71–80 of 188 posts
I am just confused as to why taking off your Glass will not be similar to other common social bathroom courtesies like putting away your cell phone, or utilizing family bathrooms, etc. Once a stigma is in place at the social level, it will work itself out. If not, there is always the direct approach of just asking someone to put it away.
> Many were using their cellphones while wearing the glasses — defeating a declared purpose of the new gadget, to free you from having to look at your phone. Another man continually looked at his watch to check the time, even through the glasses display a clock right above your eye. I get that the author is trying to be humorous but I fear that some people may take some of his criticisms seriously. AFAIK nobody has d…
> AFAIK nobody has declared that the purpose of Glass is to "free us from having to look at [oure] phone[s]". Here's a quote on that topic from Isabelle Olsson, lead industrial designer for Google Glass: "One day, I went to work — I live in SF and I have to commute to Mountain View and there are these shuttles — I went to the shuttle stop and I saw a line of not 10 people but 15 people standing in a row like this," s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See, there is where you are wrong. There are NUMEROUS statutes that prohibit the surreptitious filming of people where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. I think a bathroom qualifies. And I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict someone of punching another guy in the nose for filming them in the bathroom. Honestly, do you think the VERY FACT that he has a camera running at the time he gets pu…
> "And I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict someone of punching another guy in the nose for filming them in the bathroom." No, that conviction will be a slam dunk, because there's video evidence of it. You'll also score a simultaneous conviction for running afoul of peeping tom laws, because filming in a bathroom is as you mentioned illegal in many jurisdictions. The only winner here is the prosec…
You seem to have a quaint notion of how the justice system works. Video evidence? Probably wont be surpressed by defense. Probably wont be contested because it's obtained as the result of an illegal act. The jury will probably not agree with the defense that the video represented the first stage of an attack by people who film attacks to gain notariety in the Internet. Probably.
If you agree to post your bar number from any US state and the range of cases you've defended, I'd be willing to hear your counterargument.
>There they were, a handful of people wearing Google Glass, now standing next to me at their own urinals, peering their head from side to side, blinking or winking, as they relieved themselves. I wasn't there so I have to take his word for it, but... I really doubt that. Blinking, of course. People blink. But why, I cannot fathom, would everyone at a urinal be peering side to side and taking pictures of other people…
Because it's happened. Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't exist without them. For one thing, teenage fights are filmed by bystanders and replayed/posted on the Internet. Pictures of women in compromised positions (children even) are passed around schools. Cyberbullying (even though I hate that term) is easier and more anonymous because of these tools. If you're the victim, it c…
But all of those things existed even before the means to record them. People would fight. Women would be spied on. Children would be bullied. But taking pictures of people in a bathroom is not something that was common or accepted before, apparently, yesterday. We've had the means to record the bathrooms for quite a long time now, and it doesn't happen. When it does happen, it makes the news.
The author wasn't describing a demented pervert hiding in the shadows to see you naked, he was describing many people at a tech conference not hiding the fact that they were taking pictures of each other in the bathroom. That doesn't happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violence without immediate danger is never morally ok. It is vile and barbaric.
You know what's vile and barbaric? Sexual harassment. Just because it's easier to see your broken nose than it is to see how traumatized a victim of sexual harassment is doesn't mean violence is immediately wrong. What you're arguing is for blaming the victim.
Telling the victim to not automatically respond with disproportionate violence is not "blaming the victim".
If he'd said, "if you don't want pictures of your dick on the internet, don't pee at Google I/O," then you might have a point.
We should never have had any expectation of privacy in public places. I think what scares most people is that they're going to end up on the internet for some reason. Perhaps this shows how self-obsessed we are: to think that anyone is going to care about us walking down the street minding our own business. Maybe it's the uncertainty that makes people uneasy. I can walk down the street recording everyone with my smar…
Creepers have been creeping for years and years and years. They peer through curtains; they make spyholes in cubicle walls, and with digital cameras they hide cameras in ceilings and books and showers and shoes. Voyeuristic porn is a category. Upskirt is word popular enough to have an understood meaning. I'm a bloke. I'm not worried by those creepers. But I am uneasy about some users of Google Glass. I'd be really un…
This is a well-written piece, simultaneously praising and mocking Google Glass, with lots of memorable passages that made me smile or laugh. Let me quote just one of them: "At one point as I climbed the stairs and approached the second floor, I saw a group of five people wearing Google Glass, all silently staring off into space. I couldn’t tell if they were wirelessly having a conversation through their eyeballs, or…