4 ms·
Well, the more I think about it, the more see that being a "dork" or a "douche" is not the problem here: The problem is that it's a disguised projection of pow
by kimlelly 13y ago
Well, the more I think about it, the more see that being a "dork" or a "douche" is not the problem here:
The problem is that it's a disguised projection of power onto others.
The user is implicitely saying to people around him:
"I can film you and you can't/don't/won't - I can show this to the whole Internet whenever I feel like it. In other words, I control your behavior."
So, Google basically wants you to suck up to the tag line: "Get more power, at the cost of the people around you."
In this context, physical aggression kind of begins sounding plausible, actually...
- Djehngo 13y agoAll of which were possible with a phone camera, the only difference with glass is that it's harder to know if the device is recorded.
- hnha 13y agoyou are not walking around with your handheld camera pointing at everything you look at.
- randallsquared 13y agoMost people have two cameras pointed at everything they look at. The recording is just very low fidelity right now.
- RivieraKid 13y agoBut these cameras don't have an "Upload to YouTube" feature.
- csallen 13y agoWhy is this relevant? 20 years ago the idea of everyone carrying around a pocket-sized camera was unthinkable. Today, it's reality. Things change.
- RivieraKid 13y agoGoogle Glass is totally different than phone camera. When someone videotapes with a camera, the person draws attention to himself and his purpose is usually pretty clear.
- Djehngo 13y agoThat's why I specified that the primary difference was that it's difficult to tell when the device is recording. The comment I was originally responding to was about the ability to record and distribute video evidence of behaviour and how it alters the power dynamic. That is not new, what is new is the panopticon-like system where you don't know if you are being recorded.