“Not a fan of Google Glass’s ability to turn ordinary humans into invisibly recording surveillance cyborgs? Now you can create your own ‘glasshole-free zone,'” Andy Greenberg reports for Wired. “Berlin artist Julian Oliver has written a simple program called Glasshole.sh that detects any Glass device attempting to connect to a Wi-Fi network based on a unique character string that he says he’s found in the MAC addresses of Google’s augmented reality headsets”
“Install Oliver’s program on a Raspberry Pi or Beaglebone mini-computer and plug it into a USB network antenna, and the gadget becomes a Google Glass detector, sniffing the local network for signs of Glass users,” Greenberg reports. “When it detects Glass, it uses the program Aircrack-NG to impersonate the network and send a ‘deauthorization’ command, cutting the headset’s Wi-Fi connection. It can also emit a beep to signal the Glass-wearer’s presence to anyone nearby.”
“‘To say ‘I don’t want to be filmed’ at a restaurant, at a party, or playing with your kids is perfectly OK. But how do you do that when you don’t even know if a device is recording?’ Oliver tells WIRED. “This steps up the game. It’s taking a jammer-like approach,'” Greenberg reports. “Oliver came up with the program after hearing that a fellow artist friend was disturbed by guests who showed up to his art exhibit wearing Glass. The device, after all, offered no way for the artist to know if the Glass-wearing visitors were photographing, recording, or even live-streaming his work.”
“Oliver warns, though, that the same Glass-ejecting technique could be used more aggressively: He plans to create another version of Glasshole.sh in the near future that’s designed to be a kind of roving Glass-disconnector, capable of knocking Glass off any network or even severing its link to the user’s phone,” Greenberg reports. “‘That moves it from a territorial statement to ‘you can all go to hell.’ It’s a very different position, politically,’ he says. For that version, Oliver says he plans to warn users that the program may be more legally ill-advised, and is only to be used ‘in extreme circumstances.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Mmm, roving Glass-disconnector. Luckily for us, our ability to construe “extreme circumstances” is highly malleable. We’ll take 20 units, minimum, please.
Related articles:
Harvard prof on Google Glass: ‘We shouldn’t accept these devices as inevitable’ – May 19, 2014
CNBC’s Najarian: I had Google Glass for two weeks, but sent it back because ‘the product stunk’ – May 2, 2014
Warning: Glassholes to storm cities and towns across America this Saturday – May 2, 2014
My awkward week with Google Glass – April 30, 2014
Through a Google Glass, darkly; surveillance of, by, and for the people – April 18, 2014
Spyware app can secretly take photos from Google Glass without user’s knowledge – March 26, 2014
Google Glass-wearing woman claims attack at San Francisco bar – February 26, 2014
Scoble: Google Glass is doomed – January 2, 2014
One year wearing Google Glass: ‘Look at that asshole’ – December 31, 2013
Why an Apple iWatch has better chances than Google Glass – November 6, 2013
Apple’s Siri lambastes Google Glass – August 26, 2013
Google Glass ban list grows; top 10 places banning Google Glass – August 7, 2013
heh. ingenious.
Don’t expect this to last too long. Goog will either buy this out, or sic their lawyers on this.
Not to mention the FCC.
No they won’t. They’ll just patch glass so the hack doesn’t work. But in the meantime, I hope this fscks every glass wearing dickhead in existence.
FCC doesn’t apply in Germany.
1. Does it make “a” beep, or make the Google Glass beep?
2. Blocking a Glass off of a network won’t stop it from taking photos/video.
3. Google Glass people are not exactly invisible, at least not yet.
4. Cool. 😉
If you are using a hotspot from your phone nobody can prevent you from doing it.
Actually, yes they can. I manage a VERY large wireless infrastructure and do this all the time. I have my wireless hardware set to scan the RF spectrum for any non-approved wireless devices. If it “sees” a rogue hotspot, it impersonates the hotspot to the client (telling the client it needs to disconnect) and impersonates the client to the hotspot (telling the hotspot that it’s being disconnected). People are completely unable to use hotspots in our facilities. It doesn’t jam the cell service (that’s illegal), but doing this in unlicensed spectrum is completely legal. Works like a charm.
Google will play this cat and mouse deal with anybody. its jus a matter of time before a politician gets involvd(thats all we need). Then Lawyers, courts, etc. MAN, gud to be an corporate/patent lawyer, no?
This sounds fabulous! But just in case I don’t have my iPhone handy, I can always give him some good ol’ fashioned South Bronx fist. It’s what we call keepin’ it real.
First this sounds illegal. Secondly it sounds like it could quite dangerous. Today its google glass, tomorrow Android devices or iOS devices. Thirdly it is quite stupid and ineffective. It doesn’t accomplish anything.
If it doesn’t accomplish anything how can it be quite dangerous?
When i said “it doesn’t accomplish anything” I meant that it does not accomplish its stated goal. It is a attempt to prevent people from using Glass. Not having internet or wifi doesn’t disable Glass or prevent voice and video recording.
How can it be dangerous? see my comments below.
I’m not sure how many features on Glass actually even work without the internet connection. On the iPhone, Siri only works with a connection, so I’d be surprised if voice recognition in Glass can work without the internet. There are very few functions that can be executed on Glass without voice recognition. Perhaps photo/video recording is one of them, but not much beyond that. If that is the case, then Glass is no worse than any ordinary digital camera or cellphone. It is certainly no less conspicuous than either.
Dangerous? How, exactly?
Something that risks personal harm is ‘dangerous’, this hardly fits that category.
There’s always one whiny little brat…
According to dictionary.com ‘something “dangerous” is full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.’
This is not limited to just the physical
I said this is dangerous/risky becauseIf someone has the ability to selectively block/target specific devices from their network they could take advantage and abuse such ability. They could set up a network that allows Android users to use the network for free and charge iOS users for the same service.
Being able to target specific devices in this matter sound likes it could easily be abused to throttle specific devices, or cause other adverse affects to groups of devices. Doesn’t that go against net neutrality?
Some GlassHole was stealing an artist’s property, his creation.
He has the right to lock the door to stop the theft of his creations.
Surely he has the right to ban cameras at his exhibitions.
Obviously he has the right to shut down GlassHoles.
What this person did is something along the lines of what has been done since the early days of WiFi: controlling who can and cannot connect to a WiFi network. Nothing revolutionary or sinister in this little piece of code. Not to mention that it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality (which refers to he restrictions on commercial internet service providers regarding throttling of traffic or other special treatment). WiFi operates on unlicensed frequency spectrum and is as such NOT regulated, so you can to anything you want. That is why there are no internet providers that sell their service via WiFi networks. It would be impossible to guarantee quality of service on such network.
No, it’s not illegal at all (at least, not in the US). 802.11a/b/g/n/ac operates in unlicensed spectrum. Anyone can use it for anything as long as max power levels aren’t exceeded. I similarly manage my enterprise wireless network – I ‘block’ all rogue hotspots (any unauthorized hotspots are rogues) by flooding them with de-auth packets. Works like a charm – no one can use their hotspots in our facilities.
I’m suspecting this will be challenged in court, but I suspect a distinction will be made between a private and public WiFi network. Private networks will probably need to post a disclaimer sign where it can clearly be seen, warning users that ‘unauthorized access to our networks can be disconnected at any time’.
Unlicensed spectrum is NOT regulated in the US. There is no law preventing anyone from doing this. Legal challenge in court will fail, as there is no precedent, and no regulation prohibiting this.
I have been seeing these MDN articles about “glassholes”, as well as MDN users piling on disparaging comments about them, but I can’t help but think that this resentment has very little to do with the actual product, and is all about Google.
As a product, glass would have likely been hailed as the next big revolution, had it been released by Apple. For sure, it would have been slightly different in execution (classier, more intuitive, etc), but everyone here would have loved it. Functionally, glass is an über-cool product and it just east us up that it was done by Google.
At least we aren’t the only ones hating on it; there is a lot of press out there concerned with privacy issues and the glass. I’m not sure, though, how fair those are; it is not like those ‘glassholes’ are invisible. Everyone recognises Google Glass as soon as they see them, which is then practically the same as seeing someone with an iPhone taking video / pictures.
Only available for “Raspberry Pi or Beaglebone mini-computer”?
some guy is already using google glass for his adult website. search “czechspy” to see what I mean
Here is my Google Glasses defense approach:
Do you really look like such an asshole all the time or does those Google Glasses do the trick?
YES
Ordering a few and a custom made semi permanent sticker that I can slap on the Glasshole forehead. That says “GLASSHOLE HERE”
I wonder if the program could send the glasshole a zap. That wouldn’t be very pleasant now, would it: zap, zap.
We know the things can generate a lot of heat, enough to be painful. Theoretically, if there was a way to initiate a race condition on Google Glass…
I’ll just use my Louisville Slugger.
Unhappily, the page with the detection script is stalling at this time:
http://julianoliver.com/output/log_2014-05-30_20-52
Hmm.
It’s a start – though as others have said I’d like more – like the glass being ‘frozen’ so it can not record microphone or photo at all… But if I ever see anyone wearing one near me I’ll just ask them to take it off.
And here’s then there’s someone using the glass ‘responsibly’ – in a crowd no less!
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/7911916/events/2933858
I wonder what will happen when the Glassholes meet some of the penis challenged guys toting the automatic rifles in a Target store?
Sounds like a old B-movie.
I am just waiting to see a Glasshole meet an open carry lunatic at Target.
May solve two problems at once!
Sounds like the makings of a good B-movie script.
Nothing new here. I’ve been doing this same thing w/ rogue hotspots since 2008. I manage a VERY large wireless infrastructure and do this all the time. I have my wireless hardware set to scan the RF spectrum for any non-approved wireless devices. If it “sees” a rogue hotspot, it impersonates the hotspot to the client (telling the client it needs to disconnect) and impersonates the client to the hotspot (telling the hotspot that it’s being disconnected). People are completely unable to use hotspots in our facilities. It doesn’t jam the cell service (that’s illegal), but doing this in unlicensed spectrum is completely legal. Works like a charm.