Stop the Cyborgs was founded in response to Google Glass
stopthecyborgs.org
stopthecyborgs.org
I am 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.
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.
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.
I don't attack Open Source, or extending your body, or nifty Android gadgets or whatever. That's all fine. But I do not accept being recorded in a bar. Can you understand that this is not some sort of crazy reactionary idea?
While I like the privacy and even worked on software which will help protect it, I'm in favor of the right to film in public spaces, this way we as society can highlight bad things without being afraid of charges just for filming.
I don't know the last time I saw a security camera at a bar. At any rate, security cameras are not at every table. And it would not be accepted to upload footage from the security cameras to Facebook and tag me in the footage.
The people running a bar have no interest in messing with their security system unless there is a major incident, and they have an active commercial interest in not exposing all their customers (or blackmailing them for making an off-color joke, etc.) as this would tend to inhibit repeat business.
I have no worries about the owner of a bar sharing surveillance footage of me with the FBI. The FBI is relatively restrained, under a certain amount of supervision and legal constraint, and not interested in my off-color jokes. These things really don't apply to private individuals.
You say you want to "highlight bad things" but maybe you are Adria Richards. I have no idea what you think are bad things. There is no upside for me in every second out of the bathroom being uploaded to Facebook.
Taking video of me at a bar against my consent is not a right. That's just something you want to do.
At least security camera tapes are usually for that purpose and footage isn't live streamed to social media websites.
As for expectations, nobody in any society where Glass is useful can claim to have an expectation of not being photographed in public. Google Glass relies on the availability of Internet access, which basically means a society where cell phones are common, and by extension cameras. People use cell phone cameras in a casual, carefree manner in public and private; Google Glass is no different.
Might we need a different standard?
There are already other classes of always-on video recorders that people generally accept: dashcams, security cameras, etc. There are a few complaints from people who do not think wearing a mask in public is an acceptable countermeasure, but for the most part people do not mind -- as long as the camera is not pointed into their home. Google Glass is hardly different; in fact, it records video less often.
And that’s just for picture taking. For recording (either video or sound), you need to put up signs on private property and you are not allowed to constantly record public places anyways.
So, yes, you can have an expectation of privacy in any public place in the meaning of not being covertly recorded and photographed.
Just like I choose bars that don't allow smoking.
The killer with glass is that it is a survelliance device under the guise of an innocent device.
The real change is that it may become socially acceptable to wear a recording device.
A more important concern is whether or not Glass users will be able to choose service providers other than Google. What if Google pulls the plug? What if I want to use Glass in an environment where business secrets might be recorded? That is a far greater issue than the presence of a camera.
(edit: for clarity)
You want EyeTap. I don't want your surveillance. We can't both have what we want.
But of course, with Google Glass, the concept of Surveillance is being somewhat muddied and spread across the people that will be using it.
And you should look into how Police forces are being more regularly equipped with on-person Surveillance.. I'd prefer to have my own version of events that can be compared with the "authorized" version (where you can insert your own value of "authorized" if you want), and I'd prefer it to be under my, not Googles control.
(edit: typo)
The problem is that if wearable systems like Glass or EyeTap become widespread, this will create a new power imbalance between those who use it and those who don't, raising the same issues brought up by mass surveillance systems but on a more personal scale - which rather spoils the whole ethos of sousveillance that makes it so attractive in the first place.
Edit: found an article where he discusses Glass in this regard, interesting read http://techland.time.com/2012/11/02/eye-am-a-camera-surveill...
edit: I do keep harping on about it, but his book "Intelligent Image Processing" is worth a read for more info on how the Eyetap works (amongst other topics).
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.
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?
Maybe having these things so easily available will create an etiquette we don't expect and can't predict.
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.
What happens when proper implants become viable for people like me?
We're well on our way. And I wouldn't expect the paranoia to not sully this advance as well.
Yes, the consternation has an understandable factor. It's technology whose time has come, so society must get used to it and work out suitable applicable ethics & protocols. Wasn't long ago when nobody was broadband-networked 24/7 with instant video connection and chatting with friends everywhere all the time, and the looming prospects of it happening garnered lots of "I'd never do that and would hate anyone who did", leading to some ugly incidents. A movement for responsible & considerate integration of 24/7 augmented reality into society? yes. "Stop The Cyborgs"? let's stay away from burning-at-the-stake terms, please.
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.
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 should expect that at this point...)
My guess would be that it is Microsoft hiding behind this "movement".
What setting in this page is responsible for this?