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.

(Popular Science)   Google Glass isn't even on the market yet and already someone has hacked the system to allow others to see what you're seeing   (popsci.com) divider line 50
    More: Fail, Google Glass, Google, wifi hotspots, hot women  
•       •       •

2918 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 May 2013 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-02 08:59:11 AM  
Said the night wind to the little lamb.
 
2013-05-02 09:00:25 AM  
This is going to revolutionize voyeur and cuckold porn.
 
2013-05-02 09:41:33 AM  
Geordi from ST:TNG knows all about that.
 
2013-05-02 10:28:19 AM  
God forbid my wife get a hold of this technology.

p.twimg.com

"What? No, dear, I was just watching the game..."
 
2013-05-02 10:32:09 AM  
Headline: HACXZ UR GLASS

Article: "Hack" requires physical access

Here's a clue for all you reporters out there- If someone gets physical access to your computer, they can literally do anything to it. This is like saying I can "hack" your car if you let me get inside and fiddle with all the knobs, or saying I can "hack" your smartphone if I pick it up change all the settings by hand.

Here's the real story:  http://www.saurik.com/id/16

TL;DR - you can unlock the bootloader and load your own kernel, just like every other Android device in existence.
 
2013-05-02 10:36:31 AM  
"Poop coming out now..."
 
2013-05-02 10:37:25 AM  

Fubini: Headline: HACXZ UR GLASS

Article: "Hack" requires physical access

Here's a clue for all you reporters out there- If someone gets physical access to your computer, they can literally do anything to it. This is like saying I can "hack" your car if you let me get inside and fiddle with all the knobs, or saying I can "hack" your smartphone if I pick it up change all the settings by hand.

Here's the real story:  http://www.saurik.com/id/16

TL;DR - you can unlock the bootloader and load your own kernel, just like every other Android device in existence.


Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend.  It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used.  Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.
 
2013-05-02 10:38:03 AM  
Roy Batty pleased.
 
2013-05-02 10:39:40 AM  

Fubini: Here's a clue for all you reporters out there- If someone gets physical access to your computer, they can literally do anything to it. This is like saying I can "hack" your car if you let me get inside and fiddle with all the knobs, or saying I can "hack" your smartphone if I pick it up change all the settings by hand.


Remind me not to hire you in software engineering or infosec.

/painful and mindnumbling bad analogies there
 
2013-05-02 10:40:25 AM  
I'll leave this right here.
 
2013-05-02 10:43:08 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend. It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used. Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.


The headline says exactly "This Exploit Lets Strangers Hack Into Your Google Glass And See What You See"

When I think of FUD, I usually don't think of PopSci, but there it is.

This is like saying "Latest iMac Exploit Lets Strangers Hack It And Replace OSX"
 
2013-05-02 10:47:24 AM  

jonny_q: BumpInTheNight: Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend. It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used. Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.

The headline says exactly "This Exploit Lets Strangers Hack Into Your Google Glass And See What You See"

When I think of FUD, I usually don't think of PopSci, but there it is.

This is like saying "Latest iMac Exploit Lets Strangers Hack It And Replace OSX"


I did not realize that strangers cannot exist within a few feet of you, this changes my life forever!
 
2013-05-02 10:49:02 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend.  It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used.  Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.


The "hack" consists of enabling a debug mode that gives you root access and lets you load your own executable code. The creator of the object absolutely intended for you to be able to do this: they are the ones providing the functionality. By your own definition, no "hack" took place.

You might say that a clueless user could be "hacked" by a third party this way, but this is much more akin to someone gaining physical access to your machine and locally installing a keylogger. You can argue that it wouldn't be the user's intent to let this happen, but from a security standpoint you don't have to break any security features to do what this guy did. You don't have to crack any passwords, exploit any bugs, or trick the user into downloading executable code... you just get access to the machine and use the built-in functionality to change the way it operates.
 
2013-05-02 10:49:19 AM  
This is going to simply revolutionize amateur voyeur porn.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-05-02 10:52:59 AM  
That's not scary. This is scary.
 
2013-05-02 10:53:23 AM  

BumpInTheNight: jonny_q: BumpInTheNight: Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend. It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used. Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.

The headline says exactly "This Exploit Lets Strangers Hack Into Your Google Glass And See What You See"

When I think of FUD, I usually don't think of PopSci, but there it is.

This is like saying "Latest iMac Exploit Lets Strangers Hack It And Replace OSX"

I did not realize that strangers cannot exist within a few feet of you, this changes my life forever


The article/headline makes it sound like some adversary could pick up your glass, change a few settings, and have unrestricted access to the device. In reality, you have to put the device into a special mode, reboot it, then use ADB (Andriod Debug Bridge) to gain root access and modify core OS files via a separate laptop and a USB link.

In the context of OSX, someone isn't going to just come along and install Windows on your Mac when you're not looking. It requires a significant amount of alone time with the device. This is not something the general public needs to be concerned about.
 
2013-05-02 10:56:46 AM  
There's an awful lot of people slinging doubts and accusations at a platform that hasn't even been released yet.

Curious.
 
2013-05-02 10:57:31 AM  
BumpInTheNight:  Fubini: Headline: HACXZ UR GLASS
Article: "Hack" requires physical access
Here's a clue for all you reporters out there- If someone gets physical access to your computer, they can literally do anything to it. This is like saying I can "hack" your car if you let me get inside and fiddle with all the knobs, or saying I can "hack" your smartphone if I pick it up change all the settings by hand.
Here's the real story:  http://www.saurik.com/id/16
TL;DR - you can unlock the bootloader and load your own kernel, just like every other Android device in existence.
Hack just means edit something in a way the creator didn't intend.  It has no specification on distance from said object or methods used.  Now if they said 'remotely exploit', I'd be right there with you.


True, the term "hack" is one of the most misused tech expressions out there.  Thanks to Hollywood, many people think it means breaking into a computer or some similar device to access it.
 
2013-05-02 10:57:57 AM  
shiat I thought that would be a feature.
 
2013-05-02 10:58:26 AM  

Fubini: The "hack" consists of enabling a debug mode that gives you root access and lets you load your own executable code. The creator of the object absolutely intended for you to be able to do this: they are the ones providing the functionality. By your own definition, no "hack" took place.

You might say that a clueless user could be "hacked" by a third party this way, but this is much more akin to someone gaining physical access to your machine and locally installing a keylogger. You can argue that it wouldn't be the user's intent to let this happen, but from a security standpoint you don't have to break any security features to do what this guy did. You don't have to crack any passwords, exploit any bugs, or trick the user into downloading executable code... you just get access to the machine and use the built-in functionality to change the way it operates.


Hacking != breaking security, hacking == editing something.  Breaking security is identifying a vulnerability and then doing something to exploit it to achieve elevated privileges.  Now as this guy recommended this glass contraption outta have a pin or something that you must enter before you can switch it to debug mode and load your payload into it, then if someone figured out a way to bypass that pin...that's your definition of hacking.  So, once we can get that definition of hacking sorted out a little better, then I bet we could come to an understanding that editing one of these things to let you see what the owner sees is editing it, and editing something == hacking.
 
2013-05-02 11:01:25 AM  

gingerjet: Remind me not to hire you in software engineering or infosec.


There are certainly things you can do to secure yourself, even if someone were to gain access to your physical device. You can encrypt the hard drive to make it hard to access and modify files. You can use strong passwords to prevent unauthorized access. You can use aggressive access controls so that an adversary can't utilize a device that's been left logged-in. You can use encrypted data streams to make sure they can't tap into things like the monitor or network connections.

But in reality, if someone gains physical access to your machines, they can still do anything they want. Encrypted data always has to be decrypted at some point (the so-called hole). They can make copies of encrypted data for offline analysis. They can install physical devices in the machine itself (such as microphone or a physical keylogger inside a keyboard).

If an adversary can gain physical access to your device, you have to assume that it's been compromised. All the security in the world can't change that.
 
2013-05-02 11:01:39 AM  

gingerjet: I'll leave this right here.


It's far douchier than I even suspected.

If google wants to advertise to their demo they should use this copy...
"Is your oversized metal watch and bluetooth headset not setting you apart from other douche bags? Then you should try Google Glass! Let everyone know you're important and must be at the gym in 26 minutes with this distinctive look."
 
2013-05-02 11:12:41 AM  

BumpInTheNight: Hacking != breaking security, hacking == editing something.  Breaking security is identifying a vulnerability and then doing something to exploit it to achieve elevated privileges.  Now as this guy recommended this glass contraption outta have a pin or something that you must enter before you can switch it to debug mode and load your payload into it, then if someone figured out a way to bypass that pin...that's your definition of hacking.  So, once we can get that definition of hacking sorted out a little better, then I bet we could come to an understanding that editing one of these things to let you see what the owner sees is editing it, and editing something == hacking.


I'm not too interested in debating semantics, but I believe that the widespread conception is that hacking implies some kind of attack against a device to gain unauthorized access.

I recognize that some people use the term hack to connote something more akin to tinkering, but that's clearly not the tone used in TFA. TFA is trying to scare you into believing that Glass is not secure, when in reality it's as secure as any Andriod smartphone. Note that I never said that what this guy did wasn't hacking, I just mocked the usage in the headline and the article.
 
2013-05-02 11:31:41 AM  

Fubini: I recognize that some people use the term hack to connote something more akin to tinkering, but that's clearly not the tone used in TFA. TFA is trying to scare you into believing that Glass is not secure, when in reality it's as secure as any Andriod smartphone. Note that I never said that what this guy did wasn't hacking, I just mocked the usage in the headline and the article.


Even more than that.

Google is actually encouraging the Glass beta testers to modify/tweak/hack their devices to do anything that they can think of. They just can't sell/share the device with others.
 
2013-05-02 11:39:12 AM  

Fubini: I'm not too interested in debating semantics, but I believe that the widespread conception is that hacking implies some kind of attack against a device to gain unauthorized access.

I recognize that some people use the term hack to connote something more akin to tinkering, but that's clearly not the tone used in TFA. TFA is trying to scare you into believing that Glass is not secure, when in reality it's as secure as any Andriod smartphone. Note that I never said that what this guy did wasn't hacking, I just mocked the usage in the headline and the article.


I think you don't want to talk about the term Hacking because you know you're in the wrong.  Also, headlines are often inflammatory and stretch truths to generate hits, more at 11.  The headline correctly used the term hacking to exploit a vulnerability in their readership's vocabulary blind spots to generate hits and generate outrage from people like yourself.  How's that? :)
 
2013-05-02 11:53:47 AM  

BumpInTheNight: The headline correctly used the term hacking to exploit a vulnerability in their readership's vocabulary blind spots to generate hits and generate outrage from people like yourself.  How's that? :)


I'd say they're charlatans and whores who abuse the public trust in order to generate advertising revenue. It's yellow journalism at it's finest. This piece doesn't reflect well on Popular Science.

BumpInTheNight: I think you don't want to talk about the term Hacking because you know you're in the wrong.


I think it's interesting how your definition of hacking has morphed from "editing something" to "exploiting a vulnerability". The reason I don't want to talk about the semantics of "hacking" is because it's totally immaterial to my point: TFA and the headline imply that Glass is insecure and can be easily attacked, when there is nothing to actually suggest that Glass is in any way less secure that comparable devices.

Case in point:

Use of the fail tag

But those are all questions about the privacy of peoplearound the Google Glass wearer. Not much thought has been given to the wearer him/herself. And maybe that's a mistake.

According to, which has a great piece on the subject, Freeman can pick up the Glass hardware and set it in this mode without the user ever knowing. And it doesn't take much to then get unfettered access to everything on that user's Glass, "This exploit is simple enough that you can pull it off with just a couple files, and without any specialized tooling."


They totally ignore the fact that you need a separate laptop, USB hookup, and the time to reboot and upload your own executable code to the device. The whole article is to insinuate that this represents a vulnerability in the device that could be used in an attack, when this is in no way true.
 
2013-05-02 12:02:41 PM  
My definition of hacking never changed, I just pointed out that he used social engineering to generate hits and outrage and did so ironically by playing on the common misinterpretation of the word hacking.  I agree that sensationalistic journalism can die in a fire, but at least I can appreciate the humour in this attempt.
 
2013-05-02 12:09:42 PM  
I can actually see a use for this.  You and a friend get separated but the GPS isn't able to get a signal (you're inside a shopping mall or other building or whatever), you send each other a live feed of what you're seeing so you can find each other again.

Also handy for those who've got lost as a "farking find me!" option.

Why can't the device do this without being tinkered with, at least when the user wants it to?
 
2013-05-02 12:15:04 PM  
I think to a layperson "hack" means "kid sitting in his basement breaking into your device over the internet".  If a passenger in my car changes the radio station or turn up the AC while I'm not looking that is not "hacking my car".
 
2013-05-02 12:16:09 PM  
*sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.
 
2013-05-02 12:57:24 PM  

The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.


And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.
 
2013-05-02 01:15:50 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.


Is it still a spy-cam if everyone has one, and knows everyone is using one?
 
2013-05-02 01:15:58 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.


They aren't always on. That's the thing. And sorry, but you like most people are no interesting enough for me to want to waste battery life on anyway. That's not an insult, it's just truth. Most people are not interesting enough to film/take pictures of. And if I wanted to do that, I could do it now. There's no shutter sound on my phone, or indication light that it's recording. Plus I wouldn't even need the phone, button cams have been commercially available for years, and can be hidden in clothing, bags, etc. So if someone really wanted to invade your privacy, they'd have no problem whatsoever doing it, and you'd never even know.

At least with Glass, you know someone has a camera, but again, the thought that everyone is buying them just to film boring strangers is ridiculous and hyperbolic.
 
2013-05-02 01:26:12 PM  

The Italian Sasquatch: ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.

They aren't always on. That's the thing. And sorry, but you like most people are no interesting enough for me to want to waste battery life on anyway. That's not an insult, it's just truth. Most people are not interesting enough to film/take pictures of. And if I wanted to do that, I could do it now. There's no shutter sound on my phone, or indication light that it's recording. Plus I wouldn't even need the phone, button cams have been commercially available for years, and can be hidden in clothing, bags, etc. So if someone really wanted to invade your privacy, they'd have no problem whatsoever doing it, and you'd never even know.

At least with Glass, you know someone has a camera, bu ...


At least with Glass, you know someone has a camera, but again, the thought that everyone is buying them just to film boring strangers is ridiculous and hyperbolic.

The point is that they're quick and easy to turn on, don't require special setup like a button cam, and they'll be everywhere, so privacy will become more and more difficult. Maybe YOU don't want to record people, but someone will. MANY someones will. Have you ever even looked at YouTube? It's chock full of the videos I was describing: Shots of strangers in public just minding their own business.

I can foresee a large number of people who use them to cause problems, too. They'll get into an argument with someone, and record it and then play it to humiliate the subject.

And that's not even considering the peeping tom aspect of it. People will have these things attached to their prescription glasses, if what Google says is true, so they'll become ubiquitous. They start customizing them to blend in more, and eventually, anyone wearing glasses is a potential camera that can capture any flub, any trip, any complaint, any dispute, any slip of the tongue, any private conversation with just a wink.

If you don't think these things will bring up a ton of privacy issues, you're in a fantasy world. They absolutely will. There's no comparison to cell phones, which aren't always ready and are terribly obvious. And spy cams like button or hat cams are not common, nor do most of them back up the video on Google's servers.

Some of us don't like to be photographed, recorded, or Googled while we're in public, and that is going to happen a lot more when these things are on the face of every social networking jackass we meet.
 
2013-05-02 01:31:24 PM  

ZeroCorpse: I can foresee a large number of people who use them to cause problems, too. They'll get into an argument with someone, and record it and then play it to humiliate the subject.


I've been hearing this a lot lately, I don't really get the concern... I guess I just don't think this way.

I try to live my life in a way that I'm proud of, whether people are watching or not. If someone disagrees with my decisions or my points of view, that's fine. I don't have to please everyone.
 
2013-05-02 01:32:50 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Some of us don't like to be photographed, recorded, or Googled while we're in public, and that is going to happen a lot more when these things are on the face of every social networking jackass we meet

.

Does ANYONE have a legitimate expectation of privacy while out in public today?
 
2013-05-02 01:35:50 PM  
I'll leave this right here
 
2013-05-02 01:44:25 PM  
Fubini:  ZeroCorpse: I can foresee a large number of people who use them to cause problems, too. They'll get into an argument with someone, and record it and then play it to humiliate the subject.
I've been hearing this a lot lately, I don't really get the concern... I guess I just don't think this way.
I try to live my life in a way that I'm proud of, whether people are watching or not. If someone disagrees with my decisions or my points of view, that's fine. I don't have to please everyone.


The one group that would be the most against this are cops, since they wouldn't want the wrong doings of the bad cops being recorded for the public to see.
 
2013-05-02 01:44:52 PM  

AspectRatio: I'll leave this right here


That right there was some funny shiat.
 
2013-05-02 01:45:03 PM  

ZeroCorpse: If you don't think these things will bring up a ton of privacy issues, you're in a fantasy world. They absolutely will. There's no comparison to cell phones, which aren't always ready and are terribly obvious. And spy cams like button or hat cams are not common, nor do most of them back up the video on Google's servers.

Some of us don't like to be photographed, recorded, or Googled while we're in public, and that is going to happen a lot more when these things are on the face of every social networking jackass we meet.


Check out ebay. Ordinary looking glasses with video and sound recording have been around for ages. Ditto "bluetooth headsets" that are actually video cameras. Pens that you can have in your top pocket that record video and sound. Video cameras built into car keys, USB memory sticks, cigarette lighters, plus fixed devices like alarm clocks, smoke alarms etc

If someone wants to secretly record you they'd use one of those, not Google glasses that are clearly recoding devices, and they've been able to do it for years for a fraction of the price that Google is charging.

While you're avoiding the person with Google Glasses you could easily end up talking to someone with an ordinary looking pair of glasses or a pen in their pocket that could be doing the job just as well. They've been selling in huge numbers for years, so there's a lot out there...
 
2013-05-02 01:48:44 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.

They aren't always on. That's the thing. And sorry, but you like most people are no interesting enough for me to want to waste battery life on anyway. That's not an insult, it's just truth. Most people are not interesting enough to film/take pictures of. And if I wanted to do that, I could do it now. There's no shutter sound on my phone, or indication light that it's recording. Plus I wouldn't even need the phone, button cams have been commercially available for years, and can be hidden in clothing, bags, etc. So if someone really wanted to invade your privacy, they'd have no problem whatsoever doing it, and you'd never even know.

At least with Glass, you know someone has a camera, bu ...

At least with Glass, you know someone has a camera, but again, the thought that everyone is buying them just to film boring strangers is ridiculous and hyperbolic.

The point is that they're quick and easy to turn on, don't require special setup like a button cam, and they'll be everywhere, so privacy will become more and more difficult. Maybe YOU don't want to record people, but someone will. MANY someones will. Have you ever even looked at YouTube? It's chock full of the videos I was describing: Shots of strangers in public just minding their own business.

I can foresee a large number of people who use them to cause problems, too. They'll get into an argument with someone, and record it and then play it to humiliate the subject.

And that's not even considering the peeping tom aspect of it. People will have these things attached to their prescription glasses, if what Google says is true, so they'll become ubiquitous. They start customizing them to blend in more, and eventually, anyone wearing glasses is a potential camera that can capture any flub, any trip, any complaint, any dispute, any slip of the tongue, any private conversation with just a wink.

If you don't think these things will bring up a ton of privacy issues, you're in a fantasy world. They absolutely will. There's no comparison to cell phones, which aren't always ready and are terribly obvious. And spy cams like button or hat cams are not common, nor do most of them back up the video on Google's servers.

Some of us don't like to be photographed, recorded, or Googled while we're in public, and that is going to happen a lot more when these things are on the face of every social networking jackass we meet.


I think it's unfair to label everyone who wants one a jackass. I live in NYC, just moved here, and don't know my way around that well yet, so having HUD directions instead of having to stare at my phone all the time would be a great advantage. Just one of the uses I'm looking forward to.

It's not that I don't see your side, I do, but the people who want to invade privacy or be pervs, they're going to do it regardless, they'll find ways to do it, and the rest of us shouldn't be denied great tech because of them. They're not the majority. If we always base decisions on the idiot minority of people, we'd never advance in any area of life. I get the concern, but I just can't believe that everyone is going to run around using every new device for in only the worst possible ways. Call it foolish, but I have more faith in people than to believe that.
 
2013-05-02 01:57:33 PM  
There are some good concerns being raised here, the question is whether Google can make the upside worthwhile. If cars were just being invented people would be nervous about someone getting one and running people over with it, and they have, but the travel benefits outweighed that.

If Glass can make a value proposition good enough even with privacy concerns, it will win out. For every perv trying to film down blouses, there may be a criminal caught by a good samaritan's camera that would've gotten away otherwise (like Russia's dashboard cam situation). I don't know that it will be a big difference, but if you sit and list all potential negatives without trying to think of any positives, of course people are gonna hate the thing as symbolic of loss of privacy.

I'm no big fan of "human nature" we read about and sneer at on fark everyday, but its easy to forget that most people aren't out to punk you or humiliate you online, those are just the loudest and most obnoxious groups. Perhaps there are ways to turn this tech against them somehow...
 
2013-05-02 02:54:10 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.


Sorry Zerocorpse, these will morph into sunglasses, and soon you won't be able to tell if someone is wearing a pair of these unless you have a strict noglasses policy.
 
2013-05-02 04:35:47 PM  

digistil: That's not scary. This is scary.


Chief Inspector Dreyfus would max out his Google Drive in about 20 minutes.
 
2013-05-02 04:42:21 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-02 09:58:35 PM  

The_Time_Master: ZeroCorpse: The Italian Sasquatch: *sigh*  I wish people would quit writing these ridiculous scare tactic articles about this product.  There are all unfinished, in beta, developer units.  They're not ready for the market.  They don't have all the final touches and security that the ones we'll actually be able to buy are going to have.  Until then, every one of these style articles is just a way to get page hits.  It's sad that a new technology isn't even allowed to be considered without people freaking out over things like this.  

I'm honestly looking forward to owning a pair next year when they're available to the public.

And I'm honestly looking forward to avoiding you when I see you on the street, at work, or anywhere else while you're wearing these privacy-invading recording devices.

Google Glass wearers will essentially be walking around with their cell phone camera always on and always pointed at other people. F♥ck that. I'm avoiding people with these things on like they're infected with bird flu.

Frankly, it's my hope that humanity has enough dignity left to ostracize anyone wearing these invasive things in public, and rightfully disallow them in their homes, businesses, and public gathering places.

I'm a gadget guy, but everyone wearing a spy-cam on their face? HELL NO.

Sorry Zerocorpse, these will morph into sunglasses, and soon you won't be able to tell if someone is wearing a pair of these unless you have a strict noglasses policy.


That is EXACTLY my point. And while I don't think everyone will abuse these things, I think the ones who do will make it hell for the rest of us in society. And they'll be tough to bust.

I'm sorry, but my faith in humanity isn't deep enough to believe that everyone who buys these will be altruistic and trustworthy. A trip to YouTube, Dailymotion, and 4chan will cure anyone of that delusion.
 
2013-05-02 10:04:07 PM  
Does your phone have a camera?
Do you take your phone out in public?
Is there a real difference?

If this were iGlasses then the shills in this thread would be swooning.
 
2013-05-02 11:27:46 PM  
Lol, if you need physical access and it wipes it, this 'hack' is slightly less dangerous than someone swapping your glass for a rigged pair.

/swapping is quicker
 
2013-05-03 11:04:40 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-03 02:31:52 PM  
Google Glass isn't even on the market yet and already someone has hacked the system to allow others to see what you're seeing

What part of it being a Google product did you not understand?
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report