Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Verge)   FARK: Google Glass will allow people to secretly record video and take pics by winking. Ultra FARK: It knows when you blink because it has a second camera always watching you   (theverge.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Google Glass, sleep mode, Robert Scoble  
•       •       •

1577 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 May 2013 at 11:07 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-02 12:38:48 PM  

moothemagiccow: LasersHurt: BumpInTheNight: I know I will be openly hostile to anyone that tries to interact with me while wearing one of these devices.

Thanks for warning us that you're a douchebag.

The guy who needs a camera and a screen on his face, at all times, is not the douchebag? You gotta be kidding


The person who gets "openly hostile" to strangers for daring to own a piece of technology is the Douchebag. If you have an issue, just ask the person politely.
 
2013-05-02 12:42:11 PM  
Figuring out my personal rules.

They won't be allowed in my home or business without specific permission
Generally in public, I will avoid people who wear the tech as is possible
Won't interact conversationally friends, family wearing them.  Want to talk to me?  Take them off.

/already dislike the proto-glassholes who try to record me with mobile video
 
2013-05-02 12:47:33 PM  

LasersHurt: moothemagiccow: LasersHurt: BumpInTheNight: I know I will be openly hostile to anyone that tries to interact with me while wearing one of these devices.

Thanks for warning us that you're a douchebag.

The guy who needs a camera and a screen on his face, at all times, is not the douchebag? You gotta be kidding

The person who gets "openly hostile" to strangers for daring to own a piece of technology is the Douchebag. If you have an issue, just ask the person politely.


Why'd you use the generic term piece of technology?  Are you sensitive about what that particular device does?  You can't just say "openly hostile to strangers for daring to point a camera at them throughout a conversation"?  There's a significant difference here.
 
2013-05-02 12:49:10 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: moothemagiccow: LasersHurt: BumpInTheNight: I know I will be openly hostile to anyone that tries to interact with me while wearing one of these devices.

Thanks for warning us that you're a douchebag.

The guy who needs a camera and a screen on his face, at all times, is not the douchebag? You gotta be kidding

The person who gets "openly hostile" to strangers for daring to own a piece of technology is the Douchebag. If you have an issue, just ask the person politely.

Why'd you use the generic term piece of technology?  Are you sensitive about what that particular device does?  You can't just say "openly hostile to strangers for daring to point a camera at them throughout a conversation"?  There's a significant difference here.


You're attempting to deflect. Do not be openly hostile to strangers based on superficial things, that's douchey. That is the start and end of my point.
 
2013-05-02 12:51:36 PM  

LasersHurt: You're attempting to deflect. Do not be openly hostile to strangers based on superficial things, that's douchey. That is the start and end of my point.


You're purposely omitting what that superficial thing does and I'm the one that's deflecting?  You'd do fine as an investigative reporter or paparazzi.  And I carefully included the word 'interact' in my claim because that's an important boundary, they are free to roam around like an idiot with their first camcorder all the want, just don't expect to point it at me and then start up a conversation without a befitting reaction.
 
2013-05-02 12:52:50 PM  

BafflerMeal: Figuring out my personal rules.

They won't be allowed in my home or business without specific permission
Generally in public, I will avoid people who wear the tech as is possible
Won't interact conversationally friends, family wearing them.  Want to talk to me?  Take them off.

/already dislike the proto-glassholes who try to record me with mobile video


I agree with all of this. While it seems cool when you're the one doing the recording, a moment later you realize that anyone who has this tech will be able to record every conversation, every facial expression, every gesture, every faux pas, and every easily-edited moment of their interaction with you.

How long before we see court cases regarding some serious privacy issues when dealing with Google Glass users?

So yeah, I like your rules, which basically boil down to:   Stay the f♥ck away from me with your freaky privacy-invading cyborg glasses.
 
2013-05-02 12:53:12 PM  
I find the attitudes shown toward these glasses bizarre in the extreme. I can imagine a moment of shock and concern if you see someone walking into a toilet wearing them, the same as when someone walks in with a smartphone out, but they'll probably get a bollocking and remember to not do that in future, and weren't filming to begin with. 

I also reckon people who own them won't wear them 24/7, and will take them off when common sense would indicate.

There are people with cameras on their cars recording stuff for insurance reasons, that is exactly the same as walking past someone wearing the glasses, except one you notice, the other you don't. Also there's probably someone with a pair of normal glasses with a camera in them, or a pen in the pocket with a camera in it. Or even a watch. You can get cameras in everything. I don't think you should be worried about the obvious ones. Who's gonna buy them just to film you? It'll be no different to being caught in teh background of a picture of a group of drunk friends in a nightclub.

Now, social interaction is slightly different. Like talking to someone with sunglasses, or earbuds in, you're not sure if they're listening so it's discomforting, so throw in the fact that you can see if the screen is on, if it is then you can see from their eye movement whether they're listening, or whether they're recording. It's not going to secretly funnel back terabytes of data on your personal daily activity to GoogleHQ.

Above all, I reckon if you politely say "sorry, it's a little weird, can you take those off?" Everyone will acquiesce. If you angrilly say "RARGH I ain't talkin to no coont with a camera, why are you filming me you farking voyeur, you're mental!" then hopefully everyone, including your wife and kids, will realise you're the only douchebag in the story.

Ultimately if you walk past a group of people posing and messign around while someone records the video, so you're in the background, is that an issue? Does it become an issue if someone does it with the google glasses? I can't imagine how. Perhaps i'm just so used to cameras being everywhere I don't fear them, nor expect privacy in public. I just think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the glasses, some people seem to think they're always recording for Google and tagging you with face recognition and location.
 
2013-05-02 12:53:47 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: You're attempting to deflect. Do not be openly hostile to strangers based on superficial things, that's douchey. That is the start and end of my point.

You're purposely omitting what that superficial thing does and I'm the one that's deflecting?  You'd do fine as an investigative reporter or paparazzi.  And I carefully included the word 'interact' in my claim because that's an important boundary, they are free to roam around like an idiot with their first camcorder all the want, just don't expect to point it at me and then start up a conversation without a befitting reaction.


What the thing does is irrelevant. It CAN record, and it can do a lot of other things. Your whole worry is predicated on your fear that they will secretly record you.

And that's STILL irrelevant to the point - if that's your fear, you should STILL politely ask them to remove it or accommodate you, NOT be openly hostile.

It's not in your fear or your opinion about the tech, it's about you being a douchebag to another person. I should think I have made that clear several times over.
 
2013-05-02 12:55:52 PM  

Slaxl: I find the attitudes shown toward these glasses bizarre in the extreme. I can imagine a moment of shock and concern if you see someone walking into a toilet wearing them, the same as when someone walks in with a smartphone out, but they'll probably get a bollocking and remember to not do that in future, and weren't filming to begin with. 

I also reckon people who own them won't wear them 24/7, and will take them off when common sense would indicate.

There are people with cameras on their cars recording stuff for insurance reasons, that is exactly the same as walking past someone wearing the glasses, except one you notice, the other you don't. Also there's probably someone with a pair of normal glasses with a camera in them, or a pen in the pocket with a camera in it. Or even a watch. You can get cameras in everything. I don't think you should be worried about the obvious ones. Who's gonna buy them just to film you? It'll be no different to being caught in teh background of a picture of a group of drunk friends in a nightclub.

Now, social interaction is slightly different. Like talking to someone with sunglasses, or earbuds in, you're not sure if they're listening so it's discomforting, so throw in the fact that you can see if the screen is on, if it is then you can see from their eye movement whether they're listening, or whether they're recording. It's not going to secretly funnel back terabytes of data on your personal daily activity to GoogleHQ.

Above all, I reckon if you politely say "sorry, it's a little weird, can you take those off?" Everyone will acquiesce. If you angrilly say "RARGH I ain't talkin to no coont with a camera, why are you filming me you farking voyeur, you're mental!" then hopefully everyone, including your wife and kids, will realise you're the only douchebag in the story.

Ultimately if you walk past a group of people posing and messign around while someone records the video, so you're in the background, is that an issue? Does it become ...


Back when Automobiles were first introduced, there were laws in many places regarding the spooking of horses. If you met a horse in the road and it was frightened of the car, you had to pull off the road to give way. If this failed, you cover the car with a tarp so the horse can't see it. And if this fails, disassemble or move the car from the area entirely.

Some people are the horses in this scenario; but things change rapidly and those laws did not last long.
 
2013-05-02 12:55:59 PM  

LasersHurt: What the thing does is irrelevant. It CAN record, and it can do a lot of other things. Your whole worry is predicated on your fear that they will secretly record you.

And that's STILL irrelevant to the point - if that's your fear, you should STILL politely ask them to remove it or accommodate you, NOT be openly hostile.

It's not in your fear or your opinion about the tech, it's about you being a douchebag to another person. I should think I have made that clear several times over.


and that's something I haven't contested and in fact agreed with you about.  Welcome to fark.
 
2013-05-02 12:58:39 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: What the thing does is irrelevant. It CAN record, and it can do a lot of other things. Your whole worry is predicated on your fear that they will secretly record you.

And that's STILL irrelevant to the point - if that's your fear, you should STILL politely ask them to remove it or accommodate you, NOT be openly hostile.

It's not in your fear or your opinion about the tech, it's about you being a douchebag to another person. I should think I have made that clear several times over.

and that's something I haven't contested and in fact agreed with you about.  Welcome to fark.


BumpInTheNight: I know I will be openly hostile to anyone that tries to interact with me while wearing one of these devices.


Welcome to Fark, indeed.
 
2013-05-02 12:58:39 PM  

LasersHurt: Do you think that the kind of person who would go out of their way to secretly record people is not already doing so with the myriad of technology that would do a better job than Glass?


I think the real problem is that Glass provides a focal point for all the negative emotion that some people have about the destruction of privacy in public. It's hard to get upset at the small business owner who has security cameras to protect their store, or at the teenagers who use smartphones to be in constant contact with each other. These two things have probably destroyed public privacy more than any other force in America, but they're not easy targets.

When people look at Glass it conjures up this explicit feeling of being constantly recorded because it physically puts the camera in between two people in a conversation. It doesn't change anything, it just highlights the fact that you are being recorded, and people don't like that.

Note-  constant recording is not really possible with glass, as it only has enough storage for an hour or two of recording (to say nothing of battery life). You could definitely record all the conversations you have in a day, but you couldn't constantly capture video.

R.A.Danny: And there will never be an app or a crack that circumvents this.


The standard way to implement these devices is to wire the LED directly into the camera's own power supply, so that the LED is on whenever the camera receives power. I would assume that Google would do this (for all the obvious reasons), so it won't be possible to disable the recording LED without significant technical ability and the willingness to destroy your thousand dollar item if you mess up.
 
2013-05-02 01:00:09 PM  

LasersHurt: BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: What the thing does is irrelevant. It CAN record, and it can do a lot of other things. Your whole worry is predicated on your fear that they will secretly record you.

And that's STILL irrelevant to the point - if that's your fear, you should STILL politely ask them to remove it or accommodate you, NOT be openly hostile.

It's not in your fear or your opinion about the tech, it's about you being a douchebag to another person. I should think I have made that clear several times over.

and that's something I haven't contested and in fact agreed with you about.  Welcome to fark.

BumpInTheNight: I know I will be openly hostile to anyone that tries to interact with me while wearing one of these devices.

Welcome to Fark, indeed.


No no, I'm agreeing that my reaction will be douchey, I figure its befitting to the douche that's walking around with a camera aimed at head level like its nothing.
 
2013-05-02 01:01:03 PM  

Fubini: I think the real problem is that Glass provides a focal point for all the negative emotion that some people have about the destruction of privacy in public.


I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.
 
2013-05-02 01:09:33 PM  

LasersHurt: I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.


But how will other people in the restaurant/coffee shop/artisian faire know you own a pair if they're set aside next to you on the table? :)  These devices are designed for an always-on always-available kind of thing, they're marketed to be worn at all times during your day so its always there, I'll appreciate the people who do set them aside during social situations but we both know that's not the angle they're going for and not the type of people they're after.
 
2013-05-02 01:14:40 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.

But how will other people in the restaurant/coffee shop/artisian faire know you own a pair if they're set aside next to you on the table? :)  These devices are designed for an always-on always-available kind of thing, they're marketed to be worn at all times during your day so its always there, I'll appreciate the people who do set them aside during social situations but we both know that's not the angle they're going for and not the type of people they're after.


I feel like you're assuming a lot and reading a lot in just to be angry. We're WAY too early for those kind of judgments. I would LOVE to have these, and I'd probably not wear them most of the day. I work at a PC at home, don't need them there. I'd have them for when I left home.

I figure they're kind of like sunglasses - If I have them on and ask you the time, or stop at a newsstand for a paper, I'm not gonna remove it. We're having a very short and professional exchange. If I stop to talk, however, I'd slide them off.

I don't know if they're "after" me, but you decide. You seem to be focusing on just the camera feature, and to me that's the last thing in my mind - it's the myriad of other options that have me excited.

/maybe Google is leading with too much camera-heavy advertising?
 
2013-05-02 01:23:19 PM  
I don't disagree with some of the anxiety posted in this thread, but the glasses can do other stuff besides capturing video. Just because someone's wearing them, you shouldn't punch them in the face for assuming they're out to catch you in the act or something. It might just be some loser who doesn't want to get out his cellphone to read a text message or get navigation.
 
2013-05-02 01:24:23 PM  

Aarontology: It's getting more and more likely that I'm going to have to choose to never be in the room with someone who has one of those things.


I was thinking the same thing.

Eventually ANYBODY does SOMETHING they don't want people to see and mock. Hey look, that's me puking after some bad sushi!

That's me taking a peek down the waitresses loose blouse! Sure glad my wife and grandmother got to see THAT!


yeah, no thanks.
 
2013-05-02 01:25:01 PM  

LasersHurt: I feel like you're assuming a lot and reading a lot in just to be angry. We're WAY too early for those kind of judgments. I would LOVE to have these, and I'd probably not wear them most of the day. I work at a PC at home, don't need them there. I'd have them for when I left home.

I figure they're kind of like sunglasses - If I have them on and ask you the time, or stop at a newsstand for a paper, I'm not gonna remove it. We're having a very short and professional exchange. If I stop to talk, however, I'd slide them off.

I don't know if they're "after" me, but you decide. You seem to be focusing on just the camera feature, and to me that's the last thing in my mind - it's the myriad of other options that have me excited.

/maybe Google is leading with too much camera-heavy advertising?


I think the camera focus is coming from all angles because that's really the only contentious part of these things, if they didn't have a camera none of us would be having this conversation but it's also just silly these days to not include a camera in something so here we are.  I am now curious though, what does this offer you over a smartphone, really?  Hands free is for sure, but is that really it?  The ability to call out "Google, what am I looking at" without even needing to raise your hand to get the device aimed at your focus?
 
2013-05-02 01:27:30 PM  

Fubini: I'm not sure how Glass is more disruptive than smartphones/cell phones. You haven't had privacy in public spaces for decade now.


If I was in a bar drinking with friends and one of them started keeping his cell phone camera pointed at us at all times we would ditch him. So you are right, google glasses are about equivalent to some choad who keeps his cell camera pointed at you all night.

And I am sure women won't find it creepy either.

But please, don;t let me stop you.
 
2013-05-02 01:28:06 PM  

LasersHurt: Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.


That's a great point, one I hadn't thought all the way through.
 
2013-05-02 01:31:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: I feel like you're assuming a lot and reading a lot in just to be angry. We're WAY too early for those kind of judgments. I would LOVE to have these, and I'd probably not wear them most of the day. I work at a PC at home, don't need them there. I'd have them for when I left home.

I figure they're kind of like sunglasses - If I have them on and ask you the time, or stop at a newsstand for a paper, I'm not gonna remove it. We're having a very short and professional exchange. If I stop to talk, however, I'd slide them off.

I don't know if they're "after" me, but you decide. You seem to be focusing on just the camera feature, and to me that's the last thing in my mind - it's the myriad of other options that have me excited.

/maybe Google is leading with too much camera-heavy advertising?

I think the camera focus is coming from all angles because that's really the only contentious part of these things, if they didn't have a camera none of us would be having this conversation but it's also just silly these days to not include a camera in something so here we are.  I am now curious though, what does this offer you over a smartphone, really?  Hands free is for sure, but is that really it?  The ability to call out "Google, what am I looking at" without even needing to raise your hand to get the device aimed at your focus?


Both Augmented reality and machine vision have come a long way. Google Glass is the first step on the way to a marriage of technologies that could allow you to get contextual information overlaid over real life just when and where you need it.

Basically, this is the first step to something new. And to answer why it's better than a Cell Phone you just have to look not at the current prototype, but at the type of tech that is just around the corner in the next year or two.

A cell can't hands-free provide you with overlaid maps and store info as you walk, or instruct you how to build or cook the thing you wanted to build or cook AS you do it.

At the moment, this is the "briefcase you carry with battery and giant handset Cell Phone" of the wearable computing era.
 
2013-05-02 01:40:16 PM  

BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.

But how will other people in the restaurant/coffee shop/artisian faire know you own a pair if they're set aside next to you on the table? :)  These devices are designed for an always-on always-available kind of thing, they're marketed to be worn at all times during your day so its always there, I'll appreciate the people who do set them aside during social situations but we both know that's not the angle they're going for and not the type of people they're after.


And that's not even considering that Google said people will be able to integrate the Google Glass with their prescription glasses. That mean they WON'T be setting them aside or taking them off. It means people who deal with RX Google Glass glasses will have to just accept that the person they're facing has the ability to record every word, upload it to Google's servers on the Internet, and later even edit it if they so choose. They'll have to accept that they can be Google searched   right there, while they're talking to the person.  They'll have to accept that nothing about their conversation is not potential YouTube fodder.

At least with a cell phone camera, there's no subtle way to record someone. You can act like you're texting or reading the screen, but that becomes obvious after a moment when you have the phone tilted up and facing someone instead of tilted down like you normally would when texting.

And with traditional spy cameras like button cams, hat cams, glasses cams, etc. there's usually a limit to how much you can do with them, and they certainly don't have the ability to do web searches, upload the recording to the Internet, or even surreptitiously call a friend and have them see what you're seeing while you're interacting with someone.

People WILL be using these to play pranks, "bust" people, trick people into agreeing to things on camera, and capture embarrassing moments for YouTube or blackmail. Guys will be using these to record women in public without having to deal with the risk of being caught walking around with a camera phone in hand.

It will take SECONDS for something you do in front of these glasses to be uploaded and shared. And once it's on the Internet, it's out there forever.

So HELL YES there's a privacy concern.
 
2013-05-02 01:42:18 PM  

ZeroCorpse: So HELL YES there's a privacy concern.


Not to jump in late, but what's the "and so" here?

Ban certain functions because you worry they may be used?
 
2013-05-02 01:44:08 PM  

red5ish: Google Glass is to Voyeurs as Facebook is to ________________

a) Chocolate
b) Email
c) Stalkers


A)Chocolate? Now what do I win?
 
2013-05-02 01:46:32 PM  

LasersHurt: BumpInTheNight: LasersHurt: I feel like you're assuming a lot and reading a lot in just to be angry. We're WAY too early for those kind of judgments. I would LOVE to have these, and I'd probably not wear them most of the day. I work at a PC at home, don't need them there. I'd have them for when I left home.

I figure they're kind of like sunglasses - If I have them on and ask you the time, or stop at a newsstand for a paper, I'm not gonna remove it. We're having a very short and professional exchange. If I stop to talk, however, I'd slide them off.

I don't know if they're "after" me, but you decide. You seem to be focusing on just the camera feature, and to me that's the last thing in my mind - it's the myriad of other options that have me excited.

/maybe Google is leading with too much camera-heavy advertising?

I think the camera focus is coming from all angles because that's really the only contentious part of these things, if they didn't have a camera none of us would be having this conversation but it's also just silly these days to not include a camera in something so here we are.  I am now curious though, what does this offer you over a smartphone, really?  Hands free is for sure, but is that really it?  The ability to call out "Google, what am I looking at" without even needing to raise your hand to get the device aimed at your focus?

Both Augmented reality and machine vision have come a long way. Google Glass is the first step on the way to a marriage of technologies that could allow you to get contextual information overlaid over real life just when and where you need it.

Basically, this is the first step to something new. And to answer why it's better than a Cell Phone you just have to look not at the current prototype, but at the type of tech that is just around the corner in the next year or two.

A cell can't hands-free provide you with overlaid maps and store info as you walk, or instruct you how to build or cook the thing you wanted to build or c ...


I can appreciate all those things, they do sound appealing, they really do.  After reading ZeroCorpse's post below your own I think he hit a very important thing that I have kind of set-aside but this really is a source of my concern:  This is Google doing it, the monster in the corner recording and archiving everything, all the data it can all the time.  I think the idea that Google is behind it makes me much more weary, I won't even use Chrome as a browser or fark that noise whatever google has in the way of portable OSes and crap.  If these things could be jail broken to run something completely not by Google and no ability to phone home I might be less weary.  That's my own privacy concerns with such a device in my own possession, then there's all the other things ZeroCorpse brought up about how even without owning one you are suddenly subject to all those things if you're merely in their presence.
 
2013-05-02 01:51:08 PM  

LasersHurt: Fubini: I think the real problem is that Glass provides a focal point for all the negative emotion that some people have about the destruction of privacy in public.

I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.


etiquette my balls

Cell phones = people happily answering a phone mid-conversation and talking with someone else while actively ignoring you, sometimes while staring at you
Smart phones = above + people constantly glancing down at the screen in their hands
Google Glasses = people maintaining eye contact with you while doing god knows what
 
2013-05-02 01:52:18 PM  

xaks: So, if you have allergies, you will occasionally fill up the hard drive with pictures of yourself sneezing at nothing in particular?


Ether you wink when you sneeze, which is weird, or you need to read the headline again.
 
2013-05-02 01:53:22 PM  

moothemagiccow: LasersHurt: Fubini: I think the real problem is that Glass provides a focal point for all the negative emotion that some people have about the destruction of privacy in public.

I think this hits the core of it. People seem to be projecting it all at Google Glass for whatever reason, high profile I guess.

Still in conversational settings I had always assumed you'd set them aside or on your head, putting it aside like we do with Cell Phones now. Etiquette will still exist, in most cases.

etiquette my balls

Cell phones = people happily answering a phone mid-conversation and talking with someone else while actively ignoring you, sometimes while staring at you
Smart phones = above + people constantly glancing down at the screen in their hands
Google Glasses = people maintaining eye contact with you while doing god knows what


Your paranoia isn't a compelling argument for me doing or not doing anything in particular.
 
2013-05-02 01:53:32 PM  

ZeroCorpse: They'll have to accept that they can be Google searched   right there, while they're talking to the person.


Okay, I can see how people might have a problem with the fact that they could be recorded and uploaded in the blink of an eye, once we get unlimited data plans, but what's with the searching? Who's searching for what? I don't understand that one.
 
2013-05-02 01:55:36 PM  

moothemagiccow: Google Glasses = people maintaining eye contact with you while doing god knows what


At least you can rest assured, if they're maintaining eye contact with you then you have their attention, it's when you can see their screen is active and their eye is focused on that that you can feel aggrieved your anecdote isn't captivating your audience as you'd hoped.
 
2013-05-02 01:58:01 PM  
I'm sure as hell not going to buy one, because I already feel bad for people who have their cell phone grafted to their hand, but look at the bright side people, there's going to be a lot more fail videos on youtube now.
 
2013-05-02 01:59:06 PM  

Slaxl: ZeroCorpse: They'll have to accept that they can be Google searched   right there, while they're talking to the person.

Okay, I can see how people might have a problem with the fact that they could be recorded and uploaded in the blink of an eye, once we get unlimited data plans, but what's with the searching? Who's searching for what? I don't understand that one.


People and what they do is google's product, the searching would be from advertisers looking for a myriad of things such as "What type of clothes are the people who hang around a glass wearer into?" or "What kind of car do they drive"(because they can map an interior to a model) or "What kind of personal landscaping do google users and their co-workers employ" while visiting the bathroom.  Google will sell them this information after blurring out the bare minimum to skirt the privacy laws that they can't bypass of course.
 
2013-05-02 02:12:27 PM  

Slaxl: ZeroCorpse: They'll have to accept that they can be Google searched   right there, while they're talking to the person.

Okay, I can see how people might have a problem with the fact that they could be recorded and uploaded in the blink of an eye, once we get unlimited data plans, but what's with the searching? Who's searching for what? I don't understand that one.


Unlimited data plans? Hahah
 
2013-05-02 02:23:22 PM  
Clearly, we're going to have a society where people with Google Glass will hang out together, and people without will avoid those creepy f♥ckers like they have a contagious disease.

Enjoy your glorious wearable PC future, guys.
 
2013-05-02 02:39:12 PM  

Fubini: The standard way to implement these devices is to wire the LED directly into the camera's own power supply, so that the LED is on whenever the camera receives power. I would assume that Google would do this (for all the obvious reasons), so it won't be possible to disable the recording LED without significant technical ability and the willingness to destroy your thousand dollar item if you mess up.


Or, you know, cover it up.

BizarreMan: Unlimited data plans? Hahah


Still using AT&T or Verizon, huh? (Sprint also throttles, but everyone else offers unlimited)
 
2013-05-02 02:56:46 PM  

Fubini: The standard way to implement these devices is to wire the LED directly into the camera's own power supply, so that the LED is on whenever the camera receives power. I would assume that Google would do this (for all the obvious reasons), so it won't be possible to disable the recording LED without significant technical ability and the willingness to destroy your thousand dollar item if you mess up.


Wires are too big for this.
 
2013-05-02 03:06:04 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Clearly, we're going to have a society where people with Google Glass will hang out together, and people without will avoid those creepy f♥ckers like they have a contagious disease.

Enjoy your glorious wearable PC future, guys.


This is the world we built.
 
2013-05-02 03:19:18 PM  

R.A.Danny: Wires are too big for this.


When I say "wire" I'm talking about how it's connected, not that it's literally soldered with wires. The concept is the same on a PCB with copper traces- the LED power supply is the same as the camera power supply. This actually makes it much more difficult to modify at home.

To disable the LED you could just remove the LED and hope that the system is designed in such a way that  this doesn't destroy the whole device (probably not), and if this is the case then you'd have to find a suitable replacement diode/resistor/LED that was electrically similar enough to the LED to still let the device function. Chances are, the LED is wired in series with the camera, not in parallel, so if you just remove the LED then the circuit is broken and the camera cannot function. If you replace it willy-nilly with a different component (or a solid connection) then you're going to be getting the wrong voltage and could fark up things farther down the line. Perhaps to the point of destroying the device.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the LED is a security feature. It's probably designed as such, and circumventing security isn't usually easy.

jonny_q: Or, you know, cover it up.


The glass display is on during recording, so if you're close (having a conversation) it wouldn't be hard to tell if they're potentially recording. If you cover that up... well, it'd be obvious, and you couldn't see.
 
2013-05-02 03:21:07 PM  

Fubini: To disable the LED you could just remove the LED and hope that the system is designed in such a way that  this doesn't destroy the whole device (probably not), and if this is the case then you'd have to find a suitable replacement diode/resistor/LED that was electrically similar enough to the LED to still let the device function.


I know what you're getting at, but if it is installed in series like that the whole thing becomes worthless if the LED fails.
 
2013-05-02 03:29:20 PM  

Fubini: R.A.Danny: Wires are too big for this.

When I say "wire" I'm talking about how it's connected, not that it's literally soldered with wires. The concept is the same on a PCB with copper traces- the LED power supply is the same as the camera power supply. This actually makes it much more difficult to modify at home.

To disable the LED you could just remove the LED and hope that the system is designed in such a way that  this doesn't destroy the whole device (probably not), and if this is the case then you'd have to find a suitable replacement diode/resistor/LED that was electrically similar enough to the LED to still let the device function. Chances are, the LED is wired in series with the camera, not in parallel, so if you just remove the LED then the circuit is broken and the camera cannot function. If you replace it willy-nilly with a different component (or a solid connection) then you're going to be getting the wrong voltage and could fark up things farther down the line. Perhaps to the point of destroying the device.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the LED is a security feature. It's probably designed as such, and circumventing security isn't usually easy.

jonny_q: Or, you know, cover it up.

The glass display is on during recording, so if you're close (having a conversation) it wouldn't be hard to tell if they're potentially recording. If you cover that up... well, it'd be obvious, and you couldn't see.


Where there's a will, there's a way, never forget that.
 
2013-05-02 03:31:48 PM  
media.tumblr.comSo, he's not going to record anything, eh?
 
2013-05-02 03:33:43 PM  
content.internetvideoarchive.com
Why take mental photographs when you can do it for realz?
 
2013-05-02 03:35:20 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Clearly, we're going to have a society where people with Google Glass will hang out together, and people without will avoid those creepy f♥ckers like they have a contagious disease.

Enjoy your glorious wearable PC future, guys.


Enjoy hiding in your luddite cave with your luddite cave-friends, luddite caveman.

http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-09-22-caveman_science_fiction.jp g
 
2013-05-02 03:46:13 PM  

R.A.Danny: Fubini: To disable the LED you could just remove the LED and hope that the system is designed in such a way that  this doesn't destroy the whole device (probably not), and if this is the case then you'd have to find a suitable replacement diode/resistor/LED that was electrically similar enough to the LED to still let the device function.

I know what you're getting at, but if it is installed in series like that the whole thing becomes worthless if the LED fails.


Sure, but as a security device, it's worth the risk. It's also all solid state- the LED is more than reliable enough to last the lifetime of the product- especially something like a consumer product that's going to stick around for 5 years, max.

The people who build LEDs talk about reliability in terms of thousands and tens of thousands of hours. You could take an hour of video every day for three years and barely hit a thousand. LEDs do degrade in brightness through use, but again this is a few percent over thousands of hours of operation.

When was the last time you saw an LED fail? Now think about all the LEDs in your life that haven't.
 
2013-05-02 03:48:01 PM  
I look forward to all the people professing they'll be committing assault complaining in a post-glass release thread that the video footage was used to get their conviction.

It is a video camera, you did say you were going to commit assault.  How do you morons think that's going to work out?

But I strongly suspect they won't have the balls to carry it out, in which case they should STFU.
 
2013-05-02 03:52:15 PM  

Vaneshi: I look forward to all the people professing they'll be committing assault complaining in a post-glass release thread that the video footage was used to get their conviction.

It is a video camera, you did say you were going to commit assault.  How do you morons think that's going to work out?

But I strongly suspect they won't have the balls to carry it out, in which case they should STFU.


You completely invented, insulted and then dismissed a strawman, good show sport!
 
2013-05-02 03:52:27 PM  

Fubini: Sure, but as a security device, it's worth the risk.


Your LED as a security device.... Yeah. No they are going to control it with software so you can get apps that make it into fun colors and flash when you get a hard on. Someone is going to write an app to shut if off for the camera and that is that.
 
2013-05-02 03:54:45 PM  

PsyLord: [content.internetvideoarchive.com image 320x240]
Why take mental photographs when you can do it for realz?


Came for this.

/clickclick
//bank it
 
2013-05-02 03:56:04 PM  

BumpInTheNight: You completely invented, insulted and then dismissed a strawman, good show sport!


Better than arguing the toss with those retards, perhaps if they had the bottle to do it I'd give them the time of day.  But they haven't so fark em.

I'll take the compliment.
 
Displayed 50 of 126 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