If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Activists are hard at work protecting your freedom. By demanding strict government regulation of Google Glass. Uh, thanks I guess   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 125
    More: Silly, Google Glass  
•       •       •

3617 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Mar 2013 at 12:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-30 12:09:33 PM  
luddites
 
2013-03-30 12:30:19 PM  
Folks, when you are out in public, you have no reasonable expectations to personal privacy. Somebody might be recording you on their cell phone and you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it (unless you're an ITG and want to pretend that you'd beat them up or break their camera), the google glass isn't going to be very different.  Only difference being that the people recording you will look like total jackasses now.
 
2013-03-30 12:31:39 PM  
FTFA: "It's important for society and democracy that people can chat and live without fear that they might end up being published or prosecuted,"

So what you are really saying is that it is important for society to be able to act like utter assholes to each other or lie and cheat when needed, without the "danger" of being recorded doing this? You have not thought out your or objection on moral grounds...
 
2013-03-30 12:32:42 PM  
So I take it they are up in arms about cell phone cameras as well? No? Well, then they can EABOD, a whole bag even.
 
2013-03-30 12:36:00 PM  
Google glass is nothing to worry about.

You should hear what the new iToilet does....
 
2013-03-30 12:36:24 PM  
I like that Google is trying to create a generation of Gargoyles straight from Snow Crash.
 
2013-03-30 12:39:10 PM  
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space...alls yalls paranoias about breach of privacy is null and void when out in public.

There is nothing further to discuss on the matter
 
2013-03-30 12:40:01 PM  
Given the fact that Google thinks I'm a middle-aged, conservative man, I'm having a hard time getting freaked out about this.
 
2013-03-30 12:40:56 PM  
The reality is, even if they think they have a serious argument, this is way too little way too late. We've already had miniature cameras and microphones for decades, and we've had cameras that fit in your glasses for at least ten years. If you were seriously concerned about the possible erosion of privacy you should have been up in arms a couple dozen years ago.

You can make some kind of statement about how ubiquitous these things are becoming, but even this is tenuous. We've had substantial amounts of smartphones with high fidelity recording ability out there for five years now. The cats outta the bag guys, you're not gonna catch it.
 
2013-03-30 12:41:36 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Folks, when you are out in public, you have no reasonable expectations to personal privacy. Somebody might be recording you on their cell phone and you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it (unless you're an ITG and want to pretend that you'd beat them up or break their camera), the google glass isn't going to be very different.  Only difference being that the people recording you will look like total jackasses now.


images.seroundtable.com

Be honest. Do these glasses make me look like an a-hole?
 
2013-03-30 12:42:42 PM  
You are not interesting enough for some stranger to record you. My public image is of great concern due to being an educator, but I resolve this by behaving myself in bars and pubs. I do not expect privacy when out in public, and the internet has taught me to behave as though word will get around.
 
2013-03-30 12:45:04 PM  
Oh the douchebaggery.
 
2013-03-30 12:48:27 PM  
Oh no, now I'll have no privacy when I'm out in public!
 
2013-03-30 12:48:49 PM  

Vangor: You are not interesting enough for some stranger to record you. My public image is of great concern due to being an educator, but I resolve this by behaving myself in bars and pubs. I do not expect privacy when out in public, and the internet has taught me to behave as though word will get around.


A thousand times this.
 
2013-03-30 12:51:28 PM  
Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book
 
2013-03-30 12:58:58 PM  

iheartscotch: Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book


Wouldn't they do that now? It's just a different way of recording video, not some scary new technology.
 
2013-03-30 12:59:50 PM  
Don't they live in a country with a bajillion cameras recording everything already?
 
2013-03-30 12:59:57 PM  
Google are interested in your privacy, or your 'whatever it is you do that makes you paranoid', just in advertising stuff to you that they think you might buy, based on (up until now) whatever you look at online, and soon that'll be whatever you keep looking at while wearing these glasses.
So if you keep looking at the neighbor's daughter over the fence while she's sunbathing they won't be sending the thought police around, they'll just bombard you with ads for sex-addiction websites, or swimsuits, or cat food if the present ads are anything to go by.
But these will be in your face, literally.
 
2013-03-30 01:00:18 PM  
It's extremely important to me that I am protected from both people who will be using Google Glass.

/no it's not
//nobody geeky enough to use Glass ever leaves their mother's basement
 
2013-03-30 01:00:45 PM  

YoOjo: Google aren't interested in your privacy, or your 'whatever it is you do that makes you paranoid', just in advertising stuff to you that they think you might buy, based on (up until now) whatever you look at online, and soon that'll be whatever you keep looking at while wearing these glasses.
So if you keep looking at the neighbor's daughter over the fence while she's sunbathing they won't be sending the thought police around, they'll just bombard you with ads for sex-addiction websites, or swimsuits, or cat food if the present ads are anything to go by.
But these will be in your face, literally.


Derp.
 
2013-03-30 01:03:15 PM  
The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."
 
2013-03-30 01:06:08 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."


....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.
 
2013-03-30 01:07:58 PM  

SpdrJay: Google glass is nothing to worry about.

You should hear what the new iToilet does....


It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't charge so much for every download.
 
2013-03-30 01:08:47 PM  
In all fairness you know that most people couldn't drive with those things on, so that aspect of it doesn't sound as crazy to me.  The rest is derpy.  I love the fact that the move to ban driving with Google Glasses will just push the market for Google Driverless Cars.

/google
 
2013-03-30 01:08:58 PM  

genner: BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."

....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.


I didn't.  Someone to whom I had to give it sold it to data brokers.
 
2013-03-30 01:09:33 PM  
offmymeds:
i105.photobucket.com 
Be honest. Do these glasses make me look like an a-hole?

Nope, you can't blame the glasses.
 
2013-03-30 01:10:03 PM  
The warning comes from a group called "Stop the Cyborgs" that wants limits put on when headsets can be used.


They obviously don't want to be assimilated.
 
2013-03-30 01:15:40 PM  
Please tell me when we will get a little regulation of the government?
 
2013-03-30 01:18:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book

Wouldn't they do that now? It's just a different way of recording video, not some scary new technology.


I realize that; but, I'm saying if every third idiot has a pair; it would make surveillance that much easier.

They already require ISPs to keep a log of all the websites you visit; they already have phone providers keep a log of your texts. They can't get those records without a warrent or subpeona; as much protection as that is.

/ maybe I just don't like the idea of being constantly under surveillance
 
2013-03-30 01:21:57 PM  

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book

Wouldn't they do that now? It's just a different way of recording video, not some scary new technology.

I realize that; but, I'm saying if every third idiot has a pair; it would make surveillance that much easier.

They already require ISPs to keep a log of all the websites you visit; they already have phone providers keep a log of your texts. They can't get those records without a warrent or subpeona; as much protection as that is.

/ maybe I just don't like the idea of being constantly under surveillance


Tor
 
2013-03-30 01:22:50 PM  

skinink: I like that Google is trying to create a generation of Gargoyles straight from Snow Crash.


Like ! = despise

I want to have a resonable expectation that vast chunks of my life stay away from being corporate fodder.

Why yes I use advert blockers, duckduckgo, and fairly good personal security.

Google turned to the dark side awhile ago.
 
2013-03-30 01:23:14 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: genner: BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."

....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.

I didn't.  Someone to whom I had to give it sold it to data brokers.


Had to?  As in they were going to arrest you if you failed to do so?  I have my doubts.  I'm guessing by "had to" you mean it was A) easier, B) faster c) the only way you could get something you wanted, even though you knew they would like sell your info.
 
2013-03-30 01:31:40 PM  

snocone: Please tell me when we will get a little regulation of the government?


The first Tuesday of November in even numbered years.

HTH
 
2013-03-30 01:32:05 PM  
I have a GoPro camera on my helmet running most times that I'm riding.  Nobody seems to mind, with the exception of the nice gentlemen on the street corners of Compton. They aren't that into it.
 
2013-03-30 01:32:31 PM  

Kahabut: BarkingUnicorn: genner: BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."

....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.

I didn't.  Someone to whom I had to give it sold it to data brokers.

Had to?  As in they were going to arrest you if you failed to do so?  I have my doubts.  I'm guessing by "had to" you mean it was A) easier, B) faster c) the only way you could get something you wanted, even though you knew they would like sell your info.


They're also legally required to give you an opt out, assuming your in the US.
 
2013-03-30 01:33:32 PM  
I'll wait for the second generation when they can build it all into the lenses.

I'm actually excited about them if they can help with construction projects and things like that.  Imagine a setup where you look at a piece of wood and the glasses HUD projects the lines you want to cut along.  I could see designing my bookshelves with some CAD software and then going down out to the barn and telling my glasses "List the pieces I need to cut, okay I want to cut piece X first, now project the lines I cut along onto the piece of wood I'm holding".  So much boring measure twice cut one would be saved if the glasses could do it well.

/also if it can handle leveling stuff for me and laying out flower beds/walkways that would be awesome
//"Glasses I want a semicircular bed with a diameter of 10 feet, centered on the orange stake I just pounded into the ground."
 
2013-03-30 01:40:30 PM  
We've become a nation of nancy-assed voyeurs and schadenfreude monkeys, spewing fishwife gossip over the back fence and peering in every window we can find to see if somebody farts, puts their finger in their nose or falls down, because "L0ol!1!"  At the end of the day, most of this uber 1337 data tech is a nosy old b*tch peeping through her blinds.  And don't bother telling me what it   could be used for, because it isn't and we don't.
 
2013-03-30 01:45:59 PM  

iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book

Wouldn't they do that now? It's just a different way of recording video, not some scary new technology.

I realize that; but, I'm saying if every third idiot has a pair; it would make surveillance that much easier.

They already require ISPs to keep a log of all the websites you visit; they already have phone providers keep a log of your texts. They can't get those records without a warrent or subpeona; as much protection as that is.

/ maybe I just don't like the idea of being constantly under surveillance


Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm pretty sure that privacy is a long gone ideal... Everything you do it already tracked, recorded, written down, filed, saved, downlaoded.... Anyone who wants to know anything can.find out, with a couple dollars and an email adress.
 
2013-03-30 01:46:02 PM  

Kahabut: BarkingUnicorn: genner: BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."

....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.

I didn't.  Someone to whom I had to give it sold it to data brokers.

Had to?  As in they were going to arrest you if you failed to do so?  I have my doubts.  I'm guessing by "had to" you mean it was A) easier, B) faster c) the only way you could get something you wanted, even though you knew they would like sell your info.


The answer is always C.  I really don't want to spend a lot of effort protecting my anonymity; just restrict breaches of it, please.
 
2013-03-30 01:47:03 PM  

skinink: I like that Google is trying to create a generation of Gargoyles straight from Snow Crash.


Came for this.
 
2013-03-30 01:51:26 PM  

offmymeds: The My Little Pony Killer: Folks, when you are out in public, you have no reasonable expectations to personal privacy. Somebody might be recording you on their cell phone and you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it (unless you're an ITG and want to pretend that you'd beat them up or break their camera), the google glass isn't going to be very different.  Only difference being that the people recording you will look like total jackasses now.

[images.seroundtable.com image 574x449]

Be honest. Do these glasses make me look like an a-hole?


We all know that if they got the first version to be that small that in a few years it will be invisible to a casual passerby.
 
2013-03-30 01:52:17 PM  
These "activists" are really a false-flag operation by the government. The thought of their agents actions being recorded and publicized scares the crap out of them,
 
2013-03-30 02:03:45 PM  

genner: Kahabut: BarkingUnicorn: genner: BarkingUnicorn: The danger lies in the loss of anonymity, not privacy.

"You're walking down the street and pass some Glass-wearer who thinks you're cute. Or whatever. A mumbled voice command and that stranger knows your name, address, phone number, email address, and whatever else Google can reveal. The snapshot that enabled this search is trivial; and it's actually quite legal. Far more important is the loss of your anonymity: the ability to be unknown."

....or you know you could just not list your contact info online.

I didn't.  Someone to whom I had to give it sold it to data brokers.

Had to?  As in they were going to arrest you if you failed to do so?  I have my doubts.  I'm guessing by "had to" you mean it was A) easier, B) faster c) the only way you could get something you wanted, even though you knew they would like sell your info.

They're also legally required to give you an opt out, assuming your in the US.


"Opt out" does not prevent my phone carrier from sharing my info with its subsidiaries or affiliates who it deems necessary to provide the service I have purchased and other services which it thinks I might want.  So there's a lot of leakage.  If my info ends up in the public domain it may be prohibitively difficult to determine how it got there.  So "opt out" provisions are false security.
 
2013-03-30 02:05:45 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-30 02:06:44 PM  
A few years ago before smartphones were in everyone's hands, before Facebook was available outside a handful of Northeastern universities, and before everyone was posting every single photo online, I was having dinner with some friends. We all lived apart and hadn't seen in each other in awhile and someone decided to snap a picture of the group. We were at a restaurant seated next to a window and a guy happened to be walking by outside when the flash went off. He freaked out, ran into the restaurant, and demanded the photo be erased because we did not have permission to take his picture.

He made a scene and had he continued I'm sure the police would have been called shortly. If he didn't want his photo taken because he was avoiding attention, he was certainly doing it wrong. I'm not sure what he was afraid of or if he believed that he was being targeted for the photograph, but I've seen similar, though smaller, reactions from people in public when they unwittingly were part of the scene in a photo.
 
2013-03-30 02:10:23 PM  

louiedog: A few years ago before smartphones were in everyone's hands, before Facebook was available outside a handful of Northeastern universities, and before everyone was posting every single photo online, I was having dinner with some friends. We all lived apart and hadn't seen in each other in awhile and someone decided to snap a picture of the group. We were at a restaurant seated next to a window and a guy happened to be walking by outside when the flash went off. He freaked out, ran into the restaurant, and demanded the photo be erased because we did not have permission to take his picture.

He made a scene and had he continued I'm sure the police would have been called shortly. If he didn't want his photo taken because he was avoiding attention, he was certainly doing it wrong. I'm not sure what he was afraid of or if he believed that he was being targeted for the photograph, but I've seen similar, though smaller, reactions from people in public when they unwittingly were part of the scene in a photo.


Eddie Murphy in "Delerium," circa 1970s  "If I want my muthafarkin' picture taken I'll steal a car, muthafarker!"
 
2013-03-30 02:13:36 PM  
I like how the argument is, 'It's OK because there are already cameras everywhere.'

As if turning a lit matchstick into nuclear holocaust is OK because fire already exists.

'Fire is hot, dude. Didn't you know that? What's the big deal?'
 
2013-03-30 02:13:49 PM  

earthworm2.0: iheartscotch: cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: Yeah; it's not like the government will ask google to keep copies of all the videos shot with those glasses or anything.

/ 1984 is not a how-to book

Wouldn't they do that now? It's just a different way of recording video, not some scary new technology.

I realize that; but, I'm saying if every third idiot has a pair; it would make surveillance that much easier.

They already require ISPs to keep a log of all the websites you visit; they already have phone providers keep a log of your texts. They can't get those records without a warrent or subpeona; as much protection as that is.

/ maybe I just don't like the idea of being constantly under surveillance

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm pretty sure that privacy is a long gone ideal... Everything you do it already tracked, recorded, written down, filed, saved, downlaoded.... Anyone who wants to know anything can.find out, with a couple dollars and an email adress.


It's only paranoia if you're wrong.
 
2013-03-30 02:17:53 PM  
The question is not whether one has a right to expect anonymity.  The question is what consequences the loss of that expectation may have.  From the article I linked above:  " If you cannot trust that passersby are not going to photograph, record or "dox" you, then it makes sense to avoid them. We could become a world of hermits."

I needn't be doing anything untoward to be doxxed by a stranger.  It's a sport these days.  It should not be made any easier.
 
2013-03-30 02:40:16 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: So I take it they are up in arms about cell phone cameras as well? No? Well, then they can EABOD, a whole bag even.


Do you walk around with your cell phone out, pointing it at everything you look at 100% of the time? If you do then yes, Ima break your shiat. Doesn't matter if you are recording or not.

Put that shiat down and away.

Now.

You look stupid waving that thing around all the time. Put it in your pocket. You're not even recording anything.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report