Really, using a term like “glasshole” says much more about the speaker than the subject.
3 Likes
Cameras disguised in the bridge of glasses have been available for nigh on a decade, where as Glass explicitly notifies others that it is recording by turning on an LED. If people wanted to record you unobtrusively, they’d just spend $40 on a pair of those.
2 Likes
One facet of my discomfort with Glass is that it’s connected to Google. I don’t care too much that the Glass-wearer in front of me is or isn’t recording video, it’s that the video and audio is being recorded and exploited by Google in ways which may affect me, and I have no control at that point over which data about me Google captures. As long as I can use the technology in a way that benefits me and doesn’t harm anyone else, it’s fine, but Glass doesn’t work like that. Even if Google said it worked that way, would we trust it to be true?
Another aspect is that I don’t know who is behind Glass, watching and listening - it could be just the person standing there, it could also be Google, or anyone. It makes me uncomfortable and I don’t like it.
1 Like
I believe it is that the implications of the technology were not obvious to the wider world before google glass. Steve Mann had a letter with a brief explaination of how his technology worked and how long data would be stored for, which I would be amazed if more than a handful of google glass users did.
Even then, had I come across Steve Mann I would have felt uncomfortable and would have tried to stay out of his view. I have had to endure the actions of some poor excuses for civilised human beings, and would have hated what they could have done with google glass.
1 Like
I think there’s a current of retaliation against the somewhat class driven conspicuous consumption thing. But then again they often feature nerdy hipsterish bespoke shoes that cost as much as this device so there’s that. Oh and there were the super expensive bike trousers that kind of look like jeans for the 23 year old startup type to wear.
I try to keep in mind though that BoingBoing is made of different contributors with different social values, so what one person may write doesn’t necessarily represent the whole.
As for calling some one with a glass a glasshole , or the dismissive tone… meh I WEEP! I mean really, it’s the kind of thing some one who would buy one might call themselves. Same with luxury cars. People know they are buying one. They have their reasons.
I’ve been grilled on why I don’t want such things, and I have a lot of conflict because I’ve bounced all over the place. I was raised to look down on such desperate displays of wealth the way many people might look down on new-money Vietnamese families taking pictures of gaudy LV handbags to show off online. In retrospect, that is all a part of classism though. That being said, please don’t accuse poor people of “classism” for not being able to buy things and being irritated that they are valued less for it. For God’s sakes, please don’t paint wealthy people as the victims of “class war” because it’s really disgusting when poor people are like… actually dying.
As for the glass, a lot of the reaction is against their overt attempt at creating snob/luxury appeal. Typically that’s for the iCrowd… though perhaps that’s changing. I think that is where some of it comes from. Why artificially create that? The reality is that technology in the US at least is cheaper and easier to get than many things because the overall cost is pretty low. One payment for the device, whatever contract… credit doesn’t matter much, no insurance to buy. So any real luxury is artificial. Google is a brand that hasn’t traditionally been seen as luxurious so the attitude probably smacks people the wrong way.
I’m waiting for the dismissive posts when glass is soo middle class and dumb… like granite countertops. Ugh… dumb plebs!
TL;DR… who gives a fuck? I’m not buying one because I’m saving money for ideas I might make happen some day and because I have really bad vision that requires complicated lenses to correct. Also… it would look stupid with a lot of my clothes (I’m a woman).
This is the same kind of tone-deaf response that came up in response to the “nymwars” on Google+. Can you step outside your own experience for a minute or two and recognize that there are plenty of people with a lot more at stake in terms of their privacy than you apparently feel you have? Domestic abuse/stalking victims, transgender people, teachers, sex workers, mental health workers, just to name a few off the top of my head…
2 Likes
I’m with you Phasma. Go on haters… diss people for liking something because it’s expensive and notionally exclusive. The problem is that you’ve got no say in what they do, so suck it up motherfuckers.
No. Say.
Anyone claiming ZOMG invasive cameras and evil stuff: you can do all of those things presently with affordable off-the-shelf technology that has nothing to do with Google, so if you’re pissed off now I’ll be amused to see you in a few years when you’re a quivering paranoid mess from all the wearables going around.
C’mon, really? Off-topic trolling of someone using the most overused put-down on the internet? Your input on this topic has been below your usual standard.
That is some high paranoia. Are you afraid if a camera catches you in public it will slurp out your soul? I assume you don’t go into cities then. You can’t go three blocks in a city without having literally a dozen cameras actively record you. Hell, I assume you stay off of roads too. Lots of people have dash cams as well. The difference between all of those cameras and glass is 1) glass is obvious 2) it has a light on it letting you know it is recording 3) the person using it almost certainly isn’t recording you, while all of the hundreds of cameras you go by when moving through a city are most certainly recording you.
This terror that someone is recording you is unfathomable to me. They aren’t. They don’t care. You are truly not that exciting. If they really want to, they will just use a perfectly concealed $50 pen camera and you will never know. Even if people recording you was call for bowel quaking terror, there are literally hundreds of cameras that you never see that you going to get you when you wander around in a city. The hysteria around Glass reminds me of terrorism. Some fat fucking suburban American will be stuffing their face with potato chips babbling about the things we need to do in order to keep the terrorist from getting us, failing to realize that terrorist are not scary and kill fewer people than bathtubs, sure as shit don’t kill boring suburban Americans, and that while your chances of dying to a terrorist are immeasurably small, the chances of you dying to a heart attack due to poor diet is probably closer to 50%.
3 Likes
You make a lot of assumptions about me. Have some facts instead
I endured a year long campaign of violence and abuse, where it seemed I could not go out of my front door without someone shouting abuse, death threats or sometime actually pysically attacking me. To reduce opportunity of abuse, I had to vary the route I took home to avoid them but there are only two different bus routes and six different ways I could approach my house. I dread to think what they could have done with face recognition, where I couldn’t have the safety of just being a face in the crowd.
Eventually I latched onto the first group of people who gave a fuck about what was going on, who got me out of there before they killed me or I did it first. The damage had been done, and even after ten years of recovery I find it hard to trust anyone who I haven’t spent six hours with, without them attacking me.
I am in at least one of the groups that @Elusis mentioned as having a larger stake in privacy than the general public.
I will stop now, I am already at risk of having flashbacks just from having told you this.
1 Like
That would presume that they knew that Google Glasses had a camera that recorded them. At 2 and 5, I’m probably safe for a little while. 
See, this is exactly what I was getting at.
Privacy-invading thing happens. Some portion of people object. Some other portion of people, who just happen to mostly be affluent white men from all appearances, try to shout them down with “WHY ARE YOU SO PARANOID, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!” The objecters attempt to explain, with specifics, exactly the kinds of things that worry them. The shouter-downers mostly ignore the specifics and keep repeating their “IF YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG…” and “NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN YOU!” taglines. Objecters get sick of having insult added to injury or just wear the hell out, knowing that the shouters are probably going to get their way.
Let’s turn it back on the Glassholes: Why are you so blasé about others’ privacy? What’s your problem with recognizing that other people might have concerns? Why can’t you get it through your thick heads that this is the future, where actions have all kinds of unforeseen consequences? Why do you need to use a computer all the time - what are you afraid will happen if you can’t access your data every second? Why do you need to hide that you’re using a computer by doing it on the sly? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF???
(And @the_borderer - I’m really sorry all that shit happened to you.)
One wonders if one shouldn’t buy more than one.
OMG think of the children!!! Yes, people, early adopters pay more for the latest innovation; those of us in engineering have known this a very long time. Thank you, early adopters. Thank you. You move the world forward one scaredy cat at a time.
1 Like
That cuts both ways, though. The technology that may be used to track victims can also track potential assailants. Many assailants have been tracked down from crowd sourcing efforts when photos were posted on line.
I’m not sure what the answer is, other than you have my sympathy for what you went through. I can only imagine it, and can understand why you would advocate against technology that could be used against others in similar situations.
It would also be good for people who can’t do facial recognition. I would love a HUD that tells me who everyone is if I should know who they are. I’d prefer that data be stored locally rather than being sent to Google if possible.
I’ve seen one in the wild at this point, just in passing at my school coffee shop. Honestly, I’m not sure how I would want to deal with someone coming into my classroom with these on. I actually had an issue with a student taking pictures during class (not to mention texting, etc), and called her out on it. I’m curious about being able to tell if someone is filming on these things - from what I understand, you can’t tell? It is, in all honestly, something I would not feel comfortable with, and would probably ask someone with these explicitly NOT to bring them to class because of that.
I’m wondering if this sort of thing is pushing the envelope, especially if you can’t tell someone is filming you. We live in this world where our lives are largely becoming self-surveillance, via things like sharing our activities via facebook/google +/instagram/whatever else. But if we have people filming us, without our knowledge or permission, in a situation like mine–a semi-public classroom setting, where part of what I’m doing involves what could arguable be my intellectual property (lectures i write), should people be able to film me, without my knowledge, and post those online. Isn’t this similar to a picture being posted online becoming a meme without the subjects knowledge?
Thoughts?
Do you not think privacy matters?
Interesting. I wonder if it could be used for people with face blindness?
Even for those of us who just have bad memories, a real time facial recognition app could be useful (though the social advantage of recognizing faces would be offset by the social disadvantage of wearing Glass.)
[quote=“Mindysan33, post:62, topic:28328”]
. But if we have people filming us, without our knowledge or permission, in a situation like mine–a semi-public classroom setting, where part of what I’m doing involves what could arguable be my intellectual property (lectures i write), should people be able to film me, without my knowledge, and post those online. Isn’t this similar to a picture being posted online becoming a meme without the subjects knowledge?
Thoughts?[/quote]
I had a teacher prohibit recording lectures back when recording lectures wasn’t very common, citing copyright, to which my thoughts were that he was being unreasonable and presumptuous given that most of the class tests were based, wait for it, on the damn lectures. What’s next, ban note taking? If he’s worried about copyright maybe he shouldn’t be a teacher, because teachers are supposedly teaching their copyrighted material to students with the intent they should learn it and apply it.
I understand that teachers can spend a huge amount of time creating their curricula, time they may not be justly compensated for. And I also realize that they may teach at multiple institutions and their work may not be subject to the work for hire copyright laws, so their pre-written lectures (it has to be fixed in a medium to be copyright by them) may not be be copyright by their employers (complicated subject), but nonetheless I find the prohibition against recording lectures to be annoying, as if they are worried that they can be replaced by a recording (which maybe they can be, but one would hope not).
1 Like
