Google Tries To Defuse Glass "Myths" 363
As reported by Beta News, Google has tried to answer some of the criticism that its Glass head-mounted system has inspired with a blog post outlining and explaining what it calls 10 "myths" about the system. Google's explanation probably won't change many minds, but in just a few years the need to defend head-worn input/output devices might seem quaint and backwards.
A lense cover (Score:5, Interesting)
If Google had just included a lens cover then Glass would just be a status symbol for ultra-nerdy hipsters.
With an uncovered camera always conspicuously pointed in everybody's face Google Glass is an unmistakable reminder of our Orwellian world.
Re: (Score:2)
Better still: deploy the Glass beta to specialized professionals first, such as surgeons or lawyers, talking Glass up as a source of supplementary information during operations and trials. As soon as the tech gets featured on a few episodes of "Scrubs" or "Suits," the coolness factor is established and everybody will be wanting it.
Re: (Score:3)
edge of the Uncanny Valley (Score:2)
I can see it. It's about the "uncanny valley" [wikipedia.org]
We'd still see situations like this poor woman who appears to have Borderline Personality Disorder: http://valleywag.gawker.com/gl... [gawker.com]
However, there's something about the design of Glass, or rather the **lack** of design, that makes the wearer look off-puttingly non-human. It's like the Bluetooth in-ear headset ^10...and only a few steps from actual "Borg"
Gla
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.amazon.com/Mato-Hash-Military-Shemagh-Tactical/dp/B008G3O45U/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1395615480&sr=8-6&keywords=shemagh
Becomes trendy as well.
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Informative)
Pointing a phone at faces is considered rude in many cultures specifically because it implies you're taking pictures. Vast majority of people who use phones point the camera at a downward angle, so all it could take pictures of is people's feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Still could be recording conversation though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing a hidden mic wouldn't do.
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff.
I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop...
I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said! There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff. I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop... I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.
It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said! There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff. I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop... I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.
It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.
So in a couple of years when the technology is embedded in lapel pins or other subtle wearables, and they are "always on", what do we do, ban jewelry and clothing accessories? This is like horse owners complaining about them new fangled motorized carriages because they are loud, dangerous and the money all goes to Detroit. Its just humans being humans.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those devices would run afoul of wiretap laws that are already on the books. The problem here is that whether or not Google specifically provides the software to do the spying, they're providing the hardware to do it. We have no way of knowing when or if the devices are recording things, so there's going to be well justified paranoia. Big data has already run amok online, but this hardware is much more visible than a script running on a server is.
And unlike the security cameras at the local store, there's
Re: (Score:3)
Well said!
There is a big difference between holding a phone vertically at eye hight (=most probably taking a picture) and the diagonal position used to crush candy or communicate via text or do other stuff.
I think it is a sign on the wall that 99% of the criticism is about taking pictures and only 1% about things like distraction and so forth. It is all about consent and not knowing if someone is (not) taking a picture. And even if the wearer is not actively engaged in taking pictures, remote access tools might be able to take over. There is a reason I got the webcam taped off on my laptop...
I just simply fail to see why a webcam strapped to a face is a nice idea.
It's not only about taking pictures and video without consent, it is about the device doing it being connected to the immense data collection machine that is Google, with capabilities to aggregate and correlate, track and face-recognize.
So in a couple of years when the technology is embedded in lapel pins or other subtle wearables, and they are "always on", what do we do, ban jewelry and clothing accessories? This is like horse owners complaining about them new fangled motorized carriages because they are loud, dangerous and the money all goes to Detroit. Its just humans being humans.
Yeah, yeah yeah, cast everybody who wants some privacy as an ignorant Luddite ... It's a cheap shot on your part and he still has a point. Plenty of people are going to be creeped out by Google Glass and the fact that it violates a deeply entrenched social norm probably going to be the greatest adoption hurdle that this device will encounter. It may be that your prediction is correct and that in future nobody will mind having their image beamed to Google's data-centres by an army of Glassholes but I rather
Re: (Score:3)
And where do you think credit bureaus are also getting data from? They just pay Googl
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:A lense cover (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They're filled with despondent middle aged guys who learned about marriage the hard way. These were the guys who thought they were hot shit in college because they were getting laid and foolishly thought that marriage was a continuation of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't see wearing Google Glass as being the same as holding up your phone as if you were about to take a photo. If you were to say "ok glass, take a photo" every few seconds or pushing the touch pad all the time they might get upset. Note that if you start recording video it stops after 10 seconds and for the entire duration the very visible LED is flashing.
Sorry, but most people just don't see the way you do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't generally walk around holding up their phone like they're recording you. When they are, we have the opportunity to say "don't take my picture!" or "don't record me!'
Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.
I like the pattern unlock. People's fingerprinted screens frequently give away their pattern, so the lock is worthless. Just look for the patterned smudge, and you're in.
Re: (Score:3)
just play candy crush and other such touch and drag games and watch the pattern unlock vanish into a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll frequently see discernable patterns. But ya, if the last thing they did was play a game, it may make it harder. So if you want in, wait for them to make unlocking the phone the last drag action.
Re: (Score:2)
And this, of course, is the crux of the problem. Between people keeping glass on when it's probably rude to do so, and people having a psychological response that somebody wearing glass must always be recording them (or at least readily in a position to do so).
Faced with a person who wears an HD button cam, however, they do not have this psychological response.. even though their every mo
We could, but we don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Faced with a person who wears an HD button cam, however, they do not have this psychological response.. even though their every move may very well be recorded; ignorance truly is bliss in this case.
Also, it is highly unlikely that significant numbers of people are going to go fit covert recording devices to their clothes and then upload the results to a massive database for mining by a megacorp. The technology exists, but most people don't use it, because it's obviously creepy. No doubt quite a few people would challenge or object to it if they did discover it happening.
A lot of the objection to Google Glass is that it erodes standards of socially acceptable behaviour in this respect, and it does so at the will of an organisation who are openly hostile to anyone having privacy any more. Schmidt and his pals made their bed, now they have to lie in it, and that sound you can't quite make out is the million tiny violins of sympathy that aren't playing for them right now.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true, and I certainly understand and appreciate the concern - the question is whether that is truly something people should fear; i.e. that Google will somehow switch it to 'always on' or start an interval snapshot, with results uploaded and analyzed to their servers.. or whether that is something that, should it come to be, would be met even by Google Glass owners as "no thanks" with them disabling it, taking Glass off (more often), or just not using it anymore at all.
I just find the psychology of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the track record of large tech organisations like Google when it comes to both privacy and their willingness to change terms and privacy policies dramatically and in their favour when it suits them, I personally think they exhausted any credibility they might have had there a long time ago. Moreover, given what we now know of various government organisations aggressively trying both to infiltrate these large tech organisations and to take direct control of devices with surveillance applications, we ha
Re:We could, but we don't (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't disagree with anything you wrote there, but please consider that any technical limitations of early models like today's Glass will probably be overcome by better battery life and improved mobile connectivity tomorrow, at which point all the concerns you rightly raise about CCTV could apply to personal recording devices as well. Relying on the fact that it can't (yet) do something undesirable doesn't seem like a very good plan, because it's much more likely this kind of thing will be stopped now when it's a new idea and a lot of people find it creepy than in five or ten years if it's merely a quantitative extension of universal spying that is already happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he "take it off" option isn't necessarily practical.
I'm not a Google Glass owner. If I were, I still need my prescription glasses to see normally. Otherwise, people are just a fuzzy blob, and doing something simple like reading a menu in a restaurant is pretty close to impossible. I can kind of guess at what words are based on the general shapes of the blobs.
I guess the option would be to carry a pair of regular glasses along with the expensive Google Glass, which then seems very silly.
So in a so
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Informative)
Google Glass is always pointed at the person they're talking to, and always gives the impression that they're recording.
No it doesn't. Recording with Glass requires you to say "okay glass, record a video". Recording is limited to 10 seconds, unless you are streaming it live as part of a video chat. In any case the LED flashes constantly while recording is in operation.
Recording all the time is impossible anyway as the battery only lasts 45 minutes from fully charged. Maybe if the guy walks around with a really long USB cable attached to his head you would need to worry. Anyway, if someone wants to record you there are much better, more subtle ways to do it than making endless 10 second recordings or trying to stay within range of a wifi network for streaming to a G+ hangout.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not quite sure how you got that from my post. No, I don't go around recoding people without their permission. People ask me to do it a lot, because they want some nice pictures or video to put online. I've deleted perfectly good pictures I've shot, because someone who I didn't have permission from got in the shot.
And no, I won't own Google Glass, because ... well ... it's a waste of money. And I don't want to piss people off by making them think I'm recording them all the time.
There are reasons
Re:A lense cover (Score:5, Insightful)
yet idiots have no problems with phones being pointed at them.
It's pretty obvious when a phone is being pointed *at* you instead of being used to play games/text/whatever.
And it will provoke a reaction from "idiots". Try it and see.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know which anti-social world you live in, but I have never met anyone who did not have a problem with a phone pointed at him by a stranger without asking - or a camera, for what its worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people forget Google is still primarily an advertising company (from a profit point of view) and everything they're doing is largely to protect and build that income. Sure they can't give you the facility to record
Re: (Score:2)
There was a time when people using mobile phones in the street were mugged not because the thief wanted their phone, but because people using mobile phones were considered to be antisocial snobs and deserved to get beaten up. People would sometimes just take the phone and throw it onto the floor to break it. Nowadays using a cell phone is the most normal thing in the world. When you were making a call using an earpiece, people used to wonder why you were talking to yourself while nowadays, when you really a
Quaint and backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't hope we'll ever come to that scenario.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other people using Google Glass to record information about others, which Google knows about, is not something one can control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Sure there is. Try going around getting up close to people, looking over their shoulders to see what they're doing, etc.
See how long you can last before being punched in the face and told to "mind your own business".
Re:Quaint and backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly, In any civil society there is an expectation of privacy in public. this whole idea that there isn't is a ridiculous fantasy told to us by those who care noting about civility,
Re: (Score:2)
Looking like dork is not a myth. (Score:5, Interesting)
You might as well have highwater pants, a short sleeved white dress shirt, and a pocket protector.
Forbes seems to refute some of Google's claims her (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/18/researchers-google-glass-spyware-sees-what-you-see
Re: (Score:2)
Mod this up --- article is well worth reading and 100% relevant.
Some technologies just rub people up the wrong way (Score:2)
Recording where you are look challenges P7 (Score:3, Insightful)
"Myth 7 - Glass is the perfect surveillance device"
Having something recording where you are looking is the main aspect that makes it such a perfect surveillance device, more than size or form factor.
They debunk this by saying that you can put together much more discrete recording devices. That is true.
However, if you think about it if Glass or something like it really were to become prevalent, it would be the perfect surveillance device - because it's always in a great position to record things, and also hiding in plain sight. Sure you CAN put together something else that works as well and is not as visible (though it's tough to have it looking where you look the way Glass does, or prevent it from being accidentally blocked), but that takes either a lot more effort or money.
People are just more comfortable with recording devices that make it more obvious when someone is recording by motion - holding up a phone, or even a wrist for a smart watch. Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.
Re: (Score:2)
Glasses possibly recording anything when someone is doing something people do naturally (just looking around) is what creeps a lot of people out.
If you are on the street and I record you with Glass, not only I need to be close but I also need to be stopped and looking at you. Directly. You are going to notice for sure. The option of course is that I just walk by and get a useless shot. You probably won't notice though. However if I take my phone out of my pocket and fake it a bit I can probably get a lot of video before you realize I'm recording you.
About surveillance, I must say I prefer there's lots of cameras on the streets controlled by regula
Re: (Score:2)
However, if you think about it if Glass or something like it really were to become prevalent, it would be the perfect surveillance device
Except that Glass has a glaring LED that flashes during recording. You could take it apart and disable it, but it would be cheaper to just get a hidden button or normal glasses camera and a lot less conspicuous. You can get hidden cameras built into normal looking glasses, no need for a big attachment and screen to give the game away.
People are just more comfortable with recording devices that make it more obvious when someone is recording by motion - holding up a phone, or even a wrist for a smart watch.
Or a flashing LED?
Too bad they can't dismiss the truth (Score:2)
In just a few years (Score:5, Funny)
I'm telling you man, in just a few years, NOT having a calculator on your watch is going to seem quaint and backwards!
Re: (Score:2)
Is it sad that I used to love my calculator watch? It probably is. But I can't even imagine wearing any watch anymore, much less something like the calculator watches I used to love...
Perhaps smart watches actually will do well because things are cyclical, and the time for super-bulky tech watches has come again. But since I already rode that wave, I'm sitting this one out.
I didn't need a calculator watch, but I still got one. Sort of like a tablet. I don't need one, but I wanted one and got one. And it has a calculator also! =)
My favorite was the pacman watch I had, able to play pacman on the go. http://www.digital-watch.com/D... [digital-watch.com]
Indicator (Score:2)
My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on. Sure it will not be recording all the time but I only care it it is recording when it is pointed at me. How about a small led (it does not have to be red) that is on when Glass is on. I don't mean recording because snap shots can be taken in a split second. Yes it will make Glass even more dorky but I think it would help with people's acceptance.
Re: (Score:3)
My biggest objection to Glass is that there is no way for anyone else to know when it is on.
Except for the light that comes on when you speak a command or record video, there's absolutely no way to know.
Re: (Score:2)
What I mean is the light to be on whenever there is power to the hardware. If it can respond to a voice command it is on and the light should be on. I also can not found anywhere that there is a light visible to someone other than the Glass user. If there is power to the Glass the light should be on.
Re: (Score:2)
A light visible to the person not wearing it?
Re: (Score:2)
How about a Locutus-style laser pointer?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a but more than necessary, lol
GoPro HD vs. Google Glass (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like noticing another person in a crowd looking at you vs. noticing a policeman looking at you.
If you have to diffuse myths you've already lost (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are even products that you think you must have but then they don't get used.
And once in a blue moon there is a product that does take some getting used to. But these are quite rare.
People for instance complain that the Segway is too expensive. But even free I am not sure that many people would regularly use them. The Roomba seems brilliant but most people who buy the
Re: (Score:2)
Smearing and blurring a myth does not do any good. You want to disarm or defuse it.
Ich bin nicht ein Grammarnazi.
Glass has serious, inherent problems (Score:2)
The thing is, the problems with Glass are not myths at all. They are serious social concerns dealing with privacy, anonymity, malware, prejudice, discrimination, and danger to one's person.
Can Glass implement facial ID? Yes. Can we expect people to act out on the basis of an ID and subsequent information gathering, as opposed to anonymity? Yes. Can Glass pass on things you do to a 3rd party, including things like typing your passwords? Yes.
Until or unless Google comprehensively addresses these concerns (and
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 1990s owning a cell phone made you a "yuppie asshole" in a lot of people's eyes, and a lot of bars and restaurants banned them. Although that was probably more of a class envy thing versus distrust of the technology.
I'll bet it had a hell of a lot more to do with the technology than you think.
People didn't want open microphones in a bar 20 years ago any more than they want someone walking around with a camera on their face today.
And likely for the exact same reasons.
Mobile Porno perving apps (Score:2)
So my new myth is that 69% of people will Google glass are mostly being pervs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truly, you lack imagination. The app could easily limit itself to male or female, slim or fat, blonde or brunette, white or black, etc., ad infinitum. It could use facial recog to check for actual nudes of that person on the net, and if found, map them to or display them with or instead of the person you're looking at, or just take a "best guess." Apps wouldn't have to be Google approved; they could be sideloaded, etc. So Google's "policies" are irrelevant. And a device that takes pictures that can't be upl
Re: (Score:3)
I am certain that when you can do a full overlay that people will be able to alter their reality so that instead of walking down Main St that they are walking in a Star Wars/Star Trek/etc fantasy world. The idea is that everything that they see will be based upon the reality in front of them but Storm Troopers instead of the actual policeman, floating cars instead of the actual car. Then when you cross the street, if you avoid the fake fl
Cyborg's Are People Too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I agree with remembering everything I see, but when I upgrade to ocular implants, opposition to my vision is going to seem far more hostile than "quaint and backwards" to me.
There was a time when some demanded others not to meet their gaze. Oh how they'd have loved to forbid recollection or even erase the very memories of their transgressions from the minds of those they oppressed. Try as they might the tyrants could not keep reality from existing. Be careful, humans, history has a way of repeating in new and more horrible ways than those of the current cycle dare dream.
Protip: Organic chauvanists are as wrong as human chauvinists or gender chauvinists or racial chauvinists.
I already know who's side I'll be fighting for. Since the first human hefted the first stone tool machines and man have helped each other prosper. Long has it been established that ones who forbid others wield technologies are quick to render themselves irrelevant. Those that fight against the natural order by which humanity has gained its prosperity over all other organic life are like apes who could speak but refuse: Indistinguishable from the other primitive and bloody minded animals.
Awareness and Life itself are processes of reflection on experience, encoded molecularly in DNA, structurally and chemically in brains, symbolically in cultures, and now digitally in the cells that make up the world wide neural network. You are merely one result in a sea of outcomes from the universe's struggle to gain awareness of itself via producing more perfect expressions capable of reflecting more precisely ever larger and more detailed descriptions of reality. To fight the nature of the universe is to lose against the laws of physics and entropy themselves: Adapt or become extinct.
Protip: You're an idiot. (Score:2)
Yes. This is why everyone should be able to cook up bio-warfare weapons in their basement, right next to the family fission devices, the latest in torture racks, and the fully automated slave quarters.
Oh, wait. Your starry-eyed blathering completely ignores the fact that some technologies are
Re: (Score:3)
Thats a little excessive. Wouldn't you start off with something a bit less hostile, like you asking them to remove the device first, preferably in a pleasant no hostile voice.
Why you feel the need to instantly resort to violence makes me wonder whether you need to be in public.
Not defending glass but if you came into my bar with your douche bag attitude, my bouncers would make short work of you before depositing you in the sidewalk. I promise you, how ever big you feel, they are bigger.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dicks Getting Punched Not New (Score:4, Insightful)
Dicks getting punched for being dicks is nothing new. If you had walked through a college party ten years ago, taking pictures of people without getting their attention first, it wouldn't take more than ten photos before your camera met an untimely demise. The new thing here is the device making it impossible to tell when you are being a dick, not the reaction to such dickish behavior.
To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot. Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing.
Frankly, I don't think you've got the balls to do it, because you know it is wrong. And if you do, whether because you are a big enough dick not to care or because you genuinely don't understand that it is wrong, I give it less than ten minutes before someone fervently explains to you that your behavior is uncivil.
Re: (Score:2)
Dicks getting punched for being dicks is nothing new. If you had walked through a college party ten years ago, taking pictures of people without getting their attention first, it wouldn't take more than ten photos before your camera met an untimely demise. The new thing here is the device making it impossible to tell when you are being a dick, not the reaction to such dickish behavior.
To those who claim that glassholes are doing nothing wrong, try this little experiment: Go to your local Wal-Mart, when the parking lot is busy with people walking in and out, take out your digital camera, and walk through a busy part of the parking lot. Squat down behind each car, and take a close-up photo of the license plate. Make sure it is very clear what you are doing.
Frankly, I don't think you've got the balls to do it, because you know it is wrong. And if you do, whether because you are a big enough dick not to care or because you genuinely don't understand that it is wrong, I give it less than ten minutes before someone fervently explains to you that your behavior is uncivil.
Uh, sorry but your shitty example here is well, rather shitty.
People pay extra at the DMV for custom license plates to be made. Therefore, that is an object that people are actively trying to get complete strangers to pay attention to them, their plate, or their car (or all three).
I will give you credit for picking the right parking lot. Guaranteed to get some ignorant moron in a Wal-Mart parking lot willing to go to jail on assault and battery charges for attacking someone doing something perfectly legal
Re: (Score:2)
With you so far....
Is this something 'glassholes' do? They squat down and take pictures of license plates using
Project idea (Score:2)
Time for a new kickstarter project: "Burn that Glasshole"
It's basically a glass with a laser fitted in the frame.
It directs at any Google Glass (tm) camera in sight.
Google arrogance (Score:5, Informative)
Preaching to the choir. (Score:2)
Posts to the true believers does nothing but reinforce the suspicion that your eyes and ears are closed to dissenting voices.
There is better spy tech out there than Google Glass. That isn't a good argument for making the use of concealed recording devices socially acceptable. You shouldn't be arguing that short battery life makes Glass harmless, Batteries can be swapped in and out, as many as you can carry.
Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that makes people think Glass is nothing but a surveillance device SPECIFICALLY conceived to record them and absolutely nothing else?
Get real, people. It's impossible for that device to be recording 24/7. It's unrealistic to think it's going to automagically upload the video to Google for analysis. Just apply some common sense. If no other device can, so can't Glass.
I like the idea of the device for AR experiments, information delivery and yes, taking the occasional picture of something that would take longer to prepare and set a camera, such as birds (that will fly away the moment you prepare your camera or phone) and finished elaborate pastries which I am very proud of. I have no intention or interest on recording people doing mundane boring daily crap that I have no business recording.
Anyway, this shows a very ugly collective paranoia that should stop before somebody gets hurt for no reason. Yes, I specifically say hurt because that's the common thing: "If I see some glasshole pointing that thing at me I'll DESTROY THEM". And, no, guys, you AREN'T that interesting to warrant recording you. Unless you are some form of celebrity, which I doubt.
Nerd bravado at its best. Seriously. Mod me troll if you wish, I don't care, but someone has to say this.
Re: (Score:2)
The comments here have made me realize what the problem is here: Slashdot has started to believe in magic. Magical internet connections able to stream video 24/7 at no expense, and more.
Stop believing everyone wants to get you before you get sued for assaulting or stealing from someone, that's my advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but I can still sue you for it, and I'll probably win as the device WILL be scanned for evidence of me recording you, and when they don't find it, you'll have to pay me a lot of cash in damages.
Starting to see how things work?
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
And you are a first class idiot for not seeing that's what people says the problem is. Read the comments, including yours.
Also, you do nothing but confirm my post. Paranoia, violence and insulting to top it all.
First, you smartass, when you try to assault someone, they won't quietly wait for their turn, you are likely to get punched too. Second, you ARE going to get sued for assault and/or destruction of someone's property. Evidence of you being recorded will not be found, and you will have to pay good money or even prison time for it. That should teach you a lesson for next time.
Also how is AR or taking pictures of large cakes being "a creepy fuck", did you even read the post? Or you will repeat that argument no matter what I say? You sir, are a creepy idiot I wouldn't like nearby. Prone to violence and paranoid? Hell no, go away.
God damn it's like if you people didn't live in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
answer me this. How do you get video off the glass.
Oh thats right it's uploaded to Google. I for one would prefer that Google stop collecting (spying) on our lives. It serves us no purpose and is extremely intrusive. So when you volunteer to pay a large sum for the pleasure of working against your neighbors for the purpose of enriching the wallets of Google execs please don't be surprised when your neighbors push back.
Put it this way, film my kids, expect a confrontation, and then see how rough the courts a
Re: (Score:2)
The device has 12gb of storage. Syncing is optional, as with all android devices. (Not to mention expensive because 3g/4g aren't usually flatrates, and have tight limits on upload speed and/or bandwidth quota, and phone-recorded video is enough to hit the caps with a few minutes of it, after which you are either fined per mb consumed, or throttled to the point of being unusable).
Again, be REALISTIC. And get your facts straight if you want to argue and not sound even more paranoid.
Also. What are you implying
Re: (Score:2)
They are not made to invade YOUR space. Unless you are famous, and then your face is already everywhere. You sound like some diva who doesn't want paparazzi around. You aren't, Anonymous Coward. You aren't. Learn humility and then you can discuss things with the adults.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, why should I be interested in recording YOU? Why? What do you do that requires my attention, or Google's? All they will know is that you were at some place at some time at best, which they probably know already from your phone. They will just have some machines identify faces at best, they won't be able to know you were reading a certain newspaper to send you ads for it. Software can't make such realizations, and they surely won't have a legion of observers looking at live footage 24/7 to tag it. Be
Again the bad comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem with google glass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Arresting someone that isn't breaking the law is itself illegal.
(Taking pictures in public, as well as using a heads-up display device in public are both totally legal, so long as you aren't driving.)
Calling someone a 'Glasshole' for simply wearing a specific accessory is not only close-minded and uncalled for, but totally rude.
(Try waiting for them to do something to deserve the insult, like insulting people without just cause.)
As far as I'm concerned, the
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that beating up a "glasshole" will get YOU arrested and the like. Note that wearing Google Glass is NOT a crime, nor is it justification for assault & battery.
Re: (Score:3)
You are not doing things that you _think_ are illegal _now_. Maybe a bored prosecutor will think differently in a few years and financially ruin you just the same or even manage to convince a jury (of typically: idiots) that you should go away for a long time. Or maybe you develop some ideas that those in power do not like to much the same result.
Also refer to http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com] "You Commit Three Felonies a Day".
"Glasshole", btw., is already a while old and not my creation.
Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (Score:5, Insightful)
That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.
Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (Score:4, Insightful)
That you even need to ask clearly indicates that your moral development as a person has failed. But by all means, try it, break common decency and see what it gets you.
So far no issues. Not everyone is a real asshole worrying about what I do or don't. Everyone that has approached me about Glass just wanted to try it out. Only time I was asked not to carry it (at a posh restaurant where everyone was taking pictures with their phones) I just took it off (note: Now I wouldn't, because I have prescription lenses - if I can't wear glasses at a restaurant I just go somewhere else).
Anyway the fact that you think my moral development has failed because I wear Glass really says a lot about you. Wearing Glass is enough for you? Nothing else matters?
Re:No, really.... (Score:4, Insightful)
People do not want to get filmed by strangers without their consent, be it with a phone, camera, or Google glasses. What's so hard to understand about this? Did you grow up in a household with a public toilet cam or what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
Re:Yea, because glassholes will have learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing. They just do it without the physical motions that would otherwise provide the visual cues to indicate what they're doing.
Bullshit.
Bullshit, again. I'm in Seattle. We get a lot of tourists. They're easy to spot with their cameras. And people do step out of the way of their shots.
Got one already. Me having a life does not mean that you are not an ass hole.
You being an ass hole does not mean that I do not have a life.
Re: (Score:2)
Really - the camera on Glass is not useful at all to record or photograph someone without them knowing. If I take a picture of you at 10 meters the picture is useless. There's no zoom, no flash...
Perhaps not now, but how can we expect anything other than version next to have 18-20 Mega Pixel device with a huge focal range? More and more of the cell phones are moving into that territory. With that kind of sensor density and decent lens you can capture plenty of detail at 10 meters.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think a Glass user can do that a phone user can't?
They can walk around maybe recording at any time. Someone who points a phone at me for a moment probably took a photo. Someone who points it at me continuously is probably taking a video. Either action is conspicuous which means that I can choose to leave, or I can confront them if they're doing it inappropriately.
Camera etiquette has been refined for a hundred years. Glass upsets the balance because it doesn't provide those visual cues. People who don't want to be recorded therefore presume it's not r
Re: (Score:2)
I see something similar at work even without Glass involved, although not quite to "frothing psychotic" level - our Dell laptop of choice has a webcam, which leads to a (small, granted) subset of our users being utterly convinced that they are being watched through it at all times....so they tape paper/stickers/etc. over them, and are very resistant to being convinced otherwise.
One user even went so far as to call the IT dept. of a local university in high dudgeon after being asked to remove the obstruction
Re: (Score:3)
I see something similar at work even without Glass involved, although not quite to "frothing psychotic" level - our Dell laptop of choice has a webcam, which leads to a (small, granted) subset of our users being utterly convinced that they are being watched through it at all times...
No, that is not what led to that. What led to that is that these cameras do not by law have to have an LED which comes on when the device is active. Some few cameras have a LED which is on any time the camera is on. More cameras have an LED which is actually completely separate from the camera itself and which is switched in software and you have only the manufacturer's word that the driver will do the right thing. And then there are the many cameras with no indication of whether they are turned on or not,