"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.
"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!!"
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.
Are you really as stupid as you seem or are you just too lazy to actually read what your commenting on?
"Kids, this REQUIRES trustable "man-in-the-middle"!"
How do you figure this? This system has you first get on Tor, hiding your identity, you then upload files that are encrypted to a server(you know, as in the people who own server cant see what it is because umm ITS ENCRYPTED) Then the people at The New Yorker check the box and download the still encrypted data, they then move it to a special computer that is not even online, there they can finally decrypt it.
So, where is this "man in the middle" going to grab the data?
Also... Stenographers? really?
"Definition of STENOGRAPHER
1: a writer of shorthand
2: a person employed chiefly to take and transcribe dictation "
Oh No!!! The government has people who can write SHORTHAND!!!!
"cyber Pearl Harbor" might not be as bad a name for what is coming as people think....
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike to try and keep the USA out of WWII. This of course was a gross miscalculation that they later regretted.
We now have the US government looking to make preemptive strikes against the internet as a whole..... Question is, will they realize before it is too late that it is them in the bombers launching the attack?
Yes it is a gunshot wound, but without more details that means nothing. Technically if a bullet grazes you and gives you a little cut, that is a "gunshot wound", but it is hardly worth a hospital visit.
I am assuming this case was a bit more serious but the point is a "gunshot" is about like a knife wound. It can range from a little booboo that needs a kiss to make it better to "oh shit I'm gonna die".
Well, how about the Bluetooth headsets with built in cams that have been available for years now? They look like the ones people wear to talk on the phone and just have added fun of a cam that records to your phone.
"suggesting that President Clinton committed a criminal act. It's a new low for you, which is incredible."
Suggesting President Clinton HASN'T committed a criminal act requires such an amazing level of hiding under a rock that I'm beginning to wonder if you people haven't discovered some form of dimension hopping. Take a look at the USA criminal code, then find me a person who has not broken some law.
I might just be giving them far too much credit, but I can personally see why they would not come out and say they flat out never would sue. That is basically just giving a blanket license to every patent they own to everyone in the world.
I do think they probably should have stepped up though and maybe said something along the lines of flat out they will never attack an open source group. That way they still can prevent someone, like say Apple, from just using tons of googles patients without licenses.