Our culture has to change a lot before a product like this can be mainstream. I don't think I could feel comfortable being in the same room with someone wearing one. The core problem is they break our ability to perceive the environment we are in. I can see that I'm in a room with 5 other people but I cannot comprehend that thousands, maybe millions, of other people are streaming it at the same time. I would constantly be thinking that one wrong move and I'm going to be embarrassing YouTube #1 clip of the day.
I dunno… I always feel like jsz0 does when there's a camera being used in the room. And they've been around all my life. Hard to say until it's tried out in real life.
"Lee: Yes. It’s my expectation that in three to five years it will actually look unusual and awkward when we view someone holding an object in their hand and looking down at it. Wearable computing will become the norm."
"They could change form factors for wider acceptance. A form factor that looks like hipster glasses with lenses that dynamically darken would do very well."
That's a really interesting point - what's acceptable at one's desk is very different than what's acceptable at a party. That could potentially be a breakthrough place of acceptance for Glass if useful applications can be found.
YOU may want to permanently wear one to assist with your job. But OTHERS won't let you. People just don't like having their actions permanently recorded as it opens up a tremendous number of legal and privacy issues.
They can just as easily make a version without the camera. I know it defeats some of the point, but it would still be a good way to get notifications, directions, etc
Given that many streets are full of cameras (CCTVs, mainly) that already record you, I don't see this as becoming a problem. Private homes or some businesses may be more of where the privacy discussion centers on
Also, e.g. video phones have long been available, and though they have definite niche applications, they have not become the ordinary mainstream way of using a phone.
Agreed. I've found myself too many times watching my kids' activities through the viewfinder of a camera or holding up and iPhone between them and me. When staring at a device, you're seeing them but you're not in the moment with them. (The other option of course, would be to stop acting as if everything needs recorded and shared.)
1. who owns the data.
2. who has access to the data.
3. how do you opt out from my recordings?
4. will this lead to a private crowd-implemented version of pervasive CC-TV?
This could the the penultimate implementation of a system to surveil a population. If this becomes ubiquitous, who would ever need state installed CC-cameras?
Agree that there are privacy implications, but don't believe they'll be quite as drastic as you make out.
From what I understand, Google Glass connects to your mobile phone, so it's effectively outsourcing a mobile phone's camera, video speaker and microphone to a pair of glasses. So the answer to a lot of your questions is the same as if you were asking them about mobile phone technology. I wouldn't think anything differently of someone wearing these glasses as I would of someone using a mobile phone to take photos or video in a place or at an event. (And importantly, I would assume the same battery life constraints around video'ing and constantly taking photos would apply to glasses just like they do with phones.)
The key difference is that it's very obvious when someone is using their phone to do this, where it's not with glasses. This could be bad (being video'ed when you don't want to be), but could also be pretty good (taking photos of a fantastic meal at a great restaurant when you don't want to disturb anyone else.) The product people behind this need to understand where those lines are and design to them.
You make some good arguments. However, one big difference, is that to take photos or videos, you actively have to point the device at people and make an effort to record. With Glass, that's taken out. You could be recording and no one would be the wiser --one might have to assume that anyone wearing Glass was recording. This could be a bit creepy.
Now, I know there is no expectation of privacy in public places --this is what allows photographers to photograph anyone on the streets (with very few exceptions). However, a photographer is very noticeable. If this becomes ubiquitous, there is no way of avoiding being recorded. Now, what happens on private property? What laws would apply there?
I think some of the comments on that article bear merit towards a contrary position:
'Right now, the book is giving way to the screen and hypertext, and who knows - how can we possibly know, stuck as we are in the heart of the maelstrom? - what this will do to our concept of self. Nick Bilton writes that "When technology gets out of the way, we are liberated from it." But perhaps what is also true is that we ourselves are getting out of the way of technology, adjusting and morphing our selves to adapt to and accommodate it, encouraged all the way by gee-whiz journalism, advertising, and the whole throbbing. hissing, bloated blogosphere itself.
Too bad for Sergey, I say, that he can't enjoy playing with his child more in the moment, without a computer to mediate and record the event (and the smiles) for later viewing in case he misses it when it happens.'
It isn't inherently terrible or good. It just is. We will change, and it will change with us. Your example is poorly chosen though, as the current model of standard parent behavior is to just sit there with a big SLR taking photos of the kid playing with the other parent, or playing alone, since how can you play while you are busy using a camera? Sure you can say people SHOULD be present all the time, but the reality is people want to take pictures of their kids.
im all for Google Glass - but I just don't see anyone talking about the health aspects of these glasses. Given the prominence of electromagnetic radiation and the often fear that it has spread around the globe in respect of brain activity, heat and so on.
how possibly can it be healthy to be wearing a set of these around, all day long, with data beaming towards your temple as it processes what you are looking at ?
i love the idea and concept - im just not sure I like the idea of the electromagnetic radiation being so rawly exposed to your head for as long as you are wearing the glasses. at least with mobile phones you are subjected to "bursts" in the sense that its only for the duration that the phone is against your head (which many fear - regardless of whether you personally being FUD or not)
contrast this to glass however, it's there constantly and design to be so. i would just love to know the risks associated with the volume of data, the impact of such exposure and the level of heat generated etc. it just seems to be swept aside in my mind
> Given the prominence of electromagnetic radiation and the often fear that it has spread around the globe in respect of brain activity, heat and so on.
There is still some valid scientific uncertainty about more powerful microwaves which can penetrate into your brain, but at this point it's only uncertainty.
My fear is not even that: I worry about a future where we're so used to loads of context sensitive information bombarding us that we see it as weird to unplug or otherwise try to slow down.
Consider Facebook: it is probably a net negative for me, but in the past five years it's become weird not to have an account. So, I delay killing it off, justifying it not by the utility, but instead by the apparent necessity.
See Charles Stross' "Accelerando"; chapter 3, "Tourist". When heavy user of glasses is being mugged of them, they lose nearly all of their intelligence and identity. They stumble around like a blind idiot, trying in vain to remember what they lost and how to get it back.
Sure that's a valid fear - and I do agree that in some sense it will be information overload. Anything will be accessible anywhere with a flick of your eyes - so the data stream will be even more accessible than with your mobile phone (which requires a series of actual user positive interactions by unlocking the phone, entering a query and so on)
Of course, the entire health effects of eye movements and constant electromagnetic radiation exposure are probably a different vertical than that however.
I think people (especially men) should be more worried about having broadcasting mobile phones stored on belts and in pockets near the genitals, especially during times of active reproduction.
I understand and agree with you but I also think about how much radio, microwaves and other types of electromagnetic radiation (yes I know not nuclear radiation) we are bathed in everyday, other than light and natural sources.
Also there is the inverse square law, just because we are bombarded by EM radiation doesn't mean it's damaging due to being so weak. Yet a transmitter mere millimetres from your brain cells is a greater risk.
Then again we sit in MRI machines at a flux density of 5 Tesla for health reasons!
yeah true - but as with all that data, the proximity of it is in no extent to the same degree as these glasses is going to be.
a 4G chip, literally 1cm from your temple for 8-16 hours a day just cannot be something that is encouraged or that is recommended.
i just can't fathom how that could possibly be safe regardless of your view of electromagnetic radiation - having that against your head for 16 hours a day, 365 days a year. It accounts to 5840 hours of a 1cm differential of electromagnetic radiation to your brain ?
strapping a mobile phone to your head with a 4G chip and letting it sit there isn't something I can see myself doing and the entire utility of the glasses is designed to essentially be "always on" - i can't see you wearing them for 15 minutes and putting them away ? i love that Google are pushing the edge, but maybe they need to invent some sort of electromagnetic radiation wrapper so it doesn't permeate into your brain all day
There is no 4G chip -- or any cell radio at all -- in Google Glass. There is Bluetooth, but that's insanely low powered.
Anyway, there's absolutely no evidence that any of this is even remotely harmful; which makes sense when you look at the physics of it, since none of this is ionizing radiation.
Sure - but the only way to use it at the moment (as was shown in the demo at Google I/O was to stream via a bluetooth connection to a mobile device) and Sergy Brin has also indicated that it will contain mobile connectivity
I don't see how it can possibly be safe to be in a metal tube weighing several hundred tons that's six miles above the ground. Our instincts are not good at evaluating things like this, but fortunately we have science.
I wonder if there are an studies of people who wear hearing aids which show any cancer risk due to constant use of an electrical device within their ears?
Sure it's not radio waves but it is electrical which produces magnetic flux and not oscillating like radio waves but it is EM energy.
Anyway I guess in a way it's comforting that it's so hard to determine either way if long-term low power close contact EM exposure is damaging.
Glass is designed to project the image at far-focus, so if you have good eyesight or corrective lenses (like me) that allow you to see in the distance, there is no need to re-focus to see the image.
I can't see this working legally for privacy reasons without the glasses having an LED go on when the camera is recording anything.
Not to mention the more sticky social issues: Imagine a guy in the subway with these glasses on - every woman in that subway will feel "watched" any time he looks in her general direction.
