[ajross]

CCTV is (and has been!) subject to virtually every abuse I can imagine Google Glass being used for. Glass will "generally" not be used for privacy invasion either, so I don't see how this logic works. (And the "won't be stored" point seems silly given that you can trivially store a surveillance camera record...). Obviously both can be abused. So why the one-sided outrage?

[cloudout]

I'm on CCTV all day, but my insurance company and employer don't use a mosaic from that data in quoting rates or doing background checks. Glass or anything similar, can change all of that.

The point is that valuable privacy silos are lost due to centralization by a sophisticated party, that makes money by selling that privacy.

[nicholassmith]

Of course CCTV has flaws, but for Ma and Pa shops with their own setups it's unlikely to be pwned by someone running facial recognition trackers or what not.

The outrage still is about the whom not the what. Most people are completely used to being filmed, what they're not used to is the data being sent to an organisation that is genuinely very, very good at processing data. I'd be surprised if most governments had data analysts and storage systems half as good as Google.

[waterlesscloud]

Quite simply, the likelihood of abuse is much, much higher with personal devices than with business devices.

This seems like it would be immediately obvious to anyone familiar with the public at large.