Interesting that in an article talking about broken copyright law you pick one of the most broken aspects of copyright to complain about - everything is a derivative work. Every. Single. Thing.
Trying to pick out what's "too derivative" and requires a license is a game played by lawyers and corporations with the money to enforce it at the expense of anyone who actually creates culture and hopes to make a modest amount of money from their work.
There are search engines for images already btw =)
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?
Since I was responding to the AC (who I am assuming is not you) who wrote:
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.
...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".
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.
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.
They are the ones who are supposed to be representing the public and the commons.
Yeah... not so much... some figures to back up the detected sarcasm perhaps?
UK 2010 general election: 65% voter turnout, Conservative vote: 36%, LibDem vote: 23%
Unless my maths is faulty, that means that only around 39% of the population voted for anyone in government at all and even if you make the staggeringly false mental leap as to assume that a vote means you are "represented" and agree with what is done in your name, only a maximum of 24% of "the public" are actually "represented" on any given issue.
Me, I think calling that "representing the public" is stretching reality more than perhaps a little... but then that's what politicians do best.
while ignoring the more important fact that even at such a low ratio they are still spending more money.
I'm trying to work out whether it's just wilful blindness/paid agenda or whether the poor dear can't get his head around the difference between physical and digital goods - i.e. that, with the marginal cost of each "digital good" infinitessimal, more money is REAL more money as opposed to IMAGINARY "lost" money.
Except in terms of government that's a fictional example. It's an example of how a government *might* work. Unless you have a plan as to how to enact such a government, and ideally how to get around the issue of such a setup being co-opted by minority opinions in much the same way as the various levels of current governmental structure, then it seem rather irrelevant to discussion.
And no, I am not "against government". I am not an anarchist. However, it is fair to say I am unimpressed with the current governmental structure pretty much top to bottom and don't see it improving any time soon.
It is possible to break down government into small units which reflect the wishes of the people within those small units and to operate based on a consensus within the group.
It's possible to break down the human body to discrete organs fulfilling specific functions but one doesn't try and describe the functioning of a person in terms of those sub-units.
The differences you describe are mostly semantic rather than real and any such "small units" still typically have little to do with majority opinion or even empirical evidence over pet theories or the financial urgings of special interests so I'm not sure what it achieves anyway.
The entire point of the project was to look for *empirical* evidence to answer each of those questions.
It is to be feverently hoped that empirical has something to do with the eventual report but past evidence suggests cynicism at least leads to lack of dissapointment... and it'll be a pleasant suprise if it actually stays objective enough to be swept under the rug instead.
Remember the Sir Humphrey Rule:
"Never commission a report unless you know in advance what it will conlude"
Yeah, that all sounds great but there's a long way to go and plenty of opportunity for the **AA et al to bri... uh... "contribute" to the study. Thus, I suspect some of the eventual answers will look like this:
•how the expenses involved in creative expression and distribution differ across sectors and the role of copyright in generating revenues to offset those expenses;
"Copyright is the only possible way of generating revenue! We need MORE copyright!"
•under what circumstances sources of monetary and/or non-monetary motivation outside of that provided by copyright are effective in motivating creative activity;
They aren't! See answer above
•the motivations of various types of users and potential users of creative works, including both infringers and lawful users; the effects of enhanced enforcement remedies on promoting creativity, technological innovation, and freedom of expression;
infringers are dirty thieves, DRM is great and content should be against the law without and artists love to struggle so the more enforcement roadblocks we put in their way the more creativity we have.
•the extent of problems involving orphan works (whose owners cannot be identified), user-generated content, and collaborative and iterative works;
There is no problem if we just assume the megacorp with the "best" claim to whatever it is owns it
•what are successful arrangements for managing transaction costs;
Assume every use ever attracts a large flat fee then its simple
•changes in transaction costs with new technological and business developments.
None, megacorps should be able to legally require whatever fee they think they can get away with no matter what the circumstances
•how much is spent by governments and private parties on copyright enforcement;
Not enough by government too much by private parties
•the results of enforcement efforts in terms of compensation, prevention, education, and deterrence;
Fantastic, brilliant, couldn't be better... would be 100% effective if only we had MORE!
•how the effectiveness of enforcement efforts is changing with the expansion of digital networks;
Yay! Megaupload died! Must be great
•the relative vulnerability of different business models to infringement;
The only viable model is the current one
•the costs and benefits of fair use exceptions and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbors.
Costs tons with no benefit, we should remove them all and charge for EVERYTHING
The article lumped product warnings in with national security warnings.
Because the government as a whole take much the same tack with national security warnings as is taken with package warnings - "more is better".
Of course the intent may be different - I suspect packaging warnings are more often motivated by some do-gooding sense, whearas security seems more about scaring the population enough to accept egregious abbridgements of civil liberties. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps both are more about the legal/political ramifications of having been seen to have "done nothing" even when nothing is the best course.
Either way, though, both end up with the same effect in the mind - low level noise that gets ignored and ultimately has the exact opposite effect of the one stated. The real warning about the caustic effects of a cleaner get lost in the dozens upon dozens of irrelevant ones, the warning of an imminent terrorist attack gets a "yeah? So what?" response because of the "It's all so dangerous out there and we have to protect you" notices issued every single day.
But that's how it works. If one group cares enough to push for legislation and others don't care enough to bother, the activists get their way.
Not disputing that, just pointing out that it's almost always a minority opinion that causes these things, which ensures that a great proportion of such warnings will be pointless to the majority of the population, many will be counter-productive to the intended effect and a good number, maybe even most, are likely to be wrong.
pointing out that we're talking about an info delivery system, which could be refined,
Except we've had an "info delivery system" capable of this kind of refinement for years now and exactly ZERO attempt to refine anything along these lines, just more and more and more "warnings" that 99% of the population don't care about.
The problem is not the technology, it's groups of people thinking they know better than anyone else what everyone needs to know and seeing it as their duty to "do something about it". Whoever initiates this, the instument by which the mandated "warning" is delivered is usually governmental at some level and people do not make the distiction - it's a "government issued warning" and gets lumped in the brain with all the other pointless "warnings" and nannying that comes from such sources.
ANYTHING WITH NUTS in it,, yes, that includes NUTS, HAS to have that warning.
So if you have a nut allergy the label saying "salted peanuts" isn't enough of a clue? Aren't you in some way responsible for your own condition to at least some basic level? And if not, what about all the other things that can cause a similar reaction to nuts... up to and including death... shellfish, milk, eggs, latex and others? Yeah, they are usually there on the ingredients list somewhere but I've not noticed a rash of big "WARNING: MAY CONTAIN TRACE EGGS" labels...