Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Oh I agree with your points LB. I didn't say anyone could stop them from being bought or used - just whether it's possible to affect the rate of uptake.

Let's look at books. They've been around for some time. Is it acceptable to have a conversation with someone while you read a book and devote some attention to it? Maybe if both people are just casually reading together and occasionally saying something - but that's not what we're talking about. If you walk into a job interview is it ok to bring a book just in case the interviewer isn't really able to hold your attention? Maybe a magazine?

Cameras have been around for a long time. You could buy little spy cameras and carry them around. Today, after decades of portable cameras, is it ok to sit down to dinner with a camera on your shoulder and record everyone? Won't that make your dining companions a little uncomfortable?

It's hard to predict how technology will change society. But we can look at the past two decades as an example of how people are no more comfortable being aware they're being recorded. Yes we intellectually know that recording is going on all around us. But when an individual is doing it, right there, it's still a different feeling.

We have two decades of cell phones in society to inform us of how people expect others to behave. And institutions now try to teach a code of behavior: when you enter the movie theater it says to silence your cell phones - or it used to: now it says to turn them off, because when you sit there texting it creates a blue light everyone sees and gets distracted by. When you go to a teen movie the admonition is repeated 3-4 times instead of the 1 time for a regular movie. That's because, as parents know, you need to tell some children three times before they start listening.

The adapt or die phrase is apt, but overused. What if I used the same example related to natural park space, pollution, or vehicle safety? No, we regulate those things, and that's as it should be. Cars are safer in the US than they've ever been, the various pollution control acts have had a positive impact on pollution levels and health outcomes, and our state and national park system ensures that beautiful wilderness spaces are protected from ruination. When you see urban sprawl, children with black lung, and horrific car crashes do you say "get with the times, pal, the future is death and dismemberment!" or do you say "the future could be better than this, let's do some work to try to make the future a nice place!"

Someone will inevitably jump in with "hey man Google Glass isn't the same thing as leaded gasoline, Leo is dumb a probably a pervert" so I'll head that off - again. I'm not saying Glass is a threat to public health and safety, but it's a threat to personal privacy - in the same way ubiquitous surveillance is a threat. If you don't care about the NSA watching your Yahoo video chats, then you probably also wouldn't care about smart glasses.

EDIT: At some point we just need to walk around wearing masks. Sure a lot of businesses will turn you away, especially convenience stores and banks. But eventually if everyone cares about privacy some business in a field will gobble up those customers by allowing the masked ones in. Then the rest will follow suit or be outperformed and crumble.

[BurnedToast]

As for the camera, would you be at all perturbed if I sat down to dinner and pulled out a steadicam, taking closeup facial video and audio of the entire time we were together? I sure as motherfucking hell would. I've seen someone wearing smart glasses at a club. My policy is to avoid the wearer, and if they're someone I need to deal with in person or at the same table I'll ask them to take off the Glass and turn it off. If they won't, I leave.

"But Leo," pointlessly gibber after slithering from your moist crawlspace, "you can tell when Glass isn't recording." Yeah, and nobody ever downloaded an app to make their smartphone behave differently.

"But Leo," more vapid attempts at argument slip from your swollen, frothing lips, "they're just glasses. People should be able to wear them whenever and wherever they want." These things have a list of features and they just masquerade as glasses. Again, steadicam with internet access.

This is the silliest argument against glass I've heard.

You realize if someone wanted to record everything, there are tiny little cameras you can buy that you can stick in your purse, coat, etc and record it without anyone ever knowing, right? They are a hell of a lot cheaper, and record a hell of a lot longer then glass and nobody would ever have any idea because you won't even know the camera was there in the first place. Not to mention that damn near every cellphone that exists can record video, and someone could just inconspicuously record you while pretending to use it.

I'm not even sure why it's something you're afraid of at all. Why would anyone bother recording you eating? Why would anyone care? Do you worry that people will stand across the street and record you through the window with a telescopic lens? I can't imagine how that would be something that you think would actually happen.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I think that perhaps you're coming from a position of not caring whether people record you.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Plus there's this difference between being observed by people who are fallible and forget stuff, and being observed by a perfect camera that saves its footage to a drive somewhere forever and can be viewed by who knows who, and automatically analyzed for facial recognition, etc.

It's like how I have a beef with traffic cameras. I feel like if someone is gonna write me a ticket, it needs to be a real person who went through police school and has a name and a badge and a reputation, and has to do his job well.

I don't want my work to be reviewed by a computer and every little mistake found and everything filed away and aggregated. I want a boss who also makes mistakes because they're human, who will have a reasonable expectation of my performance.

I want to be treated like a human and be able to relax. I don't want to feel like at all times I'm under scrutiny and must perform in some way.

[BurnedToast]

BT, there's this thing a lot of us like called 'privacy'.

If someone was recording me every time I went to eat and I didn't know about it, I'd not be bothered because I didn't know. If I were to then find out, I'd be pissed off (and a little worried about a person recording what I eat. It'd be like some mutation of instagram), because I don't want random people prying into my life. I want to control what people know about me, and I'd rather control the information about me that's easily available than have some guy uploading it to the internet because they can.

The point is not privacy, the point is that people could ALREADY record you, and they could do it better then glass could. So why whine that glass is destroying your privacy when anyone that actually wanted to could already be recording you?

It's blaming glass for a problem it didn't create, and does not make any worse.

[LordBucket]

The adapt or die phrase is apt, but overused. What if I used the same example related to natural park space, pollution, or vehicle safety? No, we regulate those things, and that's as it should be.

Ok. What do you propose?

Cameras have been around for a long time. You could buy little spy cameras and carry them around. Today, after decades of portable cameras, is it ok to sit down to dinner with a camera on your shoulder and record everyone? Won't that make your dining companions a little uncomfortable?

20 years ago, absolutely it would make people uncomfortable. Now? Some people yes, some people no. Loo at BurnedToast's response. Loo at the people who didn't care when Xbox was going to monitor your living room 24/7. Yes, some people complained and Microsoft changed it. Lots of people didn't care and didn't understand why others did. 20 years from now? I think not so much. Again, this is a social change that's going on. People are being trained becoming accustomed to always being monitored.

Our grandparents had to deal with that "awful rock n roll garbage." We get to deal with this.

At some point we just need to walk around wearing masks. Sure a lot of businesses will turn you away, especially convenience stores and banks. But eventually if everyone cares about privacy some business in a field will gobble up those customers by allowing the masked ones in. Then the rest will follow suit or be outperformed and crumble.

No. People who care about privacy will die eventually. Their children already don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I use an alias online. I seriously considered giving up my driver's license back when they started requiring fingerprints. I no longer fly because of scanners.

But I'm a dinosaur. And so are you.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Because google glass is probably going to be more widespread than these other technologies.

You mention camera phones, but it's hard to hide the fact you're recording (at least with video recordings). Small cameras are only widely used by the paranoid and intelligence services (is there a difference?), and with GG, you could, as said before, get an app of some kind to hide that you are recording.

There's also the disconnect between "I might be recorded right now" vs. "there is a person in front of me pointing a videorecording device at me and tracking along when I move". Of course I am going to behave in a way that is informed by what I know; I cannot do otherwise.

True Glass isn't the first small recording device. But the "problem" we're talking about is not just surreptitious recording, it's recording while everyone around you knows you're recording, and yet being socially unable to do anything about it. That is a new problem, and that's a problem that might as well have been created by Glass. There's a reason we're calling these people glassholes and not naming them based on the first technology to emerge.

[LordBucket]

The point is not privacy, the point is that people could ALREADY record you, and they could do it better then glass could. So why whine that glass is destroying your privacy when anyone that actually wanted to could already be recording you?

The fact that somebody else could have done X does not diminish the weight of someone doing X. If being recorded bothers someone, being recorded bothers them. The fact that somebody else might have already done so doesn't make it less troublesome that someone in the future might too.

[LordBucket]

pool our money, buy some island from some government somewhere, and make the nation of 'We dislike being monitored'

How long do you think that will be a solution? Download google earth and type in your address.

How long until the camera cars are replaced with a networked swarm of millions of aerial camera drones communicating in real time?

[BurnedToast]

Because google glass is probably going to be more widespread than these other technologies.

You mention camera phones, but it's hard to hide the fact you're recording (at least with video recordings). Small cameras are only widely used by the paranoid and intelligence services (is there a difference?), and with GG, you could, as said before, get an app of some kind to hide that you are recording.

There's also the disconnect between "I might be recorded right now" vs. "there is a person in front of me pointing a videorecording device at me and tracking along when I move". Of course I am going to behave in a way that is informed by what I know; I cannot do otherwise.

True Glass isn't the first small recording device. But the "problem" we're talking about is not just surreptitious recording, it's recording while everyone around you knows you're recording, and yet being socially unable to do anything about it. That is a new problem, and that's a problem that might as well have been created by Glass. There's a reason we're calling these people glassholes and not naming them based on the first technology to emerge.

Why is glass different from some guy pointing a video camera at you? If you know glass is recording and you know the video camera is recording it's the exact same situation, and you can handle them the exact same way. The problem is, once again, not glass.

The point is not privacy, the point is that people could ALREADY record you, and they could do it better then glass could. So why whine that glass is destroying your privacy when anyone that actually wanted to could already be recording you?

The fact that somebody else could have done X does not diminish the weight of someone doing X. If being recorded bothers someone, being recorded bothers them. The fact that somebody else might have already done so doesn't make it less troublesome that someone in the future might too.

But again you're missing the point!

If you want to have a debate about privacy, and recording people in public - fine. There's a discussion to be had there. But it has nothing to do with glass at all.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

The adapt or die phrase is apt, but overused. What if I used the same example related to natural park space, pollution, or vehicle safety? No, we regulate those things, and that's as it should be.

Ok. What do you propose?

Cameras have been around for a long time. You could buy little spy cameras and carry them around. Today, after decades of portable cameras, is it ok to sit down to dinner with a camera on your shoulder and record everyone? Won't that make your dining companions a little uncomfortable?

20 years ago, absolutely it would make people uncomfortable. Now? Some people yes, some people no. Loo at BurnedToast's response. Loo at the people who didn't care when Xbox was going to monitor your living room 24/7. Yes, some people complained and Microsoft changed it. Lots of people didn't care and didn't understand why others did. 20 years from now? I think not so much. Again, this is a social change that's going on. People are being trained becoming accustomed to always being monitored.

Our grandparents had to deal with that "awful rock n roll garbage." We get to deal with this.

At some point we just need to walk around wearing masks. Sure a lot of businesses will turn you away, especially convenience stores and banks. But eventually if everyone cares about privacy some business in a field will gobble up those customers by allowing the masked ones in. Then the rest will follow suit or be outperformed and crumble.

No. People who care about privacy will die eventually. Their children already don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. I use an alias online. I seriously considered giving up my driver's license back when they started requiring fingerprints. I no longer fly because of scanners.

But I'm a dinosaur. And so are you.

I think your arguments amount to "humans can become accustomed to any indignity".

As for the rock and roll comparison, I knew someone would go there, and I'll just say that every generation has a problem with the youngsters when it gets old. The adult backlash against rock and roll wasn't a new phenomenon. Is wearing your hair long a statement of rebellion or conformity? The answer depends on what decade or century we're talking about.

I think it's more apt to describe the struggle for the 4th and 5th constitutional amendments in our time as equivalent to the struggle for other "civil rights" amendments in the last two and a half centuries. No that is not an outlandish statement. You do not surveil and enfeeble your population without an evil motive.

So if people don't care about privacy, and let their civil rights slip into disuse and obscurity, then in their ignorance and sloth they have betrayed all the people who struggled for abolition of slavery, integration and equal protection under the law, and universal suffrage. It will be interesting to see if democracy can exist in anything but name when there are no civil rights.

[Aklyon]

Just don't be what some people are starting to call a "glasshole" and I think everything will be just fine.

Isn't that a thing google made up, cause people were being creepy?

Yes, but their entire point was to get people to say it.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Because google glass is probably going to be more widespread than these other technologies.

You mention camera phones, but it's hard to hide the fact you're recording (at least with video recordings). Small cameras are only widely used by the paranoid and intelligence services (is there a difference?), and with GG, you could, as said before, get an app of some kind to hide that you are recording.

There's also the disconnect between "I might be recorded right now" vs. "there is a person in front of me pointing a videorecording device at me and tracking along when I move". Of course I am going to behave in a way that is informed by what I know; I cannot do otherwise.

True Glass isn't the first small recording device. But the "problem" we're talking about is not just surreptitious recording, it's recording while everyone around you knows you're recording, and yet being socially unable to do anything about it. That is a new problem, and that's a problem that might as well have been created by Glass. There's a reason we're calling these people glassholes and not naming them based on the first technology to emerge.

Why is glass different from some guy pointing a video camera at you? If you know glass is recording and you know the video camera is recording it's the exact same situation, and you can handle them the exact same way. The problem is, once again, not glass.

The point is not privacy, the point is that people could ALREADY record you, and they could do it better then glass could. So why whine that glass is destroying your privacy when anyone that actually wanted to could already be recording you?

The fact that somebody else could have done X does not diminish the weight of someone doing X. If being recorded bothers someone, being recorded bothers them. The fact that somebody else might have already done so doesn't make it less troublesome that someone in the future might too.

But again you're missing the point!

If you want to have a debate about privacy, and recording people in public - fine. There's a discussion to be had there. But it has nothing to do with glass at all.

Exactly. The problem is if Glass is seen as "normal" and tolerated, then accepted. Which you already understand would eventually happen. Glass is a thing to talk about because it's a player in the privacy and sousveillance movement.

[BurnedToast]

Exactly. The problem is if Glass is seen as "normal" and tolerated, then accepted. Which you already understand would eventually happen. Glass is a thing to talk about because it's a player in the privacy and sousveillance movement.

But it's really not.

I feel like I'm making the same argument over and over again.

Anyone that wants to record you right now, can. We agree on this right? They can do it fairly cheaply, and they can do it without you knowing about that. If you have a problem with that, fine, it's a debate we as a society will probably have to have at some point.

But glass has NOTHING to do with that. Glass is no different then your cellphone, or a video camera, or a buttonhole camera you stick in your jacket. Why demonize glass and claim it's the end of privacy forever when those other things already exist (and cost less then glass)?

Why does glass change things? How is it different from someone putting their cellphone on video mode and walking around recording you?

[LordBucket]

Why is glass different from some guy pointing a video camera at you?

It isn't, particularly. That's kind of the point. It's doing something that already bothered people before glass existed. Glass is simply a refinement that will allow people to do it more efficiently and more discretely.

But again you're missing the point!

If you want to have a debate about privacy, and recording people in public - fine. There's a discussion to be had there. But it has nothing to do with glass at all.

Some people are bothered by being recorded without their consent, yes?

Glass is capable of recording people without their consent, yes?

But glass has NOTHING to do with that. Glass is no different then your cellphone, or a video camera, or a buttonhole camera you stick in your jacket. Why demonize glass and claim it's the end of privacy forever when those other things already exist (and cost less then glass)?

Those things also bother some people. How does it make sense to claim that this thing that does X that bothers people, is ok because there are also other things that also do X that also bother people?