This just in: Yesterday, more people not wearing Glass were punched than people wearing Glass, despite media reports that Glass reportedly makes people want to punch you.
I have Glass and one reason I don't wear it outside is discomfort from having strangers point or ask to try them on. I haven't encountered any threats so far (thankfully), but I try my best to be polite. I hoped the novelty would have worn out by now but it hasn't. I regret the purchase :(
That's just rude. Whatever happened to common decency? I would never walk up to someone and ask if I could try out their new iPhone or drive their interesting car.
Anybody could be recording you with a camera in their hat or on their lapel or a microphone embedded in their clothes that you would never see, but you're worried about someone wearing incredibly obvious glasses.
Sure. But that kind of ignores human nature, no? If I see a person with a gun I'm going to be watching them, irrespective of the fact that anyone around me could have a concealed firearm on them.
Yeah it's a bit different because to use a gun you have to reveal the fact that you have a gun (whether through pulling the gun out of your pocket or by firing the gun, making a noise). Using a recording device is 100% passive.
If the question is "who should I hate more, people that I know could be recording me or people that could be recording me without me knowing", the answer is neither. In public, always assume you're being watched, always assume you're being recorded. In the US and the UK, you have no expectation of privacy in public places. I could be holding the world's largest and most obvious camera recording you walking down the street and you couldn't legally do anything about it. Just because that camera is pointing at you doesn't mean it's recording, either.
So why is Glass so different? The answer: because the real Glassholes want something to bitch about, and it's easy to hate on people who are different from you.
Yes, but anyone with a camera in their hat or a microphone in their clothes would be labeled creepy real quick. (Which is the point.) It's not like people who hate Glass are fine with spy cams.
And the irony about "live and let live" is that Glass is recording other people. Nobody cares about what people do to themselves.
I think the parent's point is that the technology to secretly record people already exists, but people treat Glass as if it's the sole means by which to do such thing. And even when they do recognize other forms of secret recordings, they give them a pass while simultaneously condemning Glass. There's a huge double standard.
Case in point: Remember that Seattle restaurant that famously argued (via Facebook) with a diner it ejected for wearing Glass? That same restaurant had numerous photos of random customers posted to its Facebook page, many of which were taken without the subjects' knowledge, let alone permission.
Anyone recording me with a camera in their hat or on their lapel or a microphone embedded in their clothes would be treated in roughly the same manner as someone recording me using Glass.
Just because the act of wearing the recording device is in plain-sight doesn't make it anymore acceptable to people who find it objectionable.
With a truly hidden camera, you would never know. So you're freaking out over someone who might be able to record you, ignoring the fact that everyone could be recording you without you knowing it.
Either you're wilfully ignoring the point I'm making, or you've missed it completely.
I get that I might never know if or when I'm being monitored by some device, but that in no way justifies explicitly recording someone without their permission.
I get the point you're making. But if you're in a public place in the US or UK, you have given your consent to be recorded. The difference between Glass and smaller, less conspicuous recording devices is that with Glass at least you know there's the possibility of being recorded by that person (same way with cell phones). If someone really wanted to record you without your permission, there are cheaper and sneakier ways to do it. Also, it's not that hard to pull out a phone and pretend to text while actually recording video. No one would ever know.
So the idea that people wearing Glass are assholes is a ridiculous notion because there are already numerous ways to record someone without explicit approval, you already have the right to record anyone in a public place even without explicit permission, and it's already possible (and already happens) with existing smartphones. So if you're getting mad at Glass wearers for something that people are already doing, you're the asshole. The only difference between Glass and other technology is that Glass is newer and less common. That's it.
The photography of an individual can constitute harassment even in a public place - there is no implied consent involved. Even if it were, as you implied, perfectly legal in all cases then this in no way makes the act ethical. This is especially true when concerning a new technology which makes it trivially easy to perform. I'd expect if Glass, or some descendant of it, becomes more ubiquitous, then social guideline and laws would eventually prohibit it's use in certain situations. Would you, for example, be happy with someone recording you in a public restroom?
You're also repeatedly missing the argument I've already made twice in this thread with your second paragraph,
Filming someone is rude. What are you going to do about it? Ban smartphones? It's trivially easy to pretend to use your phone while secretly recording. Ban DSLRs? I could pretend to be taking static pictures while actually running a video. Ban video cameras? They might look like they're idle, but maybe they're recording with the "recording" light turned off. Ban surveillance cameras? Hell, anyone can hang one of them on a building, and who knows where the video will end up?
I'm not missing the argument. You're just not making an argument worth refuting. "Oh no, someone has a device capable of recording me" so fucking what? Welcome to 1975, you can buy recording devices at a dollar store. No one looks twice when there's a CCTV camera or a smartphone out in public.
You hate Glass because it's unusual, not because it's capable of recording you.
Here's the difference: A camera in a hat is designed to record people without their knowledge. Glass is designed to do other things, and, in fact, is terrible at recording people without their knowledge, because everyone knows it's a camera. It even has an indicator light to show when it's recording. It just happens to be possible to record people without their knowledge with it.
If anybody actually wanted to record people without their knowledge, Glass would be a terrible tool to choose, and many times more expensive than the alternatives, too. It's just not worth being that worried about.
I really don't think Google should be rolling out Glass more broadly, given the state it's currently in. The software's just not ready. They had a bad release in April which removed video calling, Bluetooth keyboard support, and the ability to navigate Android apps with the touchpad, and introduced frequent kernel panics. They've cut down on the crashing a little bit since then, but still not fixed it entirely, but none of the missing features have come back. Add that to the dismal battery life, general bugginess and lack of features, and absence of developer support, and they really have no business rolling it out in new markets; the only value to them is collecting bug reports, and they've got way more than they can handle.
25 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 68.2 ms ] threadThat's just rude. Whatever happened to common decency? I would never walk up to someone and ask if I could try out their new iPhone or drive their interesting car.
You're the glasshole. Live and let live.
(and no, I am not trying to equate the two)
If the question is "who should I hate more, people that I know could be recording me or people that could be recording me without me knowing", the answer is neither. In public, always assume you're being watched, always assume you're being recorded. In the US and the UK, you have no expectation of privacy in public places. I could be holding the world's largest and most obvious camera recording you walking down the street and you couldn't legally do anything about it. Just because that camera is pointing at you doesn't mean it's recording, either.
So why is Glass so different? The answer: because the real Glassholes want something to bitch about, and it's easy to hate on people who are different from you.
And the irony about "live and let live" is that Glass is recording other people. Nobody cares about what people do to themselves.
Case in point: Remember that Seattle restaurant that famously argued (via Facebook) with a diner it ejected for wearing Glass? That same restaurant had numerous photos of random customers posted to its Facebook page, many of which were taken without the subjects' knowledge, let alone permission.
Holding your cellphone at a 90° angle while facing people, especially for longer periods of time, will not make you any friends either.
Just because the act of wearing the recording device is in plain-sight doesn't make it anymore acceptable to people who find it objectionable.
I get that I might never know if or when I'm being monitored by some device, but that in no way justifies explicitly recording someone without their permission.
So the idea that people wearing Glass are assholes is a ridiculous notion because there are already numerous ways to record someone without explicit approval, you already have the right to record anyone in a public place even without explicit permission, and it's already possible (and already happens) with existing smartphones. So if you're getting mad at Glass wearers for something that people are already doing, you're the asshole. The only difference between Glass and other technology is that Glass is newer and less common. That's it.
You're also repeatedly missing the argument I've already made twice in this thread with your second paragraph,
I'm not missing the argument. You're just not making an argument worth refuting. "Oh no, someone has a device capable of recording me" so fucking what? Welcome to 1975, you can buy recording devices at a dollar store. No one looks twice when there's a CCTV camera or a smartphone out in public.
You hate Glass because it's unusual, not because it's capable of recording you.
If anybody actually wanted to record people without their knowledge, Glass would be a terrible tool to choose, and many times more expensive than the alternatives, too. It's just not worth being that worried about.
Just interested to know if this is still the same $1.5k explorer dev kit that was in the US, or a consumer priced version.
Edit: a friend in the UK says its £1,000 - so still the crappy priced dev kit.