5 ms·

I've been trying not to get too worked up over the whole NSA/PRISM issue, but the potential success Google Glass changes the magnitude of the issue. By proxy,

• cookiecaper 13y ago
  Everyone is already carrying a remote tracking and recording device called a cell phone, optionally including video (which may or may not be useful). Admittedly Glass gives a much better vantage point for videos, but that's the only added aspect.
  • enraged_camel 13y ago
    Cellphones are in people's pockets or purses most of the time, and even when they are being used the camera is mostly pointing at the ground or the person's lap. Google Glass will show The Watchers exactly what the person is looking at. Even when the person takes it off and puts it on, say, a table surface, it will be showing something, as opposed to a phone which either points downward or up towards the ceiling. I could go on. The point is that "everyone is already carrying a remote tracking and recording device" is hugely different in terms of both the scope and depth of surveillance that said offers when compared to Google Glass.
    • Kylekramer 13y ago
      Doesn't the sheer amount of noise (in the intelligence agencies' eyes) produced by Glass make it a fairly useless data source? If I worked for the secret shadowy three initial organizations I rather have access to call logs and email. At least it would have some curation.
      • Zikes 13y ago
        I think that's the key point here. The sheer amount of data being stored is surely almost completely useless when it comes to preventing crime, but would be invaluable when it comes time to investigate a crime, or if you want to target a specific individual to harass.
        • nitrogen 13y ago
          Noise becomes data when you have the right algorithm.
          • Zikes 13y ago
            I'm sure there is some useful information they could glean, but in large part key indicators of pre-crime are already blatantly obvious or present too great a risk of false positives. The latter is what worries me. If they come up with what they believe to be the right algorithm and run it against their data, what then? Are we then in the position where we have to a) prove our innocence in a crime that hasn't even been committed, or b) become the targets of increased scrutiny and restrictions?
            • nitrogen 13y ago
              There's more that can be done than pre-crime, though. For example, statistical analysis/datamining of things like ambient sound levels, vocal stress levels, positive/negative sentiment, etc. could reveal trends even before they reach Twitter, allowing them to be preempted or directed.
    • cookiecaper 13y ago
      Yeah, that's what I said. I recognize it will give much more useful video stream. But it's an incremental increase in capability -- if they can already pinpoint your location with GPS and record all surface-level interhuman information exchange with microphones, they're already getting a very large section of what one would like to keep confidential.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  • atwebb 13y ago
    Why are people discounting the importance of that vantage point? It's incredibly pertinent and a main issue.
• Kylekramer 13y ago
  The companies implicated in PRISM already produce the software and/or hardware for the vast majority of computers and smartphones in the world. Seems like if you are convinced that PRISM is as far reaching and effective as being able to turn Glass in a remote recording device for the NSA, the magitude would hardly change much.
  • marshray 13y ago
    You don't see the difference between say, having a camera next to you on the seat of your car and driving the Google StreetView car everywhere you go?
    • Kylekramer 13y ago
      Given how ubiquitous Androids, iOS, Kinect, OSX, and Windows devices are, no. Chances are if you are in any populated area, a camera (and perhaps more importantly, microphone, given that mics are omnidirectional) associated with one PRISM company being on you is extremely high. Glass would merely be a snowdrift on top of Everest. Of course, it is important to note I don't believe PRISM is anywhere near as effective as many around here do.
      • marshray 13y ago
        I agree with you that the ubiquity of microphones cameras without hard electrical 'off' switches is a real problem. Secret microphones have been used for eavesdropping for a century now, and malware has been found in the wild which uses the camera to take photos and make 3D reconstructions of the victim's home interior. But wearing an internet connected 3rd party controlled camera on your forehead is categorically different than one that points at the inside of my pocket almost all the time. If it were the same as what we have now then Google Glass wouldn't be a very interesting product, would it?
• molbioguy 13y ago
  Glass makes it so much more convenient to record others. While you can do this with smartphones, the process is so much more obvious with those devices. Most people won't know if they're being recorded or not with Glass. And by putting the device close to your face, it's less likely someone will try to move it aside or block it. It all comes back to privacy being a sense of control over what someone releases to the world about themselves. Glass helps take away that control (as does secret NSA data collection). People are uncomfortable when someone else controls the release or collection of their personal data (images, whereabouts, friends, etc).