4 ms·

To this day it befuddles me how the key people inside Google responsible for the roll out of Glass - whoever they were - were allowed to bungle it, in such a sl

To this day it befuddles me how the key people inside Google responsible for the roll out of Glass - whoever they were - were allowed to bungle it, in such a slipshod manner. After all, this was not some GOOG-411 [1] - which I absolutely adored when it first rolled out and which saved many a day for me, during its brief lifespan - or some barge [2] or one of many other Google's myriad off-the-cuff projects. This was GLASS ! Possibly the single most compelling offering from Google since Street View, practically bursting at the seams with humongous promise and potential for humankind. No less than a squadron of industrial design gurus, consumer perception honchos, privacy experts and outreach groups from local governments and hospitality specialists representing the sentiments of bar and restaurant owners, should have been assembled to capture feedback, early in the crafting of such an important device. At the very least - and at the bare minimum - someone close to Sergey [3] should have blurted, "Perhaps, we should offer a bare-bones version with simple video & audio capture capabilities, to at-risk individuals like inner-city youth, who are persistently subject to unjustified stop-and-frisk searches [4] by various peace officers, at a nominal throwaway price. The public outcry over privacy would be a fraction of what it would be otherwise because the perception of Glass would no longer be of some rich kid's tech toy but a legal defense weapon for the capture of circumstantial evidence in the hands of those who need such a first-person account device, the most." Glass is too important - and the consequences of its large scale adoption too profound - for some crazy last-ditch measures to have not been deployed. [1] Farewell, GOOG-411 http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/farewell-goog-411/ http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/farewell-goog-411/ [2] Fire-Safety Concerns Sank Google’s Barges http://online.wsj.com/articles/fire-safety-concerns-sank-googles-barges-1415320536 http://online.wsj.com/articles/fire-safety-concerns-sank-goo... [3] Sergey Brin tests Google Glass on New York subway http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/sergey-brin-google-glass-new-york-subway http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/21/sergey-bri... [4] Is Stop-and-Frisk Worth It? http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-and-frisk-worth-it/358644/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/is-stop-...

DanBC 12y ago
> "Perhaps, we should offer a bare-bones version with simple video & audio capture capabilities, to at-risk individuals like inner-city youth, who are persistently subject to unjustified stop-and-frisk searches [4] by various peace officers, at a nominal throwaway price. That's a great way to get those people jailed under wiretap laws. This already happens to some people who record with the phones interactions with police.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  Special considerations when videotaping: With regards to videotaping, there is an important legal distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under state wiretapping laws. Such laws are generally intended to accomplish the important privacy-protecting goal of prohibiting audio "bugging" of private conversations. However, in nearly all cases audio recording the police is legal. In states that allow recording with the consent of just one party to the conversation, you can tape your own interactions with officers without violating wiretap statutes (since you are one of the parties). [1] Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant. Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances. Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. [1] Know Your Rights: Photographers https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo
notahacker 12y ago
I can't see emphasising the usefulness of the camera to people for recording people that really don't want to be recorded making wearing Glass less socially suicidal. And you can pretty much guarantee that youths in problem areas will be those least likely to wear a visible recording device in public, because as unpleasant as the risk of running into a cop on a power trip is, it pales into comparison with the certainty of the local gangs taking exception to people walking around their neighbourhood with a recording device. Edit: if you actually wanted to reduce police abuses you'd lobby to make it compulsory for law enforcement to record their own actions whilst on active duty instead. Though winning a supply contract with the NYPD would also have the effect of killing it stone dead as a fun consumer product, as well as be a very unusual move for Google.
DonHopkins 12y ago
Since Sergey was cheating on his wife with the Glass marketing manager, he probably wasn't very objective about whether the project was a good idea or not, and said "yes" to her every hairbrained idea because he didn't want her to cut off his nookie.

DanBC 12y ago

> "Perhaps, we should offer a bare-bones version with simple video & audio capture capabilities, to at-risk individuals like inner-city youth, who are persistently subject to unjustified stop-and-frisk searches [4] by various peace officers, at a nominal throwaway price. That's a great way to get those people jailed under wiretap laws. This already happens to some people who record with the phones interactions with police.

wozniacki 12y ago
Special considerations when videotaping: With regards to videotaping, there is an important legal distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under state wiretapping laws. Such laws are generally intended to accomplish the important privacy-protecting goal of prohibiting audio "bugging" of private conversations. However, in nearly all cases audio recording the police is legal. In states that allow recording with the consent of just one party to the conversation, you can tape your own interactions with officers without violating wiretap statutes (since you are one of the parties). [1] Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant. Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances. Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. [1] Know Your Rights: Photographers https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo

notahacker 12y ago

I can't see emphasising the usefulness of the camera to people for recording people that really don't want to be recorded making wearing Glass less socially suicidal. And you can pretty much guarantee that youths in problem areas will be those least likely to wear a visible recording device in public, because as unpleasant as the risk of running into a cop on a power trip is, it pales into comparison with the certainty of the local gangs taking exception to people walking around their neighbourhood with a recording device. Edit: if you actually wanted to reduce police abuses you'd lobby to make it compulsory for law enforcement to record their own actions whilst on active duty instead. Though winning a supply contract with the NYPD would also have the effect of killing it stone dead as a fun consumer product, as well as be a very unusual move for Google.

DonHopkins 12y ago

Since Sergey was cheating on his wife with the Glass marketing manager, he probably wasn't very objective about whether the project was a good idea or not, and said "yes" to her every hairbrained idea because he didn't want her to cut off his nookie.