You Are What You See
March 25, 2013 2:38 PM Subscribe
Google Glasses are being tested by tech writers as we speak. But are they a good thing?
The long awaited Project Glass is nearly here.
There are articles about them here, here, and here among many others.
But is it a good thing? Questions are being asked both about safety and about privacy.
Everything good, bad and ugly about the online world is about to get more intense. Are you ready?
I think the privacy concerns are kind of moot, these devices are just going to get smaller, less noticeable, and then they will be contact lenses.
Privacy has been over since the early 90's, I just don't see how you can prevent people from wearing these devices, and as the availability and price of mobile broadband plummets people will literally stream their entire lives into the cloud.
That's just the new norm, clutching our collective pearls won't change that.
posted by sourbrew at 2:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Privacy has been over since the early 90's, I just don't see how you can prevent people from wearing these devices, and as the availability and price of mobile broadband plummets people will literally stream their entire lives into the cloud.
That's just the new norm, clutching our collective pearls won't change that.
posted by sourbrew at 2:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
I've wanted these since I saw Spider Jeruselem wear them in Transmetropolitian, and he put the camera and microphones to good use. I can't wait for the Mapa HUD and linking facial recognition software to my Facebook. But they're only a stopgap, since glasses are still physical, external objects. I won't be happy until the tech is implanted and I'm fully connected all the time.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:43 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:43 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'm curious if we can remotely disable recording, in case we don't want to be recorded. It's one thing when someone holds up a cell phone with a camera in it — you can ask politely not to be photographed. But when this technology becomes ubiquitous, what options are available to people to maintain their privacy? This is one case where we desperately need a legal framework to protect us from these devices. Otherwise, I could see at least one legitimate use for a device that makes use of security holes in the computer running the glasses, in order to disable them remotely.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I want to have a pair, I just don't want anybody else to.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [27 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [27 favorites]
You'd have to be all kinds of insane to use that product. It's a camera on your face that you don't have true control over. Even worse, it's a camera on your face that's controlled by an enormous corporation.
Even if you implicitly trust everything Google will do with the data you'll be handing it, do you also trust that they will have their software stack sufficiently hardened to keep other people out? What if someone hacks your glasses while you're doing something important? Like, say, driving?
And what happens if and when the government becomes interested in what you're seeing? When Google gets a National Security Letter, do you really think they won't cave?
posted by Malor at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [14 favorites]
Even if you implicitly trust everything Google will do with the data you'll be handing it, do you also trust that they will have their software stack sufficiently hardened to keep other people out? What if someone hacks your glasses while you're doing something important? Like, say, driving?
And what happens if and when the government becomes interested in what you're seeing? When Google gets a National Security Letter, do you really think they won't cave?
posted by Malor at 2:45 PM on March 25, 2013 [14 favorites]
I foresee a lot of Google Glass users having their fancy devices snatched and smashed.
posted by dunkadunc at 2:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by dunkadunc at 2:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [8 favorites]
They won't be contact lenses anytime soon for one simple reason: battery life. The angle of Google Glasses you probably haven't seen yet.
posted by 2bucksplus at 2:47 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by 2bucksplus at 2:47 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Malor: What if someone hacks your glasses while you're doing something important? Like, say, driving?
Well, it only covers part of one eye, so they can't blind you. The best they could do would be to try for an emotional reaction by sending a shock image or something similar.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:48 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Well, it only covers part of one eye, so they can't blind you. The best they could do would be to try for an emotional reaction by sending a shock image or something similar.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:48 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
2bucksplus: "They won't be contact lenses anytime soon for one simple reason: battery life. The angle of Google Glasses you probably haven't seen yet."
Hah, are you kidding? If that's really the case, these will probably go over like a glass turn.
posted by boo_radley at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2013
Hah, are you kidding? If that's really the case, these will probably go over like a glass turn.
posted by boo_radley at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2013
Can't wait for the Breitbart guys to commit voter fraud wearing these.
posted by zzazazz at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by zzazazz at 2:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I've always felt that a more interesting usage of this technology would be to combine it with various cameras to let the user cycle through different types of vision; short and long wavelength infrared, ultraviolet, maybe simple imaging radar or sonar, etc.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:51 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:51 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
*Raises tiny fists towards the heavens*
GOOGLE READERRRRRRR!!!@!*&^!@%%%!!
*Collapses*
posted by gwint at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [35 favorites]
GOOGLE READERRRRRRR!!!@!*&^!@%%%!!
*Collapses*
posted by gwint at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [35 favorites]
The hype is Segway level. I don't think we'll see significant adoption in public. Professional use has a lot more potential, and of course porn.
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [16 favorites]
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [16 favorites]
Everything good, bad and ugly about the online world is about to get more intense.
“Man, every year, everybody’s like, ‘Yeah, these kids out here, they’re a new breed! I ain’t never seen anything like this before! This the end of the world now!’”posted by Lorin at 2:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Through a Glass Dorkly
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [116 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [116 favorites]
The hype is kinda nuts, but I gotta say.....when these get down to the $200 price range, I will buy one. So will...most people I know. Wearable computing is attractive, for some reason.
posted by lazaruslong at 2:54 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by lazaruslong at 2:54 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Malor: You'd have to be all kinds of insane to use that product. It's a camera on your face that you don't have true control over. Even worse, it's a camera on your face that's controlled by an enormous corporation.
Pretty much everyone currently carries around a microphone and a GPS transceiver for which the same things are true.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:55 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Pretty much everyone currently carries around a microphone and a GPS transceiver for which the same things are true.
posted by Mitrovarr at 2:55 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't see what the problem is, since Google will just cancel this project in a few years.
posted by RakDaddy at 2:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [29 favorites]
posted by RakDaddy at 2:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [29 favorites]
The hype is kinda nuts, but I gotta say.....when these get down to the $200 price range, I will buy one. So will...most people I know. Wearable computing is attractive, for some reason.
Technology fetishism, I'd expect.
posted by codacorolla at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Technology fetishism, I'd expect.
posted by codacorolla at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
In Pennsylvania, and many other states, it is illegal to record audio without the subject's knowledge or permission. How will the users of these devices comply with the law? How will the subjects of the recordings know they are being recorded?
posted by tommyD at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by tommyD at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
8 Most Downloaded Google Glass Apps:
Last on Earth: makes people disappear completely
XXX-Ray: everyone is naked with extra everything
Halloween Filter: ghosts and monsters are everywhere
CelebSpottr VOICES: randomly inserts celebrities (now with their real voices!)
Monocle: history as explained by its most influential thinkers before your eyes
I Am Bacon: analyzes the faces of every single person you meet and shows you how they are related to Kevin Bacon
Instagram Glass: applies those filters you love to hate to EVERYTHING
AdblockPlus Glass: removes real life ads
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [58 favorites]
Last on Earth: makes people disappear completely
XXX-Ray: everyone is naked with extra everything
Halloween Filter: ghosts and monsters are everywhere
CelebSpottr VOICES: randomly inserts celebrities (now with their real voices!)
Monocle: history as explained by its most influential thinkers before your eyes
I Am Bacon: analyzes the faces of every single person you meet and shows you how they are related to Kevin Bacon
Instagram Glass: applies those filters you love to hate to EVERYTHING
AdblockPlus Glass: removes real life ads
posted by Foci for Analysis at 2:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [58 favorites]
The best they could do would be to try for an emotional reaction by sending a shock image or something similar.
How about an image of a car headed right for you, coming in from your peripheral vision? Would your brain be able to sort out that it was being fooled in time to prevent you swerving?
And that's just the obvious thing, which might not really be a problem; maybe our brains can figure that out fast enough that it wouldn't be dangerous. But what about corrupting your driving directions? Or using Bluetooth to take over your car electronics?
That last, by the way, is a very real problem. Cars are extremely insecure in the way they're built internally; they are trivial to hack. All you need is a way to get in. Researchers are already showing how to do things like corrupt a car's ECU by plugging in a CD with the correct format; it updates the firmware on the player, and then the player attacks the car's internal, unsecured network. I imagine that would be a fair bit easier if your glasses were paired with your onboard nav system.
"In a terrible tragedy, a leading opponent to China's US expansion plans was killed today, when he swerved into the path of an oncoming bus...."
If you're going to wear your computers like that, you want absolute control over them.
posted by Malor at 2:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
How about an image of a car headed right for you, coming in from your peripheral vision? Would your brain be able to sort out that it was being fooled in time to prevent you swerving?
And that's just the obvious thing, which might not really be a problem; maybe our brains can figure that out fast enough that it wouldn't be dangerous. But what about corrupting your driving directions? Or using Bluetooth to take over your car electronics?
That last, by the way, is a very real problem. Cars are extremely insecure in the way they're built internally; they are trivial to hack. All you need is a way to get in. Researchers are already showing how to do things like corrupt a car's ECU by plugging in a CD with the correct format; it updates the firmware on the player, and then the player attacks the car's internal, unsecured network. I imagine that would be a fair bit easier if your glasses were paired with your onboard nav system.
"In a terrible tragedy, a leading opponent to China's US expansion plans was killed today, when he swerved into the path of an oncoming bus...."
If you're going to wear your computers like that, you want absolute control over them.
posted by Malor at 2:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
David Brin's book Earth explores some of the issues in a world with no expectation of privacy. That level of transparency (sorry) becomes both an enforcer and a protector of rights as well as the lack thereof. I agree that the privacy genie is out of the bottle. As always the laws are far behind the technology. It would be comforting if those making the laws were more technologically literate but we all know that's not going to happen. I suspect people will adopt Google Glass as the latest cool thing in much the same way that smartphones have become ubiquitous and yeah, ultimately the cameras will be so small that you'll have no hope of avoiding them. Scary future. Yeah. Charlie Stross writes about the surveillance culture in the UK that's already well on the way before you add personal cameras. I think it's inevitable and all we can do is hope to work on legal protections for some of the obvious pitfalls. The less obvious ones will be harder to figure out.
posted by leslies at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by leslies at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
The hype is Segway level.
It's like a Segway, for your face.
posted by Flashman at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [24 favorites]
It's like a Segway, for your face.
posted by Flashman at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [24 favorites]
How will the subjects of the recordings know they are being recorded?
Because they are always being recorded.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Because they are always being recorded.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Relatedly, W. Va. is already considering banning Google Glasses while driving (by amending their existing laws against texting while driving). I don't imagine they'll be the last.
posted by 2bucksplus at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by 2bucksplus at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013
Through a Glass Dorkly
Sir, a tour-de-force. I salute you.
posted by jquinby at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sir, a tour-de-force. I salute you.
posted by jquinby at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
What if someone hacks your glasses while you're doing something important? Like, say, driving?
It doesn't obscure or obstruct your main field of view. It's no more dangerous than an app that activates your bluetooth headset maliciously.
posted by GuyZero at 3:00 PM on March 25, 2013
It doesn't obscure or obstruct your main field of view. It's no more dangerous than an app that activates your bluetooth headset maliciously.
posted by GuyZero at 3:00 PM on March 25, 2013
gwint: "GOOGLE READERRRRRRR!!!@!*&^!@%%%!!"
Right?
Still. The whole idea of Google Glass makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Rodrigo Lamaitre: "...but really what we're talking about is degrees of security lost and not some new security-less paradigm."
How many degrees? My discomfort with this thing has more to do with how passive participation is. It's disconcerting to know—eventually—these things will just be turned (and left) on.
Gross.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2013
Right?
Still. The whole idea of Google Glass makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Rodrigo Lamaitre: "...but really what we're talking about is degrees of security lost and not some new security-less paradigm."
How many degrees? My discomfort with this thing has more to do with how passive participation is. It's disconcerting to know—eventually—these things will just be turned (and left) on.
Gross.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2013
Malor: But what about corrupting your driving directions? Or using Bluetooth to take over your car electronics?
Both of these would be no more or less possible than they are now, via hacking someone's cell phone (assuming they are using it for driving directions).
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2013
Both of these would be no more or less possible than they are now, via hacking someone's cell phone (assuming they are using it for driving directions).
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:02 PM on March 25, 2013
I've had this weird little fantasy in my head, since I was maybe 9 or 10 years old, in the pre-internet days. I would often think to myself, when in the company of a bunch of strangers, how I wish I could know information about them in aggregate. For example, I would think to myself "How many people here have been skydiving before?" and a bunch of little orange highlights would pop up over the heads of those that have.
I wonder how far off this idea is. A combination of facial recognition, social integration and search integration could make it possible, I bet.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I wonder how far off this idea is. A combination of facial recognition, social integration and search integration could make it possible, I bet.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
From the first time I saw these my one and only thought was "you might as well be wearing a 'Rob Me' sign on your back."
posted by tommasz at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 3:04 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
From the first time I saw these my one and only thought was "you might as well be wearing a 'Rob Me' sign on your back."
More accurately a sign that says "I'm a ding-dong with too much money and not enough sense, plus I'm probably not really paying that much attention right now."
posted by codacorolla at 3:06 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
More accurately a sign that says "I'm a ding-dong with too much money and not enough sense, plus I'm probably not really paying that much attention right now."
posted by codacorolla at 3:06 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I can imagine wearing these. But I cannot imagine wearing these in public.
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:07 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:07 PM on March 25, 2013
The hype is Segway level.
Well, yeah, but I do want a Segway...
posted by pompomtom at 3:08 PM on March 25, 2013
Well, yeah, but I do want a Segway...
posted by pompomtom at 3:08 PM on March 25, 2013
Sort of a Strange Days thing then?
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
"I'm a ding-dong with too much money and not enough sense, plus I'm probably not really paying that much attention right now."
"Also, I've just recorded your retinal patterns to the cloud, so maybe, you know, back the fuck off."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:10 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
"Also, I've just recorded your retinal patterns to the cloud, so maybe, you know, back the fuck off."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:10 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
From Gawker: If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
posted by Greener Backyards at 3:11 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by Greener Backyards at 3:11 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
> Google Glasses are being tested by tech writers as we speak. But are they a good thing?
Humans don't worry about whether things are good until after we invent them.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Humans don't worry about whether things are good until after we invent them.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Google don't care if good or bad. Good just want sell ads. And Google's workers just want to be cooler than Apple.
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:14 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:14 PM on March 25, 2013
He also underscored his belief in personal liberty, adding, "I wear seatbelts religiously but I don't believe in seatbelt laws."
The Legislator also does not believe in public health care, I imagine, so you can be bankrupted and crippled!
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
The Legislator also does not believe in public health care, I imagine, so you can be bankrupted and crippled!
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
> And what happens if and when the government becomes interested in what you're seeing? When Google gets a National Security Letter, do you really think they won't cave?
That's a lot of questions. Just chill out and enjoy Malibu Stacy's new hat.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
That's a lot of questions. Just chill out and enjoy Malibu Stacy's new hat.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Professional use has a lot more potential, and of course porn.
I am sure Google Ass is already being filmed.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:18 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
I am sure Google Ass is already being filmed.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:18 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
I've wanted these since I saw Spider Jeruselem wear them in Transmetropolitian
Now I want a Spider Jerusalem edition with one round red lens and one rectangular green lens.
And a bowel disruptor gun.
posted by Foosnark at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Now I want a Spider Jerusalem edition with one round red lens and one rectangular green lens.
And a bowel disruptor gun.
posted by Foosnark at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yay. Advertising flashed directly onto my eyeballs. Can't wait.
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
I was worried as everyone else over the age of 30 about privacy concerns when I first heard about this technology. The thought of these being ubiquitous as iPhones, damn near everyone constantly recording every moment of everyones life, it terrifies me.
But that is also me, as a certifiably old man (age 30+ is the definition from my understanding) not being with it enough to roll with the new world.. teenagers with their music and all that.. When I first got on the internet in 1992, privacy and anonymity was one of the biggest things that attracted me to it. "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." the old adage goes, but that adage is ridiculously outdated now. Now, not only do they know you're a dog, they can tell you the last post you pissed on and whose butt you've been sniffing. For better or worse, privacy disappeared both in the real world and on the internet some time ago. It's a brave new world, think different.
posted by mediocre at 3:22 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
But that is also me, as a certifiably old man (age 30+ is the definition from my understanding) not being with it enough to roll with the new world.. teenagers with their music and all that.. When I first got on the internet in 1992, privacy and anonymity was one of the biggest things that attracted me to it. "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." the old adage goes, but that adage is ridiculously outdated now. Now, not only do they know you're a dog, they can tell you the last post you pissed on and whose butt you've been sniffing. For better or worse, privacy disappeared both in the real world and on the internet some time ago. It's a brave new world, think different.
posted by mediocre at 3:22 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I foresee a lot of Google Glass users having their fancy devices snatched and smashed.
posted by dunkadunc at 9:46 AM on 3/26
By Luddite thugs who will easily be caught by the recordings of them that are instantly uploaded to Facebook and Instagram.
Instagram Glass: applies those filters you love to hate to EVERYTHING
I want this now. How is it different from using headphones to provide a personal soundtrack?
I don't get the hate. Have MeFites stopped being early adopters? Have ya'll got too old? Or do you hate other people subjectively controlling, recording, and editing their perspective?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:23 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by dunkadunc at 9:46 AM on 3/26
By Luddite thugs who will easily be caught by the recordings of them that are instantly uploaded to Facebook and Instagram.
Instagram Glass: applies those filters you love to hate to EVERYTHING
I want this now. How is it different from using headphones to provide a personal soundtrack?
I don't get the hate. Have MeFites stopped being early adopters? Have ya'll got too old? Or do you hate other people subjectively controlling, recording, and editing their perspective?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:23 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I still don't understand why Sergey Brin thinks smartphones are "emasculating".
posted by KokuRyu at 3:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 3:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
antenna envy
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
*Is the Cone of Silence the only Privacy left in our Future filled with Human Scanners and Datanauts?*
With the Arrival of Google Glass and similar Gadgets we are slowly but surely completing the Creation of the "Datanaut".
The Datanaut is a Unit of the Augmented Humanity: our Lives are quantified and datafied by Sensors in Devices that surround us and that we carry with us.
It doesn't matter if it's the Smartphone in your Pocket, the Google Glasses on the Guy sitting opposite you in the Tube or your Smart Home heating your Living Room before you arrive so you have it warm and cosy ...
The Internet of Things (which means Smart Devices that talk to each other) and the already well known Gadgets will mean that almost anything collect, process and communicate Data in some Form.
While George Orwells 1984 only predicted a Surveillance State, we know have a Always-on Society where the State, Companies, Consumers and Machines are watching each other.
*Please take that Techno-Boner out of my Face!*
Our Friends the Californian Technologists and Singularists tell us this is unavoidable. It is the predictable Reaction of a small Boy when he sees big Titties or a Technologists getting his newest Gadget ...
Privacy means little to these Technologists, nor does the Meaning of Human Intimacy and the important "Function" of Forgetting.
The only logical Conclusion if we follow the Line of Thought of Technologists to have any Intimacy and Privacy at all is to build Machines of Silence that protect us from Machines of Datafication.
Really my dear Nerds?
*Driven by Culture or by Technology?*
The Use of Technology is thankfully also ruled by social Habits and Laws made by Humans. In the last 20 Years we have seen the Intrusion of the Cell Phone into our daily Lives.
We know now that being reachable 24/7 and having babbling Teenagers and Business Wankers in every Corner of our Planet is not only annoying, but has reduced our Quality of Life.
Burnout Syndrome and FOMO (Fear of missing out) have become Progress Traps.
We are slowly disenthralling ourselves from all that Gadget Magic and Crackberry Addictions. It even dawns on some of the smarter Technologists that turning Consumer into Freemium Cows is only empowering for the technological Giants a la Google & Co and not "Power to the People".
Old Monopolies have just been shifted to new Owners of Product Bubbles that live in their Clouds.
*Living in a Cloud and not on Planet Earth*
We are also slowly waking up to the philosophical Shifts in our Lives: "sharing" your Life into the Cloud is not the same as living it.
The modern Datanaut is the Administrator of his Life's Datastream, but he is less and living the Moment, but fiddling with Buttons, swiping through real Time Information and directing the perfect Shot of his recorded Life.
We see it happening in any Event: People literally shove a Smartphone between themselves and the Moment they are experiencing to capture that perfect -Kodak- Google Moment.
*They are recording the Event, but are not living it.*
Doesn't matter if it's the Arrival of the new Pope or a Visit at the Zoo: People "datafie" the Moment and move on to the next one worth saving ...
This is Augmented Humanity, this is Augmented Life. The Machine becomes the Witness to your own Existence as well Intermediary and Assistance to almost anything you do:
It tells you where you are, it tells you who is calling you, it tells you when to go where, it tells you when the next Bus comes, what Clothes suite you and what Food is good for you ...
*The all knowing Father in the Cloud*
Google Glass is the literal all-knowing Real-Time God and Guardian Angel - and just like Pocket Calculator it will make Humanity more lazy and less capable.
*Without Challenges there is no need to learn, to adapt, to grow and get out of your Comfort Zone.*
Modern Consumerism has us already wrapped up in many Bubbles of Convenience - Products like Google Glass will just makes us even more mentally lazy and dependable on instant Information and Gratification.
Technologists should ask themselves if any Technology is more a better Golfcart that is used to ferry the Fat of the Land around or a Treatment that can actually make real Quadriplegics walk again instead of disabling healthy People so much that they need a Wheelchair?
If we want a Future that is actually empowering Man and not Machine we need not Cones of Silence, but new Habits when Datanauting is oke and when not.
*Scanning is Perversion*
Just as it is considered pervy to film Girls at the Beach as Masturbation Fodder or your Neighbors making love to each other - it should be considered equally pervy to constantly "scan" your World into a commercial Cloud.
Please notice the Word "Scan" - it is very different to take a Picture that is only stored in your private Phone or Cloud - or feeding a cross-referenced Database of the Machine God, who will try to identify what it sees, label, geo-tag, reference and save it.
There is a big Difference between a Snapshot and a constant Stream of Datafication of all the People you encounter with your G-Glasses on - especially, when they have no Way of knowing what you are doing ...
Once again the obscene Lust for Datafication overlooks once again the Right to Privacy as well as the Protection of the Weakest in Society.
*What about the weakest Links?*
Do we really want to Broadcast the Location of Children? Do we really want to identify everyone automatically in a political Demonstration? Do we really want to tell your Employer and your Girlfriend that you drive by a Tittie Bar and stare at it way too long?
And dear Technologists don't even try to defend that all of this is not yet possible or Companies will "not be evil". Customer Tracking Service, psychological Profiling and Intelligence Gathering Software is far more advanced than "just watching us" ...
And let's not forget the political Dimension.
Take for Example the US - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave - where Voting Records and Tracking Software are not just used to bombard the Voters with Robocalls, but are also used for Redistricting, so however is in Power stays in Power by Rigging the Voting Districts.
Who is now empowered Biatch?!
According to Technologists digital Tools should empower the People, but in the Case of American Redistricting as well as Iranian and Chinese Surveillance it empowers mostly those who can afford the better Technology and pay willing Nerds to build Tools of Suppression.
*Choose your Future*
Technology has to be used responsibly and also according to the better Nature of Society and the Individual.
Yes, we could all stick Dildos in all our Orifices and have Tubes feed us Chocolate while we watch twenty Movies at the same Time while skyping with all our Friends in our giant mobile Toilet-Home-Office-Scooters ... but we Humans can develop something like Impulse Control and resist short Term Gratification Behaviour.
The only real Progress we can make against the Plight of the Human Condition is to cultivate our Self and rather go the Way of the Übermensch instead of the currently trendy Cyborg by adding just more sophisticated electronic Butt-Plugs.
No, we shouldn't wait how the Toy Story Future plays out - we should be smarter than this ...
Are you a Man or a Machine?
-
posted by homodigitalis at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
With the Arrival of Google Glass and similar Gadgets we are slowly but surely completing the Creation of the "Datanaut".
The Datanaut is a Unit of the Augmented Humanity: our Lives are quantified and datafied by Sensors in Devices that surround us and that we carry with us.
It doesn't matter if it's the Smartphone in your Pocket, the Google Glasses on the Guy sitting opposite you in the Tube or your Smart Home heating your Living Room before you arrive so you have it warm and cosy ...
The Internet of Things (which means Smart Devices that talk to each other) and the already well known Gadgets will mean that almost anything collect, process and communicate Data in some Form.
While George Orwells 1984 only predicted a Surveillance State, we know have a Always-on Society where the State, Companies, Consumers and Machines are watching each other.
*Please take that Techno-Boner out of my Face!*
Our Friends the Californian Technologists and Singularists tell us this is unavoidable. It is the predictable Reaction of a small Boy when he sees big Titties or a Technologists getting his newest Gadget ...
Privacy means little to these Technologists, nor does the Meaning of Human Intimacy and the important "Function" of Forgetting.
The only logical Conclusion if we follow the Line of Thought of Technologists to have any Intimacy and Privacy at all is to build Machines of Silence that protect us from Machines of Datafication.
Really my dear Nerds?
*Driven by Culture or by Technology?*
The Use of Technology is thankfully also ruled by social Habits and Laws made by Humans. In the last 20 Years we have seen the Intrusion of the Cell Phone into our daily Lives.
We know now that being reachable 24/7 and having babbling Teenagers and Business Wankers in every Corner of our Planet is not only annoying, but has reduced our Quality of Life.
Burnout Syndrome and FOMO (Fear of missing out) have become Progress Traps.
We are slowly disenthralling ourselves from all that Gadget Magic and Crackberry Addictions. It even dawns on some of the smarter Technologists that turning Consumer into Freemium Cows is only empowering for the technological Giants a la Google & Co and not "Power to the People".
Old Monopolies have just been shifted to new Owners of Product Bubbles that live in their Clouds.
*Living in a Cloud and not on Planet Earth*
We are also slowly waking up to the philosophical Shifts in our Lives: "sharing" your Life into the Cloud is not the same as living it.
The modern Datanaut is the Administrator of his Life's Datastream, but he is less and living the Moment, but fiddling with Buttons, swiping through real Time Information and directing the perfect Shot of his recorded Life.
We see it happening in any Event: People literally shove a Smartphone between themselves and the Moment they are experiencing to capture that perfect -Kodak- Google Moment.
*They are recording the Event, but are not living it.*
Doesn't matter if it's the Arrival of the new Pope or a Visit at the Zoo: People "datafie" the Moment and move on to the next one worth saving ...
This is Augmented Humanity, this is Augmented Life. The Machine becomes the Witness to your own Existence as well Intermediary and Assistance to almost anything you do:
It tells you where you are, it tells you who is calling you, it tells you when to go where, it tells you when the next Bus comes, what Clothes suite you and what Food is good for you ...
*The all knowing Father in the Cloud*
Google Glass is the literal all-knowing Real-Time God and Guardian Angel - and just like Pocket Calculator it will make Humanity more lazy and less capable.
*Without Challenges there is no need to learn, to adapt, to grow and get out of your Comfort Zone.*
Modern Consumerism has us already wrapped up in many Bubbles of Convenience - Products like Google Glass will just makes us even more mentally lazy and dependable on instant Information and Gratification.
Technologists should ask themselves if any Technology is more a better Golfcart that is used to ferry the Fat of the Land around or a Treatment that can actually make real Quadriplegics walk again instead of disabling healthy People so much that they need a Wheelchair?
If we want a Future that is actually empowering Man and not Machine we need not Cones of Silence, but new Habits when Datanauting is oke and when not.
*Scanning is Perversion*
Just as it is considered pervy to film Girls at the Beach as Masturbation Fodder or your Neighbors making love to each other - it should be considered equally pervy to constantly "scan" your World into a commercial Cloud.
Please notice the Word "Scan" - it is very different to take a Picture that is only stored in your private Phone or Cloud - or feeding a cross-referenced Database of the Machine God, who will try to identify what it sees, label, geo-tag, reference and save it.
There is a big Difference between a Snapshot and a constant Stream of Datafication of all the People you encounter with your G-Glasses on - especially, when they have no Way of knowing what you are doing ...
Once again the obscene Lust for Datafication overlooks once again the Right to Privacy as well as the Protection of the Weakest in Society.
*What about the weakest Links?*
Do we really want to Broadcast the Location of Children? Do we really want to identify everyone automatically in a political Demonstration? Do we really want to tell your Employer and your Girlfriend that you drive by a Tittie Bar and stare at it way too long?
And dear Technologists don't even try to defend that all of this is not yet possible or Companies will "not be evil". Customer Tracking Service, psychological Profiling and Intelligence Gathering Software is far more advanced than "just watching us" ...
And let's not forget the political Dimension.
Take for Example the US - Land of the Free and Home of the Brave - where Voting Records and Tracking Software are not just used to bombard the Voters with Robocalls, but are also used for Redistricting, so however is in Power stays in Power by Rigging the Voting Districts.
Who is now empowered Biatch?!
According to Technologists digital Tools should empower the People, but in the Case of American Redistricting as well as Iranian and Chinese Surveillance it empowers mostly those who can afford the better Technology and pay willing Nerds to build Tools of Suppression.
*Choose your Future*
Technology has to be used responsibly and also according to the better Nature of Society and the Individual.
Yes, we could all stick Dildos in all our Orifices and have Tubes feed us Chocolate while we watch twenty Movies at the same Time while skyping with all our Friends in our giant mobile Toilet-Home-Office-Scooters ... but we Humans can develop something like Impulse Control and resist short Term Gratification Behaviour.
The only real Progress we can make against the Plight of the Human Condition is to cultivate our Self and rather go the Way of the Übermensch instead of the currently trendy Cyborg by adding just more sophisticated electronic Butt-Plugs.
No, we shouldn't wait how the Toy Story Future plays out - we should be smarter than this ...
Are you a Man or a Machine?
-
posted by homodigitalis at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
I still don't understand why Sergey Brin thinks smartphones are "emasculating".
He's a tough guy. He benchpresses nerds for breakfast.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
He's a tough guy. He benchpresses nerds for breakfast.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I think Amara's Law is a good thing to keep in mind with Google Glass and other wearable computing items:
posted by mullingitover at 3:32 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.I'm not excited about Google Glass, but I am excited about what it will lead to.
posted by mullingitover at 3:32 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
H+ is currently filming a second web series. Hopefully it will recover from the slightly dopey ending.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:32 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by KokuRyu at 3:32 PM on March 25, 2013
I'm not excited about Google Glass, but I am excited about what it will lead to.
Google Plastic. The MetaFilter.com it's okay to like.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:34 PM on March 25, 2013 [13 favorites]
Google Plastic. The MetaFilter.com it's okay to like.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:34 PM on March 25, 2013 [13 favorites]
I cannot wait to spam google glass wearers.
posted by srboisvert at 3:45 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by srboisvert at 3:45 PM on March 25, 2013
Thinking about what viruses might do to those glasses - particularly when they become contacts...
posted by BillW at 3:48 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by BillW at 3:48 PM on March 25, 2013
A lot of people say they're worried about the erosion of privacy, but very few people in my social circle actually do anything to proactively deal with the issue. For example, a lawyer friend of mine opted out of Gmail and Google Services years ago during the entire "Creepy Gmail" campaign, but when I tried to get him to use Hushmail (which, pre-2007, was still relatively "safe"), there was no interest.
While it's going to suck in 10 years that real-time ubiquitous facial-recognition is going to be a reality, I wonder if it really matters if so many people are willing to a) publish their birthdate in Facebook b) their address c) phone number d) public-facing email address in Facebook.
It makes social engineering dead easy.
Is it because people just don't understand privacy? Don't care? I don't even put where I went to uni in my LinkedIn profile, and use concentric rings of outward facing emails (all forwarding to my "real" email, protected with 2FA, something no one I know uses), but for some reason people are just happy to set it all out there.
I guess what has to happen is better education, much like personal finance, healthy eating habits, etc etc.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
While it's going to suck in 10 years that real-time ubiquitous facial-recognition is going to be a reality, I wonder if it really matters if so many people are willing to a) publish their birthdate in Facebook b) their address c) phone number d) public-facing email address in Facebook.
It makes social engineering dead easy.
Is it because people just don't understand privacy? Don't care? I don't even put where I went to uni in my LinkedIn profile, and use concentric rings of outward facing emails (all forwarding to my "real" email, protected with 2FA, something no one I know uses), but for some reason people are just happy to set it all out there.
I guess what has to happen is better education, much like personal finance, healthy eating habits, etc etc.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
> I don't get the hate. Have MeFites stopped being early adopters?
This kind of stuff I imagine.
posted by bukvich at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
This kind of stuff I imagine.
posted by bukvich at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Thinking about what viruses might do to those glasses - particularly when they become contacts...
The main theme of the H+ series.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
The main theme of the H+ series.
posted by KokuRyu at 3:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's weird because there are so many terrifying implications for this technology being implemented and then developed and owned by a big company who has access to all our stuff for all time and all that, but at the same time, IT'S THE FUTURE AND THIS IS AWESOME. Even if this version is dorky and horrible. It is happening. Soon we will have nanobots living in our brains, you guys.
posted by something something at 3:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by something something at 3:52 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Google Glass is the dumb bullshit toy version of an awesome thing that is not yet possible. As such we can dismiss it and be right, until there comes a time when wearable computers will be normal and you will totally forget everyone's name without them having offloaded that mental chore to your wearable computer.
posted by I Foody at 3:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
posted by I Foody at 3:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]
Even worse, it's a camera on your face that's controlled by an enormous corporation.
Most of us carry around sound-recording, video-recording, and location-tracking devices controlled by multiple enormous corporations.
posted by zippy at 3:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Most of us carry around sound-recording, video-recording, and location-tracking devices controlled by multiple enormous corporations.
posted by zippy at 3:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I foresee a lot of Google Glass users having their fancy devices snatched and smashed.
I imagine there were ominous online warnings about bluetooth earpieces ten years ago and cell phones twenty years ago. People will get used to them (in the sense that being recorded by passersby is "the new normal").
FPP prediction: within one year of these being available for purchase, there will be an FPP about an incidence of this, and the person doing the snatching and smashing will have a blue uniform and a badge.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I imagine there were ominous online warnings about bluetooth earpieces ten years ago and cell phones twenty years ago. People will get used to them (in the sense that being recorded by passersby is "the new normal").
FPP prediction: within one year of these being available for purchase, there will be an FPP about an incidence of this, and the person doing the snatching and smashing will have a blue uniform and a badge.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I imagine there were ominous online warnings about bluetooth earpieces ten years ago
Interesting parallel. I remember the first few times I saw be-suited business people apparently arguing with themselves as they walked down the street. I suppose we can now look forward to people making crazy-eyes too.
posted by pompomtom at 4:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Interesting parallel. I remember the first few times I saw be-suited business people apparently arguing with themselves as they walked down the street. I suppose we can now look forward to people making crazy-eyes too.
posted by pompomtom at 4:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
You ever notice no one uses those bluetooth headsets anymore? People don't talk on the phone and if they do they just hold it up to their ear for a quick call or use the inline microphone on their headphones.
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:07 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:07 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
You ever notice no one uses those bluetooth headsets anymore?
No. Admittedly I live in the backwaters of Canada, but I have seen someone wearing one within the last two days. Maybe the cool kids stopped doing it already, in which case yay.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:10 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
No. Admittedly I live in the backwaters of Canada, but I have seen someone wearing one within the last two days. Maybe the cool kids stopped doing it already, in which case yay.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:10 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
You ever notice no one uses those bluetooth headsets anymore?
Do much commuting? Ever look in the car beside you? I assure you, BT headsets are still in heavy use.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:12 PM on March 25, 2013
Do much commuting? Ever look in the car beside you? I assure you, BT headsets are still in heavy use.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:12 PM on March 25, 2013
I don't think I'll be interested in face-mounted computing until there's gesture recognition. Walking around saying "GOOGLE GLASS NEXT EMAIL... GOOGLE GLASS NEXT EMAIL" seems exhausting, stupid, and rude. I would also pay a premium for hardware that I was certain wasn't transmitting back to some home base somewhere. So, even apart from my cultural and sociological qualms with an always-on camera featuring face-recognition on everyone's skull, this current generation of technology seems pretty worthless to me.
posted by codacorolla at 4:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 4:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
you will totally forget everyone's name without them having offloaded that mental chore to your wearable computer.
Is remembering the names of your friends really that much of a chore?
As I get older, my interest in anything that has a computer wanes. I ask myself, "does this get me closer to enlightenment?". If the answer is no, then I happily skip along. Simplicity in life seems a more righteous goal than something obscuring my eyesight and overloading me with yet more information I don't want.
This f'n thing - I don't know how people tolerate it. Cellphone etiquette is abysmal in social situations already, but it's shrugged off as, "the new normal", even though the quality of experience of being together decreases. I think the ideal of being always connected is a fallacy. When you don't buy into it, everyone else just seems neurotic.
Having a head-mounted, forward facing video camera, voice command with a HUD is neurotic. Needing one to navigate an unfamiliar part of a city in order to order a latte is whatever is the next step after neurotic. BE REAL. MAKE MISTAKES. LIVE LIFE without such a filter to your true self. The comparison with a Segway is right on: who wants something to do something they can do themselves (walk!). How about the lazy and the fools?
"OH, but alex_skazat, Segways go up to TEN MILES AN HOUR!". Yeah, so do I, with a little bit of time training, and a pair of running shoes. Or a $10 bike from the thrift store. "Yeah but alex_skazat! These Google Glasses allow me to record my memories as they happen!". Well, no they don't. They allow you to record something, instead of being in the moment. You can't at the same time record a moment and be in the moment. Again, what's more righteous of a goal?
But since my simple ideas are not fueled by money, or power, or stock options, it's not going to gain any traction, unless there's some technobabble backlash. In 50 years, people will be wearing their computers, and I'll be writing my poems in the mountains. I think everyone will benefit. Until then, people will interview me, as I continue to have honest adventures where I get lost all the time, doing things others are too scared to do, or too scared to give up something to do.
Anyways, something something, caves and shadows and all that cal.
posted by alex_skazat at 4:20 PM on March 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
Is remembering the names of your friends really that much of a chore?
As I get older, my interest in anything that has a computer wanes. I ask myself, "does this get me closer to enlightenment?". If the answer is no, then I happily skip along. Simplicity in life seems a more righteous goal than something obscuring my eyesight and overloading me with yet more information I don't want.
This f'n thing - I don't know how people tolerate it. Cellphone etiquette is abysmal in social situations already, but it's shrugged off as, "the new normal", even though the quality of experience of being together decreases. I think the ideal of being always connected is a fallacy. When you don't buy into it, everyone else just seems neurotic.
Having a head-mounted, forward facing video camera, voice command with a HUD is neurotic. Needing one to navigate an unfamiliar part of a city in order to order a latte is whatever is the next step after neurotic. BE REAL. MAKE MISTAKES. LIVE LIFE without such a filter to your true self. The comparison with a Segway is right on: who wants something to do something they can do themselves (walk!). How about the lazy and the fools?
"OH, but alex_skazat, Segways go up to TEN MILES AN HOUR!". Yeah, so do I, with a little bit of time training, and a pair of running shoes. Or a $10 bike from the thrift store. "Yeah but alex_skazat! These Google Glasses allow me to record my memories as they happen!". Well, no they don't. They allow you to record something, instead of being in the moment. You can't at the same time record a moment and be in the moment. Again, what's more righteous of a goal?
But since my simple ideas are not fueled by money, or power, or stock options, it's not going to gain any traction, unless there's some technobabble backlash. In 50 years, people will be wearing their computers, and I'll be writing my poems in the mountains. I think everyone will benefit. Until then, people will interview me, as I continue to have honest adventures where I get lost all the time, doing things others are too scared to do, or too scared to give up something to do.
Anyways, something something, caves and shadows and all that cal.
posted by alex_skazat at 4:20 PM on March 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
From Gawker: If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
If anyone would know...
posted by 4ster at 4:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
If anyone would know...
posted by 4ster at 4:21 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm sure this will be a blessing for women on public transport who are made uncomfortable by voyeurs whipping out their cellphones.
Get used to the idea of not knowing when your public presence is being recorded for permanent storage in a pervert's jerkoff directory, if not uploaded to the Internet.
posted by moorooka at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Get used to the idea of not knowing when your public presence is being recorded for permanent storage in a pervert's jerkoff directory, if not uploaded to the Internet.
posted by moorooka at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
AdblockPlus Glass: removes real life ads
Sold! Where do I sign?
posted by bonehead at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Sold! Where do I sign?
posted by bonehead at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm with I Foody - these will be the Apple Newton to whatever the iPhone of wearable computing will be. There's a good chance, since Moore's Law is still just about holding together and advances in plastic electronics are doing well, that there'll be roughly the same time lag.
As for privacy and the illusion thereof: it may actually help. At least Google Glass is in your face; you can (and I have) right now, buy a videorecording pen that you stick in your top pocket and snarfs everything you look at invisibly. You can (and I have) right now, surreptitiously record people with your smartphone while pretending just to use it. My local government has been caught wiring up hedges with hidden cameras, to monitor 'problem' areas for drugs and violence. If Google Glass moves the discussion on by making more people aware of all this, then good. If it doesn't, no matter. It's so far from being some sort of tipping point or enabler.
I also have a box full of VR glasses from the last time all this happened. Back then, I was writing about froody new tech and the manufacturers of such things sent them along - and never wanted them back. I have a cute little headset with an arm that holds a tiny vibrating box with a line of red LEDs mechanically scanned back and forth, that does very reasonable CGA resolution graphics in the field of view of one eye. I have 3D LCD shutter glasses for my Amiga. I have VGA-resolution video glasses that can either be full-on displays or project stuff onto a smoked visor, over the non-virtual reality. I have used all these things for just long enough to write about them, and never again. I also got to visit labs where they did all manner of 'personal HUDs' and augmented reality overlay stuff and I forget how much else - and *none* of them impressed me one tenth as much as the first time I saw a full-resolution TFT colour LCD in a laptop.
Google Glass is a fun idea. Perhaps the experience is so awesome that ya gotta. But I doubt it. The very best they can do is to push wearable computing into the first gentle downward slopes of Uncanny Valley, away from the flat bit on the left marked 'Plainly Wrong'. The technology to comfortably integrate information systems with our senses to that level of intimacy is not there yet, not by miles, and there's no gentle, commercially sensible path of iteration over to the other side.
Which means, I guess, that someone's got to do it to push things along, and why not Google? Just don't expect it to be a success; just hope that it won't be such a plum-dog failure that it stops anyone else from daring to try again.
posted by Devonian at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
As for privacy and the illusion thereof: it may actually help. At least Google Glass is in your face; you can (and I have) right now, buy a videorecording pen that you stick in your top pocket and snarfs everything you look at invisibly. You can (and I have) right now, surreptitiously record people with your smartphone while pretending just to use it. My local government has been caught wiring up hedges with hidden cameras, to monitor 'problem' areas for drugs and violence. If Google Glass moves the discussion on by making more people aware of all this, then good. If it doesn't, no matter. It's so far from being some sort of tipping point or enabler.
I also have a box full of VR glasses from the last time all this happened. Back then, I was writing about froody new tech and the manufacturers of such things sent them along - and never wanted them back. I have a cute little headset with an arm that holds a tiny vibrating box with a line of red LEDs mechanically scanned back and forth, that does very reasonable CGA resolution graphics in the field of view of one eye. I have 3D LCD shutter glasses for my Amiga. I have VGA-resolution video glasses that can either be full-on displays or project stuff onto a smoked visor, over the non-virtual reality. I have used all these things for just long enough to write about them, and never again. I also got to visit labs where they did all manner of 'personal HUDs' and augmented reality overlay stuff and I forget how much else - and *none* of them impressed me one tenth as much as the first time I saw a full-resolution TFT colour LCD in a laptop.
Google Glass is a fun idea. Perhaps the experience is so awesome that ya gotta. But I doubt it. The very best they can do is to push wearable computing into the first gentle downward slopes of Uncanny Valley, away from the flat bit on the left marked 'Plainly Wrong'. The technology to comfortably integrate information systems with our senses to that level of intimacy is not there yet, not by miles, and there's no gentle, commercially sensible path of iteration over to the other side.
Which means, I guess, that someone's got to do it to push things along, and why not Google? Just don't expect it to be a success; just hope that it won't be such a plum-dog failure that it stops anyone else from daring to try again.
posted by Devonian at 4:25 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Get used to the idea of not knowing when your public presence is being recorded for permanent storage in a pervert's jerkoff directory, if not uploaded to the Internet.
But this is happening right now? I'm not going to go search, but pretty sure this happens way more than it should already.
posted by GuyZero at 4:26 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
But this is happening right now? I'm not going to go search, but pretty sure this happens way more than it should already.
posted by GuyZero at 4:26 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Were I a business owner with lots of low-paid employees, I would make them wear Google glasses for the whole workday to ensure that they didn't slack off or steal anything. Being able to see everything they are doing would give me immense power over them.
Thankfully, I'm not such a business-owner. But bet your last dollar that once these glasses are cheap, somebody is going to make them mandatory.
posted by Jehan at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
Thankfully, I'm not such a business-owner. But bet your last dollar that once these glasses are cheap, somebody is going to make them mandatory.
posted by Jehan at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2013 [12 favorites]
So you're saying it's a cumulus cloud, then?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:30 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I'm sure this will be a blessing for women on public transport who are made uncomfortable by voyeurs whipping out their cellphones.
Get used to the idea of not knowing when your public presence is being recorded for permanent storage in a pervert's jerkoff directory, if not uploaded to the Internet.
It looks from the demo video I saw that you have to verbally direct pictures to be taken, and I'd say someone saying "OK Glass, take a picture" is significantly more obtrusive than the current state of portable photography.
posted by Copronymus at 4:34 PM on March 25, 2013
Get used to the idea of not knowing when your public presence is being recorded for permanent storage in a pervert's jerkoff directory, if not uploaded to the Internet.
It looks from the demo video I saw that you have to verbally direct pictures to be taken, and I'd say someone saying "OK Glass, take a picture" is significantly more obtrusive than the current state of portable photography.
posted by Copronymus at 4:34 PM on March 25, 2013
Walking around saying "GOOGLE GLASS NEXT EMAIL... GOOGLE GLASS NEXT EMAIL" seems exhausting, stupid, and rude.
Dude, if you've used the prototype I'm pretty sure you know better than to leak key design details.
posted by GuyZero at 4:39 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Dude, if you've used the prototype I'm pretty sure you know better than to leak key design details.
posted by GuyZero at 4:39 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
"There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine [Google Glasses] on a human face — forever."
posted by blue_beetle at 4:41 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 4:41 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I still don't understand why Sergey Brin thinks smartphones are "emasculating".
Emasculating is surely the wrong word, but personally I find it quite interesting that we (smartphone owning humans) seems to be involved in a really huge experiment, where parents spend more time looking at their smartphones, and even less time looking at their kids, or for that sake, our surroundings. From a developmental psychology view this is quite fascinating, as it is not that often you can use toddlers as guinea pigs. (It is too bad that it is interfering with the experiment "let small children use tablets for hours on end!")
The above was only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I do think there is a real lack of discussion of what happens when technology is introduced and rapidly used by a large number of people. I'm sure there are pre-school kids using tablets for hours every evening. Is this good or bad? What, if anything, happens to your brain if you're constantly being feeded with facebook status updates in the top right corner of what you're seeing? Personally I find that just as interesting as the obvious privacy problems.
posted by Baron Humbert von Gikkingen at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Emasculating is surely the wrong word, but personally I find it quite interesting that we (smartphone owning humans) seems to be involved in a really huge experiment, where parents spend more time looking at their smartphones, and even less time looking at their kids, or for that sake, our surroundings. From a developmental psychology view this is quite fascinating, as it is not that often you can use toddlers as guinea pigs. (It is too bad that it is interfering with the experiment "let small children use tablets for hours on end!")
The above was only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I do think there is a real lack of discussion of what happens when technology is introduced and rapidly used by a large number of people. I'm sure there are pre-school kids using tablets for hours every evening. Is this good or bad? What, if anything, happens to your brain if you're constantly being feeded with facebook status updates in the top right corner of what you're seeing? Personally I find that just as interesting as the obvious privacy problems.
posted by Baron Humbert von Gikkingen at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Reading through these posts I am kind of shocked any of you think you still have privacy. I would wager most of you are being recorded far more frequently than you realize.
Many bars have cc recording, nearly every retail store does, lots of people have doorway cameras, many cities have surveillance cameras.
Privacy has been dead a while.
As for the naysayers up thread about battery life and the move to contacts.
posted by sourbrew at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
Many bars have cc recording, nearly every retail store does, lots of people have doorway cameras, many cities have surveillance cameras.
Privacy has been dead a while.
As for the naysayers up thread about battery life and the move to contacts.
posted by sourbrew at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
It looks from the demo video I saw that you have to verbally direct pictures to be taken, and I'd say someone saying "OK Glass, take a picture" is significantly more obtrusive than the current state of portable photography.
I think you can stroke (sorry) the arm, too.
Maybe I've read too much SF, but this isn't a brave new world, it's the return of a very old one - the pre-industrial village, where everyone knows everyone else. We've just used tech to scale the size of the village.
Ok, I'm a bit concerned about the social shaming aspect (see Adria Richards and creepshots, recently) but I figure that humans adjust. And they're more likely to reset to "don't give a fuck" than to "Puritanism for all" (disclaimer: I'm European).
posted by Leon at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think you can stroke (sorry) the arm, too.
Maybe I've read too much SF, but this isn't a brave new world, it's the return of a very old one - the pre-industrial village, where everyone knows everyone else. We've just used tech to scale the size of the village.
Ok, I'm a bit concerned about the social shaming aspect (see Adria Richards and creepshots, recently) but I figure that humans adjust. And they're more likely to reset to "don't give a fuck" than to "Puritanism for all" (disclaimer: I'm European).
posted by Leon at 4:46 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Google Glass Targeting End Of 2013 Consumer Release, With Price Tag Under $1,500
For merely $50, I will supply you with a roll of duct tape and instruct you on how to affix your smartphone to your forehead. Memail me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
For merely $50, I will supply you with a roll of duct tape and instruct you on how to affix your smartphone to your forehead. Memail me.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
Is remembering the names of your friends really that much of a chore?
I think the poster was being tongue-in cheek. Still, how many phone numbers do you know by heart now compared to twenty years ago? If I call the pal of mine who was variously my roommate, my classmate, my bandmate and my best man, I have to look up his number. Ironically, I can still effortlessly rattle off the phone number he had when we were in high school in the eighties.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think the poster was being tongue-in cheek. Still, how many phone numbers do you know by heart now compared to twenty years ago? If I call the pal of mine who was variously my roommate, my classmate, my bandmate and my best man, I have to look up his number. Ironically, I can still effortlessly rattle off the phone number he had when we were in high school in the eighties.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
While it's going to suck in 10 years that real-time ubiquitous facial-recognition is going to be a reality, I wonder if it really matters if so many people are willing to a) publish their birthdate in Facebook b) their address c) phone number d) public-facing email address in Facebook.
I hope it doesn't take 10 years! I have so much trouble remembering the names of randoms, acquaintinces, friends-of-friends, and other Facebook types. I want facial recognition software to be available right from the start. And since I already walk around with my smartphone glued to my face this will probably improve my safety since at least I'll be looking up, not down.
Count me as one of the 'under 30s' who doesn't get the fuss over privacy. It's safer for people to know where I am so if bad shit happens they can help me and I can broadcast myself to anyone who might be receptive.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:02 PM on March 25, 2013
I hope it doesn't take 10 years! I have so much trouble remembering the names of randoms, acquaintinces, friends-of-friends, and other Facebook types. I want facial recognition software to be available right from the start. And since I already walk around with my smartphone glued to my face this will probably improve my safety since at least I'll be looking up, not down.
Count me as one of the 'under 30s' who doesn't get the fuss over privacy. It's safer for people to know where I am so if bad shit happens they can help me and I can broadcast myself to anyone who might be receptive.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:02 PM on March 25, 2013
It's safer for people to know where I am so if bad shit happens they can help me and I can broadcast myself to anyone who might be receptive.
I take it you aren't an activist.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I take it you aren't an activist.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Oh god Instagrammed filtered videos. Now Facebook will be full of mundane footage that looks like your choice of silent film, the opening credits to Wonder Years, or 80's VHS talent show footage.
posted by sourwookie at 5:06 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by sourwookie at 5:06 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Oh god Instagrammed filtered videos. Now Facebook will be full of mundane footage that looks like your choice of silent film, the opening credits to Wonder Years, or 80's VHS talent show footage.
I can't wait!
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:12 PM on March 25, 2013
I can't wait!
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 5:12 PM on March 25, 2013
sourwookie: there's angel investment in them thar hills...
posted by Leon at 5:17 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by Leon at 5:17 PM on March 25, 2013
The main theme of the H+ series.
Hey, someone else who saw it! This is H+ and it's worth viewing now that you don't have to wait a week for 5 minutes of (internet) tv.
posted by ersatz at 5:19 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Hey, someone else who saw it! This is H+ and it's worth viewing now that you don't have to wait a week for 5 minutes of (internet) tv.
posted by ersatz at 5:19 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
People complain "but I don't want to be recorded" - the only difference with this is, you're obviously seeing someone with a camera on your face. How many security cameras are recording you when you're in public, that you don't see or notice?
How many of your neighbors have security cameras that happen to cover your driveway or front door or part of your property?
posted by mrbill at 5:38 PM on March 25, 2013
How many of your neighbors have security cameras that happen to cover your driveway or front door or part of your property?
posted by mrbill at 5:38 PM on March 25, 2013
I'd like all of those other instances to fucking stop, too.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]
It's safer for people to know where I am so if bad shit happens they can help me and I can broadcast myself to anyone who might be receptive.
I take it you aren't an activist.
"Hey, fellow activists, here's where I am, if I disappear suddenly, I might have been arrested."
"Hmm, I see cops at this protest. May as well start filming in case they start acting like dicks again."
There are cons, certainly, but also potential pros, especially if people control who views what.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I take it you aren't an activist.
"Hey, fellow activists, here's where I am, if I disappear suddenly, I might have been arrested."
"Hmm, I see cops at this protest. May as well start filming in case they start acting like dicks again."
There are cons, certainly, but also potential pros, especially if people control who views what.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 5:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
alex_skazat >>> These Google Glasses allow me to record my memories as they happen!". Well, no they don't. They allow you to record something, instead of being in the moment. You can't at the same time record a moment and be in the moment.
Independent of your opinion/views of google glass, wouldn't they actually remove the need to hold up some video capturing device? You can be in the moment while passively recording it.
posted by mulligan at 5:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Independent of your opinion/views of google glass, wouldn't they actually remove the need to hold up some video capturing device? You can be in the moment while passively recording it.
posted by mulligan at 5:49 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
If the thing is voice activated, is it set to only respond to YOUR voice? If not, I can imagine all kinds of scenarios where someone else "hijacks" your device, from the annoying to the nefarious.
posted by desjardins at 5:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by desjardins at 5:53 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
So when does it become an entirely defensible crime to punch someone in the face cause you're mostly certain they invaded your privacy?
posted by PuppyCat at 5:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by PuppyCat at 5:57 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I know we're all just shooting the shit here, but I don't get the implied assumption that the people building this device are simultaneously competent enough to build one of the most miniaturized devices of all time with GPS, internet access, a camera and voice recognition and yet aren't smart enough to think of most of the fairly obvious problems stated here.
I have no clue how they stop people from yelling "GLASS SEARCH FOR DONKEY PRON YES YES" but I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that they have some sort of way to deal with it.
So when does it become an entirely defensible crime to punch someone in the face cause you're mostly certain they invaded your privacy?
Never? Pretty sure never. Also, you should not travel by train in Japan, especially during rush hour. Also, possibly avoid New York. And London. Well, cities in general. And daylight. You might want to move to somewhere remote - say, the Carpathian mountains. And only come out at night. Whether or not to feed on blood is up to you I guess.
posted by GuyZero at 6:00 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
I have no clue how they stop people from yelling "GLASS SEARCH FOR DONKEY PRON YES YES" but I'm going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess that they have some sort of way to deal with it.
So when does it become an entirely defensible crime to punch someone in the face cause you're mostly certain they invaded your privacy?
Never? Pretty sure never. Also, you should not travel by train in Japan, especially during rush hour. Also, possibly avoid New York. And London. Well, cities in general. And daylight. You might want to move to somewhere remote - say, the Carpathian mountains. And only come out at night. Whether or not to feed on blood is up to you I guess.
posted by GuyZero at 6:00 PM on March 25, 2013 [7 favorites]
The hype is Segway level. I don't think we'll see significant adoption in public. Professional use has a lot more potential
Yeah, you know who's gonna love the possibility of creepy unobtrusive video surveillance (or at least their corporate masters will). Coming, soon, to a mall cop near you .
posted by tallus at 6:03 PM on March 25, 2013
Yeah, you know who's gonna love the possibility of creepy unobtrusive video surveillance (or at least their corporate masters will). Coming, soon, to a mall cop near you .
posted by tallus at 6:03 PM on March 25, 2013
Ah but it was a joke. A lame one, but a joke. I dig technology to a point, but I just can't see a reason I would *need* Google Glass. I might want it, but on the list of things I want, it's still coming in at something like negative 73.
posted by PuppyCat at 6:05 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by PuppyCat at 6:05 PM on March 25, 2013
I wish, although I doubt it will happen, but I wish that these will be prohibited from being sold to mall cops, not because of privacy issues, but because mall cop adoption is basically the fastest way to make a product uncool, ever. Of course, it's possible that nothing will save Glass, but who knows.
posted by GuyZero at 6:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 6:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Never? Pretty sure never. Also, you should not travel by train in Japan, especially during rush hour. Also, possibly avoid New York. And London. Well, cities in general. And daylight. You might want to move to somewhere remote - say, the Carpathian mountains. And only come out at night. Whether or not to feed on blood is up to you I guess.
Wow. Do you actually ride the subway? Because humans who live in dense cities have come up with some really, really strict though unspoken laws of conduct to allow people to retain a feeling of privacy when they're out in public, and if you break those rules they freak the fuck out, far worse, I'd argue, in a big city than in a small town. Try getting on an elevator without a companion and standing with your back to the door and staring at the other passengers.
Also, in re the glasses getting stolen
By Luddite thugs who will easily be caught by the recordings of them that are instantly uploaded to Facebook and Instagram.
You lack imagination. And a blackjack. The wearer has to be conscious to record. Render them unconscious before you nick the glasses and you're golden.
posted by Diablevert at 6:09 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Wow. Do you actually ride the subway? Because humans who live in dense cities have come up with some really, really strict though unspoken laws of conduct to allow people to retain a feeling of privacy when they're out in public, and if you break those rules they freak the fuck out, far worse, I'd argue, in a big city than in a small town. Try getting on an elevator without a companion and standing with your back to the door and staring at the other passengers.
Also, in re the glasses getting stolen
By Luddite thugs who will easily be caught by the recordings of them that are instantly uploaded to Facebook and Instagram.
You lack imagination. And a blackjack. The wearer has to be conscious to record. Render them unconscious before you nick the glasses and you're golden.
posted by Diablevert at 6:09 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
AM I READY? JUST GIVE IT ALREADY. FUCK. GIVE IT GIVE IT GIVE IT! ohgod
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:09 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by Lipstick Thespian at 6:09 PM on March 25, 2013
Waiting for someone with money to burn to buy 4 or 8 or 16 Glasses then wrap them all around his head, so he can mimic the Google Maps car. Or throw really nice back passes.
posted by shortfuse at 6:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by shortfuse at 6:12 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm interested to see what comes of the Warby Parker collaboration. Right now, Google Glass looks futuristic and Americans don't like things that look like The Future anymore. I'm not sure it's possible to subtly work it into a classic style without feeling insidious or secretive.
posted by the jam at 6:12 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by the jam at 6:12 PM on March 25, 2013
allow people to retain a feeling of privacy when they're out in public
But that's really all it is, right? A feeling of privacy. Because it's not like you actually have any privacy, clearly. Certainly people take photos on the New York subway all the time. I won't say that people like it, but it happens. And there's pretty much universal surveillance in every subway station I've ever been to - New York, Toronto, London.
I know what urban living etiquette is. I think I calculated one that I've spent a few months on the TTC 501 streetcar in total. But let's not confuse that with actual privacy.
posted by GuyZero at 6:14 PM on March 25, 2013
But that's really all it is, right? A feeling of privacy. Because it's not like you actually have any privacy, clearly. Certainly people take photos on the New York subway all the time. I won't say that people like it, but it happens. And there's pretty much universal surveillance in every subway station I've ever been to - New York, Toronto, London.
I know what urban living etiquette is. I think I calculated one that I've spent a few months on the TTC 501 streetcar in total. But let's not confuse that with actual privacy.
posted by GuyZero at 6:14 PM on March 25, 2013
People are seriously discussing continuous mobile video uploading, and meanwhile my ISP gets shirty when I average over 2Gb per day of home use. And that's mostly downloads, not uploads. Yes, you can watch NetFlix on your phone, but only if you've still got an unlimited data plan, and again that's not even upload traffic.
My impression is that mobile infrastructure would need major overhauls to support large numbers of upload feeds. AT&T and Verizon were already crying uncle in Manhattan after the iPhones came out, and that traffic was mostly from tweets and chatty phone apps. I agree with all of the privacy concerns, but isn't that much ubiquitous, cheap mobile broadband still sci-fi technology at this point?
posted by ceribus peribus at 6:14 PM on March 25, 2013
My impression is that mobile infrastructure would need major overhauls to support large numbers of upload feeds. AT&T and Verizon were already crying uncle in Manhattan after the iPhones came out, and that traffic was mostly from tweets and chatty phone apps. I agree with all of the privacy concerns, but isn't that much ubiquitous, cheap mobile broadband still sci-fi technology at this point?
posted by ceribus peribus at 6:14 PM on March 25, 2013
The main problem with this type of technology as I see it is that it aggressively seeds and foments the internal monologue by providing it with exactly the same type of information that the internal monologue loves to obsess over. Therefore, the people wearing these glasses will have a harder time shutting their internal monologue off. You might counter this by saying, well, what about signs, which are similarly capable of instigating the internal monologue and are ubiquitous, unlike Google Glass?, but signs are different both because of their relative physical distance and because they are not exclusively tailored for and aimed at you, all of which makes the text on a little HUD screen in front of your eye seem a lot more urgent and irresistible. The undermining of mental silence is an inherent ill, because a lot of important virtues depend on it: for most people, the cultivation of willpower, for example, depends on the cultivation of exactly that type of silence. The end result of this is that we become a more credulous and compliant society, the dangers of which I probably don't need to enumerate. It's not a new process: one dependable fact about the technological progress we've seen over the past century is that each advance makes the possibility of a meditative mindset more difficult and more remote. It's also almost certainly not some conspiracy being spearheaded by shadowy figures who are thinking about it in these terms. Still, as much as this is a big, nebulous, and unprovable assertion, I think the trend is real, and that the wearable computing paradigm is a pretty significant step in its progress.
posted by invitapriore at 6:24 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by invitapriore at 6:24 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
Try getting on an elevator without a companion and standing with your back to the door and staring at the other passengers.
Be sure to record their reactions with your Google Glasses and share the video on your social networks!
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:26 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Be sure to record their reactions with your Google Glasses and share the video on your social networks!
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:26 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
What if someone hacks your glasses while you're doing something important? Like, say, driving?
Suddenly, Google's investment into self-driving cars is explained. Google Glass is a problem that they've also building a solution for!
posted by Apocryphon at 6:28 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Suddenly, Google's investment into self-driving cars is explained. Google Glass is a problem that they've also building a solution for!
posted by Apocryphon at 6:28 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
But that's really all it is, right? A feeling of privacy. Because it's not like you actually have any privacy, clearly. Certainly people take photos on the New York subway all the time. I won't say that people like it, but it happens. And there's pretty much universal surveillance in every subway station I've ever been to - New York, Toronto, London.
I don't think the fact that there are security cameras on subway tracks means there's no such thing as privacy.
There's this thing people don't understand, that the culture doesn't understand, about information, and how it effects privacy. There's this unrecognized layer that goes into the calculation and it is the absolutely crucial variable: Call it Effort-Cost.
There's lots of info about you that is in fact public and free --- but it doesn't bother us that it's public and free, because it has high Effort-Cost. People don't mind certain info about them being out there if the only people who are going to have access to it are people willing to pay a high Effort-Cost to gain that access, or in other words, people with a good reason. The price of your house and its address, that's public. Dog licenses. Voting records. Political donations. Divorce proceedings. Traffic tickets, arrest records. Your birth, death and marriage certificates. Maybe even your pay, if you work for the government. All that is freely available public info. But because it has high Effort Cost, very few people mind.
It's the same way with a subway camera. Yeah, it's there. A I can see, when I go into the booth, that the ticket clerk can keep and eye on the platforms. But all the ticket clerk cares about is whether there's a crime going on on the platform. If there's no crime happening, then the camera and the recoding go into an archive somewhere and never get looked at again. Digging out that info, unless you're the IT guy for the MTA, would have a really high Effort-Cost.
Remove the Effort Cost and things and you change the equation entirely. I don't think anyone objects to the idea of their being records of court proceedings, in general. I bet a lot of people are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a gossipy neighbor could snap their fingers and get a peek into all the gory details of their divorce. Or witness the controvery when that paper published the map of gun owners in town. All that info was free. The paper just removed the Effort Cost of everyone knowing it.
And that's the difference with products like Glass, too. It removes the Effort Cost. Whatever some jagoff feels like recording is out there in the cloud, permanently accessible with the snap of the fingers. Sure, there's still going to be some hardcore limits. Presumably something will have to be sufficiently amusing or embarrassing to take off virally before you'd get in a real fix. But that lack of control --- especially if it's coupled with face recognition --- is profoundly disturbing.
posted by Diablevert at 6:34 PM on March 25, 2013 [24 favorites]
I don't think the fact that there are security cameras on subway tracks means there's no such thing as privacy.
There's this thing people don't understand, that the culture doesn't understand, about information, and how it effects privacy. There's this unrecognized layer that goes into the calculation and it is the absolutely crucial variable: Call it Effort-Cost.
There's lots of info about you that is in fact public and free --- but it doesn't bother us that it's public and free, because it has high Effort-Cost. People don't mind certain info about them being out there if the only people who are going to have access to it are people willing to pay a high Effort-Cost to gain that access, or in other words, people with a good reason. The price of your house and its address, that's public. Dog licenses. Voting records. Political donations. Divorce proceedings. Traffic tickets, arrest records. Your birth, death and marriage certificates. Maybe even your pay, if you work for the government. All that is freely available public info. But because it has high Effort Cost, very few people mind.
It's the same way with a subway camera. Yeah, it's there. A I can see, when I go into the booth, that the ticket clerk can keep and eye on the platforms. But all the ticket clerk cares about is whether there's a crime going on on the platform. If there's no crime happening, then the camera and the recoding go into an archive somewhere and never get looked at again. Digging out that info, unless you're the IT guy for the MTA, would have a really high Effort-Cost.
Remove the Effort Cost and things and you change the equation entirely. I don't think anyone objects to the idea of their being records of court proceedings, in general. I bet a lot of people are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that a gossipy neighbor could snap their fingers and get a peek into all the gory details of their divorce. Or witness the controvery when that paper published the map of gun owners in town. All that info was free. The paper just removed the Effort Cost of everyone knowing it.
And that's the difference with products like Glass, too. It removes the Effort Cost. Whatever some jagoff feels like recording is out there in the cloud, permanently accessible with the snap of the fingers. Sure, there's still going to be some hardcore limits. Presumably something will have to be sufficiently amusing or embarrassing to take off virally before you'd get in a real fix. But that lack of control --- especially if it's coupled with face recognition --- is profoundly disturbing.
posted by Diablevert at 6:34 PM on March 25, 2013 [24 favorites]
So when does it become an entirely defensible crime to punch someone in the face cause you're mostly certain they invaded your privacy?
Never? Lots of caveman wannabes in this thread.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Never? Lots of caveman wannabes in this thread.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
yeah, I'm struck by the way we, or at least some of this thread, have internalized technological-determinism. Also, it's (often) someone else who is doing the creepy stuff, someone 'out there' who would be recording constantly to share with their weasel-eyed friends on dodgy websites hosted in russia or whatever. The idea being: if there's a technology out there, some particular humans will do their best to make sure it is used for the most reprehensible, invasive, hurtful or repressive ends (tho also that it can be used for useful, beautiful, innovative, liberative ends)
This the internet has taught us. The deeper concern, of course, is probably the 'trickle down' effect: not the outlier wingnuts, but the way the culture as a whole is nudged into terra incognito thanks to unprecedented information collection and access.
I think one of the challenges of big data, too much information, is that it fucks with our biologically ingrained notions of temporality. Shit doesn't die. That's a fundamentally disruptive premise to introduce into a culture. Maybe some aesthetics like 'glitch' or 'wtf' are a way to attempt to reintroduce that element of decay and erosion into an environment that otherwise resists it to a degree we have been unaccustomed to.
So these glasses are like one more data collecting point. I don't like to think of myself as a collection of data, even if that is explicitly how google or other large tech companies view me, and even if my actions every day, using a phone, browsing the web while logged into google, etc feed into that model and help sustain it in some small way.
posted by notesondismantling at 7:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
This the internet has taught us. The deeper concern, of course, is probably the 'trickle down' effect: not the outlier wingnuts, but the way the culture as a whole is nudged into terra incognito thanks to unprecedented information collection and access.
I think one of the challenges of big data, too much information, is that it fucks with our biologically ingrained notions of temporality. Shit doesn't die. That's a fundamentally disruptive premise to introduce into a culture. Maybe some aesthetics like 'glitch' or 'wtf' are a way to attempt to reintroduce that element of decay and erosion into an environment that otherwise resists it to a degree we have been unaccustomed to.
So these glasses are like one more data collecting point. I don't like to think of myself as a collection of data, even if that is explicitly how google or other large tech companies view me, and even if my actions every day, using a phone, browsing the web while logged into google, etc feed into that model and help sustain it in some small way.
posted by notesondismantling at 7:16 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
It's not outlier wingnuts.
The USG effectively has a backdoor interface for Google. With Glass, they will have data on who is walking where, when. Everyone who has Glass is being an informant on everyone around them.
They've already been doing pervasive surveillance in a comparatively limited way (Trapwire) but with Google Glass the implications are huge. Pervasive IRL video surveillance is not a good thing, and this technology stands to hurt dissidents far more than it stands to empower.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:29 PM on March 25, 2013
The USG effectively has a backdoor interface for Google. With Glass, they will have data on who is walking where, when. Everyone who has Glass is being an informant on everyone around them.
They've already been doing pervasive surveillance in a comparatively limited way (Trapwire) but with Google Glass the implications are huge. Pervasive IRL video surveillance is not a good thing, and this technology stands to hurt dissidents far more than it stands to empower.
posted by dunkadunc at 7:29 PM on March 25, 2013
Lots of caveman wannabes in this thread.
I'm just a simple caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm just a simple caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:31 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
I look forward to pro-lifers sitting in lawnchairs outside of clinics which provide abortions, gleefully looking up who comes and goes.
And if you don't think that sort of thing won't happen, we had a rather interesting AskMe a few years back ...
posted by adipocere at 7:33 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
And if you don't think that sort of thing won't happen, we had a rather interesting AskMe a few years back ...
posted by adipocere at 7:33 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Jeez, it's hard enough winding yor way around the talkers and texters on the sidewalk. The se people are gonna be murder.
posted by jonmc at 7:35 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by jonmc at 7:35 PM on March 25, 2013
I don't think I'll be interested in face-mounted computing until there's gesture recognition.
You may be interested in the MYO armband, which does gesture-based control by reading electrical signals from your forearm muscles. It's supposed to ship later this year and include an Android API.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated with the MYO people at all. The thought of combining one with Glass, though, gives me a raging case of SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 7:36 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
You may be interested in the MYO armband, which does gesture-based control by reading electrical signals from your forearm muscles. It's supposed to ship later this year and include an Android API.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated with the MYO people at all. The thought of combining one with Glass, though, gives me a raging case of SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 7:36 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
People keep bringing up stuff that you can do right now with existing things like phones. It's not like you can't be surreptitious using a phone either.
posted by markr at 7:41 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by markr at 7:41 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
And there are going to be billions more smart phones than things like Glass for a long, long time.
posted by markr at 7:42 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by markr at 7:42 PM on March 25, 2013
Sight, a brilliant and disturbing short sci-fi film by Eran May-raz and Daniel Lazo, imagines a world in which Google Glass-inspired apps are everywhere. (previously)
posted by desjardins at 7:50 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by desjardins at 7:50 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
*cough*
posted by localroger at 7:51 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by localroger at 7:51 PM on March 25, 2013
So these glasses are like one more data collecting point. I don't like to think of myself as a collection of data, even if that is explicitly how google or other large tech companies view me, and even if my actions every day, using a phone, browsing the web while logged into google, etc feed into that model and help sustain it in some small way.
I love that model. I read or heard somewhere the idea that humans were put on Earth by angels to collect data, and when we die all that data is uploaded to God. It's a lovely idea. When I was a kid I had a dream of writing every single moment of my life, recording myself, recording myself recording, etc. Very Borges, and its getting closer all the time. I love that somehow there is a mass of data that is me.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:01 PM on March 25, 2013
I love that model. I read or heard somewhere the idea that humans were put on Earth by angels to collect data, and when we die all that data is uploaded to God. It's a lovely idea. When I was a kid I had a dream of writing every single moment of my life, recording myself, recording myself recording, etc. Very Borges, and its getting closer all the time. I love that somehow there is a mass of data that is me.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:01 PM on March 25, 2013
See also the third episode of Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror, "The Entire History of You". It looks like the inevitable remake will take the idea further into sci-fi thriller territory, but the original is definitely relevant and furthermore it's just excellent television.
posted by Lorin at 8:02 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Lorin at 8:02 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Two things... 1> I remember there was a comic about a revolution being waged because everyone was forced to wear something akin to Glass. It was mandatory to see the VR layer of commercials. Drove people crazy.
2> A few years ago I was on the subway in Manhattan making field recordings of the trains squealing and hissing brake lines. Wasn't even paying attention to my fellow passengers.
A couple across the aisle from me freaked out, though. The man was terrified I'd been recording his conversation with his female companion. They made weak jokes about my being hired by his ex-wife.
I explained that I was working an art project, let them hear that they weren't recorded and we passed a bit of time discussing sound art.
This sort of conversation will become ubiquitous with the advent of Glass.
(See also, The Quantum Thief, where everyone can decide who remembers they've seen them, but Big Brother remembers everything.)
posted by artof.mulata at 8:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
2> A few years ago I was on the subway in Manhattan making field recordings of the trains squealing and hissing brake lines. Wasn't even paying attention to my fellow passengers.
A couple across the aisle from me freaked out, though. The man was terrified I'd been recording his conversation with his female companion. They made weak jokes about my being hired by his ex-wife.
I explained that I was working an art project, let them hear that they weren't recorded and we passed a bit of time discussing sound art.
This sort of conversation will become ubiquitous with the advent of Glass.
(See also, The Quantum Thief, where everyone can decide who remembers they've seen them, but Big Brother remembers everything.)
posted by artof.mulata at 8:08 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think that article by Farhad Manjoo is wanting to go along with the Google Glass team to an extent that he seems disingenuous to me.
The spin:
“One of the key points here,” Starner says, “is that we’re trying to make mobile systems that help the user pay more attention to the real world as opposed to retreating from it.”
The buying it:
It seems likely that once we get over the initial shock, goggles could go far in mitigating many of the social annoyances that other gadgets have caused.
I know this because during my hour-long conversation with Starner, he was constantly pulling up notes and conducting Web searches on his glasses, but I didn’t notice anything amiss. To an outside observer, he would have seemed far less distracted than I was. “One of the coolest things is that this makes me more socially graceful,” he says.
My rejection of this portrayal:
To begin with, the word amiss in the phrase "I didn't notice anything amiss" is something of a weasel word. What *would* have been amiss, per se? His social partner shoplifting, or more to the point, pirating music through his Google Glass, I suppose. But whether or not he's *aware* that his social partner was interacting with Google Glass is the question. And there, I simply can't believe what he's saying. Starner was pulling up notes how? It's done by speaking to Google Glass. Did the author block out the speech that began with "OK Glass"? Further, Starner was presumably reading this content, as well as Google searches. To do so, one has to gaze into this small screen.
Does the author expect us to believe that he can't discern the input (by speech) and consumption (visual) of Google Glass from the words and eye-contact that take place throughout normal interaction?
Sorry Google, I don't buy your spin. Nor yours, technologyreview dot com. Without having used Google Glass, I'm absolutely certain that, when it comes to social interaction, it will be as flow-disrupting as any other distraction. The subtlety of the input/output is no help: to the extent that it's not entirely clear what the wearer is focussing on, it'll be more disruptive, not less.
posted by huron at 8:08 PM on March 25, 2013
The spin:
“One of the key points here,” Starner says, “is that we’re trying to make mobile systems that help the user pay more attention to the real world as opposed to retreating from it.”
The buying it:
It seems likely that once we get over the initial shock, goggles could go far in mitigating many of the social annoyances that other gadgets have caused.
I know this because during my hour-long conversation with Starner, he was constantly pulling up notes and conducting Web searches on his glasses, but I didn’t notice anything amiss. To an outside observer, he would have seemed far less distracted than I was. “One of the coolest things is that this makes me more socially graceful,” he says.
My rejection of this portrayal:
To begin with, the word amiss in the phrase "I didn't notice anything amiss" is something of a weasel word. What *would* have been amiss, per se? His social partner shoplifting, or more to the point, pirating music through his Google Glass, I suppose. But whether or not he's *aware* that his social partner was interacting with Google Glass is the question. And there, I simply can't believe what he's saying. Starner was pulling up notes how? It's done by speaking to Google Glass. Did the author block out the speech that began with "OK Glass"? Further, Starner was presumably reading this content, as well as Google searches. To do so, one has to gaze into this small screen.
Does the author expect us to believe that he can't discern the input (by speech) and consumption (visual) of Google Glass from the words and eye-contact that take place throughout normal interaction?
Sorry Google, I don't buy your spin. Nor yours, technologyreview dot com. Without having used Google Glass, I'm absolutely certain that, when it comes to social interaction, it will be as flow-disrupting as any other distraction. The subtlety of the input/output is no help: to the extent that it's not entirely clear what the wearer is focussing on, it'll be more disruptive, not less.
posted by huron at 8:08 PM on March 25, 2013
Sight yt , a brilliant and disturbing short sci-fi film by Eran May-raz and Daniel Lazo, imagines a world in which Google Glass-inspired apps are everywhere. (previously)
Related: How Guys Will Use Google Glass
Google Glass and the Golden Age of Creepshots
posted by homunculus at 8:10 PM on March 25, 2013
Related: How Guys Will Use Google Glass
Google Glass and the Golden Age of Creepshots
posted by homunculus at 8:10 PM on March 25, 2013
I love that model. I read or heard somewhere the idea that humans were put on Earth by angels to collect data, and when we die all that data is uploaded to God. It's a lovely idea. When I was a kid I had a dream of writing every single moment of my life, recording myself, recording myself recording, etc. Very Borges, and its getting closer all the time. I love that somehow there is a mass of data that is me.
Here's a lifehack to tide you over until you get your computer glasses: two mirrors and a notebook.
Also you can write down people's names in it to remember them later, so count that as a double lifehack.
posted by codacorolla at 8:15 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
Here's a lifehack to tide you over until you get your computer glasses: two mirrors and a notebook.
Also you can write down people's names in it to remember them later, so count that as a double lifehack.
posted by codacorolla at 8:15 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm getting tired of the comparisons of Google Glass to smartphone. The whole product is designed to have superior form factor than smartphones, more sleek and easily used. Thus, surveillance and recording is easier as well. Clearly there is a difference between a camera you can choose to hold in your hand and one you wear on your head, pointing at the world at all times.
posted by Apocryphon at 8:20 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 8:20 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sure, but Apple is selling over 100 million iPhones a year, how long before it is more likely that someone will record you with Google Glass than just a regular old phone? Or if it is just hidden cameras you are worried about here, just 40 bucks. If you're worried about this stuff then fair enough, but there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to be more worried than you already were.
posted by markr at 8:36 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by markr at 8:36 PM on March 25, 2013
The vast majority of people won't record all of the time because the vast majority of our lives are fucking boring. Here's me folding laundry. Here's me reading a book.
posted by desjardins at 8:37 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by desjardins at 8:37 PM on March 25, 2013
yeah, I wonder about that information-totality trope: whether it's perceived positively (feltron annual report?) or negatively, as a totally omnipresent, gaff-less surveillance state. The Library of Babel works for me because it's about randomness/infinity and then pockets of meaning in that randomness. The idea that you can get all signal, no noise, or that the noise is actually signal if you can just look at enough of it, or that it's possible to have a meaningful future when you're constantly 'monumentalizing' your past (blah blah easter island/cloud storage...) seems like one of those hubris's (hubrisi?) people have been kicking themselves in the ass for not being able to resist since we could write about it.
posted by notesondismantling at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by notesondismantling at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2013
It's funny I hadn't thought about this before, but with regard to privacy:
I spent a good amount of time living in a small town. An really small and remote town. For the sake of argument let's just say that Russia was allegedly visible from this town. Anyway, the town's population was around ~600 people. We all lived in a fairly small space. Everyone knew everything everyone was doing. Dating was a huge issue. You couldn't make a long look without it being public knowledge. After awhile I just figured out how to keep certain things to myself, I learned how to keep secrets, how to keep private things private.
One of the great benefits of modernity is anonymity. But that was a temporary fluke. If anything the loss of privacy is just a return to normal. We forgot that the last 70 years were an aberration. We are leaving the golden age of privacy and there's no stopping it. Everything returns to the center eventually.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:47 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
I spent a good amount of time living in a small town. An really small and remote town. For the sake of argument let's just say that Russia was allegedly visible from this town. Anyway, the town's population was around ~600 people. We all lived in a fairly small space. Everyone knew everything everyone was doing. Dating was a huge issue. You couldn't make a long look without it being public knowledge. After awhile I just figured out how to keep certain things to myself, I learned how to keep secrets, how to keep private things private.
One of the great benefits of modernity is anonymity. But that was a temporary fluke. If anything the loss of privacy is just a return to normal. We forgot that the last 70 years were an aberration. We are leaving the golden age of privacy and there's no stopping it. Everything returns to the center eventually.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:47 PM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]
Here's a lifehack to tide you over until you get your computer glasses: two mirrors and a notebook.
Also you can write down people's names in it to remember them later, so count that as a double lifehack.
I always carry a notebook in addition to my smartphone. Will Google Glass also have an inward pointing camera for quick teeth checkups?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:50 PM on March 25, 2013
Also you can write down people's names in it to remember them later, so count that as a double lifehack.
I always carry a notebook in addition to my smartphone. Will Google Glass also have an inward pointing camera for quick teeth checkups?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:50 PM on March 25, 2013
Some folks here and in the articles are imagining Glass users recording and storing everything that happens constantly and permanently. I don't think anyone has any plans to actually do that, because it would be expensive and battery draining and pointless, but it's fun to consider whether it would possible.
Just doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation, if decent video was compressed down to say 500MB per hour, and you wanted to record 12 hours a day, you'd upload 6GB a day to Google -- about 2.2 terabytes a year. That would cost $60 a day with an AT&T data plan, but you can get away with it if you do it overnight via wifi -- it'll only use 75% of Comcast's monthly bandwidth cap, for example.
Now we want ubiquitous surveillance, so if you take the Mark Hurst article's suggestion of one out of 50 people on a bus having Glass, we need about 6 million users in the United States. So just in one country, we'll be uploading 12 exabytes a year to Google -- about 1/225th of the total data estimated to exist in any form in 2012.
That's surprisingly achievable, but it'll be costly and inconvenient for individual users, so you'd need some reason for businesses and millions of consumers to want to invest in the project, and there doesn't seem to be any reason they'd want to do that. It's not the kind of thing a government could just do surreptitiously.
But so, what a government could do surreptitiously is siphon data off of a face recognition app. Offer a free app where your Glasses snap photos of all the faces around you and the server sends back their names, purely for your amusement and edification, and just get a tap in a data center somewhere and eavesdrop on all the locations and identifications ...
posted by jhc at 8:52 PM on March 25, 2013
Just doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation, if decent video was compressed down to say 500MB per hour, and you wanted to record 12 hours a day, you'd upload 6GB a day to Google -- about 2.2 terabytes a year. That would cost $60 a day with an AT&T data plan, but you can get away with it if you do it overnight via wifi -- it'll only use 75% of Comcast's monthly bandwidth cap, for example.
Now we want ubiquitous surveillance, so if you take the Mark Hurst article's suggestion of one out of 50 people on a bus having Glass, we need about 6 million users in the United States. So just in one country, we'll be uploading 12 exabytes a year to Google -- about 1/225th of the total data estimated to exist in any form in 2012.
That's surprisingly achievable, but it'll be costly and inconvenient for individual users, so you'd need some reason for businesses and millions of consumers to want to invest in the project, and there doesn't seem to be any reason they'd want to do that. It's not the kind of thing a government could just do surreptitiously.
But so, what a government could do surreptitiously is siphon data off of a face recognition app. Offer a free app where your Glasses snap photos of all the faces around you and the server sends back their names, purely for your amusement and edification, and just get a tap in a data center somewhere and eavesdrop on all the locations and identifications ...
posted by jhc at 8:52 PM on March 25, 2013
Just doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation, if decent video was compressed down to say 500MB per hour, and you wanted to record 12 hours a day, you'd upload 6GB a day to Google -- about 2.2 terabytes a year. That would cost $60 a day with an AT&T data plan, but you can get away with it if you do it overnight via wifi -- it'll only use 75% of Comcast's monthly bandwidth cap, for example.
It would be prohibitively expensive in Australia, though. Which won't stop these from taking off like iPhones and iPads do. It'll be fun seeing them mix with our drinking culture.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
It would be prohibitively expensive in Australia, though. Which won't stop these from taking off like iPhones and iPads do. It'll be fun seeing them mix with our drinking culture.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Some folks here and in the articles are imagining Glass users recording and storing everything that happens constantly and permanently. I don't think anyone has any plans to actually do that, because it would be expensive and battery draining and pointless,
It would be pretty funny if, eight years into the experiment, the Chromebook-tepid levels of adoption for the device caused Google to close down its servers for uploading Google Memories, much to the anger of internet commenters but otherwise to the indifference of everyone else.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:01 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
It would be pretty funny if, eight years into the experiment, the Chromebook-tepid levels of adoption for the device caused Google to close down its servers for uploading Google Memories, much to the anger of internet commenters but otherwise to the indifference of everyone else.
posted by Apocryphon at 9:01 PM on March 25, 2013 [6 favorites]
So many places now have laws against masks, but you have to wonder if some technological equivalent might not become a thing in response...something that projects striations or patterns that thwart facial recognition software. Or veiled hats. Or pattern-disrupting camo makeup.
As to the dewy-eyed wonderment of youngsters over my desire not to have my every movement explicitly tracked (yes, I can be now, but someone has to take some effort or at least put a tracker on my car) I don't know what to tell you, except perhaps you lack enough experience of the shit people and organizations get up to and how that can be used to harm you. if you have ever been stalked or done political actions your employer might disapprove of, you'd maybe understand. Also, maybe I don't think whether I went skydiving last week or not is any of your goddamn business.Come and talk to me like a person instead of sneaking around the margins of my life trolling for data, if you want me to respect you.
posted by emjaybee at 9:17 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
As to the dewy-eyed wonderment of youngsters over my desire not to have my every movement explicitly tracked (yes, I can be now, but someone has to take some effort or at least put a tracker on my car) I don't know what to tell you, except perhaps you lack enough experience of the shit people and organizations get up to and how that can be used to harm you. if you have ever been stalked or done political actions your employer might disapprove of, you'd maybe understand. Also, maybe I don't think whether I went skydiving last week or not is any of your goddamn business.Come and talk to me like a person instead of sneaking around the margins of my life trolling for data, if you want me to respect you.
posted by emjaybee at 9:17 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]
So many places now have laws against masks, but you have to wonder if some technological equivalent might not become a thing in response...something that projects striations or patterns that thwart facial recognition software. Or veiled hats. Or pattern-disrupting camo makeup.
You mean hoodies. They're already shorthand for 'thug' in lots of places.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 9:25 PM on March 25, 2013
You mean hoodies. They're already shorthand for 'thug' in lots of places.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 9:25 PM on March 25, 2013
Are you a Man or a Machine?
Posted by homodigitalis
We have our eponysterical answer.
posted by ShutterBun at 10:28 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Posted by homodigitalis
We have our eponysterical answer.
posted by ShutterBun at 10:28 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]
Charlemagne In Sweatpants: " It's safer for people to know where I am so if bad shit happens they can help me and I can broadcast myself to anyone who might be receptive."
It sounds like some really bad shit has not actually happened to you. The kind of shit where you need to hide.
posted by meehawl at 11:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
It sounds like some really bad shit has not actually happened to you. The kind of shit where you need to hide.
posted by meehawl at 11:05 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
It sounds like some really bad shit has not actually happened to you. The kind of shit where you need to hide.
I remember at least one William Gibson character in that situation still took his shitty GPS glasses phones.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 11:13 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I remember at least one William Gibson character in that situation still took his shitty GPS glasses phones.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 11:13 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'll just wait for AltaVista Poly(methyl methacrylate).
posted by mazola at 11:50 PM on March 25, 2013
posted by mazola at 11:50 PM on March 25, 2013
I hate the future.
I also hate the present, too, if that counts for anything.
posted by mingo_clambake at 11:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
I also hate the present, too, if that counts for anything.
posted by mingo_clambake at 11:59 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]
It seems g-glasses have already achieved something - finally getting people to think about the loss of personal privacy. The glasses themselves don't seem to me to be a big step, they just make it easier for people to take photo's and video of the things they're looking at.
I'm a little surprised by the backlash here. The first of the 35 arguments linked by "Ed" basically describes Facebook. People who put their entire recorded life on Facebook, Google and their mobile phone are already giving up their privacy for convenient communication, so this conversation has been a long time in coming. Many of the remaining arguments describe unethical behaviours that already exist, or are social/political changes already happening.
And since I doubt we're going to get our privacy back anytime soon, I can't wait for these. I've been dreaming of a world much like the "Sight" short-vid posted above for a while now, and g-glasses are the first step. This conversation about privacy and the ethics of use are important and necessary, but to me it seems people are blaming the glasses for making the already possible easier and the privacy implications more apparent.
posted by bigZLiLk at 12:22 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
I'm a little surprised by the backlash here. The first of the 35 arguments linked by "Ed" basically describes Facebook. People who put their entire recorded life on Facebook, Google and their mobile phone are already giving up their privacy for convenient communication, so this conversation has been a long time in coming. Many of the remaining arguments describe unethical behaviours that already exist, or are social/political changes already happening.
And since I doubt we're going to get our privacy back anytime soon, I can't wait for these. I've been dreaming of a world much like the "Sight" short-vid posted above for a while now, and g-glasses are the first step. This conversation about privacy and the ethics of use are important and necessary, but to me it seems people are blaming the glasses for making the already possible easier and the privacy implications more apparent.
posted by bigZLiLk at 12:22 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
For the tinfoil hat crowd, Wikipedia: Carrier IQ (Alleged smartphone backdoor.) As for not comparing GG with smart phones aren't they going to be used together through bluetooth?
posted by saber_taylor at 12:42 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by saber_taylor at 12:42 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Alleged" makes it sound like it didn't happen. It's alleged the sun rose yesterday, too.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:54 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by dunkadunc at 12:54 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I imagine surgeons using this to allow remote experts to consult on their operation, I imagine that the engineers back at the plant will be consulting their schematics and direction the technician through a complicated repair or using these to navigate a route. People will share or sell their feed to the public. If you are in trouble, you can share your feed with the 911 operator who will then pass it on to the first responders who are en route. When the first responders arrive, the chief will have all the feeds available and be able to coordinate action. If we add a couple more cameras, we can choose infrared, ultraviolet, magnified or zoomed, an extra mic could be used to amplify sound.
I look forward to these being hacked, cracked, unlocked, modded and open sourced. I have a feeling privacy is going to be a whole different ball game. Dazzle makeup, uploading a false feed, spoofing the glasses identity, all come to mind.
Of course google glass is just version .1, but I expect that they will take off like cell phones at some point and when they do, exciting things will happen.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 2:25 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
I look forward to these being hacked, cracked, unlocked, modded and open sourced. I have a feeling privacy is going to be a whole different ball game. Dazzle makeup, uploading a false feed, spoofing the glasses identity, all come to mind.
Of course google glass is just version .1, but I expect that they will take off like cell phones at some point and when they do, exciting things will happen.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 2:25 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Jehan: Were I a business owner with lots of low-paid employees, I would make them wear Google glasses for the whole workday to ensure that they didn't slack off or steal anything. Being able to see everything they are doing would give me immense power over them.
Have you read Manna?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:05 AM on March 26, 2013
Have you read Manna?
posted by Thorzdad at 5:05 AM on March 26, 2013
I'm pretty much going to shank people using Google Glasses around me.
I just want you all to know that.
Fair warning and all.
posted by Mezentian at 5:56 AM on March 26, 2013
I just want you all to know that.
Fair warning and all.
posted by Mezentian at 5:56 AM on March 26, 2013
Steve Mann, a pioneer in augmented reality, has a longish take on Google Glass and some of it's short comings.
My Augmented Life
This link has a more succinct summary of potential issues with Google Glass.
Q and A on Smart Glasses with Steve
posted by chrispwalsh at 6:03 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
My Augmented Life
This link has a more succinct summary of potential issues with Google Glass.
Q and A on Smart Glasses with Steve
posted by chrispwalsh at 6:03 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Through a Glass Googly.
I think it's some sort of cricket bowling joke.
Professional use has a lot more potential, and of course porn.
POV Rape Porn.
Why wouldn't you if you were into that sort of thing?
Mark my words.
We've already seen humiliation videos on the internet (The Kings of Werribee spring to mind, or the pool table girl, or the recent Ohio football rape in stupenville) why not the same with more?
posted by Mezentian at 6:03 AM on March 26, 2013
I think it's some sort of cricket bowling joke.
Professional use has a lot more potential, and of course porn.
POV Rape Porn.
Why wouldn't you if you were into that sort of thing?
Mark my words.
We've already seen humiliation videos on the internet (The Kings of Werribee spring to mind, or the pool table girl, or the recent Ohio football rape in stupenville) why not the same with more?
posted by Mezentian at 6:03 AM on March 26, 2013
I can't believe I'm the first one saying this, but... what about the childrens?!
I get weirded out when I see people pointing giant DSLRs in the direction of the playground (note: not parents taking pictures of their kids, other people passing by taking pictures of...? I have no idea) - not to the point of saying anything, but it still feels unsettling.
If I saw someone walk onto the playground with Google Glass, I would leave right quick. I can't pinpoint a single rational concern for someone taking pictures of my kid - I'm sure other parents have plenty of candid shots with my tot in the background - but my irrational lizard brain doesn't like it one bit.
posted by sonika at 6:32 AM on March 26, 2013
I get weirded out when I see people pointing giant DSLRs in the direction of the playground (note: not parents taking pictures of their kids, other people passing by taking pictures of...? I have no idea) - not to the point of saying anything, but it still feels unsettling.
If I saw someone walk onto the playground with Google Glass, I would leave right quick. I can't pinpoint a single rational concern for someone taking pictures of my kid - I'm sure other parents have plenty of candid shots with my tot in the background - but my irrational lizard brain doesn't like it one bit.
posted by sonika at 6:32 AM on March 26, 2013
"Hey, fellow activists, here's where I am, if I disappear suddenly, I might have been arrested."
"Hmm, I see cops at this protest. May as well start filming in case they start acting like dicks again."
I definitely concede the possibility of recording cops - but how long do you think it will be until they have a jammer, and jammers for anyone else are illegal? Like other jammers?
More likely, it will be used for recognition of leaders at protests, and then the transmittal of said leader's locations for them to be swiftly dealt with.
posted by corb at 6:44 AM on March 26, 2013
"Hmm, I see cops at this protest. May as well start filming in case they start acting like dicks again."
I definitely concede the possibility of recording cops - but how long do you think it will be until they have a jammer, and jammers for anyone else are illegal? Like other jammers?
More likely, it will be used for recognition of leaders at protests, and then the transmittal of said leader's locations for them to be swiftly dealt with.
posted by corb at 6:44 AM on March 26, 2013
corb, that's going to happen anyway. You can either let the hardware exist in government hands only, or you can democratize it far and wide (see also: drones).
posted by Leon at 7:32 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Leon at 7:32 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
to me it seems people are blaming the glasses for making the already possible easier and the privacy implications more apparent.
You ever read the original Ian Fleming Bond books? In one of them he mentions that either MI5 or the CIA made a habit of flying a copies of foreign newspapers overnight by jet to their HQ, because simply having access to that public info as quickly as possible was a huge advantage in intelligence gathering. Right now, I can click over to the front page of Le Monde or the South China Morning Post in two seconds.
For technology to bring about huge and radical shifts in culture, it is not necessary that it make the impossible possible. Merely that it make the expensive and difficult cheap and easy. In fact, I'd wager that it's the latter category of change which is the most frequent, far-reaching and profound.
posted by Diablevert at 8:53 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
You ever read the original Ian Fleming Bond books? In one of them he mentions that either MI5 or the CIA made a habit of flying a copies of foreign newspapers overnight by jet to their HQ, because simply having access to that public info as quickly as possible was a huge advantage in intelligence gathering. Right now, I can click over to the front page of Le Monde or the South China Morning Post in two seconds.
For technology to bring about huge and radical shifts in culture, it is not necessary that it make the impossible possible. Merely that it make the expensive and difficult cheap and easy. In fact, I'd wager that it's the latter category of change which is the most frequent, far-reaching and profound.
posted by Diablevert at 8:53 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
POV Rape Porn.
Why wouldn't you if you were into that sort of thing?
High quality video cameras are already small enough to strap to your head. Do you think the one thing holding people back from making POV rape porn is embarrassment that they'll look a bit goofy to the person they're (fake-)raping?
There's some very weird freak-out shit going on with these Google glasses which I just do not understand. Cameras are small enough to conceal about your person already. If you are worried about some creep surreptitiously filming you this is a technological battle that has already been lost. Google glasses do not alter this fact one iota.
I'm pretty much going to shank people using Google Glasses around me.
Have a nice time in prison for the rest of your life: perhaps not the obvious place to elect to go if you have an inherent objection to living your life under surveillance. I guess the shanking skills will come in handy, though.
I get weirded out when I see people pointing giant DSLRs in the direction of the playground
And, again, Google glasses do basically nothing to remove a technological barrier to the surreptitious filming of children in playgrounds, if that happens to be either your bag or your nightmare. Anyone who can afford Google glasses can afford a telephoto lens strong enough to get high quality images of a playground at a sufficient distance that the people in the playground won't be aware of them. Or afford to buy a lens that takes pictures at a 45-degree angle from where the camera is pointed (something that has been available for decades).
posted by yoink at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2013 [6 favorites]
Why wouldn't you if you were into that sort of thing?
High quality video cameras are already small enough to strap to your head. Do you think the one thing holding people back from making POV rape porn is embarrassment that they'll look a bit goofy to the person they're (fake-)raping?
There's some very weird freak-out shit going on with these Google glasses which I just do not understand. Cameras are small enough to conceal about your person already. If you are worried about some creep surreptitiously filming you this is a technological battle that has already been lost. Google glasses do not alter this fact one iota.
I'm pretty much going to shank people using Google Glasses around me.
Have a nice time in prison for the rest of your life: perhaps not the obvious place to elect to go if you have an inherent objection to living your life under surveillance. I guess the shanking skills will come in handy, though.
I get weirded out when I see people pointing giant DSLRs in the direction of the playground
And, again, Google glasses do basically nothing to remove a technological barrier to the surreptitious filming of children in playgrounds, if that happens to be either your bag or your nightmare. Anyone who can afford Google glasses can afford a telephoto lens strong enough to get high quality images of a playground at a sufficient distance that the people in the playground won't be aware of them. Or afford to buy a lens that takes pictures at a 45-degree angle from where the camera is pointed (something that has been available for decades).
posted by yoink at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2013 [6 favorites]
I can't believe I'm the first one saying this, but... what about the childrens?!
They'll have it too.
Growing Up with Google Glass
posted by homunculus at 9:37 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
They'll have it too.
Growing Up with Google Glass
posted by homunculus at 9:37 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Growing Up with Google Glass
We will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
posted by localroger at 9:48 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
We will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
posted by localroger at 9:48 AM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Cameras are small enough to conceal about your person already.
Why has there been an explosion of (non-surreptitious) picture taking in the last decade? Cameras have been around for a long time. But now many, many people carry a camera with them every day in a device that's ostensibly a phone. You don't have to think about taking a separate device with you. You don't have the cost of film. You don't have to wait to get your pictures back from a store. You're not limited by anything except the size of your phone's memory, and even then you can just upload what's on there to the cloud, erase the card and start anew.
Glass is going to make video recording and storing much, much more convenient and I don't think it's ridiculous to think that as Glass-like devices become more popular, surreptitious recording is going to become more prevalent.
Right now, if you want to record someone surreptitiously, you have to put some intent into it. Either you have to disguise your phone, disguise what you're doing with it, or buy a camera specifically intended to be surreptitious. You know what you're doing, and if you're caught, malicious intent can be presumed. With Glass, there's not necessarily an intent to invade privacy if you're just going about your day and recording what you see. Yet privacy can still be invaded.
posted by desjardins at 9:49 AM on March 26, 2013
Why has there been an explosion of (non-surreptitious) picture taking in the last decade? Cameras have been around for a long time. But now many, many people carry a camera with them every day in a device that's ostensibly a phone. You don't have to think about taking a separate device with you. You don't have the cost of film. You don't have to wait to get your pictures back from a store. You're not limited by anything except the size of your phone's memory, and even then you can just upload what's on there to the cloud, erase the card and start anew.
Glass is going to make video recording and storing much, much more convenient and I don't think it's ridiculous to think that as Glass-like devices become more popular, surreptitious recording is going to become more prevalent.
Right now, if you want to record someone surreptitiously, you have to put some intent into it. Either you have to disguise your phone, disguise what you're doing with it, or buy a camera specifically intended to be surreptitious. You know what you're doing, and if you're caught, malicious intent can be presumed. With Glass, there's not necessarily an intent to invade privacy if you're just going about your day and recording what you see. Yet privacy can still be invaded.
posted by desjardins at 9:49 AM on March 26, 2013
Even if you're NOT recording, the presumption may be that you are (cf all the people who are saying they'd punch someone wearing Glass). Let's say you witness some police misconduct (or other crime) while you're wearing them; even though you weren't recording at the time, I can easily envision that a subpoena will be issued for your data just to make sure.
posted by desjardins at 9:53 AM on March 26, 2013
posted by desjardins at 9:53 AM on March 26, 2013
This goofy generation of demo ware will raise alerts. How many people have phones without a camera? Quite soon it may not be possible to buy even a cheapo pair of throwaway sunglasses without an almost invisible camera. We have seen the enemy and we are the panopticon.
posted by sammyo at 10:44 AM on March 26, 2013
posted by sammyo at 10:44 AM on March 26, 2013
I want my next mugging attempt to be recorded. And, assuming I can get my hands on these soon enough, it will be. Build them into prescription glasses, and I'll be happy to pay $1500.
The whole internet-tough-guy "I'm going to punch anyone I see with these in the face" thing is pretty funny though - the assumption being that assaulting random people will end well at all. Legally the assumption seems to be that a video of a fist coming toward a face won't be definitive in court is pretty odd, as is the physical assumption that the wearers will be lightweight weak tech-dweebs. Do they really think nobody who likes fighting will be wearing these? Of all the possible self-defense excuses "I got punched in the face for no reason and here's the video to prove it" ranks pretty high.
posted by Neuffy at 11:40 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
The whole internet-tough-guy "I'm going to punch anyone I see with these in the face" thing is pretty funny though - the assumption being that assaulting random people will end well at all. Legally the assumption seems to be that a video of a fist coming toward a face won't be definitive in court is pretty odd, as is the physical assumption that the wearers will be lightweight weak tech-dweebs. Do they really think nobody who likes fighting will be wearing these? Of all the possible self-defense excuses "I got punched in the face for no reason and here's the video to prove it" ranks pretty high.
posted by Neuffy at 11:40 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Why has there been an explosion of (non-surreptitious) picture taking in the last decade?
Because cameras are ubiquitous and can be concealed in almost anything? That's pretty much my point. Freaking out over Google Glasses is like freaking out over the new model Honda Civic: "OMG!!! They're unleashing steel-clad death-machines onto our roads that will be driven by any moron who can pass a ridiculously non-rigorous driving exam!" Well, yeah--but that's already the norm, and shanking everyone who drives a new model Civic (because, hey, you never know when they might use that car to kill you) is pretty much as sensible as shanking everyone you see wearing Google Glasses.
posted by yoink at 11:41 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Because cameras are ubiquitous and can be concealed in almost anything? That's pretty much my point. Freaking out over Google Glasses is like freaking out over the new model Honda Civic: "OMG!!! They're unleashing steel-clad death-machines onto our roads that will be driven by any moron who can pass a ridiculously non-rigorous driving exam!" Well, yeah--but that's already the norm, and shanking everyone who drives a new model Civic (because, hey, you never know when they might use that car to kill you) is pretty much as sensible as shanking everyone you see wearing Google Glasses.
posted by yoink at 11:41 AM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
The concern with Glass is not that people will now be able to monitor things around them: I have had the technology to do this sort of thing for a couple years now, in a smaller, more discreet form factor.
The concern is that millions of people will have always-on video surveillance coupled to facial recognition, going back to one company's servers. One company that shares its information with intelligence agencies.
It doesn't matter if it isn't always-on. Enough people will have it on that you won't be able to walk down the street without their analytics knowing where you were. All the video feeds won't need to be stored: They certainly can be for targets of interest, but all the DB really needs is what faces were where, when.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:53 AM on March 26, 2013
The concern is that millions of people will have always-on video surveillance coupled to facial recognition, going back to one company's servers. One company that shares its information with intelligence agencies.
It doesn't matter if it isn't always-on. Enough people will have it on that you won't be able to walk down the street without their analytics knowing where you were. All the video feeds won't need to be stored: They certainly can be for targets of interest, but all the DB really needs is what faces were where, when.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:53 AM on March 26, 2013
I hope all the paranoids (and I mean that literally) in this thread don't use cell phones, because those are much better person trackers than your mythical glass panopticon will ever be.
posted by aspo at 12:09 PM on March 26, 2013
posted by aspo at 12:09 PM on March 26, 2013
Cell phones track you.
Glass tracks the people around you.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:13 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Glass tracks the people around you.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:13 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
The concern is that millions of people will have always-on video surveillance coupled to facial recognition, going back to one company's servers. One company that shares its information with intelligence agencies.
These are largely not reality-based concerns. Google Glasses are not "always on video surveillance." Not even Google has the resources to store the endless terabytes of information that that would entail. And, yes, Google--like every single company in the US--must respond to a legal subpoena for information from duly constituted authorities. That is not the same thing as Google saying to the FBI "oh sure, come and monitor the feeds from all the Google Glasses we've ever sold--that's cool!"
So, yeah, it's conceivable that if you were witness to a crime and the FBI had some way of proving that they might subpoena Google to see if you had stored either photographs or videos of that crime. Once again, however, this is not some weird magical new circumstance created by the spoooooooooky new technology of a video camera mounted on a glasses frame. They could do the same thing if they knew that you were there with your SLR camera or your cameraphone or your 8mm camera or what have you.
Everyone seems to be imagining some kind of "Minority Report" scenario where suddenly the whole world becomes an interlinked spynet; that is both beyond the technological capacity of Google Glasses and would clearly not be legal even if it weren't.
posted by yoink at 12:14 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
These are largely not reality-based concerns. Google Glasses are not "always on video surveillance." Not even Google has the resources to store the endless terabytes of information that that would entail. And, yes, Google--like every single company in the US--must respond to a legal subpoena for information from duly constituted authorities. That is not the same thing as Google saying to the FBI "oh sure, come and monitor the feeds from all the Google Glasses we've ever sold--that's cool!"
So, yeah, it's conceivable that if you were witness to a crime and the FBI had some way of proving that they might subpoena Google to see if you had stored either photographs or videos of that crime. Once again, however, this is not some weird magical new circumstance created by the spoooooooooky new technology of a video camera mounted on a glasses frame. They could do the same thing if they knew that you were there with your SLR camera or your cameraphone or your 8mm camera or what have you.
Everyone seems to be imagining some kind of "Minority Report" scenario where suddenly the whole world becomes an interlinked spynet; that is both beyond the technological capacity of Google Glasses and would clearly not be legal even if it weren't.
posted by yoink at 12:14 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
But you can control whether or not you have a cellphone. You (usually) cannot control whether or not someone is recording you. Someone recording you, coupled with facial recognition, uploaded to a distant server, puts you at a certain place and time.
posted by desjardins at 12:16 PM on March 26, 2013
posted by desjardins at 12:16 PM on March 26, 2013
yoink, it doesn't feel very good-faith when you only address part of my comment, ignoring the rest. Could you address the second part?
As I said, the video feed does not need to be stored. All that needs to happen is for faces within the feed to be compared against a DB, and their locations logged.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:18 PM on March 26, 2013
As I said, the video feed does not need to be stored. All that needs to happen is for faces within the feed to be compared against a DB, and their locations logged.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:18 PM on March 26, 2013
that is both beyond the technological capacity of Google Glasses
Right now, sure. In five years, maybe not.
and would clearly not be legal even if it weren't.
There have already been enough reports of the American government spying on American citizens to make this laughable.
posted by desjardins at 12:20 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Right now, sure. In five years, maybe not.
and would clearly not be legal even if it weren't.
There have already been enough reports of the American government spying on American citizens to make this laughable.
posted by desjardins at 12:20 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
You (usually) cannot control whether or not someone is recording you.
If you're in a public place in the US then you have no legal right to object to someone recording you. And video cameras have been small enough to conceal in pens etc for a very long time already. Google glasses are actually more noticeable than many currently commercially available internet-linked video cameras that any one of us could conceal about our person so as to video anything we happened to wish to video. If Google Glass are going to bring about the apocalypse that so many of you seem to fear, why hasn't it already occurred, and why won't it occur with or without Google Glasses?
posted by yoink at 12:22 PM on March 26, 2013
If you're in a public place in the US then you have no legal right to object to someone recording you. And video cameras have been small enough to conceal in pens etc for a very long time already. Google glasses are actually more noticeable than many currently commercially available internet-linked video cameras that any one of us could conceal about our person so as to video anything we happened to wish to video. If Google Glass are going to bring about the apocalypse that so many of you seem to fear, why hasn't it already occurred, and why won't it occur with or without Google Glasses?
posted by yoink at 12:22 PM on March 26, 2013
yoink, please address the entirety of my comment.
-The concern is that it can do surveillance on the people around you
-It doesn't have to be always-on: You only need a few people
-This data goes back to Google servers
-The video feed does not need to be stored, just the geotagged facial data that is stripped from it
-This data is then available to intelligence agencies.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:27 PM on March 26, 2013
-The concern is that it can do surveillance on the people around you
-It doesn't have to be always-on: You only need a few people
-This data goes back to Google servers
-The video feed does not need to be stored, just the geotagged facial data that is stripped from it
-This data is then available to intelligence agencies.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:27 PM on March 26, 2013
There have already been enough reports of the American government spying on American citizens to make this laughable.
That's ridiculous. It's like saying "there are so many murders, that clearly it doesn't matter whether or not murder is illegal." There's a reason that the various spy agencies press congress to ease various restrictions on the ways in which they can legally gather intelligence. If they simply ignored the laws they wouldn't care what those laws said, would they? Yes, agents of the government break laws about evidence gathering very often; by the same token, judges rule evidence inadmissible all the time. If you believe that you live in such a completely dystopian police state that Google will activate some kind of Total Global Surveillance Panopticon switch as soon as Google Glasses hit the street with a feed from every set going to the NSA then the Glasses themselves are really the least of your worries. If that's already the case then we're fucked with or without the glasses.
posted by yoink at 12:30 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
That's ridiculous. It's like saying "there are so many murders, that clearly it doesn't matter whether or not murder is illegal." There's a reason that the various spy agencies press congress to ease various restrictions on the ways in which they can legally gather intelligence. If they simply ignored the laws they wouldn't care what those laws said, would they? Yes, agents of the government break laws about evidence gathering very often; by the same token, judges rule evidence inadmissible all the time. If you believe that you live in such a completely dystopian police state that Google will activate some kind of Total Global Surveillance Panopticon switch as soon as Google Glasses hit the street with a feed from every set going to the NSA then the Glasses themselves are really the least of your worries. If that's already the case then we're fucked with or without the glasses.
posted by yoink at 12:30 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
-The concern is that it can do surveillance on the people around you
-It doesn't have to be always-on: You only need a few people
-This data goes back to Google servers
-The video feed does not need to be stored, just the geotagged facial data that is stripped from it
-This data is then available to intelligence agencies.
A) Offer some evidence that the last item on your list isn't paranoid nonsense.
B) There are, as I have already pointed out, any number of ways to carry around a hidden video camera. If the chief purpose of Google Glasses were to surreptitiously video people, why would you purchase a very visible device whose field of view is easily "read" by others rather than a far more discrete device that can be tucked into a breast pocket and even rotated to shoot at an angle from where you appear to be looking?
C) Most people younger than 25 walk around with their smartphones in their hands almost all the time. Whenever they sit down in a cafe or any other public space they have them in front of them. All of those smart phones have the capacity to be videoing and uploading the videos to Google servers (or Apple servers) at any time without any of us knowing it. Again: why haven't any of these dire consequences that you imagine from Google Glass already happened?
posted by yoink at 12:38 PM on March 26, 2013
-It doesn't have to be always-on: You only need a few people
-This data goes back to Google servers
-The video feed does not need to be stored, just the geotagged facial data that is stripped from it
-This data is then available to intelligence agencies.
A) Offer some evidence that the last item on your list isn't paranoid nonsense.
B) There are, as I have already pointed out, any number of ways to carry around a hidden video camera. If the chief purpose of Google Glasses were to surreptitiously video people, why would you purchase a very visible device whose field of view is easily "read" by others rather than a far more discrete device that can be tucked into a breast pocket and even rotated to shoot at an angle from where you appear to be looking?
C) Most people younger than 25 walk around with their smartphones in their hands almost all the time. Whenever they sit down in a cafe or any other public space they have them in front of them. All of those smart phones have the capacity to be videoing and uploading the videos to Google servers (or Apple servers) at any time without any of us knowing it. Again: why haven't any of these dire consequences that you imagine from Google Glass already happened?
posted by yoink at 12:38 PM on March 26, 2013
A few weeks ago when I was washing my hands at work, I noticed in the mirror that when I put my cellphone in my shirt pocket (it's a Note II, for reference) the camera pretty much perfectly sticks up so I could record with it in my pocket if I wanted to. I was curious, and a quick search showed that yes, one can get apps which will record video without the screen being on. Heck, they'll do it in the background so if someone comes up to me, and I need to use my phone to answer a question it doesn't jump to an obvious video recorder while coming out of the lock screen.
In the last month, I probably have my phone in my shirt pocket, instead of the pouch on my side, at least half the time. I could be recording everyone (granted, there isn't yet convenient software to tie it to google's face recognition currently), and not once has anyone asked if I'm recording them. Heck, no one has even commented on how the camera lense stares at them.
(note, I'm not actually doing any sneaky recording)
So, it's not having a camera aimed at people which is causing all this shanking (seriously, are we in 5th grade? You'll shank someone for wearing google glasses? And can you olly your skate board over your house? And your dad is a secret billionaire spy?). The problem is it's 1) something new, and/or 2) the future potential for facial reconition creating a time/person/position map being disconcerting to the illusion of privacy we like.
For the people in section 1), oh no! The sky is falling! Quick run to your fallout shelter and please stay there until I come and let you know that it's safe. Nope, keep waiting. Or see Amara's Law (thanks mullingitover).
For the people in section 2) - how about trying to loby the government to make something like this illegal? Whether there's eventually some country getting tie in for all of the cctv's in the UK, google classes, or the new passive record everything of iOS 13.0 (2 years after it's already been well received in Android) something's eventually going to do it. But Google Glasses, as currently envisioned, don't do this.
If you don't trust that the government/corporations would actually follow such a law (if it somehow became one) (good for you), then you know that we've already lost, and it's just a matter of time. Accept whatever comfort and convenience you can get and try not to lose your awareness that you have at best an illusion of privacy. Maybe buy a nice collection of masks and encourage a perma-halloween culture?
If you're actually worried about being recorded in a creep shots fashion; it's more likely going to be from someone with a pin-hole camera hidden about them whom you don't even notice. It's not going to be the person who won't void their warranty by disconnecting the "record" LED on their brand new set of Glass.
posted by nobeagle at 12:49 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
In the last month, I probably have my phone in my shirt pocket, instead of the pouch on my side, at least half the time. I could be recording everyone (granted, there isn't yet convenient software to tie it to google's face recognition currently), and not once has anyone asked if I'm recording them. Heck, no one has even commented on how the camera lense stares at them.
(note, I'm not actually doing any sneaky recording)
So, it's not having a camera aimed at people which is causing all this shanking (seriously, are we in 5th grade? You'll shank someone for wearing google glasses? And can you olly your skate board over your house? And your dad is a secret billionaire spy?). The problem is it's 1) something new, and/or 2) the future potential for facial reconition creating a time/person/position map being disconcerting to the illusion of privacy we like.
For the people in section 1), oh no! The sky is falling! Quick run to your fallout shelter and please stay there until I come and let you know that it's safe. Nope, keep waiting. Or see Amara's Law (thanks mullingitover).
For the people in section 2) - how about trying to loby the government to make something like this illegal? Whether there's eventually some country getting tie in for all of the cctv's in the UK, google classes, or the new passive record everything of iOS 13.0 (2 years after it's already been well received in Android) something's eventually going to do it. But Google Glasses, as currently envisioned, don't do this.
If you don't trust that the government/corporations would actually follow such a law (if it somehow became one) (good for you), then you know that we've already lost, and it's just a matter of time. Accept whatever comfort and convenience you can get and try not to lose your awareness that you have at best an illusion of privacy. Maybe buy a nice collection of masks and encourage a perma-halloween culture?
If you're actually worried about being recorded in a creep shots fashion; it's more likely going to be from someone with a pin-hole camera hidden about them whom you don't even notice. It's not going to be the person who won't void their warranty by disconnecting the "record" LED on their brand new set of Glass.
posted by nobeagle at 12:49 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
You'd have to be all kinds of insane to use that product.
Not to worry; Google has hired Roddy Piper to "convince" you to wear them.
posted by banshee at 1:14 PM on March 26, 2013
Not to worry; Google has hired Roddy Piper to "convince" you to wear them.
posted by banshee at 1:14 PM on March 26, 2013
banshee: that's excellent, because I'm all outta bubblegum.
posted by nobeagle at 1:18 PM on March 26, 2013
posted by nobeagle at 1:18 PM on March 26, 2013
B) There are, as I have already pointed out, any number of ways to carry around a hidden video camera. If the chief purpose of Google Glasses were to surreptitiously video people, why would you purchase a very visible device whose field of view is easily "read" by others rather than a far more discrete device that can be tucked into a breast pocket and even rotated to shoot at an angle from where you appear to be looking?
It was possible to stalk people in real life before Facebook and Google. People who did this, however, were regarded, for the most part, as creepy freaks with serious psychological issues. If, in 1990, I had trucked my ass over to the library to search through the card catalogue of the local paper and shelled out $50 bucks to search court cases in Lexis Nexus and gone down to the town hall to do a public records search just to see if my blind date had ever been arrested or made the news, I would have been regarded as a capital-F Freak.
But now? Do a quick google, have a peak at his or her Facebook profile? Expected. Ubiquitous.
So yeah, it was possible, if you were the sort of person to think to yourself, "man, I'd really like to start videotaping random people without their knowledge" to do so. The technology exists, and the effort cost is a lot lower than it would have been in 1990, for sure. What technologies like glass promise is the ability to reduce the effort cost to nearly zero, and to make it really easy for everyone to indulge that whim. That has the potential to cause as great a shift in cultural norms as google and Facebook did. Because again: it's not about making the impossible possible. It's about making the difficult easy. You have to have a reason to want to be filming people surripetously, right now, to get you over the hump of going out there and seeking out the means to do so --- you have to have something you fear, or something you want to uncover, or be a fucking creep. Removing that hump -- turning surveillance into something I can do by flicking behind my ear, and most importantly, something I can do without the subject having any awareness that I'm doing it ---- changes things utterly. Just like Facebook and google changed stalking.
posted by Diablevert at 1:59 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
It was possible to stalk people in real life before Facebook and Google. People who did this, however, were regarded, for the most part, as creepy freaks with serious psychological issues. If, in 1990, I had trucked my ass over to the library to search through the card catalogue of the local paper and shelled out $50 bucks to search court cases in Lexis Nexus and gone down to the town hall to do a public records search just to see if my blind date had ever been arrested or made the news, I would have been regarded as a capital-F Freak.
But now? Do a quick google, have a peak at his or her Facebook profile? Expected. Ubiquitous.
So yeah, it was possible, if you were the sort of person to think to yourself, "man, I'd really like to start videotaping random people without their knowledge" to do so. The technology exists, and the effort cost is a lot lower than it would have been in 1990, for sure. What technologies like glass promise is the ability to reduce the effort cost to nearly zero, and to make it really easy for everyone to indulge that whim. That has the potential to cause as great a shift in cultural norms as google and Facebook did. Because again: it's not about making the impossible possible. It's about making the difficult easy. You have to have a reason to want to be filming people surripetously, right now, to get you over the hump of going out there and seeking out the means to do so --- you have to have something you fear, or something you want to uncover, or be a fucking creep. Removing that hump -- turning surveillance into something I can do by flicking behind my ear, and most importantly, something I can do without the subject having any awareness that I'm doing it ---- changes things utterly. Just like Facebook and google changed stalking.
posted by Diablevert at 1:59 PM on March 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Why should the creeps be lumped in with people who just want to easily film cool street graffiti or who want to use Google Glass to augment their memory? Ubiquitous recording means that people will record abuses of power easier, like they've been doing, and we'll be able to create and share memories easier. Not to mention the mundane stuff like GPS HUDs.
There was a great BBC radio show about people who record their lives that addresses this; I wish I could find it. For one thing it helped people with amnesia form new memories.
I literally do not understand most of this thread. It's like all the people here who don't use Facebook. What do you do?
The only thing that bugs me is the interface: I'd prefer a keyboard to voice commands. And I wish the tech were integrated into my body.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:09 PM on March 26, 2013
There was a great BBC radio show about people who record their lives that addresses this; I wish I could find it. For one thing it helped people with amnesia form new memories.
I literally do not understand most of this thread. It's like all the people here who don't use Facebook. What do you do?
The only thing that bugs me is the interface: I'd prefer a keyboard to voice commands. And I wish the tech were integrated into my body.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:09 PM on March 26, 2013
Or maybe I'm the monster, one of a new breed who ignore objective reality to exist in pure subjectivity. I wonder how far you could take AR? Could you retexture the world, make everything pixelated or flat polygons?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:14 PM on March 26, 2013
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:14 PM on March 26, 2013
Removing that hump
As nobeagle points out above, the "hump" currently amounts to the effort it takes to put your smartphone in your breastpocket. Filming something with Google glasses is more noticeable than that (because the glasses are noticeable in themselves and we are very attuned to where people are turning their heads--but nowhere near so attuned to where they are directing their torsos.
So, once again, this is a ship that already sailed--and the terrible, terrible consequences you are all imagining have, once again, largely failed to materialize.
posted by yoink at 2:20 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
As nobeagle points out above, the "hump" currently amounts to the effort it takes to put your smartphone in your breastpocket. Filming something with Google glasses is more noticeable than that (because the glasses are noticeable in themselves and we are very attuned to where people are turning their heads--but nowhere near so attuned to where they are directing their torsos.
So, once again, this is a ship that already sailed--and the terrible, terrible consequences you are all imagining have, once again, largely failed to materialize.
posted by yoink at 2:20 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
As nobeagle points out above, the "hump" currently amounts to the effort it takes to put your smartphone in your breastpocket.
No. The hump is "I would like to surreptitiously film someone. How would I go about doing that?" You have to have the intent and the desire to uncover the means. But if handed the means most people will give into to the merest flicker of desire.
Filming something with Google glasses is more noticeable than that (because the glasses are noticeable in themselves and we are very attuned to where people are turning their heads--but nowhere near so attuned to where they are directing their torsos.
Well, we just disagree about that. I mean, haven't you seen 20 /20? Trying to film something without being able to see what the camera's seeing usually results in some pretty useless footage. Marrying your head to the viewfinder seems likely to produce much better results.
Further, the glasses will remain more noticeable only so long as they are rare. If they become common, that goes away. As for being attuned to people looking --- well, that's the thing, right? If I trip and fall on my ass in the subway I expect people to standing there to see it. I don't expect it to be permanently enshrined and searchable forever.
As for the permanent dystopia, I feel like my arguing in this thread has made my position seem stronger than it is. My main point is that changing the amount of effort it takes to do something has profound effects on how often it gets done. I recognise that the vast majority of shit people choose to record will be harmless and useless and frankly unlikely to be looked at ever again as soon as the recording is stopped.
I literally do not understand most of this thread. It's like all the people here who don't use Facebook. What do you do?
Email, text, twitter under a pseudonym. Bit if blogging, ditto. I have a profile on linkedin fir professional contacts. If I've met you in real life and I like you I'll give you a means to contact me. If I haven't, then I don't care that you don't have that. I mean, I'm not under any illusions here. It wouldn't take much for someone who wanted to to find my real name and where I live. But not too much is enough. Effort cost.
Mainly I like feeling like I'm free to chat with you here about stuff like this, run my mouth and make jokes, without worrying that people I know in real life who'd be critical of my opinions and who'd be offended by my jokes are pretty unlikely to find them. I don't talk the same way to my friends as I do to my grandma. And even among my friends I have ones with pretty difficult political views and outlooks on life. I don't particularly want to have to defend my friends to each other or myself to my friends or my past to my future. I like having the room to stretch out and indulge different sides of my personality with different people. There's a sort of....homogenising totalitarianism of the self about Facebook. To be ridiculously hyperbolic and over the top. But still, Zuckerberg's demand that you be one thing to all people, that anything else is a lie, is hiding, is fake.....I find it terribly creepy. Because everybody has a dark thought or two or an unpopular opinion or two, you know? I wouldn't want to have to explain everything I've ever said and done to my mother. And I like having bits of my life that are mine alone, memories that will die with me. It merely the fact that no one else can ever entirely share my experience of life that makes it precious.
posted by Diablevert at 2:54 PM on March 26, 2013
No. The hump is "I would like to surreptitiously film someone. How would I go about doing that?" You have to have the intent and the desire to uncover the means. But if handed the means most people will give into to the merest flicker of desire.
Filming something with Google glasses is more noticeable than that (because the glasses are noticeable in themselves and we are very attuned to where people are turning their heads--but nowhere near so attuned to where they are directing their torsos.
Well, we just disagree about that. I mean, haven't you seen 20 /20? Trying to film something without being able to see what the camera's seeing usually results in some pretty useless footage. Marrying your head to the viewfinder seems likely to produce much better results.
Further, the glasses will remain more noticeable only so long as they are rare. If they become common, that goes away. As for being attuned to people looking --- well, that's the thing, right? If I trip and fall on my ass in the subway I expect people to standing there to see it. I don't expect it to be permanently enshrined and searchable forever.
As for the permanent dystopia, I feel like my arguing in this thread has made my position seem stronger than it is. My main point is that changing the amount of effort it takes to do something has profound effects on how often it gets done. I recognise that the vast majority of shit people choose to record will be harmless and useless and frankly unlikely to be looked at ever again as soon as the recording is stopped.
I literally do not understand most of this thread. It's like all the people here who don't use Facebook. What do you do?
Email, text, twitter under a pseudonym. Bit if blogging, ditto. I have a profile on linkedin fir professional contacts. If I've met you in real life and I like you I'll give you a means to contact me. If I haven't, then I don't care that you don't have that. I mean, I'm not under any illusions here. It wouldn't take much for someone who wanted to to find my real name and where I live. But not too much is enough. Effort cost.
Mainly I like feeling like I'm free to chat with you here about stuff like this, run my mouth and make jokes, without worrying that people I know in real life who'd be critical of my opinions and who'd be offended by my jokes are pretty unlikely to find them. I don't talk the same way to my friends as I do to my grandma. And even among my friends I have ones with pretty difficult political views and outlooks on life. I don't particularly want to have to defend my friends to each other or myself to my friends or my past to my future. I like having the room to stretch out and indulge different sides of my personality with different people. There's a sort of....homogenising totalitarianism of the self about Facebook. To be ridiculously hyperbolic and over the top. But still, Zuckerberg's demand that you be one thing to all people, that anything else is a lie, is hiding, is fake.....I find it terribly creepy. Because everybody has a dark thought or two or an unpopular opinion or two, you know? I wouldn't want to have to explain everything I've ever said and done to my mother. And I like having bits of my life that are mine alone, memories that will die with me. It merely the fact that no one else can ever entirely share my experience of life that makes it precious.
posted by Diablevert at 2:54 PM on March 26, 2013
Yoink: "Filming something with Google glasses is more noticeable than that (because the glasses are noticeable in themselves and we are very attuned to where people are turning their heads"
Well, yeah. Sure. For now.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 2:55 PM on March 26, 2013
Well, yeah. Sure. For now.
posted by Time To Sharpen Our Knives at 2:55 PM on March 26, 2013
I expect technology plus think-of-the-children will solve at least some of these problems in the near future. Once this sort of public videoing becomes ubiquitous, all you need to do is show a few Liebermans a search where you put in a single image of his grandson, and you pull up 50 videos of that kid playing in various parks, walking down the street, etc. Voila, legislation appears. And the nice thing is, these people are technological ignoramuses, so they are likely to pass legislation that is over-broad and technically difficult, like "no public footage of children under 18 shall be posted without their parents' permission", which will end up (as usual) restricting these sorts of media in a very wide way. I'm not sure this is preferable to hundreds of random videos of each of us being searchable by face, but it seems like a plausible alternative.
posted by chortly at 2:57 PM on March 26, 2013
posted by chortly at 2:57 PM on March 26, 2013
But if handed the means most people will give into to the merest flicker of desire.
Everyone with a smartphone and a breastpocket has been "handed the means." So, again, why are we not already in your dystopian future?
posted by yoink at 2:57 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Everyone with a smartphone and a breastpocket has been "handed the means." So, again, why are we not already in your dystopian future?
posted by yoink at 2:57 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
But if handed the means most people will give into to the merest flicker of desire.
Everyone with a smartphone and a breastpocket has been "handed the means." So, again, why are we not already in your dystopian future?
We kinda are, since one of the most popular and mainstream websites in the world hosts Creepshots.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:09 PM on March 26, 2013
Everyone with a smartphone and a breastpocket has been "handed the means." So, again, why are we not already in your dystopian future?
We kinda are, since one of the most popular and mainstream websites in the world hosts Creepshots.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:09 PM on March 26, 2013
Everyone with a smartphone and a breastpocket has been "handed the means." So, again, why are we not already in your dystopian future?
I am saying that I think there is a perceptible difference between being able to record whatever I'm seeing by touching a button behind my ear and whipping my phone out of my pocket, opening an ap, and holding it up to my face. The most important being that the former is imperceptible to the person being filmed --- unlike with the phone, which requires observable effort on my part.
I also think that the fact that recording whatever the person is seeing is one of the primary purposes of the device is an important distinction which will change how people use it. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could record all my telephone conversations with existing technology. However, I'm sure that vanishingly few people do this. If you made it so that recording telephone conversations was something every phone did nearly by default --- saying, having a button come up that said "record this call yes/no" when I answered the phone or dialled a number --- then I think a substantial percentage of people would record a good chunk of their calls. Maybe 30, 40 percent of all calls.
Little differences in tech can make huge, sweeping differences in use. It's the same phenomena you find with 401k contributions or online shopping carts. It's this reason Facebook makes all their privacy settings opt out. Hell, you could argue in a larger sense that it's the reason the invention if the condom in the 18th century cuts down on a few cases of the clap among libertines while the invention of the pill in the 1950s caused the sexual revolution.
posted by Diablevert at 3:17 PM on March 26, 2013
I am saying that I think there is a perceptible difference between being able to record whatever I'm seeing by touching a button behind my ear and whipping my phone out of my pocket, opening an ap, and holding it up to my face. The most important being that the former is imperceptible to the person being filmed --- unlike with the phone, which requires observable effort on my part.
I also think that the fact that recording whatever the person is seeing is one of the primary purposes of the device is an important distinction which will change how people use it. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could record all my telephone conversations with existing technology. However, I'm sure that vanishingly few people do this. If you made it so that recording telephone conversations was something every phone did nearly by default --- saying, having a button come up that said "record this call yes/no" when I answered the phone or dialled a number --- then I think a substantial percentage of people would record a good chunk of their calls. Maybe 30, 40 percent of all calls.
Little differences in tech can make huge, sweeping differences in use. It's the same phenomena you find with 401k contributions or online shopping carts. It's this reason Facebook makes all their privacy settings opt out. Hell, you could argue in a larger sense that it's the reason the invention if the condom in the 18th century cuts down on a few cases of the clap among libertines while the invention of the pill in the 1950s caused the sexual revolution.
posted by Diablevert at 3:17 PM on March 26, 2013
We kinda are, since one of the most popular and mainstream websites in the world hosts Creepshots.
Yeah, sure, but that's exactly my point. There's simply nothing that these Google Glasses will allow that isn't already easily and readily available from widely disseminated technological means. The existence of creepshots stuff is the obvious rebuttal to everyone who says "but at least with a phone you can tellif someone is pointing it at you" or "there's an obvious social inhibition to pointing your phone at someone." It's just not true. Every time I see someone standing in a coffeeshop looking at their phone they could be taking a shot or a video of whatever is in front of them. I have no way of knowing, unless they make a big production out of getting the framing right or some such. I have no reason to feel any more "suveilled" in a world full of Google Glasses than I do in the world right now.
all you need to do is show a few Liebermans a search where you put in a single image of his grandson, and you pull up 50 videos of that kid playing in various parks,
But the innovation you're imagining here is an innovation in Google Search, not in camera technology. Unless the kid is Amish the digital footage of that kid in 50 different parks already exists. What kid these days doesn't get filmed or photographed almost every hour of the day? What you're imagining is that it will somehow become impossible to make any of the photos and videos we take "private" with respect to public searches. That would certainly be a disappointing development, but it won't be one to which Google Glasses will contribute one way or the other.
posted by yoink at 3:24 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, sure, but that's exactly my point. There's simply nothing that these Google Glasses will allow that isn't already easily and readily available from widely disseminated technological means. The existence of creepshots stuff is the obvious rebuttal to everyone who says "but at least with a phone you can tellif someone is pointing it at you" or "there's an obvious social inhibition to pointing your phone at someone." It's just not true. Every time I see someone standing in a coffeeshop looking at their phone they could be taking a shot or a video of whatever is in front of them. I have no way of knowing, unless they make a big production out of getting the framing right or some such. I have no reason to feel any more "suveilled" in a world full of Google Glasses than I do in the world right now.
all you need to do is show a few Liebermans a search where you put in a single image of his grandson, and you pull up 50 videos of that kid playing in various parks,
But the innovation you're imagining here is an innovation in Google Search, not in camera technology. Unless the kid is Amish the digital footage of that kid in 50 different parks already exists. What kid these days doesn't get filmed or photographed almost every hour of the day? What you're imagining is that it will somehow become impossible to make any of the photos and videos we take "private" with respect to public searches. That would certainly be a disappointing development, but it won't be one to which Google Glasses will contribute one way or the other.
posted by yoink at 3:24 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I am saying that I think there is a perceptible difference between being able to record whatever I'm seeing by touching a button behind my ear and whipping my phone out of my pocket, opening an ap, and holding it up to my face.
Yes, I can see that this is what you are saying. What I'm confused about is why you are ignoring the part where you can use a voice command or a discreet click of a button through your shirt pocket (no more inherently observable than an ear-switch) to activate a smart phone camera in your breast pocket that you at no point remove from that pocket.
Not, of course, that you need be so Spy vs Spy as that. You just get your phone out and pretend to be checking your email while you film whatever hell you want to film and nobody gives a good goddam. How many times have you seen someone standing staring at their phone in public? It must be in the hundreds, right? How many times have you seen anyone go up to that person and ask if they were filming or taking a photograph? For me the number is 0.
posted by yoink at 3:33 PM on March 26, 2013
Yes, I can see that this is what you are saying. What I'm confused about is why you are ignoring the part where you can use a voice command or a discreet click of a button through your shirt pocket (no more inherently observable than an ear-switch) to activate a smart phone camera in your breast pocket that you at no point remove from that pocket.
Not, of course, that you need be so Spy vs Spy as that. You just get your phone out and pretend to be checking your email while you film whatever hell you want to film and nobody gives a good goddam. How many times have you seen someone standing staring at their phone in public? It must be in the hundreds, right? How many times have you seen anyone go up to that person and ask if they were filming or taking a photograph? For me the number is 0.
posted by yoink at 3:33 PM on March 26, 2013
I suppose I was assuming that if the rate of video-making goes from, say, .001% of our waking lives to 1% of our waking lives, the amount available online would also increase commensurately, ceteris paribus. Nor does it seems likely that, with terabytes of personal data, people will store it locally; so the ratio of uploaded to locally-stored will also increase. How private that massively-increased rate of cloud-level video becomes, is precisely the question. But it seems pretty clear that, just as the ubiquity of smart phones has increased the quantity of public video 1000-fold, should something like Google Glasses become ubiquitous, that quantity will increase by another few orders of magnitude. And even though it's not qualitatively different from the phone-based increase, it may be quantitatively large enough to constitute a new level of privacy concern.
Regarding search, I guess I was suggesting that what technology giveth, it might also taketh away -- which in this case could be a good thing. Right now all that data is still very hard to handle -- by stalkers, the government, or anyone else. But as it becomes easier too access and search, so too does censorship become easier. Which is usually a bad thing, but ironically may not be so in this case. But yes, that's not about GG per se, it's just about how technology and the law might react to vast new increases in public video.
posted by chortly at 3:40 PM on March 26, 2013
Regarding search, I guess I was suggesting that what technology giveth, it might also taketh away -- which in this case could be a good thing. Right now all that data is still very hard to handle -- by stalkers, the government, or anyone else. But as it becomes easier too access and search, so too does censorship become easier. Which is usually a bad thing, but ironically may not be so in this case. But yes, that's not about GG per se, it's just about how technology and the law might react to vast new increases in public video.
posted by chortly at 3:40 PM on March 26, 2013
Yes, I can see that this is what you are saying. What I'm confused about is why you are ignoring the part where you can use a voice command or a discreet click of a button through your shirt pocket (no more inherently observable than an ear-switch) to activate a smart phone camera in your breast pocket that you at no point remove from that pocket.
I take the point. You seem to be saying that "what you can do now is basically the same as glass," and I'm saying that using glass and setting up a phone in a breast pocket are subtly different in ways that I think may have a large effect on how often they get used.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this; the product is not yet being used on a large scale. Moreover, I think's probably impossible to get any verifiable stats on how often people are using their phones to surreptitiously record stuff compared to the pre-smart phone era and whether or not people ever call them out for doing so. So we're just arguing on our instincts about human nature.
It's entirely possible that the introduction of this tech will have very little effect on culture as a whole -- that the horse is out of the barn as far as surveillance goes. As I think about it, I can certainly make a good case for that, even to myself. Still find glass creepy, though, and still think it possible that it will be an inflection point that changes the culture. When IPads came out a few years ago, there was a lot of snark about how they weren't really giving you anything you couldn't get before in other ways. For my part, I can think of a couple industries that may be transformed by them.
posted by Diablevert at 8:11 PM on March 26, 2013
I take the point. You seem to be saying that "what you can do now is basically the same as glass," and I'm saying that using glass and setting up a phone in a breast pocket are subtly different in ways that I think may have a large effect on how often they get used.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this; the product is not yet being used on a large scale. Moreover, I think's probably impossible to get any verifiable stats on how often people are using their phones to surreptitiously record stuff compared to the pre-smart phone era and whether or not people ever call them out for doing so. So we're just arguing on our instincts about human nature.
It's entirely possible that the introduction of this tech will have very little effect on culture as a whole -- that the horse is out of the barn as far as surveillance goes. As I think about it, I can certainly make a good case for that, even to myself. Still find glass creepy, though, and still think it possible that it will be an inflection point that changes the culture. When IPads came out a few years ago, there was a lot of snark about how they weren't really giving you anything you couldn't get before in other ways. For my part, I can think of a couple industries that may be transformed by them.
posted by Diablevert at 8:11 PM on March 26, 2013
Maybe the solution to all of this is to build new social mores and social stigmas. Next time someone's pointing a phone at you in public, accost them and ask them what they're recording. If they're taking a picture of you publicly, they should reveal those pictures publicly. Harass those who might be harassing. Increase the social cost for being a peeper. Ostracize them, turn it into a taboo. It may be heavy-handed, but it's the same sort of thing that should have happened against people who talk too abundantly on cell phones in public.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:50 PM on March 27, 2013
posted by Apocryphon at 12:50 PM on March 27, 2013
Although the ads focus on it, I'm still surprised everyone is focussed on the video funtionality, completely ignoring the potential for localised personal mesh networking, location based information augmentation and virtual attendance, all based on new applications for this new tool.
Given Google's general open source development, I find the paranoia here irrelevant. The glasses link to a PC, but I havent seen anything to suggest all data will be loaded to a cloud, or that one couldnt opt in/out of that. Perhaps I'm wrong and Google really is turning into another Apple.
posted by bigZLiLk at 1:03 AM on March 29, 2013
Given Google's general open source development, I find the paranoia here irrelevant. The glasses link to a PC, but I havent seen anything to suggest all data will be loaded to a cloud, or that one couldnt opt in/out of that. Perhaps I'm wrong and Google really is turning into another Apple.
posted by bigZLiLk at 1:03 AM on March 29, 2013
8 Random Celebrities Who Are Getting Google Glass
Imogen Heap and LeVar Burton make sense.
posted by homunculus at 12:10 PM on March 30, 2013
Imogen Heap and LeVar Burton make sense.
posted by homunculus at 12:10 PM on March 30, 2013
Perhaps I'm wrong and Google really is turning into another Apple.
That seems like an odd thing to say, given that Google have based their entire business on collecting people's data, indexing it and selling it on to advertisers, whereas Apple's model is based on making things that people like and selling them at a profit. The problem that people are seeing with something like Glass isn't that Google are becoming more like Apple, but that they are continuing to be Google.
posted by Grangousier at 12:22 PM on March 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
That seems like an odd thing to say, given that Google have based their entire business on collecting people's data, indexing it and selling it on to advertisers, whereas Apple's model is based on making things that people like and selling them at a profit. The problem that people are seeing with something like Glass isn't that Google are becoming more like Apple, but that they are continuing to be Google.
posted by Grangousier at 12:22 PM on March 30, 2013 [2 favorites]
These glasses are a clear rip-off of Guardian Glass, and unlike Google, Guardian Glass also has a lot more functionality that we Mefites need, such as Anti-Bigotry Mode.
posted by wolfdreams01 at 7:50 AM on April 1, 2013
posted by wolfdreams01 at 7:50 AM on April 1, 2013
Google Glass and Surveillance Culture: If Google Glass becomes as ubiquitous as the iPhone, will Google attempt to abuse its remarkable power?
posted by homunculus at 4:34 PM on April 2, 2013
posted by homunculus at 4:34 PM on April 2, 2013
Glassy-Eyed: With Google Glass, predictive analytics get intimately personal, shaping behavior by overwriting the reality wearers perceive
posted by homunculus at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2013
posted by homunculus at 10:23 AM on April 11, 2013
Good. Reality sucks, and I already mentally rewrite it.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:58 PM on April 11, 2013
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:58 PM on April 11, 2013
OK, cupid: giving your love life to Google Glass and the hive mind. Artist Lauren McCarthy explores the terrifying and fascinating world of augmented dating
posted by homunculus at 7:52 PM on April 11, 2013
posted by homunculus at 7:52 PM on April 11, 2013
So the terrifying future of Google Glass is Cyrano de Bergerac/a bad romantic comedy.
Could Glass look at people and detect signs of arousal, boredom, etc?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:29 PM on April 11, 2013
Could Glass look at people and detect signs of arousal, boredom, etc?
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 8:29 PM on April 11, 2013
No ads on Glass? And user data can't be used to facilitate advertising?
Like, ever? Or just today while it stabilizes and they wait for a critical mass of users?
Because if anyone believes that they won't eventually be using this to gather data and sell it to advertisers and marketers, I have a bridge that absolutely has to go today, and I'll make you a deal because I like your face.
posted by jquinby at 10:55 AM on April 18, 2013
Like, ever? Or just today while it stabilizes and they wait for a critical mass of users?
Because if anyone believes that they won't eventually be using this to gather data and sell it to advertisers and marketers, I have a bridge that absolutely has to go today, and I'll make you a deal because I like your face.
posted by jquinby at 10:55 AM on April 18, 2013
Note that this is the "Explorer Edition" of Glass and as such isn't billed as the final product. The first iPhone didn't run third-party apps and the first version of Glass is basically an extended field test. I wouldn't put too much stock in the initial terms and conditions.
posted by GuyZero at 10:56 AM on April 18, 2013
posted by GuyZero at 10:56 AM on April 18, 2013
besides, what's the point of ads on Glass? There's no web browser on the thing. Regardless of how close it is to your face, no-action, low-resolution display ads are not what advertisers are buying. I doubt there's much money made now or ever with ads on Glass.
posted by GuyZero at 10:58 AM on April 18, 2013
posted by GuyZero at 10:58 AM on April 18, 2013
Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2013
posted by homunculus at 12:45 PM on April 18, 2013
OK Glass, RIP Privacy: The Democratization Of Surveillance
posted by homunculus at 1:50 PM on April 20, 2013
posted by homunculus at 1:50 PM on April 20, 2013
The Rise of the Term 'Glasshole,' Explained by Linguists
posted by homunculus at 4:47 PM on April 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 4:47 PM on April 22, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Meet me at Hoyt & Schermerhorn at 3 on the dot | Yesterday and Today Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
no.
posted by alex_skazat at 2:40 PM on March 25, 2013 [16 favorites]