Google Glass. Creepy privacy invasion or the new normal?

posted at 4:01 pm on May 18, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

You’ve seen Google Glass on the news, right? (Or “the Google glasses” as I keep calling them.) You’re to be forgiven if you haven’t seen them in person, since they don’t seem to be offically “out” yet and the only ones in circulation are being given to beta testers and gadget media reviewers. The “wearable computer” is supposed to be able to take pictures or video, upload them, and display information from Google and your favorite social media sites in a sort of heads up display while you’re walking around.

But the new technology is already attracting attention of the negative sort, reaching as far as Capitol Hill.

Eight members of Congress raised privacy fears about Google’s wearable computer, Google Glass, expressing concern the device could allow users to identify people on the street and look up personal information about them.

The lawmakers, members of the congressional Privacy Caucus, said they are concerned users could access individuals’ addresses, marital status, work history and hobbies.

“As members of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we are curious whether this new technology could infringe on the privacy of the average American,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Google CEO Larry Page.

Tech reviewers are weighing in with stories about people having their dinner companions “freaked out” by them or becoming unnerved in public restrooms by wearers. But I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around all of the controversy. The glasses are certainly smaller than previous devices, but they’re not exactly doing anything you couldn’t already do with your phones. There were already apps where users could use the camera in their cell phone tied in to Google Maps to access information about businesses wherever you’re standing, displaying names, reviews and features over the real time images. It seems like all Glass is doing is eliminating the need to hold up your phone.

Privacy is of concern to a lot of people, but it’s worth noting that your legal expectations of privacy decrease significantly once you step out your door and into the public square. I suppose the possibility of facial recognition software is a concern, but people can recognize you with their own eyes walking down the street. And private citizens couldn’t find all of that information the lawmakers are concerned about if you hadn’t already put it up on your Facebook page. If you don’t want people knowing anything about you, don’t publish it all over the web. If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house. It’s really that simple.

As to the additional, totally valid concerns, it seems as if we already have laws covering these things. You do have a legal expectation of privacy in a public restroom or changing room at a store. If anyone is photographing you there without your consent, they’re already breaking the law. If they use images of you taken on the street for profit without compensating you, that’s illegal also. The only thing that’s really changed is the technology growing smaller. And that’s been happening as long as I can remember, with everything from clocks to radios to, well… computers. Is this really some dangerous new change?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Hey, creepy privacy invasion is the new normal. Just ask the Tea Parties.

rbj on May 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM

If she is looking at me I have no objections.

LeftCoastRight on May 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

As long as they can help eradicate duck face for good, I’ll be okay.

Myron Falwell on May 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Looks good on her.

Curtiss on May 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

In two years you will not even hear of Google Glasses. Dorks.

brewcrew67 on May 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

No power level detection = useless.

nobar on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

would buy a pair if they weren’t going to cost $1500. Would still have to get over the fact that I tend to lose or break sunglasses at an alarmingly rate but I think I could manage.

Doctor Zhivago on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

posted at 4:01 pm on May 18, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Jazz destroyed my world by posting this at 4:01 instead of 4:00

lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

No power level detection = useless.

nobar on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Indeed.

lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 4:17 PM

The same Google that had a guy who helped start the Egyptian revolution? The same Google that decided that Obama was the guy they wanted to help to the WH?

Be a shame if, you know, the IRS decided to ask for help keeping track of you constantly as part of its purpose… instant database on everything you do! Isn’t that lovely?

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house.

You’re disturbed Jazz.

lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

expressing concern the device could allow users to identify people on the street and look up personal information about them.

I’d be more concerned about Google tapping what the glasses are seeing and then using that information to either identify people around the wearer or to gather information on what the wearer is doing without the wearer’s knowledge. The latter is kind of irrelevant since the wearer has chosen to wear the glasses, but the former is a threat to the people around the wearer Recognition software can identify people around the wearer, and then tie where they are shopping, what they are seen buying, etc. to Google’s database and voila — that person gets targeted advertising just because they were around someone who was wearing Google Glass. Guess what buddy, you’ve been Scroogled.

/… and yes, I believe Google would do that if they thought they could make a buck off of it.

AZfederalist on May 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

People who wear these will get hit by buses… just wait for the first car fatality.

mjbrooks3 on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

It’s a blatant creepy privacy invasion.

There is zero difference between this and someone walking around with a hand held video recorder everywhere they go.

I see someone with these glasses on talking to me.. they will take them off. That simple.

JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

mjbrooks3 on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Hit. Pushed into.

6 of one, half a dozen of another.

lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

It’s a blatant creepy privacy invasion.

There is zero difference between this and someone walking around with a hand held video recorder everywhere they go.

I see someone with these glasses on talking to me.. they will take them off. That simple.

JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

And uploaded on the fly to the Internet!

Isn’t that special?

Just what you want to do: be tethered to a company that can and will keep track of your every move when you wear their device. And since so many federal and State governments have ‘concerns’ about how citizens eat, spend money, how fast they are going on the highway… ahhh… don’t worry it’s like the DoJ’s attitude towards your email: you have no expectation of privacy on the Internet.

When the first portable jammer is made, I’ll get one of those, tyvm.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Be sure to never glance down at your credit or debit card.

tom daschle concerned on May 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Actually, Mr. Shaw, I believe in most U.S. locales private citizens do have a legal right not to be photographed -at least for publication or other commercial purpose- without written consent. If someone is holding up a phone or other device, you can reasonably infer photography is occurring and object. The “Glass” will make that a bit more difficult.

Personally, I don’t like being photographed and would definitely avoid or confront a wearer. I would also shun commercial venues that don’t bar the use of the “Glass”.

M240H on May 18, 2013 at 4:34 PM

When the first portable jammer is made, I’ll get one of those, tyvm.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

You beat me to it. Some device to turn the image black would be spectacular.

… or saturate it, I’m not particular

AZfederalist on May 18, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Doctor Zhivago on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

They aren’t going to cost $1500. They are going to be in the 2-500 dollar range, depending on make and model and whether its a designer pair or not. The $1500 price is to discourage people who are not developers from buying this first run of devices. Google wants developers alone to have access to the technology right now so they can have about a year to create apps and figure out problems and potential solutions with the device. It is in no way a consumer product at this point. If you own a pair right now, you aren’t allowed to sell it. Its essentially in alpha/beta testing stage.

thphilli on May 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM

You beat me to it. Some device to turn the image black would be spectacular.

AZfederalist on May 18, 2013 at 4:36 PM

A framing hammer would probably do the job.

Kenosha Kid on May 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Given how prevalent and cheap compact digital camera technology has gotten I would call it the new normal. If you’ve got a smart phone or cell phone with a camera built in it’s more than likely you can record a video. The fact is that so long as a lens can see the outside world it can record a video or a photo.

werehawk on May 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Hey, it’s ‘Pop Up Video’ for real life!

James on May 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM

The creep factor goes through the roof if you think about anyone could be filming you and uploading in near-real time without you having the slightest idea. The red light that indicates filming would be so easy to cover-up it’s a joke.

Sure, you can film people now with a phone, but it’s pretty obvious it’s happening and too cumbersome to do constantly as you walk down the street, etc. And yes, hidden cameras exist now, but that’s tin foil hat territory to think that’s common.

These glasses allow you to clandestinely film and to do it constantly and upload it. Try getting embarrassing film off the internet at that point. I can easily envision (forgive the pun) youtube channels devoted to specific people’s constant recording of their daily life and all the people they meet. Show up on one of those channels picking your nose because you happened to be in the same line at the bank? Oh well.

It’s a brave new suck world.

WitchDoctor on May 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

It might be useful in certain jobs (to call up technical data, documents, hands-free communication, etc.). But outside of work, shed your tech and walk in freedom, man.

Alas, it will probably be the norm in 10 years, like cell phones.

ZenDraken on May 18, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I dunno. I look at it this way. Six billion people in the world, why would somebody wearing google glasses want to take MY picture?

Allahs vulva on May 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

No power level detection = useless.

nobar on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

If the ground coming up and the weird lighting around somebody isn’t a clue that their power level might just be over 9,000, you’re too clueless to be using Google Glass anyway.

Steve Eggleston on May 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM

If one already wears glasses to see, where does one wear the Google Glass?
On top of one’s glasses or under one’s glasses?
Either way a person is wearing two pairs of glasses…

And if I need reading glasses to read, must I wear reading glasses to read what is on Google Glass?

albill on May 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

. Is this really some dangerous new change?

I think with the Google Glasses as they currently are it’s not too big of a change.

But a few years from now, it will be quite different
. We know how quickly technology moves. And yes, a few years from now I do fear the ability of someone to easily and without detection spy and invade privacy at an unprecedented level. In your home without your consent, in public, and in public places where privacy should be given, like restrooms, dressing rooms, under tables, etc.

Not so much for me, though it could strike anyone, but especially for women.

MikeknaJ on May 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM

“Hi, do you like my new Google glasses, I’m recording you right now!”

-They’re very nice, will they still work after I punch them out the back of your skull?

Bishop on May 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Aww… from the headline I thought someone finally perfected X-Ray Specs. Way cooler than Sea Monkeys™.

de rigueur on May 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Yeah. I can’t wait to share the road with a bunch of other drivers wearing these puppies.

trigon on May 18, 2013 at 5:14 PM

THE LAST THING A POLITICIAN WANTS IS SOMEONE TAKING DOWN THEIR EVERY WORD!

GarandFan on May 18, 2013 at 5:15 PM

You know, I’ll bet casinos are going to be happy about having their patrons wearing these things at the tables.

trigon on May 18, 2013 at 5:19 PM

In 20 years, a Google Glasses used in social interactions will be able to, in looking at the person in front of it, parse sentences, tone of voice, facial expression, and body language to make accurate conclusions about how that person’s unconscious mind and even their brain works.

Paul-Cincy on May 18, 2013 at 5:21 PM

albill on May 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

There will be a version of Google Glass that is specifically made for prescription glasses. Most likely clips onto the glasses, but again we are at minimum a year away from these becoming a consumer product. . . . .

thphilli on May 18, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Not so much for me, though it could strike anyone, but especially for women.

MikeknaJ on May 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM

*gets out pencil and notepad*

So, then, how could this be used to spy on women? Please be specific.

/dirty old man

Paul-Cincy on May 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Who needs Google Glass when you have the IRS?

SouthernGent on May 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM

They aren’t going to cost $1500. They are going to be in the 2-500 dollar range, depending on make and model and whether its a designer pair or not. The $1500 price is to discourage people who are not developers from buying this first run of devices. Google wants developers alone to have access to the technology right now so they can have about a year to create apps and figure out problems and potential solutions with the device. It is in no way a consumer product at this point. If you own a pair right now, you aren’t allowed to sell it. Its essentially in alpha/beta testing stage.

thphilli on May 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Ah, I was thinking wrong on the price. At that price range, I’m game for a pair

Doctor Zhivago on May 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Not sure if this particular model will become a hit, but the idea behind Googe Glass is a sound one and fills a niche in the market. I expect these things to be ubiquitous by 2020.

Robert_Paulson on May 18, 2013 at 5:32 PM

My business involves a lot of confidential information and financial transactions. These will not be allowed in my offices. I would think that banks and other financial institutions would also forbid them. An errant document laying on a desk that may allow no more than a glance insufficient to read any personal information from becomes a freezable, zoomable frame if recorded with these.

deepdiver on May 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM

My vote goes with creepy.

sage0925 on May 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM

If they use images of you taken on the street for profit without compensating you, that’s illegal also

Is this true? I don’t know for sure, but I’m fairly certain a person walking down the street is in the public domain, and the photographer can legally take a picture, and sell it if he/she wishes. For instance, does a freelance news photographer have to get model releases for everyone who happens to be in the shot of a news photo, including everyone in a crowd? What about the photographers Robert Frank, Gary Winogrand, Eugene Atget, Dorthea Lang? I don’t think they ever had to pay a subject for photographing them on the street.

factsonlypls on May 18, 2013 at 5:35 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house.

Or start wearing a burkha, one of those post-box ones with just a little mesh slit for the eyes.

s_dog on May 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

That said, I do think Google glasses are creepy, and could be used to invade privacy. I just don’t think street photography and filming is technically illegal, regardless of whether the content is sold or not.

factsonlypls on May 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Google and some early users maintain that privacy fears are overblown. As with traditional video cameras, a tiny light blinks on to let people know when it is recording.

Oh, and no-one will ever figure out how to disable or block that tiny light. EVER.

s_dog on May 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Resistance is futile

workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

People who wear these will get hit by buses… just wait for the first car fatality.

mjbrooks3 on May 18, 2013 at 4:27 PM

The lawyers are prepared

workingclass artist on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM

That said, I do think Google glasses are creepy, and could be used to invade privacy. I just don’t think street photography and filming is technically illegal, regardless of whether the content is sold or not.

factsonlypls on May 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Those who buy it for the creep factor won’t be able to stop themselves from filming surreptitious videos of women or kids walking down the street, in playgrounds, restrooms, etc. and posting them on YouTube or even on some of the porn sites. Once those start being pointed out by privacy advocates, that’s when Google’s execs are going to end up doing some ‘splaining in front of a Congressional committee.

jon1979 on May 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Is this really some dangerous new change?

I can see how they can be used creatively for crime but like you said, its a tool we already have, just in a compact form.

The real problem is government using ANYthing they can use to scare people into having them create new laws and grant more power….

Thats what is really going on here. You blog guys should catch up.

Alinsky on May 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM

I have already told my favorite local pub and restaurant that I’ll be going elsewhere if they allow people to wear and use these devices inside. If someone is using a video camera or a phone to take images, you can see that and respond to them. With these glasses, you can’t tell and that’s a problem, at least for me.

The real fear is that cops (and other agents of government) start wearing these things to constantly record where they are and what they’re doing and with whom they are interacting, etc. talk about a surveillance society. Once the cops get ahold of these things, it’s all over because it will be worse than having a security camera on every corner of every block.

It’s time to simply ban these devices outright. there are some places where we, as a society, shouldn’t go. Just because you CAN do something, it doesn’t follow that you SHOULD do something.

V/R

TKindred on May 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Those who buy it for the creep factor won’t be able to stop themselves from filming surreptitious videos of women or kids walking down the street, in playgrounds, restrooms, etc. and posting them on YouTube or even on some of the porn sites.
jon1979 on May 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM

If I could play devil’s advocate for a moment, your argument is akin to anti-gun people wanting to ban guns because gun’s kill people, not the gun owner.

factsonlypls on May 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Look for someone to put on YouTube a video of everything that they’ve looked at through the googles for 5 or 10 years.
Probably to include a fist or two and a cracked screen.

justltl on May 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house. It’s really that simple.

Oh yeah? If you don’t want your face crushed don’t put those glasses in my face. You’ll wind up eating them.

Dack Thrombosis on May 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM

The flip side is that you could use this technology to find out if a person approaching you has a criminal record….

devan95 on May 18, 2013 at 6:41 PM

when you aim a phone at someone they KNOW you can be recording you.
when they LOOK at you then you don’t know it.
its an issue.

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

It’s not the filming, it’s the aggregation of data in real time by Google that continues at an ever accelerating rate.

When a company can predict behavior faster than government, and influence said behavior, they become more powerful than self-government.

Whether they intend it or not.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM

when you aim a phone at someone they KNOW you can be recording you.
when they LOOK at you then you don’t know it.
its an issue.

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

that should say they KNOW you can be recording them.

sorry

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM

when you aim a phone at someone they KNOW you can be recording you.
when they LOOK at you then you don’t know it.
its an issue.

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

While by no means am I a privacy advocate, this seems to hit the mark as to why people are objecting.

Stoic Patriot on May 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I can see a future younger generation rebelling against all of this tech.

“Dad.. can”t I please just talk to you without your google glasses on?”

“Mom.. can’t we please just go for a walk without you filming our every step?”

JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Google Glass. Creepy privacy invasion or the new normal?

IRS places order for 20,000 units; Obama doesn’t know yet.

BobMbx on May 18, 2013 at 8:15 PM

when you aim a phone at someone they KNOW you can be recording you.
when they LOOK at you then you don’t know it.
its an issue.

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Only if you are being obvious about aiming that phone. I could put my phone in my pocket with the camera peeking over the top, and you probably wouldn’t even notice.

Count to 10 on May 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM

While by no means am I a privacy advocate, this seems to hit the mark as to why people are objecting.

Stoic Patriot on May 18, 2013 at 7:19 PM

its also the point many seem (in my opinion from reading tons of posts on it) to want to purposely overlook.

Only if you are being obvious about aiming that phone. I could put my phone in my pocket with the camera peeking over the top, and you probably wouldn’t even notice.

Count to 10 on May 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM

and the conscious effort you put into that is still more than just looking at something.
with a phone/camera I have a chance of knowing.
with you just looking in my direction I don’t.

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM

M240H on May 18, 2013 at 4:34 PM

When we film in a public space we have to put notices around the area that we are filming, and by being in that area they agree to be filmed. This usually accompanies a filming permit, although not always.

News crews can film everyone in the public, as this is protected Blythe first amendment, but this footage cannot be re-used for commercial use.

I personally don’t like being on camera and tend to put a hat or something between me and the camera, even ifit’s just tourists.

The google glass can film you without your knowledge.

As for blocking it, it must be a bluetooth device connected to the users phone. Block the bluetooth.

danielreyes on May 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM

If she is looking at me I have no objections.

LeftCoastRight on May 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Okay, but while she’s looking at you she’s also accessing your Facebook page and finding out that you get so drunk at parties that your friends put makeup on you with magic markers.

Umm, maybe not so great.

Cicero43 on May 18, 2013 at 9:11 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house. It’s really that simple.

Second look at a line of his and hers burqas?

Cicero43 on May 18, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I’m thinking that just wearing one of these while driving in California will get you a cell phone ticket. The courts have upheld you can be ticketed for just looking at your phone while driving.

If you can’t use it while driving in California, what good is it?

danielreyes on May 18, 2013 at 9:20 PM

As I commented earlier, just wait until these catch on with police departments, the FBI, DHS, etc. THAT will have some serious Constitutional issues as the cops will be able to record everything, do facial recognition work, record conversations, etc.

No sir, I don’t like this one little bit.

TKindred on May 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM

No power level detection = useless.

nobar on May 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Give it time…then I can ready my “over 9000″ jokes.

eva3071 on May 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house. It’s really that simple.

Hmm, not sure I’m following the thought process here. Basically you’re saying that anything anyone wants to do, given the technology not only to recognize complete strangers and get info on them real-time (not possible with their own eyes, as you seem to suggest), is to… become a shut-in? Is that where we are in your mind – exit your house, and well, you should expect that any and every person out there is a nutjob just dying to take pics of you, modify them, post them, find out where you live, your background, etc.

Actually, I think you still have a right to expect some amount of privacy when you actually do decide to leave your house, go to work, etc. Maybe you think its alright if technology allows others to effectively hang the virtual neon sign over your head proclaiming every and all data on you, that you wouldn’t have put their yourself, but I’m not quite there yet, I guess.

Midas on May 18, 2013 at 9:53 PM

OT: Where is the Star Trek review?

BTW, it was awesome.

LaughterJones on May 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM

WitchDoctor on May 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

dmacleo on May 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Both of you nailed it: someone holding up a cell phone gives themselves away; e.g., if they hold up a cell phone in a crowded bathroom or a playground (if they are alone, not photographing their own kid), you know to be suspicious.

But with Google Glass, you simply have to assume that if it’s being worn, it’s recording someone – light or no light.

I predict Bluetooth jammers are going to become very popular once Google Glass hits the mass market…

Wanderlust on May 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM

When the first portable jammer is made, I’ll get one of those, tyvm.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I actually have a relative designing gizmos that wrecking electronics for…some very important people. I’ll ask him if a portable countermeasure would be feasible.

MelonCollie on May 18, 2013 at 11:02 PM

As I commented earlier, just wait until these catch on with police departments, the FBI, DHS, etc. THAT will have some serious Constitutional issues as the cops will be able to record everything, do facial recognition work, record conversations, etc.

No sir, I don’t like this one little bit.

TKindred on May 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Exactly. This makes the Patriot Enabling Act look like child’s play. The Fed goons must be grinning like sharks; they don’t even have to do the data collection because the sheeple are willingly doing it themselves.

MelonCollie on May 18, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Hey, this is the first good reason I’ve seen to start wearing a burqua!

Katja on May 18, 2013 at 11:08 PM

I actually have a relative designing gizmos that wrecking electronics for…some very important people. I’ll ask him if a portable countermeasure would be feasible.

MelonCollie on May 18, 2013 at 11:02 PM

There are already handheld jammers available for between $150-$500 which can range out to 50 meters. Wireless, Bluetooth, even GPS signals can be jammed. If I owned a bar or restaurant, I’d have one plugged in and running all the time. If folks need to make a call, they can go outside to do it.

TKindred on May 18, 2013 at 11:10 PM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house.

You’re disturbed Jazz.

lorien1973 on May 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I guess we should stay in our house if we don’t want to get blown up by pressure cookers too. I guess those three girls/women who were imprisoned as slaves for a decade should have just stayed in their respective houses.

VorDaj on May 18, 2013 at 11:18 PM

If I could play devil’s advocate for a moment, your argument is akin to anti-gun people wanting to ban guns because gun’s kill people, not the gun owner.

factsonlypls on May 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM

There are First Amendment rights here that come into play, in terms of being able to film/video anyone. The question is does the person being filmed/videoed have the right to know that, and is the flashing light on the glasses such that it can be disabled or obscured?

If so, we’re in the same area of law as the current ones on phone recordings — some states allow it only if both people know a recording’s being made, others if only one period does. But the first time it comes up that someone’s used Google glass to either video very personal images or even use their capability to stalk a future kidnap, sex assault and/or murder victim, the privacy questions will become a public issue.

jon1979 on May 18, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Only the government can spy on people, sheesh who doesn’t know that?

Neo on May 19, 2013 at 12:03 AM

In two years you will not even hear of Google Glasses. Dorks.

brewcrew67 on May 18, 2013 at 4:12 PM

.
Lets see if you’re on the same page with me . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . I’m thinking that “in two years” Ray Kurzweil will have perfected bionic eye implants, that can do everything Google Glass can do and more.

listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:52 AM

If you don’t want people taking your picture, stay in your house. It’s really that simple.

And with that, any comment you ever make about liberty becomes irrelevant. Those of us who would like to have even a minimal amount of control over our lives and privacy can just forget stepping outside again, ever, because Google or Apple or some other company has decided to invent something? And as others have pointed out, state and federal law enforcement are bound to want to get in on this, for the good of the public, of course. Will your argument then be that if I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about?

DrMagnolias on May 19, 2013 at 3:55 AM

I’m not thrilled about Google Glass, but we live in the twenty-first century. That genie’s not going back in the bottle and I’m not going to be a luddite.

Honestly, the fact that there’s a “Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus” concerns me more than Google Glass.

Chris of Rights on May 19, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I think the concept is pretty cool…on the surface. But, I’m not sure if I’d want to wear them. I have a smart phone, and it’s neat, but I could easily do without those features as opposed to a phone phone. But many others rely heavily on those advanced features…to each his own.

As for privacy, it’s becoming increasingly meaningless. We on the right, the left and Libertarians have been shooting our mouths off about Liberty for decades, but we’ve sat back and not complained much about the IRS having the ability to delve into our personal finances at will. BS and bluster from us.

Lastly, every new media technology is instantly adapted to sex/pornography. This technology is awesome for voyeurs and they range from those who like to film fully clothed adults of both genders, to those that prefer scantily clad women to those who like to film fully clothed young girls.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 19, 2013 at 12:21 PM

It’s a Segway for your face and nothing more.

A luxury gadget for those with disposable income.

Moesart on May 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM

There are privacy issues here. Sure you can do the same with a cell phone but it’s pretty obvious what you are doing – not so with these. Even though there is no expectation of privacy there is some expectation that something will not be recorded.

Kid walks into a Jr High / High School locker room taking video. And the best thing is that they can claim they ‘forgot’ the glasses were transmitting. Even some adults might do this in Gym locker room at your local 24-hour fitness, etc…

Glancing at someone’s credit card in the grocery line – just enough to get a frame of both sides….

CrazyFool on May 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

There are privacy issues here. Sure you can do the same with a cell phone but it’s pretty obvious what you are doing – not so with these. Even though there is no expectation of privacy there is some expectation that something will not be recorded.

CrazyFool on May 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The company I now work at is paranoid to near Alex Jones levels about electronic gizmos because all it would take would be one clueless phone monkey with a cell-phone camera to cause a six-digit catastrophe. They’re so nuts about it I can’t even begin to tell you how because they have 24/7/365 security specifically looking for anyone who blabs on the ‘net.

And suffice it to say their “social media policy” has cemented my resolve never to use such things except to wish my GF a happy birthday or the like.

MelonCollie on May 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM