
Glasshole - kposehn
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/14/glasshole
======
lmkg
So I just remembered that I actually have some personal experience with this
issue. My girlfriend is getting her PhD in computer vision, and one of her
labmates was working on summarization algorithms (imagine a program that could
take 6 hours of continuous footage, and spit out a 1-minute highlight reel).
She volunteered to wear a camera for a day to gather data for him, and she
asked me permission to do so while we were out & about during a weekend. I
agreed (with conditions--blurred faces in the final paper), we took the
footage, he published his paper, it was fine.

Like a year later, someone else who is working in a similar field reached out
to her labmate to ask for the raw data. Thankfully, he asked us if we were ok
with it, because I kind of wasn't. I had agreed to let one person that I kind
of knew already to see footage of me. I was slightly uncomfortable with the
idea of 6 hours of me conversing with my girlfriend at a brewery being passed
around between who knows how many labs, and appearing in who knows how many
papers, over a period of who knows how many years. Cuz I mean, once you lose
control over who has access to that data, even just a tiny bit, that genie
isn't going back into that bottle. Not that there was anything to care about,
it was just a brewery and playing with some legos at home, but I didn't like
the idea of becoming The Guy, and data sets have a way of becoming
institutions in that field.

And it wasn't just me, either. We were in a semi-public space, there were
other people in the background. I have no idea if they would be cool with
being in an academic paper. Maybe they would be, but they never even knew they
were being recorded, so it seemed kind of unfair to make that call for them.
We eventually decided to not allow the data to be shared.

So then her labmate asked if he could just send over the audio data. To which
our response was "why are we only finding out now that thing was recording
audio?" That left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

So I don't know if I have a point really, I'm just sharing my experience with
this. The big issue for me is loss of awareness and loss of control. I know
who or what is seeing me, because I can see them back; I can be aware if
someone is setting up a camera, and leave or hide my face or ask them what
they're doing. I'm (approximately) aware of who can observe me, and who has or
will have access to those observations in the future. The troubling aspect of
Glass is that it introduces an asymmetry that I feel is to my disadvantage: if
someone observes me with Glass, access to that observation is potentially
unbounded. This feels to me like a loss of control, and that's why Glass makes
me uncomfortable.

~~~
acchow
Glass is simply paving the way for the future forcing us to deal with the
privacy and social issues now. Eventually we will have video recording devices
smaller than a grain of rice. What then?

~~~
sethrin
These devices will have very poor image quality. It's not like making small
lenses is hard; the properties of light mean that anything usable as a camera
will be visible to the naked eye. Cameras can be small, but they cannot be
arbitrarily small. Your "What then?" will never happen.

~~~
acchow
"the properties of light" probably mean we won't have cameras as small as a
speck of dust or a grain of sand. But a grain of rice is pretty big. Can you
explain why you think that won't be possible?

~~~
sethrin
You can shrink the lens and CCD down that far[0], but adding in a power source
and data storage is likely to increase the size. Batteries are not tracking
other improvements in technology. Additionally with a lens that small you're
almost certainly going to want some form of image processing. You can move the
problems of storage and process if you want to radiate or have a wire, but
those introduce other concerns. Shrinking the entire package down to a grain
of rice seems overly optimistic.

[0]
[http://lanmdagigi.en.ec21.com/offer_detail/Sell_The_smallest...](http://lanmdagigi.en.ec21.com/offer_detail/Sell_The_smallest_CCD_camera
--7780425.html?gubun=S)

------
mjolk
I've been trying not to get too worked up over the whole NSA/PRISM issue, but
the potential success Google Glass changes the magnitude of the issue.

By proxy, every Google Glass owner will be acting as a remote recording device
for government agencies. Everyone in the line of site/hearing range of the
device forfeits privacy.

~~~
cookiecaper
Everyone is already carrying a remote tracking and recording device called a
cell phone, optionally including video (which may or may not be useful).
Admittedly Glass gives a much better vantage point for videos, but that's the
only added aspect.

~~~
enraged_camel
Cellphones are in people's pockets or purses most of the time, and even when
they _are_ being used the camera is mostly pointing at the ground or the
person's lap.

Google Glass will show The Watchers exactly what the person is looking at.
Even when the person takes it off and puts it on, say, a table surface, it
will be showing _something_ , as opposed to a phone which either points
downward or up towards the ceiling.

I could go on. The point is that "everyone is already carrying a remote
tracking and recording device" is hugely different in terms of both the scope
and depth of surveillance that said offers when compared to Google Glass.

~~~
Kylekramer
Doesn't the sheer amount of noise (in the intelligence agencies' eyes)
produced by Glass make it a fairly useless data source? If I worked for the
secret shadowy three initial organizations I rather have access to call logs
and email. At least it would have some curation.

~~~
Zikes
I think that's the key point here. The sheer amount of data being stored is
surely almost completely useless when it comes to preventing crime, but would
be invaluable when it comes time to investigate a crime, or if you want to
target a specific individual to harass.

~~~
nitrogen
Noise becomes data when you have the right algorithm.

~~~
Zikes
I'm sure there is some useful information they could glean, but in large part
key indicators of pre-crime are already blatantly obvious or present too great
a risk of false positives.

The latter is what worries me. If they come up with what they believe to be
the right algorithm and run it against their data, what then? Are we then in
the position where we have to a) prove our innocence in a crime that hasn't
even been committed, or b) become the targets of increased scrutiny and
restrictions?

~~~
nitrogen
There's more that can be done than pre-crime, though. For example, statistical
analysis/datamining of things like ambient sound levels, vocal stress levels,
positive/negative sentiment, etc. could reveal trends even before they reach
Twitter, allowing them to be preempted or directed.

------
alex_stoddard
In Kim Stanley Robinson's 1993 sf novel "Red Mars" a member of the first Mars
colonization mission also works for news agencies back on Earth and wears
"camera glasses". I forget the exact arc of the subplot but as I recall they
resign and refuse to wear the 'glasses' anymore because they were ostracized
by the rest of the crew.

~~~
lotsofcows
Snowcrash was 1992. People who are thoroughly wired are referred to
disparagingly as "gargoyles".

~~~
aeontech
Holy shit, you just made me realize Snow Crash is coming to reality (for
certain parts of it) faster than expected :)

~~~
jacques_chester
People who work at places like Google have been known, from time to time, read
science fiction.

A lot of it comes true because someone says "yes, good idea".

~~~
jholman
If only someone would make real-life versions of those flip-open communicators
from Star Trek TOS. Maybe someone at Motorola could do that.

Or, on the subject of Snow Crash, if only someone would make that thing in
Snow Crash called Earth. (Though if they did make it and then Motorola bought
it, I expect they'd name it Motorola Earth, which sounds dumb. Unless someone
bought Motorola first.)

~~~
pavel_lishin
On this topic, check out REAMDE - one of the characters makes a reference to
ripping off Google Earth, but not feeling bad about it because Google Earth
itself was directly inspired by something someone had read in a science
fiction novel.

------
JDGM
I was amazed to see this on the front page, assuming it was a link to today's
comic, which would possibly have been the first time I witnessed a non-xkcd
submitted to HN. That would've been cool, it's a good one.

The fact that this is actually a link to the accompanying article from Tycho
is great as his pieces are usually quite interesting but I miss out because
they don't come up on the Penny Arcade website until a good few hours after
the comic. It's infuriating actually, as the comic frequently makes me want to
read what Tycho has to say but it's not there yet. I don't understand why they
do that. Anyone?

~~~
teej
The writing on Penny Arcade has always been insightful and funny. I think
being great writers is what makes them great comic artists.

If you're interested in games news, I've found the Penny Arcade Report to be
fantastic. It hasn't been around long, but I several articles from it have
already hit the front page of HN. [http://penny-
arcade.com/report/](http://penny-arcade.com/report/)

~~~
DanHulton
Gabe's writing has gotten much, much better of the years, though Tycho's has
always been good.

But seriously, I remember early Gabe newsposts and they were just full of
typos and spelling errors and I honestly lost a little respect for him. Then
again, I was an arrogant little shite ten years ago, so don't read much into
that.

------
Argorak
Associated comic strip for the lazy: [http://www.penny-
arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14](http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14)

------
doktrin
It will take a while before I am comfortable with others wearing Glass around
me. The thought of speaking to someone wearing the device makes me a little
uncomfortable. I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain
members of this community, but there you have it.

This is a resistance that I'm sure is shared by many in the general public.
It's something we all may get used to eventually, but I honestly predict a
fairly grating and occasionally unpleasant transition period.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It's not like CCTVs are pervasive already. Anyways, they'll eventually get
Glass down to where it's unnoticeable, then the awkwardness will disappear
even if...the problem still exists.

~~~
joe_the_user
_Anyways, they 'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable_

I doubt it. The awareness and general resistance to glass has so-far spread
faster than glass itself. If a glass that looked exactly like ordinary glasses
came out, there would be both a general complaint and general suspicion of
anyone wearing ordinary glasses.

It's doubtful that they could make glass invisible without even more
complaints and if glass wasn't invisible, it would be noticed because what
people expands based on the focus of their attention.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Ridiculous. You do realize that you don't need to have your micro-camera and
microphone in your glasses if you want to record people unknowingly. A watch
could do it, or a belt buckle, or whatever. They already make this stuff, its
virtually invisible, and you can buy it today.

------
enraged_camel
I think there is good discussion to be had here, but _holy shit_ , I have
never been able to get over how utterly pretentious Jerry's writing is. The
comics are usually fantastic and at strange odds with the accompanying news.

~~~
derefr
It has never occurred to me to call the way Jerry writes "pretentious." Most
of the time I would call it "comedic" (specifically, _containing great amounts
of bathos_ )--he makes very creative, unexpected, and over-the-top use of the
English language to convey relatively normal opinions on relatively boring
subjects, in a way that makes me want to read his thoughts on things I
couldn't otherwise care less about.

~~~
stonemetal
It never occurred to me to call the person writing Jerry. I have always
thought of the writing as Tycho's. I mean that in the same way I would say
Hamlet said "To be or not to be..." rather than Shakespeare said.

------
ironchief
He brings up a very good point that a lot the information humans pickup is
from each other's faces. The nonverbal feedback facilitates turn-taking in
conversation as well as emotional feedback.

Perhaps Glass causes visceral reactions because of the combination of its
foreignness (unlike glasses) and proximity to the face.

~~~
gaius
Over and above the privacy issues, you can never have the undivided attention
of someone wearing Glass. That's deeply off-putting. Imagine trying to have a
conversation with someone as they listened to headphones and stared at their
phone the whole time.

~~~
apashee
I think that's going a little too far. Already we've embedded ourselves in a
world where many people break open their phone in the middle of a
conversation. Yes, it's rude. But it's still a change that's happening in the
world. However, Glass isn't always on, at least not right now. You have to
manually turn it on, which means it'll be akin to taking out your phone.

~~~
gaius
But can you see if someone else's Glass is displaying them something or
whispering them something? At least with a phone it's obvious.

~~~
easong
Yes, actually. The screen lights up and it's pretty obvious. Most of the
people I talk to while wearing glass notice it immediately when it comes on.

~~~
nkorth
And I seem to remember something about Google requiring all apps to light up
the screen, to avoid the whole "stealth" thing.

------
rplacd
Tangential to the actual post's content, but I'm a bit miffed at the
"Microsoft is the victim of bad messaging" trope: what distinguishes "bad
messaging" from the argument not made (deliberately or not) is, apparently,
the existence of an argument deemed better - but that's never been any basis
to determine the former. Talk about the potential of Microsoft's system (and
we can do so independently of Microsoft) - but the _act_ itself is nothing
that deserves pity or accommodation. A policy of taking arguments at face
value at the very least allows for consistency.

------
hawkharris
I wonder if the news about Google's participation in PRISM will influence the
way we (HN members) think about Glass. It certainly makes me feel less
comfortable with passively revealing more of life to Google.

------
jessep
I'm confused about the transition from Glass (Google product, no?) to
discussion of Microsoft's messaging problems. Can someone explain the
relationship?

~~~
lurkinggrue
It's a gaming comic and Xbox is major in the conversation this week.

The only reason for the Glass diversion is Gabe got one this week as well and
they are living with it.

------
AndrewKemendo
I think I am in the minority when I say I am looking forward to continuous
backup of my day to day activities whether it be through sousveillance or from
others.

I am not in the "if you don't have anything to hide crowd..." in the least and
am certainly aware of the ability of those in power to abuse it. My take on it
however is, I am going to just slough off the mores which I would have
previously been concerned with privacy about.

Catch me swearing when I shouldn't have? Oh well. Maybe I'll be less inclined
to do it next time. What if I whisper a dirty idea to my wife? Well, what's
wrong with a happily married couple doing what they like after all?

After you have kids the idea of going to the bathroom in privacy slowly drifts
out of the window - and why shouldn't it? It really doesn't make any ethical
impact on me for someone to know if I am doing a biological process.

My hope is, all of this will make us much more honest people. You can't
embarrass/blackmail me if I cannot be embarrassed/ashamed.

~~~
icebraining
I think you and I are privileged to live in relatively open societies, and to
fit in well enough such that the worst that can happen is to be embarrassed
for things we've done wrong.

But what about people in less open societies, and who don't fit what society
thinks should be the norm? For a gay man in a more conservative place, the
"honesty policy" may imply great physical harm.

And even if you actually fit in to the stereotype of the Good Citizen, what
about misunderstandings? What happens if a clip of a few seconds gets taken
out of context of a conversation (even by accident), which makes you sound
like you support some terrible thing, helpfully linked to your name by
Google's algorithms?

~~~
AndrewKemendo
As I said in my post this is me being hopeful - I don't actually think it
would work that way unfortunately. Ideally in your scenarios people would be
able to release their own source data from their glass (or whatever) to
provide context. The constant surveillance would be able to debunk all the
stupid arguments against being gay, such as they lead deviant lives etc...;
someone would be able to show a normal boring day coming home and having
dinner with their partner and then falling asleep in the bathtub like everyone
else.

The idea is that in a society that is basically completely honest and open no
one will hold a "moral high ground" so it would basically be impossible for
information asymmetry and thus natural variation would ensure that there is no
"norm."

Again this is all hopeful, if doubtful.

------
lsc
see, this is the thing about glass; There's a whole lot of useful stuff you
can do with a HUD that doesn't involve a camera, and wearing a HUD would be a
hell of a lot more socially acceptable if people didn't assume they always
came with cameras.

Or hell, just a 'the camera is on' indicator. a red light, or a bit of plastic
you can slide over the lens or something. (I mean, clearly, both of these
things can be faked, but there are a thousand other ways to conceal a camera
on your person, if you are being deceitful. The important bit is to make a
clear way of setting the social expectation that the camera is on/off.)
Personally, I'd favor some kind of physical lens block, as it guarantees my
privacy (during the times I physically block the camera) even if the firmware
is compromised.

------
thufry
One day there will be a Google Glass that isn't detectable by the subject of
the recording (tapped directly into the sensory system of the wearer). Then a
lot of the enforcement mechanisms against "Glassholes" will become redundant.

------
bquarant
In the morning! Glasshole was used first by Adam Curry on the No Agenda Show,
even before it was used by Leo Laporte on TWiT.

------
methodin
I'm still unsure exactly where the story transitioned into Microsoft...

