Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drogoth on March 11, 2013, 01:50:57 am
-
http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/
All i can say is: SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY
Seriously though, the potential is limitless. There is probably no amount of money I won't be willing to drop on a pair of these when they become generally available.
-
I'm genuinely impressed
Though personally, I'd have no use of it.
-
That HUD doesn't have waypoint navigation, weapon loadout and missile locking :P
Seriously it sucks that I need eyesight glasses anyways meaning i can't put on even sunglasses.
-
I was concerned about using regular glasses as well, (allthough I was prepared to force myself to use contacts just for these) but I watched a review video where this guy is talking to the developers.
They said that the camera and hud thing can be detached from the base frame and attached to any other frame.
They are additionally exploring options to partner with frame designers in order to get this on prescription lens glasses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Tsrg_EQMw
-
about time someone got around to this. let's hope it lives up to the advertising.
-
They are additionally exploring options to partner with frame designers in order to get this on prescription lens glasses.
Damn, I can only imagine having something like that over both eyes. What the hell we'd need displays for then? Imagine playing games, watching movies, etc with those. Only need audio output of some kind and we're set.
-
They are additionally exploring options to partner with frame designers in order to get this on prescription lens glasses.
Damn, I can only imagine having something like that over both eyes. What the hell we'd need displays for then? Imagine playing games, watching movies, etc with those. Only need audio output of some kind and we're set.
Not using the glasses as the display, that'd defeat the point of what they're trying to do, which is the ability to look away, but access it when you want it.
They mean working with glasses makers so they can produce designs Glass can mount to and/or look good with.
-
I do admit, I would like the ability to have a HUD, escort list blah blah blah. Able to show my speed and so forth.
That would be cool, but the technology of this is just cool anyway. I wonder how it will be used the most effectively
-
I do admit, I would like the ability to have a HUD, escort list blah blah blah. Able to show my speed and so forth.
That would be cool, but the technology of this is just cool anyway. I wonder how it will be used the most effectively
Espionage and identity theft.
-
I think there are a whole host of different applications. I mean, the privacy concerns are real but i don't think that's any different then running around with a cellphone camera on.
What about for say sports?
When watching a game you could watch in the regular format, but if all the players were wearing a set of google glass, you could also periodically flip through the game from different players' perspectives at will.
Call me crazy but I think this kind of tech around augmented reality is a huge leap forward that could redefine how a lot of people live their lives
-
Espionage and identity theft.
Nudity overlays
-
I think there are a whole host of different applications. I mean, the privacy concerns are real but i don't think that's any different then running around with a cellphone camera on.
What about for say sports?
When watching a game you could watch in the regular format, but if all the players were wearing a set of google glass, you could also periodically flip through the game from different players' perspectives at will.
Call me crazy but I think this kind of tech around augmented reality is a huge leap forward that could redefine how a lot of people live their lives
imagine laser quest/paintball/airsoft/go-karts with this :D
-
Once these things are working with real time face recognition the potential applications for sexual predators, internet detectives, and common gossips will be absolutely limitless.
Imagine: you look at someone and record a comment, upload that comment to a Tumblr style setup, and tag it with their face as a unique identifier. Anyone else who looks at that person can search on their face and find every comment that person has been tagged with...with no consent required.
-
What Batts say. Also, social interactions will become awkward like hell.
I call this a DOA.
-
My vision is augmented.
Once these things are working with real time face recognition the potential applications for sexual predators, internet detectives, and common gossips will be absolutely limitless.
Redditor ****lords with face recognizing, video recording glasses FTL. My stalking is augmented.
-
Guy Fawkes is the best countermeasure. We never masked for this.
-
There are already jurisdictions talking of banning it due to privacy concerns. Seems a little crazy because technology is just an enabler of behaviour, but something like this is tough to adapt to.
-
I'm pretty pro-technology in general, but we're looking at the eversion of a lot of social media behavior into the real world.
-
Although, these would be fantastic for my use at work. Far better than the current body-worn cameras available on the market for law enforcement, and the search features would be awesome...
"Ok glass, do I need a respirator when working around ethylmethyldeath?"
-
*Buys glasses and puts them on.*
Me: Alright Glass, now make my life as exciting as the ones in the ad.
Glass: Invalid command or filename.
:lol:
Seriously though, this could be used for a lot of good things too, with proper programming. Those of us who are so visually impaired that even regular glasses won't help could use a zoom function, or a function that helps you identify what bus is coming, or one that enhances the image through software, or one that helps you identify who's coming, etc. Geordi Laforge would be VISORless in comparison. :p
Also, this could eventually be of use to help locate missing people and to help law enforcement. If you connect the glasses to a proper database, face recognition could warn the authorities that you've seen a fugitive or a missing person, report your location at the time and transmit all the relevant footage. (All of this requiring your own approval, of course.)
-
Despite whatever they trademarked, I'm still gonna call them Google Goggles. Just way too much fun to say.
-
Although, these would be fantastic for my use at work. Far better than the current body-worn cameras available on the market for law enforcement, and the search features would be awesome...
"Ok glass, do I need a respirator when working around ethylmethyldeath?"
CopSpace?
Course being a pessimist I can just imagine all the joys of stupid asshats who screw around with their phones while driving now spilling over to all aspects of life and ratcheted up to eleven.
-
Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see if social evolution can keep up with the technology if (or more likely, when) this becomes ubiquitous...
-
Mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, it's better than walking around looking down at a smartphone the whole time. Emasculating, as Sergey Brin called it in his sales pitch - I can see where he's coming from :)
But on the other hand, privacy is a serious concern here. If I see some guy filming me (or, let's say, airport security, or a kids' playground...) with a smartphone, I am aware of that, and can tell him to GTFO if I so please. With the Google Goggles, there's no way to tell if he's filming or not. Even if it had a visible indication that it's filming, it only takes one misguided techie to open it p and cut a wire or two. So I tend to agree with this article (http://www.zdnet.com/google-glass-expect-widespread-usage-bans-over-privacy-concerns-7000012400/?s_cid=e539), expecting widespread bans - in fact, the first ban has already popped up.
Now, if it didn't have the camera, then it becomes just cool :cool: Would probably make the thing quite a bit more compact, too.
-
Without the camera it's a pointless device. With it it's a complete ****fest socially speaking. And it costs 1500 bucks. And it needs a smartphone to operate adequately.
It's ****ing dead on arrival, folks. It won't "change" anything. At most, it will have some effect on some niche situations.
Nothing to see here, move along.
-
The developer model costs 1500$. The consumer model (shipping next year) is supposed to be quite a bit less.
I honestly don't think its dead on arrival, and a lot of the privacy concerns with it can just as easily be done with a variety of other devices readily available on the market.
-
Ouch. Maybe I'll just get a smart watch instead.
-
the tech itself: cool. i guess. not something i'd ever use. still don't even have a smart phone.
the insane proliferation of "social media": not cool. has this trend really taken society so hard that we need facebook literally on our faces?
i'm not terribly concerned about the privacy aspect. there's not really anything new here. it honestly looks to me to be an overhyped peripheral for a smart phone. move the camera and a mini display to your face. i mean, it's about time someone saved us from having to raise our arm up to our head.
-
There are already jurisdictions talking of banning it due to privacy concerns. Seems a little crazy because technology is just an enabler of behaviour, but something like this is tough to adapt to.
I don't see how the privacy concerns are any different than people running around with cameras
Which we do already
-
I think we as a society should start discussing how we can function with little to no privacy.
Because in the end, that's where we are headed and outside of starting to ban technology, there's nothing we'll be able to do to stop it.
-
Security through obscurity is the best defense I think.
I mean honestly, the mass hysteria about being tagged in facebook photos for example, as if facebook is somehow going to use those photos against you. The simply honest truth is that for 99% of people, your private information doesn't matter because no one bloody cares.
And even today, if anyone really wants to know things about you, you can't stop them.
See Blizzard and their developer's poor attempt to justify real ID by revealing his name. Privacy is already dead. Google Glass won't change that.
-
A number of states in the US would simply make this a walking lawsuit device because they have two-party consent rules about using photos.
And the user gets sued constantly. Good times!
-
A number of states in the US would simply make this a walking lawsuit device because they have two-party consent rules about using photos.
And the user gets sued constantly. Good times!
Go go litigation happy folk!
This whole conversation reminds me of Watchdogs by Ubisoft...
-
Security through obscurity is the best defense I think.
I mean honestly, the mass hysteria about being tagged in facebook photos for example, as if facebook is somehow going to use those photos against you. The simply honest truth is that for 99% of people, your private information doesn't matter because no one bloody cares.
As if no employee was never fired because the employer found out your photos. Or as if people aren't denied jobs because they were searched in facebook and the results weren't... family valued.
And as if you even had a choice. Your friends take a photo of you and post it. And tag you. And everyone knows about it.
I agree, it's probably the future, but it's a dark one.
-
Security through obscurity is the best defense I think.
I mean honestly, the mass hysteria about being tagged in facebook photos for example, as if facebook is somehow going to use those photos against you. The simply honest truth is that for 99% of people, your private information doesn't matter because no one bloody cares.
As if no employee was never fired because the employer found out your photos. Or as if people aren't denied jobs because they were searched in facebook and the results weren't... family valued.And as if you even had a choice. Your friends take a photo of you and post it. And tag you. And everyone knows about it.
I agree, it's probably the future, but it's a dark one.
The bold part? Why then couldn't you sue for unfair dismissal, after all, what has that to do with your ability to do your job?
-
It's not just photos themselves that are worrying. It's the fact that we now have the ability to have a consumer-grade device that can practically be ALWAYS recording not just images, but audio and other types data as well (say, GPS coordinates as an example).
If these types of devices reach a certain critical mass (and they will sooner or later) and have no restrictions, what little privacy was there in public spaces will disappear completely and everything little thing about you (what actions you take, what you say and to whom, the places you visit, etc.) may be stored somewhere for someone to see.
Sure, smart phones have the same capabilities as this device, but the form-factor enables a much better use of those capabilities since it's always pointing at stuff, unlike smart phones.
-
It's not just photos themselves that are worrying. It's the fact that we now have the ability to have a consumer-grade device that can practically be ALWAYS recording not just images, but audio and other types data as well (say, GPS coordinates as an example).
If these types of devices reach a certain critical mass (and they will sooner or later) and have no restrictions, what little privacy was there in public spaces will disappear completely and everything little thing about you (what actions you take, what you say and to whom, the places you visit, etc.) may be stored somewhere for someone to see.
You mean, like a phone?
There is nothing new or special about this except it's on your face. You can do the same thing pretending to read text messages with ease. They do have limited battery and storage, it's not like you can record forever. Plus, since it can detach from the glasses, they can simply ask that you take it off in the same fashion they can ask you to turn off a camera or put away your phone.
The era of no privacy has been here a while now. It's called MySpace, followed by Facebook. Between people being stupid by uploading everything, and then being stupid uploading things of other people and not just them, your privacy is gone. This will change nothing at all. If you didn't want your information out there, you should never have joined Facebook or anything like it.
-
Security through obscurity is the best defense I think.
I mean honestly, the mass hysteria about being tagged in facebook photos for example, as if facebook is somehow going to use those photos against you. The simply honest truth is that for 99% of people, your private information doesn't matter because no one bloody cares.
As if no employee was never fired because the employer found out your photos. Or as if people aren't denied jobs because they were searched in facebook and the results weren't... family valued.And as if you even had a choice. Your friends take a photo of you and post it. And tag you. And everyone knows about it.
I agree, it's probably the future, but it's a dark one.
The bold part? Why then couldn't you sue for unfair dismissal, after all, what has that to do with your ability to do your job?
How do you tell that you were denied a job offer because they made a negative character judgment from social media? They're not going to tell you.
-
It's not just photos themselves that are worrying. It's the fact that we now have the ability to have a consumer-grade device that can practically be ALWAYS recording not just images, but audio and other types data as well (say, GPS coordinates as an example).
If these types of devices reach a certain critical mass (and they will sooner or later) and have no restrictions, what little privacy was there in public spaces will disappear completely and everything little thing about you (what actions you take, what you say and to whom, the places you visit, etc.) may be stored somewhere for someone to see.
You mean, like a phone?
There is nothing new or special about this except it's on your face.
I think that's a pretty key difference. It's really easy to tell when someone is photographing or recording with a phone, since they have to hold it up and move it to keep the target in frame. I don't think you can do the same thing pretending to read text messages with ease - you can maybe do the same thing pretending to read text messages with difficulty, since that's a pretty unnatural pose for reading text messages.
Plus, since it can detach from the glasses, they can simply ask that you take it off in the same fashion they can ask you to turn off a camera or put away your phone.
I don't think many people are going to cross a subway car to ask that guy to take off his Googoggles. But he'll still have the ability to upload - even without particular intent - geotagged data that clearly identifies where you were. And so for that reason I say -
The era of no privacy has been here a while now. It's called MySpace, followed by Facebook. Between people being stupid by uploading everything, and then being stupid uploading things of other people and not just them, your privacy is gone. This will change nothing at all. If you didn't want your information out there, you should never have joined Facebook or anything like it.
I don't think this is just an extension of that era, I think it's quite a new one. This is the eversion of the opt-in for no-privacy rule we saw on Facebook into the real world, and there's no opt-in any more. There may not even be an opt out.
-
It's not just photos themselves that are worrying. It's the fact that we now have the ability to have a consumer-grade device that can practically be ALWAYS recording not just images, but audio and other types data as well (say, GPS coordinates as an example).
If these types of devices reach a certain critical mass (and they will sooner or later) and have no restrictions, what little privacy was there in public spaces will disappear completely and everything little thing about you (what actions you take, what you say and to whom, the places you visit, etc.) may be stored somewhere for someone to see.
You mean, like a phone?
There is nothing new or special about this except it's on your face. You can do the same thing pretending to read text messages with ease. They do have limited battery and storage, it's not like you can record forever. Plus, since it can detach from the glasses, they can simply ask that you take it off in the same fashion they can ask you to turn off a camera or put away your phone.
The era of no privacy has been here a while now. It's called MySpace, followed by Facebook. Between people being stupid by uploading everything, and then being stupid uploading things of other people and not just them, your privacy is gone. This will change nothing at all. If you didn't want your information out there, you should never have joined Facebook or anything like it.
Like I tried to mention, it's just not the ability to upload information, it's the pervasiveness of it. Nowadays you have to consciously upload that data, imagine if you don't have to do any interaction for that data to be uploaded. Also, you don't have to have joined a social network to have your data uploaded somewhere. I don't have Facebook and I'd wager I have a lot of photos of me uploaded there.
And it won't stop with these consumer-grade devices. A whole range of other devices are starting to be deployed thanks to the long term trend of ubiquitous computing.
Take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_sensor_network), as an example.
-
Let's all start wearing masks. It'll be the new fashion. Bank and gas station employees will love it especially. Also no Guy Fawkes, that ****'s played out.
-
It's not just photos themselves that are worrying. It's the fact that we now have the ability to have a consumer-grade device that can practically be ALWAYS recording not just images, but audio and other types data as well (say, GPS coordinates as an example).
If these types of devices reach a certain critical mass (and they will sooner or later) and have no restrictions, what little privacy was there in public spaces will disappear completely and everything little thing about you (what actions you take, what you say and to whom, the places you visit, etc.) may be stored somewhere for someone to see.
You mean, like a phone?
There is nothing new or special about this except it's on your face. You can do the same thing pretending to read text messages with ease. They do have limited battery and storage, it's not like you can record forever. Plus, since it can detach from the glasses, they can simply ask that you take it off in the same fashion they can ask you to turn off a camera or put away your phone.
The era of no privacy has been here a while now. It's called MySpace, followed by Facebook. Between people being stupid by uploading everything, and then being stupid uploading things of other people and not just them, your privacy is gone. This will change nothing at all. If you didn't want your information out there, you should never have joined Facebook or anything like it.
Like I tried to mention, it's just not the ability to upload information, it's the pervasiveness of it. Nowadays you have to consciously upload that data, imagine if you don't have to do any interaction for that data to be uploaded. Also, you don't have to have joined a social network to have your data uploaded somewhere. I don't have Facebook and I'd wager I have a lot of photos of me uploaded there.
And it won't stop with these consumer-grade devices. A whole range of other devices are starting to be deployed thanks to the long term trend of ubiquitous computing.
Take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_sensor_network), as an example.
You do understand that GoogleGlass does not have a mobile data connection, and thus is reliant on your Phone's data, right? There is no auto-upload. Just GPS, WiFi, and Bluetooth. To upload it is the same process as it is on your phone now.
Iphone has been doing exactly what you're saying since day 1; always-on data and GPS. To make things even better, Apple actively tracks it so you can see where your phone is online.
And, becasue I'm curious, what good are images of you if no one but people you know can identify it? If you have no facebook, you can't be tagged aside from "This is Bob Dude" along with all the other Bob Dude's out there in the world with nothing to link it to you personally.
Sure someone else with a photo of you can use it to find those other photos of you, but again, to what end? They are not linked to you. The best they could do is find out who your "friends" (other people in the photos) are and track them down, which any good stalker can do anyway.
As for what you linked, it's a wireless version of the wire things we have now. It's once again nothing special.
-
And, becasue I'm curious, what good are images of you if no one but people you know can identify it? If you have no facebook, you can't be tagged aside from "This is Bob Dude" along with all the other Bob Dude's out there in the world with nothing to link it to you personally.
No, that's the whole point: you can be tagged. Within the next ten years, you'll be tagged in real time.
As for what you linked, it's a wireless version of the wire things we have now. It's once again nothing special.
Completely disagree. The direction this is going is very different and very, uh, special.
-
You do understand that GoogleGlass does not have a mobile data connection, and thus is reliant on your Phone's data, right?
If these kinds of devices have a network interface that allows it to communicate directly to a network or they have to use another device's network interface is irrelevant. What matters is that they CAN communicate.
There is no auto-upload. Just GPS, WiFi, and Bluetooth. To upload it is the same process as it is on your phone now.
Until someone decides to change a few lines of code or execute a program that automatically uploads the information. It will happen, I'm not sure how you can dispute this. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty.
Iphone has been doing exactly what you're saying since day 1; always-on data and GPS. To make things even better, Apple actively tracks it so you can see where your phone is online.
Although I have as much dislike of Apple as the next guy, the situation here is different. The problem is that once these kinds of devices reach a critical mass, you don't have to have an active role in this. You don't have to have a phone, glasses with cameras, whatever. Everyone else and whatever other devices are in your surroundings will do the monitoring without your consent. And like before, this is not a possibility, this is something that WILL happen.
And, becasue I'm curious, what good are images of you if no one but people you know can identify it? If you have no facebook, you can't be tagged aside from "This is Bob Dude" along with all the other Bob Dude's out there in the world with nothing to link it to you personally.
Sure someone else with a photo of you can use it to find those other photos of you, but again, to what end? They are not linked to you. The best they could do is find out who your "friends" (other people in the photos) are and track them down, which any good stalker can do anyway.
You seem to be stuck with the idea of Facebook or some other social network, but this information may not even be in a social network. It may be available as raw data. Hell, most likely this is how it will probably be stored like.
We don't need information to be neatly organized to use it. There are algorithms that deal with that.
As for what you linked, it's a wireless version of the wire things we have now. It's once again nothing special.
Again, you are not seeing the point. The wireless aspect makes deploying these devices MUCH easier and on a much wider scale.
If you still think it's nothing special, write your arguments to the scientific journals in the area about why you think the thousands of papers published so far are "nothing special".
-
tbh i suspect people aren't being as critical of this as they should because google have managed to project this air of trustworthy benevolence (protip guys, never trust a corporation no matter how nice they're being)
-
You do understand that GoogleGlass does not have a mobile data connection, and thus is reliant on your Phone's data, right?
If these kinds of devices have a network interface that allows it to communicate directly to a network or they have to use another device's network interface is irrelevant. What matters is that they CAN communicate.
There is no auto-upload. Just GPS, WiFi, and Bluetooth. To upload it is the same process as it is on your phone now.
Until someone decides to change a few lines of code or execute a program that automatically uploads the information. It will happen, I'm not sure how you can dispute this. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty.
Iphone has been doing exactly what you're saying since day 1; always-on data and GPS. To make things even better, Apple actively tracks it so you can see where your phone is online.
Although I have as much dislike of Apple as the next guy, the situation here is different. The problem is that once these kinds of devices reach a critical mass, you don't have to have an active role in this. You don't have to have a phone, glasses with cameras, whatever. Everyone else and whatever other devices are in your surroundings will do the monitoring without your consent. And like before, this is not a possibility, this is something that WILL happen.
And, becasue I'm curious, what good are images of you if no one but people you know can identify it? If you have no facebook, you can't be tagged aside from "This is Bob Dude" along with all the other Bob Dude's out there in the world with nothing to link it to you personally.
Sure someone else with a photo of you can use it to find those other photos of you, but again, to what end? They are not linked to you. The best they could do is find out who your "friends" (other people in the photos) are and track them down, which any good stalker can do anyway.
You seem to be stuck with the idea of Facebook or some other social network, but this information may not even be in a social network. It may be available as raw data. Hell, most likely this is how it will probably be stored like.
We don't need information to be neatly organized to use it. There are algorithms that deal with that.
As for what you linked, it's a wireless version of the wire things we have now. It's once again nothing special.
Again, you are not seeing the point. The wireless aspect makes deploying these devices MUCH easier and on a much wider scale.
If you still think it's nothing special, write your arguments to the scientific journals in the area about why you think the thousands of papers published so far are "nothing special".
Do you know what else there are thousands of papers on? The 802.x in it's entirety. If you think that's a good way to judge how special something is, you don't know the world of technology.
You have zero proof of where anywhere is going. Phones could record sound, GPS data, sensor data, and even video of the inside of your pocket for hours on end. They don't, Iphone tracking excluded.
As for the rest, go get a tinfoil hat. Raw data is useless when you do not have access to it first of all. When you come up with a legit reason to think that anyone anywhere will be able to access it, come back to me on that topic.
Considering your interpretation of how "easy" it would be to make it always-on recording, I'm willing to bet you have minimal knowledge in the way technology works. It is not easy, at all, to handle that kind of data streaming for any device. The camera itself, the encoding (and there would have to be encoding), plus any networks you have running drain battery like mad. You would be lucky to get 2 or 3 hours out of it, tops. Not to mention that it would absolutly break the back of ISPs to have to handle that level of information, and the backs of any storage solution to hold it all. Even if the video quality is only 1 mbps, apply that to the number of people per cell tower we have today.
You are sitting here, trying to tell me that this will kill privacy in a world where privacy does not exist. You are trying to tell me that technology that has no hope in hell of doing what you think it will do will do it. And to top if off, you're telling me a scenario will happen when there is not enough infrastructure in the world to handle it in the first place.
And once again, regarding tagging, they can give it a name all they want. In this day, a name is not an identifier. Being tagged when there is no more information to tag it to besides a name is useless. (see below)
Yes. I think anyone worried about privacy due to this is smart. The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others. However, anyone thinking that translates into always-on, anyone can find me always doesn't know enough, and is simply being paranoid.
Battuta's claims are more reasonable, aside from the tagging thing which was poorly explained on my part.
What I meant; You can tag someone all you want, but all it is is a name and a photo. If you do not have an account with all the information, it can not be tagged to, say, your address. Only your name. If someone took a picture of me, it wouldn't be "That's Kyad! he lives at *******, **, and likes dogs". It would simply be "That's Kyad!" in a world of many other kyads. (which is a bad example since as far as I know I am the only one, but the point stands)
If I gave you my full name, right now, you would find almost nothing on me. You would find a Facebook account that is not mine. You would find several Linkedin accounds that are not mine, and a ton of pictures of people of all races that are not me. The ability to tag a photo with a name, and even GPS data, really means next to nothing. Real-time could be a bit of a pain, but someone would have to actually be searching for you too for that to matter much. I guess people who skipped work, have facebook aco****s, and get met by someone they know on the subway could be in trouble if their boss decided to check that way (assuming they didn't just post up proof themselves) and they could get in trouble, but that's largely the extent of it. Either way, without someone who actually knows you, both name and face (and searching for it), it means almost nothing.
And lastly, the Wireless sensor network.
It's a network. It's wireless. It has sensors on it.
Do you really want to know what that is? It's a true wireless router. Each node takes in info from the last transmission it recived that was designed to go to it, and in turn to spits it out again with a new destination based on where the packet was ment to go. Just like a normal router, except instead of being over a wire, it's broadcast over the air.
Set your phone to be a Bluetooth wireless hotspot. Congrats, you just did the exact same thing a different way. Now make whatever the bluetooth thing connected to it is a sensor for, I dunno, air polution. Hey! Now you have a Wireless sensor network!
Like I said, nothing special. We have been able to do that for decades now, this one is just in one neat package instead of some hacked together job I can do in my basement. It's still incredibly inefficient compared to wired since it's like using a hub instead of a switch (broadcast), but it does have an appeal for versatility and ease of use compared to their wired counterparts.
-
What I meant; You can tag someone all you want, but all it is is a name and a photo. If you do not have an account with all the information, it can not be tagged to, say, your address. Only your name. If someone took a picture of me, it wouldn't be "That's Kyad! he lives at *******, **, and likes dogs". It would simply be "That's Kyad!" in a world of many other kyads. (which is a bad example since as far as I know I am the only one, but the point stands)
See, I think this is the key component you're missing: this is not true even right now. You can go from a face to a name to all the publicly available information you want. You don't need anything else.
And that's right now. Now, look, you might dispute that - fine. But there's a tagging system here that sidesteps the whole issue.
Imagine that you set up a website like Tumblr, where you tag posts - but the tag is someone's face. All you need to do is look at someone, write a comment, and upload it - without any consent on their part required - and anyone else who looks at that person will be able to search on their face as a unique identifier and see what you've written.
You will literally be able to attach virtual graffiti to other people: 'slut', 'asshole', their Social Security number, their address, whatever you please. And barring top-down regulation, there's no reason it won't be indelible.
That's why I think this new capability is very different from what's come before. Using faces as tags is all you need to create a privacy nightmare.
-
The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others
Actually, it's announced via voice command (or so this demo heavily implies. Perhaps there's a touch function, but I didn't see one)
I'm fairly certain you can hear people acting odd with them going around places saying "TAKE PICTURE! TAKE PICTURE YOU BLOODY THING!"
Now, when these things read minds, that's where I'll be worried about people surreptitiously taking pictures of my male model posture
Which is something that people seem to have missed in regards to the whole privacy thing. Pictures from phones can be done far more stealthily than someone talking to themselves
-
Do you know what else there are thousands of papers on? The 802.x in it's entirety. If you think that's a good way to judge how special something is, you don't know the world of technology.
And you think 802.x is nothing special? You think that some of the most used (if not THE most used) networking standards in the world are nothing special?
You have zero proof of where anywhere is going. Phones could record sound, GPS data, sensor data, and even video of the inside of your pocket for hours on end. They don't, Iphone tracking excluded.
As for the rest, go get a tinfoil hat. Raw data is useless when you do not have access to it first of all. When you come up with a legit reason to think that anyone anywhere will be able to access it, come back to me on that topic.
Considering your interpretation of how "easy" it would be to make it always-on recording, I'm willing to bet you have minimal knowledge in the way technology works. It is not easy, at all, to handle that kind of data streaming for any device. The camera itself, the encoding (and there would have to be encoding), plus any networks you have running drain battery like mad. You would be lucky to get 2 or 3 hours out of it, tops. Not to mention that it would absolutly break the back of ISPs to have to handle that level of information, and the backs of any storage solution to hold it all. Even if the video quality is only 1 mbps, apply that to the number of people per cell tower we have today.
Guess what, I am in a research group employing sensor networks! I'm trying to give you what I see as the consequence of what I'm seeing in the area.
What I've been writing is not that difficult to implement. It doesn't exist nowadays because of a mixture of efficiency, costs and lack of sufficient benefits. And it will exist because every one of these three points is improving. Rapidly.
You are sitting here, trying to tell me that this will kill privacy in a world where privacy does not exist. You are trying to tell me that technology that has no hope in hell of doing what you think it will do will do it. And to top if off, you're telling me a scenario will happen when there is not enough infrastructure in the world to handle it in the first place.
I'm telling you that this device should serve as a warning beacon for society to reevaluate how privacy should function. There are papers that present scenarios for data gathering for everything from domotics to agriculture, employing a wide variety of sensors. Smart city scenarios have been proposed and what I've been expressing on this thread is just a consequence of those things.
Regarding infrastructure, it's irrelevant. Or are you assuming new things won't be built?
And lastly, the Wireless sensor network.
It's a network. It's wireless. It has sensors on it.
Do you really want to know what that is? It's a true wireless router. Each node takes in info from the last transmission it recived that was designed to go to it, and in turn to spits it out again with a new destination based on where the packet was ment to go. Just like a normal router, except instead of being over a wire, it's broadcast over the air.
Set your phone to be a Bluetooth wireless hotspot. Congrats, you just did the exact same thing a different way. Now make whatever the bluetooth thing connected to it is a sensor for, I dunno, air polution. Hey! Now you have a Wireless sensor network!
Like I said, nothing special. We have been able to do that for decades now, this one is just in one neat package instead of some hacked together job I can do in my basement. It's still incredibly inefficient compared to wired since it's like using a hub instead of a switch (broadcast), but it does have an appeal for versatility and ease of use compared to their wired counterparts.
If you don't see how the communication being wireless affects the whole concept you are being naive.
For one you cannot have a true pervasive scenario without your communication being wireless, since it limits how many devices you can have and how they can be deployed.
Another, is that your nodes can actually move. In an agriculture scenario a farmer could spread sensors like they were seeds.
In an anti-privacy scenario, anyone could do the same with whatever sensors they are interested in. It's so much easier to deploy these things compared to a wired sensor that just mentioning some mechanisms that make it special seems silly.
Concluding:
What I'm mentioning isn't related directly to the Google Glasses per se, which is why you see me repeatedly saying "these kinds of devices" instead of just saying "Google Glasses" or a specific device.
But what you need to understand is that what I've been saying will happen. It may not be with this specific device, but it heralds the coming of other devices which will.
-
The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others
Actually, it's announced via voice command (or so this demo heavily implies. Perhaps there's a touch function, but I didn't see one)
I'm fairly certain you can hear people acting odd with them going around places saying "TAKE PICTURE! TAKE PICTURE YOU BLOODY THING!"
Now, when these things read minds, that's where I'll be worried about people surreptitiously taking pictures of my male model posture
Which is something that people seem to have missed in regards to the whole privacy thing. Pictures from phones can be done far more stealthily than someone talking to themselves
Untill you rebind the photograph function to "Blink once"
-
Can you even do that?
-
What I meant; You can tag someone all you want, but all it is is a name and a photo. If you do not have an account with all the information, it can not be tagged to, say, your address. Only your name. If someone took a picture of me, it wouldn't be "That's Kyad! he lives at *******, **, and likes dogs". It would simply be "That's Kyad!" in a world of many other kyads. (which is a bad example since as far as I know I am the only one, but the point stands)
See, I think this is the key component you're missing: this is not true even right now. You can go from a face to a name to all the publicly available information you want. You don't need anything else.
And that's right now. Now, look, you might dispute that - fine. But there's a tagging system here that sidesteps the whole issue.
Imagine that you set up a website like Tumblr, where you tag posts - but the tag is someone's face. All you need to do is look at someone, write a comment, and upload it - without any consent on their part required - and anyone else who looks at that person will be able to search on their face as a unique identifier and see what you've written.
You will literally be able to attach virtual graffiti to other people: 'slut', 'asshole', their Social Security number, their address, whatever you please. And barring top-down regulation, there's no reason it won't be indelible.
That's why I think this new capability is very different from what's come before. Using faces as tags is all you need to create a privacy nightmare.
It still relies on the same "Publicly available information" that I was pointing at. Even if I did give you my name, and a picture of me, you would have a very hard time tracking me down. In fact, you'd have an easier time getting my IP from IRC and tracking me that way. That doesn't apply to everyone, but for them, they already tag themselves and others and stuff on facebook, where the information is available. That's not a privacy breaker, that's just another way to break it faster.
Pictures as tags... That is an argument in my opinion, as a face is more unique then a name. Especialy if Geo-Tagged, or said blogger says "at this club last night" *pic* "this girl was drunk as hell" or whatever they feel like doing. That could do some damage. But that can already be done now, granted in a more obvious way, and you still wouldn't need their consent.
Your concerns are valid, but they're not new. Glass just gives you the ability to do it easier, which itself is a different problem.
The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others
Actually, it's announced via voice command
I'm fairly certain you can hear people acting odd with them going around places saying "TAKE PICTURE! TAKE PICTURE YOU BLOODY THING!"
Now, when these things read minds, that's where I'll be worried about people surreptitiously taking pictures of my male model posture
Which is something that people seem to have missed in regards to the whole privacy thing. Pictures from phones can be done far more stealthily than someone talking to themselves
You can also take pictures via the "touch pad" on the side, or just be recording video ahead of time and take a frame out of the video later, which is why I left it out.
Untill you rebind the photograph function to "Blink once"
Heh, there are other ways to use the camera or get pictures, but that's not one of them. :P
----------------------------
Ghostavo:
I'll take you seriously when you can actually provide proof beyond "papers" (anyone can write a paper, it's like wiki) and being amazed by several-decade old technology. There is nothing "new" or "special" about what is being done. Period.
Also, your view is skewed becasue in your senario you actually have access to said information. You need to get that out of your head before you can make any counterpoint on the topic, sicne you will not have access to said information if it becomes that way in the real world.
-
Kyad, "nothing" is really "new" in that fashion. You can always trace any technology to a parent, any behavior or action to some kind of analogous one in the past. IOW, you are voiding words of meaning. Of course this would bring a lot of "new" stuff to ground. The speed with which bullying, tracing people, hacking or stealing, harrassing, etc. would be so faster that it would change the game entirely. Sometimes, with differences in quantity, come qualitative differences. History is filled with examples.
I don't like where this is going, and I really hope Google Goggles will be a flop. Big time ****ing flop.
-
Ghostavo:
I'll take you seriously when you can actually provide proof beyond "papers" (anyone can write a paper, it's like wiki) and being amazed by several-decade old technology. There is nothing "new" or "special" about what is being done. Period.
I don't even know where to begin... Papers are peer-reviewed before they are published. Paper that are accepted need to have a novel concept or implementation. I mean, the fact that you say this...
Let's try this, since you were so polite to "ask" me what my knowledge in the area was, it's my turn to ask, what is your experience in this or related fields?
A quick check on google scholar for "pervasive surveillance" brings a lot of papers (http://scholar.google.pt/scholar?hl=en&q=pervasive+surveillance&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) expressing things about this.
Also, your view is skewed becasue in your senario you actually have access to said information. You need to get that out of your head before you can make any counterpoint on the topic, sicne you will not have access to said information if it becomes that way in the real world.
Ok, I'll use one example you've repeatedly used over the whole thread. Don't we have access to facebook?
Should we not expect access to wherever is storing the information? If not us users, can't the entity (company, government, etc.) responsible for storing the data have access to it?
Also, loss of privacy may not be a bad thing. It may well be that one of the ways (optimal strategy) to deal with loss of privacy in regard to a particular group (say, the entity that has access to your data), is to publish your data freely. Or that you receive something in return that offsets your loss from privacy concerns.
-
You can also take pictures via the "touch pad" on the side, or just be recording video ahead of time and take a frame out of the video later, which is why I left it out.
Yup, missed the tidbit about the touch pad
-
Ghostavo:
I'll take you seriously when you can actually provide proof beyond "papers" (anyone can write a paper, it's like wiki) and being amazed by several-decade old technology. There is nothing "new" or "special" about what is being done. Period.
I don't even know where to begin... Papers are peer-reviewed before they are published. Paper that are accepted need to have a novel concept or implementation. I mean, the fact that you say this...
Let's try this, since you were so polite to "ask" me what my knowledge in the area was, it's my turn to ask, what is your experience in this or related fields?
A quick check on google scholar for "pervasive surveillance" brings a lot of papers (http://scholar.google.pt/scholar?hl=en&q=pervasive+surveillance&btnG=Submit&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) expressing things about this.
Also, your view is skewed becasue in your senario you actually have access to said information. You need to get that out of your head before you can make any counterpoint on the topic, sicne you will not have access to said information if it becomes that way in the real world.
Ok, I'll use one example you've repeatedly used over the whole thread. Don't we have access to facebook?
Should we not expect access to wherever is storing the information? If not us users, can't the entity (company, government, etc.) responsible for storing the data have access to it?
Also, loss of privacy may not be a bad thing. It may well be that one of the ways (optimal strategy) to deal with loss of privacy in regard to a particular group (say, the entity that has access to your data), is to publish your data freely. Or that you receive something in return that offsets your loss from privacy concerns.
Wiki is "peer reviewed" too. That's really not helping your case. And even then, papers about something still do not make it special.
As for knowlege, I'm a computer tech who knows what Wireless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless), sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor), and networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network) are, and how they work at a base level, specifics of certain sensors aside. It's really not that hard to put together. They're using existing technology in a creative way, that's it. Wireless bridges existed already, this just adds a sensor and routing capability to it. woooo.
And facebook isn't an example, that is Opt-In info. They must upload it. And before you go off on that, there is still zero proof anything will become always-on. While things like Facebook do just decide to share it with everyone, you have to share it with them first.
Obviously that does not stop someone else sharing a video that you were involved in, but that's still no different then it is now where the same thing happens.
-
Wiki is "peer reviewed" too. That's really not helping your case. And even then, papers about something still do not make it special.
A peer reviewed paper (or a sufficiently well peer-reviewed Wiki) is supposed to have trustworthy information. If you object to that, we might as well stop having this discussion because somehow you have a problem with how academia works.
As for knowlege, I'm a computer tech who knows what Wireless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless), sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor), and networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network) are, and how they work at a base level, specifics of certain sensors aside. It's really not that hard to put together. They're using existing technology in a creative way, that's it. Wireless bridges existed already, this just adds a sensor and routing capability to it. woooo.
Luis Dias basically responded to this. By your logic nothing is novel.
And facebook isn't an example, that is Opt-In info. They must upload it. And before you go off on that, there is still zero proof anything will become always-on. While things like Facebook do just decide to share it with everyone, you have to share it with them first.
Way to ignore everything I wrote after the word facebook. Facebook itself (as in the service provider) has access to your data. Facebook shares your data with others. And that's the whole bloody point. It may not be you that shares that data with Facebook in this case, it may be others!
I'm not sure how you can say we have no proof that anything will become always-on when we already have examples of sensors that are always-on. The whole concept of domotics and smart environments depends on it!
And just because they don't upload information right now doesn't mean they won't later on. Hell, most implementations of the above depend on information gathered be collected somewhere.
Obviously that does not stop someone else sharing a video that you were involved in, but that's still no different then it is now where the same thing happens.
Of course, the fact that we can do it now, doesn't invalidate we can do it later. :p
-
Wiki is "peer reviewed" too. That's really not helping your case. And even then, papers about something still do not make it special.
A peer reviewed paper (or a sufficiently well peer-reviewed Wiki) is supposed to have trustworthy information. If you object to that, we might as well stop having this discussion because somehow you have a problem with how academia works.
As for knowlege, I'm a computer tech who knows what Wireless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless), sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor), and networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network) are, and how they work at a base level, specifics of certain sensors aside. It's really not that hard to put together. They're using existing technology in a creative way, that's it. Wireless bridges existed already, this just adds a sensor and routing capability to it. woooo.
Luis Dias basically responded to this. By your logic nothing is novel.
And facebook isn't an example, that is Opt-In info. They must upload it. And before you go off on that, there is still zero proof anything will become always-on. While things like Facebook do just decide to share it with everyone, you have to share it with them first.
Way to ignore everything I wrote after the word facebook. Facebook itself (as in the service provider) has access to your data. Facebook shares your data with others.
I'm not sure how you can say we have no proof that anything will become always-on when we already have examples of sensors that are always-on. The whole concept of domotics and smart environments depends on it!
And just because they don't upload information right now doesn't mean they will. Hell, most implementations of the above depend on information gathered be collected somewhere.
Obviously that does not stop someone else sharing a video that you were involved in, but that's still no different then it is now where the same thing happens.
Of course, the fact that we can do it now, doesn't invalidate we can do it later. :p
I do not consider making a house in minecraft "new". The amount of work and detail that goes into it can be impressive, and it can be pretty, but it's still just a collection of existing things used in a slightly different way then how someone else used them.
When 802.X was invented, it was impressive. If someone came up to me today telling me they invented a way to turn sound waves into electronic signals using a magnet and the vibrations from the sound to carry the information far away and turn it back into sound waves again, I'd ask them how far, then point them at either a telephone or a microphone and speaker. They still get props for doing it, but that doesn't make it new, or even special.
And it covers everything you wrote after the word facebook. Your example is Opt-In, but you claim always-on. They do share everything, but you have to share first, which is not always-on. Example doesn't apply.
I can easily say that you have no proof that video recording will become always on and saved and shared in the open. But now you're calling it sensors which changes the topic off google glass and video, so no comment. If you want an example of how video hosting is done, look at... well, any video hosting site ever. Still requires upload, which is Opt-In. Or maybe streaming, like Twitch.Tv, which is also Opt-In.
And for the bit, duh. :P
-
Look, man, there's a pretty basic and pretty novel phenomenon at work here: in the course of your day to day life, without any opt-in, any action whatsoever on your part, you will be open to tagging, commenting, and shared information pooling by anyone who looks at your face.
That is the basic outcome of the convergence of wearable networked devices and next-generation image recognition and search algorithms. It is not remotely like the status quo. It is quite manifestly different even from the current era of opt-in social networks like Facebook.
In the current era, someone could conceivably take a picture of you, upload it, get it tagged with your name, use that name as a search term to hunt for other information on you, and maybe compromise your privacy.
In the notional Google Glass era, someone can glance at you and instantly see what other people who've glanced at you have recorded. One basic example would be a thumbs up/thumbs down system for looks: you could walk down the street and on a lark thumbs up/thumbs down everyone who passed, and other people using the same service would then be able to access those aggregate ratings when they saw those people.
-
I do not consider making a house in minecraft "new". The amount of work and detail that goes into it can be impressive, and it can be pretty, but it's still just a collection of existing things used in a slightly different way then how someone else used them.
When 802.X was invented, it was impressive. If someone came up to me today telling me they invented a way to turn sound waves into electronic signals using a magnet and the vibrations from the sound to carry the information far away and turn it back into sound waves again, I'd ask them how far, then point them at either a telephone or a microphone and speaker. They still get props for doing it, but that doesn't make it new, or even special.
So by your standards, visible light communication for computing systems is not new nor novel? Regardless of your response, I see we will have to agree to disagree here. :p
And it covers everything you wrote after the word facebook. Your example is Opt-In, but you claim always-on. They do share everything, but you have to share first, which is not always-on. Example doesn't apply.
I can easily say that you have no proof that video recording will become always on and saved and shared in the open. But now you're calling it sensors which changes the topic off google glass and video, so no comment. If you want an example of how video hosting is done, look at... well, any video hosting site ever. Still requires upload, which is Opt-In. Or maybe streaming, like Twitch.Tv, which is also Opt-In.
And for the bit, duh. :P
Ok, we seem to be stuck in the Opt-In vs always-on issue.
My question is, how can you call something opt-in when someone or something other than you can collect information about you and upload it, which is the whole point of worry about these kinds of devices being made ubiquitous.
Regarding Google Glasses, I'll quote myself a few posts ago.
What I'm mentioning isn't related directly to the Google Glasses per se, which is why you see me repeatedly saying "these kinds of devices" instead of just saying "Google Glasses" or a specific device.
But what you need to understand is that what I've been saying will happen. It may not be with this specific device, but it heralds the coming of other devices which will.
-
I do not consider making a house in minecraft "new". The amount of work and detail that goes into it can be impressive, and it can be pretty, but it's still just a collection of existing things used in a slightly different way then how someone else used them.
When 802.X was invented, it was impressive. If someone came up to me today telling me they invented a way to turn sound waves into electronic signals using a magnet and the vibrations from the sound to carry the information far away and turn it back into sound waves again, I'd ask them how far, then point them at either a telephone or a microphone and speaker. They still get props for doing it, but that doesn't make it new, or even special.
So by your standards, visible light communication for computing systems is not new nor novel? Regardless of your response, I see we will have to agree to disagree here. :p
And it covers everything you wrote after the word facebook. Your example is Opt-In, but you claim always-on. They do share everything, but you have to share first, which is not always-on. Example doesn't apply.
I can easily say that you have no proof that video recording will become always on and saved and shared in the open. But now you're calling it sensors which changes the topic off google glass and video, so no comment. If you want an example of how video hosting is done, look at... well, any video hosting site ever. Still requires upload, which is Opt-In. Or maybe streaming, like Twitch.Tv, which is also Opt-In.
And for the bit, duh. :P
Ok, we seem to be stuck in the Opt-In vs always-on issue.
My question is, how can you call something opt-in when someone or something other than you can collect information about you and upload it, which is the whole point of worry about these kinds of devices being made ubiquitous.
Regarding Google Glasses, I'll quote myself a few posts ago.
What I'm mentioning isn't related directly to the Google Glasses per se, which is why you see me repeatedly saying "these kinds of devices" instead of just saying "Google Glasses" or a specific device.
But what you need to understand is that what I've been saying will happen. It may not be with this specific device, but it heralds the coming of other devices which will.
Visable light communication: Fibre Optic networking. Again, been in use for decades. Made in the 70's actually. I do not call 40-year old tech "new", no. Not in the world of technology anyway. Maybe if your point of reference starts somewhere in the 1500's it could be considered new.
How can you call something always-on if it requires someone to submit? A very large part of your original argument (as I read it anyway) consisted of these cameras being always-on, and it always streaming and the data being saved at some site where everyone can look it up. Are you telling me you're now going to back that off to what Battuta has been saying about the big worry being other people uploading it? Becasue that's very different.
Look, man, there's a pretty basic and pretty novel phenomenon at work here: in the course of your day to day life, without any opt-in, any action whatsoever on your part, you will be open to tagging, commenting, and shared information pooling by anyone who looks at your face.
That is the basic outcome of the convergence of wearable networked devices and next-generation image recognition and search algorithms. It is not remotely like the status quo. It is quite manifestly different even from the current era of opt-in social networks like Facebook.
In the current era, someone could conceivably take a picture of you, upload it, get it tagged with your name, use that name as a search term to hunt for other information on you, and maybe compromise your privacy.
In the notional Google Glass era, someone can glance at you and instantly see what other people who've glanced at you have recorded. One basic example would be a thumbs up/thumbs down system for looks: you could walk down the street and on a lark thumbs up/thumbs down everyone who passed, and other people using the same service would then be able to access those aggregate ratings when they saw those people.
I don't want to argue with you, because for the most part I agree with your argument about how it could be implemented. :(
The only problems I would have with what you're saying is it's highly reliant on things that have yet to be invented (advanced image recognition that actually works well and fast enough for the type of use you're talking about), but that'll come around soon enough, so that'd be a weak argument in itself.
Otherwise, all I'm disputing (or trying to anyway) in this thread is straight up paranoia reactions vs actually thinking out what would happen. What you've come up with both probably would, and actually could, happen. Constant always recording and saving could not.
-
Visable light communication: Fibre Optic networking. Again, been in use for decades. Made in the 70's actually. I do not call 40-year old tech "new", no. Not in the world of technology anyway. Maybe if your point of reference starts somewhere in the 1500's it could be considered new.
Visible light communication has nothing to do with Fiber Optics other than the fact that they both use light. But regardless, if you find that any article related to Fiber Optics today is somehow "not new" I guess we will have to discuss this subject elsewhere.
How can you call something always-on if it requires someone to submit? A very large part of your original argument (as I read it anyway) consisted of these cameras being always-on, and it always streaming and the data being saved at some site where everyone can look it up. Are you telling me you're now going to back that off to what Battuta has been saying about the big worry being other people uploading it? Becasue that's very different.
Battuta's argument is more immediate than my own. He posits the privacy concerns from this specific device and other very similar to it.
What I am claiming is that this is just the first step towards ever more invasive devices.
The fact is that domotics already has sensors and devices that collect information that are always on and centrally store it somewhere. Smart environments applied to large public spaces have the same idea but with the added privacy concerns.
As for how this related to this device, is that this is possibly going to be one of the first commercial, personal device that has the capability to gather visual, audio and other type of information with almost no user input and that are always ready to function, unlike a smartphone which needs someone to hold it up for example. The fact that for now these devices may not share information besides social networks and whatnot doesn't change the fact that we need to figure out how to function in a society with little to no privacy, either we want to or not.
Summarizing, Battuta's concerns are more immediate and related to this device, mine are more long term and they relate to information gathering from the environment around us regardless of which device.
-
Face tracking and automatic photography (smile detection) (http://www.squidoo.com/digital-camera-features#module36648212) are two technologies already implemented in many modern digital cameras.
Googles wouldn't need to constantly be recording high-res video and streaming it to the web. All it would need to do is notice faces in its field of view, and take either low-res (just enough for recognition) or narrow FOV photos; pair that with a program to filter and crop the photos, and GPS data already on your phone, and you have a very transmittable, easily taggable, automatically uploading photo of everyone in front of a pair of googles.
If that person has a social networking profile, the image could be autmatically linked to it; otherwise, it would be floating around in the cloud and just linked with other images of you. Soon enough there's a record of where this anonymous person is and has been, and all it would take is for one person who actually knows him to say, "oh hey, look at Bill getting drunk!" and then all the Bill photos are now forever linked to his name, and any other information the people around him provide.
This specific situation is probably a bit extreme, but I'm sure that an app to do that could be available within days of launch, if it's not already included in the built-in suite. All it would need is a database and people to turn it on.
The reason that this technology is so alarming is not that it's new - all these things already exist - it's that googles or whatever smartphone-connected wearable camera can automate the process, and will make it much more difficult to tell when it's happening or not.
-
The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others
Actually, it's announced via voice command (or so this demo heavily implies. Perhaps there's a touch function, but I didn't see one)
I'm fairly certain you can hear people acting odd with them going around places saying "TAKE PICTURE! TAKE PICTURE YOU BLOODY THING!"
Now, when these things read minds, that's where I'll be worried about people surreptitiously taking pictures of my male model posture
Which is something that people seem to have missed in regards to the whole privacy thing. Pictures from phones can be done far more stealthily than someone talking to themselves
Untill you rebind the photograph function to "Blink once"
I don't think that's possible. The thing is a screen, not a sensor. It can't tell when you blink. At least as far as I have seen out of it so far, I could have missed that functionality.
-
Yes, Google's Glass can't do that. Doesn't mean that Google is going to be the only vendor of these devices, or that Google's interface concepts are the only ones possible.
-
The ability to take pictures and video unanounced is unfortunate to others
Actually, it's announced via voice command (or so this demo heavily implies. Perhaps there's a touch function, but I didn't see one)
I'm fairly certain you can hear people acting odd with them going around places saying "TAKE PICTURE! TAKE PICTURE YOU BLOODY THING!"
Now, when these things read minds, that's where I'll be worried about people surreptitiously taking pictures of my male model posture
Which is something that people seem to have missed in regards to the whole privacy thing. Pictures from phones can be done far more stealthily than someone talking to themselves
Untill you rebind the photograph function to "Blink once"
I don't think that's possible. The thing is a screen, not a sensor. It can't tell when you blink. At least as far as I have seen out of it so far, I could have missed that functionality.
Then connect it to a Bluetooth device in your pocket or something. The point is you cannot simply rely on self-regulation like that with devices which are so inherently flexible.
-
What the hell have I run into?
As much as I would love the HUD/HMD with onboard SatNav (compass, sensor packages, live traffic), wait, that would spell me dying in a car because of the distractions. Maybe as a backup instrument for other vehicles...
... No thermal, IR or NVG. :sigh: Wait, that would eat up a lot of power.
-
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/12/4094336/death-by-notification-will-google-glass-drown-us-in-data
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24757224
Ms Abadie was cited for breaking a Californian law which prohibits people from watching TV while driving.
She is now considering whether to take legal action to fight the ticket on the grounds that the device was turned off.
If your not going to use the damn things then why bother wearing them during a dangerous activity?
-
The real question is, why charge someone using a blatant misapplication of the law, especially when the thing wasn't even powered on?
-
You can be charged for drunk driving as long as the key is in the ignition. I don't see much of a difference here.
-
You can be charged for drunk driving as long as the key is in the ignition. I don't see much of a difference here.
I'm not sure how that's comparable to this case; you can't be charged for drunk driving just for having beer within reach.
-
You can be charged if you are wearing the beer in front of your eyes though. :p
The reason you can be charged for having the keys in the car even if you're not driving is that you've shown that there was a very good chance you intended to drive. This case is basically the same thing. If you're not intending to use the Google Glass, why the hell are you wearing them while driving? Hell, why on Earth would anyone sensible deliberately block part of their vision with something like Google Glass while driving unless they intended to use it?
In addition, she absolutely was speeding and it's pretty ****ing easy to turn them off after you get pulled over and claim they weren't turned on.
Quite frankly, I've got no desire to see using this sort of thing turn into the next texting while driving. There is no good reason to wear these things while driving. Take them off.
-
gps that you don't have to look away from the road to see is not a good reason?
-
Not really. Until someone can prove different, I'm of the opinion you should be pulling the **** over if you need to consult your GPS.
c.f handsfree phone use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Handsfree_device