Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glasshole

penny-arcade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Glasshole

#81

Post by seanmcdirmid »

joe_the_user wrote: post #75
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like CCTVs are pervasive already. Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable, then the awkwardness will disappear even if...the problem still exists.

Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable I doubt it. The awareness and general resistance to glass has so-far spread faster than glass itself. If a glass that looked exactly like ordinary glasses came out, there would be both a general complaint and general suspicion of anyone wearing ordinary glasses. It's doubtful that they could make glass invisible without even more complaints and if…

Ridiculous. You do realize that you don't need to have your micro-camera and microphone in your glasses if you want to record people unknowingly. A watch could do it, or a belt buckle, or whatever. They already make this stuff, its virtually invisible, and you can buy it today.

Re: Glasshole

#82

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Jach wrote: post #78
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can capture, but their is a light on the device that turns on when it is capturing video to let people around know that. The problem is that people don't know about this convention, and so just assume the worst.

And if I ever get a glass, that little feature is being hacked right out one way or another. Many others will do the same. In the meantime I get to watch and laugh as people forget there are billions of people in the world. People who are afraid of being "The Guy" because once upon a time your small social group was your entire world... Yet the vast majority of people in the world have no idea who Lena Söderberg is o…

> And if I ever get a glass, that little feature is being hacked right out one way or another.

Why would you bother when you can just by a micro camera today that is already easily concealed?

Honestly, Google Glass is being unfairly crucified here, the cat was already let of that bag a few years ago.

Re: Glasshole

#83

Post by AndrewKemendo »

I think I am in the minority when I say I am looking forward to continuous backup of my day to day activities whether it be through sousveillance or from others.

I am not in the "if you don't have anything to hide crowd..." in the least and am certainly aware of the ability of those in power to abuse it. My take on it however is, I am going to just slough off the mores which I would have previously been concerned with privacy about.

Catch me swearing when I shouldn't have? Oh well. Maybe I'll be less inclined to do it next time. What if I whisper a dirty idea to my wife? Well, what's wrong with a happily married couple doing what they like after all?

After you have kids the idea of going to the bathroom in privacy slowly drifts out of the window - and why shouldn't it? It really doesn't make any ethical impact on me for someone to know if I am doing a biological process.

My hope is, all of this will make us much more honest people. You can't embarrass/blackmail me if I cannot be embarrassed/ashamed.

Re: Glasshole

#84

Post by nitrogen »

Zikes wrote: post #37
nitrogen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noise becomes data when you have the right algorithm.

I'm sure there is some useful information they could glean, but in large part key indicators of pre-crime are already blatantly obvious or present too great a risk of false positives. The latter is what worries me. If they come up with what they believe to be the right algorithm and run it against their data, what then? Are we then in the position where we have to a) prove our innocence in a crime that hasn't even be…

There's more that can be done than pre-crime, though. For example, statistical analysis/datamining of things like ambient sound levels, vocal stress levels, positive/negative sentiment, etc. could reveal trends even before they reach Twitter, allowing them to be preempted or directed.

Re: Glasshole

#85

Post by nkorth »

easong wrote: post #26
gaius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can you see if someone else's Glass is displaying them something or whispering them something? At least with a phone it's obvious.

Yes, actually. The screen lights up and it's pretty obvious. Most of the people I talk to while wearing glass notice it immediately when it comes on.

And I seem to remember something about Google requiring all apps to light up the screen, to avoid the whole "stealth" thing.

Re: Glasshole

#86

Post by CoffeeDregs »

dustingetz wrote: post #79
lmkg wrote: post #41

So I just remembered that I actually have some personal experience with this issue. My girlfriend is getting her PhD in computer vision, and one of her labmates was working on summarization algorithms (imagine a program that could take 6 hours of continuous footage, and spit out a 1-minute highlight reel). She volunteered to wear a camera for a day to gather data for him, and she asked me permission to do so while we…

weird for our generation, but our kids will grow up with glass.

There are things we grew up with which our kids will hate. Time sheets? Offices? Cash? Commercials? Driving a car? Vitamins? Shopping? Two spaces between sentences? "Closed circuit" cameras?

Perhaps our kids will grow up hating Glass.

Re: Glasshole

#87

Post by CoffeeDregs »

lmkg wrote: post #41

So I just remembered that I actually have some personal experience with this issue. My girlfriend is getting her PhD in computer vision, and one of her labmates was working on summarization algorithms (imagine a program that could take 6 hours of continuous footage, and spit out a 1-minute highlight reel). She volunteered to wear a camera for a day to gather data for him, and she asked me permission to do so while we…

That's a very nice point and is one I had not considered. In hindsight, it's an obvious point, but the best points always are.

I'm curious about your point's effect on Glass: does it render Glass invalid or reduce its market in scope so that Glass is a press/media device? I suspect the latter.

But thinking further: what if, Science-Fiction-style, Glass were so small as to be invisible? Would we all act as if we were always being recorded? What would society be like?]

Re: Glasshole

#89

Post by thufry »

One day there will be a Google Glass that isn't detectable by the subject of the recording (tapped directly into the sensory system of the wearer). Then a lot of the enforcement mechanisms against "Glassholes" will become redundant.

Re: Glasshole

#90

Post by jacques_chester »

aeontech wrote: post #67
lotsofcows wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowcrash was 1992. People who are thoroughly wired are referred to disparagingly as "gargoyles".

Holy shit, you just made me realize Snow Crash is coming to reality (for certain parts of it) faster than expected :)

People who work at places like Google have been known, from time to time, read science fiction.

A lot of it comes true because someone says "yes, good idea".

Post reply on HN