[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gimlet-eye.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]The Gimlet Eye’s meat-locker temperature gaze on Sergey Brin’s latest device for world domination.
Now I, the Gimlet, read with the appropriate horror Editor Donna’s version of March Madness, ‘Smart tech=dumber people‘, denying any fit in Eye Life for Google Glass. After all, one does not properly stroll down a boulevard rubbing featureless glass or mumbling Brando-like into the air, except when disdaining spectacularly bad taste in ornamentation (piercings, tattoos) and dress, or lack thereof. Thus Glass has no job to do, unless it has the ability to screen the collected works of Jean-Pierre Melville or the best roles of George Sanders on demand. However, Google does not ladle les billions into development without thoughts of further gathering the biggest of data to sell on all that is holy (or unholy) in our lives, eroding whatever privacy we have left, in order to keep Mr. Brin’s yacht in diesel and deck wax enroute to the next TEDx or remote island. Thus the Eye raises a glass to the new ‘refuseniks’ who cry ‘Stop the Cyborgs!’, rebelling against a world where “privacy is impossible and corporate control total”, cleverly inserting sharp-nailed fingers in Google’s spy-in-the-eye. After all, WWBS? (What Would Brando Say?) Google Glass: The opposition grows (CNet)
At the beginning of the “Nokia Decade” (2000-2010) there was also a lot of opposition to cameras on people’s mobile phones.
Here’s a fun picture of how I think this might just pan out:
http://3gdoctor.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/by-2020-will-camera-phones-have-evolved-into-glasses.jpg
(note any face looking at the citizen photographer in 2020 is wearing Cyborg glasses)
Extrapolating consequences….While a camera is controllable by the user, the ubiquity of camera phones has led to some interesting and unhappy consequences, bringing down politicians, teenagers and 20-somethings with TMI on their Facebook pages. The consequences of Glass, outward surveillance capability in the most private moments and the sheer intrusiveness of ‘all Google, all the time’ are worse than that by a magnitude of 1000. Big and Little Brother and Sister can and probably will be watching, all the time, anywhere. And why learn anything when you can be fed it in real time? The intrusion and distraction alone will make texting in cars and in the street look like skittles.
At last, I have been horrified and fascinated by the hype and press coverage over the last few months. Fascinated to read to articles and following comments extolling the virtues of google glass and how it was about to change the world in every way. Finally the cry for privacy is starting to grow louder than the hype of an all conquering marketing engine.
Tom, thank you for your comments.
1) What determines ‘a bridge too far’ in technology?
2) Does this change the world for the worse?
2a) Does this prove the exception to Raymond Loewy’s MAYA guideline–most advanced, yet acceptable–by being socially unacceptable, e.g. violating privacy especially for private financial gain? Dumbing down the populace?
3) Is it stoppable?
Popular opinion, ethics, legislation. The technology employed is not new and has been used very successfully in military applications and even by some automotive manufacturers i.e. heads up displays. Overlaying detail augmenting reality is a very valid use case. I can see Google glass applied in many scenarios where augmented reality is required or useful. Google street view is a great example of the sensitivity around privacy, Will Google glass automatically blur critical identifying features like number plates, faces etc. if it did then maybe Maya guideline does not come into play. Only time will tell, however many areas already have by-laws re video recording in sensitive locations…
“The attorneys general of 38 U.S. states today announced they had settled with Google over the company’s collection of private information over unsecured Wi-Fi networks by its Street View cars between 2008 and 2010.” All Things D 12 March
Google will do it first and then pay the fine. $192K to each state–not bad!
“The settlement with the states is only the latest conclusion in the case. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which tracks the “Wi-Spy” matter around the world, at least 12 countries have investigated the issue, and at least nine of them have found Google guilty of violating their laws.”
I worry how this will impact on poor young Justin Bieber. The poor guy hasn’t even hit rehab yet (though it will happen soon) and already he has to worry about sales of his concert DVDs that no one will buy because the whole front thirty two rows will be recording the concert through Googley Vision.
Why go to the concert at all and pay £20 for a ticket (when did this guy< last go to a concert?) when you can watch it live streamed through the eyes of a screaming Belieber. It will bring a whole new era of anti-spectacle wearing patrons – 'No Glasses Allowed'.
If it is inevitable then a whole raft of privacy and property laws will keep legal experts in business for centuries as we evolve and embrace what we see and do every day from the mundane to the extraordinary (from using the loo to spotting Daniel Craig walking along the street) being broadcast live and not so exclusive.