4 ms·
It would be nice if glass came with a physical cover attached that can be slid over the camera lens. Thus, you could have the lens normally covered and still us
by euank 13y ago
It would be nice if glass came with a physical cover attached that can be slid over the camera lens. Thus, you could have the lens normally covered and still use the glass without others being uncomfortable. As long as the cover became a widely recognized symbol, it could allow for social cues to develop separately around wearing "blind" glass vs regular glass.
The physical cover would of course also prevent this type of malware.
- phoen 13y agoHow would anyone other than the Glass user know that the cover is actually obstructing? I mean, a person could fashion a "cover" that functions as a one-way mirror does, no?
- r00fus 13y agoIt would a) have to be a first-party cover (preferably by Google) b) have some symbols that indicate 'not recording', c) easy to demonstrate to nearby folks what it's function is (i.e., by removing it and putting it back on). If Google pushed this and marketed it, it'd really take the edge off the privacy concerns about Glass (I'd still not buy one but I wouldn't necessarily force a wearer to put them away before entering my house). Relying on your userbase to "not be glass holes" is a recipe for backlash, even against those who "use responsibly".
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoAt some point you just have to go out on a limb and hope that everyone you know or meet isn't actively trying to invade your privacy.
- cinquemb 13y agoBut with the tech available today mixed with the behaviors of people online/offline, we can and have been passively invading others (perceived) privacy, even our own.
- Houshalter 13y agoYou must be new to the internet.
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoInternet != Real Life. If you operate in Real Life under the assumption that everyone you pass on the street or give money to at the coffee shop is desperate to invade your privacy, you're gonna have a hard time.
- fphhotchips 13y agoYes, but that's still about as much effort as it would take me to hide a spy-cam on my person.
- mlady 13y agoThe comprehensive solution to this issue (as we, the researchers mentioned in the article, see it) should be a combination of API safeguards and to have a hardwired "recording" light on Glass. The API checks would prevent what we were able to do in Malnotes, and the "recording" light would work much like webcams currently do. A more technical discussion of what we were able to exploit is on Ars Technica in the comments (skip past the trolls). http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/03/google-glass-spyware-app-is-cute-but-not-the-end-of-the-world/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/03/google-glass-spyware...
- eridius 13y agoI agree that a "recording" light would be a great idea, but that will really only protect against malware, not against people who are intentionally trying to surreptitiously take pictures. The reason being that anyone with direct hardware access to the device can find a way to disable the light.
- ridgeguy 13y agoI think a recording light could be defeated by a tiny dot of suitably-colored opaque pigment dabbed onto the recording light. I prefer the earlier poster's thought of a sliding, readily visible lens cover.
- chinpokomon 13y agoThe lens cover would defeat the whole purpose of having an at an instant camera. You may as well pull your cell phone out of your pocket if you have to fumble with removing a lens cover while you're wearing Glass. I understand why people are concerned, but I still believe through my own experience, that the issue is gratefully overblown.