8 ms·

Ugh, I really hope not. I can't see any reason people wouldn't use this, though, since it's a lot less likely for someone to care about other people's privacy o

Ugh, I really hope not. I can't see any reason people wouldn't use this, though, since it's a lot less likely for someone to care about other people's privacy or convenience than their own. I can certainly see myself asking people to take them off if they want to talk to me (unless they're the same people that currently browse/text/play on their cell phones during conversations, as that's a conversation you might as well not have anyway). More cameras, microphones, and sensors all over people, and mostly connected to the internet. What could go wrong? This is obviously a good direction.

csallen 13y ago
I really don't like this mindset because, ultimately, it's a losing one. Technology marches on. It's already possible for people to wear undetectably-small cameras and computers on their bodies, and we're heading toward a world in which these types of devices will not only be feasible, but both affordable and useful. In other words: mainstream. Given the reality of the situation, it's short-sighted to poke fun at "Glassholes" and complain about smartphone users, as if these technologies are merely obnoxious fashion trends that will disappear in time. Hundreds of years ago there I'm sure there were swordsmen who complained that gunpowder-based warfare was dishonorable. Is that who we want to be? Yes, things can go wrong. Yes, technology can empower evil just as well as it can facilitate good. Yes, 2050 will be different than 2000. So what? This has been true since the dawn of time. When did it become fashionable for techies to despair at the inevitable advance of technology? When did it become popular to whine incessantly about change? To look at every new development with an attitude of pessimism? To pretend that the world of yesterday was so perfect and pristine? What happened to putting our heads down and working on creative solutions to the problems that face us?
- krapp 13y ago
  But your assertion seems to be that new technologies should be above criticism by virtue of the inevitable march of technology itself, part of which is driven by consumerism and hype, and not any process which necessarily judges technology on its own merit. It hasn't yet been proven that smart glasses are going to be as transformative as gunpowder, or as revolutionary as the internet, or what have you. Maybe they will be, maybe not. Yes, an attempt by Google and other companies to push the new paradigm onto consumers will inevitably be made, but that's not necessarily the same as those technologies being an evolutionary leap forward. Some of the criticism is probably knee-jerk discomfort and something new and nostalgia for the simplicity of the past, sure, but pessimism when properly applied is just part of the process of trying to look past the cloud of marketing spin and fannish enthusiasm surrounding an emerging technology and discern its actual relevance.
  - csallen 13y ago
    Yes, Glass may fail, but it seems obvious to me that the perpetual shrinking of technology is an unstoppable trend that was set in motion decades ago. It turns out that computers, and phones, and recording devices, and the internet are all really useful technologies, and people like having access to them wherever they go with as little hassle as possible. As time approaches infinity, the likelihood of our brains becoming hosts to powerful artificial computers approaches 100%. It's going to happen. It already is happening. And it's been happening. Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us nowhere. I have no problem with a bit of pessimism, but if it's going to be so pervasive, I'd at least like it to be constructive or useful in some way. Less "omg this is happening" and more "this is happening, how can we adapt?"
    - repsilat 13y ago
      > Yes, Glass may fail Even if Glass' victory is inevitable, it may not be wrong to oppose it. Opposition need not take its value from its chance of success -- delaying the inevitable has value, as does the simple fact of having acted morally. When asked to choose between the moral highground and the literal highground, many people take the former. I'm not convinced the two don't coincide here, but I don't see a problem with that position in theory.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us nowhere. On the contrary. I fully expect that in many places, overtly creepy technology like Google Glass will shift a long-overdue privacy debate that seems to be gathering momentum. If technology like Google Glass becomes socially unacceptable and illegal, it will not become pervasive in the manner you described.
      - csallen 13y ago
        If it became illegal, sure. The chances of that are almost nil though. Almost everyone carries a camera with them nowadays, and public cameras have been commonplace for decades. It if becomes socially unacceptable, then it's just a matter of time. People don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting. What happens when technology improves to the point where it looks like a normal pair of glasses? What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in your brain? Your brain in a robot?
- Silhouette 13y ago
  I really don't like this mindset because, ultimately, it's a losing one. Technology marches on. Of course, but just because we can do something, it does not mean that we should. I could commit numerous offences in the next half hour, causing substantial harm to many of my neighbours, whether that be damage to their property, injury to their person, harm to their reputation, subjecting them to something that distresses them, or otherwise. I don't do those things, because I'm not a jerk and I have no interest in upsetting my neighbours. Hopefully most of my fellow human beings would take the same view. Maybe a few people don't do those things, even though they'd like to, because they know it would be illegal and they don't want to accept the punishment they would expect. Those who really do bad things anyway, we can only try to catch and punish. You can't realistically stop someone from committing most types of crime if they truly don't care about the consequences, and I doubt any of us would enjoy living in a world that did try to physically prevent crime from ever happening. New technologies will create new potential benefits and potential abuses, but technology is always ethically neutral. What matters is how we use it, and respecting the reasonable wishes of others is the cornerstone of good manners and always has been.
  - csallen 13y ago
    I agree with everything you said. What it comes down to, however, is your last sentence. Who decides what is and what isn't "respecting the reasonable wishes of others"? Who decides what constitutes "good manners"? What's reasonable in one decade may be unreasonable the next. The bad manners of the last generation are common place acts today. That's the nature of change. And it doesn't happen by itself: it happens because there are people actively pushing against the boundaries set by the status quo. Of course not everyone will agree with this. For every boundary-pusher, I'd expect there to be at least 10 or 20 people who have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how in their day, it was considered rude to [wage war with guns|fornicate|use phones in public|wear a recording device]. At what point do we dismiss these people as mere curmudgeons, holding onto the past for the sake of the past, and at what point do we take them seriously and put on the brakes? I'm sure a thoroughly enlightened answer would have many complexities... but I'd say it's generally safe to let society itself decide. Just because the boundaries are being pushed doesn't mean society has to follow. If tiny wearable computers and recording devices aren't useful enough to be worth the affronts to privacy and intimacy (and fashion, in the case of Glass), then none of this stuff will last. The thing is, the answer to how all of this will end is blindingly obvious. Assuming technology continues to improve, then CLEARLY people will find it useful to turn themselves into walking computers/phones/cameras. Yes, society as we know it will change as a result, but it's been doing that since the dawn of time.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I would imagine that we will transition to being a remarkably more tolerant society than we are today. When these video cameras and microphones are everywhere, every one will be vulnerable. The first victims of this loss of privacy will suffer the most, but hopefully when it starts happening so often that everyone knows someone who has suffered, we'll start changing our perceptions of how bad some taboo statements and actions really are. A lot of people are going to be exposed as a little bit racist, a little bit misogynist, a little bit misandrist, a little bit classist, a little bit sexually deviant, a little bit xenophobic, etc. etc. etc. All these minor transgressions will be blown out of proportion at first, but eventually we'll realized that it's normal to harbor thoughts and act in ways that are more taboo than they should be. Human diversity is a wonderful thing, and this should highlight that what we all have in common are our differences, including in ways that aren't totally socially acceptable today. I just hope such a transition to toleration happens quickly.
laureny 13y ago
> I can certainly see myself asking people to take them off if they want to talk to me I bet that ten years ago, you would ask people to turn their phones off before agreeing to talk with them.
- krapp 13y ago
  Cellphones weren't meant to have their microphones left turned on, in order to constantly be processing ambient audio for recognizable words, or to process commands, or to match voices to identities. Smart glasses are far more confrontational and intrusive by design. If I held my phone up and pointed the camera wherever I went, people would be annoyed at it, and not irrationally so.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  I don't use Facebook, and my friends and family know that and understand that I would prefer not to have them share information about me with Facebook either. As far as I'm aware, everyone I know respects this, and it has caused 0 awkward social moments. So you'd better believe I would ask someone to turn off recording devices if they're not being used for a sensible reason. I'd be polite about it, of course, the first time. After that, well, anyone who would need asking twice isn't likely to be someone whose opinion of me I care about very much anyway. And I'm willing to bet that any resulting footage of me educating the offending party about privacy and manners right to their Google Glassed face is not going to cause anyone I care about to think less of me either.
derefr 13y ago
> unless they're the same people that currently browse/text/play on their cell phones during conversations, as that's a conversation you might as well not have anyway How about people that have a laptop in front of them as they talk to you? Like interviewers, or stenographers?

csallen 13y ago

I really don't like this mindset because, ultimately, it's a losing one. Technology marches on. It's already possible for people to wear undetectably-small cameras and computers on their bodies, and we're heading toward a world in which these types of devices will not only be feasible, but both affordable and useful. In other words: mainstream. Given the reality of the situation, it's short-sighted to poke fun at "Glassholes" and complain about smartphone users, as if these technologies are merely obnoxious fashion trends that will disappear in time. Hundreds of years ago there I'm sure there were swordsmen who complained that gunpowder-based warfare was dishonorable. Is that who we want to be? Yes, things can go wrong. Yes, technology can empower evil just as well as it can facilitate good. Yes, 2050 will be different than 2000. So what? This has been true since the dawn of time. When did it become fashionable for techies to despair at the inevitable advance of technology? When did it become popular to whine incessantly about change? To look at every new development with an attitude of pessimism? To pretend that the world of yesterday was so perfect and pristine? What happened to putting our heads down and working on creative solutions to the problems that face us?

krapp 13y ago
But your assertion seems to be that new technologies should be above criticism by virtue of the inevitable march of technology itself, part of which is driven by consumerism and hype, and not any process which necessarily judges technology on its own merit. It hasn't yet been proven that smart glasses are going to be as transformative as gunpowder, or as revolutionary as the internet, or what have you. Maybe they will be, maybe not. Yes, an attempt by Google and other companies to push the new paradigm onto consumers will inevitably be made, but that's not necessarily the same as those technologies being an evolutionary leap forward. Some of the criticism is probably knee-jerk discomfort and something new and nostalgia for the simplicity of the past, sure, but pessimism when properly applied is just part of the process of trying to look past the cloud of marketing spin and fannish enthusiasm surrounding an emerging technology and discern its actual relevance.
- csallen 13y ago
  Yes, Glass may fail, but it seems obvious to me that the perpetual shrinking of technology is an unstoppable trend that was set in motion decades ago. It turns out that computers, and phones, and recording devices, and the internet are all really useful technologies, and people like having access to them wherever they go with as little hassle as possible. As time approaches infinity, the likelihood of our brains becoming hosts to powerful artificial computers approaches 100%. It's going to happen. It already is happening. And it's been happening. Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us nowhere. I have no problem with a bit of pessimism, but if it's going to be so pervasive, I'd at least like it to be constructive or useful in some way. Less "omg this is happening" and more "this is happening, how can we adapt?"
  - repsilat 13y ago
    > Yes, Glass may fail Even if Glass' victory is inevitable, it may not be wrong to oppose it. Opposition need not take its value from its chance of success -- delaying the inevitable has value, as does the simple fact of having acted morally. When asked to choose between the moral highground and the literal highground, many people take the former. I'm not convinced the two don't coincide here, but I don't see a problem with that position in theory.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Trying to stop it is impossible, and merely complaining about it gets us nowhere. On the contrary. I fully expect that in many places, overtly creepy technology like Google Glass will shift a long-overdue privacy debate that seems to be gathering momentum. If technology like Google Glass becomes socially unacceptable and illegal, it will not become pervasive in the manner you described.
    - csallen 13y ago
      If it became illegal, sure. The chances of that are almost nil though. Almost everyone carries a camera with them nowadays, and public cameras have been commonplace for decades. It if becomes socially unacceptable, then it's just a matter of time. People don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting. What happens when technology improves to the point where it looks like a normal pair of glasses? What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in your brain? Your brain in a robot?
Silhouette 13y ago
I really don't like this mindset because, ultimately, it's a losing one. Technology marches on. Of course, but just because we can do something, it does not mean that we should. I could commit numerous offences in the next half hour, causing substantial harm to many of my neighbours, whether that be damage to their property, injury to their person, harm to their reputation, subjecting them to something that distresses them, or otherwise. I don't do those things, because I'm not a jerk and I have no interest in upsetting my neighbours. Hopefully most of my fellow human beings would take the same view. Maybe a few people don't do those things, even though they'd like to, because they know it would be illegal and they don't want to accept the punishment they would expect. Those who really do bad things anyway, we can only try to catch and punish. You can't realistically stop someone from committing most types of crime if they truly don't care about the consequences, and I doubt any of us would enjoy living in a world that did try to physically prevent crime from ever happening. New technologies will create new potential benefits and potential abuses, but technology is always ethically neutral. What matters is how we use it, and respecting the reasonable wishes of others is the cornerstone of good manners and always has been.
- csallen 13y ago
  I agree with everything you said. What it comes down to, however, is your last sentence. Who decides what is and what isn't "respecting the reasonable wishes of others"? Who decides what constitutes "good manners"? What's reasonable in one decade may be unreasonable the next. The bad manners of the last generation are common place acts today. That's the nature of change. And it doesn't happen by itself: it happens because there are people actively pushing against the boundaries set by the status quo. Of course not everyone will agree with this. For every boundary-pusher, I'd expect there to be at least 10 or 20 people who have to be dragged along kicking and screaming about how in their day, it was considered rude to [wage war with guns|fornicate|use phones in public|wear a recording device]. At what point do we dismiss these people as mere curmudgeons, holding onto the past for the sake of the past, and at what point do we take them seriously and put on the brakes? I'm sure a thoroughly enlightened answer would have many complexities... but I'd say it's generally safe to let society itself decide. Just because the boundaries are being pushed doesn't mean society has to follow. If tiny wearable computers and recording devices aren't useful enough to be worth the affronts to privacy and intimacy (and fashion, in the case of Glass), then none of this stuff will last. The thing is, the answer to how all of this will end is blindingly obvious. Assuming technology continues to improve, then CLEARLY people will find it useful to turn themselves into walking computers/phones/cameras. Yes, society as we know it will change as a result, but it's been doing that since the dawn of time.
malandrew 13y ago
I would imagine that we will transition to being a remarkably more tolerant society than we are today. When these video cameras and microphones are everywhere, every one will be vulnerable. The first victims of this loss of privacy will suffer the most, but hopefully when it starts happening so often that everyone knows someone who has suffered, we'll start changing our perceptions of how bad some taboo statements and actions really are. A lot of people are going to be exposed as a little bit racist, a little bit misogynist, a little bit misandrist, a little bit classist, a little bit sexually deviant, a little bit xenophobic, etc. etc. etc. All these minor transgressions will be blown out of proportion at first, but eventually we'll realized that it's normal to harbor thoughts and act in ways that are more taboo than they should be. Human diversity is a wonderful thing, and this should highlight that what we all have in common are our differences, including in ways that aren't totally socially acceptable today. I just hope such a transition to toleration happens quickly.

laureny 13y ago

> I can certainly see myself asking people to take them off if they want to talk to me I bet that ten years ago, you would ask people to turn their phones off before agreeing to talk with them.

krapp 13y ago
Cellphones weren't meant to have their microphones left turned on, in order to constantly be processing ambient audio for recognizable words, or to process commands, or to match voices to identities. Smart glasses are far more confrontational and intrusive by design. If I held my phone up and pointed the camera wherever I went, people would be annoyed at it, and not irrationally so.
Silhouette 13y ago
I don't use Facebook, and my friends and family know that and understand that I would prefer not to have them share information about me with Facebook either. As far as I'm aware, everyone I know respects this, and it has caused 0 awkward social moments. So you'd better believe I would ask someone to turn off recording devices if they're not being used for a sensible reason. I'd be polite about it, of course, the first time. After that, well, anyone who would need asking twice isn't likely to be someone whose opinion of me I care about very much anyway. And I'm willing to bet that any resulting footage of me educating the offending party about privacy and manners right to their Google Glassed face is not going to cause anyone I care about to think less of me either.

derefr 13y ago

> unless they're the same people that currently browse/text/play on their cell phones during conversations, as that's a conversation you might as well not have anyway How about people that have a laptop in front of them as they talk to you? Like interviewers, or stenographers?