[jwcooper]

I like gadgets and various electronics, but for some reason Glass just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not sure if it's because of the 'creep factor' or what. I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything. I can't even imagine what high school would be like. One embarrassing thing happens, and 30 people have it recorded, uploaded to the internet, and commenting on it in minutes. I guess that could already happen with phones, but at least right now not everything is being recorded at every minute by every person.

If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors, which would make it a pain to use (especially if it's connected to your prescription glasses!).

[MisterBastahrd]

Worse... being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where you are, and from there it probably isn't that difficult to determine what your mood is at the time. It'll be like your own digital stalker out there, times a thousand, given that Google will just use the data to sell ads.

[abraham]

> being in a social situation with someone who is wearing Glass now means that Google has identified who you are (and the NSA for that matter) and where you are

What? Glass is not always recording, has no facial recognition and is no more invasive than the smartphones everyone already carries.

[MisterBastahrd]

Yes, because obviously the originally stated intention for the device is the only use the device will ever have. The difference here is that a phone is usually in your pocket. The Glass is usually on your head, and the camera is pointed at the same thing you're currently looking at.

[abraham]

I can 100% guarantee the current hardware iteration will never support always on recording. It would kill the battery in 45-60 minutes. That added to the fact that almost everyone has a phone on them that can already be geolocated makes using Glass unnecessary for tracking. You could argue that Glass would be useful in taking a photo snapshot every minute but with the growth of security cameras it's estimated that in some areas people are caught on camera as many as 300 times/day. That makes Glass not all that useful.

[jfoster]

But it doesn't now, and there is no indication that it ever will aside from people not involved with the product inventing hypotheses. Fair enough if you want to express concern about the trajectory that you envisage, but in your original post you're simply saying it does something that it doesn't.

[abraham]

> I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything.

Society already records everything. The only change Glass brings is the first-person perspective and it frees up a hand that normally would be holding a phone.

[laureny]

> I guess I'm just not ready for a society always recording everything.

Surely you are aware this society has been existing for close to a decade, right?

> If Glass use does become widespread, I have a feeling many private companies, such as restaurants, and malls will ban its use indoors

People were saying the exact same thing about cell phones ten years ago.

[deckiedan]

I could imagine an 'off'/airplane mode with a visible red LED on top or something, which, in such a small device clamped to your glasses would be fairly visible, and hard to fake/hack.

Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer.

In some ways it might make sense to use a polite version of that, where devices would 'hear' a wifi SSID signal, or whatever, with a 'this is a private place, no creepiness, please' signal embedded in it. To stop denial of service, or only having official jamming, you could have that privacy signal location specific, with a Lat/Long GPS position, and then the whole thing signed against a central server (probably google, but a non-Profit would probably be ideal), so that people couldn't wander around with portable jammers.

Then shopping centers, schools, private homes, resturants, etc, could easily register for a code, plonk it on a jammer or other wifi router, and behold, an illusion of privacy.

If there were government regulation about devices having to obey such signals to be legal for use, then I could see it working.

[skyebook]

Maybe this is naive of me, but I don't really look forward to a future where I walk around making sure people in my vicinity are glowing red (or green, for when I do something heroic).. I realize that having some indicator is a huge plus over having nothing but it just feels so sterile. Perhaps this is as much a reaction to always-on everything, but there's something especially off-putting about taking the concept of eye contact and making it a consumable, recordable activity. Technology thus far hasn't really encroached on or been able to imitate this face to face interaction..

> Alternatively, some kind of wifi/3g blocker or jammer, could be the answer.

I know that in much of the US these devices are illegal, wouldn't be surprised about other places.

[bedhead]

Agree on the creep factor and all of the inevitable places it will be banned, not to mention social situations where it'll be poor etiquette.

It just seems so unnecessary, a (lousy) solution in search of a problem. For now, people wearing Glass strike me as trying too hard to be "cutting edge" or whatever. It's the world's most pathetic conversation starter.

[mgcross]

I've never seen Glass on someone, so I can't say for sure how I'd feel, but I assume that when I'm in public, I could be recorded or photographed at any given time. I'm more worried about someone drifting into my lane on a two lane highway while they're reading a text or email (with a false sense of security provided by hands-free use).