Or the memory aid app. Or the navg apps. Or the plethora of other actually helping stuff. (Is there a telepresence one? Stream point-of-view in realtime to somebody else? Would be bloody helpful for engineers - you could use anybody with rudimentary technical capabilities on-site to do the emergency work without having to travel there. Yes, it is possible, I did it voice-only over the phone way too many times.)
The one great advantage of being an outcast is that you donât have to give the anus of a Ratus ratus about the public. It sets you free of the shackles of catering to the opinions of misinformed nitwits.
Until that same public passes laws based on perception, such as banning recording devices without consent, etc. and applies them to things like Glass. Wait for it, it will happen.
Then go concealed. Fuck them and their laws they bring with them.
Thereâs a whole plethora of technical measures that you can apply when you donât intend to be compliant with one or more of the laws. A law is not something holy to worship; it is something to obey or disobey based on your own values (e.g. not doing actual direct quantifiable[1] harm) and the risk/benefit calculations.
The actual measures and methods of concealment are then depending on the actual shape of the law in question. Will likely be similar to existing methods used now in other contexts.
[1] to avoid the death spiral of philosophistry about victimless-crimes, society-impact, perception-management and other things that suck time and result in nothing
If the public would pass such a law, I would not complain. But what is more probable to happen is the goblinment uses their outrage to pass laws which prohibit most people from using recording equipment, while allowing it for themselves. Itâs not worth taking seriously unless you think it will result in less classism than current power imbalances do.
The irony is that your idiotic friend probably, by his own measure, violated untold numbers of peoplesâ privacy by being linked to and uploading pics of others to facebook.
All of this is a load of shit for two reasons:
Thereâs no presumption of privacy when youâre in public. How do you think paparazzo work? If the business owner asks you to stop recording or taking photos on their private property then you have to, but otherwise the assumption is that itâs fine. Wasnât it only a matter of years ago that âphotographersâ right to shoot in publicâ was being strongly defended on BB, and now the pendulum has somehow swung the other way.
If someone intends on surreptitiously recording you there are already a huge number of things that can make it happen and are far more subtle than a big honkinâ widget on yer face.
Yes but people are objecting to the camera mounted on one personâs head pointing directly in the face (and recording) the faces and voices of other parties in HD while they interact. People keep bringing up all the spy devices but I guarantee you that a spy pen on a table or your cell phone isnât going to get a nice full frontal HD face shot of someone talking directly to the camera (since it is mounted on the face of the other person) nor is it going to shove the âIâm recording youâ fact in the face of everyone met. That is a big part of the reason for the reaction against Glass. Sure, someone could be recording you any time you go into a public restroom to pee but that guy next to you at the urinal wearing glass on your face and glancing your way is perceived as very directly recording you right now.
I donât know why this concept is hard for so many people on this thread. It certainly wasnât hard for the public based on the popular reaction by non-Glass owners to Glass owners in many situations.
Sakes alive, man! You referred to âfaceâ six times just there. Itâs only a fancy name for the front of the head. I actually refer to mine as âthe sensor arrayâ, so perhaps the thought of seeing an optical sensor on somebody elseâs sensor array strikes me as being not unusual. Itâs not like I need to gaze upon their head, anyway.
The concept isnât hard but thanks for talking down to us, your highness. We just donât think the technopanic is necessary, and Iâm certainly not going to bestow a bunch of hipster assholes in a punk bar in SF with the ability to determine the âpopular reactionâ. The public is notoriously uninformed so, to be honest, I really couldnât care less what âthe publicâ thinks.
but I guarantee you
Do you? Have you tried these devices? Do you know what kinds of things people can get their hands on for serious money? Also: pen in top pocket/necklace pendant/tie camera/pinhole in glasses - these are all consumer products that exist now and could achieve the thing youâre talking about.
But you will bestow the same at a company ⌠about 25 miles south the ability to determine social mores and interaction? Ok.
No, Iâll decide that for myself and the available toolkit is pretty irrelevant.
privacy intruding, data monetizing megacorporation
Good to know that your opinion is based on the tech and not previously held views of its manufacturer.
Whelp, this comment thread is pretty much the whole google glass fiasco writ small. On a purely technical level, itâs basically a cellphone strapped to your face, and if you focus on the technical level, thatâs all it is. But for reasons of form factor, and/or its role in the public consciousness, google glass becomes âGet that goddamn camera out of my face!â
There might be a fix for this, but if there is then itâs going to be at most 10% technical (maybe a more prominent camera indicator light?) and 90% social / political
So if theyâre saying that n+1 isnât anything to worry about for cameras, can we all agree that when we still have to plug things in for power or other attachments for laptops that n-1 doesnât make something wireless?
I think the thing that really killed Glass was that nobody could thing up anything that your phone couldnât just do instead.
But you will bestow the same at a company privacy intruding, data monetizing megacorporation about 25 miles south the ability to determine social mores and interaction? Ok.
Except for everything - if you need your phone hands for doing something else. This is what wearables were made for in the first place.
Iâll even go further. Phones are bad designs. By which I mean that an efficient smartphone doesnât look like anything. You canât even see it. You just say âcall Bobâ, and it calls Bob. But instead of seamless UI there are countless phones marketed as fetish objects. They are deliberately designed to be held in the hands and played with, big blinky lights and symbols which invite staring. After concerns of tactility and sight, sound on what is supposedly an audio device is prioritized a distant third.
Did you ever get a chance to use one? It was a terrible interface with mediocre camera and difficult screen that required refocusing your eyes. The number of hands-free uses I ever saw my brother-in-law engage in were a very limited number that eventually ended up with him having to poke at it with a finger the way one would a phone.
It was staggeringly unimpressive after youâd worn it for about ten minutes, periodically nodding your head and annunciating âGlassâ to a number of startled passerby. He wore it for work and after that period was over Iâve never seen him pull it out since, and this was a guy who works in wearables who was their target market. In the end he just pulled out his phone for the larger screen and ability to talk without yelling out to everyone around him.
I highly recommend all fans of wearables to get their hands on Glass and see how, well, shady it is.
Not bad. But I think they are still going for that same paradigm of handheld devices one interacts with primarily via a greasy touchscreen and visual feedback. The Runcible does seem distinctive, if nothing else.
What I was thinking of is more like a headphone, or a hearing aid. It is optimised as an audio device, with an audio UI.
