Google Glass: The Opposition Grows(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Google Glass: The Opposition Grows
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57574607-93/google-glass-the-opposition-grows/
50 comments
The video doesn't prove google glass is invasive. It just shows that people don't tolerate jerks too well. Even without the camera, having some weirdo come up and stare at you without having the decency to respond to you is of course going to annoy people. Nothing to do with technology.
It also ignores many of the things you can currently do. I've recorded more then one meeting by simply leaving my iPhone on record mode in my pocket. Audio is frequently more damning then video, and anyone can do that these days without giving anything away.
The right to privacy in public is generally regarded as a right to casual privacy - in the sense that many people can hear and may capture or accidentally record what you say, but won't publish or broadcast these events.
It seems the problem with Google Glass is more that it's forcing people to consider what has been true for a very long time: that wherever you go, chances are you're recorded in dozens of ways, by dozens of people, and the only actual defense is essentially social ettiquette in handling this content (and the fact that most people just don't care about who you are or what you do).
The right to privacy in public is generally regarded as a right to casual privacy - in the sense that many people can hear and may capture or accidentally record what you say, but won't publish or broadcast these events.
It seems the problem with Google Glass is more that it's forcing people to consider what has been true for a very long time: that wherever you go, chances are you're recorded in dozens of ways, by dozens of people, and the only actual defense is essentially social ettiquette in handling this content (and the fact that most people just don't care about who you are or what you do).
Indeed. The premise is flawed to begin with. From the link:
> "If a complete stranger holds a camera to your face you know what he is doing and you have a legitimate reason to tell him to stop doing it, most of you will probably object to it."
As a street photographer, that last part is entirely false. The vast majority of people have no objections to being photographed in public - almost all reactions I've ever gotten have ranged between "huh? meh" and "oh cool!".
The reactions he got in the video was because he was behaving like Lord Regent of the Universe, not because he was recording someone. My unscientific estimate is that >95% of the people I've ever taken pictures of (all strangers, almost all without seeking permission beforehand), are either ambivalent or downright approving.
Which goes towards the point: Google Glass is the vehicle for the problem, not the problem itself. The problem, as it has always been, is with assholes.
> "If a complete stranger holds a camera to your face you know what he is doing and you have a legitimate reason to tell him to stop doing it, most of you will probably object to it."
As a street photographer, that last part is entirely false. The vast majority of people have no objections to being photographed in public - almost all reactions I've ever gotten have ranged between "huh? meh" and "oh cool!".
The reactions he got in the video was because he was behaving like Lord Regent of the Universe, not because he was recording someone. My unscientific estimate is that >95% of the people I've ever taken pictures of (all strangers, almost all without seeking permission beforehand), are either ambivalent or downright approving.
Which goes towards the point: Google Glass is the vehicle for the problem, not the problem itself. The problem, as it has always been, is with assholes.
As a consumer, I'd have less problems with Glass if it were developed and sold by a company that has nothing to do with advertising and has little interest in users' data (maybe like Canon, Nikon, or JVC). But even then, I wouldn't want to use it.
I also won't interact with people while they are wearing Glass. I do not like it when people take my picture without my permission, and Glass is practically a spy camera. Worse, it not only takes pictures, but video with audio and GPS information.
I also won't interact with people while they are wearing Glass. I do not like it when people take my picture without my permission, and Glass is practically a spy camera. Worse, it not only takes pictures, but video with audio and GPS information.
This is idiotic opposition. Spy cameras exist. Bluetooth earpieces exist, Glass is interesting for what it receives (the server software integration) and for its HUD, not what it caputures and transmits.
Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable. Spy cameras and earpieces don't exist with the intention of ubiquitous use while Glass does.
Can you imagine everyone you know who wears glasses now using a camera at all times?
Can you imagine everyone you know who wears glasses now using a camera at all times?
Google Glass will make recording others openly acceptable.
Or it will result in a literally violent backlash against constant privacy invasion.
Or hopefully something in between, like the village who just ran the Google Street View car out of town when they heard it was coming (though it was disappointing to hear that Google later went back and got the footage anyway).
Mass surveillance is not OK, and is a Pandora's box situation where once the data is out there, realistically it's never getting deleted again. Privacy has evolved as a valued concept in just about every civilised society for good reasons. It's just a shame that a generation of Facebook addicts are too busy getting their hit to notice all the negative consequences to the kind of culture they're inviting.
Or it will result in a literally violent backlash against constant privacy invasion.
Or hopefully something in between, like the village who just ran the Google Street View car out of town when they heard it was coming (though it was disappointing to hear that Google later went back and got the footage anyway).
Mass surveillance is not OK, and is a Pandora's box situation where once the data is out there, realistically it's never getting deleted again. Privacy has evolved as a valued concept in just about every civilised society for good reasons. It's just a shame that a generation of Facebook addicts are too busy getting their hit to notice all the negative consequences to the kind of culture they're inviting.
[deleted]
Wouldn't it only be the people who want to use a camera?
Unless you are suggesting that all glasses in the future will have video/audio technologies?
I don't think much of Glass. Just doesn't appeal to me but I am curious about what makes it special for others.
I don't think much of Glass. Just doesn't appeal to me but I am curious about what makes it special for others.
Many people are interested in Glass as a heads-up display or wearable computer, not as a camera. "Many" may end up being a very small number, but it stands to reason that it's larger than the number of people that actively desire to record strangers.
Unfortunately, the current model requires both a microphone (to hear you) and a camera (to see gestures), so even well-intentioned users will still be brandishing recording devices in ways that make others uncomfortable.
Unfortunately, the current model requires both a microphone (to hear you) and a camera (to see gestures), so even well-intentioned users will still be brandishing recording devices in ways that make others uncomfortable.
Maybe for the wearer that's interesting, there's no such distinction to the people being recorded; they can't see what the wearer is up to with the device.
The glasses are already getting banned...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-...
I drink gallons of Google-Koolaid, but even I can see(pun intended?) that Google glasses is going to have some social issues. Even I will be a bit uneasy talking to someone wearing them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-...
I drink gallons of Google-Koolaid, but even I can see(pun intended?) that Google glasses is going to have some social issues. Even I will be a bit uneasy talking to someone wearing them.
They admitted it was a publicity stunt: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/03/10/seattle-bar...
argh! well now I know. :-)
I'm still guessing a ban will happen somewhere.
I'm still guessing a ban will happen somewhere.
Then why doesn't it come without a camera?
The more interesting question is how many multiples of existing growth will it be before Google start to use the data they collect in incredibly unfriendly ways.
How will they push their stock price above $1000? $1200?
I'd like to suggest another metric: September 11s (or "9/11s"). How many 9/11s will it be before Google's reuse of the data they collect is popularly legitimized, in their new role as the nation's biggest defence contractor? This is an insane idea, but I fear not sufficiently insane. I'd peg it at under a quarter of one 9/11.
The company must grow somehow. It must keep growing. As it exhausts its old business areas and sacrifices any ideals it may have once held, you have to at least entertain these crazy outcomes.
How will they push their stock price above $1000? $1200?
I'd like to suggest another metric: September 11s (or "9/11s"). How many 9/11s will it be before Google's reuse of the data they collect is popularly legitimized, in their new role as the nation's biggest defence contractor? This is an insane idea, but I fear not sufficiently insane. I'd peg it at under a quarter of one 9/11.
The company must grow somehow. It must keep growing. As it exhausts its old business areas and sacrifices any ideals it may have once held, you have to at least entertain these crazy outcomes.
True, Cyberdyne Systems didn't start out as a defense contractor either.
Maybe they could create an RSS reader, and keep track of analytics and behaviour on how people read and consume their favorite sites' content, then insert relevant ads in that experience?
Or perhaps they could create designer glasses, and use the two face recognition companies (Viewdle, Neven Vision) they have bought since 2006 to keep track of population behaviour, then sell relevant feeds to panicked (0.25 9/11s) or eagerly demanding (1.0 9/11s) governments.
And then after it is widely used they could discontinue it.
As they push their own walled garden to compete with the decentralized model that nurtured them into their power.
Standards are the way that little players compete against near monopolies. They help the small companies and the consumers.
That's why it can't be too surprising that when a little player turns into the main player, they suddenly lose enthusiasm for standards.
That's why it can't be too surprising that when a little player turns into the main player, they suddenly lose enthusiasm for standards.
Eveeyone keeps saying that but how is it a wet dream and why is it bad? Give me a concrete example.
I used to withhold face-palm reactions to opinions that differed from my own on the premise that all views deserve to be heard, but there is so much ridiculous opposition in the world now, that it's become burdensome.
Even reading this trash article was in just about all respects, a horrible waste of time.
Even reading this trash article was in just about all respects, a horrible waste of time.
I really have no idea, based on your short comment, what your position is on omnipresent surveillance. I, for one, have no problem supporting bars that promise an ass kicking to anyone who shows up wearing google glass - I'm hoping we all quickly agree that, with clear exceptions (repair jobs, field surveys, photo shoots, reporters) - that they won't be an appropriate social use of technology.
> I, for one, have no problem supporting bars that promise an ass kicking to anyone who shows up wearing google glass
Bars can just ban photography and ask their customers to not have Glasses on without the need of any sort of ass kicking. I would never go to a bar that advertises ass kicking as a feature - independent of whether I have/wear Glasses or not.
Bars can just ban photography and ask their customers to not have Glasses on without the need of any sort of ass kicking. I would never go to a bar that advertises ass kicking as a feature - independent of whether I have/wear Glasses or not.
[deleted]
For anything really, sides rally amongst themselves. We have differing opinions on issues all the time. I have a side concern about how we consider technology, and science in general. I really think it should be elevated to something more like free speech. That the dangers of not producing and experimenting with technology far outweigh fears of it harming ourselves. Well maybe not a belief but a hope. Something to strive for.
What would life be like if everyone wore a spy camera that transcribed all conversations and uploaded them to various internet services all the time? If you knew everyone you ever talked to recorded it all and put it on the internet?
Once your data is recorded, you can't take it back 30 years down the road if you decide you don't like the direction the company has taken, or if privacy laws have changed to no longer be in your favor. The data is already out there. If you think changes in the TOS are bad now...
And your info won't just go to Google. There will be apps. You'll "Post this conversation to Facebook" or something equally stupid. Now fifty different niche websites are accessing things you said to your friend that you never uploaded. (Also, remember seeing in the news that some jobs require your facebook password as part of the interview process? What if that became more common? What if it wasn't just facebook, but everything you ever did, said, or saw happen?)
Our personalities will change, too. We'll become accustomed to constant and total self-censorship
People's data will be subpoenaed too, or just made available for general monitoring in some dictatorship somewhere. Maybe you once had a conversation with someone who later is investigated for something, and out of context your conversation sounds terrible. Now they investigate you. This investigation won't lead to a conviction, but it might fuck your life up for a few months. And that's an optimistic scenario.
I don't really believe it's stoppable though. We're not taking smartphones back. This is just a smartphone strapped to your head. We probably will tell people not to wear them in certain places, but how long will that last? We'll get used to it, like we got used to the TSA. Technology is only going to get more ubiquitous. Maybe we can fight fire with fire. The cypherpunks have been doing it for a while.
Play devil's advocate sometimes. Google Glass may end up being the best thing ever, but we should always question things. If the answer to the question is good, then it doesn't matter that we asked, but if it's bad... we'll be damn glad we did.
Once your data is recorded, you can't take it back 30 years down the road if you decide you don't like the direction the company has taken, or if privacy laws have changed to no longer be in your favor. The data is already out there. If you think changes in the TOS are bad now...
And your info won't just go to Google. There will be apps. You'll "Post this conversation to Facebook" or something equally stupid. Now fifty different niche websites are accessing things you said to your friend that you never uploaded. (Also, remember seeing in the news that some jobs require your facebook password as part of the interview process? What if that became more common? What if it wasn't just facebook, but everything you ever did, said, or saw happen?)
Our personalities will change, too. We'll become accustomed to constant and total self-censorship
People's data will be subpoenaed too, or just made available for general monitoring in some dictatorship somewhere. Maybe you once had a conversation with someone who later is investigated for something, and out of context your conversation sounds terrible. Now they investigate you. This investigation won't lead to a conviction, but it might fuck your life up for a few months. And that's an optimistic scenario.
I don't really believe it's stoppable though. We're not taking smartphones back. This is just a smartphone strapped to your head. We probably will tell people not to wear them in certain places, but how long will that last? We'll get used to it, like we got used to the TSA. Technology is only going to get more ubiquitous. Maybe we can fight fire with fire. The cypherpunks have been doing it for a while.
Play devil's advocate sometimes. Google Glass may end up being the best thing ever, but we should always question things. If the answer to the question is good, then it doesn't matter that we asked, but if it's bad... we'll be damn glad we did.
I think this was a far better summary of the opposition to Google Glass:
http://gawker.com/5990395/if-you-wear-googles-new-glasses-yo...
"If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole"
http://gawker.com/5990395/if-you-wear-googles-new-glasses-yo...
"If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole"
> They say that it will herald a world in which "privacy is impossible and corporate control total."
They have this temporally reversed. This world heralded Glass. (Unfortunately. Stallman could say, "Told you so.")
They have this temporally reversed. This world heralded Glass. (Unfortunately. Stallman could say, "Told you so.")
Like all things, it would have some good use and bad use. But technology WILL evolve, and many people would adopt. It ultimately settles at a healthy balance.
In general though, privacy has been dead on the net for a long time now. In life outside the net too, the guy opposite you could have the camera on while he holds the phone in his hand. So yes, some people would have issues with this, but generalizing that response to a majority would be exaggeration.
In general though, privacy has been dead on the net for a long time now. In life outside the net too, the guy opposite you could have the camera on while he holds the phone in his hand. So yes, some people would have issues with this, but generalizing that response to a majority would be exaggeration.
Theres alot of new tech i am really excited about. Next generation smartphones & tablets, things like Leap Motion/Kinect/MYO, cheap and tiny computers etc.
But Glass isnt really one of them... I cant shake the feeling it will end up in the same strange spot as bluetooth headsets and it just has alot of potential issues with privacy, usability (voice only?) and general appearance.
But Glass isnt really one of them... I cant shake the feeling it will end up in the same strange spot as bluetooth headsets and it just has alot of potential issues with privacy, usability (voice only?) and general appearance.
"There's no way of even knowing if someone else is recording you through their glasses from somewhere in the cloud."
I wonder if the author makes sure to turn their monitor to face the wall when they've finished working so hackers can't film them while they sleep.
I wonder if the author makes sure to turn their monitor to face the wall when they've finished working so hackers can't film them while they sleep.
stopthecyborgs? Looks like more microsoft astroturfing. The backlash is growing in microsoft's dreams only.
Resistance to technologies like Glass is pointless. They're going to happen, and a whole lot more to boot, like it or not. People running around demonising Google or Glass are just silly - Google is just one of the few global entities with the necessary resources and vision to consciously make the next big steps in a pretty plain sequence.
The real question is adaptation - as Clay Shirky says, it's all about learning how to work with the wind, not against it.
The real question is adaptation - as Clay Shirky says, it's all about learning how to work with the wind, not against it.
One of the things that hurt the Segway's early adoption was that it was legislated against its intended use as a walking replacement -- they were legislated against (or rather, considered powered vehicles) by many nations and local governments. They are still illegal to drive on sidewalks in the UK.
If enough people block the use of Glass, it could have an adverse effect on its sales and growth.
If enough people block the use of Glass, it could have an adverse effect on its sales and growth.
Were laws really the reason why the Segway didn't take off?
I figure it didn't take off for the same reason non-overly obese people don't use Rascal carts. People were worried about being perceived as lazy. They're also really expensive, so you'd be perceived as snobbish as well.
Just look at Gob's character in Arrested Development. They didn't stick him on a Segway because he's a prudent person that needs to get to places in a hurry.
I figure it didn't take off for the same reason non-overly obese people don't use Rascal carts. People were worried about being perceived as lazy. They're also really expensive, so you'd be perceived as snobbish as well.
Just look at Gob's character in Arrested Development. They didn't stick him on a Segway because he's a prudent person that needs to get to places in a hurry.
I've always thought Segway's failure was simply because it created more problems than it solved.
It was expensive, large, you had to find somewhere to park it, you had to remember to charge it, it came with an aura of snobbishness (at that price tag, not entirely undeserved).
And it solved... what? In suburban America it doesn't go fast or far enough to get you anywhere in reasonable time. In urban America the distances people walk aren't worth all of the above compromises.
The Segway makes no sense to the suburbanite whose main mode of transportation involved their garage door opener. The Segway also makes no sense to the urbanite who can walk 100 feet to the closest grocery store.
It was a marvelously cool technology looking to solve a problem very few people actually had.
It was expensive, large, you had to find somewhere to park it, you had to remember to charge it, it came with an aura of snobbishness (at that price tag, not entirely undeserved).
And it solved... what? In suburban America it doesn't go fast or far enough to get you anywhere in reasonable time. In urban America the distances people walk aren't worth all of the above compromises.
The Segway makes no sense to the suburbanite whose main mode of transportation involved their garage door opener. The Segway also makes no sense to the urbanite who can walk 100 feet to the closest grocery store.
It was a marvelously cool technology looking to solve a problem very few people actually had.
It solved problems for cities and city planners. A Segway user could be like an enhanced pedestrian. You could have fewer stores serve a larger populace. It didn't get to do this because it didn't solve its own chicken and egg problem.
There are other, better, technologies in the same solution space, e.g. bicycles, which are more useful, familiar, vastly cheaper, more reliable (e.g. don't need charging, simpler all-mechanical design), and already have tons of existing infrastructure. Bicycles have drawbacks (e.g. the "what do you do with it" issue common to almost all vehicles), but nothing that the segway doesn't also have.
The segway solved nothing. It was a neat toy.
The segway solved nothing. It was a neat toy.
I think the only reason was price. If it costed less than a scooter you'd have kids rolling around the place on these things, and adults eventually too.
The Segway was a stupid idea:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/segsuck2.jpg
Source: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=segway_more_...
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/segsuck2.jpg
Source: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=segway_more_...
It's good to see there's some sense left in the world.
Resistance is futile - but I applaud the effort.
What a shame, you are going to miss on all these ads that Google has them lined up for you. Google Glass apps might even sell the fact that your voice is coarse today and convince Johnson & Johnson for $1.50 off a cough medicine. Or use an app analyze your toilet bowl before flushing to see if Kellogg's cereal would benefit your diet. Or suggest some new makeup to your girl friends, maybe it's the lighting but it seems like they could use some new makeup. They'd love that. Who wouldn't, right? You are so hip.
Google Glass was designed by people that make a living by tracking you, your friends and by annoying the hell out of you with advertisements. That is the fundamental problem, it solves their problems, not yours. For almost everyone, there is no need to walk with glasses on, unless the designer of such glasses needs to know every step you take. Need directions? Check the phone and check it again 5 minutes later. No need to look like a glasshole.
Google Glass was designed by people that make a living by tracking you, your friends and by annoying the hell out of you with advertisements. That is the fundamental problem, it solves their problems, not yours. For almost everyone, there is no need to walk with glasses on, unless the designer of such glasses needs to know every step you take. Need directions? Check the phone and check it again 5 minutes later. No need to look like a glasshole.
Disclosure: I work at Google.
I wanted to explain myself when I downvoted you, but I am just going to say that I would rather be a glasshole than be that bitter.
I wanted to explain myself when I downvoted you, but I am just going to say that I would rather be a glasshole than be that bitter.
Disclosure: I work at Google.
Or changing the world one ad click and one snoop at a time. (since you started it)
Fine. Being bitter, assuming I am, can be transitory. Once your sell your soul for a salary, you can never get it back.
You have a couple of years before "Googler" becomes a toxic word. Maybe less, given Larry's focus on squeezing every penny out of the ecosystem, so plan accordingly.
Or changing the world one ad click and one snoop at a time. (since you started it)
Fine. Being bitter, assuming I am, can be transitory. Once your sell your soul for a salary, you can never get it back.
You have a couple of years before "Googler" becomes a toxic word. Maybe less, given Larry's focus on squeezing every penny out of the ecosystem, so plan accordingly.
I downvoted you, and I don't work at Google.
Get off the high horse - tell me what you do for a living and I can find just as morally damning words to say about you. Unless you are curing cancer at an orphanage for paraplegics, the morality of your career is, like the rest of us, more gray than it is black or white.
So stop it with the meaningless emotional rhetoric and attack someone's arguments on its own merits. To pretend that all Google does is shove ads in your face, and that their only accomplishments to date have been so, is either brutally ignorant or blatantly and deliberately disingenuous.
Get off the high horse - tell me what you do for a living and I can find just as morally damning words to say about you. Unless you are curing cancer at an orphanage for paraplegics, the morality of your career is, like the rest of us, more gray than it is black or white.
So stop it with the meaningless emotional rhetoric and attack someone's arguments on its own merits. To pretend that all Google does is shove ads in your face, and that their only accomplishments to date have been so, is either brutally ignorant or blatantly and deliberately disingenuous.
I can see myself smacking someone for taking videos/pictures of me without my consent, by holding a camera right in my face. Google Glass almost legitimizes that kind of behavior. "Oh I can record our conversation because the camera is inside the glass and look its shiny."
Like the video of this guy holding a camera to random people's face: http://www.slashgeek.net/2013/02/26/google-glass-privacy/
NOT OK!