“Google Glass isn’t even for sale yet, but it’s already facing backlash,” Steve Henn reports for NPR.
“There have been articles in the Atlantic and Wired mocking techies who have a pair, and even Saturday Night Live got in on the jabbing at the technology,” Henn reports. “The New York Times ran a front-page story about Google Glass and privacy, and the gadget has been banned from a bar in Seattle and casinos in Las Vegas.”
Henn reports, “But for the earnest Googlers who helped create Glass, and the enthusiastic techies who already have their hands on a pair, all this hate can be a little bewildering… Right now, Goggle Glass might be the world’s worst spy camera; if you go out in public with one on, you are guaranteed to attract attention. Still, the idea of techies mounting a tiny screen and a little camera to their faces makes millions of people uncomfortable. According to Sarah Rotman Epps, a tech analyst at Forrester Research, that is why Google is rolling out Glass to the world slowly in stages. ‘Google has been incredibly transparent… with their Glass rollout,’ Epps says. ‘They realize that Google Glass will require shifting social norms to be accepted.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Google Glass. Inspired by Eric T. Mole’s data collection needs during Apple Board meetings.
Related articles:
Google Glass meets serious resistance – May 7, 2013
Eric Schmidt: Regulate civilian drones but not Google Glass – April 15, 2013
Google Glass: Orwellian surveillance with fluffier branding? – March 20, 2013
If Apple had unveiled Google Glasses… – February 25, 2013
Why Apple is working on ‘iWatch,’ not ‘iGlasses’ – February 11, 2013
Glenn Beck: Be wary of Google, they way they think is creepy (with video) – February 17, 2011
Google CEO Schmidt: If you don’t like being in Google Street View then ‘just move’ – October 28, 2010
Consumer Watchdog ads mock Google CEO Eric Schmidt (with video) – September 2, 2010
Google CEO Schmidt: Change your name to escape ‘cyber past’ – August 18, 2010
Wired: Google, CIA Invest in ‘future’ of Web monitoring – July 29, 2010
37 states join probe into Google’s questionable Wi-Fi data collection – July 22, 2010
Google Street View Wi-Fi data included passwords and email – June 18, 2010
Glassholes!
Exactly, “shifting social norms” to create a whole new class of geeky public invasive asshole. You wear those you might as well say out loud “I hate humanity, I am contemptuous of other humans.”
Well, there certainly is the air of ‘TECHNOCRAT’ on the person wearing them, which rhymes with ‘ELITIST’ 😉 which all feeds into growing the separation between people, the removal of actual person to person contact. IOW: Rudeness becomes a cultural norm, which I don’t find enticing at all. Therefore, Google can keep their glass.
But the prospect of everyone becoming part of someone else’s REALITY INTERNET SHOW is profoundly disturbing. All the world become’s one’s circus. No one gets paid. No one gives permission. That’s not acceptable. It gives everyone the incentive to bring a small, low velocity PAINT GUN with them when they roam the streets of some glass-hole’s circus. Ready, aim, fire. Show over.
But I’d rather we all just be nice, walk up to the glass-holes and politely request that the remove their Google Glass. Bring your friends! The larger the MOB of disapprovers, the merrier.
“They realize that Google Glass will require shifting social norms to be accepted.’”
Translation: fsck privacy.
People are apparently unwilling to tolerate the loss of their privacy. Soon, I hope, people will feel as intolerate to the loss of their freedoms.
People are apparently unwilling to tolerate the loss of their privacy.
If that were the case how would one explain Facebook’s success?
because they were misinformed (or ignorantly chose to by pass the fine print) on what privacy they were losing – 85% falsify about who they are anyways – we now teach our kids to hide in this manner when exposed to the internet – privacy is open for the public – chose your reality; this world is practically virtual now – stock markets all FUD – world will end by next year – whatever
FUD is an extremely old method of propaganda. It’s just that FUD has become a very public and pervasive tool of manipulating our current era of sheeple.
Equally, the ‘world will end by next year’ is ancient. Every year a new ‘messiah’. Every year a new ‘end of the world is coming’. Neither prove to be true. Someone has been attempting (and often succeeding) in manipulating us yet-again. I personally don’t comprehend the point. Then again, I’m not a psychopath.
Fb is only as invasive of personal privacy as users allow it to be. Post up every little detail of your day-to-day life, make available all of your personal history in your profile, of course it’s invasive.
Keep your Profile details to the minimum, like I do, and only post up status info that friends will find interesting, without letting on where you live, and your house is going to be empty for the next fortnight, for example, and there’s no privacy invasion.
Simple things that all too many people seem incapable of grasping, then snivel about privacy invasion…
I do everything you do (minimal profile, no broadcasting when house will be empty, etc), but you missed two things:
1) people who DON’T have FB accounts, but friends and others can still post pictures with them in it, and sometimes tagging them without the person knowing (you can tag someone without actually linking to a FB profile).
You can ask people you know to not do that, but at the end of the day you have no idea if your request is honoured, and no control over it, if you don’t also have a token FB account to monitor it.
2) if you have a FB account, then unless you use a completely different browser for FB than your regular browsing, a network of cookies means that FB can track your browsing habits even if you’re not logged in. Private Browsing mode in Safari isn’t any protection from this–it only prevents others on your computer finding out where you’ve been, by dumping the history and cookies after you exit Private Browswing. But while you’re in the Private session, cookies are still being stored and read–they have to be, in order for websites to know if you’re currently logged in or not.
Some people willfully use Facebook, other people are more circumspect.
Nice to see someone other than Apple served up a dish of pre-product negativity from the press for a change.
This one deserves the negative attention. If Google wants to shift the norm, remove the camera and make it one of consumption only. Then again, they wanted the camera and need that data. So, returning to privacy issues made by Google.
G.Glass is a privacy is the opposite from existing privacy:
• if I, stupidly, put too much data on G+ or FaceBook then it is MY privacy that is invaded.
• with G.Glass it is the OTHER person’s privacy that is invaded.
Palpable HIT to the groin! Excellent point.
Would Robert Scoble’s wife have been so happy if he had his G.Glasses on while SHE was in the shower?
Funny how a privacy snooping company who copies other companies products for a living creates a product that blatantly enables the individuals to record others business.
THE MOLE: HA ha – perfect my plan is working Andy.
ANDY: Oh how cute you look Sir when your laughter is filled with evilness that is going oh so your way Sir.
THE MOLE: With glass, i will control all information, these dense tech nerds take hold of any device so willingly. Quick, prepare the anal-apple-probes, part five of my masterful plan.
ANDY: Ah you mean the anti-matter pods that i have connected to my little fella down below?
THE MOLE: No no no you idiot, keep that damn thing in your pant pockets, no one needs to know about your kinky desires Rubbin.
The analysts you fool, the apple anal-ists, I want them all waring our google goggles and interview Tom Crook. The anti-matter-probes will influence positive reviews and start a social renaissance pointing in my favour.
ANDY: Very good Sir, oh yes, happy to do that my master, oh boy Tom is gonna get cooked now… hee hee! Love it love it Sir. You are the best.
THE MOLE: Do it in stages my pet… we don’t need suspicious minds tracing back to me now. And see if Suckermen of that social network FartNook is interested in starting his line of phones while you are at it.
ANDY: In deed Sir, Clark Suckerman, was very interested Sir. In fact, I have him scheduled to come by the office this week. He said he was interested in grabbing Weasel for a Million for some map service. Its all a plot to put pressure on Apple he said.
THE MOLE: I see. Hmmm, this Suckerman could be dangerous. I have an idea, I have changed my mind, I insist you attach your anti-matter-pods to Suckermans genitalia and mind meld with him. Get all the information lickity-split. Do you hear me? Booooooo haa haa. I’m the greatest master jammer on the West coast… I even impress myself sometimes.
ANDY: In celebration of your genius, could I treat ya to a donut and coffee Sir, from Tom Hurting? Or shall I say Apple is gonna get an eye sore. Lol Sir I made a funny.
THE MOLE: Shut up you buffoon, I am the Joker here and the BadMan, Tee hee… now get to work.
WHOA HO! Another great point! Thank you Mike. Damn you can be surprising!
This thread is FULL of excellent insight! I’m not used to this! Is there a full moon or something?!
Why is this reporter calling this device ‘a pair’ ? When you talk about glasses, there are definitely a pair of lenses. Here there’s only one lens (although it’s not really even a lens but a transparent screen). Better to call it a unit or some other singular idea.
Aside from that point, keep the thing away from me, though.
Hmm, I have to wonder how wearing one of those awkward things on my face would affect other’s behavior towards me. Certainly lots of folks would be guarded, considering their sense of “just between the two of us” interaction is being monitored by the cyber device astride my head.
I know I would not want to interact in any but the most formal way with someone wearing a google glass type device.
Additionally, I have to wonder just what sort of data Google is capable and planning to mine with these things?
The Segway of personal tech.
Simply ask anyone wearing the stupid thing to take it off while you are speaking to them. If they do not want to comply with your wishes (and honestly anyone with a wearable computer is NOT going to want to take it off. And can you blame them?) just walk away.
If no one will interact with a person wearing Google Glass, eventually they wont leave their Mom’s basement anymore.
Win Win!
To end Google’s Glass, just mandate for a 5 years that Google must provide all its employees with an active Glass unit at all times during working hour and voluntary after hours. Then allow this data to be accessed by anyone or entity without modification. If no privacy arise then society would modify natural to the tech and the mandate removed.
See how Googles view of privacy would define itself then.
Carry a pair of mirrored sunglasses, and put them on if confronted by a Glasshole.
Excellent comment – made my day thx.
Or how about a Captain Picard BORG laser embedded into your head (that part is optional) that you can point at someone’s Google Glass camera and BLOW OUT ITS CIRCUITRY. It won’t be too good for the Glass wearer’s right eye either. Kind of blinding I’d think.
This option is probably far more affordable and practical than that boring old expensive option of a portable EMP (electromagnetic pulse) device. Then again, EMPs are far more anonymous, which seems appropriate in this case. 😉
Oh but, then again, today’s EMP devices are far too bulky. So sign me up for a BORG laser implant!
Maxwell’s Silver Hammer comes to mind…
The issue I take with Glass is that someone else’s being nonchalant with their privacy shouldn’t cause my privacy to be invaded. At least holding a phone up to take a pic makes those around you aware of what’s happening.
Agreed; and that’s my problem with people using Gmail: the subscriber agreed that his or her email could be searched and indexed and used for marketing purposes, etc., but I didn’t. So I don’t send real communications to Gmail addresses anymore; rather, I ask the person to send me a different email address to continue the conversation with.
“Loss of privacy is the price for progress”
Face it, if your connected, you’ve lost privacy anyways.
NOT the case. Annoying and complicated as it can be, one can control one’s privacy on the ‘connected’ Internet. I provide a few methods at my Mac-Security blog. Click on my avatar…
Privacy? What privacy? Google glass would be the least of my concern:
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/product/buttonscrew+camera+with+audio.do?sortby=bestSellers&from=fn
This is what’s entertaining me about everyone freaking out about G.Glass. I would notice someone wearing that goofy “I’m a dork” G.Glass. I wouldn’t know someone was wearing a button camera.
It’s also just as easy to turn on your iPhone 5’s video camera, or start a Facetime call, stick your iPhone in your shirt pocket so the lens is pointing out, and record everything that’s going on as you walk around. And that would be far less noticeable than G.Glass.
While that’s true the concern is what will happen with the data being captured. The individual using a spy cam doesn’t have the reach of Google.
At $230 a camera, the button camera is a bit expensive. But I get your point.
For me, this is an argument against ALL public surveillance for the purpose of personal collection without public benefit. I don’t care if it’s Google Glass or a robot monkey on your shoulder. It’s all abusive of another person’s inane right to privacy and makes all users of this tech into peeping Toms, aka pervert creeps.
At least Google Glass is clearly visible to anyone. So it’s one notch above pervert creepiness, but just one.
IOW: Privacy has always, and will always be an innate right. Abusers are users are losers. Not acceptable.
Then there are those public, government run public cameras. Can they be abused as well? Damn right! The UK London police have proved that by turning them OFF when they’re inconvenient to any publicly embarrassing pursuit they are following. In one case it was the illegal abuse of a Muslim they were following through the underground (aka subways).
On the other hand, these cameras were brilliant at identifying and tracking down the recent Boston Marathon bomber scum (whom I personally believe were for real, as opposed to being just another FUD crime of our corrupt US government). Therefore, it’s another balance of benefit versus detriment.
Typo Police! Please read: “It’s all abusive of another person’s INNATE right…”
It’s ME who’s ‘inane’ for bethering so much in this thread. Where’s my coffee?
Since it’s going on 5pm here, make mine a Cold Smoke Scotch Ale instead…
😆
Damn! I’ll pay if you can get me one!
It’s good to see that decent ale survives in the UK. I get shivers when I hear about and see Brits drinking Budweiser. Good lord, what has the mother country come to?! Real ale for me, thank you!
Input is a huge problem for Glass. Voice doesn’t work in public. Therefore, it’s really bad at texting and writing Emails. It’s really bad at surfing the web too because you have to call out keywords. It’s bad at video (video glasses have been around forever and failed in the market). I could go on. Perhaps the nail in the coffin is that Glass is something needed IN ADDITION to your smartphone on your persons. So now you need another gadget to carry to do things worse than before?
This might work for vertical markets but I am having trouble understanding how this will get any consumer adoption.
Somebody could create an aftermarket cover for Google Glass to demonstrate that it is NOT in use as a camera except when the the glass in uncovered.
I can see some serious trouble erupting here if people walk around with one of these. Try walking around and pointing a camera at people and see what reaction you get so to have someone being able to take a pic at any time without you knowing is going to create all sorts of hostility especially when a few drinks have been downed. Dirty old men will be at the front of the queue for these, so not sure how long the ‘cool’ image will last and the idea of turning everyone into voyeurs is my idea of the first step to science fiction hell.
Invasion of privacy is a big deal. Safety is also a big deal. Having someone driving a car with these on will be a disaster waiting to happen.
Video taping every where without anyone’s knowledge can also be a big deal.
Not acceptable to have always on filming in public. Complete invasion of privacy. Being out in in public is not the same to consenting to your life being put on the Internet by a stranger.
No I don’t want to ‘get used to ‘ pervert Borgs.
This horrible ‘invention’ isn’t just about privacy and related issues …
It’s also about culture and good taste.
I mean, if Steve was still with us, he’d be wearing his iconic and minimalist Lunor Classic Round Rimless Eyeglasses. And could you imagine him clamping the Google Hideousness onto his elegant spectacles? Er, no … he’d probably be bent over double in laughter, as are almost certainly all the folks at Apple.
Google Glass is going to be a huge fail. They would have been better off waiting to see what Apple turn up with and copying it, as usual.
And I’m sure Google will make billions if dollars just like with android.