101–110 of 161 posts
> Google’s X Lab initiative, the lab also responsible for... neural networks. Wait, what? In what sense can google's X Lab be said to be responsible for neural networks?
" Think of it this way — if you get a text message or have an incoming call when you’re walking down a busy street, there are something like two or three things you have to do before you can deal with that situation. Most of them involve you completely taking your attention off of your task at hand: walking down the street. With Glass, that information just appears to you, in your line of sight, ready for you to take…
Now add in commands like, "Ok, Glass, set at-con 2 whenever I'm driving," or "whenever I'm in this building." And a person's distraction levels can be overall reduced by this device rather than expanded.
If someone is being photographed, is there any way for that person to know that Google Glass is recording video? I would feel really uncomfortable if a colleague had Google Glass on at a meeting or at lunch or in my office, unless I knew I wasn't being recorded. The privacy concerns on this are enormous in my view.
If someone is being photographed, is there any way for that person to know that Google Glass is recording video? I would feel really uncomfortable if a colleague had Google Glass on at a meeting or at lunch or in my office, unless I knew I wasn't being recorded. The privacy concerns on this are enormous in my view.
I'm not sure why I haven't seen this addressed yet, but doesn't the widespread use of something like Glass portend the dramatic fall of the prevalence of street crime? Widespread use of CCTV cameras are one thing, but millions of eye-level recording devices (presumably automatically beamed to the cloud at some point), would seem to me to be a major deterrent to all sorts of street crime. I can see this effecting not…
Actually, I think privacy concerns could be alleviated by something like this. It's just so much information, getting anything useful is like taking a sip from a fire hose. Imagine your hypothetical break in is in downtown Manhattan. Do you really expect law enforcement to sift through video data of the hundreds of thousands of people who fit that profile? How would they know if someone's feed was missing? Basically,…
If nobody saw it (or doesn't know what they were looking at, as would usually be the case if they saw a getaway car), I still don't think there will be a firehose of data. The feed will already be geotagged and time stamped, making it easy to sift through by hand. Plus, much of this can be automated, even with the relatively rudimentary recognition software we have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's awful. For ages, we've worried about The Government mounting cameras everywhere until the only private space was one's own home, and away from windows at that. 1984 famously envisioned a world where this surveillance extended to the domicile, but even then it was stationary and had blind spots. Seems that in the near future, there will be little need for any of this, and there will be no coercion; rather, most o…
Reminds me of this talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk by moxie. We thought we would get facism, instead we got social democracy. We will be able to deal with this, though, using appropriate laws. Europe will certainly go down that route, the US will probably follow. For example, using the camera to take pictures or videos that are stored or shared (vs. just processed by some augmented reality algorithms)…
> you can see a light in the prism when the device is recording
This appears to already be true of Glass, although recognition of what that light means won't be widespread until the devices are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that the technology is currently dangerous as very few people would opt to allow the government to view their video feed. It is as you say - something right out of 1984 - and most people would recognize that and not give permission. Unless the video is uploaded without the user's knowledge, I think we do not have to worry about government usage of these cameras.
They wouldn't need to give permission to the government. "Get Glass today with 1TB free cloud storage. Access your precious memories from your phone, tablet or television!" Once it's in Google's cloud it's just a subpoena away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that the technology is currently dangerous as very few people would opt to allow the government to view their video feed. It is as you say - something right out of 1984 - and most people would recognize that and not give permission. Unless the video is uploaded without the user's knowledge, I think we do not have to worry about government usage of these cameras.
They wouldn't need to give permission to the government. "Get Glass today with 1TB free cloud storage. Access your precious memories from your phone, tablet or television!" Once it's in Google's cloud it's just a subpoena away.
Then the government can send you a summons if you were in the location at the time of the crime, requiring you turn over your video data. And if you don't, then you're breaking a law.
" Think of it this way — if you get a text message or have an incoming call when you’re walking down a busy street, there are something like two or three things you have to do before you can deal with that situation. Most of them involve you completely taking your attention off of your task at hand: walking down the street. With Glass, that information just appears to you, in your line of sight, ready for you to take…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's awful. For ages, we've worried about The Government mounting cameras everywhere until the only private space was one's own home, and away from windows at that. 1984 famously envisioned a world where this surveillance extended to the domicile, but even then it was stationary and had blind spots. Seems that in the near future, there will be little need for any of this, and there will be no coercion; rather, most o…
Reminds me of this talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk by moxie. We thought we would get facism, instead we got social democracy. We will be able to deal with this, though, using appropriate laws. Europe will certainly go down that route, the US will probably follow. For example, using the camera to take pictures or videos that are stored or shared (vs. just processed by some augmented reality algorithms)…
Ah, yes, in the same way that we've dealt with music piracy through law.
More seriously, people are going to have to get over the feeling that recording an event with human memory is obviously acceptable while recording an event with higher-fidelity devices is obviously not. Especially given that recordings can be faked, there is no dividing line between these. If you don't want people to remember something, don't let them know in the first place. Trying to regulate people's memory, whether internal or external, seems like a terrible idea.