At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
The future came crashing down on me this week at the Google I/O developer conference while I stood at a bathroom urinal.
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
"At one point as I climbed the stairs and approached the second floor, I saw a group of five people wearing Google Glass, all silently staring off into space. I couldn’t tell if they were wirelessly having a conversation through their eyeballs, or just bored by the presence of real humans in front of them."
The entire article is filled with similarly funny tidbits.
Haven't seen Glass in this country yet, but I can imagine it's something as disturbing as people talking on hands-free sets to phantom people.
Yet when it was finally my turn to approach the rows of white urinals, my world came screeching to a halt. There they were, a handful of people wearing Google Glass, now standing next to me at their own urinals, peering their head from side to side, blinking or winking, as they relieved themselves."
They say old age is when you stop wanting to learn new things. (Well, somebody said that)
Case in point is that, for the first time i remember in the short 32 years of my life, a few weeks back i angrily got up from my metro seat and went sat dow as far as possible of a women sitted right in front of me, which was having a loud and unnecessary family discussion with her mother over the phone. She was:
* very notably by the look on peoples faces, not only causing distress to me but to the surrounding people (later afternoon rush hour)
* i could still hear her clearly 2 carriages away
* she publicly admitted during the conversation that having those kind of public conversations was uncivil but would not turn off the call, by her own will
Same goes for the latest tendency (around here at least) of people playing music loud on their phones, again, on public transportation.
There is civil freedom in public space of course, but there are different types of public spaces; closed quarters public transportation is very different from a town square and can only imagine how discomforting it will feel when i'm sat across someone wearing Google classes, wondering if i'm being recorded or not and most importantly, if i as a citizen complain about my privacy, will be recorded and shown up on Youtube in the next minute.
I wouldn't call this a new trend. You have a number of youths in close proximity and 2 ear cups. It makes sense to use the speaker when more than 2 people want to hear. I used to do the same when I was young and mixtapes came on tape. Now, some idiot sitting alone and singing along I find annoying.
There's some insight there, but the author missed it in getting so focused on zombies with glass, and people with cameras in the bathroom.
The scary part of Glass-like devices taken to their logical conclusion for me isn't the little individual invasions of privacy (though those are also unfortunate), but the massive amount of real-time, real-world information collected in the aggregate.
If Glass-like devices are ever mainstream and controlled by one entity they create the easy possibility for an information mesh network that makes the one shown in "The Dark Knight" look absolutely quaint in comparison. Ubiquitous video + audio + advanced feature detection destroys personal privacy when in public basically across the board, even if you yourself are not a participant.
eg:
EvilOverlord: "Glass-MCP-10k, where is George McBay?"
Glass-MCP-10k: "Scanning... Subject George McBay last seen entering residential building 10.5 seconds ago at 32.925924,-117.227812. Data based on facial recognition match with 96.75% confidence. 5 Gargoyles report seeing him within 1 mile radius of this location within the last 10 minutes."
I see the massive benefits of Glass-like-devices but I am also terribly concerned about the possible privacy implications. The potential for abuses could be staggering and given that I think it is a good idea to actually discuss the potential for problems and not just assume everything will be okay because the tech is "neat" (yes, it is!, but...).
If it were opt-in to send the resulting log to law enforcement, that would be totally fine. If not, things get worrisome. But what about in between? Say sending the log in is only done when the user clicks ok, but the police subpena Google for who all had their Glass devices in that area, so they can contact them directly. Gets into the area of withholding evidence and such.
As opposed to the world without Google Glass, where people are constantly taking pictures in public and then uploading those pictures to Facebook? Honestly, singling out Google Glass is just a diversion, probably driven by Google's competitors who could not see how a head-mounted display could be useful.
I am not a Google competitor. I use lots of Google products daily: gmail, nexus 4, ARM Chromebook, Go, I even have a Google TV box. And yet I still feel Glass has massive potential for privacy abuse on a scale never seen outside of maybe the NSA.
A while ago, a friend of mine sent me a picture he found on Facebook. It is me and my best friends from college at a party on the first night of our freshman year. We were all in the background of the picture -- it was completely inadvertent that we were photographed. That was nearly a decade ago, long before Google Glass was even a concept.
You are not going to see more privacy abuse resulting from Glass than you already see resulting from the combination of smartphones and online social networks. I do not want Facebook to build a profile about me, but guess what? My friends and family upload pictures of me to Facebook without asking permission, complete with metadata, which is added to a database that has my browsing habits (surreptitiously collected) and tidbits gathered from any mention of me by those same friends. What do you think Glass is going to add to this situation?
Furthermore, what solution would you propose? We as a society already managed to dig ourselves into a hole, where we have become dependent on large corporations to satisfy our computing needs; if you want a technical solution, you are going to have to trust Google to implement it. Legal solutions would likely further restrict our freedoms and worsen an already overly complicated legal code, restricting our ability to take pictures or used head-mounted displays and other wearable computers.
Well this itself isn't new, since I often reach to adjust my glasses even when I'm not wearing them.
Muscle memory is _really_ hard to break without conscious effort.
They peer through curtains; they make spyholes in cubicle walls, and with digital cameras they hide cameras in ceilings and books and showers and shoes.
Voyeuristic porn is a category. Upskirt is word popular enough to have an understood meaning.
I'm a bloke. I'm not worried by those creepers.
But I am uneasy about some users of Google Glass. I'd be really uncomfortable if I was standing at a urinal and someone was next to me still wearing Google Glass.
I think it's really unlikely that, aside from early adopters, people will have Glass "in place" when they're not using it, though.
> But I am uneasy about some users of Google Glass. I'd be really uncomfortable if I was standing at a urinal and someone was next to me still wearing Google Glass.
Now you know exactly how people who aren't blokes feel about creepers.
What if that person is deaf, and Glass is doing speech-to-text for them, helping them get through their day? What if they are a foreigner, and Glass is translating signs, instructions, and spoken language for them?
There are a lot of good uses for Google Glass that should not be ignored just because it has a camera and a microphone. Privacy concerns are no greater for Glass than for any smartphone -- significant, sure, but nothing new. It's just a smartphone in a different form factor.
The only excuse for this that I can come up with is if, like someone I recall being posted about around here, it was actually mounted to their head in a way that makes it impossible or impractical to remove.
I'm not saying glass is evil and everyone using it is evil at all times.
I'm expressing mild dis-comfort.
Some people experience 'bladder-lock' when standing at a urinal if there's someone next to them. I predict Google Glass is going to cause more cases of bladder-lock.
I'd feel the same level of discomfort if I was at a urinal and someone was standing next to me holding their smartphone, even if it wasn't pointed at me.
I wasn't there so I have to take his word for it, but... I really doubt that. Blinking, of course. People blink. But why, I cannot fathom, would everyone at a urinal be peering side to side and taking pictures of other people using the restroom? No one does that with the camera they carry with them everywhere. Why would Glass change that? What would it be about Glass that would suddenly make everyone want to take pictures of other men in the restroom?
Was this story just made up to be hyperbolic? I seriously can't figure out why Glass would cause such a huge cultural shift that would make people start photographing each other in the bathroom not only acceptable but common.
Pervasive surveillance has already caused shifts in behavior that wouldn't exist without them. For one thing, teenage fights are filmed by bystanders and replayed/posted on the Internet. Pictures of women in compromised positions (children even) are passed around schools. Cyberbullying (even though I hate that term) is easier and more anonymous because of these tools.
If you're the victim, it can feel as if you are fighting the entire world.
THAT's why I think someone would be well within their rights to take swift action to halt something like that in its tracks.
BTW, I'm certain it's the reason why police risk the backlash associated with taking cameras away from third-parties vs. having their actions armchair-quarterbacked by legions of second-guessers.
But all of those things existed even before the means to record them. People would fight. Women would be spied on. Children would be bullied. But taking pictures of people in a bathroom is not something that was common or accepted before, apparently, yesterday. We've had the means to record the bathrooms for quite a long time now, and it doesn't happen. When it does happen, it makes the news.
The author wasn't describing a demented pervert hiding in the shadows to see you naked, he was describing many people at a tech conference not hiding the fact that they were taking pictures of each other in the bathroom. That doesn't happen.
What I mean is.. if societal norms change such that, say, nude photos are no longer considered important - because everyone has nude photos online, after all - is it still as much of a problem?
Most of the psychological issues here are highly cultural.
You're welcome to object, but the consensus of society will likely shift. Perhaps not to where I suggested; I'm not much of a prophet.
It's this inconspicuous nature that makes Glass so concerning. Personally, the stories I've heard about cameras in bathrooms often involved trying to conceal the camera. It's quite uncommon for someone to whip out a DSLR at a urinal and start snapping photos of the man next to him. If it were to happen, it would be pretty obvious. With Glass, all you have is a person in a bathroom wearing glasses and blinking.
Either there really is a huge section of people who have been waiting to do this more discretely all along, or the writer was taking liberties by highlighting his fears. You can never really be sure whether the person next to you is a pervert, but when he pulls out a phone and takes a picture of your dick you can get a pretty good guess.
This is the most insightful passage in there, though it's probably unintentional. There is a separation taking place between "nerds" who enjoy the practical benefits of new technologies in their day-to-day lives, and those who believe that new technologies should and will alter our species in ways that frighten us.
And that's nothing new; many (most?) Baby Boomers implicitly distrust PCs and the Internet, let alone smartphones, but many others realize that they are living in the most interesting time of their lives and wish they'd been born a little later.
To be honest, though, I'm a little surprised to see this separation take place so early; Glass is a charmingly inoffensive vision of things to come that really shouldn't be shocking to anyone with an iPhone. If you're worried today that someone might take a picture of your dick, you will be absolutely horrified at what we have become before you die.
'Course that doesn't help me if I really did take a picture of his dick.
In the US at least, I have to believe that the 60s were the most interesting times that generation lived through.
Because prior to Google Glass, I could just be mad that the guy next to me is getting a free show.
After Google Glass, everyone potentially gets tickets.
I'm counting the days till some Glass-wearing hipster gets his head shoved in a toilet for crap like this. When it happens, I expect THAT will be filmed as well.
I was just pointing out that this is not a good thing, and freehunter should not be proudly exclaiming how he's going to punch someone in the face.
Where I come from, that's more than an indiscretion. We're not talking about a locker room.
However, I would consider cornering me in a bathroom and sexually harassing me to be just cause for self defense.
(I used to pay accident claims. Some policies specifically did not cover injuries that were incurred in the commission of a felony. I had to write a denial based on that clause. We first had to research if the event in qhestion was a felony in the state in question.)
Society lays out the rules by law. And society judges when those rules have been breached. I think people forget that they have to live in a world where people other than themselves might have a different idea of what constitutes an acceptable response to distinctly discouraged behavior.
Is a woman who is being filmed naked against her will unjustified if she smacks the guy doing the filming when she learns of the violation?
Telling the victim to not automatically respond with disproportionate violence is not "blaming the victim".
If he'd said, "if you don't want pictures of your dick on the internet, don't pee at Google I/O," then you might have a point.
Seriously, sexual harassment is not a light crime. It does serious damage to the victim's mental state. There's no way of knowing if the perpetrator is going to take things further. If you want to state here right now that you feel that violence as a way to stop an ongoing act of close-quarters sexual harassment is a disproportionate response, then that's fine. But don't be surprised if other people in your society don't agree.
And yes, violating someone's privacy to see them naked when they obviously don't want to be seen is sexual harassment. Filming that takes it to the next level.
And if you are seriously worried about someone solely because of peeking then you need to learn how to handle that worry.
There's a good chance I'd fall on you.
There is no reason to ever be violent if it isn’t absolute necessary to defend oneself.
Ok, maybe pushing someone away can be ok in that moment, however the glee with which people here talk about violence is absolutely vile. Violence is not ok. It is to never ever be used, only in the most dire emergencies.
A voyeur would consider the risk of being yelled at, reported to a local authority (such as a bar owner), being thrown out of an establishment, etc. They would consider these risks and weigh the consequences and determine that they are worth it in the end. They would still get what they wanted, and would be free to carry on their activities in the future, perhaps at another establishment or after enough time had passed.
But the risk of physical violence, that's not so easily dismissed.
There are NUMEROUS statutes that prohibit the surreptitious filming of people where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. I think a bathroom qualifies.
And I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict someone of punching another guy in the nose for filming them in the bathroom.
Honestly, do you think the VERY FACT that he has a camera running at the time he gets punched by the guy he was filming wouldn't be prima facie evidence that he was in-fact filming in a private place? Cloud or not?
I'm willing the guy who is looking at a sex-offender charge and life-long pervert registration is willing to avoid pressing charges just to make the whole thing go away.
No, that conviction will be a slam dunk, because there's video evidence of it.
You'll also score a simultaneous conviction for running afoul of peeping tom laws, because filming in a bathroom is as you mentioned illegal in many jurisdictions.
The only winner here is the prosecutor. The fact that party A was violating the law before party B assaulted him does not nullify party B's crime. The law doesn't really work that way. The bar for justifiable use of violence is legally high.
You seem to have a quaint notion of how the justice system works. Video evidence? Probably wont be surpressed by defense. Probably wont be contested because it's obtained as the result of an illegal act. The jury will probably not agree with the defense that the video represented the first stage of an attack by people who film attacks to gain notariety in the Internet. Probably.
If you agree to post your bar number from any US state and the range of cases you've defended, I'd be willing to hear your counterargument.
For one thing, I've lived in the USA for my entire life.
For another, I've lived in several states.
For yet another, I've been involved in an altercation that came to the notice of the police. Several in fact. I'm still walking around a free man with nary a scratch on my record.
So my experience would seem to be directly on point and in direct contradiction to your opinion of how these things go in my country and state.
But hey, if you think your penis is so wonderful, feel free to provide a picture link. I promise not to share it.
A beatdown? No. A fist to the face or an elbow to the chest to get him away? You'd better believe it. There's not much room to run to safety when you're cornered at a urinal.
Crimes don't exist in a vacuum, there are factors that make the actions cross lines. A man glancing at a women's chest or a woman glancing at a man's rear end is not becoming of a professional, but it's not a crime. Repeated offense and an escalating situation? Then it becomes a crime. Likewise, nudity and expectation of privacy are factors that go into determining the appropriate response.
If I walked up behind a woman and started breathing heavily on her neck while she was cornered in a room with only one exit, she would be completely within her rights to use violence as a means to get away from me even though I never touched her.
My underlying question being, at what point does looking put one in enough fear of touching that preemptive escalation to violence is warranted? Because from what I'm told by female friends, that fear is fairly commonplace in their lives, while violence is rather more rare.
I'm trying to figure out what your agenda is; if you're trying to lead me into a trap. Are you trying to catch me saying that I don't hold the same standard to women? Because your "at a concert or on a train or in a bar" example misses the whole "nude" and "expectations of privacy" part of this story, not to mention the "trapped in a room with one exit and no witnesses".
Would I cross the room to punch someone? No. Would I use force to get them away from me? Well, isn't there a whole industry built up around women's self defense courses? I'm not answering your question because I don't feel comfortable with your intentions. I think you know the answer, I just don't know what you're trying to get me to say.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with extending your standard of self-defense to women who feel uncomfortable with the way men are behaving in public, but I also feel it would be hugely challenging to our social structure and I'm curious where you fall on the issue.
I would urge everyone to reserve violence until it is absolutely necessary in your mind to prevent injury to yourself. But if it is necessary, I wouldn't blame anyone for it. Naked, vulnerable, cornered, and threatened has potential to bring out violence in anyone. It's basic fight or flight, except the flight option is taken out. I wouldn't punch someone on the train for staring at my clothed body and merely making me feel uncomfortable. I would punch someone on the train for staring at me and breathing heavily while keeping me from walking away.
Feeling uncomfortable isn't the line I'm trying to draw, feeling trapped and threatened is.
Punching someone on the train for standing in your way is not reasonable either.
It's all well and good for us to think about what we might do in a situation like that. In almost every case, that's not what happens when faced with that situation. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
So let me be clear: it's extraordinarily hard to compare "what you would do" in a scenario when you have the luxury of thinking about it, considering the alternatives, and thinking about possible consequences. In the heat of the moment, when you've got seconds to react, you're likely to make a decision is widely different than the one you THINK you'd make.
Those of us who have faced violence in the past know this intimately. If you've never been held at the point of a gun (I have), then it's hard to comprehend the variety of emotions, positive and negative, that come to the surface when you're suddenly faced with that reality.
Even people who have trained their whole lives for violent encounters deal with this. I wouldn't get too worked up about not having all the answers at your fingertips.
That said, if I catch you taking a picture of my junk in the bathroom, it's not going to go well for you.
So, there's a general response from men here that this sounds like an absurd overreaction, but I'm not in that camp. If anything I'm trying to defend your point of view. It's just it sounds to me like you're describing a feeling of trapped, threatened vulnerability that is extreme and rare for men, but a daily occurrence for women, that goes something like this:
"Gosh, that man seems visibly interested in me as a sexual object despite the totally inappropriate context, and the fact that I haven't made any advances or invitations whatsoever. Well, I'm sure that's the hard limit of his disregard for social convention.
"Okay, he just told me to smile. Well, I'm sure that's the hard limit."
Now I'll distance myself from the herd here by saying I think men who act like that (a strict superset of men who might stare at your junk in the john) ought to experience some fear of physical violence themselves. My original question to you is whether you intend that to be an implication of your asserting your right to self-defense in this situation, where the consensus seems to be that it is unwarranted. Though perhaps I'm belaboring the point because it seems your answer is no, or at least no contest.
SO, to paraphrase your example: an average woman, who might lack the physical means to feel safe in the presence of someone who might be larger and looking at them in a sexual way, would be justified in feeling threatened.
With google glass: millions could see it (hint: internet)
I get that the author is trying to be humorous but I fear that some people may take some of his criticisms seriously. AFAIK nobody has declared that the purpose of Glass is to "free us from having to look at [oure] phone[s]". It simply makes certain functions more convenient than using a phone, in certain situations. Let's also not forget that Glass' functionality is pretty limited at this point, so people using their phones while using Glass were most likely using an app with functionality that isn't offered by Glass yet.. like browsing the web.
Glass is going to take off with the active crowd. It's perfect for people who either have jobs or hobbies that require the extended use of their hands. Think cyclists, police officers, postal workers, construction foremen, taxi drivers, etc. I feel like it's journalistically sloppy to criticize Glass for the (I feel) false premise that everybody is going to be wearing Glass all the time. The OP was at Google IO for crying out loud, of course you're going to have a bunch of early adopters walking around with Glass' on their face.
As I recall, there was at least one guy:
http://blog.ted.com/2013/02/27/sergey-brin-with-google-glass...
Brin asks: “Is this the way you’re meant to interact with other people?” Is the future of connection just people walking around hunched up, looking down, rubbing a featureless piece of glass?
Here's a quote on that topic from Isabelle Olsson, lead industrial designer for Google Glass:
"One day, I went to work — I live in SF and I have to commute to Mountain View and there are these shuttles — I went to the shuttle stop and I saw a line of not 10 people but 15 people standing in a row like this," she puts her head down and mimics someone poking at a smartphone. "I don’t want to do that, you know? I don’t want to be that person. That’s when it dawned on me that, OK, we have to make this work. It’s bold. It’s crazy. But we think that we can do something cool with it."
I think Recon is not getting enough recognition. They have been selling a real product for a couple of years and now they announced a new one http://jet.reconinstruments.com
(http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/32442/jurisdictio...)
Perhaps this shows how self-obsessed we are: to think that anyone is going to care about us walking down the street minding our own business. Maybe it's the uncertainty that makes people uneasy. I can walk down the street recording everyone with my smartphone, but at least they know they're being filmed.
Nonetheless, the idea that there will eventually be cameras everywhere putting videos online, combined with technologies such as location-tagging and ever-better face recognition, means that in the not-too-distant future it may be possible for someone to retroactively stalk me by splicing together bits of lots of different videos, determining exactly where I was throughout my day.
While it's possible that the benefits of these technologies outweigh the costs, it's not too hard to dream up dystopian scenarios.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I know this sounds paranoid, but given past behaviour of totalitarian government, I don't see why any future techno-totalitarian society would not use that kind of tools. And my example is rather mild, it could be something much more sinister that travel restrictions... This is one the reason I find the "Right to be Forgotten" a sane idea.
If your worst fear is having your photo show up on one of those "poorly dressed and out of shape" websites, this is easy to brush off.
If you're an attractive woman (or girl) walking down the street minding your own business, there is already a real possibility to end up on some sort of voyeur/jailbait website and become a target of sexualized comments. It is completely reasonable to be concerned about sexual predators having an even easier time taking those photos.
I don't think I agree with this point. I know most countries have some kind of laws saying more or less this, but I think there is an implicit agreement regarding how much of what I do every day is public or not, and the lack of security cameras in bathrooms is a reflection of this.
I might be wrong, but I think that if we were to write privacy laws today, knowing that we (almost) have the technology to monitor everyone everywhere, we wouldn't write something as simple-minded as "you don't have any right to privacy in public places at all" - I think we would probably throw a "reasonable right to privacy" in there somehow.
Privacy, no. But we expect some stupid thing we do in public to have a localized, temporary effect. Maybe you get a few dirty looks, maybe some people laugh at you, thats it. But once its on the internet its there 1. forever 2. easily discoverable by people you know.
That's pretty scary to me. I can walk home drunk and silly and a few people in college might find out. With glass, everyone on my facebook, including employers/co-workers find out and see a video of it.
On the flip side, it would be liberating to see this happen on such a large scale that we come to accept these things and give people a break for having a bad day or doing something silly in public.
Check out any number of tumblr blogs. People of Wal-Mart. Look at That Fucking Hipster, etc.
Or a very, very large section of /r/pics or /r/funny on Reddit.
Even ignoring the extreme cases like /r/creepshots, the Internet has already proven that it greatly enjoys taking pictures of strangers in everyday life and mocking them mercilessly.
People would like to go around with their fly accidentally undone and not have a bunch of armchair comedians commenting on their junk. People would like to go around on a bad hair day without it being picked apart by screeching Internet fashionistas. Our fear of being spread all around the internet is grounded in past instances of nobodies being spread all around the internet.
To answer the tangent, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representativeness_heuristic
This particular topic is near and dear to me - I do a lot of street photography which is, at least partially, defined as taking pictures of strangers in a documentary manner, and almost always takes place in public.
Countries with strong privacy laws, such as France and Japan, do suffer from this. The photographic community in the UK has been hit hard in the past few years as even innocuous picture-taking of popular landmarks has been hit with intense police scrutiny if your gear is too "good".
We do not want the heavy hand of government in here, because inevitably this will mean throwing the baby out with the bath water. Expression and art is usually at the boundaries of what society currently finds palatable, and activities along this border needs to be regulated by people, not immutable and slow-changing laws.
The only solution I can think of (and it's not a particularly good one) is to slam the door shut on people who would abuse their freedom of expression and whose actions will lead to the loss of freedom by inviting regulation. I'd rather oppose people rather than technology, though.
I fully agree, but I see this from another perspective. In the past, people in public didn't care so much when they were photographed or filmed in public. Nowadays, so many people in public will claim privacy or their personal rights.
This change in attitude has brought the art form of street photography nearly to extinction. In the past, people often ignored photographers, while nowadays, some people will demand you delete pictures, try to take your camera to smash it, or even threaten to call the police even though they just accidentally ran into your view finder.
In Germany, some privacy fundamentalists have already threatened that are going to destroy Google Glasses when they meet people who use them, and call that "digital self-defense".
They are very different concepts and trying to force secrecy for privacy is against normal behaviour.
Go ask any old Russian about this.
Also, I wonder if I could make a pair of infrared LEDs put them on my person somewhere to emit an interference beam pattern to mess up the camera on someone else's Google Glass glasses.
If you're talking about prescription lenses, the answer to your question is yes. Glass is designed to be modular, and Glass is intended to accommodate those who wear conventional glasses for vision correction, giving them the option to use glass with their prescription lenses.
Also, we already have a social convention in place for this. You don't look at, speak to, or otherwise acknowledge other people in the bathroom, except so as to give them appropriate space. Everyone in there is taking care of private functions; if everyone follows the convention, we all get a maximally private experience.
Convention already dictates that you shouldn't be rubbernecking at the other urinals; even talking to someone else while at the urinal gets you labeled as "that guy" among the people I know.
| But not me. I tried to duck my head and move
| out of the way of these strangers’ sneaky
| little cameras.
| here they were, a handful of people wearing
| Google Glass, now standing next to me at their
| own urinals
Remember where I have been and what I have done, or tell me where to go and what to do in the future.
Just stay out of the way of the now.
Glass of course has privacy issues and I will not be comfortable speaking to anybody who is wearing one. It's at least 100 times more nerdy as the Bluetooth headset but those issues aside, you should totally expect to see these at Google conference.