[PeterisP]

If you value privacy, you don't want me looking at your private stuff. Don't show it to me or ask me to leave.

But if you allow me to look at you, then I can remember what I see. I am allowed to remember everything that I see and hear, every single last detail, forever, and without requesting permission from anyone.

If I have trouble remembering, I may write it down or draw pictures of what I saw and heard, and also store these forever without asking for permission or forgiveness.

Glass is just a widget that helps me do it slightly more accurately.

[e6b68052fff9c26]

The problem isn't that you're remembering it. The problem is that Google is remembering it. Google will make a database of every frame recorded by every Glass device, indexed by the people in it. Now, everything I do in the presence of a Glass user is cataloged for Google to pull up and use in advertising.

It's also available for law enforcement to subpoena.

I'd be more comfortable if it was all stored locally, and the Glass devices were running 100% free and open source software that could be examined to confirm that Google never gets a copy of any of the video or images.

[mehrdad]

And tell me again why customer service agent informs me that my voice is being recorded? I don't thing he/she just wants to be polite.

[EvanAnderson]

Because the law says they have to. In some settings, privacy and wiretapping laws will apply to using Glass. In some other settings, they won't. Different US states have different laws governing the use of audio and video recording hardware in private versus public settings.

Glass is going to force new discussion about one-party versus two-party consent to recordings. It's a conversation that needs to happen.

[warfangle]

Because they're required to by law, as telephone conversations are not considered public.

Walking down the street, on the other hand--

[EvanAnderson]

Some US states have audio recording laws that can still apply even "walking down the street". Look at some of the cases of individuals attempting to record police who were charged under wiretapping laws.

[PeterisP]

I'm not really arguing about the details of how current laws are, I'm arguing about the morality of technology and how the laws should be.

If I'm talking to you over the phone, I'm allowed (both morally and legally) to remember your conversation. I'm allowed (both morally and legally) to write it down, to remember it better. And I'm allowed (both morally and legally) to remember it perfectly forever, if I'm able to.

Should we legally forbid to actually fulfill that if I need some assistance to remember it exactly as happened? My fuzzy memories and notes are allowed, why should better, exact memories/notes be forbidden?

I'm allowed and may be even required to remember past events in courts - should we forbid remembering things as they actually happened and require them to be stuck in the noisy, lossy and distorting channel that is homo sapiens memories?

[jonandreas]

But a recording allows you to share what I have shown you (perhaps assuming it would remain a private matter) with the world. A video recording has a higher truth value than oral reproduction.

[PeterisP]

It does have a reputation of being a bit more trustworthy as it's (temporarily) harder to fake - but it is orthogonal to privacy. I would be able to disclose your secrets from memory, despite your assumptions.

In this sense Glass simply replicates a rather unusually good memory - and it may be obtained in natural ways; for example, some people really have absolutely 'photographic' memory due to a genetic or birth 'defect'.

And it is possible (likely?) that I might in future obtain such unusually good memory as well - through brain-improving drugs, genetic engineering or implants that augment my brain . Or, in a rather limited way, through Google Glass.

What I'm aiming at is that by banning such recordings in essence you would be banning people having a better / more accurate memory. And I see that as a Bad Thing - globally speaking, I'd like to see that people have a chance to improve beyond current body limitations. All of them.

Making a law that states "your memory must be fallible, imperfect and degrade with time, since that's how it's Always Been Done Here" seems, well, evil.

[randallsquared]

> A video recording has a higher truth value than oral reproduction.

Surely it's clear that this is very, very temporary?