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

Why Google Glass Broke

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#51

Post by snowwrestler »

abhigupta wrote: post #48
dublinben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

Do you also never use Padlock or Combination Lock or basic door lock because they also offer "no protection against a determined adversary" ?

Using MAC address filtering on unsecured WiFi is literally like locking your door and then hanging the key on a nice hook outside the door, where anyone can grab it.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#52

Post by kefka »

aluhut wrote: post #36
kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

The "privacy" issue was not there to cover the privacy of the person with glass but the people around him. I can totally understand that. Even if I know that there will be (are) ways around but as long as not everybody can do it, it's something. You forgot one: 9. You look like an idiot. It's the same thing as the smart watches. Suddenly everybody had one but now they become a joke. As well as the people who wear the…

Unfortunately, most watch wearables are in the same class of "It's a watch that can display texts, emails, and has an accelerometer". Not to mention, they also have glaring holes in the BT communication, where they are easy to decrypt OTA.

One wearable I do like for the innovation is Thalmic's MYO. Before they opened up Raw data to the sensor array, it was pretty much a doorstop. After what I did, they came to their senses. http://hackaday.com/2014/11/18/thalmic-labs-shuts-down-free-...

There's a few other wearables in the class of "first of a kind". Those are the ones I'm interested in. Well, that and computer vision, ML, IoT, distributable computing, and other areas.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#53

Post by [deleted] »

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

[deleted]

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#54

Post by drivingmenuts »

dublinben wrote: post #44
kefka wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

The larger point is that if a device is going to work with multiple unknown future security systems (theater or not) it needs to be convenient to do so.

Expecting me to change my security to suit your needs is the height of hubris, when your device is not a necessity.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#55

Post by Padding »

kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

> Yeah. Its a turd.

I bet that would've been a valid verdict for the first search engine way back then too, compared to all the neatly organized catalogs. Or the first android compared to the iphone.

Personally I'm still amazed that something like Glass is not only possible but can fit in a $1500 budget.

> $1500 . For "Google Quality".

Establishing that pricepoint is a monumental achievement by my account. It's well withing the grasp of us mere mortals and the way hardware prices tend to evolve will fit comfortably in any "why not try it" budget within just a few short years.

Novelty stuff like this usually costs one or two orders of magnitude more..

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#56

Post by rdtsc »

kefka wrote: post #46
dublinben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

You're assuming that it is the only defense. It isn't. We look at security as one would look at an onion.

OP is right though. As far as the onion is concerned you better add more characters to the security pass-phrase, also make sure WPS is disabled on all routers etc.

Once someone has determined to break in, even minimally sophisticated they will spoof the mac address. It is good that you want to add extra security, but even as your story shows it just creates confusion, and make using the system harder.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#57

Post by viciousambition »

rimantas wrote: post #20
greggman wrote: post #3

I'm not convinced it broke any more than the newton or the palm pilot broke. It's just too early. palm pilots, newtons, and other PDAs were around for 13+ years and were considered "for geeks only". It wasn't until iPhone that PDAs finally became popular with the masses. Personal HUDs or Google Glass etc will go through the same steps. Something, maybe not totally similar but something with a camera, a HUD, augmented…

You know, looking at everything through a HUD will give you diminished reality, not augmented :(

I see this more as how phones are currently. You must divert your attention away from life to fiddle around with a device. That is diminished reality. Something like a mature Google Glass that integrates seamlessly with reality, having commands that can flow with day to day tasks--that is augmented reality.

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#58

Post by nothrabannosir »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #54
dublinben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously an issue with Google Glass, but MAC address filtering is a waste of time. It offers absolutely no protection against a determined adversary. It is a perfect example of security theater.

The larger point is that if a device is going to work with multiple unknown future security systems (theater or not) it needs to be convenient to do so. Expecting me to change my security to suit your needs is the height of hubris, when your device is not a necessity.

Nobody is expecting you to change anything. He agrees: your story highlights a problem with GG.

But mac filtering is a pet peeve for many of us. It is worth mentioning, as often as necessary: it's bollocks. Don't do it. Let everyone know that it's useless.

Read that post as if prefaced with: "On a tangent: ..."

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#59

Post by tokenizerrr »

jschwartzi wrote: post #30
cowsandmilk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They positioned it as an up-market, exclusive, fashion device. If you drive a BMW, you've automatically classified as an asshole. Not at all surprising that people wearing glass were labelled that way.

I thought it had more to do with the fact that there was no way to know if you were being recorded. Basically, think about the most embarrassing or terrible thing you've ever done. Now, imagine that that were a video on Youtube or Facebook and you were automatically tagged in it. Users were dubbed Glassholes because they chose to walk around with this kind of power in bars and public bathrooms.

Isn't there a light that goes on when it was recording?

Re: Why Google Glass Broke

#60

Post by [deleted] »

kefka wrote: post #39
kefka wrote: post #13

I work in a capacity that reviews, tests, and develops proofs of concepts for new tech. We purchased 3 glasses when they came on the market. Our review: 1. pathetic battery life. You're going to have at most 6 hours of life. And that's with the GG radios off (and functionality at a nil). 2. You can't turn it off. it goes into a screen-off non-standby that still chews through battery. So when you think that youre cons…

And one last story regarding the Glass. Google engineers came to us for a public demonstration. Now, our network has a secure component (WPA2-enterprise) and a non-secure component. However to use either, you need to register the MAC address with our system. Simple. No. For a company that made Android, and focuses oh so much on security, they dont support WPA2-enterprise. Just doesn't work. So, we were relegated to t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN