Comment by Udo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Udo | Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

If I don't want to be covertly recorded everywhere, that doesn't make me a "Luddite".

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?

I don't know what bars you have in your area, but here a lot of bars have security cameras, which already record everything. In my opinion, the bar is a public place, where you should not expect the same privacy as in your home.

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.

You have mis-described the status quo. Socially, a pub is not at all the same as the town square.

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.

Status quo is already actively moving in a direction of less privacy expectation in public spaces, for example can you be sure that person in front of you is writing a sms message on his phone and not recording you? You can try to fight it, but I can't see how it can be done without inflicting more oppression, so my solution is to allow these new things to serve society instead of adding oppression and banning those things.

If you went to my local bar , got your phone out and started going about filming/photographing everyone you would probably be asked to leave.

At least security camera tapes are usually for that purpose and footage isn't live streamed to social media websites.

There is an expectation of the bar to not use that footage for anything other than crime prevention and suchlike. Bars do not typically upload all their CCTV data to a wider internet audience - or even to a central, powerful authority such as Google.

You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. It sounds like your complaint amounts to this: everyone will be a photographer once this becomes popular.

Parent was not talking about about legal issues. The fact that what you are saying is the law in your jurisdiction does not make it a moral imperative. Expectations of privacy vary from culture to culture. Nice example how ", period" rarely has a place in a civilzed discussion.

Except that this is about legal issues, since the complaints ignore simple technical solutions like wearing a mask. It is no different than demanding laws to protect the privacy of your email because you are unwilling to use cryptography.

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.

I would posit that using PGP is less of an inconvenience than going out in public in a burka.

But doesn't the "no expectation of privacy in public places" dictum mean something fundamentally different in a world where many people wear always-on digital video recording devices vs. a world where some small minority of people carry analog chemical-based cameras--i.e. the world from which the "no expectation of privacy" concept emerged?

Might we need a different standard?

Do you want to live in a world where you need permission to take a picture? We do not live in a world where a minority of people carry cameras: almost every cell phone now has an integrated camera, and almost everyone has a cell phone (even in remote African villages, people have cell phones, often shared among the villagers). Tourists have been taking pictures in public places, without regard for the strangers in their camera's field of view, for decades.

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.

No I don't want a world where ordinary citizens need permission to take a picture--but neither do I want to live in a world where a google or Facebook employee can find out in seconds where anyone in the world is or has been and what that person is or has been doing. Ubiquitous, always-on video devices that are always talking to a server, combined with facial recognition and other AI would allow this, and there seems to be no legal or cultural prohibition against it.

Actually, no. Here (DE), photographers are allowed to take your picture in public if you are not the main component of that picture (with a few extra exceptions).

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.

Ah sorry, I was being a bit...American. Here, the only restriction on photography is on commercial use.

(Un)fortunately, Google Glass is not restricted to the states.

It'll be your choice, then, to patron bars that enforce policies that you support.

Just like I choose bars that don't allow smoking.

You can currently buy an HD resolution camera that is approximately the size of a shirt button for a trivial amount of money (~$50-$60). If you are worried about people recording you with a $1,500 piece of hardware worn "covertly" on their face, I think your concerns are misplaced.

Most people as a rule don't go out wearing covert survelliance cameras. Wearing one would be considered pretty anti-social and creepy.

The killer with glass is that it is a survelliance device under the guise of an innocent device.

And it comes with a convenient LED to alert everyone that it is recording, which is not covert by an definition.

It's not ninja covert but if you have enough of these around in any public place it's going to be difficult to always check whether you are being recorded.

The real change is that it may become socially acceptable to wear a recording device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com