No. You just have to point a video camera at someone and potentially record their conversation. Do people have such poor social skills and lack of empathy to understand why Google Glass will make many people really uncomfortable ?
Do people have such poor social skills and lack of active life that they've never been around people wearing GoPro's?
You get over it. Really, really quickly.
The focus on the video camera....welcome to the modern world. Video cameras are everywhere, and if that is such a profound focus of people's concern, you might want to fly around the planet a few times to turn back time because it is unavoidable.
Do people want to adjust every aspect of their lives to deal with people recording them on video at all time
People should because in many ways this is already happening. Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
But let's say that we're talking about a friend -- assuming that they wanted to record you (the simple existence of a camera aside), they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd.
I just don't think it's such a big deal. At all. Do you get paranoid and panicky whenever anyone pulls out a smartphone, with which they could ostensibly be recording you? For that matter their keychain, or countless other products, can actually be video recording devices.
"...they are recording their experience that happens to include you. Selfish notions that one has a bubble of exclusion seems quaint and a little odd."
This does not match my experience of personal interaction at all.
I suspect that viewpoint is in a very tiny minority.
> Go to a social gathering, or a public event, and you are being recorded, probably from multiple vantage points, through the duration.
As I'm not a celebrity and most of these events are dinner parties, that would be a huge surprise to me - most of my friends do not record video at all.
The backlash will be considerable. Surveillance/counter-surveillance against wearable computing devices will probably be the next big arms race between hackers and the tech that allows it to happen.
Nice downplay but most people are going to serious problems with people streaming them on the internet. Wearable cameras are great tools for extreme sports, porn and undercover shows but to try to market them socially acceptable articles of clothing is downright insane.
I remember when smartphones first got cameras -- there was a mass hysteria by the usual suspects that this was a tool by which all of our bathroom moments would be invaded.
Then smartphones got video capabilities, and again...tool for pedophiles and creepers.
It's the same garbage with every advance of technology, usually by people with an agenda.
All of those issues exist already. The main distinction is that wearable computers 1) have an even easier form factor to expedite surveillance and 2) the whole "continuous connection to the cloud" fear of footage and data being uploaded. Certainly the latter issue can also apply to smartphones, but this is more literally in your face.
They are ubiquitous in snowsport environments - every time I go skiing I see a dozen of the things. I've thought about getting one myself, to use as the equivalent of a Russian dashcam for my motorcycle commute. It doesn't feel the same as the Google Glass would, though, where the person just wears it all the time. That seems creepy.
In both one party and all party consent situations, audio can still be recorded. The governing law with regards to recording audio is Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 of the US Code. As with most laws, trying to read and understand it is a daunting task. But it all comes down to one definition in this code. Section 2510 Paragraph 2 states:
“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication.
So, this essentially means that, if a person expects their conversation to be private, then it is illegal to record it. So, it is up to you to ensure that they don’t have any expectation of privacy
Google Glasses are not surveillance devices. They are not surreptitious. By the notions of all party consent, every smartphone video capture (which includes audio, and often includes the conversations of other people) would see people thrown in jail. Is that happening?
By any rational measure a big camera on the side of your head tells everyone that they are being recorded. No one will ever see any legal issues for this and that is a gigantic red herring.
I've not once ever seen a person wearing a GoPro and I consider myself pretty active. And I can't fathom why anybody would be wearing one in an office, cafe, social or non-outdoor environment. And sorry but you wouldn't have a deeply personal or business conversation with someone who had a GoPro strapped to their head, right ?
I've not once ever seen a person wearing a GoPro and I consider myself pretty active
I see them everywhere. Perhaps it is regional.
To your other comment, the vast majority of life is not "deeply personal" or confidental business conversations. Most of life is entirely banal. Which is, I think, how people derive different opinions on this: I don't think I am particularly interesting in the various settings where people capture me, so I just don't care. Others imagine some grand conspiracy where everyone is desperate to watch them, and thus are sure that everyone is spying on them.
