from the poor-solutions-with-no-problems-to-solve dept.
The verdict is out and it is what many had asserted. Google Glass is a failure: BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones.
The concern is that this product has been in the hands of developers for a year now but on the Glassware store, there are still only around 60 apps. I have seen various demos of what look like exciting augmented reality apps - services that overlay information on what you see through Glass - but so far these have not appeared in the store.
It would have been nice to have something like what Lumus is doing: Wearable Display without the usual 3D HMD problems but alas, they don't take orders from individual nobodies.
Related Stories
Two Harvard students recently revealed that it's possible to combine Meta smart glasses with face image search technology to "reveal anyone's personal details," including their name, address, and phone number, "just from looking at them."
In a Google document, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio explained how they linked a pair of Meta Ray Bans 2 to an invasive face search engine called PimEyes to help identify strangers by cross-searching their information on various people-search databases. They then used a large language model (LLM) to rapidly combine all that data, making it possible to dox someone in a glance or surface information to scam someone in seconds—or other nefarious uses, such as "some dude could just find some girl's home address on the train and just follow them home," Nguyen told 404 Media.
This is all possible thanks to recent progress with LLMs, the students said.
[...] To prevent anyone from being doxxed, the co-creators are not releasing the code, Nguyen said on social media site X. They did, however, outline how their disturbing tech works and how shocked random strangers used as test subjects were to discover how easily identifiable they are just from accessing with the smart glasses information posted publicly online.
[...] But while privacy is clearly important to the students and their demo video strove to remove identifying information, at least one test subject was "easily" identified anyway, 404 Media reported. That test subject couldn't be reached for comment, 404 Media reported.
So far, neither Facebook nor Google has chosen to release similar technologies that they developed linking smart glasses to face search engines, The New York Times reported.
[...] In the European Union, where collecting facial recognition data generally requires someone's direct consent under the General Data Protection Regulation, smart glasses like I-XRAY may not be as big of a concern for people who prefer to be anonymous in public spaces. But in the US, I-XRAY could be providing bad actors with their next scam.
"If people do run with this idea, I think that's really bad," Ardayfio told 404 Media. "I would hope that awareness that we've spread on how to protect your data would outweigh any of the negative impacts this could have."
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @02:55PM
It's "Google Glass", not "Google Glasses".
Let's be better than that other site, the one without the editing.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:39PM
The GOOGLES! they do nothing!
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 28 2014, @09:53PM
Thank you. I need to wipe ice tea of my screen again.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by skullz on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:11PM
OMG you mean you can't get high quality apps developed in under 6 weeks on a new platform for a small user base swirling in controversy who is used free or nearly free apps?!!
The horror!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:15PM
Where did you get 6 weeks from? Developers have had Google Glass for going on 15 months.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by skullz on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:18PM
It went on sale to the unwashed masses just over a month ago. The initial explorer program (2012?) was good and all but if you are complaining about the number of Glass apps available you really should count from the time that it was available for general sale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:56PM
I checked [theregister.co.uk], and that "general sale" was still the "Explorer program". Translation: Still a prototype, sold while supplies last, for people who have $1500 to burn or coders who want a unit so they can develop apps on it now and make money later. I think some of those units that are/were being sold were sent back to Google and refurbished. Google denied the initial teardown of Glass, but the device clearly costs about $100 to make [techinsights.com]. When Glass is ready for the general public, it will be sold for something like $300, with fashion add-ons.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 28 2014, @09:58PM
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Great Depression? Check
Bad economy for coders in general with the App marketplaces? Check
Real risk for independents in spending dev hours on new tech platforms? Check
The Greedy Stupid Suits still holding back on money for projects? Check
Is it a device with a totally unproven track record rife with negative sociopolitical commentary? Check
Is the device not priced for the consumer reasonably in any way, shape, or form? Check
No carrier subsidies to allow millions of units to be moved at 1/10th their actual cost? Check
The only way you get an App marketplace filled to the brim is when the dev kits are cheap, there are plenty of existing units out there allowing feedback and market studies, and there is plenty of cannon fodder in the form of developers out there to be abused like young black men thinking the NBA is a viable career and future for them.
Almost nobody makes any real money with these apps, and even when you do make something popular, the marketplace owners can do scandalous things to push you under and fuck you over.
It's way too early to make any assumptions about Google Glass at all. We need to wait till the economy picks up again (it won't-we haven't seen bottom yet) and enough consumers can purchase enough units to make a viable digital ecosystem.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @08:45PM
Honestly people...
Augmented reality is sorta cool. It just has not found a 'must have' app yet.
For android/iphone it was google maps and barcode scanner from zxing. There were plenty of such apps before and after. But those two together sold *many* phones.
The cost is far too high (1500!) and the apps for it are not of the sort of 'must have'. Yet.
Right now it is toy for people who want to play. Much like wince phones before the iphone.
In time it will be cool but right now today. I would not get it. Not at that price.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:19AM
let me get this straight: google with all its genius programmers can't write enough apps and they need USERS to do that?
almighty google? really?
come on, they are people who walk on water. or, so I'm told, time and time again.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by moondrake on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:16PM
Right. Seems to be sensational journalism. Google Glass is as much a failure as the first car or airplane was. But perhaps also like the first Zeppelin.
Time will tell if and if so how wearable eyepieces will change our society.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:44PM
I agree
If they gave it to me free or lower (much lower) cost, I would have one.... but the needs of the poor outweigh the needs of the glass, so
live long and glassless.
Would love this... just can't afford it: need a new car(s), autistic son who eats like a (pig/horse/mule/elephant/tyrannosaurus Rex/me when I was a teenager/Rob Ford), larger garden, future wedding for daughter to pay for...
Could be a hit, but at (what was it... $1500? last i remember?). IAN1% (I am not one of the 1%)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 5, Interesting) by darnkitten on Wednesday May 28 2014, @05:49PM
Unless my vision plan will pay for them, I can't afford them, and unless they are provided with prescription lenses, I can't use them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:06PM
Ditto those sentiments. I'd kinda like to play around with a pair, but I simply WILL NOT spend that kind of money for a toy.
Errr - well - actually - to be honest, I might spend that much on a toy, but it had better have some HORSEPOWER! $1500? That will get any number of nice, aging motorcycles on Ebay. You can build a pretty nice cafe racer (for clarity, a cafe racer is a 500 cc bike that can do 100 mph) for that kind of money. No, it won't buy a two hundred mile an hour bike, but one hundred? No problem!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by RaffArundel on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:14PM
Nope, just the summary. TFA actually makes some interesting points about the product and the promise of the technology.
(Score: 1) by RaffArundel on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:16PM
Well, the ORIGINAL summary. Now it is a lot more reasonable.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by emg on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:51PM
Uh, these things are hardly the first. Wearable computers have been around since at least the 90s, but they've never caught on because the display tech is still kind of crappy, they make you look like Super-Dork, and they give the TSA terrorgasms.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:38PM
how big is google? how many 'smart genius' people are there?
they constantly brag about being the best and the smartest.
6 weeks is NOTHING. shit, man, if I was at google (perish the thought!) and had resources they had, people nearby who developed the hardware and o/s, I'd have amazing stuff done in a month or less.
sorry, google gets no pass on this. they have 10x as many people as they need and still can't get simple stuff fixed (my n1 phone was never usable, fully, due to an x,y screen calibration bug that google NEVER SAW FIT TO FIX. flagship phone but truly abandonware since its not 'teh shiney!' anymore and so the google children who work there could not be bothered to fix a p1 showstopper bug.
google is nothing special anymore. maybe their top people are good, but the mass employee base of google fails to impress; and all the abandonware they produce never helps their image, either.
actually, this is good. I'm glad google can't 'execute' on many things. that makes me feel a bit safer, knowing they are not as competant as they think they are.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by skullz on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:08PM
Just a quick scan of my Android phone shows me two Google apps I use: Gmail and search. Maybe some Google Now for the weather and traffic.
What Glass apps would you have Google develop? Situation aware ads? It's going to be the independent developers in small shops who are going to make the really cool stuff.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:48PM
I use hangouts and maps a huge amount on my phone, and I imagine they would be great on Glass too. Any of those apps that let you hold up your camera to text and have it translate it for you will be great for Glass. Same for QR codes etc.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:11PM
Augmented reality glasses have their place, but it's not the consumer world. They have a lot to offer to certain professions (medicine, law enforcement) and to high-volume production industrial environments. Expect to see them flourish there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:36PM
But don't expect all that software to be available inside a year.
God Damned entitled NON-techs. Why they hell do they think that software will just spring forth - fully formed at the birth of the product?
it didnt happen to Apple's Newton. it didnt happen to the first mp3 players, or PDA's, HELL you had to wait for 4th and 5th generation cell phones for those apps. give the damn thing time. Give the programmers time to write the tools.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:49PM
Why should the masses buy it at $1.5k a pop, if there's no software for it? I don't think it's the non-techs with the entitlement issue here...
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 28 2014, @08:57PM
It's fun to use the word 'entitlement' as if it somehow meant "one who has a complaint I condescendingly disagree with" but at the end of the day a product like this does need to be useful enough for people to plunk down money on it. You shot your own point in the foot by bringing those examples out.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Informative) by mojo chan on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:58PM
Rory Cellan-Jones is a well known Apple fanboy. You can read all his pro-Apple articles on the BBC site. Even the comments on TFA mention it. If Glass had an Apple logo on it he would love it, but since it doesn't he considers it a failure. I wish they would get rid of him and find someone better to do tech news reporting.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by freetown on Thursday May 29 2014, @01:53PM
Okay so he is biased and favours Apple products. Guess what, I hate Apple but that is only because I am suffering from their lack of support for enterprise/school/business environments and I find their 'solutions' such as using thunderbolt cables to image new macairs laughable (so glad they did not remove net install from mac airs) and their "sorry, we really don't care" suggestions to managing their devices was the final straw.
Lack of apps for the Google Glass aside, I find the implementation hard to swallow. I am surprised that no one has said anything about the Lumus which has a much better implementation imho. BTW, it is definitely not vapour-ware. CNET Lumus Preview [cnet.com]
Looks like something is happening: Lumus and Eyesight deal [engadget.com]
I use a Samsung Note 8 that I carry in a side belt pouch. I'd love to be able to have an android device on one hip and battery on the other and a pair of Lumus glasses hooked up. Google Glass meh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2014, @03:59AM
Dude, augmented reality would instantly replace anti-depressants if husbands could augment their wives appearances and wives could augment their husband's language and smell. It would be a high-tech computer-powered hippie renaissance. It would be a time of peace, love and a massive baby boom.
And it can't be far off if Skype's automatically replacing words now ..s -will-launch-real-time-translation-app.html [pcworld.com] .. but other than making my CEO's speeches Klingon .. Jeebus, could you image how cool John Chambers' or Satya Nadella's news snippets would look if they were hurling abuse in Klingon .. FMD I'd even watch the news again!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2198140/skype-demo
Anyway as I was saying .. I won't be using augmented reality to replace Cloud with Butt ..- browser-plug-paddles-%E2%80%98cloud%E2%80%99-peddl ers [networkworld.com] .. I'll be using to s/my spoken name/Charles Remington Huez' Pey'n'yus/g .. it'll be like underpants concall meetings in real life settings - meeting rooms, restaurants and underground transport. Brilliant! Imagine how much happier and more engaged the workforce will be!
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cheeky
We just need a new protocol to temporarily lease nick names in public places, so that when I say "You got the time douche-nozzle?" your agent can translate that back to your name .. can't have 47 douche-nozzles in the same room ...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VitalMoss on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:22PM
I'm a huge proponent of privacy, but I love the concept behind Google Glass. I'm sure there are plenty like me, and the fact that people are trying to call it a failure is hilarious. It's a matter of finding it's applications, and making some more tweaks (maybe a slide to hide camera, obvious light when camera is used, etc..).
I don't know, it's hard to have a stance on something so.... different. We need to go into this with an open mind.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:41PM
a heads-up display of some kind may be useful.
BUT NEVER EVER EVER FROM GOOGLE.
that's the kiss of death.
"what's the catch?" should always be the question when it comes to google.
now, if this was sold outright with no strings attached (lol), and the user had 100% control over anything up or downloaded, great. but that's not the purpose at all. the purpose is to be yet another info source FOR google. in that regard, its a full failure. no one really wants to feed the monkey more than its already being fed.
remove google 100% from this and we'll talk. for now, its yet another google trick to connect you to their 'ecosystem'. NO THANKS. DO. NOT. WANT.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by darnkitten on Wednesday May 28 2014, @05:58PM
This.
I've loved the idea of a glasses (or contact lens)-mounted HUD for decades, since reading about the concept in a sci-fi novel. It would be like having a minor super power for this nearsighted nerd.
I'm just not willing to trade my privacy for it.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday May 28 2014, @09:23PM
The problem with Google Glass is not just that you'd be trading your privacy for its convenience: you'd be trading mine as well. Some, including me, might say it would be unethical for you to do that. So kudos to you for not using it. :-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by zim on Thursday May 29 2014, @05:20AM
I really don't want to hang around people who wear this. And i don't think i'd like to hang around people who were ok with me wearing this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:00PM
Amen.
(Score: 2) by forsythe on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:46PM
I hesitantly agree with your interest in Glass, but I don't really believe that minor tweaks could magically give us back our privacy, mostly because this sort of thing isn't Glass' fault in the first place.
For example, suppose Google sends infiltration teams to replace each and every Glass currently in the hands of a consumer with a more privacy-centric version that glows red and plays a constant alarm siren whenever recording is enabled. Tomorrow, you see somebody wearing Glass on the street. What guarantee do you have that they haven't rooted their Glass to remove those warning signals, or that their pair is infected with malware that has the same effect? What guarantee do you have that they aren't wearing a knock-off brand that conveniently didn't implement the warning? What guarantee do you have that they aren't wearing a perfectly normal pair of Glass, but also one of these [dotzila.com]?
Glass isn't an assault on our privacy. Our privacy (if we ever had any) evaporated long ago.
I'm not sure what that means we should do, but I know that `defeating' Glass won't give us back privacy (not that I think you were saying that).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VitalMoss on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:24PM
I'll try to reply to both at the same time;
@GratefulNet
Overreaction isn't a valid reaction. Like forsythe said, you can easily hack the glass to do what you want it to. The street finds a use for it and all that.
@forsythe
Yeah, I don't think our privacy can be brought back through "banning" glass.
We need to take that back ourselves. But there 'can' be benefits to having something such as Google Glass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 28 2014, @06:49PM
replace each and every Glass currently in the hands of a consumer with a more privacy-centric version that glows red and plays a constant alarm siren whenever recording is enabled
It would be interesting to see a count of the number of wearers who have been threatened|told to leave|assaulted.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:44PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 28 2014, @10:37PM
Shit... you just summarized linux. :)
Even though it has been on my desktop for... (wow.. 14 years now), it still isn't the year of the linux desktop.
I guess success is in the eye of the penguin!
I know, i know... off topic! :)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 28 2014, @10:44PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2014, @08:19AM
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:28PM
"And sadly my verdict is that, in its present form with its current software, Google Glass is a failure."
So some guy at teh BBC says "fail"... sort of. BFD.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RaffArundel on Wednesday May 28 2014, @03:53PM
Agreed. I read TFA and a few things:
1. He doesn't call them Google Glasses, but rather the proper Google Glass. Why is that important? Because if a TV journalist calls a piece of tech so wrong a name, I have a kneejerk reaction that they are an idiot and they have nothing useful to add. This was just the opposite, it was a rather insightful article.
2. The point is that the product hasn't lived up to its potential. There was a lot of hype, and Google has had time to get that killer app out there - but hasn't. Here are some of my highlights from the article:
"But what is lacking in this project right now is momentum."
"The concern is that this product has been in the hands of developers for a year now but on the Glassware store, there are still only around 60 apps."
"Google Glass is still in development, so maybe it will regain some of that lost momentum."
Doesn't sound like an abject failure. I'm also wondering what the point of the Lumus link - what are they bringing to the table? Has anyone ever used their technology (described as "disruptive" on their site) and compared it to the better known Glass?
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:10PM
"Because if a TV journalist calls a piece of tech so wrong a name, I have a kneejerk reaction that they are an idiot and they have nothing useful to add."
Broaden that to include pundits, critics, etc. and I am exactly the same.
(Score: 1) by freetown on Thursday May 29 2014, @01:55PM
Google Glass is just a wearable display with a camera. Lumus offers the exact same product but with a better implementation.
(Score: 1) by RaffArundel on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:28PM
Glass also has online integration, apps and voice control as I understand it. What is special about the Lumus implementation? What design decisions did they make to have a "disruptive" technology?
I have used neither, but very interested in wearable computing and where it may benefit me.
(Score: 1) by freetown on Friday May 30 2014, @04:50AM
Apps and control is a matter of time. Google Glass may have an advantage right now with a product on the market and some apps but if these were equal, the design of Lumus wearable display is much less 'disruptive' than Google's design that requires that you look in a corner to see the display. Lumus looks like a HUD that encompasses your entire field of view. But Lumus may never make it to the market and I guess it might be a moot point for me to assert that Lumus is better.
(Score: 1) by forkazoo on Wednesday May 28 2014, @06:30PM
Pretty much any first generation product "in its present form with its current software" is a failure. The Apple Lisa was a failure. The first MP3 players were failures. Napster got shot down. Windows 1.0 was a dud. Google Glass isn't some startup putting their whole wad into a product launch and getting ready to pack up shop if it goes badly. It's a start. As a start, it's a wild raging unbridled success, given how damn much people talk about a product I've still never even seen in person...
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 28 2014, @08:32PM
Although I agree with your comment, Napster doesn't belong in the list; it was hugely successful until the copyright infringement verdict, and then other software simply took its place.
Have you read the Nooze [nooze.org]?
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:24PM
I think it could be great, but not for $1500. Somebody else needs to come in, take the idea and make it into a workable consumer product. Probably (shudder) Apple.
If they could get a heads-up augmented reality display going for $200 I'd buy it. Not for wearing all the time, but for specific jobs. Like when I'm working on my car, it would be great to have a pdf of the repair manual displayed when my hands are busy. Or assembling children's toys/furniture.
The camera would be really great for when I'm disassembling something. Just let it record everything I do, so if when I'm trying to put it back together I have a video I can scrub through to figure out what piece went where.
There are definitely worthwhile uses for such a display, but it seems what google has made so far is an expensive tech demo. We need to see a finished consumer product to make a real verdict.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by Theophrastus on Wednesday May 28 2014, @04:41PM
exactly. and, from notably (from my point of view), the overt outward facing privacy violation camera (or OOFPVC) made it a 'fail'.
were it $295.95 and there wasn't the onus of "this jerk is one of google's big-brothers watching you", then it could've caught.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 28 2014, @06:50PM
I'm just gonna quote the same reply I used on the last Glass article; maybe someone will have an answer this time:
(Score: 2) by skullz on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:05PM
Thank you. Whenever people people freak out about the Glass camera I feel like telling them welcome to the 19th century. "Oh, no, but you can't capture these reflected light waves! They are MINE!"
If you are really upset about Glass why arn't you upset about the cameras on trains, ATMs, in almost every store, on every traffic light, etc. I'm not even being sarcastic. This is a serious question, very similar to recording "private" conversations. When are reflected light waves considered private?
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:28AM
capturing light waves? seriously?
so, if I put a camera in your house and video you undressing, its ok since its just 'light waves' right?
asshole. its people like you that don't understand common courtesy and that people have a RIGHT to privacy, your 'light wave' theory notwithstanding.
and we ARE upset about all the cameras in atms and traffic lights. we cannot fight the government but we CAN fight YOU, mister 'I don't have anything to hide so you should not, either' asshole.
look, you are free to parade all you want in front of cameras, but you do NOT have the right to put me in front of YOUR camera just for your goddamned jollies.
try it and get punched. maybe that's what you need to get this thru your head.
yes, this infuriates me. you don't care about privacy; fine; but don't force your lack of consideration on the rest of us. society has rules and politeness is about thinking of others and not being so self-centered.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday May 29 2014, @01:03PM
As the GP here, I'm somewhat between you and the parent poster. I've got no problem with ATM cameras for example, because that's private property, and it's not MY private property so I have no right to dictate what the owners (or anyone else even) can do there. Government cameras can be a bit different depending on how they're used. IMO, recording a location is fine, but when you're focused on recording a specific person it starts to cross into privacy violations (but not necessarily -- recording a celebrity is different. As is recording the guy who appears to have just slipped some merchandise in his coat. The legal term "Reasonable expectation of privacy" seems a fine metric.)
But that wasn't really my original point. That's all *entirely irrelevant*. Blocking the techology won't change anything. The "Let's hate on Glass because it's violating our privacy!" crowd are using the exact same strategy we've all laughed at the RIAA for, when they were trying to stop piracy by suing each individual P2P network. Even *they* realized that doesn't work.
There's cameras pointed at you damn near constantly. The reason that isn't all on YouTube is because most people aren't jerks and most people don't care. You picking your nose just isn't that interesting to anyone. Yet that's *exactly* what people like to claim is going to happen with Glass. Why? The half dozen other cameras everyone has aren't enough? And if we block Glass, you think there's never going to be a wearable camera? Someone could just as easily slip the cellphone in their shirt pocket. Or on a lanyard. Or belt clip. Or hold it and pretend they're texting. Or any of a million other ways with a million different devices. The problem there isn't the device, it's the person.
By focusing on Glass, you're sending the message that the people recording haven't done anything wrong -- Google has. The reality of the situation is the other way around.
(Score: 2) by skullz on Thursday May 29 2014, @02:47PM
Good, and you should be. I am as well. I don't want a camera in my house. But your right to privacy does not extend to me not being able to wear a camera strapped to my face and snapping a picture of you on the street. That's why I brought up the private conversation thing. When are sound waves considered private and protected? In California it ends up being a "when the parties involved have a reasonable expectation of privacy", meaning they are in a restaurant some where, talking in a low voice, etc. If I'm sitting across the room I would have to bust out a directional mic to record the conversation and would violate your privacy. If I'm sitting at your table or next to it I would have to tell you I was recording you. Other US states have different laws but thats the basics.
Now how about that camera? If you have a traditional, easy to spot camera you can generally take pictures from any public space (except ship ports, depending on the LEOs). Don't like your picture being taken? Tough beans! It's not polite, it's not nice, but it is not invading your privacy as currently defined. If I follow you around snapping pictures like some star crazed paparazzi that would be harassing, but not violating your privacy. Take pictures in your home without your permission? Violating your privacy. Take pictures of you at a restaurant? Gray area. Its a public establishment, but there is some expectation of privacy. And the restaurant owners can always say "nope, not here buddy." With voice conversations it is easier to define an expectation of privacy but how about those reflected light waves, eh? They can travel all across the room with ease and be captured without any special equipment.
So yes, the cameras upset me. Yes, the chest beating about a camera in a different form factor upsets me. This is about who can take, store, and distribute an image of you in private, semi-private, and public spaces. Throw your rage at the cure issue and Glass will resolve itself.
(Score: 1) by Theophrastus on Wednesday May 28 2014, @07:44PM
i'm not sure what you're asking here. how would you feel if someone at a restaurant was pointing a cell-phone camera at you the whole time they sat there? perhaps you'd be fine with it, because: "there's a restaurant security camera which is doing the same thing". but there's at least a psychological difference to having someone walking about (possibly even in the restroom) recording/uploading everything in front of them and some security camera which -we-believe- is only scrutinized in case of there was some legal reason to do so. (if you think it's being scrutinized "*all the time* so what's the difference?", then that's your paranoia/"fearmongering" realized)
so in all honesty, you're ok with sitting across from someone who has a camera lens pointed at you, uploading the feed, every time you blow your nose? (what if it included audio?) if so, then you and i are different creatures; and i respect that. (of course, some of us don't admire our own appearances)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by forsythe on Wednesday May 28 2014, @08:36PM
I think you're being too dismissive of GP's ``paranoia''. When you say
you are completely missing the point that was made. GP is not necessarily okay, he is pointing out that Glass doesn't change the current situation. For example, you seem to draw a distinction between Glass and the camera in John Q. Public's smartphone. I could ask you
If you really have a problem with being recorded, why is it only now that this complaint arises [notbored.org]? If you trusted the general population to not record you with the readily-available technology of 2010, why don't you trust the general population to not record you with the readily-available technology of 2014?
Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter what you do, or what you're okay with, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. There's no reason to be happy with the current situation (I'm not), but there's not much you can do. You can wear a mask, stay inside your house and close the blinds, or you can simply try not to sneeze while anybody is watching.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday May 29 2014, @12:16PM
I'm not necessarily saying you have to be OK being recorded all the time -- merely that the idea that you can know for certain that you aren't is kind of absurd. That ship sailed a decade or two ago, and nobody cared.
I often slip my cellphone into my shirt pocket. It just happens that it sits in the pocket so that the camera just barely sticks out. Now, if someone was sitting there with their phone in the pocket or on a lanyard or whatever where it could easily be recording me...I wouldn't care. If I go to the bar and the guy behind me is recording the show, including me...I don't care. If someone walked up to me, stuck a camera right in my face and were obviously recording...then yes, I might care. Just like I might care if I'm sitting with someone wearing Glass and I hear them tell it to start recording. Point being: it would be kind of absurd for me to consider every camera pointed at me as a threat. But that's the impression I get from people arguing against Glass.
My real problem is with people campaigning against an entire category of technology just because they're afraid of that one-in-a-million asshat using it for...what? To do exactly what they can already do? The reason videos of you sneezing aren't constantly being posted to YouTube is because most people aren't jerks and because nobody would care anyway. It's certainly NOT because most people just don't have cameras around to record it.
Everyone always complains about patents that are "Just like X...BUT ON A COMPUTER!!11!". This feels like the same kind of hysteria to me -- "Just like a cellphone...BUT ON GLASSES!!11!"