I can't help but shake my head in disagreement when I hear things like "we need a red LED or a shutter sound on this camera". It's not that I encourage people to be sneaky about spying with their pictures. It's that it will be <i>inevitable</i>.<p>As mentioned, any hacker could turn off whatever restriction you're going to put. Pretending that we're preventing something is stupid and wrong. It's a hypocrisy that is so typical it makes me angry.<p>To a large extent, secret photographing/recording is a technological revolution, and it will, predictably, meet some resistance. We can either:<p>* pretend to do something about it.<p>* help people resisting transition into it.<p>There are really no other options. Preventing it from happening is <i>not</i> an option. What would you do?<p>It's very similar to the whole "illegal downloading of music" business. Millions of dollars are spent, laws, national (global!) debates are held, all sorts of technological hurdles are put into play, and ... nothing prevents any kid from downloading whatever they want from the Internet.<p>All this "pretending to do something about it" has a cost. Some scapegoats are going to suffer greatly along the way. Aaron Schwartz's example is famous around here, but it's absolutely not the only one. Do we need more innocent victims?
I don't get why everyone is freaking out about trying to predefine the social rules for this thing. Rather, to be more literal, I should say I do get it but don't agree with it.<p>Wearable computing and ubiquitous photography <i>are going to be things</i> as the cost of hardware falls. This is already true compared even to the world of the late nineties. Google glass is just the first attempt, but there will be others. WSJ opinion pieces are not going to define how people use it.<p>The actual social drawbacks combined with the benefits will be the determining factor in how people use it. I imagine (from actually watching people's reaction to the device in person) that in real scenarios most people will not care that you are wearing a Glass/iSee/Windows Goggle 8. And likewise, the relative infrequency of surreptitious recording being useful will limit how often the devices will be used that way.
I wonder what the rationale behind not including an LED for the camera was. I can't imagine it was cost or anything. Such a simple addition would have definitely done a long ways in reducing the fear people seem to (rightfully) have with its camera.
> You know how that guy with the Bluetooth headset became Bluetooth Headset Guy, the most grating tech villain in existence today? It's because he never took his headset off.<p>There's a strange social phenomenon where some people feel obliged to not only pass judgment on the way other people enjoy their life (the same contingent of people who seem to dislike those family stickers on cars and people who take pictures of food), they must evangelize/enforce the style of life they're more comfortable with.<p>What's wrong with bluetooth guy (and his predecessor of 10 years before, cell-phone guy) using his technology? Deal with it like you deal with everything else: endure it, go somewhere else, or explain <i>politely</i> how their behavior is demonstrably harmful (not merely annoying, harmful).<p>> Be courteous and take the device off in locker rooms, public bathrooms, business meetings, movie theaters and anywhere else where wielding a camera would be improper or offensive.<p>Agreed. Those are legal issues and should absolutely be observed (the law, not the events).
Memory-impaired users of EyeTap/Glass-like devices - using them as a memory-prosthetic (a not unreasonable use of this kind of technology to aid their day to day lives) - might find themselves subject to abuse from able-bodied (in the metal sense) non-users, mistaking the disabled for geeks.<p>Just a thinking-out-loud exercise. Move along.
I get it, I don't like being photographed without my consent. OK, I admit that may come from a place of self conscienceness or whatever. But, I would like that respected. How about an opt out or opt in type of icon that people could wear, maybe the polite Google glass wearer would use the opt in feature that would only photograph other Google glass wearers? That seems like an easy feature to add. Just a thought.