
Why you’ll want everyone you know to wear Google Glass - lehrblogger
http://lehrblogger.com/2013/07/16/ok-glass-build-a-social-network/
======
sveme
If it's prediction time, here's mine: The time of hyper-multitasking, constant
broadcasting of minute details to even the most distant acquaintances is over;
the big luxury will be being able to spend uninterrupted time on a single,
meaningful thing, without being constantly interrupted by emails/tweets/fb
messages/chats etc. People rent cabins in the forest to get things done - and
they got those things done and might serve as inspirational role models for
others.

Even Hackernews could be considered as support for this view, as it tends to
encourage people to use the long, well-thought form instead of the quick snip.
The most useful posts that I read here must have taken its writers more than
an hour (admittedly, this is not one of those brilliant posts).

If Google Glass succeeds - and it is possible that it does, then it will most
certainly not be based on the immediate exchange of images with others a long
way away. If a picture is worth taking and worth sending, it is worth getting
out the smartphone or camera. At least in my generation very few people have
time and the wish to constantly interrupt their work or play to check yet
another sunset in NY/Shanghai/Rio.

But maybe that is truly a generational thing.

~~~
lehrblogger
I don't see these two futures as necessarily incompatible, and could certainly
use more time alone in cabins. But sometimes it's better to both relax and be
productive _with_ other people, and technology is good for removing the
constraint that those people be in the same place. Maybe Glass won't be a
device on which we receive minute social updates, but it can still be useful
for the same reasons a telephone is useful. Maybe it could even have a similar
busy signal, so you're not interrupted if you're already talking to someone.

I think the 'worth' of a picture depends on the circumstances – people take
many more pictures than they did twenty years ago, now that we don't need to
get the film developed – and a further simplification of the process might
lower the threshold further. A pretty sunset is a pretty sunset, but the
pretty sunset from someone you love halfway around the world is something
different. An interesting thing about Glass is that it minimizes the duration
of the interruption needed to both send and receive that sunset.

------
thaumaturgy
I've stayed out of this debate so far for various reasons, but there is a
specific privacy issue with Glass that I haven't noticed anyone else raising
yet.

It is inevitable that Google Glass will have real time facial recognition,
whether Google wants them to or not
([http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/11/google-
glass-...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/11/google-glass-facial-
recognition)). Or, that a similar product offering that capability hits the
market once Glass becomes popular enough.

If you are a felon, or have ever been arrested on an accusation of a serious
crime, that is a future that you're not excited about. If you've ever been in
the media -- even on a purely local basis -- for anything salacious, that's
not a future you can be excited about. You can probably get Google Image
Search results for "[your county] arrested" (worked for a couple of counties
that I sampled at random); there are websites like mugshots.com that republish
mug shots and details of the arrest.

As it is now, the only thing that ex-cons and others in similar situations
have going for them is the relatively short attention span of the public and a
vanishingly small support network of other ex-cons and people willing to give
them another chance.

The rest of society, for the most part, regards them as unequal citizens (and
in some cases, sub-human, depending on the offense).

An apartment complex might choose to rent to an ex-con for some reason; once
the technology is available, management will have to deal with outraged
neighbors and many apartment complexes will simply stop renting to them. An
employer might give someone a job but not disclose that person's personal
history to their co-workers; if the technology becomes ubiquitous enough, that
will stop being an option too.

I don't think the technology itself is inherently bad. But, I don't think
society has yet reached a point of maturity where it can gracefully handle
this.

~~~
patmcguire
Can we discuss why mugshots.com is still the top result? Their main pitch is:

UNPUBLISHING SERVICE FROM

THE MUGSHOTS.COM DATABASE

HOURS OF OPERATION: 7AM -11PM EST

Which seems to be extortion. If they were a group of people deeply concerned
about convicts in their midsts that would be a different issue, but they seem
to be running a "pay us and we'll go away" business model, which it seems
reasonable to beliebe the search engines should punish in the same way they do
content farms.

------
wavefunction
>>Google should ... rather develop it as a novel device for directed, private
communication.

Private in what way? Private between us and Google? Private between us and
Google and the NSA?

This blog post ignores the reality before our very eyes, something we don't
need Google Glass for. It is merely another data acquisition tool for Google
and any usefulness beyond that is incidental.

~~~
fear91
There are many Googlers here, you know :) You either talk about G positively
or not at all.

The glass is the most Orwellian thing I've ever heard of. The only thing that
could beat it would be direct brain interfaces, capable of stealing thoughts.

~~~
conformal
it is amusing that you mentioned this because google's business strategy is to
steadily erode the privacy of all human beings and monetize it at each step.
they can try to dance around this all day with marketing and it doesn't
matter.

it's only a matter of time before the glass hardware has an attachment that
reads your mind so you exert even less effort than currently, e.g. blinking.
google will then take that data and sell it to marketers, the USG, and whoever
else they can, so everyone knows what you're going to think before you think
it. google predictive thinking... so sad.

~~~
gnosis
_" google's business strategy is to steadily erode the privacy of all human
beings and monetize it at each step"_

I wonder if most Googlers have faced up to this reality yet?

Or if they simply don't care, or think the money, perks, and "cool stuff" that
they get to work on makes it all worth it?

~~~
conformal
i think most people are unwilling to acknowledge such a problem with their
business strategy exists, and if they do acknowledge it, are unwilling or
unable to grasp the full extent of the problem. google, like many large
organizations, hides malicious actions behind a veil of complexity. "don't be
evil" is certainly a matter of perspective.

i will refrain from citing other examples of hiding behind the veil of
complexity since i don't want to "poke the bear" :)

------
sismoc
I don't want to be recorded. At All!!

No video, no audio, no photographs. NOTHING!!

Take your Glass somewhere else. I am off-limits.

~~~
bigiain
I also don't want to be recorded by convenience store or shopping mall cctv,
or by repo man ANPR, or by red light / speeding cameras.

We've lost that argument though.

What I would like to see, is for there to be appropriate responsibility
assumed by the people taking advantage of the privilege of recording
everything. I eagerly await the first few court cases where someone drunkenly
records and uploads to youtube something that they _really_ shouldn't have,
and a judge and jury decides it's entirely appropriate to hold Glass-wearers
to account for what they choose to record and publish.

~~~
izendejas
I'm genuinely curious: why don't you want to be recorded at malls et al?

What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard wondering
around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting shoppers/businesses?

Surely, it can be abused, but it can also help protect "suspicious"
individuals from being profiled/targeted maliciously by such security guard,
for example.

What if you were hit an intersection and said cameras helped to identify the
individual who hit you and then ran, would that change your mind?

I don't think surveillance is the problem as much as who does it and the laws
they implement.

~~~
e12e
> What's the difference between such surveillance and a security guard
> wondering around looking for suspicious activity and/or protecting
> shoppers/businesses?

Scale and awareness?

Scale, because if you ask that guard, who was buying what with whom, 742 days
ago, chances are that guard won't be able to answer in any meaningful way. A
database might (if eg: indexed on biometrics).

Awareness, because we come to ignore cameras, while if someone is actually
there, looking at you, you are aware of being watched. (And also aware when
their back is turned, so you can sneak a kiss from your mistress, or whatever
you're not comfortable doing "on the permanent record" \-- but might not be
wrong).

------
abruzzi
This may be right, but to me, as a doubter, I'm well aware of potential
benefits, but my creepiness radar comes from the feeling that there is a point
where recording becomes too intrusive. If I'm in a public bathroom and someone
is snapping photos, that it's too intrusive. And the problem with glass is
that you never know wether its just sitting on someone's head, or it is
recording. I don't see the benefits of ubiquitous telepresence overcoming the
creepiness of ubiquitous telepresence.

~~~
lehrblogger
Our existing mobile devices can be used in similar creepy ways, but we've
learned to discern between the postures people use for taking photos with
their phones, and their postures for doing everything else with their phones.
We certainly pay an "attention tax" to maintain an awareness of nearby
devices, but we've gotten over the creepiness.

It's possible that we'll learn similar patterns for Glass. While we won't know
if the device itself is recording, we might still be able to guess based on
where the wearer is looking and how quickly they are moving. On the flip side,
Glass wearers might also change their postures and habits so as to avoid
matching these newly-learned patterns.

~~~
abruzzi
Exactly. I think it boils down to the fear that we don't know when the camera
is active. When we're holding out our smart phone in a certain way, people
know we're taking a photo. Google could build glass with a bright flashing on-
air light, which would help, but absent obvious physical gestures, we'll
wonder wether the device has been rooted to disable the light.

Don't get me wrong, I do think its unfortunate, because there are real
positive sides to the device, and you touch on them in your blog, but for me,
unless I feel better about the hair raising on the back of my neck, I'm going
to be hesitant to accept the devices. (Caveat: I'm a bit of a privacy nut,
that has never used Facebook, twitter, uses brivate browsing whereever
possible, uses SMIME to encrypt most of my emails, etc., so my experience may
not be very indicative)

~~~
lehrblogger
Yeah, I understand. I was speculating about possible changes to social norms
and body postures in response to recording technology like Glass. As an
alternative to an indicator light, maybe Glass-wearers will learn not to look
at other people at all, so as not to give the impression that they are
recording. Similarly, perhaps there are ways that we held our pre-camera cell
phones that would now imply recording, so we've all subconsciously learned to
hold our new phones differently.

In other words, it could be a lack of obvious physical gestures that indicates
we _are not_ recording, rather than the presence of obvious physical gestures
that indicate we _are_ recording.

A world in which we don't 'point' our heads at strangers is definitely weird
and possibly undesirable, but interesting to think about.

------
Spearchucker
I see the value, even though I'm ambivalent about the concept. I'd love to get
my hands on something like it, but given the NSA revelations, not from Google
(and not from Microsoft, either).

The irony is that I'd probably trust something from Taiwan or Korea. Ironic in
that when I did work for the government,anything manufactured in these
countries automatically ruled it out.

------
protomyth
There's an odd series on youtube called H+[1] that is about implanted
computers (and a killer virus) that has some interesting scenes that could
apply to Google Glass and its ilk. Some are amusing but dangerous (husband
watching sports while driving), and some get a bit creepy. Sadly, their
picture of how the media would handle it is accurate[2].

The virus and information "appropriation" fears for this type of device are
very real. If you think people went batshit crazy over some startup uploading
address books or Apple keeping an unencrypted list of cell towers, then you
haven't seen anything when the first glass virus or "they're tracking us
scare" hits a congressional committee[3].

Its one thing for the twilight zone object on my desk to freak out. Its a lot
more personal when I carry it in my pocket. Its beyond scary when its on my
face.

1)
[http://www.youtube.com/user/HplusDigitalSeries](http://www.youtube.com/user/HplusDigitalSeries)
sponsored by AT&T

2) Pundits with much fury and noise communicating no information

3) I suggest using OpenVMS as the OS

~~~
lehrblogger
Thanks for the link, I'll watch some of these. I agree the viruses/etc are a
serious issue, and I'm not sure if I'm more worried about the first virus for
Glass, or the first viruses for self driving cars and Amazon delivery
quadcopters ... :)

------
contingencies
It's sad when the best they can do is conjure up the twentieth consecutive
year of "natural feeling video conferencing is right around the corner!" as an
excuse for allowing marketeers to use techno-fetishism to push omnipresent
corporatized surveillance in to society and public spaces. (The video
conferencing argument is a failure and will remain such: people prefer
telephones, and it never feels natural.)

------
tonylemesmer
Highlights nicely that the hardware is a good but the omnipresent backend its
plugged into isnt necessarily so.

------
cliveowen
As far as I can tell, all the mentioned scenarios address pretty niche
markets.

Personally I don't see mass adoption of Google Glass in any kind of
conceivable future, I see head-up displays in very specific settings as the
winning solution, instead of an always on, general-purpose solution.

~~~
dualogy
> _niche markets_

\--or maybe we end up in a future like this:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/what-back-to-the-
future-2-got...](http://www.businessinsider.com/what-back-to-the-future-2-got-
right-2013-7#not-only-did-the-movie-get-wearable-computing-right-they-even-
made-the-devices-similar-to-google-glass-1)

------
sologoub
This debate about knowing when Glass is recording puzzles me a bit. We have an
established way to indicate that a device is recording across both camcorders
and webcams on laptops - a small light indicating when the camera is on.

On most camcorders it's a small red light. On Macs it's green.

Glass has an indicator towards the back that is poorly visible. Just move it
to the front and maybe make it a little brighter.

Last I checked, no one is running away from a person walking around with a
camcorder that's not on. When it is on, it's easy to see and step out of the
view.

~~~
nhayes-roth
Personally, I no longer trust these established indicators. I now feel
justified in assuming that backdoors are built into most systems and that
Glass could be recording at any time, without my approval and without any
indication.

~~~
arrrg
It’s possible to wire the LED directly to the power of the camera. That way if
the camera receives power the LED is also on. There is no way to change this
behaviour in software. (This is how the indicator lights on Macs and
presumably many other indicator lights are wired up.)

~~~
e12e
No, but it is comparatively easy to change this behaviour in hardware, so
what's the point? Having an indicator that, "very often" works, is in some
ways worse than not having an indicator at all...

~~~
arrrg
Uhhhh … how so?

Yeah, if someone has actual physical access to your device they might be able
to detach the LED. Not easy to do – but imaginable. But that is hardly an in
any way relevant scenario.

------
orestmayski
With the recent relations of the spying that happens on civilians by the NSA,
and other government security agencies, are we ready for something like Google
glass?

------
egypturnash
OK Glass, install a cache for my website.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://lehrblogger.com/2013/07/16/ok-
glass-build-a-social-network/)

~~~
lehrblogger
Was the site down? It's hosted on S3 and served by CloudFront, so I'm not sure
what might have been wrong. Thanks for the cache link, though!

------
johnreese
The perfect anti-Google Glass device: [http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/02/21/ir-
leds-used-to-defeat-s...](http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/02/21/ir-leds-used-to-
defeat-security-cameras/)

