The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Privacy in the world of [Google Glass] and wearable computing . . . and wifi, apparently
spacekungfuman
Poor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Poor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
People in modern society carry an incredible amount of technology with them everywhere they go, including tiny computers which are many times more powerful than the room sized computers from the not too distant past. We have gone from
To
But despite the absolute wonder that is the modern smartphone, there are people who crave more. More connectedness. More accessibility. And those people have pursued wearable computing for decades. Early attempts were. . . Inelegant:
But even modern commercial efforts have not don't much better.
But all of that is set to change with the coming introduction of Google's latest creation (a product being project to generate $500,000,000,000 in revenue): google glass
I assume people are familiar with the concept by now, but for the uninitiated:
Google Glass is a wearable computer with a head-mounted display (HMD) that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project,[7] with the mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.[1] Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format,[8] that can interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass
Some people think this is the next big thing, while others think it is still too goofy looking to see widespread adoption, but while the success or failure of the product remains to be seen, some people aren't taking any chances:
Personally, I think that the privacy concerns are a bit overblown, since cell phone cameras are already ubiquitous. My concern is more that google glass breaks the "eye contact barrier." Even with smart phones, iPads, etc, making information available at all times, looking at the screen is still a conscious and deliberate act, and someone you are talking to can easily tell if you are paying attention to the conversation or looking at your screen instead. Not so anymore. With google glass, I worry that someone who appears to be looking at you will actually be checking the sports scores or reading a book, and that, more than anything is disturbing to me. I see a possible world where we grow increasingly in touch with those we communicate with on the Internet, and less present in our real lives as a result.
What do other people think? Is wearable computing the next wave or just a distraction? Is the iWatch going to be the better option? Are you eager for a brave new world where you never need to remember anyone's name, ever again?
To
But despite the absolute wonder that is the modern smartphone, there are people who crave more. More connectedness. More accessibility. And those people have pursued wearable computing for decades. Early attempts were. . . Inelegant:
But even modern commercial efforts have not don't much better.
But all of that is set to change with the coming introduction of Google's latest creation (a product being project to generate $500,000,000,000 in revenue): google glass
I assume people are familiar with the concept by now, but for the uninitiated:
Google Glass is a wearable computer with a head-mounted display (HMD) that is being developed by Google in the Project Glass research and development project,[7] with the mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer.[1] Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format,[8] that can interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass
Some people think this is the next big thing, while others think it is still too goofy looking to see widespread adoption, but while the success or failure of the product remains to be seen, some people aren't taking any chances:
“This is just the beginning,” said Timothy Toohey, a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in privacy issues. “Google Glass is going to cause quite a brawl.”
. . .
The 5 Point Cafe, a Seattle dive bar, was apparently the first to explicitly ban Glass. In part it was a publicity stunt — extremely successful, too, as it garnered worldwide attention — but the bar’s owner, Dave Meinert, said there was a serious side. The bar, he said, was “kind of a private place.”
The legislators in West Virginia were not joking at all. The state banned texting while driving last year but hands-free devices are permitted. That left a loophole for Google Glass. The legislation was introduced too late to gain traction before the most recent session ended, but its sponsor says he is likely to try again.
In Las Vegas, a Caesars Entertainment spokesman noted that computers and recording devices were prohibited in casinos. “We will not allow people to wear Glass while gambling or attending our shows,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/technology/personaltech/google-glass-picks-up-early-signal-keep-out.html?hp&_r=0
Personally, I think that the privacy concerns are a bit overblown, since cell phone cameras are already ubiquitous. My concern is more that google glass breaks the "eye contact barrier." Even with smart phones, iPads, etc, making information available at all times, looking at the screen is still a conscious and deliberate act, and someone you are talking to can easily tell if you are paying attention to the conversation or looking at your screen instead. Not so anymore. With google glass, I worry that someone who appears to be looking at you will actually be checking the sports scores or reading a book, and that, more than anything is disturbing to me. I see a possible world where we grow increasingly in touch with those we communicate with on the Internet, and less present in our real lives as a result.
What do other people think? Is wearable computing the next wave or just a distraction? Is the iWatch going to be the better option? Are you eager for a brave new world where you never need to remember anyone's name, ever again?
spacekungfuman on
0
Posts
Banning them will only be a temporary stopgap measure until these things become indistinguishable from normal glasses. You can't ban glasses everywhere, people need them to see.
I hadn't been paying much attention but I figured all the promo material having that little screen was just because they'd thought of boring uses, not because it was literally just a tiny screen in the upper-right of your visual field.
Edit: I think it's interesting to extrapolate this to Peak Recording, though. Say every citizen gets a pair, because they cost $0.50 somehow. Everyone records all audio and video content around them at all times. How do you even approach that flood? I guess very sophisticated visual/auditory search algorithms but man. I think there was a Black Mirror episode about that actually.
This is the very first stab at a consumer level device like this. The full-on retinal overlay is a decade or three away, but you have to start somewhere.
But I do agree with SKFM; I am more concerned with the fact that there will be a further barrier between real, human interaction as a result of tech like this becoming ubiquitous. As much as I would enjoy receiving the constant updates a device like this offers, I think I would be less enthused to be on the receiving end of a half-assed conversation with a friend because they are trying to juggle the real world with the bullshit that is being projected into their eye.
Privacy is a second-teir issue for me; social networks already give you great tools to make sure you do not friend people you dislike, and protect you from being tagged in photos and videos you don't want on your wall or sharing your name. Just because there will be more cameras doesn't mean these tools suddenly become useless.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Can Streetview's automatic face blurring work in real time? Maybe having non-blurry faces becomes an opt-in privacy setting, so only people you know are readily identifiable in the footage.
Unless the glasses are designed to be tamper-proof, which is probably cost-prohibitive.
I agree with SKFM for once! The new subtler barrier to face to face human contact is a bigger concern. It's one thing to whip out your iPhone mid conversation and stop paying attention, it's another when your iPhone is constantly in your field of vision. I have a hard enough time being self conscious and not an inconsiderate donger already without that temptation. :P
Sneakily checking Wikipedia under the table on your iPhone can be noticed; when everybody's glasses are pinging up the answers automatically, it becomes a farce.
Of less importance to society, but probably more of an impact on my day to day life :P
Henceforth, everyone will wear orgy masks to clubs.
We talk about a casino / strip club that doesn't allow normal cameras, but what about when that's integrated with a person's regular glasses? Vision problems are considered a disability, so now you're talking about violating the ADA if you don't let people wear those glasses.
How about states where it requires two party consent to record a conversation or interaction with a police officer? If these are recording 24/7, are you automatically committing a crime with everything you see?
There are a lot of possible problems that come with ubiquitous recording / internet access, and I don't think there are any easy ways around them. Simply banning them will only work for so long or in certain places (i can see that tactic working better in say...a courtroom with a security check vs. a movie theater) before there will need to be something else.
Now, for most people being constantly recorded isn't that big of a deal - the glut of data (especially if it's in walled gardens like Facebook / Google +) isn't as big a deal - it's not broadly searchable for everyone, and there is going to be too much data to search through. But how do you even deal with someone wearing one of these into a bathroom?
This is the technology I've simultaneously waited my entire life for, and the one that I think is going to bring the most issues. At least with a cameraphone you need to interact with it and take pictures. This will / can be entirely passive.
And then get sued because it screwed up some vital ambulance communications or something.
I wonder if you have any expectation of privacy when talking to someone wearing Glass. Like, it kinda runs up against 2-party authorization wiretap/eavesdropping laws. Like, in Florida for instance, if someone still has an expectation of privacy talking to someone wearing glass and they are not in a public space, any audio recoding would be illegal.
Still and moving pictures are pretty much not legislated for some reasons. Unless you are trespassing, there is a specific posting, or it is a performance there really aren't limitations about what you can film. It's kinda silly bullshit and there needs to be new laws that reflect current realities. I really don't know how they would interact with glass.
This doesn't work if the camera has an IR filter. Most do.
FCC doesn't allow jammers. The way it was explained to me is that - for all intents and purposes - all property has an easement for EM radiation.
Maybe a better solution would be allowing locations to register their premises / property as a 'no camera / no recording' location? That way, when the GPS in the glass sees it's in those locations and hits Google, those features can be locked down?
It could still potentially be worked around and might cause issues at the edges of property, but it would offer a way to ease a lot of issues - like recording in government buildings, casinos, etc.
Of course, then you just don't connect to the local wireless network but use the cellphone towers...
This is hard. Now I know how the NPCs in Shadowrun feel.
I'm in the camp that this is kind of Chicken Little-ing. Privacy in public spaces doesn't make any sense. Even the word - privacy - comes from the opposite of public. If you are in public and people can look at you, you have no expectation of privacy in regard to your appearance, actions or other observable characteristics. Google Glass doesn't let you see through walls, it just provides a means of recording information the wearer would already by privy to. The only advantage it would have is the user doesn't need to take out a cell phone or tablet or camera, but if you're in a situation where you wouldn't want those things out then you should be aware that you don't want wearable computers being worn.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It should be pretty easy to explicitly blacklists all Glass MAC addresses, but it would be pretty pointless because of that second bit.
Imagine a situation like the Boston Bombings. Reddit went mental with looking for possible suspects in the pictures of the crowds. Imagine what would have happened if all of the false positives were able to be contacted by just clicking on them.
Disclaimer: The level of technology that would allow instant lookup might not be there yet, but it will get there, and best to work this out now than wait for some internet vigilantes to burn down a guy's house because he's guilty of Being Ethnic While Near a Terrorist Attack.
Which is actually a sea change in the status quo.
How does glass change that? When the same would be accomplished with any camera, provided there was some online service doing the facial recognition. Without that service, Glass can't do it. If that service exists, it will work with any image. Given glass would be making hundreds of requests every few minutes, those folks running the service would probably be pretty unhappy about their servers being nuked and I don't understand how they would make money.
I'm pissing in the trough at a baseball game. I have an expectation of privacy because I'm in a bathroom - public bathroom, but still - bathroom.
Some guy comes in wearing glass.
In the past, someone could - in theory - have filmed my junk with a hidden camera, but that took action on their part. They had to hide a camera in a bag or in a shirt button or something. They had to be sneaky snapping pictures, and risked getting caught. If they were caught, they would be prosecuted.
Now? Plausible deniability. How can you show someone was in the bathroom / changing room / locker room when they are filming everything they see already?
Do we just prosecute everyone who wears glass into the can? Do we go through their computer and account to make sure they aren't popping into every bathroom and filming junks? How does or can that even work?
I can possibly see this being the first new technological development many governments will just say "nope" to. It could prove to be just too hard to regulate around the infinate number of ways this technology can be abused in hilariously illegal ways.
Privacy is literally a dying idea. Individual residences may be private, but if you're in public you'd better start counting on being recorded. Everywhere.
Sorry, but I reject technological defeatism and digital determinism. Technology is something I control, not the other way around.
And for today, that's fine. None of what I said affects any of our lives, but it's definitely the trend. Plus, it doesn't have to "control" you. People just end up relying on it to the point that they can't function without it, and that IS like today. Just imagine another 50 years of technological advancement, and then 50 more. There will be zero privacy. My statement about having privacy in personal homes was probably even a pipe dream.
Oh dear, the Robot Overlords are not going to like that.
I think the privacy problems comes from two angles. If eveyone wasn't putting their real identity online then an image search algorithym wouldn't be able to find you off of a picture. I think its more likely we step away from the Facebook model as a socitety.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
What if a bouncer with Google Glass stops you coming into a club because he doesn't like what he sees on your Facebook feed?
There's more to it than just banning. For example, camera phones required to operate audibly is an example of the sort of solution that is more common. If Glass proves itself useful, I wouldn't be surprised if the law mandates that it has to be conspicuous in design, and has to clearly show when it is being operated.
People should stop having facebook feeds.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies