worked on software which will help protect it, I'm in favor of the right to film in public spaces, this way we as society can highlight bad things without being afraid of charges just for filming.
  - pekk 13y ago
    You have mis-described the status quo. Socially, a pub is not at all the same as the town square. I don't know the last time I saw a security camera at a bar. At any rate, security cameras are not at every table. And it would not be accepted to upload footage from the security cameras to Facebook and tag me in the footage. The people running a bar have no interest in messing with their security system unless there is a major incident, and they have an active commercial interest in not exposing all their customers (or blackmailing them for making an off-color joke, etc.) as this would tend to inhibit repeat business. I have no worries about the owner of a bar sharing surveillance footage of me with the FBI. The FBI is relatively restrained, under a certain amount of supervision and legal constraint, and not interested in my off-color jokes. These things really don't apply to private individuals. You say you want to "highlight bad things" but maybe you are Adria Richards. I have no idea what you think are bad things. There is no upside for me in every second out of the bathroom being uploaded to Facebook. Taking video of me at a bar against my consent is not a right. That's just something you want to do.
    - 13y ago

rasur 13y ago

The problem here with Glass is it's not really a Sousveillance device (in this context). It's just going to allow slurping up vast streams of data for the benefit of Google (and secondarily for the wearer). This is but one of the reasons I'm more of a fan of Steve Mann's EyeTap tech (which is wearable, personal, mediated-reality computing) - it allows for the idea of Sousveillance to be enacted by the wearer. (edit: for clarity)

pekk 13y ago
Sounds great for the wearer to choose where they want to upload their data, but everyone else will still be subjected to continuous surveillance. At least currently this is a rare, unacceptable thing to do, reserved for sting operations and the like. You want EyeTap. I don't want your surveillance. We can't both have what we want.
- rasur 13y ago
  Sousveillance, not Surveillance. There is a distinction, which is basically one of being anti-Surveillance. But of course, with Google Glass, the concept of Surveillance is being somewhat muddied and spread across the people that will be using it. And you should look into how Police forces are being more regularly equipped with on-person Surveillance.. I'd prefer to have my own version of events that can be compared with the "authorized" version (where you can insert your own value of "authorized" if you want), and I'd prefer it to be under my, not Googles control. (edit: typo)
  - quasque 13y ago
    Sousveillance only really counts when it inverts the usual power imbalance inherent in authority-led surveillance systems. The problem is that if wearable systems like Glass or EyeTap become widespread, this will create a new power imbalance between those who use it and those who don't, raising the same issues brought up by mass surveillance systems but on a more personal scale - which rather spoils the whole ethos of sousveillance that makes it so attractive in the first place.

walshemj 13y ago

As a cyborg (I have a replacement cornea) I have only one working eye What happens when proper implants become viable for people like me?

Mr_N 13y ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2030420/Meet-eyeborg-Film-maker-turns-prosthetic-eye-miniature-video-camera.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2030420/Meet-... We're well on our way. And I wouldn't expect the paranoia to not sully this advance as well.
ctdonath 13y ago
As a cyborg (semi-mechanical computer-controlled heart) I don't like where "guilt by association" usually takes these "Stop The Identifiably Different People" memes. Yes, the consternation has an understandable factor. It's technology whose time has come, so society must get used to it and work out suitable applicable ethics & protocols. Wasn't long ago when nobody was broadband-networked 24/7 with instant video connection and chatting with friends everywhere all the time, and the looming prospects of it happening garnered lots of "I'd never do that and would hate anyone who did", leading to some ugly incidents. A movement for responsible & considerate integration of 24/7 augmented reality into society? yes. "Stop The Cyborgs"? let's stay away from burning-at-the-stake terms, please.
Lexarius 13y ago
The site has a "cyborg typology" (http://stopthecyborgs.org/2013/03/03/cyborgs-a-typology/ http://stopthecyborgs.org/2013/03/03/cyborgs-a-typology/) and seems to be completely supportive of "type-1" cyborgs like yourself. It's the other ones they have issues with, particularly type-4. I wish they would call the site "Stop the Borg" or "Stop the Hivemind" or something to make the distinction clearer.
pekk 13y ago
I assume that proper implants would be ones that improve or provide vision. You should have the full benefit of such medical advances, of course! But should a medical device be designed for covert surveillance?

ok_craig 13y ago

What's funny about this site is that we all love personal surveillance when it helps us do things like bust animal abusers or discover dirty government secrets, but when people are publicly carrying their recording devices, we all feel uncomfortable. Also this site talks about "glass free zones" and "surveillance free zones" and doesn't seem to acknowledge that they aren't the same thing. If somebody wants to record what you're doing today, they don't need glass to do it. Why not make a big deal about devices that are actually undercover? Maybe having these things so easily available will create an etiquette we don't expect and can't predict. I feel like once Glass actually delivers, it will play out as really nothing special in these scenarios, and we'll realize it in short order. All this talk before it gets here about surveillance and privacy violations, not actually knowing how its used or how buyers will want to use it, or what its most popular applications will be; all that is FUD.

yarrel 13y ago
I'm familiar with corporate personhood but not state personhood.
- ok_craig 13y ago
  I don't understand.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jQueryIsAwesome 13y ago

Do the same experiment with television and we I will take you a little bit more seriously.

XorNot 13y ago

While there's been plenty of Google Glass fearmongering posted...this reeks of the modern "link-bait" trend of online monetization. If you want to make a quick buck in 2013 then the answer has always been to make the internet hate you.

antninja 13y ago

The problem with Google Glass is its recording abilities. If I invite a few friends at my home, I don't want them to come with all of Youtube. My home has opaque walls for a reason. I know there will be a LED on while filming but it's way too discreet and can certainly be broken or covered.

pekk 13y ago
It's pretty easy to impose a house rule against this, but once it gets into public spaces it will be impossible to contain except by always staying at home.
betterunix 13y ago
You can demand that people not wear Google Glass in your home; it is no different than demanding that people not photograph the inside of your home. My college roommate had such a policy: absolutely no pictures of him in our room, and he politely asked that no pictures of him drinking alcohol or being around alcohol be taken. In a public place, you have no such right, with the exception of commercial use of the photo (which requires your permission). A more important concern is whether or not Glass users will be able to choose service providers other than Google. What if Google pulls the plug? What if I want to use Glass in an environment where business secrets might be recorded? That is a far greater issue than the presence of a camera.

mistercow 13y ago

I sympathize with some of their concerns (not that there's anything we can do about it without massively hindering progress), but the anti-transhumanist name really bugs me.

kbenson 13y ago

I view the ubiquitous rise of personal recording devices as linked to other progress that can not easily be (nor should it be) stopped. I also see it as a privacy issue, where the expectation of privacy through anonymity is decreasing through a combination of much more recording of everyday events and future (and current) possibilities for correlating those positively with specific people. I think the natural outcome of this is that we'll just shift our cultural relationship between assumed and explicit privacy and anonymity. In the future, it may not be uncommon to see people in cities go about with some sort of face covering / obfuscation, to achieve some semblance of the privacy and anonymity we currently expect (whether or not we should expect that at this point...)

philwebster 13y ago

If you're interested in the (imagined) implications of always-on recording devices, I'd recommend watching The Final Cut (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343). Although it deals more with memories, the issues of privacy and behavior of those doing the recording are confronted.