The Google Glass feature no one is talking about
March 3, 2013
When everything is connected — a scene from a video about Watchdogs, a future Sony PS4 game (credit: Ubisoft)
“Google Glass might change your life, but not in the way you think. There’s something else Google Glass makes possible that no one — no one — has talked about yet, and so today I’m writing this blog post to describe it,” says Mark Hurst on Creative Good.
“It’s lifebits, the ability to record video of the people, places, and events around you, at all times. with a friend. How will anyone be sure they’re not being recorded, in public or private?
“Just think: if a million Google Glasses go out into the world and start storing audio and video of the world around them, the scope of Google search suddenly gets much, much bigger, and that search index will include you.”
Hurst goes on to speculate that the electronics will some day fit into a contact lens. “And that, of course, would be the ultimate expression of the Google Glass idea: a digital world that is even more difficult to turn off, once it’s implanted directly into the user’s body.
“At that point you’ll not even know who might be recording you. There will be no opting out.”
Comments (83)
by tbaiko
All users of GG who are not pervs will happily wear beany hats bearing flashing flags clearly stating “I AM STEALING YOUR LIFE! Stop me to discuss this and get my business card for compensation.”
I doubt that many users will make it more than a block or two sans passionate feedback.
by Bri
Sounds like the paparazzi.( Annoying flying insects.)
by Rich Price
Read “The Transparent Society” by David Brin 1998 ISBN 0-7382-0144-8
by Nullius
Brin’s thesis is that privacy supervenes on freedom. I would say that it is more the other way around – freedom supervenes on privacy. How can you be free if you can’t be private?
by Tony Stender
Well it just occurred to me that most folks have some therapy issues. Therapist depend on verbatim dialog to listen for beliefs which are limiting rather than enabling. Using these transcripts as a self teaching tool would be an incredible time saver because it would enable the client to goto an incident where he was experiencing an event where he realizes he is functioning below the level of his expectations, and then search for what the dialog was which before he experienced his bad feelings, which indicate the possibility of neurotic reaction instead of his optimum response possibility.
Talk therapy uses personal dialog to find the various times when we could be thinking and responding instead of simply reacting emotionally based on old inefficient decisions made in childhood and still used.
Most of these and normal behavior is unconscious in nature because we are experts at it and the behavior is automated, and very quick. These characteristics make the behavior unconscious, or pre-conscious. Slowing the behavior so it can be analyzed and possibly replaced with conscious thinking can improve a persons effectiveness with current thinking rather than old automated reactions.
Our world models are made up of beliefs. Updating them can improve life experiences. Many of them do not correspond to existence. All change begins with awareness.
The google glasses would be a boon for this situation.
by Karen Allen
Everything is recorded, already, in the Akashic records. This new technology is the equivalent of child’s play, mirroring the larger world of adults. Like playing house or doctor. As humanity evolves and grows towards the ultimate truths of reality, so our play becomes more evolved as well. It is only natural, and it is a fulfilling of our predetermined destiny.
by Leslie Seymourt
Steve Mann addressed this issue in details for over a decade: http://www.eyetap.org/papers/docs/acmmm2004sousveillance_p620-mann.pdf
by Nonya Carpenter
One of the big arguments for technology like this is “If you are not doing anything illegal what do you have to hide?” Legality does not stop people from uploading videos of crimes they commited on facebook. People in general are more afraid of social rejection than law enforcement. Take a look at reality tv. Live video broadcasts twenty-four hours a day turns every person with a device like this into areality tv star along with the social pressure to behave like one. A heavyset girl with this device would stand a high chance of being embarrassed to be caught eating on camera leading to a much higher risk of anorexia. A “geek” would have a good chance of being embarrassed to be seen studying resulting in lower grades and unfullfilled potential. The state of social media today is a disaster.
by mike crosby
Well said Nonya. Written by a woman who must have read lots of books as a child;-) I’m almost 60 and still learning it’s OK to be different.
by Cybernettr
If that’s the worst repercussion you can come up with for this technology, then you’re engaging in myopic thinking. How about when high definition cameras are the size of dust motes which can float in through your window screens and heating system and spy on you 24/7? Voyeurism at its finest!
by Nonya Carpenter
The more public a life the less room for growth and expansion of the individual. Publicity forces one to adhere more strictly to a social norm. To use a personal example: As a child I was a bookworm. I averaged ten books a week. My love of books was a source of ridicule and shame. As a child who wanted to be socially accepted I quickly learned to pretend interest in popular music and celebrity gossip while hiding my passion for science and reading. Now the pressure to report your every activity for peer review is being combined with technology that will lead to further peer pressure to prove the accuracy of your reported activity through a live video feed. Thiswill lead to generations of children being prevented from growth as individuals by.the forced pressure of adhering to the expectations of their peers full time rather thanrisking ridicule for voluntarily picking up a textbook or showing emotional weakness by crying on camera. This leads to a generation of emotionally stunted socialy brainwashed cookie cutter personalities coupled with an extreme paranoia of social rejection. With technology like this appearing at the same time popular media is glorifying shallow and unethical behavior, unrealistic body images, and intelligence as undesirable the damage to future generations could be insurmountable. The human psyche needs privacy to develop free of censure in order to build confidance and self esteem. The alternative is a world filled with jersey shore and kardashian clones with bad mouths, ged’s, and eating disorders.
by Cybernettr
“Thiswill lead to generations of children being prevented from growth as individuals by.the forced pressure “
Why do you think the technology will stay at a certain point for “generations?” Surely with the advancing pace of technology, the situation will get much worse (or much better) far more quickly than that.
by Crockett
I imagine Google could easily add a little pin needle light that turns on when the device is recording. Just something very faint that isn’t distracting, but makes it obvious video is being recorded if anyone looks at the Google Glass. Thanks to awareness like this article, I’m sure Google will have to add a small light like that. Of course this doesn’t mean someone could either hack the device, physically remove, or even just paint over the light..
by anthrobotic
Yep – jammers.
That’s where it’s at.
And a new industry is created:
Personal Electronic Surveillance Stopping Thingy (PESST)
“Worn around the neck like a pendant, PESST creates an invisible, harmless electromagnetic field around the user. The signal is weak enough to safely use one’s personal devices, yet it effectively disrupts, blocks, or de-focuses any kind of visual or auditory surveillance in the public sphere.”
Actually I have no idea what I’m talking about, but that sounds about right.
In realityland, a device that disrupts facial recognition software, whilst incurring great cost to one’s dignity (they’re goggles, basically), is being developed in Japan. Covered here: Japanese Technology from the Future Friday – http://goo.gl/hdyhu
-Reno at Anthrobotic.com
by DrDubious
Yes, 1984…
“…It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak — ‘child hero’ was the phrase generally used — had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police.
On coins, on stamps, on the covers of books, on banners, on posters, and on the wrappings of a cigarette Packet — everywhere. Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed — no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.”
by DrkarlssonIX
I think everybody should be recorded nearly all the time, I don’t see a
Clear issue with that other than one being shy. I’m big on civil rights, but I don’t understand exactly what privacy has to do with them. I definitly think this would cause people to behave more ethically. I have nothing to hide and I love getting to know other people, and I love being known so my oppinion is biased about being recorded. Also I grew up in Christian faith so im used to feeling like im being watched all the time.
by Editor
“Everybody should be recorded nearly all the time” was the basic premise of the novel/movie 1984 and socialist societies like the former Soviet Union. How would we avoid this scenario, assuming you would want to? I propose an experiment: install a webcam and record/broadcast everything you do 24×7 on Ustream, and let us know how it affects you.
by DrkarlssonIX
Ehh im pretty boring doubt many would want to watch it, but if it was24/7 then it could get kinda pornographic. I’ll do it though if you help me with rhe cameras and the ustream. and I don’t mean that we should be recorded in our homes or against our will. Idk I just think in certain ways it would be a good idea. I’ve been told a lot that people are this way or that way but we still don’t truly understand human nature,everybody being recorded and broadcasted to the world might enlighten us on who we really are. I think we would be pleasantly surprised, I hope. I don’t know of another way to get that clearer picture about human nature, and I think it’s an important picture to see clearly. How else can we know which social policys will work the best for us? Im don’t like labelling myself, but I’m sort of anarchist, everytime I suggest this to somebody they tell me im too idealistic that it would be chaos and people need to be policed and governed by others. Maybe they are right I justwant to find out, not through violating anyones choice though.
by Sea bass
Looks like big brother might beat google to the punch, as DARPA is working on a project to record everything you say
by Editor
Are you referring to the Total Information Awareness program? DARPA is no longer involved in that AFAIK. Components of it have been transferred to other agencies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Awareness_Office
by Sea bass
I stand corrected, and puts keyboard in mouth
by Editor
Sounds painful! Quick, press the Esc key! Or Ctrl-Z.
by Ralph Dratman
The question is not so much whether you are being recorded, but rather who is watching the recordings (human or machine or both), and with what motives. A daily recording of everything I saw might be useful to me, but I would allow that only if I have complete control over who can access it.
by Satan
Human beings don’t function properly without a certain level or privacy.
It’s not suspicious to want privacy – but it is suspicious to want to violate someones’ privacy.
by Gabriel
Thank you very much Gordon and Gaoptimize for your comments, I’m not sure why my post appeared in the middle for some reason.
Of course, as I said, there is another side to all this, and the full story hasn’t been written yet….as Gaopitmize said, and I said for that matter, people are going to have really no choice but to assume other people have them on as time goes on, and live like that…and I feel, for many many people, it’s going to make things very uncomfortable.
In general, it comes from a dislike of the social media world that we are increasingly living in, which puts alot of pressure on the people who simply don’t like it….I personally don’t own a Facebook, or have any interest right now to do so, though I defended such things in the past. I said before that I feel we are moving away from authoritarian governments with this tech, away from Big Brother scenarios…but could one argue that, in a sense, we the people are making one ourselves? One where everyone and everything is outsourced to the Internet for all to see, and we have to live like that? Is that really the world we want to live in?
I suppose what I’m talking about is Privacy and civil rights now…for all the good that could come from tech like this, as I’ve tried to explain before, it still raises alot of questions for people in the first world anyway….I mean, take the image at the top of the page for instance…would you really want that to be you? That some random stranger could look up your personal information just like that, summarily? I personally don’t have a Facebook or any kind of social media account….but if the information aggregated comes from, say, Google….then a random stranger could probably easily create a pretty good profile of me from all the information I’ve searched, things I’ve looked at etc…and now this perfect stranger essentially “knows” me, and could even judge me….this person I’ve never even met!
Now, someone could say that I’m being ridiculous; that our world is inherently a social media world, the Internet is one giant social network, that anybody could look up information like that at any time and so on…while all of this essentially true, their is a practicality to this that merits the things I’m saying. I no longer have to take time to find out everything I ‘need’ to know about someone – Google automatically does the research for me and brings it up the moment I spot the person.
I’ve gone into some of the reasons why AR glasses and the increasing social-networking world we live in is, more then not, a good thing….so what does that say for the rest? the downsides? That they are things simply to rationalize away? “necessary evils”? Perhaps they ARE, in fact…but even so, I feel it takes time to really reflect and sink in just what we are saying, and what kind of world we are moving toward….I’m not trying to say, nor ever was, that we’re heading toward a perfect world, nor ever really did even with further ideas on the future….but the point is, for all the excitement, we need to dig deeper past face-value to really understand in our minds just where we are headed.
One thing that I often hear lamented, especially by people older then me, is that America has become a land of overreactors….gone are the days where a kid can be free to go out on his own and play, and be trusted to come home for supper safe and sound….we live in a day of “helicopter moms”, where kids could have all sorts of tracking devices on them, where elementary school kids even have cellphones for goodness sake (though I imagine that’s mostly just a generational thing, since I got my first cellphone very late compared to my peers)….
AR glasses, I fear, will only exacerbate this environment…..this fearful environment where everyone needs to outsource essentially everything they do – where they must record everyone and everything they do…..where Trust will only be further and further diminish because it’s been rendered obsolete – I have to know where and what my kids are doing at all times, I have to know who this person is to know if they are “worthy” of me (Oh, he looked up this-and-that on Google? So not interested!), I have to have my collection of internet acquaintances whom I never actually meet because I trust them vastly more then I trust the people around me.
Silly? Arbitrary? Ridiculous? Perhaps….but it’s something worth thinking about, I feel; I feel we already live in a time, increasingly, where if you aren’t in the forefront…if you don’t have a dozen social media accounts and aren’t outsourcing everything and so on…you’re a nobody, you’re an alien…as times go by, maybe even a stupid conservative Luddite. I’m not sure any of those labels really deserve merit….I’ve personally made a big defense of Facebook on this website, despite not having one, nor do I think you deserve to be called a Luddite simply because you aren’t crazy for the “always on, everything online” direction we’re moving toward. Maybe I’m not as happy as I could be, but that’s for me to decide….It all makes me think to Kurzweil’s 2099 chapter in “Spiritual Machines”…..how Molly, circa 2099, is “ready to do anything and be anything you want or need” (at least to Kurzweil 1999′s eyes)…..and yet she loves the idea of genuinely having 15 minutes of privacy. For all her power and capability, she lacks a simplicity and freedom (ironically) that simply will never happen for her, because she always is watching over someone and the same for her.
Is that really what we want for ourselves? To live in a world where we are more empowered and capable, and in doing so, we rationalize away some of the simplest joys we could have? Bill Mckibbon said that we must ‘use these technological powers with great discretion. Past a certain point, we’re losing some ineffable quality that gives life meaning.’. Kurzweil responded that their is no reason to rationalize and celebrate our limitations…..and he’s right, but that still merits deeper thinking and reflection on just what world we are exactly building for ourselves….and if it’s actually what we’ve cracked it up to be.
I’m curious what others have to say on all this.
by René Milan
“a digital world that is even more difficult to turn off, once it’s implanted directly into the user’s body” – nonsense. The whole idea of implanted interfaces is to control them by thought. Turning on and off without using a ‘switch’. How is that more difficult ?
by SmartAndSober
RE How is that more difficult ?
People will become addicted to their implants. They want 24/7 access to the Net.
I think addiction to implants is good if it can channel “the g-factor” of humanity.
by MatthewQ
“People will become addicted to their implants.”
Yep. I know plenty of people who have literally never switched off their smartphones and feel extremely uncomfortable if the smartphone is even out of their grasp. I doubt most people would switch this off once it was turned on.
by René Milan
Then most people must like it, and what’s wrong with that ? Or they’re idiots and the problem does not lie with the technology but with their minds.
by Publius
Just think of the possibilities for amateur porn! Time to hit the gym.
by Mike
The amount of data collected this way is mind-boggling, but computers will handle it. So everyone will know where everyone is at all times, what they’re doing, with whom. Today, you can walk down a dark alley at night and worry because nobody is around to know if you encounter trouble. Tomorrow, when this technology is mature, everybody will know where you are, and will know as soon as you do that you’re in trouble. No need to call 911, help is on the way. Or maybe the trouble is averted, because everybody knows that everything is monitored.
by MatthewQ
A few things come to mind. Once (not if) many people have similar devices then a seamless mesh of real time reality will be created. We will then be at the mercy of the average user to properly encrypt and protect their data streams. And we know how this works so basically it won’t matter that there are security conscious users encrypting, there will always be enough bone-heads who make it easy for a malicious user to exploit. A skilled stalker could slide effortlessly from one individual feed to another.
Hurst mentions contact lenses which everyone following this issue has thought about years ago. Eventually it will be taken past the point of contacts. This is going to happen. Since we can say it IS going to happen, it has ALREADY happened in a sliding time reference sense. We just haven’t caught up to the moment yet. Since it has already happened, this IS the human condition. We are now in an embryonic or foetal stage.
Hurst may as well get his head ’round this idea. I don’t see how you could stop it. Don’t see why you’d want to. The music and film industry as well as governments are going to be completely powerless against this. They would have to suppress technological research itself in every single country that was capable of it. Not going to happen.
Personally, I am with Davd Brin- it would be better that we lose some personal privacy but gain the ability to record every single moment of a politician or policeman’s activities and hold them accountable for ‘gaps in the feed’. As for stalkers, killers etc, some bright bulb will simply have to sit down and invent software that tracks those who are tracking you.
And you definitely wouldn’t want to commit a crime if there was anyone about. News coverage will be revolutionized. Big screen actors will be supplanted by skilled ‘live performers’- imagine what David Blaine could do in a world that was a constant flux of ‘real’ and ‘overlaid’.
by Mob Cat
You don’t have the right to not be recorded in public and in private you’ll ask them to take their device off or you can kick them out/walk away. Major indices probably won’t allow people to public gossip to a person’s glass account but I’m sure people will make their own, that already exists though and it’s called gossip.
by MatthewQ
At some point in the not too distant future, the device will be built right into your head and it will be assumed everyone is recording everything all the time.
by Khannea Suntzu
http://blog.khanneasuntzu.com/?p=4898
by Sherrie
‘religions have presented the omnipotent, all seing/knowing diety for as long as they have been around. Now humans might have that resource. to what end and who will be watching? Ultimately I suspect most of the activities will be repetitive and boring with even the most extreme inviting satiation in regular viewers.
The human experience is about connections with living, breathing creatures, even those who have biomodifications of one kind or another. We are life participants not merely observers.
by SmartAndSober
RE to what end and who will be watching?
There are alot of accidents that could have been prevented if someone watched. Now we have the tech that enable us to do that.
Who will/should be watching? Everyone who can watch (and react to what they watched) should do so.
by silentrage
Strictly philosophically speaking, if we all understand that everything we do or say may be on record, then we should act more “morally” all the time.
Only problem is, we have pretty fucked up standards for morality, and our moral authorities(government, religious organizations) are extremely corrupt.
by jc
The issues raised remind me of discussions in David Brin’s “Transparent Society”. I’m probably in the minority in thinking that information dissemination, including dissemination of the “being recorded in public” (with its “privacy violating” connotations) isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I think the good aspects (helping to keep power in check) will outweigh the bad aspects (peeping tom type stuff)
by Phil Osborn
First, there’s a glitch in the site software here. I posted a comment on this piece and when I tried to save, was informed that it appeared I had already made the comment. However, since it isn’t there, it appears that my memory of not posting is accurate.
My comment was to the effect that this feature, which I just assumed would be there, conflicts with law in at least one instance. To wit, the state of California has very strict rules against recording voice – altho not for video. For example in one case a manager at a business was accused of commiting a felony assault, of which the victim had a recording. Not only was the case thrown out because the recording violated an expectation of privacy which was assumed due to the ownership of the business, but also the victim was prosecuted for making the illlgal recording. One wonders about the future legal status of replacements for neural processors in the brain that might include enhanced recording capabilities.
by Bri
You gotta love the morality of our legal system.
by Jim H
That California law is clearly unconstitution and has been used by police to arrest people recording police brutality. Of course any time someone fights the charge they drop the charges so nobody has standing to get the law sticken from the books. It’s still a prior restraint on freedom of the press but the ALCU is nowhere to be found.
by Phil Osborn
I just assumed that that would be a standard feature of Google Glass. However, the legalities are tricky. Here in California there are idiotic draconian limits on recording voice, but, oddly enough, not video. Even recording someone committing a crime is illegal and will not only get a case thrown out of court if there was the expectation of privacy or if the recording was made in a business setting, but also will result in prosecution of the person recording the crime. It’s generally ok, BTW, for business management to record employees, as they own the business – or that’s the apparent legal logic of the law, but strictly verbotten – with serious penalties – for employees to record managers, even if the manager is in the process of committing a felony assault, an actual case under this law. The assault charges were thrown out as fruit of the tree and the victim was prosecuted.
That brings up another issue, however, which is when the hearing aid is itself partially implanted and the implant automatically records, or perhaps, a little further downstream, when the neural nets, the artificial pyramidal cell arrays, etc. also offer the capability of recording sound for later playback, in the same way perhaps as the natural auditory processing system does, but with greater capabilities. And what about those savants who do actually recall everything they hear? Should they be charged for invasion of privacy because they can precisely repeat a conversation?
by melajara
This is not a specific issue as current smartphones and future embedded devices (wearable computers) will have the means to record anybody without her/his permission.
Now, most of this (public) recording will be harmless if not completely boring. Of course, more potential damage can be inflicted from private records as already performed by the ironic feat of private security webcams hacked to expose the privacy of their owners to everybody over the internet including potential burglars, the “security” webcams actually helping them to map the location, potential valuable items and habits of the owners.
And so what? Countermeasures are always possible if really needed but I think that, progressively, a new ethos will emerge.
In the future, people will just not care anymore to be caught in the street, in their kitchen or even in their bedroom and after initial excitement in performing such voyeurism, the banalization will make the feat less and less exciting for the “voyeurs” to perform.
This will be true soon enough for nobodies but what about prominent people?
For them, we could imagine the usual set of countermeasures (e.g. sanitizing the place where they are living) but we also could imagine a set of decoys with so called (algorithmic) avatars feeding the curiosity of the fans or the voyeurs. In essence those “fans” will not know if what is made available over the internet is genuine and recorded out of a security hole or just fake records made on purpose.
More troublesome will be compulsive harassment from e.g. an evicted partner, husband, fired employee etc. Then, the legal sanctions on repeated privacy breach should be dissuasive enough to make those cases rare.
by Robert Oschler
Another William Gibson prediction (Neuromancer) comes to pass. Tru-Vu goggles for ubiquitous omnirecording of video. Pretty soon Neuromancer will be talked about the way 1984 and Brave New World are.
by David Slate
This subject is also explored in the interesting 2004 film “The Final Cut”, with Robin Williams in a serious acting role as a man whose job it is to edit, post mortem, the lifetime of video and audio recordings of someone equipped with a “Zoe implant” into a coherent (but distorted) documentary suitable for showing at the person’s funeral.
by eric
yes change is scary and yes it will be just fine just a lil better of course in actuality this technology will engulf your life and you will not be complaining
by Knute
Will not engulf my life. I still turn my cellphone OFF on occasions. In fact, very often. I own it. It does not own me.
by Bri
This is an issue which will come up very frequently very soon as the Internet of everything comes on line it will soon be possible to trk things from numerous angles. Banning single devices won’t change that. Placing safe guard into the mix will only give a false sense of security. They all can be circumvented..
Let’s make up a future senerio. Right now the average person isn’t skilled in manufacturing a diabolical device. In the near future it will be Childs play. Your personal robot and 3D printer could make an endless array of lethal senerios. Say you want to kill your mother and a whole bunch of innocent school children. You have no assault weapons, they have all been banned. You instruct your super intelligent personal robot to surveil the targets. It produces an almost invisible means of trailing all those targets. All the beefed up security around the school and all the daily action of all those individuals. Let’s say you can’t buy a biological printer. They have been banned too. You instruct your personal robot to print one out. You make a version of Ebola that has all the passports necessary to make it almost instantaneous. Put the payload into your knat sized drone and sit back and enjoy your handy work.
The scenarios are endless. My response is the same. What’s so funny about peace love and understanding. You all can get mad at Marcos. I’m not going to. I’d rather understand. Censor him and me. What type of response do you think that would evoke? Perhaps a desire for revenge? Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
by Bri
Ah rats! Scenarios. I don’t get the chance to write much.
by Mority
I think this is a valid problem. i have been thinking about this lately. If the KI gets advanced enough propably even nuclear weapons could be manufactured by laymen. I hope that this will not be a time where everyone has the possibility to do immense harm. If this is the case then it must be regulated… which is sad but a neccesary evil
by Bri
Impossible to regulate. The genie is out of the bottle, landless box is open. What we need is a better sense of morals and ethics. It does not come from religion. It comes from understanding our relationship to each other, to everything.
As our toys raise our consciousness of material things we need to focus on it’s ramifications. Oscar Pistorious would pass all background checks. It’s like a river. If you dam it in one location it will find a way around it. What causes him to have a gun? In S Africa it’s the racial and social inequality that we have here in the US time ten. The well to do live in fortresses. The potential for violence is enormous. The have nots will seek to overflow that dam. What caused OJ to kill Nicole? Isn’t jealousy a have and have not situation? What drives these situations? Like a heroin addict there are internal needs. Those brain chemicals are what drives us forward. When they are out of balance all the troubles of ego happen. They are the same driving forces that Dr Mead rallied against in acedemia. Big egos will stop at nothing to ensure their fix of brain chemicals derived from self mastery. It’s no different than the driving forces of what I loosely refer to as the illuminati. There is an excellent article in Time magazines March issue about the health care industry. Obscene profits for a few at the top. They don’t see their patients as humans they are sheep to be fleeced. Why? Because they want to live like rock stars. Why do people play lotto? So they can live like rock stars. Once they are hooked they will keep playing the game over and over. Like Gordens pet that kept collecting a massive horde of dog food pellets.
These are perceived needs. A monk in a monastery has shut them off, but by the same token he will not write a book like The Singularity is Near. What drives us and why? Why do I caution against giving AI human like drives? Why do I keep saying we need a sense of morals and ethics? It’s a form of regulation that allows us to harness the potentials of needs without it shorting to ground. The problem doesn’t exist in the material items. The problem exist in imbalances in humans.
by Bri
Landless is supposed to be Pandoras box.
by Jeff
You talk about morals and ethics but without a foundation of an absolute truth it is simply a fungible mass of relativism. Seek that ultimate truth in a place you have decried.
by Bri
I hope you expand on your comment. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “what I decried. I’m aware of the relativism of perspective. I do think it has to be based on an absolute truth. As I draw my bearings I’m influenced by many philosophies.
I find your comments to be vague. They seem more intent on causing concussion and doubt. If you have something concrete and constructive to say then state it. This article is not related to philosophy so we won’t be able to explore it very far, but I’m sure other articles will afford a chance to discuss this. I’m actually calling out for a debate on these issues. Anyone can join in. I think it’s far more important than the next gadget.
I decry war but that doesn’t mean that I would never engage in it. I’m from a military family but our views are that it’s a last resort. Most people glorify it, seek it, try and use it as a first action. They gloat over their enemies demise. I take no pride in defeating Germany. When Mr.X talks with anger about the US I’m concerned. I would rather it had produced a different result in him and so I view that as a failure of the US. Your words don’t give me a handle to grasp them. Please explain further.
by Sea bass
I enjoy the what-if scenarios posted by you, Marcos, and others. Gets me to think. Robots AND 3d printers will need to be regulated by robust forms of Assimov’s Three Laws. Anything created by them will need to have these laws passed down to successive generations. Every printed piece will need this kind of control. But control is an illusion?
by Bri
I agree. It’s a hard problem to solve in humans. I don’t put much faith that people will be self reflective enough, or that the ones that need to the most will be willing to do so. That’s why I refer to VIKKI. Unfortunately VIKKI can be subverted too by a nefarious individual or individuals. There are other ways to ensure this doesn’t happen……
by Bri
Choice is an illusion between those with power and those without.
by Gorden Russell
Right, Sea Bass. Asimov’s Laws will have to be encoded into every last sub-routine of every operating system of every robot or even into the memristors of the self-replicating photovoltaic carbon nanocells. Even if the nanocells are only growing roofing shingles and siding for your house, they will need to have those laws encoded into everything they do.
by Bri
Talking about AGI in the context of this article is a bit off topic. To pull it back I’ll reduce it to it’s essence. Supervision. An appropriate play on words. Who supervises and how do they not fall down that slippery slope. I’ve never read IRobot so I don’t know if the movie deviates from it. The conclusion of the three laws was simple. VIKKI says humans are incapable of supervising themselves. AI could easily degenerate into black hats and white hats. VIKKI turns into a black hat in terms of human free will. Power corrupts.
In the movie Wall Street the abuse of fiduciary trust is referred to as moral hazard. I like the term and it’s applicable to this article. The supervision of google glass needs to be supervised. Who will watch the watchmen? How does one ensure that it’s not abused? Oh it’s a sticky wicket. I think I’ll stay a MOSH, though I’ll choose to augment certain things.
by Ralph Dratman
Not playing is not a move. You don’t have the option not to play.
by seeker
google glass + image search + facebook as database = SUPER party gadget ;-)
by Cory Comer
This article is hogwash. First off, the recording and subsequent dissemination of data, as well as the lack of any sort of control mechanisms, is probably one of the most cited reasons people have been throwing the privacy flag when Google Glass comes up in discussion. Whether it is ego or hubris, Hurst needs to check-in and catch-up with the rest of the conversation. His comments rub me the wrong way; there’s this subtle implication that Hurst is shedding light on these subjects in a way the rest of us somehow have missed and it’s nearly insulting. This is definitely not the usual content I’ve come to expect from this site where most of the bloggers/writers are incredibly connected to the dialogue the rest of us are having.
by Editor
Cory, could you recommend the best locations for keeping up with Google Glass issues?
by Cory Comer
Sure, http://www.reddit.com/ is a great place to see what folks are talking about, there are thousands of people weighing in on Glass across a number of disciplines.
Ycombinator’s Hacker News http://news.ycombinator.com/ is another great place to catch some of the candid conversations around Glass. There’s a number of threads that have been run recently that link to blog posts and news articles with a good dialogue going.
Comments from Huffington Post, Forbes, Wired, WSJ, NYT, Time, CNN, BBC are also a great place to capture conversation and reactions.
The conversation is thankfully spread out across quite a number of locations (so group-think isn’t as big of an issue as it could be), you’ll have to do a little work to uncover it. Hopefully this provides a good heading.
by Editor
Great, thanks.
by Cybernettr
Um, how is a site like the Huffington Post an authority on this issue?
by Gabriel
Honestly, the first thing that crossed my mind with this, is actually all those moments where the police says you cannot record them, even when they are behaving in a irresponsible or unjust way. How much police incompetence and how much righteous effects could be created when people have the ability to record moments like that? Even if the police carry recorders of their own, and not simply in the car, it will still create an incentive for them to not behave in any sort of draconian way. If the police say you have to remove your Glass or any sort of recording device, I imagine citizens would not take too kindly to that.
For all the fears and issues of privacy, people are forgetting the great good that could come from this – being able to carry and record moments like this imply, positive, social and political change. Yes, naturally, it can be used in more dangerous or malevolent ways, but with something like this, I feel it’s no different than how the cellphone or the Internet, or social media can be used for nefarious reasons….it could happen, but far more often then not, changes deriving from that are good.
The average person being able to actually invisibly record would only heighten the increasingly social-media world we live in, and changes, both good and bad, would come from it…but I feel something like this has the potential to draw more good then bad – more easier and effectively then a cellphone, these recording AR glasses will make it easier for the average person to protect themselves because they will be able to “invisibly” record when such moments occur — the police and lawmakers may require people to turn any and all recording devices off when being arrested or questioned, but I doubt that’s going to work out…even if the police carry more ‘invisible’ recording devices of their own, the point still stands — cheap practical ubiquitous tech like this creates an environment where everyone watches their behavior even more closely then before, and when it comes to the police, mandates that they watch themselves more closely, which is certainly good news for the average joe.
Tech is double-edged, and the full story behind this hasn’t been written…and yes, I suppose I can see myself as an optimist, but I don’t think some of scenarios people are drawing up, like the Big Brother ones, are plausible because everyone is having access to this sort of technology, not just the law. Privacy, yes, is something that may have a completely different context in the future (arguably, it already does, but that’s another topic), but when it comes to Authoritarian surveillance or big scenarios like that, I’m not so sure about them….because communication like this, is enabling the people the power to turn things away from that. It enabled the Arab Spring and the revolutions in the middle-east….AR glasses will only take things to a higher level….Privacy is one thing, but I believe technology like this is only making things more democratic, not authoritarian. It’s giving the people a greater and greater voice and ability to capture moments of injustice, and spread them…it’s encouraging positive change, I believe, vastly more then negative.
I’m trying to see both sides of this, and I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives….communications and surveillance technology like this, in the hands of the people, usually do. Privacy and civil rights, yes, is one thing….but communications/surveillance technology like this, I feel, is helping turn things away from the arbitrary and authoritarian, vastly more then it’s doing harm. Communication was a factor in knocking down the Soviet Union (Internet), enabling the Arab Spring (cellphones, social media)….what kind of wonderful repercussions will arise from AR glasses?
Call me naive, but more so then being worried about my privacy, I’m more excited about this.
by gaoptimize
Best to assume you are being recorded whenever you have them on and live with that. When privacy is desired, take them off and place in an aluminum cookie tin or your Gauss cage of choice (as I do with my cell phone when I’m not calling out or expecting a call). I suspect a Gauss room will be a desirable security feature of future homes and offices, just as a safe room is now.
by Gorden Russell
Your posts are always so good, Gabriel.
by MatthewQ
Initially, I was going to disagree with you but then I read the entire article. Hurst is actually fairly condescending towards the technology and its users. He doesn’t offer even one single ‘solution’ for what he’s complaining about and everything he brings to light is obvious to anyone who gives the matter even a cursory examination.
He is correct on one item- we probably do need to discuss the issue. Although I doubt any amount of discussion will stop Google Glass (or similar product) or keep people from using it this way.
It’s where we’ve always been headed.
by MatthewQ
My comment was for Cory Comer.
by ChromeRobotics
you don’t know who’s recording you now. Arizona for example is a state where you can wire tap anyone, video tape anyone and record anyone with out their knowledge or permission. All legal under the law. They’ve been making pen cameras and barely visible mics for years now, and several web sites offer made to spy surveillance tech for less than 40 bucks. This is non news.
by Editor
What makes it news is not the recording, which of course is widely used by PIs and others. It’s the future aggregation of video data with social media and other data.
by Derek New Orleans
Exactly…even the recorder may be unaware of the actual things they recorded and how they could be used by a third party. Say for example the president of the united states… one could access someones recordings around him to get access to top secret information… how do we regulate against that…surely they cant ban everyone the president comes in contact with from having this technology… it would seem some sort of jamming device to disrupt recording may be needed! Of ocurse that can probably be hacked
by Dan
“The Google Glass feature no one is talking about” seriously ? I kinda thought this particular feature was obvious. The only thing that is not known is how this will be exploited and by whom with the use of facial and audio recognition software.
by Editor
Yes it is obvious, but I haven’t seen it addressed.
by MatthewQ
You did a great job editing it Amara ;-).
Just the photo almost tells the entire story by itself.
by Ian
Google Glass – great for pervs everywhere! ;)
by snake0
No-one is talking about it? Pretty sure most of the articles are talking about this. It’s obvious this guy just wants more hits on his blog.
by Benny
While I agree with your overall prediction, I don’t think we will be recorded in the way you describe here, and I don’t think it will be quite this 1984′ish. It likely won’t be [just] video, but other means of very quickly consuming data about a person (or place, company, or product) that yields higher returns of what the observer requests about them. We may also care significantly more about data that’s less personal to us in the future — and less about data that we now consider private and personal. We may simply regard privacy much differently, subject ourselves to an entirely different mindset, and also find personal data (like when someone was last evicted) uninteresting in a social context. If you’re wondering if corporations will have access to the data, and find it interesting, look no further than a credit report.
The only thing the attached photo displays differently than what’s currently available very easily online is the fact that it’s on my glasses. But think about it, do you currently find yourself looking up this type of data on people you associate with? Unless you’re in real estate and trying to rent or sell a property to this person, I can’t imagine why you’d care, or why it should be alarming that the data is available on someone’s glasses.
by Editor
This is just a summary, so you have to read Mark Hurst’s blog post to get the full story. As you will find, he is not concerned about what someone sees on their glasses, but what can be seen in Google searches, based on data aggregated from many videos and other sources. My guess is that Google is fully aware of this scenario and will put safeguards in place.
by Bri
It can get ugly and it Shure can hurt.