Do you oppose Google Glass for privacy reasons?

[kenny]

How would you feel if someone in public pointed a video camera at you?
What if their camera was so discrete you were not likely to notice it?

"A study from market research firm Toluna suggests there is considerable emotional opposition to the idea of people wearing Glass in public." http://www.cnet.com/news/72-percent-say-no-to-google-glass-because-of-privacy/

They are tiny computers you wear as glasses.
They can record whatever you see.
Now, people can be recorded without their knowledge anywhere in public, or in private.

Some people feel Googleglass invades privacy and some bars already ban them.
The price will be $1,500.

How do you feel about them and the privacy issue?

 

[yssie]

They're on sale today in the US!

I think anyone (who doesn't live under a literal rock) who truly believes that an individual's privacy is not already compromised (or compromise-able, at least) to the point of the concept representing little more than a fantasy is living under a (figurative) rock.

I don't see it gaining mass popularity or anything like that.

 

[kefira]

I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. This is what my dh works on (bias disclosure of sorts), and I admit it was a bit strange when he first started wearing it, especially around the house. I'm a very private person, and once I learned what it can/can't do, I became fine with it.

 

[kenny]

I think anyone (who doesn't live under a literal rock) who truly believes that an individual's privacy is not already compromised (or compromise-able, at least) to the point of the concept representing little more than a fantasy is living under a (figurative) rock.

So if you are in a restaurant/bar/Starbucks and some pervy guy wearing them stares at you, or at your breasts, for a long time (you know he may be recording you) you're okay with that?

 

[yssie]

I think anyone (who doesn't live under a literal rock) who truly believes that an individual's privacy is not already compromised (or compromise-able, at least) to the point of the concept representing little more than a fantasy is living under a (figurative) rock.

So if you are in a restaurant/bar/Starbucks and some pervy guy wearing them stares at you for a long time (you know he may be recording you) you're okay with that?

He could be anyway, with any number of other devices - a phone, a watch camera... the security cameras in the building are almost certainly recording me from another angle... No, I'm not really okay with it, but I'm resigned to the possibility, and it doesn't bother me enough to care to change my routine(s).

 

[momhappy]

For me it's more about the creepy factor and less about privacy (which doesn't truly exist anyways). If it makes being creepy less obvious (as kenny said, the pervy guy staring at your breasts and recording you), then I'm not okay with it.
Not to mention that fact that it looks ridiculous on…..

 

[baby monster]

Hah. The dos and don'ts of being a gl******* are funny. Not to mention that ridiculous cyborg looking contraption. People will start walking into lampposts etc even more often than now with texting and emailing.

Privacy? Anyone with a cell can and do record without permission. It can be done very easily.

 

[Circe]

I oppose creepers. But ... the first rule of Creeper Club is apparently creepers be creepin'.

I am 100% sure that right now, plenty of people are out there pretending to text a friend while they surreptitiously film someone. Google Glass will make that a wee bit easier ... but not by much, and I doubt that legions of creeps have the $1500 to spare. Can't hold back the tide ....

I believe Google responded to criticisms by adding a light or something that goes on when the capacity to film is activated ... yes? If they haven't, they should. But I think making that mandatory for them as well as other manufacturers is possibly as far as it will go.

 

[ksinger]

One piece I read called the people who use them "creepy solipsistic surveillance cyborgs".

Not a whole lot needs be said, I'm thinking...

 

[momhappy]

I voted "other" in the poll because after giving this some more thought, I oppose Google Glass mainly based upon the fact that those wearing it look utterly ridiculous (oh, and also for privacy/creep-factor reasons)

 

[AprilBaby]

Yes, but now I see they are making google contact lens to get around people knowing you have it.

 

[aljdewey]

I'd object to it in areas where I should have an expectation of privacy (public restrooms, my house, etc). Beyond that, though, any thought of privacy in public is an illusion anyway. Security cameras and cells make it impossible not to expect you're being recorded in public.

 

[Deactivated member 42515]

I think anyone (who doesn't live under a literal rock) who truly believes that an individual's privacy is not already compromised (or compromise-able, at least) to the point of the concept representing little more than a fantasy is living under a (figurative) rock.

So if you are in a restaurant/bar/Starbucks and some pervy guy wearing them stares at you for a long time (you know he may be recording you) you're okay with that?

He could be anyway, with any number of other devices - a phone, a watch camera... the security cameras in the building are almost certainly recording me from another angle... No, I'm not really okay with it, but I'm resigned to the possibility, and it doesn't bother me enough to care to change my routine(s).

I'll be that creeper staring at your breasts, yssie. And I'll record every single living moment of those bosoms.

 

[lknvrb4]

I don't oppose for privacy reasons, we are pretty much on camera in public places these days anyway. It is not like this random stranger who has one of these even knows who I am.

 

[JewelFreak]

They can find out who you are & much else. That's the yucky part. Several companies are working on face-recognition apps to go along with the glasses. So -- anyone can see you buying tomatoes & check out who you are, where you live, what your background is....wonderful tool for stalkers & other weirdos.

 

[ame]

That and the fact that it looks ridiculous and seems otherwise worthless. I am a total tech dork and still fail to see the point of this device.

 

[Dee*Jay]

"Privacy"... What is this mythological creature of which you speak?

I think I saw it once riding over the moon on the back of a unicorn.

 

[Karl_K]

Someone I know talked about getting one and I told him if he looked at my wife or even more so my young nieces and grand nieces or neighbors children while wearing them he was asking me to punch him in the face and I would.
Its not the tech that is the problem but the person who would be wearing it.

 

[TC1987]

^ I like Karl's approach. HAHAHAHA!

Privacy is a myth. 10 years ago I took some college classes and every classroom had a camera, some of which could be watched live on the school's site. The profs would announce on 1st day of class "There is a surveillance camera in this classroom, it's on all the time, and if that bothers you perhaps you need to attend a different school." Every store has cameras on the entrances/exits and the cash registers, any maybe in other places. Bars and restaurants have webcams broadcasting who is sitting at the bar now. There are webcams eyeing the pedestrians on the streets as well as who is running stoplights.

I only expect the privacy-invasion problems to get worse as the reins are handed to a younger generation that lacks appropriate filters and grew up posting naked pictures of themselves all over Facebook and posting potentially embarrassing pics of other people on various web sites to make fun of. As I age, I intend to make sure that I am always attired neatly in a blandly upscale and classic ultra-conservative way, and I'll be wearing big sunglasses and a headscarf like the Hollywoods do. I've never been one to show cleavage, because at my petite height, I don't need to. All the man has to do is look down and see the twin peaks. I will never get any tattoos, just because I don't want to have any out-of-fashion markings should the fad go out of style in a generation.

 

[blackprophet]

As some have stated, this happens already.

With the digital cameras and cameras on phones, your picture is already taken thousands of times a year without your permission.

This is clearly on someones face. Its not like you cant see the person wearing it. Just like you can see someone holding a cell phone.

If you see someone holding their phone towards you with the camera pointing in your direction, you should assume the person is taking a picture of you. All sounds and flashes can easily be turned off.

Someone can already take a picture of you with their phone, take it home and do an image search and find all the info on the web about you. The things people are scared of in this thread are already possible and happening.

Not to mention all the pictures of you that are already on facebook, pinterest, etc. that are linked to your name.

All google glass is doing is putting it on your face. Which I think makes it more obvious and less shady, not the opposite.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think it is pretty bizzarre! I agree that we have no privacy anyway, and cell phones already do what this device does. I think tech nerds will be the ones who have to have one, but I just don't see any other appeal. My phone does a lot more things for me.

 

[yssie]

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180571-google-invents-smart-contact-lens-with-built-in-camera-superhuman-terminator-like-vision-here-we-come

Pot, meet stirrer


- - - - - - - - - -

Google has invented a new smart contact lens with an integrated camera. The camera would be very small and sit near the edge of the contact lens so that it doesn’t obscure your vision. By virtue of being part of the contact lens, the camera would naturally follow your gaze, allowing for a huge range of awesome applications, from the basis of a bionic eye system for blind and visually impaired people, through to early warning systems (the camera spots a hazard before your brain does), facial recognition, and superhuman powers (telescopic and infrared/night vision). In related news, Google Glass is publicly available today in the US for one day only (still priced at $1500).

This new smart contact lens would have a tiny CMOS camera sensor just below your pupil, control circuit, and some method of receiving power wirelessly (more on that later). Because an imaging sensor, by definition, has to absorb light, it wouldn’t be transparent — but it could probably be color matched to your iris, so that your eyes don’t look too freaky.

As you can probably imagine, there are some rather amazing applications if you have two cameras embedded in your contact lenses. You can’t do much in the way of image processing on the contact lens itself, but you could stream it to a nearby smartphone or head-mounted display (i.e. Google Glass), where a more powerful computer could perform all sorts of real-time magic. Google suggests that the cameras might warn you if there’s oncoming traffic at a crosswalk — useful for a normal-sighted person, but utterly invaluable for a blind or partially sighted person. For me, the more exciting possibilities include facial recognition (a la Terminator), and abilities that verge on the super or transhuman, such as being able to digitally zoom in and infrared thermal night vision. (Read: What is transhumanism, or, what does it mean to be human?)
Terminator enhanced vision display stillBeyond the medical- and consumer-oriented applications, you can also imagine the possibilities if police were equipped with contact lenses that could spot criminal faces in a crowd, or a bulge under a jacket that could be a concealed weapon. Oh, and the most exciting/deadly application of them all: Soldiers with smart contact lenses that alert them to incoming fire, provide infrared vision that can see through smoke, real-time range finding for more accurate sniping…

This invention, from the Google X skunkworks lab, comes in the form of a patent that was filed in 2012 and was recently published by the US PTO. Earlier this year, Google announced that it was working on a smart contact lens for diabetics that provides a real-time glucose level reading from your tears. As far as we can tell, there’s no timeline for real-world trials of either variety of contact lens — but we can tell you that the technology to create such devices is very nearly here. Way back in 2011, a smart contact lens with an LED display was trialed in the lab.

Moving forward, there are some concerns about power delivery (there’s no space for a battery, of course, so it has to be beamed in wirelessly), and whether it’s wise to have a wireless device implanted in a rather sensitive organ, but I don’t think these will be game-breaking problems. For now, we’re talking about fairly chunky contact lenses that are best suited to laboratory testing — but it shouldn’t be more than a few years until real, comfortable smart contact lenses come to market.

 

[zoebartlett]

The novelty factor might be cool but I don't see these becoming the next big thing anytime soon. I didn't really consider privacy as the reason not to check them out. I just think they're odd.