Print

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

[Arx]

My biggest problem with the Glass is that you can't say how much data Google is harvesting from it. If you video me and I notice, I'll make snarky comments but no more, because I assume the video isn't going anywhere. If you're using a Google Glass to video me, then I have no idea what your privacy settings are like and what Google may being doing with recorded data. It's not the recording that bothers me, it's the use they might put it to. I don't like the idea that because I haven't specifically said I don't want them to use my data they can assume I'm okay with it.

Edit: Also, if you're jamming a 5-metre radius around you, you'll notice someone needing to make an emergency call within the jammed zone. Dying people are quite conspicuous.

[DJ]

If glass becomes widespread, thanks to facial recognition software the effect will be the same as if the government implanted tracking chips in everyone. Or Google, which I trust even less than the government.

[alexandertnt]

But people actually use cellphones for emergencies, and its quite common.

40% of cell owners said they found themselves in an emergency situation in which having their phone with them helped.

Your argument so far just seems to be "my morals are right, screw anyone they affect (they are too dumb to live)".

[DJ]

And pedophiles actually film children, what's your point?

[alexandertnt]

And pedophiles actually film children, what's your point?

That.
Using.
Jammers.
Is.
Dumb.
And.
Can.
Endanger.
People.

What do pedophiles have to do with anything at all?
How do pedophiles invalidate my argument?
How does pedophelia justify using a cell phone jammer?

Please stop trying to associate my arguments with pedophelia nonsense.

[itisnotlogical]

How is it sneakier if it's right their on their face for everyone to see, and it lights up when they record, and they have to stare at you to keep recording you?

Anyone you talk to *right now* could be recording you and you wouldn't have any idea. Why is this suddenly a problem when they are wearing glass?

I actually didn't know it lit up when the record feature was on.

The point I was making was that the possibility is more "real" to people because Glass is something you wear openly.. Of course it's very possible when you fully consider it that anybody could be wearing a pinhole camera, but what I think you're misunderstanding is that people aren't quite as upset about that because they couldn't see it.

To put the idea in another example: People don't wear gloves all the time to prevent disease, because while it's possible that there could be something highly infectious and deadly on the handle of the shopping cart, nothing would seem to be amiss unless there was a giant pile of slime on it or something. In the same way, everybody living in my apartment complex could be wearing cameras and recording me, but I don't really get upset over it because the discussion ends there unless somebody actually tells me that I'm being recorded on a daily basis. But with Glass, the problem is literally visible because people will be wearing them openly and everybody will know that there is a possibility of being recorded.

[Mech#4]

Maybe they could have a movable cap over the lens when it's not being used. Would also protect it from wear if people are wearing them everywhere.

[Arx]

And pedophiles actually film children, what's your point?

His point is that, within a 5-metre-radius circle, anyone needing wireless network access is far more likely to be making an emergency call than using their Google Glass to record video of children.

[alexandertnt]

Its also much more likely than something-to-do-with-Hitler, just in case we decide to go down that road too

[DJ]

It's still a ridiculous argument. A couple of clubs I've been to were purposefully built so they don't have cell signal (mostly by being underground). This is a place where an emergency situation is far more likely than out on the street, thanks crowding, smoke, booze and worse ventilation that the outdoors. Do you think the owners of these bars are murderers?

[alexandertnt]

When people enter a bar like this I can assume that they are aware their signal is going to be blocked (like entering an elevator)? I can assume that they have a landline (as they have no cell signal, they would need one) and that they are prepared to use the landline rather than a cell phone in an emergency? I also assume that people enter this building (and thus lose their signal) voluntarily.

It's a different situation, as opposed to trying to call for help in the middle of the CBD, and having no signal because some my-morals-matter-more-than-you guy next to you is concerned about having their morals violated.

But lets assume for a second that none of this is true and that they are the same thing...

Just because "they" do it, does NOT justify you doing it.

If it were found that involuntary phone jamming had contributed to someones death (which we already have established is a real possibility), and you were the one with the jammer, you should be charged for manslaughter. And you probably would be under current law.


EDIT: Wait, 5m jamming range? What exactly do you intend to do if someone starts livestreaming you from 6 meters away? Chase them?

[DJ]

But you have still to establish how there's an appreciable chance of a moving short range jammer (anything with a lot of power would drain batteries too fast) could lead to a death.

[Pnx]

You don't actually know how radio jamming works do you?

EDIT: The thing about radio jamming is that you jam the receiver not the sender. So while you can jam someone's cell phone and stop them from receiving data (which will disrupt them from having conversations with people and possibly screw with their net code), in order to really stop someone from streaming video of you, you'd have to jam the cell phone tower or wifi network or whatever it is they're sending the data to.

Also this club you're talking about probably doesn't intentionally block cell phone signals, it's probably an unintended side effect of going into a basement and blocking your line of sight signals to the towers.
In fact in order to prevent people losing signal you'd have to set up a special cell phone routing system, which generally involves setting up a deal with a cell phone company and that get kind of messy and expensive.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Nobody reads. I'll just put this here again in case anybody cares.

1: Glass has a light and HUD that shows you're recording. Except when everyone downloads the inevitable app to stop that behavior.

2: In the US, generally videorecording is legal. And in 3/4 of the states secret audiorecording is legal.

And this is specifically aimed at BurnedToast because he said it a million times without acknowledging other people's refutations:

3: Yes there are already mini cameras and I don't know you're recording me with them. But Glass is in my face. Glass is you telling me you're recording me and I can't do anything about it. Spy cameras are not the same thing.

4: A cell phone pointing its camera at me is pretty damn obvious. Most people using their phone cradle it in their hands and/or lap unless taking photos. Cell phone cameras are not the same thing.

5: You don't need to be pointing your camera directly at someone to catch them in your video FOV. A recording Glass wouldn't necessarily be obvious because of head positioning.

EDIT: Also as usual XKCD has a great idea.
EDIT2: After rereading it says "eyepiece" which suggests the laser blinds the Glass user. Which is shitty. I'd have it target the camera to neutralize it instead, which is the whole point.

[tahujdt]

As far as breakability goes, the Glass is actually pretty sturdy. The "screen" is really a plastic prism refracting the image from inside the housing, the frame is sturdy plastic and some strange extraterrestrial metal-plastic alloy, and the important bits are actually in the arms(things that go over the ear).