[redsniper]

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.

[KyadCK]

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, 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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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".

[Phantom Hoover]

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)

[KyadCK]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[deathfun]

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

[Ghostavo]

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.

[Grizzly]

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"

[deathfun]

Can you even do that?

[KyadCK]

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. 

----------------------------

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.

[Luis Dias]

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]

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 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.

[deathfun]

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

[KyadCK]

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 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, sensors, and networks 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.

[Ghostavo]

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, sensors, and networks 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.

[KyadCK]

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, sensors, and networks 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.

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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.

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.

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.