3 ms·

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 commonp

by 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?

krapp 13y ago
>Almost everyone carries a camera with them nowadays, Yes but they don't point that camera directly at everyone they talk to, all the time. >People don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting. I think it looks kind of nice for what it is. It's still creepy though. >What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in your brain? Your brain in a robot? OK... those last two are just bad ideas all around. In any case though I personally am less concerned with the form factor or the technology as I am the premise that concerns about privacy are irrelevant because the surveillance gear is ever advancing in complexity.
- csallen 13y ago
  When you go out in public you quite often have cameras pointed at you. You just don't care because out-of-sight, out-of-mind. If those same public cameras were extracted from ceilings and placed on extremely conspicuous tripods sitting on the ground, I bet people would feel less comfortable, despite little having changed. Reminds me of the guy who got kicked out of the Seattle restaurant a few weeks ago for refusing to remove Glass. The restaurant said it didn't want to open its customers up to the possibility of being recorded without their consent. Of course, on the restaurant's very own Facebook page were numerous shots of customers dining, many of which were obtained without any knowledge or consent. The hypocrisy was lost on them, unfortunately. People underemphasize form and overemphasize function. When it comes down to it, most of us are being photographed all the time. Exponentially more-so today than anyone was 100 years ago. And with the rise of smartphones, substantially more-so today than anyone was even 10 years ago. Smart glasses are merely another rung on the ladder. Every argument you make could have been made for smartphones as well.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Everything you say might be factually true, but it doesn't follow that no-one has been bothered by it until now. Some of us have been raising concerns about things like pervasive surveillance by governments and/or big businesses for some time. But the issues aren't sufficiently well understood yet by the general population, nor directly harming a large enough subset of that population, for most people to feel strongly about them. Particularly with the relative hardship many have faced over the past few years, they are quite understandably more concerned about things like keeping a roof over their head and putting food on their children's plates. But every now and then you see people up in arms over things like how much it costs for a new driver to get the (legally required) insurance in the UK today, and you get a glimpse of where we're heading if we continue on our current course. A disproportionate number of the people I know personally who already share similar cautious views to my own are involved with technology. I suspect this is because of the awareness we share of how technology and in particular all this data could be used, even if the data is merely being collected today and not yet exploited. Most people don't realise the full implications of what is already happening yet, so they aren't concerned enough to act today, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would still be OK with something if they were fully informed or knew that it would eventually affect them or their loved ones and not just other people.
    - csallen 13y ago
      To be honest, I worry about how all this data could be used as well. I just hope we can focus the conversation around the more more productive topic of stopping malicious activities, rather than around the frivolous topic of stopping technological advancement.

by csallen 13y ago

krapp 13y ago

>Almost everyone carries a camera with them nowadays, Yes but they don't point that camera directly at everyone they talk to, all the time. >People don't like Glass because it looks clunky, nerdy, and distracting. I think it looks kind of nice for what it is. It's still creepy though. >What happens when we can put a chip in a contact lens? A phone in your brain? Your brain in a robot? OK... those last two are just bad ideas all around. In any case though I personally am less concerned with the form factor or the technology as I am the premise that concerns about privacy are irrelevant because the surveillance gear is ever advancing in complexity.

csallen 13y ago
When you go out in public you quite often have cameras pointed at you. You just don't care because out-of-sight, out-of-mind. If those same public cameras were extracted from ceilings and placed on extremely conspicuous tripods sitting on the ground, I bet people would feel less comfortable, despite little having changed. Reminds me of the guy who got kicked out of the Seattle restaurant a few weeks ago for refusing to remove Glass. The restaurant said it didn't want to open its customers up to the possibility of being recorded without their consent. Of course, on the restaurant's very own Facebook page were numerous shots of customers dining, many of which were obtained without any knowledge or consent. The hypocrisy was lost on them, unfortunately. People underemphasize form and overemphasize function. When it comes down to it, most of us are being photographed all the time. Exponentially more-so today than anyone was 100 years ago. And with the rise of smartphones, substantially more-so today than anyone was even 10 years ago. Smart glasses are merely another rung on the ladder. Every argument you make could have been made for smartphones as well.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  Everything you say might be factually true, but it doesn't follow that no-one has been bothered by it until now. Some of us have been raising concerns about things like pervasive surveillance by governments and/or big businesses for some time. But the issues aren't sufficiently well understood yet by the general population, nor directly harming a large enough subset of that population, for most people to feel strongly about them. Particularly with the relative hardship many have faced over the past few years, they are quite understandably more concerned about things like keeping a roof over their head and putting food on their children's plates. But every now and then you see people up in arms over things like how much it costs for a new driver to get the (legally required) insurance in the UK today, and you get a glimpse of where we're heading if we continue on our current course. A disproportionate number of the people I know personally who already share similar cautious views to my own are involved with technology. I suspect this is because of the awareness we share of how technology and in particular all this data could be used, even if the data is merely being collected today and not yet exploited. Most people don't realise the full implications of what is already happening yet, so they aren't concerned enough to act today, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would still be OK with something if they were fully informed or knew that it would eventually affect them or their loved ones and not just other people.
  - csallen 13y ago
    To be honest, I worry about how all this data could be used as well. I just hope we can focus the conversation around the more more productive topic of stopping malicious activities, rather than around the frivolous topic of stopping technological advancement.