What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized eyewear (2013)
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
I think there is a shift in the public mindset about public and sometimes private spaces being under constant video surveillance. I am conscious of this every time I walk by one of my neighbors’ homes as many are using doorbell cameras, or other similar security systems facing the street. Practically every store and train station has multiple cameras.
In some countries the cameras are even more pervasive. For instance, the PRC government has gone full Big Brother, using cameras and facial recognition to track and control behavior.
Moreover, not only does every adult and many children carry a high-quality video camera in their pocket, they are becoming more comfortable using them to take video of what they’re seeing around them.
For these reasons, I believe if Google Glass were released today instead of 10 years ago, the reaction would be less hostile. I would be curious to know the author’s recent experience wearing DIY headsets and the public’s reactions/suspicions regarding video recording.
(Using this recording for various purposes is a while different issue though).
More of it just makes my world smaller and smaller.
Highly emotionally charged attitudes commonly held in society may change, but it'll probably take generations to do so.
One has to have an open mind. It's not inherently more rational to calmly accept all social changes brought on by technology.
Perhaps because you miss the notion of quantitative and qualitative difference.
Many of them will freak out when they see another person point a camera at them, but they don't seem to care that dozens if not hundreds of surveillance cameras film them every day when they walk around a city.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Someone actively pointing a camera at you is perceived as an aggressive, hostile thing. People get immediately defensive.
A static CCTV camera wasn't installed to video you in particular, so therefore people are more accepting.
Regardless, I'm always thought that sousveillance was a terrible idea. All it does is to normalize the idea of ubiquitous surveillance without providing much, if any, actual benefit in terms of coping with ubiquitous surveillance.
All I can do, personally, is to support organizations that fight this stuff, and to refuse to participate to the greatest degree I can. By this I mean avoiding going to areas where surveillance is used to the greatest degree possible, expressing my concerns about surveillance, and teasing/shaming friends and family who buy into the whole thing by using things like Ring doorbells, etc.
None of which will change anything overall, really, but you do what you can.
Ring is just evil.
Obviously without informing owners.
And while it is, obviously, only to be used to fight against terrorism, organised crime and delinquency, well… let’s just say that France has a history of such powers getting extrajudicially abused, by governments and individuals alike.
Now they prosecute people demonstrating against a hugely unpopular government.
> Following the pattern of the so-called Tarnac affair, their arrest was accompanied by timely leaks in the media, and even political manipulations condemning the "far-left". And this, on the grounds that they were "suspected of planning violent actions targeting police officers, without a specific plan of action being identified," as reported by Le Monde nonetheless.
[1] (French): https://www.nextinpact.com/article/71826/accuses-terrorisme-...
Yes, I remember that guy getting mugged by Mc Donald security in France, at the Champs Elysée, which doesn't surprise me given how dumb and ignorant these people are, since they are recruited among gangs... an absolutely shame for France.
[1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-franc...
I don't want some guy recording me when I eat in a restaurant. In France, they want that even less.
I'd prefer McDonalds itself didn't have cameras either. But at least those are for anti-theft purposes.
It behooves us to look back at what has been done before, as we look to take this technology forward.
I would be very curious to know what Steven Mann thinks of the Apple Vision Pro system.
Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things? My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not. But then, if I were able to predict which of Apple's products would be unexpectedly and wildly successful, I'd be very wealthy, so…
The battery would need to last more than 2 hours
I dunno. I've had problems with every AR/VR system I've ever tried in the past 20+ years, so I don't know that Apple will be able to solve this one.
But of all the companies who have at least announced products in this space, I think Apple is best equipped to make it happen. If anyone can do it, I think it's Apple. Just maybe not this decade.
The iPod and iPhone didn't cost $3500
It will be interesting to see the next iterations, if they can slim down the size and price enough that it takes off.
Living in a house, I'm a bit skeptical I'd have any personal utility.
Only someone with a cyborg fetish could consider that headset sexy.
My interpretation here is that they're expecting it to only get worn in public on planes and at some high-nerd-quotient workplaces, but trying to prime the pump for 5 or 10 years down the road when they have a version that's as light and comfortable as (actual, not exaggerated) ski goggles with a battery that lasts as long as a current phone.
Sidenote: is he writing equations comically large on the blackboard for a reason?
Well, yeah, he probably can't see them properly otherwise. Remember how grandma always used to tell you you'd ruin your eyesight by sitting too close to the TV?
VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though- I want AR virtual monitors that overlay the displays on my actual vision. Even VR which uses a camera to pass through to the display isn't really what I want.
My ideal hardware would just be a "dumb" AR display with wide FOV and an HDMI input that just overlays the video data onto my normal vision.
From what I understand a big challenge is the wide FOV though, but I don't know enough about optics to really understand why this is the case.
> VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though
The problem with AR is a basic technical one: you can't use a transparent lens to paint black pixels over white light. That's why Apple, despite being desperate to make the "Apple Glasses", has basically abandoned AR entirely in favor of VR-but-the-video-passthrough-is-so-good-it-feels-like-AR design, and I would expect most other companies working on AR devices to follow suit.