21–30 of 46 posts
This is how people react to being recorded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDumyGJdLrU Good luck Google!
If Google put a light on the glasses that lights up whenever the glasses are recording, would you people stop acting like it's a big deal? A wearable computer with a heads-up interface is more than a spy camcorder.
I understand the sentiment, but not really the direction of it. Why is Google Glass special here? We spend most of our public lives on CCTV already (seriously, we really do). Why is it more upsetting that normal people have access to this now instead of restaurants and stores and workplaces and public venues and... I'm not saying there's no privacy issue here. I'm saying this ship has sailed. Why pick on Google and n…
I believe you're invoking the fallacy of grey here. The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else." The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..."
This is how people react to being recorded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDumyGJdLrU Good luck Google!
Google Glass has the advantage that you can't tell if it's recording. "Don't worry, I'm not recording a video," they'll say. You can't accuse people of wearing glasses that may or may not record. Similarly, when people use smartphones, they could be recording with the back camera, but people are okay with that. They assume no recording takes place simply because it's the more likely situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do understand the reason most people think it's creepy isn't necessarily that it's recording, but that it's recording and sending video to a company who's had so many run in's with privacy laws and wants to store as much information on a person as possible? Right? Not everything is about Apple vs Google.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have attributed a higher level of journalistic integrity to a site called macgasm.net
I understand the sentiment, but not really the direction of it. Why is Google Glass special here? We spend most of our public lives on CCTV already (seriously, we really do). Why is it more upsetting that normal people have access to this now instead of restaurants and stores and workplaces and public venues and... I'm not saying there's no privacy issue here. I'm saying this ship has sailed. Why pick on Google and n…
If there were, that would be way creepy in and of itself. However, this is worse: the world's most powerful advertising company is turning consumers into spies.
It was bad enough for Google to track users' interests and whereabouts using its online services. Then with Streetview and its apps on Android, it started massively gathering physical information as well. With Glass, it'll have a cheap workforce that gathers the information of others as well.
Even if you've never consciously used a Google product or service in your life, if you live in a developed nation, Google knows about you and it already uses that information to influence your behavior [1][2].
Imagine how your life will change if only 1% of the people around you start using Google sponsored video cameras that are stealth, have high quality imaging, are always on, location aware, and always connected to the Internet: that's what Glass is.
[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/eli_pariser_beware_online_f...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/technology/29stream.html?_...
I don't think this is creepy at all - in fact, this is how human vision works. Besides, the fact that the article's on a website called "Macgasm" doesn't lend much credence to the opinions expressed in it.
This shows your bias as much as it does the website's.
Also, opinions are not to be believed, you agree or disagree with them, both are options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do understand the reason most people think it's creepy isn't necessarily that it's recording, but that it's recording and sending video to a company who's had so many run in's with privacy laws and wants to store as much information on a person as possible? Right? Not everything is about Apple vs Google.
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have attributed a higher level of journalistic integrity to a site called macgasm.net
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big thing will be because CCTV is used (generally) to record video and store it for X months until it's taped over by the store, Google on the other hand is a datavore and will quite happily use the information in a completely different way to CCTV.
CCTV is (and has been!) subject to virtually every abuse I can imagine Google Glass being used for. Glass will "generally" not be used for privacy invasion either, so I don't see how this logic works. (And the "won't be stored" point seems silly given that you can trivially store a surveillance camera record...). Obviously both can be abused. So why the one-sided outrage?
The outrage still is about the whom not the what. Most people are completely used to being filmed, what they're not used to is the data being sent to an organisation that is genuinely very, very good at processing data. I'd be surprised if most governments had data analysts and storage systems half as good as Google.
Glass will probably be adopted among adventure sports enthusiasts and niches of skilled laborers, but if they want to see them become accepted in everyday life, they need to do a better job assuaging people's concerns around privacy, fashionability, and information addiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big thing will be because CCTV is used (generally) to record video and store it for X months until it's taped over by the store, Google on the other hand is a datavore and will quite happily use the information in a completely different way to CCTV.
CCTV is (and has been!) subject to virtually every abuse I can imagine Google Glass being used for. Glass will "generally" not be used for privacy invasion either, so I don't see how this logic works. (And the "won't be stored" point seems silly given that you can trivially store a surveillance camera record...). Obviously both can be abused. So why the one-sided outrage?
This seems like it would be immediately obvious to anyone familiar with the public at large.