

At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom - nickbilton
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/at-google-conference-even-cameras-in-the-bathroom/
The future came crashing down on me this week at the Google I/O developer conference while I stood at a bathroom urinal.
======
cs702
This is a well-written piece, simultaneously praising _and_ mocking Google
Glass, with lots of memorable passages that made me smile or laugh. Let me
quote just one of them:

 _"At one point as I climbed the stairs and approached the second floor, I saw
a group of five people wearing Google Glass, all silently staring off into
space. I couldn’t tell if they were wirelessly having a conversation through
their eyeballs, or just bored by the presence of real humans in front of
them."_

The entire article is filled with similarly funny tidbits.

~~~
corresation
To offer a counterpoint, I thought it was a terribly written piece that is
like "cliches about glass 101". _Sure_ he had the conversation with the
gentleman regarding winking...or maybe he read about that app and thought he
would milk the "Google Glass dystopia" a little further (he had another
ridiculous piece that made waves about Google Glass' "shine" wearing off,
which is funny because I've read the same fear-mongering "they're all out to
take pictures of my wiener" articles since the first hint of glass hit the
tubes).

~~~
ryanmcbride
But with google glass, suddenly small discrete cameras will be everywhere! Not
like today, where for a picture to be taken, a huge flash bulb has to explode,
and the subject has to stand perfectly still for 10 minutes.

~~~
hnriot
Not exactly discreet, anyone wearing the dorky glasses will be automatically
labeled dork, and when they start winking at things they want to photograph it
will just be super creepy.

~~~
georgemcbay
It is just a matter of time (perhaps it has even happened, I don't follow
Glass development much) until there is an app for jailbroken Glass devices
that takes photos on an X second timer, no winking required. Whenever cameras
and control logic are combined, intervalometer control isn't far behind.

~~~
nooneelse
Right, and it can be a smart intervalometer, with a little pop-up, "taking a
picture in 5, 4,... (to skip taking a picture this time, tilt your head to the
left)". Or, "you seem to still be sitting in that waiting room, skipping the
timed picture as per your settings (tilt your head left to make an exception
this time)." And "you will soon be arriving at the party on your calendar,
increasing rate of auto-pictures and going into silent-running mode for two
hours (tilt your head left to cancel)."

------
georgemcbay
I'm a lot more worried about the privacy implications on a macro scale than I
am about some random person getting a photo of my private bits.

The scary part of Glass-like devices taken to their logical conclusion for me
isn't the little individual invasions of privacy (though those are also
unfortunate), but the massive amount of real-time, real-world information
collected in the aggregate.

If Glass-like devices are ever mainstream and controlled by one entity they
create the easy possibility for an information mesh network that makes the one
shown in "The Dark Knight" look absolutely quaint in comparison. Ubiquitous
video + audio + advanced feature detection destroys personal privacy when in
public basically across the board, even if you yourself are not a participant.

eg:

EvilOverlord: "Glass-MCP-10k, where is George McBay?"

Glass-MCP-10k: "Scanning... Subject George McBay last seen entering
residential building 10.5 seconds ago at 32.925924,-117.227812. Data based on
facial recognition match with 96.75% confidence. 5 Gargoyles report seeing him
within 1 mile radius of this location within the last 10 minutes."

I see the massive benefits of Glass-like-devices but I am also terribly
concerned about the possible privacy implications. The potential for abuses
could be staggering and given that I think it is a good idea to actually
discuss the potential for problems and not just assume everything will be okay
because the tech is "neat" (yes, it is!, but...).

~~~
betterunix
"The scary part of Glass-like devices taken to their logical conclusion for me
isn't the little individual invasions of privacy (though those are also
unfortunate), but the massive amount of real-time, real-world information
collected in the aggregate."

As opposed to the world without Google Glass, where people are constantly
taking pictures in public and then uploading those pictures to Facebook?
Honestly, singling out Google Glass is just a diversion, probably driven by
Google's competitors who could not see how a head-mounted display could be
useful.

~~~
georgemcbay
There's a huge difference in terms of scale (assuming Glass becomes as
mainstream as Google hopes it will be) and real-time accessibility of the
information.

I am not a Google competitor. I use lots of Google products daily: gmail,
nexus 4, ARM Chromebook, Go, I even have a Google TV box. And yet I still feel
Glass has massive potential for privacy abuse on a scale never seen outside of
maybe the NSA.

~~~
betterunix
I am really not seeing how that is the case. There are so many photos being
uploaded without Google Glass that it is possible to _reconstruct a model of
an entire town_ using those photographs. We already crossed the point of
having large numbers of photographs taken without our permission uploaded
corporations that do not care about any of us. The most dramatic change with
Glass will not be the number of photos, but the applications that will be
possible.

A while ago, a friend of mine sent me a picture he found on Facebook. It is me
and my best friends from college at a party on the first night of our freshman
year. We were all in the background of the picture -- it was completely
inadvertent that we were photographed. That was nearly a decade ago, long
before Google Glass was even a concept.

You are not going to see more privacy abuse resulting from Glass than you
already see resulting from the combination of smartphones and online social
networks. I do not want Facebook to build a profile about me, but guess what?
My friends and family upload pictures of me to Facebook without asking
permission, complete with metadata, which is added to a database that has my
browsing habits (surreptitiously collected) and tidbits gathered from any
mention of me by those same friends. What do you think Glass is going to add
to this situation?

Furthermore, what solution would you propose? We as a society already managed
to dig ourselves into a hole, where we have become dependent on large
corporations to satisfy our computing needs; if you want a technical solution,
you are going to have to trust Google to implement it. Legal solutions would
likely further restrict our freedoms and worsen an already overly complicated
legal code, restricting our ability to take pictures or used head-mounted
displays and other wearable computers.

------
marknutter
This actually reminds me of my brief stint at Apple. I went out to the
headquarters for a conference right around the time the first iPhone was
released. That year all Apple employees were given free iPhones, so of course,
everyone at the week long conference were glued to them. I remember very
distinctly riding a bus to the campus with my fellow Apple employees and
seeing every single solitary face buried in their iphones, all of us sitting
in silence. Despite my enthusiasm for the iPhone I do remember having a slight
sinking feeling at viewing that. I was seeing a glimpse into the future to
come.

~~~
brador
The difference is Google is paying a lot of famous people a lot of money to
wear Google glasses. That is not the sign of a company making an awesome
innovative solution people want and have a use for.

~~~
proexploit
They're paying people to wear glass? Do you have a source for that?

~~~
brador
No source I can link to.

------
hkmurakami
_Then I met the man who excitedly told me about his power to snap pictures
with his eyelid. He explained that he uses the wink-to-take-a-picture feature
so much that a few days ago he was not wearing his Google Glass and was
confused when he blinked his eye and nothing happened. His mind had played a
trick on him, he said._

Well this itself isn't new, since I often reach to adjust my glasses even when
I'm not wearing them.

~~~
T-hawk
Yeah. I sometimes reach to adjust my glasses too -- six years after LASIK
correction.

Muscle memory is _really_ hard to break without conscious effort.

------
DanBC
Creepers have been creeping for years and years and years.

They peer through curtains; they make spyholes in cubicle walls, and with
digital cameras they hide cameras in ceilings and books and showers and shoes.

Voyeuristic porn is a category. Upskirt is word popular enough to have an
understood meaning.

I'm a bloke. I'm not worried by those creepers.

But I am uneasy about some users of Google Glass. I'd be really uncomfortable
if I was standing at a urinal and someone was next to me still wearing Google
Glass.

~~~
marknutter
I have a feeling that when/if Glass becomes popular enough it will become a
social faux pas to be wearing Glass while looking at a woman. Can you imagine
some guy wearing Glass staring at a pretty girl across the way? It's creepy
enough _without_ Glass; it's super creepy with. As such, I'm betting it will
be considered polite to prop Glass up on your head when interacting with
people.

~~~
pseut
Or just take it off. Remember when people kept their bluetooth earpiece in
their ear _all the time_?

~~~
Blara
except for those people who need glasses to see

~~~
pseut
Yeah, that's a good point. Maybe Glass will be like prescription sunglasses,
and people will have a separate pair? Maybe there will be a way to overtly
disable the computer part or remove it entirely?

I think it's really unlikely that, aside from early adopters, people will have
Glass "in place" when they're not using it, though.

------
freehunter
>There they were, a handful of people wearing Google Glass, now standing next
to me at their own urinals, peering their head from side to side, blinking or
winking, as they relieved themselves.

I wasn't there so I have to take his word for it, but... I really doubt that.
Blinking, of course. People blink. But why, I cannot fathom, would everyone at
a urinal be peering side to side and taking pictures of other people using the
restroom? No one does that with the camera they carry with them everywhere.
Why would Glass change that? What would it be about Glass that would suddenly
make everyone want to take pictures of other men in the restroom?

Was this story just made up to be hyperbolic? I seriously can't figure out why
Glass would cause such a huge cultural shift that would make people start
photographing each other in the bathroom not only acceptable but common.

~~~
Nrsolis
Because it's happened.

Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't
exist without them. For one thing, teenage fights are filmed by bystanders and
replayed/posted on the Internet. Pictures of women in compromised positions
(children even) are passed around schools. Cyberbullying (even though I hate
that term) is easier and more anonymous because of these tools.

If you're the victim, it can feel as if you are fighting the entire world.

THAT's why I think someone would be well within their rights to take swift
action to halt something like that in its tracks.

BTW, I'm certain it's the reason why police risk the backlash associated with
taking cameras away from third-parties vs. having their actions armchair-
quarterbacked by legions of second-guessers.

~~~
freehunter
>Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't
exist without them.

But all of those things existed even before the means to record them. People
would fight. Women would be spied on. Children would be bullied. But taking
pictures of people in a bathroom is not something that was common or accepted
before, apparently, yesterday. We've had the means to record the bathrooms for
quite a long time now, and it doesn't happen. When it does happen, it makes
the news.

The author wasn't describing a demented pervert hiding in the shadows to see
you naked, he was describing many people at a tech conference not hiding the
fact that they were taking pictures of each other in the bathroom. That
doesn't happen.

~~~
Nrsolis
I think the worry is that once the cameras become commonplace, it'll make the
barrier that much lower. Once the barrier is lowered, more people will feel
like there is little harm in crossing it.

~~~
Filligree
Would there, in fact, be as much harm in crossing it?

What I mean is.. if societal norms change such that, say, nude photos are no
longer considered important - because everyone has nude photos online, after
all - is it still as much of a problem?

Most of the psychological issues here are highly cultural.

~~~
Nrsolis
Maybe for you. But I don't think that someone else should have that power over
me. Once you start allowing that barrier to be crossed, you're inviting all
sorts of other incursions on what we consider to be personal liberties.

~~~
Filligree
And once again, the new generation turns out to be perverted and immoral. :-)

You're welcome to object, but the consensus of society will likely shift.
Perhaps not to where I suggested; I'm not much of a prophet.

------
Cushman
"I’ve been a nerd all my life, [but] I felt like a mere mortal among an
entirely different class of super-connected humans."

This is the most insightful passage in there, though it's probably
unintentional. There is a separation taking place between "nerds" who enjoy
the practical benefits of new technologies in their day-to-day lives, and
those who believe that new technologies should and _will_ alter our species in
ways that frighten us.

And that's nothing new; many (most?) Baby Boomers implicitly distrust PCs and
the Internet, let alone smartphones, but many others realize that they are
living in the most interesting time of their lives and wish they'd been born a
little later.

To be honest, though, I'm a little surprised to see this separation take place
so _early_ ; Glass is a charmingly inoffensive vision of things to come that
really shouldn't be shocking to anyone with an iPhone. If you're worried today
that someone might take a picture of your dick, you will be absolutely
horrified at what we have become before you die.

~~~
jt2190
I'm not worried that someone might take a picture of _my_ dick. I'm worried
that it's still very hard to explain to a large drunk gentleman that you
didn't take a picture of _his_ dick when his fist is smashing into your mouth.
;-)

~~~
Cushman
On the flip side, I'm excited by the idea that someone won't be able to punch
me in the face for any reason without some fairly conclusive evidence
testifying to that effect.

'Course that doesn't help me if I really did take a picture of his dick.

------
mtgx
I assume people think this is a problem because they are afraid someone will
film them "down there". But you have to actually _look_ down there to do that
with Glass, and last I checked that was already frowned upon, and it's
something people know they shouldn't do. So why would Glass make this
situation much worse?

~~~
freehunter
Yes, if someone winked at my exposed genitals while I was in the bathroom,
they would get a fist to the face whether they were wearing Glass or not. The
rules of society have not become extinct just because someone is wearing a
head-mounted camera.

~~~
pavel_lishin
The rules of the society _I_ live in certainly don't include sudden violence
at anyone who's checking out my junk. I might be upset or angry, and I'd
probably let them know it, but I'm not getting into a bathroom brawl over it.

~~~
freehunter
Really? If someone was indiscreetly peering over your shoulder to check out
your package, you would let them know that it made you upset? Excuse me good
sir, I do believe you are offending me?

Where I come from, that's more than an indiscretion. We're not talking about a
locker room.

~~~
arrrg
Violence without immediate danger is never morally ok. It is vile and
barbaric.

~~~
freehunter
You know what's vile and barbaric? Sexual harassment. Just because it's easier
to see your broken nose than it is to see how traumatized a victim of sexual
harassment is doesn't mean violence is immediately wrong. What you're arguing
is for blaming the victim.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _What you're arguing is for blaming the victim._

Telling the victim to not automatically respond with disproportionate violence
is not "blaming the victim".

If he'd said, "if you don't want pictures of your dick on the internet, don't
pee at Google I/O," then you might have a point.

~~~
freehunter
Listen to yourself, man! If someone peeked their head under a stall, would it
be disproportionate violence to push him back out with your foot?

Seriously, sexual harassment is not a light crime. It does serious damage to
the victim's mental state. There's no way of knowing if the perpetrator is
going to take things further. If you want to state here right now that you
feel that violence as a way to stop an ongoing act of close-quarters sexual
harassment is a disproportionate response, then that's fine. But don't be
surprised if other people in your society don't agree.

And yes, violating someone's privacy to see them naked when they obviously
don't want to be seen is sexual harassment. Filming that takes it to the next
level.

~~~
Dylan16807
Pushing them away seems reasonable. Punching them in the face both escalates
_and_ doesn't actually get them further away from you.

And if you are seriously worried about someone _solely_ because of peeking
then you need to learn how to handle that worry.

~~~
freehunter
You wouldn't reel back if I punched you in the face? You're man enough to
shrug it off without so much as flinching? The idea is to get you to take a
step back and pause so I can walk away.

~~~
Dylan16807
I'd flinch and stumble in some direction, it might or might not be away.

There's a good chance I'd fall on you.

------
marknutter
> Many were using their cellphones while wearing the glasses — defeating a
> declared purpose of the new gadget, to free you from having to look at your
> phone. Another man continually looked at his watch to check the time, even
> through the glasses display a clock right above your eye.

I get that the author is trying to be humorous but I fear that some people may
take some of his criticisms seriously. AFAIK nobody has declared that the
purpose of Glass is to "free us from having to look at [oure] phone[s]". It
simply makes _certain_ functions more convenient than using a phone, in
_certain_ situations. Let's also not forget that Glass' functionality is
pretty limited at this point, so people using their phones while using Glass
were most likely using an app with functionality that isn't offered by Glass
yet.. like browsing the web.

Glass is going to take off with the active crowd. It's perfect for people who
either have jobs or hobbies that require the extended use of their hands.
Think cyclists, police officers, postal workers, construction foremen, taxi
drivers, etc. I feel like it's journalistically sloppy to criticize Glass for
the (I feel) false premise that everybody is going to be wearing Glass all the
time. The OP was at _Google IO_ for crying out loud, of course you're going to
have a bunch of early adopters walking around with Glass' on their face.

~~~
kanamekun
> AFAIK nobody has declared that the purpose of Glass is to "free us from
> having to look at [oure] phone[s]".

Here's a quote on that topic from Isabelle Olsson, lead industrial designer
for Google Glass:

"One day, I went to work — I live in SF and I have to commute to Mountain View
and there are these shuttles — I went to the shuttle stop and I saw a line of
not 10 people but 15 people standing in a row like this," she puts her head
down and mimics someone poking at a smartphone. "I don’t want to do that, you
know? I don’t want to be that person. That’s when it dawned on me that, OK, we
have to make this work. It’s bold. It’s crazy. But we think that we can do
something cool with it."

~~~
marknutter
I still read that as a very specific use case. I very much doubt that if you
were to ask her if Glass would eventually remove the need for a phone
altogether she would say yes.

~~~
untog
That doesn't seem like a specific use case at all. Where the person happens to
be standing when they are using their phone is unrelated to the example,
really.

------
kaolinite
In Japan and some other countries, there is a law requiring cameras to make
loud noises so pictures cannot be taken discreetly. I wonder if this will
apply to Glass and, if so, what Google will do to enable Glass to be sold in
Japan. Is there even an external speaker with which they could make the noise?

([http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/32442/jurisdictio...](http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/32442/jurisdictions-
where-camera-shutter-sound-is-mandated-by-law))

~~~
hkmurakami
I travelled to Japan in February and noticed that my Nexus 4 suddenly started
to make shutter sounds when I snapped photos there, after I connected to my
friend's wifi hotspot. Something similar will be implemented in Glass for
sure. Of course, there are many workarounds around this, including separate
camera applications.

~~~
pseut
recording video is an immediate workaround (I'm assuming that the phone
doesn't continuously make shutter noises when it records video; if it does
then nevermind).

------
ignostic
We should never have had any expectation of privacy in public places. I think
what scares most people is that they're going to end up on the internet for
some reason.

Perhaps this shows how self-obsessed we are: to think that anyone is going to
care about us walking down the street minding our own business. Maybe it's the
uncertainty that makes people uneasy. I can walk down the street recording
everyone with my smartphone, but at least they know they're being filmed.

~~~
potatolicious
It's not as irrational a fear as you're making it out to be.

Check out any number of tumblr blogs. People of Wal-Mart. Look at That Fucking
Hipster, etc.

Or a very, very large section of /r/pics or /r/funny on Reddit.

Even ignoring the extreme cases like /r/creepshots, the Internet has _already_
proven that it greatly enjoys taking pictures of strangers in everyday life
and mocking them mercilessly.

People would like to go around with their fly accidentally undone and not have
a bunch of armchair comedians commenting on their junk. People would like to
go around on a bad hair day without it being picked apart by screeching
Internet fashionistas. Our fear of being spread all around the internet is
grounded in past instances of nobodies being spread all around the internet.

~~~
ignostic
I probably didn't clarify the core point well enough. Even if you're right -
if the fear is rational - what is your alternative? Banning filming in public?
Some of the more corrupt police forces would love nothing more than to have
evidence of police brutality tossed out on those grounds.

To answer the tangent,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representativeness_heuristic>

~~~
potatolicious
Vigilance and self-policing, because you're right, regulation on this front
has a highly chilling effect on expression.

This particular topic is near and dear to me - I do a lot of street
photography which is, at least partially, defined as taking pictures of
strangers in a documentary manner, and almost always takes place in public.

Countries with strong privacy laws, such as France and Japan, do suffer from
this. The photographic community in the UK has been hit hard in the past few
years as even innocuous picture-taking of popular landmarks has been hit with
intense police scrutiny if your gear is too "good".

We _do not_ want the heavy hand of government in here, because inevitably this
will mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. Expression and art is
usually at the boundaries of what society currently finds palatable, and
activities along this border needs to be regulated by _people_ , not immutable
and slow-changing laws.

The only solution I can think of (and it's not a particularly good one) is to
slam the door shut on people who would abuse their freedom of expression and
whose actions will lead to the _loss_ of freedom by inviting regulation. I'd
rather oppose people rather than technology, though.

------
asciimo
I was irritated by this article for many reasons, but the foremost is its
hypocrisy. The author recalled first-hand events from memory, curated them to
support a critical narrative, and then shared the results with millions of
people on the Internet. Now we sit in judgement of the anonymous people he
described. There are plenty of ways in which Glass and conventional blogging
differ, but not enough to warrant the author's shock.

------
dghughes
My concern is people like myself who wear prescription eye glasses who may
want to try Google Glass so end up putting the device on prescription glasses.
It's one thing to remove your Google Glass glasses to be polite or legal i.e.
washroom, locker room, driving a vehicle but for me that wouldn't be an
option.

Also, I wonder if I could make a pair of infrared LEDs put them on my person
somewhere to emit an interference beam pattern to mess up the camera on
someone else's Google Glass glasses.

~~~
microtherion
Yes, that’s my concern as well. I used to think that as a prescription glass
wearer, I’d be a natural early adopter of smart glasses, but given the privacy
concerns, it’s bound to be socially (and sometimes legally) unacceptable to
have smart glasses on all the time.

------
cyanbane
I am just confused as to why taking off your Glass will not be similar to
other common social bathroom courtesies like putting away your cell phone, or
utilizing family bathrooms, etc. Once a stigma is in place at the social
level, it will work itself out. If not, there is always the direct approach of
just asking someone to put it away.

~~~
echohack
Do you take off your normal glasses while using the bathroom?

~~~
ryanglasgow
Do normal glasses have a camera attached? Bathrooms are a place of privacy.

~~~
Kuiper
_Do normal glasses have a camera attached?_

If you're talking about prescription lenses, the answer to your question is
yes. Glass is designed to be modular, and Glass is intended to accommodate
those who wear conventional glasses for vision correction, giving them the
option to use glass with their prescription lenses.

------
ck2
If thousands of people had Google Glass on, it's possible some were
advertising props and not fully functional - this would explain some of the
behaviors the author saw.

------
pyre

      | But not me. I tried to duck my head and move
      | out of the way of these strangers’ sneaky
      | little cameras.
    

I think this was a bit over the top. Would he be ducking and cowering if
someone's cellphone was pointed his way? Probably not.

    
    
      | here they were, a handful of people wearing
      | Google Glass, now standing next to me at their
      | own urinals
    

Maybe Google should tout a RateMyPoo.com (NSFW) app for Google Glass!

------
lifeisstillgood
Memo to Wearable computing engineers:

Remember where I have been and what I have done, or tell me where to go and
what to do in the future.

Just stay out of the way of the now.

------
michaelrhansen
The only hope here is that similar to gym rules that do not allow cell phone
usage in locker rooms, hopefully we can adopt the policy "Don't be a Glass
ass. Remove your glasses before entering restrooms."

~~~
pohl
Indeed. "Don't be a Glasshole" flows a little better, though.

------
jjsz
If my glasses are prescription and I'm at a yoga class I'll be constantly
aware to not stare for too long or go to the first line. It's a huge burden.

------
austenallred
My first response was, "Who cares, we already have cameras everywhere and
anywhere, this doesn't change anything," but the idea of no one really knowing
when you're filming or taking a picture (unless they notice a wink) is kind of
a game-changer.

------
coherentpony
Google Glass, while intriguing at first, is something that deeply troubles me.

------
petercooper
Give it a year or two, regular looking glasses will have these features too.
Then the real problems begin, unless you want to start banning all glasses.

------
daddy2twin
I fear for my kids. We try to limit who takes pics, still, we find pics of
them online. With Google Glass...this task will become almost impossible.

------
coldcode
Once the police recognize a Google Glass user imagine the great shot of a
nightstick smashing into their face.

------
drucken
Statute books everywhere record the new crime of "lascivious or captive
winking"...

------
barista
It's funny how title has changed to be a flame bait now. Glass is one of the
new things that Google is introducing and at the Google IO where you expect
Google enthusiasts, why is it surprising to see a lot of Glass wearers?

Glass of course has privacy issues and I will not be comfortable speaking to
anybody who is wearing one. It's at least 100 times more nerdy as the
Bluetooth headset but those issues aside, you should totally expect to see
these at Google conference.

------
michaelochurch
Am I the only one who came here for the Perf/Perv jokes?

------
Kiro
Everyone wearing a pair sounds wonderful and I can't wait to get my hands on
one.

