

Stop the Cyborgs was founded in response to Google Glass - mapleoin
http://stopthecyborgs.org/?

======
Udo
Augmented reality is on its way, and to be honest I've been waiting for it. I
will be using it where it makes sense. The point here should not be to play
Luddite in a world that is moving too fast for the majority of people, yet I
see exactly that as the potential takeaway of this campaign with its generic
"Glass is banned on these premises" signs.

I _am_ worried that the only company who is trying to market a usable AR
product is Google, whom I increasingly have huge trust issues with and who is
objectively getting to big and too powerful to be trusted. I would love a
hackable AR device with an open interface, one which I could potentially hook
up to my own server, a device I could install on whatever I want. You know,
like an Android phone of some kind.

Categorically banning glass-like devices is not the solution. Attacking Open
Source as undermining democracy doesn't sit well with me either. I also didn't
like how they're attacking the fledgling movements of participatory politics,
which we need more of (and which needs to become more meaningful) - not less.

Finally, the campaign's title is misleading and supports a disagreeable
sentiment. It implies that extending or repairing the capabilities of our
biological bodies is wrong.

~~~
pekk
If I don't want to be covertly recorded everywhere, that doesn't make me a
"Luddite".

I don't attack Open Source, or extending your body, or nifty Android gadgets
or whatever. That's all fine. But I do not accept being recorded in a bar. Can
you understand that this is not some sort of crazy reactionary idea?

~~~
betterunix
You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers
have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as
long as it is not used for commercial purposes. It sounds like your complaint
amounts to this: everyone will be a photographer once this becomes popular.

~~~
claudius
Actually, no. Here (DE), photographers are allowed to take your picture in
public if you are not the main component of that picture (with a few extra
exceptions).

And that’s just for picture taking. For recording (either video or sound), you
need to put up signs on private property and you are not allowed to constantly
record public places anyways.

So, yes, you can have an expectation of privacy in any public place in the
meaning of not being covertly recorded and photographed.

~~~
betterunix
Ah sorry, I was being a bit...American. Here, the only restriction on
photography is on commercial use.

~~~
claudius
(Un)fortunately, Google Glass is not restricted to the states.

------
antninja
The problem with Google Glass is its recording abilities. If I invite a few
friends at my home, I don't want them to come with all of Youtube. My home has
opaque walls for a reason. I know there will be a LED on while filming but
it's way too discreet and can certainly be broken or covered.

~~~
pekk
It's pretty easy to impose a house rule against this, but once it gets into
public spaces it will be impossible to contain except by always staying at
home.

------
rasur
The problem here with Glass is it's not really a Sousveillance device (in this
context). It's just going to allow slurping up vast streams of data for the
benefit of Google (and secondarily for the wearer). This is but one of the
reasons I'm more of a fan of Steve Mann's EyeTap tech (which is wearable,
personal, mediated-reality computing) - it allows for the idea of
Sousveillance to be enacted by the wearer.

(edit: for clarity)

~~~
pekk
Sounds great for the wearer to choose where they want to upload their data,
but everyone else will still be subjected to continuous surveillance. At least
currently this is a rare, unacceptable thing to do, reserved for sting
operations and the like.

You want EyeTap. I don't want your surveillance. We can't both have what we
want.

~~~
rasur
Sousveillance, not Surveillance. There is a distinction, which is basically
one of being anti-Surveillance.

But of course, with Google Glass, the concept of Surveillance is being
somewhat muddied and spread across the people that will be using it.

And you should look into how Police forces are being more regularly equipped
with on-person Surveillance.. I'd prefer to have my own version of events that
can be compared with the "authorized" version (where you can insert your own
value of "authorized" if you want), and I'd prefer it to be under my, not
Googles control.

(edit: typo)

~~~
quasque
Sousveillance only really counts when it inverts the usual power imbalance
inherent in authority-led surveillance systems.

The problem is that if wearable systems like Glass or EyeTap become
widespread, this will create a new power imbalance between those who use it
and those who don't, raising the same issues brought up by mass surveillance
systems but on a more personal scale - which rather spoils the whole ethos of
sousveillance that makes it so attractive in the first place.

~~~
rasur
I don't recall Glass ever being touted as a Sousveillance technology, but I'd
be happy to be corrected on this.

~~~
quasque
Glass is a sousveillance technology according to Steve Mann's definition. But
also a surveillance technology due to its link with Google.

Edit: found an article where he discusses Glass in this regard, interesting
read [http://techland.time.com/2012/11/02/eye-am-a-camera-
surveill...](http://techland.time.com/2012/11/02/eye-am-a-camera-surveillance-
and-sousveillance-in-the-glassage/)

~~~
rasur
Then I stand corrected. Thanks.

edit: I do keep harping on about it, but his book "Intelligent Image
Processing" is worth a read for more info on how the Eyetap works (amongst
other topics).

------
ok_craig
What's funny about this site is that we all love personal surveillance when it
helps us do things like bust animal abusers or discover dirty government
secrets, but when people are publicly carrying their recording devices, we all
feel uncomfortable.

Also this site talks about "glass free zones" and "surveillance free zones"
and doesn't seem to acknowledge that they aren't the same thing.

If somebody wants to record what you're doing today, they don't need glass to
do it. Why not make a big deal about devices that are actually undercover?

Maybe having these things so easily available will create an etiquette we
don't expect and can't predict.

I feel like once Glass actually delivers, it will play out as really nothing
special in these scenarios, and we'll realize it in short order. All this talk
before it gets here about surveillance and privacy violations, not actually
knowing how its used or how buyers will want to use it, or what its most
popular applications will be; all that is FUD.

~~~
yarrel
I'm familiar with corporate personhood but not state personhood.

~~~
ok_craig
I don't understand.

------
walshemj
As a cyborg (I have a replacement cornea) I have only one working eye

What happens when proper implants become viable for people like me?

~~~
pekk
I assume that proper implants would be ones that improve or provide vision.
You should have the full benefit of such medical advances, of course! But
should a medical device be designed for covert surveillance?

~~~
Egregore
If a medical device will have the ability to record(to help those with
dementia for example), will you discriminate against cyborgs?

~~~
claudius
Yes. If someone finds it appropriate to record what I am doing in a technical,
easily-reproduced manner, I will stay away from that person.

------
mistercow
I sympathize with some of their concerns (not that there's anything we can do
about it without massively hindering progress), but the anti-transhumanist
name really bugs me.

------
kbenson
I view the ubiquitous rise of personal recording devices as linked to other
progress that can not easily be (nor should it be) stopped.

I also see it as a privacy issue, where the expectation of privacy through
anonymity is decreasing through a combination of much more recording of
everyday events and future (and current) possibilities for correlating those
positively with specific people.

I think the natural outcome of this is that we'll just shift our cultural
relationship between assumed and explicit privacy and anonymity. In the
future, it may not be uncommon to see people in cities go about with some sort
of face covering / obfuscation, to achieve some semblance of the privacy and
anonymity we currently expect (whether or not we _should_ expect that at this
point...)

------
moondowner
Who's behind this campaign?

~~~
DominikR
Whois returns Domains By Proxy, LLC (Wiki:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domains_by_Proxy>)

My guess would be that it is Microsoft hiding behind this "movement".

~~~
quasque
I very much doubt it. Microsoft have their own interests in such augmented
reality devices[1] and such a move would hurt future business in that area.

[1] e.g. <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120293548.pdf>

------
philwebster
If you're interested in the (imagined) implications of always-on recording
devices, I'd recommend watching The Final Cut
(<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343>). Although it deals more with memories,
the issues of privacy and behavior of those doing the recording are
confronted.

------
XorNot
While there's been plenty of Google Glass fearmongering posted...this reeks of
the modern "link-bait" trend of online monetization. If you want to make a
quick buck in 2013 then the answer has always been to make the internet hate
you.

------
aerique
I hate to be that guy but I can't even zoom this page using Firefox. The font
size is huge and can't be made smaller. Why do people do this?

What setting in this page is responsible for this?

~~~
TsiCClawOfLight
fontsize is okay and zoom works with chrome...

