Stop the Cyborgs was founded in response to Google Glass

Augmented reality is on its way, and to be honest I've been waiting for it. I will be using it where it makes sense. The point here should not be to play Luddite in a world that is moving too fast for the majority of people, yet I see exactly that as the potential takeaway of this campaign with its generic "Glass is banned on these premises" signs.<p>I <i>am</i> worried that the only company who is trying to market a usable AR product is Google, whom I increasingly have huge trust issues with and who is objectively getting to big and too powerful to be trusted. I would love a hackable AR device with an open interface, one which I could potentially hook up to my own server, a device I could install on whatever I want. You know, like an Android phone of some kind.<p>Categorically banning glass-like devices is not the solution. Attacking Open Source as undermining democracy doesn't sit well with me either. I also didn't like how they're attacking the fledgling movements of participatory politics, which we need more of (and which needs to become more meaningful) - not less.<p>Finally, the campaign's title is misleading and supports a disagreeable sentiment. It implies that extending or repairing the capabilities of our biological bodies is wrong.

The problem with Google Glass is its recording abilities. If I invite a few friends at my home, I don't want them to come with all of Youtube. My home has opaque walls for a reason. I know there will be a LED on while filming but it's way too discreet and can certainly be broken or covered.

The problem here with Glass is it's not really a Sousveillance device (in this context). It's just going to allow slurping up vast streams of data for the benefit of Google (and secondarily for the wearer). This is but one of the reasons I'm more of a fan of Steve Mann's EyeTap tech (which is wearable, personal, mediated-reality computing) - it allows for the idea of Sousveillance to be enacted by the wearer.<p>(edit: for clarity)

What's funny about this site is that we all love personal surveillance when it helps us do things like bust animal abusers or discover dirty government secrets, but when people are publicly carrying their recording devices, we all feel uncomfortable.<p>Also this site talks about "glass free zones" and "surveillance free zones" and doesn't seem to acknowledge that they aren't the same thing.<p>If somebody wants to record what you're doing today, they don't need glass to do it. Why not make a big deal about devices that are actually undercover?<p>Maybe having these things so easily available will create an etiquette we don't expect and can't predict.<p>I feel like once Glass actually delivers, it will play out as really nothing special in these scenarios, and we'll realize it in short order. All this talk before it gets here about surveillance and privacy violations, not actually knowing how its used or how buyers will want to use it, or what its most popular applications will be; all that is FUD.

As a cyborg (I have a replacement cornea) I have only one working eye<p>What happens when proper implants become viable for people like me?

I sympathize with some of their concerns (not that there's anything we can do about it without massively hindering progress), but the anti-transhumanist name really bugs me.

I view the ubiquitous rise of personal recording devices as linked to other progress that can not easily be (nor should it be) stopped.<p>I also see it as a privacy issue, where the expectation of privacy through anonymity is decreasing through a combination of much more recording of everyday events and future (and current) possibilities for correlating those positively with specific people.<p>I think the natural outcome of this is that we'll just shift our cultural relationship between assumed and explicit privacy and anonymity. In the future, it may not be uncommon to see people in cities go about with some sort of face covering / obfuscation, to achieve some semblance of the privacy and anonymity we currently expect (whether or not we <i>should</i> expect that at this point...)

Who's behind this campaign?

If you're interested in the (imagined) implications of always-on recording devices, I'd recommend watching The Final Cut (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343</a>). Although it deals more with memories, the issues of privacy and behavior of those doing the recording are confronted.

While there's been plenty of Google Glass fearmongering posted...this reeks of the modern "link-bait" trend of online monetization. If you want to make a quick buck in 2013 then the answer has always been to make the internet hate you.

I hate to be that guy but I can't even zoom this page using Firefox. The font size is huge and can't be made smaller. Why do people do this?<p>What setting in this page is responsible for this?