6 ms·

I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed

by aresant 13y ago

I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). To which the analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. I anticipate, however, that Google (or somebody) will find a way to make this product largely invisible to anybody but the wearer in the near term future. Through more discreet projection / camera placement, or future-tech incorporation with a contact lens. So for a company in the business of printing money, investing in BETAs at this stage to understand UX, function, etc is wise.

hangonhn 13y ago
Totally agree. I refuse to talk to anyone with one of those on. It's not only creepy but also really unfair. It also throws the whole concern of private conversations out the door. Get rid of the camera but keep the glass. Maybe then we will be more comfortable.
- kibibu 13y ago
  Pull out your smartphone and record them through it while talking
  - 72deluxe 13y ago
    Haha I think I'll do that if I ever meet someone. That's really funny, it'll keep me chuckling all day. Thanks!
  - hangonhn 13y ago
    That my friend is both brilliant and hilarious.
- aestra 13y ago
  Weirdly, when I was in 7th or 8th grade I thought it would be a neat idea to put an audio tape recorder (the cassette type, remember those?) in my bookbag and record the audio of my entire day at school. I have no idea why I thought this was a neat idea. I don't believe I still have this tape, and if I recall the audio wasn't very clear.
dmm 13y ago
I've found that in my own experience that depressed people focus on and recall negative details moreso than the good. This form of selective memory, remember the good things and forgetting the bad, is a primary tool that ordinary people use to stay sane. Something that records everything you do forever has the potential to serious mess with that. Wikipedia calls it the negative triad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors#Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors#Depression
- wpietri 13y ago
  That's interesting! But at first blush I'm not seeing how it would matter. If I recall rightly, what you remember is partly a function of what you think about. If you're thinking about negative experiences, then you'll retain them. If you think about the positive ones, you'll retain that. People already have a lot of digital archiving going on in the form of photos, emails, Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Mostly, people just ignore that vast historical trove. I would expect adding more detailed recording not to change the balance much; if people use their archives at all, it will be to seek out the things that they already are inclined to remember.
doktrin 13y ago
> I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). A core assumption of this argument is that people won't eventually become accustomed to the idea of being recorded consistently, often without their knowledge or consent. I can't see why that would be the case. Video surveillance is nigh-ubiquitous in London, and this appears to be both accepted and tolerated. Closer to home (US), I was probably recorded on camera 10-12 times today alone - anywhere from office buildings, retail stores, gas stations, etc. Moreover, I understand that I'm being monitored or recorded in some fashion during the majority of my waking hours (internet usage in the workplace, mobile apps with access to my current location, etc.) Why do you feel people will forever resist this particular loss of privacy, when we already take some measure of persistent surveillance & recording as a given? NB : This does not mean I feel comfortable speaking to someone wearing glass. It's unsettling. However, the very crux of the OP was that what we currently consider unsettling or strange is subject to change. I can't find a good reason to disagree with that conclusion.
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  London had the IRA. Ubiquitous surveillance in london is more socially acceptable than the very real possibility of being exploded by a terrorist.
- tzs 13y ago
  > Video surveillance is nigh-ubiquitous in London, and this appears to be both accepted and tolerated. Closer to home (US), I was probably recorded on camera 10-12 times today alone - anywhere from office buildings, retail stores, gas stations, etc. Are any of those London cameras, or the dozen cameras you suspect record you in the US, in public restrooms?
  - doktrin 13y ago
    Instead of asking a rhetorical question with an implied conclusion, it might be worth addressing the actual argument. You're implying that there is a certain threshold past which society will not tolerate its actions being potentially recorded. That may be the case, but I haven't heard it argued convincingly. If we are to take any lessons from history, it is that accepted social norms are subject to radical change. What was once utterly unthinkable has in many cases become hum-drum or even the social norm. Why should this (glass) be the hard line in the sand that human civilization draws?
tikhonj 13y ago
And yet most people don't have that reaction to pervasive CCTV. Which, in some places, is virtually omnipresent and constantly recording. "Smile, you're on camera ☺" And many people have no qualms sharing pretty much everything on Facebook and the like. I don't know which way it will really go, but it is really not obvious a priori that everyone is that concerned about privacy, or that society will not adapt to make things like constant filming more acceptable.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >And yet most people don't have that reaction to pervasive CCTV. Which, in some places, is virtually omnipresent and constantly recording. That's because they don't see those recordings posted around and embarrasing them or affecting their future lifes.
- Crito 13y ago
  I don't have face-to-face conversations with CCTV cameras.
- rld 13y ago
  It's not the same to be observed by some invisible or unknown entity than to be observed directly by a person. Someone pointing a digital camera at a person is usually more disturbing than a CCTV camera doing the same thing. Also, Google Glass may be constantly recording in private places usually without CCTV: homes, dinner tables, meetings, etc.
  - droithomme 13y ago
    In my opinion, both are equally disturbing. CCTV often though we don't notice, don't have a choice, or can't as easily express, "WTF is your problem" towards the obnoxious person recording us without consent and clearing exactly what they plan to do with these recordings. When buying stuff at the store, the store does not offer my the option of consent regarding their ubiquitous camera systems. However, the hope is that the camera systems in this context will not be used to exploit, ridicule, or manipulate my very thoughts. With a person I am interacting with, the odds are not as good, but consent of interaction is also easier to withdraw without seriously affecting my ability to survive. I can choose to interact with people who aren't constantly recording me, if I prefer. Myself I like making field recordings of nature sounds. I've noticed though that a lot of people are concerned when I pull out my Zoom field recorder and start recording them during conversations. They generally don't like it. I don't blame them. I don't like it either. So I either record discretely (which is illegal in many states) or not at all. I don't blame them for not wanting me to record their private conversations though, because their concerns and their desires to have a private conversation are completely legitimate.
sthomas1618 13y ago
I think that is a fair criticism of Google Glass. But I'm worried about my privacy in regards to governments, not fellow citizens. In fact, I think wearable computing like Google Glass could be a game changer in keeping governments accountable. It could be really convenient in recording what you believe to be police misconduct here in the States (instead of blatantly fumbling for your mobile). Or, provided it is affordable, it could be powerful tool to be handed out to people in the Sudan.
- krapp 13y ago
  But then again, there's a good chance governments will be using Glass to watch us us just as we use it to watch the watchers (and each other).
- syntaxfree 13y ago
  Somehow I think the government in South Sudan would just rip these off people's faces.
blah32497 13y ago
How about how when people use their smart-phones and the lil camera points at whoever is opposite them? It always kinda weirds me out and I wonder if they're taking a picture. But I think people are more or less okay with it now and 99% of people don't notice and don't mind.
gone35 13y ago
The analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. I agree. It seems like a false analogy to me. Perhaps a better comparison would be wearing a lavalier/lapel microphone. They have been around for a long time --yet people still find them unnerving and will ask you if it is on if you are wearing one.
orr94 13y ago
> the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). To which the analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. That isn't the theme of the article, though. The author was just addressing whether Google Glass would stop looking dorky, not whether we'd be comfortable with the voyeurism. So I think the analogy is valid, and I suspect will be proven true.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording) Google should put an LED light on Glass that turns on whenever it's recording, just like MacBooks.
- honestcoyote 13y ago
  People are funny. Probably most do not want to be recorded without their permission, but many of them will think of situations when they want to be the one silently recording. And some of those situations would actually be valid, recording cops for example. So, unless there is a law, I can't see forced LED for recordings. If Google tries, then one of the most popular apps for Glass will be a hack which deactivates the light.
  - colanderman 13y ago
    Or Sharpie sales will spike.
baby 13y ago
> the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you What about people with cameras on their smartphones? Every time you see someone on the phone or playing with their phone and their camera is pointing at you, there is a chance they're filming/taking pictures of you. We got used to it. Things change so fast. It's not because right now we're thinking about privacy that we'll still think about it tomorrow.
MetaCosm 13y ago
> I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). When personal cameras first came on the scene -- the newspapers tried to inflame hysteria -- ANYONE COULD TAKE PICTURES OF ANYONE! There were pushes for regulation, banning, and people where ATTACKED for using cameras in public. Google for "Kodak Fiends" and "The Camerist and the Squaw" -- these were the old version of "Glassholes". Society creates social norms to deal with this stuff. See again camera phones... a lesser for of "Kodak Fiends" trended in the press, then we adapted, and now no one even worries about it. It will happens for Google Glass over time, history tells the tale.

by aresant 13y ago

hangonhn 13y ago

Totally agree. I refuse to talk to anyone with one of those on. It's not only creepy but also really unfair. It also throws the whole concern of private conversations out the door. Get rid of the camera but keep the glass. Maybe then we will be more comfortable.

kibibu 13y ago
Pull out your smartphone and record them through it while talking
- 72deluxe 13y ago
  Haha I think I'll do that if I ever meet someone. That's really funny, it'll keep me chuckling all day. Thanks!
- hangonhn 13y ago
  That my friend is both brilliant and hilarious.
aestra 13y ago
Weirdly, when I was in 7th or 8th grade I thought it would be a neat idea to put an audio tape recorder (the cassette type, remember those?) in my bookbag and record the audio of my entire day at school. I have no idea why I thought this was a neat idea. I don't believe I still have this tape, and if I recall the audio wasn't very clear.

dmm 13y ago

I've found that in my own experience that depressed people focus on and recall negative details moreso than the good. This form of selective memory, remember the good things and forgetting the bad, is a primary tool that ordinary people use to stay sane. Something that records everything you do forever has the potential to serious mess with that. Wikipedia calls it the negative triad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors#Depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_errors#Depression

wpietri 13y ago
That's interesting! But at first blush I'm not seeing how it would matter. If I recall rightly, what you remember is partly a function of what you think about. If you're thinking about negative experiences, then you'll retain them. If you think about the positive ones, you'll retain that. People already have a lot of digital archiving going on in the form of photos, emails, Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Mostly, people just ignore that vast historical trove. I would expect adding more detailed recording not to change the balance much; if people use their archives at all, it will be to seek out the things that they already are inclined to remember.

doktrin 13y ago

> I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). A core assumption of this argument is that people won't eventually become accustomed to the idea of being recorded consistently, often without their knowledge or consent. I can't see why that would be the case. Video surveillance is nigh-ubiquitous in London, and this appears to be both accepted and tolerated. Closer to home (US), I was probably recorded on camera 10-12 times today alone - anywhere from office buildings, retail stores, gas stations, etc. Moreover, I understand that I'm being monitored or recorded in some fashion during the majority of my waking hours (internet usage in the workplace, mobile apps with access to my current location, etc.) Why do you feel people will forever resist this particular loss of privacy, when we already take some measure of persistent surveillance & recording as a given? NB : This does not mean I feel comfortable speaking to someone wearing glass. It's unsettling. However, the very crux of the OP was that what we currently consider unsettling or strange is subject to change. I can't find a good reason to disagree with that conclusion.

TheZenPsycho 13y ago
London had the IRA. Ubiquitous surveillance in london is more socially acceptable than the very real possibility of being exploded by a terrorist.
tzs 13y ago
> Video surveillance is nigh-ubiquitous in London, and this appears to be both accepted and tolerated. Closer to home (US), I was probably recorded on camera 10-12 times today alone - anywhere from office buildings, retail stores, gas stations, etc. Are any of those London cameras, or the dozen cameras you suspect record you in the US, in public restrooms?
- doktrin 13y ago
  Instead of asking a rhetorical question with an implied conclusion, it might be worth addressing the actual argument. You're implying that there is a certain threshold past which society will not tolerate its actions being potentially recorded. That may be the case, but I haven't heard it argued convincingly. If we are to take any lessons from history, it is that accepted social norms are subject to radical change. What was once utterly unthinkable has in many cases become hum-drum or even the social norm. Why should this (glass) be the hard line in the sand that human civilization draws?

tikhonj 13y ago

And yet most people don't have that reaction to pervasive CCTV. Which, in some places, is virtually omnipresent and constantly recording. "Smile, you're on camera ☺" And many people have no qualms sharing pretty much everything on Facebook and the like. I don't know which way it will really go, but it is really not obvious a priori that everyone is that concerned about privacy, or that society will not adapt to make things like constant filming more acceptable.

coldtea 13y ago
>And yet most people don't have that reaction to pervasive CCTV. Which, in some places, is virtually omnipresent and constantly recording. That's because they don't see those recordings posted around and embarrasing them or affecting their future lifes.
Crito 13y ago
I don't have face-to-face conversations with CCTV cameras.
rld 13y ago
It's not the same to be observed by some invisible or unknown entity than to be observed directly by a person. Someone pointing a digital camera at a person is usually more disturbing than a CCTV camera doing the same thing. Also, Google Glass may be constantly recording in private places usually without CCTV: homes, dinner tables, meetings, etc.
- droithomme 13y ago
  In my opinion, both are equally disturbing. CCTV often though we don't notice, don't have a choice, or can't as easily express, "WTF is your problem" towards the obnoxious person recording us without consent and clearing exactly what they plan to do with these recordings. When buying stuff at the store, the store does not offer my the option of consent regarding their ubiquitous camera systems. However, the hope is that the camera systems in this context will not be used to exploit, ridicule, or manipulate my very thoughts. With a person I am interacting with, the odds are not as good, but consent of interaction is also easier to withdraw without seriously affecting my ability to survive. I can choose to interact with people who aren't constantly recording me, if I prefer. Myself I like making field recordings of nature sounds. I've noticed though that a lot of people are concerned when I pull out my Zoom field recorder and start recording them during conversations. They generally don't like it. I don't blame them. I don't like it either. So I either record discretely (which is illegal in many states) or not at all. I don't blame them for not wanting me to record their private conversations though, because their concerns and their desires to have a private conversation are completely legitimate.

sthomas1618 13y ago

I think that is a fair criticism of Google Glass. But I'm worried about my privacy in regards to governments, not fellow citizens. In fact, I think wearable computing like Google Glass could be a game changer in keeping governments accountable. It could be really convenient in recording what you believe to be police misconduct here in the States (instead of blatantly fumbling for your mobile). Or, provided it is affordable, it could be powerful tool to be handed out to people in the Sudan.

krapp 13y ago
But then again, there's a good chance governments will be using Glass to watch us us just as we use it to watch the watchers (and each other).
syntaxfree 13y ago
Somehow I think the government in South Sudan would just rip these off people's faces.

blah32497 13y ago

How about how when people use their smart-phones and the lil camera points at whoever is opposite them? It always kinda weirds me out and I wonder if they're taking a picture. But I think people are more or less okay with it now and 99% of people don't notice and don't mind.

gone35 13y ago

The analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. I agree. It seems like a false analogy to me. Perhaps a better comparison would be wearing a lavalier/lapel microphone. They have been around for a long time --yet people still find them unnerving and will ask you if it is on if you are wearing one.

orr94 13y ago

> the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). To which the analogy vs. headphones is not relevant. That isn't the theme of the article, though. The author was just addressing whether Google Glass would stop looking dorky, not whether we'd be comfortable with the voyeurism. So I think the analogy is valid, and I suspect will be proven true.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording) Google should put an LED light on Glass that turns on whenever it's recording, just like MacBooks.

honestcoyote 13y ago
People are funny. Probably most do not want to be recorded without their permission, but many of them will think of situations when they want to be the one silently recording. And some of those situations would actually be valid, recording cops for example. So, unless there is a law, I can't see forced LED for recordings. If Google tries, then one of the most popular apps for Glass will be a hack which deactivates the light.
- colanderman 13y ago
  Or Sharpie sales will spike.

baby 13y ago

> the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you What about people with cameras on their smartphones? Every time you see someone on the phone or playing with their phone and their camera is pointing at you, there is a chance they're filming/taking pictures of you. We got used to it. Things change so fast. It's not because right now we're thinking about privacy that we'll still think about it tomorrow.

MetaCosm 13y ago

> I disagree that people will become comfortable with Google Glass - the primary negative reaction is the voyeuristic-rejection of having a camera always pointed at you (that may or may not be recording). When personal cameras first came on the scene -- the newspapers tried to inflame hysteria -- ANYONE COULD TAKE PICTURES OF ANYONE! There were pushes for regulation, banning, and people where ATTACKED for using cameras in public. Google for "Kodak Fiends" and "The Camerist and the Squaw" -- these were the old version of "Glassholes". Society creates social norms to deal with this stuff. See again camera phones... a lesser for of "Kodak Fiends" trended in the press, then we adapted, and now no one even worries about it. It will happens for Google Glass over time, history tells the tale.