Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes
from the oh-come-on dept
We should have know that once the press started picking up on the ridiculous moral panic over Google Glass that Congress would be quick to follow. In a move that smacks of traditional political grandstanding, a group of Congressional Representatives have sent a letter to Google raising a bunch of questions about the supposed “privacy concerns” of Google Glass. I’m wondering if next they’ll summon a representative of the seeing public to discuss the privacy concerns of your own two eyes.
First, they jump to the go-to point that any anti-Google privacy activist goes to: the data collection from open WiFi. What no one ever seems willing to discuss is the fact that this is the nature of open WiFi. Anyone can see any of the unencrypted data traveling over that access point. Why that gets blamed on Google makes no sense. They also worry about privacy of non-users, which is definitely a point that others have raised. But, how is this privacy issue different than one of basic sight. Google Glass sees what a user sees. If they can see you doing something you don’t want exposed, they can reveal that as well. How is that a privacy issue specific to Google Glass? There are a number of other odd questions, including whether or not Google considered the privacy implications of the NY Times’ Google Glass app. Huh? First off, if there were privacy implications, shouldn’t they be the NY Times’ concern on that issue? And second, can anyone explain why possible privacy issue could be in play here? It’s a news app on a tiny screen. So what?
When regular cameras first came on the scene, there were similar scare stories and people worried about the privacy impact of still photo cameras. We pretty quickly learned how to cope and adapt to that. Why do people think we can’t learn and cope with Google Glass?
Filed Under: congress, google glass, privacy
Companies: google
Comments on “Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes”
I'll tell you why...
People hate change.
Re: I'll tell you why...
You can do better than that.
Re: I'll tell you why...
No! Google Glass will siphon your soul out of your body! That’s dangerous and it must be a thing of the devil! So much for a company that uses the “Do no evil” line. THOSE SATAN WORSHIPERS!
/derp
Re: Re: I'll tell you why...
Um, no.
Re: Re: Re: I'll tell you why...
Uhm, yes, precisely.
Re: I'll tell you why...
While people hate change (when the pain of change is greater than the perceived benefits), I don’t think that’s the source of peoples discomfort with this at all. I say this as someone who doesn’t have any greater discomfort with this than with any other public use of cameras.
Also, “people hate change” has become the standard way to dismiss critics out of hand without having to actually address their issues. In other words, whatever merit it may have, it’s become meaningless as used today.
These 8 should buy Google Glass the second it’s released to the public and wear them into the job.
This way, there’s at least some intelligence being brought into our government these 8 obviously don’t have.
Here’s my question: Why is this getting so much attention when there are semi-concealed security cameras all over almost every major city recording everything that goes on in or outside?
Re: Re:
Because it’s data THEY can’t access, and normal people records. It’s wrong when you do it, but okay if I do it (thats how they see it).
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly! If I was Google I would simply state “We’ll deal with any privacy concerns after you do.” With the clammoring for back doors to be put into everything so that the government can take a peak I see that as a far bigger issue than anything Google is doing.
Re: Re:
Because Google is not paying campaign contributions.
Privacy concerns over Google Glass are not ridiculous. Exaggerated and over-hyped, yes; but not ridiculous. There are some very real concerns about privacy and Google Glass.
Also, you cannot really compare cameras to Google Glass because you know when someone is using a camera and can avoid but you can’t know when someone is using Google Glass.
I do, however, find it hilarious that people freak out about Google privacy but ignore the many privacy violations foisted on us by government.
Re: Re:
How would you not be able to tell if someone is using glass? It’s a big lens on their face. True you don’t know if it’s recording but a person could walk around with a helmet cam strapped to their head that may or may not be recording too. I don’t see the difference.
Re: Re: Re:
It has a LED similar on camcorders which is not visible for the user but indicate quite clearly for the subjects that the device is recording.
Of course it can be circumvented, but then the main problem is not the device that makes the recording but the person..
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty much this. If it’s the LED is glowin’ then it’s clearly recordin’.
So yeah, the claim that you wouldn’t be able to tell if someone is recording you or not with Glass is a load of bull*.
*Caveat: this statement does not cover the possibility of the person wearing Glass tampering with said device so that the LED doesn’t light up.
Re: Re:
” you cannot really compare cameras to Google Glass because you know when someone is using a camera and can avoid but you can’t know when someone is using Google Glass.”
Umm, let me just show you the results of just a few seconds searching amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/Looxcie-LX2-Wearable-iPhone-Android/dp/B0055QYIY8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368795499&sr=8-1&keywords=bluetooth+camera
http://www.amazon.com/Esky%C2%AE-Camera-Hidden-Recorder-Support/dp/B008KU768Q/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1368795536&sr=8-20&keywords=spy+camera
http://www.amazon.com/POV-ACG20-Action-Camera-Sunglasses/dp/B003P9W9JI/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1368795536&sr=8-17&keywords=spy+camera
http://www.amazon.com/Car-Alarm-Remote-Keychain-Camera/dp/B004W86GQS/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1368795521&sr=8-13&keywords=spy+camera
So….. What was that you were saying about “knowing when someone is using a camera”? These things have been around for a long time. Hidden cameras are nothing new, You have been able to get cameras like this for many years and yet no moral panic.
Re: Re: Re:
Those things make all this hysteria even sillier. It must be though to be Google, any small little thing you try to introduce to innovate and help becomes a battleground of idiocy and stupidity… Just because you are huge, wealthy and available to any moron out there.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only hysteria I have observed is on the part of Google fanboys who are falling all over themselves in an effort to portray Google as embattled. People have questions and they want answers. It’s really that simple.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Questions? That should have been put forth on surveillance devices that have existed for years?
Where are those questions? Why has congress not written letters to them?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, people should be asking the same questions about many devices. That they neglected to do so doesn’t invalidate the questions aimed at Google Glass.
This is not me saying that the questions are necessarily valid ones. But if they are not valid it is for some reason other than the fact that folks didn’t ask them of other pertinent technologies.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But if, as you agree this is a common thing to many technologies, then directing the questions at gGogle is still equally pointless. Google Glass may in that case be a catalyst for a debate but not the target.
If it were a general congressional debate about personal surveillance tech then fine, but no it’s a grandstanding “moral” prod aimed at one company.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
They are asking specific questions about specific claims that have been published about Google Glass, some of them by Google itself, and specific questions about Google as a service provider. They are asking these questions because the technology is new. They are asking Google because Google developed the technology. Who else should they ask?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
oakley, for one.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/oakley-unveils-its-version-google-project-glass/9742-1_53-50133967.html
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Heres another article from Robert Scoble
https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/MEaoHaJs4xk
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
But the technology is not new.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Since I was responding to the AC (who I am assuming is not you) who wrote:
…Then any one of the myriad other companies producing technologies that perform discrete surveillance functions… lets see, Samsung, Sony, Axis, Toshiba, Apple, Logitech, HTC, Nokia, Nikon, Canon, and many many many others.
As for the “specific questions about specific claims” that I wasn’t addressing, a quick read through the letter suggests that all of those questions would equally apply for example to a smartphone now.
For example the scary-sounding claim in the 2nd ‘graph about finding someone’s personal details using facial recognition is shear hyperbole. Assuming such details are publically searchable on the internet or some other database you happen to have access to and include a picture so you can link face and name, yes sure you can do that.. but then you can do that now without needing the quasi-mystical qualities of Google Glass so again I call grandstanding rather than “privacy concern”.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
That’s incredibly funny. The person posts pictures of them all around on facebook and the likes, spread tons of personal info around the net and then is afraid that a facial search on Glass may lead to details on them… Amusing. There are search engines for images already btw =)
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
That’s what I said… facial rec is already available on smartphones, there’s probably a good chance you can match it to a name using existing websearching technology crawling social networking sites. How much more you get depends largely on how much people post on public sites like facebook. None of this is rocket science and has been achievable for ages. The hyperbole is aimed at the vaguely scary sounding quote of “sooon this will be possible oooooohh the waallls of civilization will crumble when Goooooogle Glases can do thiiiis scaaary thing!” (I’m paraphrasing) in the letter.
Civilization hasn’t ended yet from such fiendish technology so what the hell difference do Google Glasses make?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
But if, as you agree this is a common thing to many technologies, then directing the questions at gGogle is still equally pointless.
Not pointless if the current problems with surveillance are consequently brought up and dealt with.
But I’m pretty sure that won’t happen.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s hilarious how this comments section has people defending hidden cameras and surreptitious surveillance.
Way to stand up for the people, guys lol
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Not standing up for. Wondering why google glass is singled out.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
That. Some level of surveillance in public places may be ok and that’s a big MAY since it may become a very slippery slope very quickly… But we are not talking about a surveillance device anyway…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have yet to see such fanboys. I’m sure they have questions but are those questions based on facts? Are those questions directed at real problems or fictional ones? Are they asking the same questions about a whole freaking load of gadgets that have been available for ages now way before Glass came to their knowledge?
I honestly don’t care about Glass. I find it ugly and is any reports from users experimenting them are right they give you headaches (which I’m prone to specially concerning sight issues).
If you don’t like them you can ask people visiting your house to put them down. Otherwise public places are public. The privacy issues should be on how the data will be handled by the apps within Glass or how much access apps will have.
A much more valid concern would be why do I have to grant all permissions to an app instead of selecting what I want it to have. This could impose privacy issues on Glass. But then again, any other mobile phone has the same problem.
Hysteria is what it is. And possible naiveness from Google fanboys side.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m sure they have questions but are those questions based on facts?
Did you even read the letter? Almost every paragraph is footnoted. The questions are based on what has been published. If something stated in those publications was erroneous, this is an excellent opportunity for Google to set the record straight.
Hysteria is what it is.
A meaningless utterance, but I have noted during my time here you are always more than willing to stoke any flame within reach.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Did you even read the letter? Almost every paragraph is footnoted. The questions are based on what has been published. If something stated in those publications was erroneous, this is an excellent opportunity for Google to set the record straight.
There are sane, legitimate points indeed. But most of the reactions are pure hysteria. Yours included. And I’ll point where it became evident:
Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent. The fact that they could do so by other means is irrelevant.
It happens EVERY TIME. I just browsed through some pics in my phone right now and found over 20 different people that are clearly caught in the pictures that I’ve never seen. It’s very easy to take a picture of someone while pretending to take a picture of something else. Facebook even asks you to tag those strangers.
A meaningless utterance, but I have noted during my time here you are always more than willing to stoke any flame within reach.
I’m not the one going nuts over some trivial technology that’s been around for years…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Indeed, I’m having trouble discerning just what it is you are going nuts over. You seem to feel very strongly about … something.
Re: Re:
Moreover, it’s completely absurd to equate the use of Google Glass with unaided sight. My naked eye can’t snap your picture and then use facial recognition to see what information about you I can root out on the interwebs.
Notwithstanding the reps’ apparent befuddlement over the NYT app, I read this letter as entirely well-intentioned, asking on the whole legitimate questions. It seems to me the word “grandstanding” is an unfair characterization.
I didn’t have time last week to respond to the linked article where you used “moral panic” to characterize reactions to Google Glass, but I think you are misusing the term. Here is what the well-sourced wikiP has to say:
By these criteria are we looking at moral panic? Let’s see: Concern? Yes, but the concern is not irrational. Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent. The fact that they could do so by other means is irrelevant. Hostility? None at all that I can discern. Consensus? By no means. Disproportionality? Well gosh, I don’t see the villagers storming Castle Googlestein with torches and pitchforks. They are writing letters and asking questions. Volatility? Remains to be seen, but it is to be hoped that Google addresses privacy concerns to people’s satisfaction.
Re: Re: Re:
Additionally from wikiP: “Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension and in which disagreement is difficult because the matter at its center is taboo.” Manifestly not the case here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite your protestations, this is definitely a moral panic. Lots of pearl clutching and couch fainting going on.
Bitch, please. Wheres the ire being raised over hidden cameras?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or government snoopings?
Re: Re: Re:
“The fact that they could do so by other means is irrelevant.”
How is that irrelevant? The problem people are complaining about is taking pictures or video without others knowing. I have already pointed out a list of devices that their entire purpose for existence is doing exactly that.
Yet google glass is not intended to be a “spy cam”. It has many functions and can be used for a large number of things. So your attacking a device for 1 feature out of a list of what it can be used for and at the same time ignoring devices that can ONLY do the one feature.
If your going to attack google glass for that feature than you should be equally up in arms over all these other devices that do the EXACT same thing. Instead people are attacking google glass because they are ignorant of the other devices and “oh no its google!!”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is attacking Google Glass??
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/15583223111/congress-grandstanding-over-google-glass-privacy-concerns-next-up-privacy-concerns-over-your-eyes.shtml#c187
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“a group of Congressional Representatives have sent a letter to Google raising a bunch of questions about the supposed “privacy concerns” of Google Glass.”
I would say a fair number of people are attacking Google glass. Yes, it could be used to violate privacy, but why the focus on Google glass? You don’t see people throwing fits over sale of spy cams and demanding the government ban them. Instead you see them protesting Google glass, a device with a lot of really great potential for many things. Taking pictures and recording video is just one feature, a feature I would probably rarely even use if I had a pair.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So asking Google any question at all about Google Glass is the same thing as attacking Google Glass?
“Instead you see them protesting Google glass”
I really don’t.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Then what are the protesting? thin air?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Fine, not attacking, just asking questions of google glass that were not asked of products that should much more readily raise the same questions. It’s the disproportionate response relative to the other products available that makes it feel like an attack.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t need your consent to take your photo.
Re: Re: Re: I don't need your consent .....
Very true … In a public place and as long as it is not for commercial gain
People forget this.
Re: Re: Re:2 I don't need your consent .....
Doesn’t matter if its for commercial gain or not.
Where do you get that from?
Re: Re: Re:3 I don't need your consent .....
He probably means commercial use and yes, that does matter. You need a signed waiver to use someone’s photo in an ad. No respectable ad agency will buy photos for ads without waivers.
Re: Re: Re:4 I don't need your consent .....
Do all states have publicity rights laws?
Re: Re: Re:4 I don't need your consent .....
“No respectable ad agency will buy photos for ads without waivers.”
That’s a CYA kind of thing. Lawsuits are a bitch, even frivolous lawsuits. I’ve been in commercials without signing a waver. In fact, I was recorded without my knowledge and didn’t even know about the commercial until it aired.
Re: Re: Re:2 I don't need your consent .....
….and as long as it is not for commercial gain
No so sure that’s accurate. The paparazzi wouldn’t exist if that was true.
Re: Re: Re:
I think “grandstanding” is entirely fair. Why are they having a hissy fit about this, but they completely ignore the other, even greater, privacy infringements that we’ve been subject to for years (CCTV, the consolidation of electronic data, internet surveillance, etc.)?
They’re picking this as their target because they smell the ability to generate and capitalize on a populist outrage while not even beginning to address the real problems.
That’s the very definition of grandstanding.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is rarely if ever the case it can’t be said that there are other, more urgent problems to address. I don’t see why it is wrong to ask questions of Google on that account. I confess I am unfamiliar with the representatives signatory to the letter. Perhaps you know something about them which justifies the phrase “hissy fit”. It certainly can’t be found anywhere in the letter itself.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Don’t generalize. It’s not more urgent problems in general. It’s more urgent problems of the exact same nature.
The issue here is the disproportionate application of scrutiny. It’s not wrong to ask questions of Google if you give similar cases the same scrutiny but they don’t.
Re: Re: Re:
My naked eye can’t snap your picture and then use facial recognition to see what information about you I can root out on the interwebs.
Yet. And there are search engines for images already. Facebook automagically tags pictures that are similar. So I snap my mobile, aim its super high def camera as if I was taking a random picture, crop you out of it and have it searched on such engines. Voil?. Glass isn’t even needed.
Notwithstanding the reps’ apparent befuddlement over the NYT app
Why is Glass under fire then and not NYT?
By these criteria are we looking at moral panic? Let’s see: Concern? Yes, but the concern is not irrational. Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent.
Ban mobile phones, digital cameras with insane optical zooming etc etc etc. It is irrational.
Hostility? None at all that I can discern.
Maybe not from you but generally? Yep. Just like people were hostile to photographic cameras in the beginning of XX century because they believed it would somehow siphon their souls.
Disproportionality? Well gosh, I don’t see the villagers storming Castle Googlestein with torches and pitchforks. They are writing letters and asking questions.
Indeed there are a lot of more reasonable people but it has reached the damn Congress. Over something that isn’t even a new technology. The concerns are at best misguided and at worst misguided and disproportionate.
Volatility? Remains to be seen, but it is to be hoped that Google addresses privacy concerns to people’s satisfaction.
The fastest way to failure is to try to please everybody. I do agree that Google needs to be careful with the privacy factor but then again any company has. Facebook seems much worse if you ask me and still I don’t freak out (I just share my info carefully). I’ll give you something to be terrified of: Facebook app + Glass. DOOMSDAY!!!! Or not.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are entertaining yourself, and perhaps the others who are singing in key with you. But you have not understood what I have written.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe you failed in transmitting your message? So far I have yet to see one legitimate issue from you. Indeed there seem to be some sane, reasonable, valid points concerning Glass (and yet they are misguided and should be pointed more generally and not only to Glass itself). Please elaborate your concerns here. I’ll post it again:
Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent.
How different is it from what we have nowadays? Tons of people publish photos of mine on Facebook and the likes without my consent. What can I do about it? Nothing. First because I allowed some of those to be taken and second because if it was taken in a public place I have no control or right over it. If it’s being used in some defamatory way I may use the current legal routes to get the person that is putting it to such usage (and face Ms Streisand) but I can’t pretend I’ll have any expectation of privacy in public places.
You can stop people from entering your home with the gadget though. It’s your right.
Re: Re:
There is zero real concern about privacy that hasn’t always existed for other forms of surveillance, and yet no one from congress is writing to the companies that make such equipment.
Re: real privacy concerns over google glass
citation or examples. I don’t see it.
Rule one of behaviour in public, assume that you are being observed, and you actions can be noted or recorded, and reported. This has always applied, and is often most embarrassing when this is done by friends, rather than strangers.
Person Of Interest
Has anyone else been watching this show? Can anyone else see a day when the government have a machine like this that can know when violent crime is about to happen?
The only difference would be that, to the real life government, there would be no irrelevant numbers.
I should turn off the TV and get out more, shouldn’t I?
I’m excited about Google Glass. As of right now you should already be assuming that your whole life is recorded.
Placing surveillance capabilities back into the hands of the people is just another way to democratize information gathering and dissemination.
Still, putting a bit of “level” on the playing field doesn’t mean that pervasive surveillance is not a big concern.
Re: Re:
Well this is shocking news. So uh, no one has figured out away to translate what sheep say yet right?
Well just in case, sheep are all liars.
Also, chickens.
Re: Re: Re:
You must be a religious fundamentalist.
Privacy
This is an incredibly one-sided, dismissive piece. Privacy concerns are legitimate, just as the concerns of a manufacturer forwarding its product are legitimate.
Re: Privacy
Yes and hidden cameras have been around for ages now yet nobody freaks out because they are easily available for sale on Amazon.
There may be privacy concerns over how the data will be handled. I’ll give you an example: Google+ app in Android devices come with Instant Upload activated by default. Meaning it’ll upload EVERYTHING inside your mobile phone to Google+ regardless of if you want or not (it remains private as in only you can see them but it still uploads the data). This is something that Google should fix.
Now people are freaking out because of an insanely dorky, unfashionable and VERY VISIBLE device just because it has a built in camera that may or may not record what the person is seeing? This is no legitimate concern, this is just hysteria.
Re: Re: Privacy
You can out out of instant upload, actually. It won’t upload anything unless you tell it to.
Re: Re: Re: Privacy
er, opt out of.
Re: Re: Re: Privacy
Maybe they changed it but it was opt-out, not opt-in.
It should be opt-in, no?
Re: Re: Re:2 Privacy
You get the choice on your android phone before it uploads the first image/video/whatever you take.. sorry for the failure on my part. it is, in fact, as you suggest it should be, opt-in.
My bad!
Re: Re: Re:3 Privacy
Oh I see now. You are right, I just checked it. The thing is, it was not clear neither to me not to this friend of mine that had all his stuff uploaded to his G+ account. I never enabled it because I don’t feel like insta uploading anything but he found it useful. However both of us thought from reading the thing that only new content would be uploaded.
A little chat can clarify a lot! Thanks!
Re: Re: Re:4 Privacy
Kudos!
Re: Privacy
I keep reading various people say this yet they never give examples or cite sources of said privacy concerns. Maybe I’m dense, no I am dense, but I just don’t see it
Mike,
usually I find your post really informative but sometimes I guess you could need some more imagination of what is possible.
What no one ever seems willing to discuss is the fact that this is the nature of open WiFi. Anyone can see any of the unencrypted data traveling over that access point.
I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?
They also worry about privacy of non-users, which is definitely a point that others have raised. But, how is this privacy issue different than one of basic sight.
There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached. So it’s that your camera is spying on me. It gives Google access to information I would never give them. Cool, right?
Why do people think we can’t learn and cope with Google Glass?
Ok, well how do we then deal with lets say face recognition of other persons on systems like Facebook? I mean dealing with it beyond the usual “Hey, accept it, what’s wrong with it?”. The point here is that it’s my photo on Facebook telling everybody what you did last week Friday when your family thought you were fishing. If I post in on my blog no one will ever notice it. Posting the same photo to a central server with automatic face recognition is a complete different story.
In any of this cases it is the central collection of virtually any data someone is able to create, collect or access that makes the difference between you or me doing the same.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that something like Google is a cool and useful technology. But Google (and others) will use it to collect even more data from us via cloudified apps.
Re: Re:
Has Google ever used your data for nefarious reasons? “Oh no, now Google knows I’m looking to buy some fertilizer or taking a flight to Cuba.” Who would you prefer to have that info? Google will just try and sell you fertilizer and flights. The government will try and put you in jail.
Your privacy is gone. Who do you want to have it?
Re: Re: Re:
That’s impossible to know, but irrelevant anyway.
Only the entities that I specifically and actively select to have it.
Not actually true. It just requires greater vigilance to keep nowadays — and I think this is the source of people’s nervousness about Google Glass.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That. But this:
Only the entities that I specifically and actively select to have it.
I think this is virtually impossible nowadays. Companies share your data for money. However even then you can fool the system if you want to keep unknown.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It is virtually impossible. But I do my best by reducing the amount of data that can be collected. For example, I don’t use shopper affinity cards or pay with a credit/debit card when shopping. What they don’t know, they can’t sell. This is also why I block internet ads. And I lie a lot when filling in forms.
Nonetheless, in my ideal world, no information about me would be shared with anybody without my specific and active consent.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you should note that Google software choose adverts based on your data. No humans involved in looking at or evaluating the data.
With Government databases on the other hand, you may be flagged for attention by the agents. If the wrong person hijacks your WIFI, this may lead to a SWAT team breaking down your doors.
Re: Re:
“I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?”
Can you give me some reasons please as to why that would be bad? I don’t see it as any different as them creating Google Streetview, the only difference is there they used cameras to capture images, here they were recording where the access points were.
“There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached.”
Scared of face recognition? Then don’t have any photos online that are tagged as such. I don’t. I’ve been pretty careful to do just that. I have a Facebook account, but no photos that I am in, so it’s not like Google could ask FB to share their recognition data.
Re: Re: Re:
And blow through mobile data caps in minutes or hours. Until mobile operators provide symmetric, and unlimited bandwidth, this is only a promise, and sd cards are a better bet for capturing video.
Re: Re: Re:
Then don’t have any photos online that are tagged as such.
Your friends will take care of that for you. Can be sort of annoying. But inevitable.. As John said above you need to be extra careful.
Re: Re:
I think the point is that they were about to create a nationwide (global?) map of access points. This is different from seeing the unencrypted wireless traffic of my neighbors. And would we allow a government to collect and use that data?
I’d find it useful (a global open wi-fi map) and it could help tons on places where gps signal is obscured by buildings or if you are indoors. What is the problem of Governments having such data? How can it be misused? And how do you think such mapping could be stopped if these wi-fi are open?
There will be so exciting apps that turn the glasses into a direct video stream into some cloud with automatic face recognition attached. So it’s that your camera is spying on me. It gives Google access to information I would never give them. Cool, right?
I’ve searched for my name on Google already. Have you tried? I found only stuff that should be public anyway (or I purposely released in a public manner). Also, Facebook auto tags pictures sent (it also offers to tag strangers caught in your pics). What’s the difference? A legitimate worry would be the GOVERNMENT using facial recognition software with their database (along with things they know like your driver license, your id and much more there are the secret services illegal espionages). Glass is not a problem. Your Govt wanting to install backdoors everywhere and turn everything in a surveillance system is.
The point here is that it’s my photo on Facebook telling everybody what you did last week Friday when your family thought you were fishing.
Already happens. There are plenty of cases where ppl lost jobs and stuff because of others posting pics of that groundbreaking party on Facebook. What can be done about it? If it’s a small group you can ask them to wait and post afterwards or something but on large public groups? Well, what are you expecting?
If I post in on my blog no one will ever notice it. Posting the same photo to a central server with automatic face recognition is a complete different story.
And what stops the blog server from using such technology? And what it has to do with Glass alone? I could do that with a mobile phone. Or not, just take a pic of you randomly and not post at all. Same with glass.
But Google (and others) will use it to collect even more data from us via cloudified apps.
How is it any different from now? I understand your worries and they seem legit but take Glass out of the equation. It’s a general worry. And this disproportionate focus on Glass is one of the main criticism of this article it seems.
Re: Re:
I still don’t see the concern.
Re: Re: Re:
And I am one fucked up paranoiac.
Now, I do honestly see where the capabilities of Google glass could genuinely cause privacy issues. But any branch of the US govenment crying “privacy!” has become a bit too rich to me.
I’m sure the US government will change their tune the moment they can use that technology for themselves.
What I see with my eyes is only stored as well as my own memory can make it. And, let’s face it: that is nowhere near as reliable as computer storage.
What I see with my eyes cannot be played back and shared with others to see exactly what I see. It can only be described verbally, relying upon the aforementioned unreliable memory.
I can’t review my memory to catch things I missed the first time I saw it. If I missed it the first time, I wouldn’t remember it.
I can’t upload what I see with my eyes to image recognition services to obtain extra information beyond what I can tell on my own.
In summary: Google Glass provides a potentially permanent, reliable means of storing everything you see, whether you notice it or not and a way to analyze what you see in far more detail beyond what you actually see. That is how Google Glass is different from sight.
Re: Re:
unconvincing arguments remain unconvincing.
Also, see links above to hidden cameras.
Next!
Re: Re: Re:
So, you have perfect recall of everything you see and can perfectly play it back for all your friends and families?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you think eye-witness testimony is, exactly?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Certainly not pixel-perfect recall from a reliable computer storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliability
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Cool, every victim needs a pair o these puppies!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Use your “eye-witness testimony” to show me?don’t just tell me, show me?what color shirt the first person you saw after waking up ten days ago was. Can you even tell me, let alone show me?
Now, if you happened to be recording that moment with Google Glass, you certainly could do just that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Along with any other camera, hidden or otherwise.
Again, what does this have to do with google glass specifically that isn’t true of any camera, ever?
Oh wait, there isn’t a difference. Its just added “the internet” to it, which makes it instantly scary.
Bitch, please.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Along with any other camera, hidden or otherwise.
Indeed. And I somehow doubt your unaided eyesight and personal memory can match those other cameras, either.
Again, what does this have to do with google glass specifically that isn’t true of any camera, ever?
Nothing, except for the fact that Google Glass is what seems to have ushered in the current conversation.
Bitch, please.
Please what?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Please come with an argument that actually holds water.
There is nothing unique about google glass that isn’t already available. I don’t see why the moral panic comes with this particular device.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Please come with an argument that actually holds water.
What, exactly, is it you think I am arguing?
I think you may be reading a bit much into my assertion that there are some important differences between electronically recorded video and human perception and memory.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Meaning, people DO have photographic memories.
AND people CAN create sketches from their memory of what they’ve seen.
Why would I have to show you the shirt? I could google it and show you what they were wearing. Someone with a photographic memory surely could tell you. I remember details like that all the time. I remember lots of details many other people don’t even notice. but maybe I’m an outlier in that regard. So I certainly could do just what you said, camera or no camera.
Why does a persons memory have to match a camera? What i think most people are concerned about is being recorded. Well, our eyes and brains do exactly the same thing whether we want them to or not.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Photographic memory is a myth first of all.
The very few people who DO have it also have delibitating problems.
It doesn’t work like in TV shows.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Meaning, people DO have photographic memories.
I have never met anyone with perfect audio-visual recall. I certainly don’t have such an ability. If that sort of thing was anywhere near common, how come there are so many studies out there finding eyewitness testimony to be so unreliable?
AND people CAN create sketches from their memory of what they’ve seen.
Or at least how they remember seeing it. Whether that memory is accurate is another matter entirely.
Why would I have to show you the shirt?
Because that is exactly what you can do with a camera. Simply telling me isn’t the same.
I could google it and show you what they were wearing.
And how, exactly, did this image wind up on Google?
Someone with a photographic memory surely could tell you.
What evidence do I have that they have a perfect photographic memory of what I assume to be an entirely mundane event?
I remember details like that all the time.
Okay. Then what color was the shirt? I’ll settle for you simply telling me this time.
I remember lots of details many other people don’t even notice.
And I’m sure lots of folks remember details you miss. And I doubt either you or any of those other folks have perfect audio visual recall of every single detail within your visual focus.
but maybe I’m an outlier in that regard. So I certainly could do just what you said, camera or no camera.
Then, what color was the person’s shirt. I wouldn’t mind some evidence that you are neither just making it up, nor simply misremembering.
Why does a persons memory have to match a camera?
Because if it doesn’t then there is a difference between what you see with your own eyes and what you record with the camera. Duh.
What i think most people are concerned about is being recorded.
That much is obvious.
Well, our eyes and brains do exactly the same thing whether we want them to or not.
No. They don’t.
If they did, why was the camera invented?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Well, just because you haven’t met them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I can tell you what shirt someone was wearing, if you asked me if I saw that person, with 100% accuracy. How could I prove that? the same way you can’t prove an image or a video was edited.
I am sure there are people with 100% audio visual recall of everything within their visual focus. You know, we could both go back and forth saying this all day.
What persons shirt do you want me to tell you the color of, exactly?
I still contend that our eyes and brains do exactly the same thing whether we want them to or not, if you admit it or not.
Cameras were made for lots of reasons. Not for recall alone.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Was or wasn’t edited.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
We can’t go back and forth saying this all day because the only people who can do it have debilitating problems.
Again, doesn’t work like in TV shows.
People can train themselves to have perfect audio visual recall, in very specific circumstances for very specific things. But it’s likely OTHER details about the image will not be present aside from what they trained themselves to remember.
Noticing something does not give you perfect recall either.
Do you remember what the sign said in the third previous gas station you were at to the left of the door?
Unlikely.
Hidden cameras are considered rude. Taking pictures of someone who isn’t aware is considered rude. These are unsavory acts when used by the populance, and offensive when used by law enforcement.
Google glass is essentially a camera that you can never tell is on and gives you capabilities vision does not hope to compare with.
So no. There is no “going back and forth all day” on the issue. One is correct, and one is not regarding memory.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Actually there is going back and forth all day. I have met people with photographic memories and they have no debilitating problems.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Then they did not have photographic memory.
I’m not going to bother linking to the ridiculous amounts of research available on the topic.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
You didn’t meet them, so it isn’t for you to say, is it?
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
I can point to reams of scientific data on the subject and the fact ONE person in the entire world can say to maybe one or two people on the planet have photographic memory.
One of which refuses to reperform a test with anyone who isn’t her husband, and the other has crippling problems.
So I can say with quite a bit of confidence that the scientific testing of photographic memory seems fairly conclusive and your anecdote is incorrect.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Also the “crippling problems” are because she relives memories every single day, and reremembers things all day constantly.
She is incapable of doing many things due to this disability.
So that’s less “photographic memory” and more compulsive obsession.
Reciting 80 pages worth of pi is not photographic memory.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
No, you can’t.
Sheesh. I have met a person with a photographic memory.
I am sorry that is outside your set of data.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Not that I agree with that other AC, but seriously, fucking link that research already. You keep stating how there is so much of it and since YOU are familiar with said research, you know exactly what to type into a search engine to pop that research out quickly and efficiently. Once done, sharing that simple copy pasta of a link with us will prove your point and save the rest of us a lot of time. Golly.
Re: Re:
Which is worse, exaggerated tales told amongst people who know you, or accurate recording held by a stranger?
Re: Re: Re:
Depends on the contents of the tales and recording, the extent to which those who hear them or view it believe the contents to be true and accurate, and the aims of those sharing the tales and/or recording. Neither situation is inherently good, bad, or neutral.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What people you never have contact with know about you as a nameless and unidentified person has no effect on your life. The stories that workmates share, or picture they circulate could affect your future.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The stranger could be an informant or agent of an oppressive government. Or could be a criminal casing out my habits so he can better rob my lavish home. Or maybe people I know attend an exhibit by that stranger featuring the images he or she captured.
Those definitely can have an effect on my future.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Until Google glasses are almost universal, neither the informant, agent or criminal will use them, as they attract attention. All of them will observe what they want, and whether or not they use a camera is a minor matter.
If the images have a life changing result, it is a case of being caught, and this can happen in many ways. When in public, your actions and who you are with are also public. An innocent picture doesn’t matter. If it can cause significant problem, like a partner walking out, well that was a risk from what you were doing, rather than a problem of being photographed, you also risk being observed and reported when doing such things.
where is this facial recognition database that is open to the public?
Oh right, there isn’t one, nor will there ever be. Oh, you mean facebook? Hahahahaha. Please dwell on the irony of what it means to be on facebook.
Next!
Moral panic it is, then.
Re: Re:
where is this facial recognition database that is open to the public?
I was under the impression Facebook either had or was working on something similar to help tag friends and family in your photos.
In any case, the core technology exists. That it will be put to this or similar use is inevitable.
Re: Re: Re:
It isn’t available to the public, in realtime, to be used in this way. The two aren’t even remotely the same thing.
You would need an API and facebook doesn’t give you that access in their API.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would need an API and facebook doesn’t give you that access in their API.
What is keeping them from opening it up for a Google Glass app? Even if they don’t let other apps access the database, it seems to be right up Facebook’s alley to bake it into whatever app it eventually releases for Glass.
Or how about an aggregator that uses the data from more traditional image searches of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or other networks?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The same reason that they haven’t opened it up for anyone at all yet. Its not something they are going to put in their API. why would they?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Usually, to serve ads. I recall an article on Ars about them suggesting the installation of cameras hooked up to their database in meat-space stores to do just that.
They can also disguise it as a useable feature. When you see your friend, it can remind you that his or her birthday is coming up. Or tell you that this person is going to a concert that you might be interested in as well; maybe you should ask about going together? Things like that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And you know someone is gonna try and build one of a sex offender registry. Use it to play “spot the pedophile so I can protect my kid.” I’d hate to be on the wrong end of a false positive there.
When we finally get an Information Bill of Rights, I hope it includes something like: “People may record their own experiences for whatever reason they may choose and such recordings shall be treated as part of their papers and effects pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.”
So it's not yet bad enough to panic? WHEN will you?
How about someone in next rest room stall putting a camera over the wall? Hmm? — Let’s just dig in and STOP the LOSSES of privacy right here, people. That’s still do-able in spite of Monitoring Mike.
Anyway, since I’m late, here’s the best summary from a site you should be at instead of here:
Part of: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/17/congress_queries_google_glass_privacy/
Nicho @ (direct to comment): http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1828112
Paraphrasing Google’s chairman …
If you don’t want sex-starved glassholes perving on you in public, maybe you shouldn’t be in public.
Re: So it's not yet bad enough to panic? WHEN will you?
The Reg?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You should be there instead of HERE?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire life. The Reg is a tabloid. Do you read the National Enquirer, too?
Whats stopping someone from putting a camera over the wall right now? OH WAIT, ITS PRECISELY NOTHING. Why does it take Google Glass to be able to do this? IT DOESN’T.
Losses of privacy? From things that could and probably have already been done BEFORE? and you only raise the alarm NOW?
You are SEVERELY lacking in any sort of critical thinking on this one.
NEXT!
Re: So it's not yet bad enough to panic? WHEN will you?
Now you’re just clowning. This is one of the more absurd things you’ve posted here, and that’s saying something.
Re: So it's not yet bad enough to panic? WHEN will you?
Tell me Blue…is it possible right now to have a camera and point it at the next stall, a camera that ISN’T Google Glass?
‘a group of Congressional Representatives have sent a letter to Google raising a bunch of questions about the supposed “privacy concerns” of Google Glass’
how strange it is that when there is an issue like this, particularly if Google is somewhere on the scene (even well in the distance), Congress are on it like a fly on shit!! what a shame it is that there isn’t the same amount of concern and enthusiasm shown when the topic is important, that affects the majority of the USA or even the World! as soon as there is the hint that a couple of extra ‘people points’ may be gained by talking about something, the subject is the most important ever. i would have thought that, as they are so concerned about peopl, trying the get a resolution in Syria would warrant more attention, certainly now as it has been said that they is evidence of chemical weapons having been used. is that evidence similar by any chance to what they had when Sadam supposedly had ‘weapons of mass destruction?’
Objects are not Actors
“We are curious whether this new technology could infringe on the privacy of the average American.”
No. It cannot. Google Glass is an object and cannot do anything without the direction of a human. People using Google Class can infringe on others privacy. Just like people using a cell phone, or a surveillance camera, or a subpoena, a national security letter, or an FBI request to a telecom provider can infringe on privacy.
Re: Objects are not Actors
A firearm is not a “actor” yet we as a society go to great lengths to regulate them. Many would have them completely banned except for the use by the Authorities. Perhaps the Authorities should be the only ones with cameras, guns, 3D printers, cryptology, and access to the Internet. We all would be safe then. ….. Safe for the Authorities that is.
Re: Re: Objects are not Actors
To be fair, “firearm” regulations are really about keeping the firearms out of the hands of bad actors. It’s not about the firearms per se.
Ubiquity is scary
Both the issues over glass and the 3d printed gun seem to have the roots in the same problem. They allow users to do something anyone who wanted to already could more easily via technology that is likely to become ubiquitous.
Being able to buy hidden cameras to record and upload video of people without them knowing isn’t scary, everyone having a device that makes that easy is.
Being able to buy the tools and easily get the knowledge to make a gun out with parts from a DIY store isn’t scary, everyone having a device that makes that easy is.
The question is are we right to be scared? Is there a difference between something people who want to can go out of their way to do and a majority of people having the tools to do the same things for other reasons?
It’s interesting to me because I’m honestly not sure. Ubiquity of tools seems like it would increase interest in the things those tools can do. I don’t think in either case it’s a bad thing but I think this is what drives the issues and why “but people can already do it” isn’t really at the heart of people’s fears about it. We’ve simply tripped over the outrage threshold of easy access.
Re: Ubiquity is scary
Too late for first word, but this.
Re: Ubiquity is scary
Video surveillance by undetectable cameras is already ubiquitous.
Re: Ubiquity is scary
Some people may abuse of this tool for nefarious purposes. But then again almost anything can be used and I’m surely not afraid of everything just because someone may misuse something somewhere…
Hidden cameras
The insinuation has been repeatedly made here that no concern has ever been expressed about hidden cameras. In fact that’s completely untrue.
http://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-recording-state-hidden-camera-statutes
I couldn’t begin to explain why this is addressed at the state level instead of federal, but 13 states have hidden camera laws.
Re: Hidden cameras
Maybe because states are Nannies and the feds know better?
Re: Re: Hidden cameras
You are just typing random keys, right?
Re: Re: Re: Hidden cameras
Definitely not. States are way more restrictive in their laws than the feds are. And states have individual powers unto themselves that the feds don’t. Thats why we have one nation with 50 states among it.
Keep up with the sovereignty.
Once the Glass tech is built into regular glasses, which are worn all the time, what are they going to do about locker rooms and such? My understanding is that they don’t want people walking around other naked people with a camera, but if the Glass is built into their glasses, they can’t be expected to just take them off. Sure, most people don’t intend to take photos of other people changing, but they easily could. And since Glass includes WiFi, I assume that they’re hackable. So even if the wearer can be trusted not to snap photos of people changing their clothes, what happens if someone hacks in and activates the camera?
Re: Re:
It is much easier for someone to plant cameras in such places if they are after such pictures.
Re: Re: Re:
It is much easier for someone to plant cameras in such places if they are after such pictures.
Much easier than starting the video recorder, or setting the Glass to take a photo every nth second before entering the lockerroom and then walking around acting normal?
We pretty quickly learned how to cope and adapt to that. Why do people think we can’t learn and cope with Google Glass?
We pretty quickly learned to adapt to google glasses. Why do people think we can’t learn and cope with complete and total public surveillance by authority figures as well?
I, actually, think that the gov/mil/DHS/FBI/CIA esp. NSA etc., etc. just want the glass all for themselves…
Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
I have reservations about how this article is framed. Albeit there is something to be said about political grandstanding, this argument should not dismiss privacy concerns altogether. This is a fairly political approach in and of itself.
There have been many excellent points covered here regarding privacy concerns here. I’d like to emphasize two that I have not seen discussed much. If these have been covered, please accept my apologies for having missed them.
First, regarding unknown recording. Google Glass does not have an LED or visible signal indicating that the artifact is indeed recording what the user is seeing (in 720P, you see details). This has significant implications to not only spaces of fixed enclosure and privacy implications thereof (such as bathrooms, change rooms, etc) but upon the ways in which people experience privacy. Privacy is also an experience, not just a place of concealment from onlookers’ gaze. There are fantastic theories about mobile privacy in public places that are compromised by the inability to identify when an individual is being recorded. Albeit there are many hidden recording devices on the market, but the magnitude and scope and funding that this project is receiving, especially given the specter and awe precedes Google’s popularity, must compel responsibility.
Secondly, and as the academy has denoted for the past 6 years, HTTP cookies – especially Google’s ga.js cookie used for Google Analytics, will take data mining to an unprecedented level. Smartphones inscribe intensely intimate information about users’ whereabouts, Internet browsing habits, GPS usage, etc into these cookies. Albeit the cookies do not document names (allegedly just unique device ID numbers), there are indeed performances that undermine and associate identification anyhow (i.e. Facebook Exchange’s usage of HTTP cookies and their relationship with DataLogix creates numerous avenues for identification, hence the appearance of targeted advertisements on Facebook news feeds). Creativity is the limit with regards to the intimacy of visual capturing capabilities and constant interaction with the parent company (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Evernote are designing applications for Google Glass). The extents to which these streams and recordings adopt advertisements is going to be extremely interesting with regards to privacy implications. Who is to prevent Facebook or Google from implementing virtual ads as overlays as a user traverses public spaces with the Glass on their face? The potentiality for cookie mining explodes here.
This is not to fear monger, but these are indeed legitimate questions that ought to be discussed. My problem is that the author leaves little room for politics by dismissing Congressional politics as grandstanding. Politics is about sites and capacities for contest, Mikey. Don’t foreclose those spaces 🙂
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
“Privacy is also an experience, not just a place of concealment from onlookers’ gaze.”
This is excellent.
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
Yes, but not by Congress (at least at this point).
Re: Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
At what point does it become appropriate for Congress to ask such questions?
Re: Re: Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
This isn’t a rhetorical question. I really want to know what you think.
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
Privacy? In public?
Why am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
I keep trying to point out to people that data is being collected, analyzed, and sold by a number of companies. All government has to do is just privatize security and buy this data like other customers. And I think this will happen.
The government isn’t solely responsible for our loss of privacy and suggesting that if we get government out of the business of monitoring people the issues will somehow go away.
My concern is that by pretending that government is the bad guy here, private companies hope to widen the door for their own monitoring.
Many of these comments here reinforce my impression that privacy isn’t really a concern amongst people who support these data collection and monitoring companies. They want to have access to everything people do, and along with that they don’t want to be told not to do it.
So if Google wants to create a file on every person and place in the world, good. And how dare anyone in government raise an issue about this. Why don’t they just turn the job over to us techies and we’ll do it better than they will.
Re: Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
I just posted this in another thread, but I will put it here too, in case there was an confusion about what I was saying in my above comment (in case your are reading the threaded version).
______
I can’t stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It’s a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don’t understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn’t have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn’t even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
Beautifully and eloquently stated.
Just goes to show that, even in an age fueled by an enlightened and informed youth, society is still ruled by the old and clueless.
Objects are not actors? Guess again
Objects have agency, they perform. Their materiality elicits specific responses from subjects and orders matter in ways humans cannot. There is a long, rich social history of materiality and modern technology in the academy that you really need to read because your argument is simply unfounded; you can’t miss an entire academic field that has existed for over a hundred years and get away with saying things like that.
To get started: Edward Jones-Imhotep at York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Read his selected publications, because they tap into the discipline concerning agency of materiality and technology. This one academic of thousands, but a strong start.
Re: Objects are not actors? Guess again
An entire academic field? Of?
Cheers
Cheers, @dennis deems
Privacy vs. anonymity
The discussion here suffers greatly because of inexact language: people using the word “privacy” when what is actually meant is “anonymity”.
People in public places (should) have no expectation of privacy. What some people do have is an expectation of anonymity. This is because, even 10 years ago, it was not practical for an average person to identify a stranger, even given a photograph of him or her.
This is no longer true, and therefore older people’s expectations are out of phase with reality. Unfortunately, (some) people believe this can be “fixed” via legislating a new reality.
I predict this will work just as well as legislating in order to fix broken business models.
Re: Privacy vs. anonymity
You make a good point.
But people also have to realize you can’t be non-anonymous to the public and to private companies but somehow anonymous to government.
As info about people becomes more available, the government will have access to it, too.
Re: Privacy vs. anonymity
Hit the nail on the head there, I think.
When everything we do is monitored
The future, as has been proposed by quite a few people, is having every device we own collecting data. Every person, place, and thing will be monitored non-stop (kind of like a techno version of God, I suppose).
There are at least four entities with real or potential access to this info: the public, private companies, government, criminals.
So we might as well keep talking about this now and what it means when there is no privacy. How much will be opt-in? How much opt-out? How do we limit who has access? Can we delete what we don’t want others to see?
When everything about everything is stored in digital form, what will that mean? How much will be linked to everything else and how much will remain unlinked? How easy will it be to bring down big systems?
Re: When everything we do is monitored
I can’t stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It’s a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don’t understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn’t have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn’t even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
Re: Re: When everything we do is monitored
Each time I read my response, I’m not sure if I’m very clear about what I am suggesting. So let me try again.
I think we have very limited privacy these days and most of the monitoring is coming from private industry. I read a lot of articles directed to advertisers and marketers. The data collection companies are very proud of the fact that they are compiling a ton of data on everyone.
And many tech companies are proud of what they have developed to allow them to use the latest devices to track everything and everyone.
The only time these companies raise the privacy issue is when they want to paint government in a negative light.
And yet, private companies are also working with government. I am skeptical that much is done in DC without corporate input. So whatever policies are coming out of DC have probably been shaped to benefit someone’s bottom line.
I think we need to discuss privacy on a big scale and what that means to everyone. The positives are that all of these monitors could improve lives. The negatives are that this info can be used against us. (And don’t assume government is the only guilty party here. Insurance companies, credit companies, banks, and so on would love to know who to exclude as customers.)
Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t this device primarily voice activated? As in, to take a picture, you have to either say “Glass, take a picture” or reach up and press a button. If there’s a mind control feature included I certainly haven’t read about it. I would think that talking out loud for recording would be kind of a big give away.
For filming, you have a similar issue, plus you have to disable the recording LED. The device itself is not inconspicious; if you’re concerned about privacy, why not just ask someone to take it off? I wouldn’t think there would be any more issues in bathrooms than there are now and I seriously doubt they’ll become a permanent feature of corrective eye lenses.
Either way the fact that our government is concerned over our privacy is laughable. This is purely an attempt to get a legislative foothold on a new technology so they can ban it rather than compete. They’re still trying to figure out this “internet” thing, can’t have us getting some fancy…um…thing that’s the same as a smart phone, but always being held in front of your face. Oooh, scary.
Privacy is a real concern. Google Glass just isn’t the big threat to it. Cute attempt to divert attention, though.
Re: Re:
People have already figured out how to take photos with Google Glass with a wink. No voice or touch needed.
At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom – NYTimes.com: “Then I met the man who excitedly told me about his power to snap pictures with his eyelid. (The wink, it should be noted, is not officially supported by Glass, but is essentially a hack ‘sideloaded’ onto the device.) He explained that he uses the wink-to-take-a-picture feature so much that a few days ago he was not wearing his Google Glass and was confused when he blinked his eye and nothing happened. His mind had played a trick on him, he said.”
Re: Re: Re:
More about it.
The Google Glass Wink Feature Is Real | TechCrunch
Person Of Interest
Damn fine show. I too need to get out more.
Worth a read
When companies like Google tell you how much they are monitoring you, it’s hard to pretend this is just a government issue.
The reason we know that companies like Google and Facebook are peering into every aspect of our lives is because they are telling us (or at least telling their investors and marketers) that they are doing this.
Google’s Plan To Take Over The World – Business Insider: “After spending three days at I/O this week, it became more apparent than ever that unless millions (billions?) of people suddenly change their mind and start using alternative tech tools, or unless the government steps in waving the anti-trust banner, our lives, our history, and our personal wealth could be managed by one company ?? Google.”
Suzanne Lianson
Thanks for reframing your thoughts in your follow-up posts. I am glad that you acknowledge the extents to which both the private sector and the state are imbricated together via data mining and surveillance techniques thereof. A really fascinating and thought provoking reading for anyone interested in this debate ought to read Christopher Soghoian’s July 2012 dissertation out of Indiana U, its on the relationship between third party service providers and law enforcement surveillance. Data-mining, ICT and Web 2.0 create an assemblage that transgresses the private and public sectors. The relationship between the two opens entirely new conditions of possibility whereby the coalescing of interests makes data-mining and monitoring extremely useful for a variety of even differentiated actors.
Anonymous coward, what are you talking about?
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
Anonymous coward: Privacy? In public?
Why am I the only one who sees the irony in this?
– Yes, you are. Because fortunately enough most people here are thinking critically. You are unfamiliar with the processes of the sanitization of public space. This is an academic line of inquiry in the communication and culture as well as political sociology disciplines (amongst countless others i.e. critical geopolitics) that will assist you in understanding the tension the contemporary world experiences as corporations turn public space into artificially mediated ones through the constructions of malls, shopping strips, etc. There has been a tension between privacy and the public since the earliest formations of the ancient Greek stoas, agoras and ampitheatres where people met to discuss politics, economy, sport, etc. The emergence of privacy begins here, and there has always been a struggle between the private sector, the state and populations for places to congregate outside of the home. I suggest reading Richard Senate’s “Flesh and Stone: The Body and the City in Western Civilization” as well as his “The Fall of Public Man.”
You also were apparently concerned with “an entire academic field? Of?”
– I wrote “the discipline concerning agency of materiality and technology.” This was confusing, I apologize. I am surprised by the lack of substance in your critiques and comments. It appears that you do not place much concern about doing research on your own. For example, you could have easily figured out the tension between privacy and the public on any academic database. Ok, so maybe you’re not an academic, no sweat. But I’m also assuming that you simply avoided visiting Edward’s profile page – of which clearly indicates what field you are concerned with. You see, there is something to be said about acknowledging the impressive critical ethos in this thread by complimenting peoples’ intelligence by not saying “this is this, that is that” – people are capable of reading on their own. But because you are not, I hope this response has aided your ailments.
Dear Congress That Cares So Much About Privacy,
Where have you been all my life?
Another article to read
At least the more we discuss privacy, the more people start asking questions about where all of their data is going.
You are your data: The scary future of the quantified self movement | PandoDaily