Posted on 11/15/2014 2:19:02 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
(Reuters) - After two years of popping up at high-profile events sporting Google Glass, the gadget that transforms eyeglasses into spy-movie worthy technology, Google co-founder Sergey Brin sauntered bare-faced into a Silicon Valley red-carpet event on Sunday.
He'd left his pair in the car, Brin told a reporter. The Googler, who heads up the top-secret lab which developed Glass, has hardly given up on the product -- he recently wore his pair to the beach.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I believe several republicans were on the original ‘explorer’ list to try GoogleGlass. Among them were Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. This may be most useful for those involved in the exactitude of placement; as with surgeons , architects, auto mechanics, story board designers for virtual reality games or 3D movies.
Exactly - the only people concerned with privacy are those with something to hide. And the only people who haven't accepted the utter inevitability of total surveillance are those living in an 18th Century fantasy world.
Oh sorry, I forgot to call you a jackass.
Jackass.
It’s not the right tool for the job. There’s no need of it on safari, and I’m sure they had much better filming equipment.
The cell phone cameras, which is what Glass uses, are suitable for some applications, but where the lighting gets complex, they absoultely fail.
There are mirrorless digital cameras that give great resolution, but it’s a matter of sensor size. The larger the sensor, the more complex of an image, no matter the megapixels.
Saying they didn’t take Google Glass on safari is like saying they didn’t take a microscope on safari. Wrong tool for the job.
That’s not what I said. Not even related to what I said. If you’re going to call somebody a jackass you should start off by not being a liar.
You said "how the world works now."
If you want to use declarative topic closure statements to try to block discussion access to those who do not accept your premises, you're going to have to grow thicker skin. Psychologically violent tactics invoke blunt confrontations and rejections. If you can't handle the blowback, use more reasonable tactics in the first place.
Because that IS how the world works now. If you are in public you are being recorded. Traffic cams, dash cams, surveillance insides and outside of buildings, people with smartphones. The existence of google glasses changed nothing about that. We ARE in the post privacy world. I passed 3 people on the bike trail today with cameras on their helmets, and it was only a 25 mile ride. Getting mad at the GG wearers is like yelling at the last cow for being outside the barn, you’re mad at the wrong person for the wrong problem.
I’m not blocking discussion, I’m pointing out that people are having the WRONG discussion. The time to discuss whether or not we should be putting these cameras all over the place was 20 years ago, maybe even 30, that’s when buildings started becoming surveillance zones. Now the discussion is how are you going to survive in a world where you are being recorded every time you step out of your home.
Whether or not you accept the premise doesn’t matter. You can not accept gravity and it doesn’t change the fact that if drop something it falls.
My skin is plenty thick. But that doesn’t change the fact that you deliberately misrepresented what I said, and ran straight to name calling. 2 sure sings of a person that knows the facts don’t back them. If you can’t handle the blow back, use facts not name calling and lies.
There is still plenty of hope. For example: traffic cameras are not capable of capturing faces. Even outside surveillance cameras don't have enough resolution and bandwidth. Remember those Muslim terrorists in Boston? They were filmed by a few cameras - and they were all but impossible to recognize.
People with smartphones and helmet cams are not a concern. Their cameras film only what the owners can see with their own eyes; and their recordings follow the fate of visuals that we perceive directly - they get forgotten. Imagine that you are walking around with a camera that is always on. (Dashcams are like that, just in cars.) What would you do with 50 GB of video that you make every day? Most of it is not of any value to you. I have a dashcam; it sees the same thing that I see. It loops over every 8 hours. If it films you or someone else, the video won't go anywhere. I won't look at the recording myself either, unless there is a reason to review.
The primary threat to privacy is coming not from pocket recorders. Audio recorders exist for many decades, since 1930's. But we are not afraid of them, simply because in the vast majority of cases there is no reason to record; and even if a child, playing a spy, records a conversation, it will go nowhere and will be eventually deleted.
Now compare that audio recording scenario to another one, where many people are fitted with a microphone that is always on and may be sending the sound over the radio to the FBI (for example; NSA also works.) The key difference here is that the collected data will be *all* processed, and it may be used against you. This is possible because the agency has capability to process, and lawful authority to execute on it. A neighbor's child may point a microphone at you while you are discussing with your wife a secret matter of planting a flower in your garden; but that child is incapable of reaching you outside of the garden; and the child is also incapable of acting on the recorded data, even if you are a masqueraded extraterrestrial who is discussing the imminent conquest of Earth.
The same, even in higher degree, applies to video. Humans are not capable of monitoring millions and billions of video feeds. There aren't enough watchers. However computers today can be built to watch those cameras; automated surveillance - video, audio, GPS, RFID, and any other - is the largest threat to privacy. It is widespread, it is centralized, it is aggregated, it is processed by the best algorithms, it is never deleted, it is accessible to all LEO agencies, and it stands ready to help convict you, no matter if you are guilty of something or not.
The GG would be seen as less invasive if its recordings were only locally stored. Still, one would be not amused if someone sticks a recorder into his face; but at least he'd know that this record, if made, won't go anywhere but the computer of this guy - and, eventually, the trash can. However Google has positioned the GG as a universal spy device that is worn by volunteers and that streams GPS and video to the mothership, with no real purpose of doing so for the wearer. This activated many of the dangers of centralized surveillance, and glassholes were seen as agents of the government. It may be that Google tries now to distance themselves from that awful idea - but they have no chances to succeed with that. The GG will have to die first - as a product, as a trademark, and perhaps even as a company, before a socially acceptable wearable computer is reintroduced and accepted by the people.
Traffic cameras have been capturing faces for 20 years. Surveillance cameras have all the bandwidth they’re given. We have no idea what was recorded in Boston and never shown to us, poke around youtube and TMZ LOTS of surveillance footage of pretty solid resolution lands up there.
I don’t know why you’re so concerned about google glasses and so dismissive of smartphones and helmet cams, they’re the same thing. GG are just an interface for smartphones, there’s nothing you can do with the glasses you can’t do with the phone, the phone is where they put the data from the glasses. All those points you make on why smartphones aren’t a threat apply exactly the same way to GG.
I wouldn’t call any of it a threat. It’s just part of the situation of the world. You ARE being filmed when out in public, period. By surveillance, by smartphones, by google glasses, doesn’t matter, you are recorded, and if somebody finds it interesting it’ll land on youtube, or livestream or any of the other places.
GG recordings ARE locally stored. They go to your smartphone. From the smartphone they can go elsewhere, but that’s no different than any other thing recorded by the phone. There’s no functional difference between a smartphone and GG when it comes to privacy. They’re just 2 different ways to record video that CAN go on the internet. The glasses than any of the other things I’ve mentioned. They all work the exact same way, data goes local and might (and when there’s a smartphone involved almost certainly does) go someplace else also. Google isn’t distancing themselves from anything, you’re simply grossly misunderstanding how things work, all they do is feed data to a smartphone, that’s IT. It is NOT a universal spy device, it does NOT stream video to the mothership, those are quite simply lies. It’s an interface for you phone, period. When it comes to recording video it’s no different than a helmet or dash cam.
What mattered at that time was not good enough. But yes, it is absolutely true that old VGA cameras are being replaced with HD ones. The prices on those went down a lot. One should expect a typical street camera to stream an HD video in a few years. Some already do, as you point out.
I don’t know why you’re so concerned about google glasses and so dismissive of smartphones and helmet cams, they’re the same thing.
There is a big difference in how they are used. If a stranger walks up to me and raises a smartphone, I know that he is filming me. If a stranger is wearing GG then I don't know what he is doing. Maybe he is taking a photo, or maybe he is checking his Twitter feed. Mass use of GG has potential to mask the videotaping, as if everyone with a smartphone has to walk with his phone in a filming position. (Naturally, nobody does that, and that's why smartphones are not a concern.) Videotaping of others is not a human right.
You ARE being filmed when out in public, period.
Perhaps; but why to allow MORE of the same? One of a hundred carries a flu virus today; you meet one of them. Your chance to get a virus is 0.01. What would you say if ten out of hundred are sick? Fifty? All of them? This doesn't help you at all, so why to promote it? What is the greater public good that is achieved by everyone filming everyone? Or, perhaps, it is just a game? But other people are not playthings for GG aficionados.
It is NOT a universal spy device, it does NOT stream video to the mothership, those are quite simply lies.
Perhaps; but that's how it was sold, and that's how it is perceived. There are streaming applications for a smartphone, as we discussed above. There are face recognition services for GG and smartphones, even though Google is already afraid of the backlash.
What mattered at that time was what they WANTED us to see.
There’s no difference in how they are used. GG are JUST an interface for the phone, NOTHING MORE. The guy walking to you with his phone MIGHT be filming you, or he MIGHT be texting his girlfriend, or he MIGHT be playing Candy Crush. And the guy walking up to you with GG has all the exact same mights. There is no actual difference between the two.
Because you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. People aren’t going to give up their phones or the things they can do with them. Everybody doing their recording has what they consider to be a good reason for it. And it’s not our place to tell them otherwise. This isn’t the flu, that’s a bad strawman. GG are just like phones.
No that is NOT how they marketed them. That’s how paranoid luddites decided they worked, and it is quite simply a bunch of lies. The glasses are only in communication with the phone. The phone CAN be in communication with various places, but that again is no different than every other smartphone on the planet, they can ALL be in constant communication. And they can ALL run facial recognition software so that when you take pictures of your friends everybody can be tagged on Facebook. Google isn’t afraid of any backlash because all the backlash is from people that are making crap up and fail to understand it is JUST AN INTERFACE FOR THE PHONE. The glasses can do NOTHING that you can’t do with the phone and no glasses. So EVERYTHING you’re afraid of them doing was possible (and being done) before the glasses.
That’s the point you keep fleeing from. All the things you started fearing when the glasses came up were ALREADY HERE. Had been for years. And if all the google glasses in the world wind up in the dump tomorrow ALL those things you fear will STILL BE OUT THERE. We are in the post privacy world, period. Have been for a long time. It’s nice you finally noticed, but it’s silly for you to blame the glasses that are nothing more than the latest interface for a surveillance world you’ve been living in for most of the century.
We live in a world thoroughly infused with regulations and outright bans on many, many things. None of those controls came into existence until AFTER what they control came into existence, and people decided they were out of control. Yet with computerized surveillance technology, that fundamental sequence of events is now not only irrelevant, but no longer even in reach? And YOU talk about premises and lies?
LOL, you argue like a child. If the techno-totalitarians rely on people like you, they're in for a big surprise.
You're doing nothing other than what I said you are doing in the first place - telling people to give up, to accept their slavery and abandon their freedom, that everything is lost and there's nothing left to do.
You're the Cowardice-Whisperer.
And you're loathsome.
What you’re missing is that it was the PEOPLE that put up all the surveillance. This isn’t some “techno-totalitarian” movement, this is people wanting cameras, for protection and for fun (yeah, gotta face reality here, most of the cameras you’re encountering out there are being used just to record fun events... which you happen to be near). So if you’re expecting the people to get rid of them, you’re in for some sadness.
Once again you’re all name calling and no facts of logic. So we both know you’re wrong, but you can’t man up and admit it.
You're swapping implementation for effect, and minimizing government and business surveillance far past any level of reasonableness. No wonder you have to finish with insults, even the most cursory examination of your argument leaves no doubt as to your deliberate misrepresentation of virtually the entire substance of the surveillance issue.
Whatever. You want to lick boots, I won't stop you. But don't try to tell me it tastes good.
No, I’m pointing out where all this came from. And businesses are part of the people, people own them, people run them, people decide their business needs security cameras.
I haven’t insulted anybody. You’re the guy that’s got nothing but insults.
And there you go with more. I’m not licking any boots, I’m pointing out reality. Reality is the world has moved beyond your complaints. The time to question whether or not we want all these cameras was 20 years ago. We didn’t. It’s too late. Nobody is going to give up their cameras. And you know that, which is why all you can do is throw insults. 4 posts in a row from you, not one single attempt to bring facts or use logic. All insults, all the time. The tactic of the person that knows their wrong but can’t admit it.
"knows their they're wrong"
.
If that’s my biggest error I’ll take it. I don’t generally bother to look at what the fingers did, proofreading is for when I’m getting paid.
That’s the beauty of being a FReeper.
You have the relief of knowing you’re at the top of the govt list, so there’s no reason to worry about such things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.