
First arrest captured on Google Glass points to a “Little Brother” future - ulysses
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/07/first-arrest-captured-on-google-glass-points-to-a-little-brother-future/
======
afreak
This sort of reminds me of how Russia and its dash cams have sort of changed
how people (such as myself) perceive the act of driving. In the past, dash
cams were largely limited to police officers on patrol, but now anyone can put
one in their car for $40 and have it set to record as soon as the ignition is
turned.

Some dash cam videos that have made the news recently include the following:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_ufuY5W7K0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_ufuY5W7K0)
(plane crash in Afghanistan)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHqFDsKq5DA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHqFDsKq5DA)
(plane crash somewhere in Russia)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y66OHiB_p4I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y66OHiB_p4I)
(meteor in Russia)

I think that Google Glass will lead to more videos like the one linked and the
ones I included. Perhaps we'll eventually have just news dominated by reports
by a single individual as opposed to a reporter and a camera man.

~~~
karpathy
One part that's currently missing from Google Glass and that sets it apart
from the dashcam example is the ability to continuously record on a circular
buffer, mostly due to constraints in battery life. But once that's possible I
would expect many interesting videos to start hitting the internet, as you
could essentially save the last x minutes of video to file.

A good example of this is the video of the SFO crash landing. It was somewhat
unlikely and miraculous that someone just happened to be filming at that time,
but in the future there might be tens or hundreds of videos from all the eye
witnesses. And not just for this event but any other.

It's interesting to think about other repercussions of such technology. From
the innocent (such as a large increase in the amount of embarrassing videos on
YouTube) to important (such as reconstructing a crime event (think boston
bombing)) or scary (blackmail?).

~~~
InclinedPlane
Technologically it's really only a matter of time before storage gets to a
point where keeping months of coninuous 1080p video isn't a big deal, it'll
fit on a square cm and cost a pittance.

But that's not the scary part.

The scary part comes later, due to massive increases in computing power.
Imagine a world where, say, computers with terabytes of RAM and thousands of
high performance cores are run of the mill server systems. And then it's not
just a matter of people storing data but _analyzing_ it, and collating it,
deeper than we think is even remotely conceivable today.

Face recognition, voice recognition, biometrics, kinematics, writing style,
and of course metadata will make public an astounding amount of information. A
video of a random group of strangers will be trivial to index and identify
every individual through the above techniques. A shockingly detailed account
of everyone's lives, where they've been, who they've met, what they've
purchased, and so on will be determinable using, eventually, relatively little
cost in computing power.

Here's an example, let's say there are only a handful of pictures or videos
from inside your apartment, imagine if every book on your shelf, every knick
knack, every belonging was automatically identified and indexed. It's a world
that rapidly spins away from any sort of world we're comfortable or familiar
with but we probably won't figure out how to deal with it until well after
we've been subjected to the worst abuses and invasions of privacy.

~~~
homeomorphic
> Face recognition, voice recognition, biometrics, kinematics, writing style,
> and of course metadata will make public an astounding amount of information.
> A video of a random group of strangers will be trivial to index and identify
> every individual through the above techniques. A shockingly detailed account
> of everyone's lives, where they've been, who they've met, what they've
> purchased, and so on will be determinable using, eventually, relatively
> little cost in computing power.

Indeed. I can't imagine it will be many years before we see a similar video,
except now with a Terminator-style overlay (that the wearer also sees in real
time) indicating the name, age, occupation, marital status, etc. of every
person. I've never been afraid of technology before, but this really doesn't
seem to me like a future society I'd like to live in. "Oh look, that girl over
there just got dumped according to Facebook." "Haha, that guy that dresses
like a bigshot really flips burger for a living!" "That family over there is
from France." ... and so forth.

Others in this thread have said that it's just a gradual line of change from
everybody carrying cellphones with cameras and an Internet connection. I sort
of disagree. Even after smartphones became ubiquitous, it's not socially
acceptable to obviously point it at strangers. Pointing your glasses in their
general direction is, though.

I wonder if I'm just going through the same line of thought my parents did
when they realized the Internet was here to stay in every part of life.

On the other hand, there's always masks :-)

~~~
casual_slacker
Technology was supposed to make our lives easier and allow us to work less.
Instead it gave us new ways to judge people.

~~~
JabavuAdams
... and made our lives easier and allowed us to work less.

------
ryusage
If this counts as "Little Brother", then I would argue that we've already
reached that point. A year or two ago, I recall seeing many stories of outrage
that police were confiscating phones after people filmed arrests. Fights like
this get filmed all the time in high schools.

Granted, people don't recognize Glass as a film device at the moment, but I'm
sure there was a short time where people didn't recognize phones as filming
devices either. Once they recognize Glass too, is there any difference?

I'm not trying to say that Glass doesn't raise privacy issues, but I think
this is a poor/insignificant example.

~~~
recursive
Once it gets to the point where data is being uploaded live, it won't matter
if the physical device gets confiscated.

~~~
Karunamon
This is already possible with phone cams. Apps like QIK and Livestream, even
the ACLU has their own. May or may not be possible with the severely
underpowered system that's in the dev edition of glass, but that'll only be
refined over time :)

~~~
gknoy
The only thing keeping me from using this is that video normally includes
audio (and,indeed, it's somewhat important for context), but I'm not sure
whether California's wiretapping laws (or some other?) would get me in hot
water if I recorded someone else's conversation. I'm pretty sure this is a
both-sides-must-consent state for audio recording, and I'd not want to have to
go to court to claim that things said in public (e.g., when an officer of the
law is detaining you, or someone else) aren't private.

~~~
tomkarlo
If it's in a public place where there's no particular expectation of privacy -
in particular, if you are not party to the conversation but can clearly hear
it and are visible to the parties talking - it doesn't seem like it would run
afoul of recording laws.

 _The statute applies to "confidential communications" \-- i.e., conversations
in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no
one is listening in or overhearing the conversation._

[http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-
law](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law)

~~~
cmsmith
Note that this is the same justification the authorities use for actions like
warrantless GPS tracking of cars or recording of phone call meta-data.

That you have no expectation of privacy about where your car moves because
someone could just follow you around. When dashcam videos are all instantly
uploaded to youtube, and you can run license-plate recognition on the entire
database to track someones's car around, then we might start getting
concerned. And while I care a little about the FBI's ability to constantly
track my car for reasons of principle, my concerns get a lot more practical
when my boss is tracking my car to make sure I'm really sick or not going on
job interviews.

~~~
tomkarlo
I don't disagree that it's potentially a problem, I'm just saying that as
someone recording in a public place you're unlikely to be running afoul of
wiretap laws.

We should be far less concerned about personal cameras (wearable and/or
phones) than fixed security cameras, anyway. We're probably on a fixed CCTV
100X as often as we're being recorded by personally-carried cameras. Worry
about Glass and other such devices is just a red herring.

------
darkmighty
Widespread sousveillance
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance))
is the path to the right kind of future!

~~~
pekk
I don't want my snoopy neighbors to be photographing me at every time of the
day. I am not doing anything to deserve that level of suspicion. Not even
criminals deserve this level of surveillance, it is abhorrent nonsense out of
1984. And we accept it just because we change the 'sur' to 'sous' on the
grounds that the government is not allowed to do it?

Believe me, if constant personal surveillance in every moment and place
becomes generally socially acceptable, there will be nothing to stop
'surveillance'.

~~~
sliverstorm
There won't even need to be any surveillance; the gov't can just review the
sousveillance footage.

~~~
diminoten
Sure, but we'll see 'em when they do, and then we'll see 'em again when they
try to act on the info they've gathered, etc.

We'll vote them out of office if they abuse their knowledge, because we'll
know they've abused it.

~~~
wtbob
I think my sarcasmeter just pegged.

~~~
diminoten
I choose to believe the US system of checks and balances isn't broken.

~~~
krichman
It may not be broken but it definitely has been co-opted.

------
guelo
Everybody nowadays is walking around with high quality cameras in their
pockets that can be switched on within a few seconds. Look on youtube for tons
of smartphone video of fights, crimes, arrests, etc. I still fail to see how
Google Glass changes anything.

~~~
Karunamon
The difference between:

    
    
        * Retrieve phone from pocket/purse/backpack
        * Unlock phone
        * Launch recording app
        * Start recording (ensuring phone is in the right orientation)
        * Hold phone out in front of you in an uncomfortable way so you
          can both record and see what you're doing.
    

and:

    
    
        * Tap on temple or say "OK glass, record a video"
        * Look at what you want to record
    

The passivity and ease of access of Glass is its greatest asset, and precisely
the reason it's a game changer.. Replace recording with looking up something
online, same thing.

One feels contrived and annoying (the tech being in the way of what we want to
do), the other smooth and natural (the tech just simply doing what we want).

~~~
johnrob
The first list is missing one bullet (at the bottom):

* Possibly get arrested

~~~
nateabele
I don't think the significance of this can be understated. Two reasons:

One, I think the act of pulling something off of someone's face is a lot
different from pulling something out of someone's hand. It's subtle on the
surface, but crossing that kind of social boundary on a regular enough basis
could be exactly the tipping point that turns public opinion against law
enforcement on a broad scale.

Two, as the technology and form factor mature, it'll simply be harder to tell
whether something is/contains a camera or not.

~~~
saalweachter
Have they come out with the prescription lenses version of Google Glass yet?

------
dfc
David Brin has been predicting/talking about this for over a decade now. Sadly
a lot of people are only familiar with his Sci-Fi work, his non-fiction work
is equally interesting.

[http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html](http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html)

------
_fs
You know, seeing this video of google glass is a crowd... We thought iphone
thefts were bad? Once people realize the value of google glass, whats to stop
a criminal from snatching those off the user's face? An iphone at least has
the protection of your pocket. Snatch and grabbing a pair of $1500 google
glasses is going to become a major problem.

~~~
TillE
It'd be quite easy for Google to lock these down. For example, don't allow a
new account to be used on the device until the previous account has been
deactivated by the owner. If you don't have the owner's password, it's
worthless.

In short: make a proper anti-theft system and publicize it loudly. Word will
get around, and there will be few thefts.

~~~
positr0n
You don't think there would be a way to "jailbreak" the Glass and get around a
software lockdown?

------
jmadsen
What are the current laws regarding filming people without their consent in
the US & other countries?

Thinking about:

\- public vs. private space

\- minors

We have some very specific laws on these things here in Japan, which would
(should?) extend to cell phones & camcorders. Google Glass is just one more
recording device

~~~
leke
The bad thing about glass is that you can't tell if you are recording or not.
You can't just go and challenge every person at the beach wearing glass, and
when it becomes popular, it will be abused.

~~~
Karunamon
I thought there was a light on the outside of the view prism when recording
was happening?

~~~
leke
Come on, we're hackers! A pesky light is asking to be turned off all the time.

~~~
Karunamon
You think the average Glass user will disassemble the device (which teardowns
would seem to indicate is a one way operation) just for the purposes of
disabling the recording light so they could record on the sly?

Aye, we're hackers, who are a minority of people.

------
mncolinlee
This reminds me clearly of "A Scanner Darkly." That is Phillip K. Dick's
prophetic novel where a surveillance grid consisting of half of the
population, the scanners, spies on everyone else.

"Whatever it is that's watching, it's not human, unlike little dark eyed
Donna. It doesn't ever blink. What does a scanner see? Into the head? Down
into the heart? Does it see into me, into us? Clearly or darkly? I hope it
sees clearly, because I can't any longer see into myself. I see only murk. I
hope for everyone's sake the scanners do better. Because if the scanner sees
only darkly, the way I do, then I'm cursed and cursed again. I'll only wind up
dead this way, knowing very little, and getting that little fragment wrong
too."

------
muuck
I think it just a matter of time we see the first movie of a fist being
planted on the face of a glass wearer. Agressive people who notice that the
are being recorded often direct their anger to the person with the camera.

------
leke
I wonder if the police will be more paranoid about witnesses videoing them
doing their job in the future?

Well, how do you like nothing to hide, nothing to fear now?

------
chrischen
Actually, if Google Glass catches on, we would all become _knowing_ video
subjects. I'm not sure what the author is complaining about. Right now I can
buy a pinhole camera and start recording people and they would genuinely not
know it's happening. If I had Glass, people would at least know.

------
gunmetal
The battery on Glass works for about 1.4 hours, probably shorter if you were
continuously recording.

------
yenkta
Yesterday I was watching helplessly innocent person getting beaten up by some
goon. I could have easily recorded a video and uploaded some where. Is there
any other alternatives like a tiny camera I could attach to my glasses(not
Google glass)?.

------
CoryG89
Oh yeah, this couldn't have possibly been captured with one of the millions of
cell phones capable of recording in HD. We're all doomed now that they stuck
it on a pair of glasses.

~~~
d23
Sure, and the iPod won't change anything. People can already use their walkman
to play tapes wherever they want. Why would they need an iPod?

People don't walk around with their phones out in the air recording everything
because it isn't convenient. The more widespread this gets and the ease with
which we are able to store every second of video has very obvious privacy
implications.

------
contingencies
Little brother? What a farce. Let's be a bit more realistic here.

The hardware and software for truly synthesizing the vast quantity of video
based data will not be either totally cheap or available to the general public
for their benefit. More likely, it will be used to re-affirm and enforce the
monopoly of power of the state (when outside) and/or corporations (when at
work/school/play).

Surveillance breeds totalitarianism. Everpresent surveillance breeds total
totalitarianism.

Noam Chomsky:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz1AImQ5jqA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz1AImQ5jqA)

------
Techasura
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6005249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6005249)
and nobody cared about it.

------
diydsp
If nothing else, this video confirms what other reality cop shows have long
proven: The sure-fire way to avoid arrest is to never take off your shirt :)

------
Mordor
Little brother or big brother? If this data is captured by the NSA, then
Google Glass is an erosion of civil liberty.

------
wilfra
I've never seen a clearer demonstration of why you shouldn't say a word to the
police if you ever come in contact with them. Those kids unwittingly admitted
to crimes when explaining to the police what happened, and were arrested on
the basis of things they said. If they had just shut up and asked if they were
under or arrest or if they could leave, they all would have walked away.

~~~
waps
That's a very cynical view, isn't it ? That was a correct arrest.

Sure if you regularly commit crimes, never cooperate any more than the law
requires with anyone, least of all the police or anyone in official function,
as any criminal lawyer will tell you a million times. IANAL, but that's
probably good advice.

~~~
thomasjoulin
Relevant : Don't Talk to Police (especially if you're innocent)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
coldpie
Everybody in the United States needs to watch this video. Thank you for
posting it.

------
goggles99
The publicity of Google Glass must be what is causing this uproar right? I am
assuming this because video camera glasses have been around for 15-20 years.

There have been HD ones which look much less conspicuous than Google Glass
ones for at least 5-6 years. They are currently under $200 (I don't own any, I
just have seen them here and there and looked it up).

------
muuck
I think it is just a matter of time before we see

