5 ms·

Google Glass: An Etiquette Guide

29 points by onosendai 13y ago

stevenleeg 13y ago
I wonder what the rationale behind not including an LED for the camera was. I can't imagine it was cost or anything. Such a simple addition would have definitely done a long ways in reducing the fear people seem to (rightfully) have with its camera.
- gamegoblin 13y ago
  I think I wish the camera had some sort of tiny shutter that opened or closed if it was recording or not. LEDs can be hacked to not light up; a physical barrier is even more fear-reducing.
- eps 13y ago
  What good is the LED on someone's Glass if you don't keep an eye on it at all times? You see it blinked, you know you were photographed. Too late. A physical lens cover is the way to go. A camera-free version is an even better option.
  - wahnfrieden 13y ago
    There can be repercussions to taking a photo. Knowing of these repercussions ahead of time can inhibit one from taking it in the first place if the shutter click is broadcasted.
- greggman 13y ago
  Are you going to require blind people with prosthetic eyes to have LEDs in their eyes? As Kurzweil would say first the tech will be made for people with disabilities. Then it will at some point be better than real eyes and some people will start getting them on purpose. Finally most of the rest will at least augment themselves. People thought cellphones were stupid on the 80s. They thought computers were stupid in the 60-70s or at least that no normal person would want one. Now most 1st world people have both in the their pocket. Glass is only the first step.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    I don't see how it would be unreasonable for the prosthetic eye setup to come with a LED that lights up when the video stream is being recorded to storage or streamed to the internet, no. Nobody's suggesting that you should be required to have an indicator that tells people you're looking at them. That's stupid.
    - greggman 13y ago
      How is this different then human memory? Why can't recordering something in my augmented brain be my choice and have nothing to do with you? You don't get to choose what I remember. Why should you get to choose how I remember it or why should I have to inform you that I'm remembering it in a certain way?
- k3n 13y ago
  For one, it'd be easily disabled. Two, phone's and other digital cameras often don't have a recording LED, so why should this?
  - arrrg 13y ago
    Easily? If, like, e.g., on MacBooks (and probably all other laptops designed by someone with half a brain), the LED is wired directly into the power cable of the camera, there is no way you can turn the LED off through software. If the camera receives power the LED receives power. To get around this you would have to actually touch the hardware, so you need to take the device apart and rewire the camera (which can be and, considering the size of the device, probably will be pretty complicated). Sure, I’m certain it can be done, but not by many people.
    - k3n 13y ago
      Just speaking from the experience of my G1 phone, which had an LED that was software controlled. I guess they could set it up either way.
jamesaguilar 13y ago
I don't get why everyone is freaking out about trying to predefine the social rules for this thing. Rather, to be more literal, I should say I do get it but don't agree with it. Wearable computing and ubiquitous photography are going to be things as the cost of hardware falls. This is already true compared even to the world of the late nineties. Google glass is just the first attempt, but there will be others. WSJ opinion pieces are not going to define how people use it. The actual social drawbacks combined with the benefits will be the determining factor in how people use it. I imagine (from actually watching people's reaction to the device in person) that in real scenarios most people will not care that you are wearing a Glass/iSee/Windows Goggle 8. And likewise, the relative infrequency of surreptitious recording being useful will limit how often the devices will be used that way.
- hatcravat 13y ago
  Actually, Steve Mann was doing this fifteen years ago. There are web pages describing his wearables that literally haven't been updated for a decade. Think about that for a second. Bill Clinton was president when this was cutting edge stuff. And the Glass hardware looks just as stupid and dorky as the hardware Mann built himself.
  - rasur 13y ago
    More like going on 30 years, actually.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    You are nuts if you think Glass looks as dorky as Mann's stuff. Be serious, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution2.jpg
  - michaelwww 13y ago
    It puzzles me I don't see much mention that Steve Mann was physically assaulted because of his glass hardware and discuss the reasons for it in relation to Google Glass. http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-steve-mann-assaulted-at-parisian-mcdonalds/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-...
rasur 13y ago
Memory-impaired users of EyeTap/Glass-like devices - using them as a memory-prosthetic (a not unreasonable use of this kind of technology to aid their day to day lives) - might find themselves subject to abuse from able-bodied (in the metal sense) non-users, mistaking the disabled for geeks. Just a thinking-out-loud exercise. Move along.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  That's a real concern, yeah. With a technology like this, abuses can have a huge negative impact on people who otherwise have need of it to go about their daily lives. I think if cochlear implants were mass-market for people who weren't born deaf, we'd probably already be facing some of the same social problems there - if it was widespread and common that people just carried around recording devices in their skulls, and anything you said anywhere could be recorded and replayed without your knowledge or permission, and it was common, that'd probably make people pretty paranoid. The introduction of smartphones and other commodity recording devices has already caused a problem here - with stories of police officers/military confiscating or damaging phones that are being used to record their acts, etc. To a degree this isn't something unique to Glass, it's just the first time we've had a theoretically mass-market device come out that aims to make recording truly ubiquitous and non-obvious.
RRRA 13y ago
How about this : http://imgur.com/UdJGSJj http://imgur.com/UdJGSJj
libria 13y ago
> You know how that guy with the Bluetooth headset became Bluetooth Headset Guy, the most grating tech villain in existence today? It's because he never took his headset off. There's a strange social phenomenon where some people feel obliged to not only pass judgment on the way other people enjoy their life (the same contingent of people who seem to dislike those family stickers on cars and people who take pictures of food), they must evangelize/enforce the style of life they're more comfortable with. What's wrong with bluetooth guy (and his predecessor of 10 years before, cell-phone guy) using his technology? Deal with it like you deal with everything else: endure it, go somewhere else, or explain politely how their behavior is demonstrably harmful (not merely annoying, harmful). > Be courteous and take the device off in locker rooms, public bathrooms, business meetings, movie theaters and anywhere else where wielding a camera would be improper or offensive. Agreed. Those are legal issues and should absolutely be observed (the law, not the events).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
babarock 13y ago
I can't help but shake my head in disagreement when I hear things like "we need a red LED or a shutter sound on this camera". It's not that I encourage people to be sneaky about spying with their pictures. It's that it will be inevitable. As mentioned, any hacker could turn off whatever restriction you're going to put. Pretending that we're preventing something is stupid and wrong. It's a hypocrisy that is so typical it makes me angry. To a large extent, secret photographing/recording is a technological revolution, and it will, predictably, meet some resistance. We can either: * pretend to do something about it. * help people resisting transition into it. There are really no other options. Preventing it from happening is not an option. What would you do? It's very similar to the whole "illegal downloading of music" business. Millions of dollars are spent, laws, national (global!) debates are held, all sorts of technological hurdles are put into play, and ... nothing prevents any kid from downloading whatever they want from the Internet. All this "pretending to do something about it" has a cost. Some scapegoats are going to suffer greatly along the way. Aaron Schwartz's example is famous around here, but it's absolutely not the only one. Do we need more innocent victims?
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Right? Doesn't HN react negatively to security theater in most contexts? It is interesting that the collective approach is different with this device.
  - kevingadd 13y ago
    A red 'recording' light or shutter noise are not security theater. They're a feedback mechanism to notify subjects that they are being recorded. Even if 1 or even 10% of google glass users hack their device to remove the light, the other 90% will have the light and that will improve others' awareness of when they're being recorded and enable them to take action. Incremental improvement is better than nothing, and this is an example of an incredibly cheap, obvious incremental improvement with no downside.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      The feedback mechanism can be disabled, via a rooted device or physical disconection, just like tsa scans can be circumvented. It's exactly analogous.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zw123456 13y ago
I get it, I don't like being photographed without my consent. OK, I admit that may come from a place of self conscienceness or whatever. But, I would like that respected. How about an opt out or opt in type of icon that people could wear, maybe the polite Google glass wearer would use the opt in feature that would only photograph other Google glass wearers? That seems like an easy feature to add. Just a thought.

29 points by onosendai 13y ago

I wonder what the rationale behind not including an LED for the camera was. I can't imagine it was cost or anything. Such a simple addition would have definitely done a long ways in reducing the fear people seem to (rightfully) have with its camera.

gamegoblin 13y ago
I think I wish the camera had some sort of tiny shutter that opened or closed if it was recording or not. LEDs can be hacked to not light up; a physical barrier is even more fear-reducing.
eps 13y ago
What good is the LED on someone's Glass if you don't keep an eye on it at all times? You see it blinked, you know you were photographed. Too late. A physical lens cover is the way to go. A camera-free version is an even better option.
- wahnfrieden 13y ago
  There can be repercussions to taking a photo. Knowing of these repercussions ahead of time can inhibit one from taking it in the first place if the shutter click is broadcasted.
greggman 13y ago
Are you going to require blind people with prosthetic eyes to have LEDs in their eyes? As Kurzweil would say first the tech will be made for people with disabilities. Then it will at some point be better than real eyes and some people will start getting them on purpose. Finally most of the rest will at least augment themselves. People thought cellphones were stupid on the 80s. They thought computers were stupid in the 60-70s or at least that no normal person would want one. Now most 1st world people have both in the their pocket. Glass is only the first step.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  I don't see how it would be unreasonable for the prosthetic eye setup to come with a LED that lights up when the video stream is being recorded to storage or streamed to the internet, no. Nobody's suggesting that you should be required to have an indicator that tells people you're looking at them. That's stupid.
  - greggman 13y ago
    How is this different then human memory? Why can't recordering something in my augmented brain be my choice and have nothing to do with you? You don't get to choose what I remember. Why should you get to choose how I remember it or why should I have to inform you that I'm remembering it in a certain way?
k3n 13y ago
For one, it'd be easily disabled. Two, phone's and other digital cameras often don't have a recording LED, so why should this?
- arrrg 13y ago
  Easily? If, like, e.g., on MacBooks (and probably all other laptops designed by someone with half a brain), the LED is wired directly into the power cable of the camera, there is no way you can turn the LED off through software. If the camera receives power the LED receives power. To get around this you would have to actually touch the hardware, so you need to take the device apart and rewire the camera (which can be and, considering the size of the device, probably will be pretty complicated). Sure, I’m certain it can be done, but not by many people.
  - k3n 13y ago
    Just speaking from the experience of my G1 phone, which had an LED that was software controlled. I guess they could set it up either way.

jamesaguilar 13y ago

I don't get why everyone is freaking out about trying to predefine the social rules for this thing. Rather, to be more literal, I should say I do get it but don't agree with it. Wearable computing and ubiquitous photography are going to be things as the cost of hardware falls. This is already true compared even to the world of the late nineties. Google glass is just the first attempt, but there will be others. WSJ opinion pieces are not going to define how people use it. The actual social drawbacks combined with the benefits will be the determining factor in how people use it. I imagine (from actually watching people's reaction to the device in person) that in real scenarios most people will not care that you are wearing a Glass/iSee/Windows Goggle 8. And likewise, the relative infrequency of surreptitious recording being useful will limit how often the devices will be used that way.

hatcravat 13y ago
Actually, Steve Mann was doing this fifteen years ago. There are web pages describing his wearables that literally haven't been updated for a decade. Think about that for a second. Bill Clinton was president when this was cutting edge stuff. And the Glass hardware looks just as stupid and dorky as the hardware Mann built himself.
- rasur 13y ago
  More like going on 30 years, actually.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  You are nuts if you think Glass looks as dorky as Mann's stuff. Be serious, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wearcompevolution2.jpg
- michaelwww 13y ago
  It puzzles me I don't see much mention that Steve Mann was physically assaulted because of his glass hardware and discuss the reasons for it in relation to Google Glass. http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-steve-mann-assaulted-at-parisian-mcdonalds/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/16/augmented-reality-explorer-...

rasur 13y ago

Memory-impaired users of EyeTap/Glass-like devices - using them as a memory-prosthetic (a not unreasonable use of this kind of technology to aid their day to day lives) - might find themselves subject to abuse from able-bodied (in the metal sense) non-users, mistaking the disabled for geeks. Just a thinking-out-loud exercise. Move along.

kevingadd 13y ago
That's a real concern, yeah. With a technology like this, abuses can have a huge negative impact on people who otherwise have need of it to go about their daily lives. I think if cochlear implants were mass-market for people who weren't born deaf, we'd probably already be facing some of the same social problems there - if it was widespread and common that people just carried around recording devices in their skulls, and anything you said anywhere could be recorded and replayed without your knowledge or permission, and it was common, that'd probably make people pretty paranoid. The introduction of smartphones and other commodity recording devices has already caused a problem here - with stories of police officers/military confiscating or damaging phones that are being used to record their acts, etc. To a degree this isn't something unique to Glass, it's just the first time we've had a theoretically mass-market device come out that aims to make recording truly ubiquitous and non-obvious.

RRRA 13y ago

How about this : http://imgur.com/UdJGSJj http://imgur.com/UdJGSJj

libria 13y ago

> You know how that guy with the Bluetooth headset became Bluetooth Headset Guy, the most grating tech villain in existence today? It's because he never took his headset off. There's a strange social phenomenon where some people feel obliged to not only pass judgment on the way other people enjoy their life (the same contingent of people who seem to dislike those family stickers on cars and people who take pictures of food), they must evangelize/enforce the style of life they're more comfortable with. What's wrong with bluetooth guy (and his predecessor of 10 years before, cell-phone guy) using his technology? Deal with it like you deal with everything else: endure it, go somewhere else, or explain politely how their behavior is demonstrably harmful (not merely annoying, harmful). > Be courteous and take the device off in locker rooms, public bathrooms, business meetings, movie theaters and anywhere else where wielding a camera would be improper or offensive. Agreed. Those are legal issues and should absolutely be observed (the law, not the events).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

babarock 13y ago

I can't help but shake my head in disagreement when I hear things like "we need a red LED or a shutter sound on this camera". It's not that I encourage people to be sneaky about spying with their pictures. It's that it will be inevitable. As mentioned, any hacker could turn off whatever restriction you're going to put. Pretending that we're preventing something is stupid and wrong. It's a hypocrisy that is so typical it makes me angry. To a large extent, secret photographing/recording is a technological revolution, and it will, predictably, meet some resistance. We can either: * pretend to do something about it. * help people resisting transition into it. There are really no other options. Preventing it from happening is not an option. What would you do? It's very similar to the whole "illegal downloading of music" business. Millions of dollars are spent, laws, national (global!) debates are held, all sorts of technological hurdles are put into play, and ... nothing prevents any kid from downloading whatever they want from the Internet. All this "pretending to do something about it" has a cost. Some scapegoats are going to suffer greatly along the way. Aaron Schwartz's example is famous around here, but it's absolutely not the only one. Do we need more innocent victims?

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Right? Doesn't HN react negatively to security theater in most contexts? It is interesting that the collective approach is different with this device.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  A red 'recording' light or shutter noise are not security theater. They're a feedback mechanism to notify subjects that they are being recorded. Even if 1 or even 10% of google glass users hack their device to remove the light, the other 90% will have the light and that will improve others' awareness of when they're being recorded and enable them to take action. Incremental improvement is better than nothing, and this is an example of an incredibly cheap, obvious incremental improvement with no downside.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    The feedback mechanism can be disabled, via a rooted device or physical disconection, just like tsa scans can be circumvented. It's exactly analogous.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zw123456 13y ago

I get it, I don't like being photographed without my consent. OK, I admit that may come from a place of self conscienceness or whatever. But, I would like that respected. How about an opt out or opt in type of icon that people could wear, maybe the polite Google glass wearer would use the opt in feature that would only photograph other Google glass wearers? That seems like an easy feature to add. Just a thought.