Bruno, Jan Chipchase's piece on Google Glass in All Things D is worth a read:
http://allthingsd.com/20130412/you-lookin-at-me-reflections-on-google-glass/ Troy On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Paul Bernal (LAW) <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, I agree with all that - ultimately it's about autonomy, in a way. > As we become integrated in the system, we lose that autonomy. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 10 Jul 2013, at 19:25, "Raven Jiang CX" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think privacy is just a small part of a larger issue when it comes to > Google Glass and its future descendants. > > The large issue is how increasing network connectivity changes what it > means to be an individual or to even be human. As our access to the > Internet becomes more immediate (from huge desktops to HUD) and persistent, > I think we will stop seeing ourselves as individuals and more as a > collective. Think of how groupthink works online and then a future where > you can never be offline. > > And when we grow reliant on Glass constantly prompting us with > information about the real world, will we still bother to remember things? > I feel that there is a natural tendency for those of us who are highly > connected (myself included) to offload cognitive functions onto our > web-enabled devices. We stop remembering certain information and instead > remember what keywords to Google for to retrieve that information. > > I wonder if hivemind will eventually become literal as technology > progresses and more closely binds itself to our mental processes. > > Sorry for the digression, but that's how I perceive privacy issues when > it comes to Google Glass. Much like how karma and upvotes lead to > groupthink, greater connectivity and sharing can subject our lives to > constant peer approval. I think that wisdom of the crowd only works when > individuals in the crowd are not subjected to the same bias. > > Raven Jiang > > *Stanford University* > *Computer Science* > soraven.com <http://www.soraven.com/> > > On 10 July 2013 11:08, Paul Bernal (LAW) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wrote a blog piece on Glass a month or two back: >> >> >> http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/google-glass-just-because-you-can/ >> >> Here's the text: >> >> Google Glass: just because you can… >> >> As a bit of a geek, and a some-time game player, it’s hard not to like >> the look of Google Glass. Sure, it makes you look a little dorky in its >> current incarnation (even if you’re Sergey Brin, as in the picture below) >> but people like me are used to looking dorky, and don’t really care that >> much about it. What it does, however, is cool, and cool in a big way. We >> get heads-up displays that would have been unimaginable even a few years >> ago, a chance to feel like Arnie in the Terminator, with the information >> about everything we can see immediately available. It’s cool – in a dorky, >> sci-fi kind of way, and for those of us brought up on a diet of SF it’s >> close to irresistible. >> >> And yet, there’s something in the back of my mind – well, OK, pretty >> close to the front of my mind now – that says that we should be thinking >> twice about pushing forward with developments like this. Just because we >> can make something as cool as Google Glass, doesn’t mean that we should >> make it. There are implications to developments like this, and risks >> attached to it, both direct and indirect. >> >> Risks to the wearer’s privacy >> >> First we need to be clear what Google Glass does – and how it’s intended >> to be used. The idea is that the little camera on the headset essentially >> ‘sees’ what you see. It then analyses what it can see, and provides the >> information about what you see – or information related to it. In one of >> the promotional videos for it, for example, as the wearer looks at a >> subway station, the Glass alerts the wearer to the fact that there’s a >> delay on the subway, so he’d better walk. Then he looks at a poster for a >> concert – it analyses the poster, then links directly to a ticket agency >> that lets him buy a ticket for the concert. >> >> Cool? Sure, but think about what’s going on in the background – because >> there’s a lot. First of all, and almost without saying, the Google Glass >> headset is tracking the wearer: what we can ‘geolocation’. It knows exactly >> where you are, whenever you’re using it. There are implications to that – >> I’ve written about them before – and this is yet another step >> towards making geolocation the ‘norm’. The idea is that Google (and others) >> want to know exactly where you are at all times – and of course that means >> that others could find out, whether for good purposes or bad. >> >> Secondly, it means that Google are able to analyse what you are looking >> at – and profile you, with huge accuracy, in the real world, the way to a >> certain extent they already do in the online world. And, again, if Google >> can profile you, others can get access to that profile – either through >> legal means or illegal. You might have consented to giving others access, >> in one of those long Terms and Conditions documents you scrolled down >> without reading and clicked ‘OK’ to. The government might ask Google for >> access to your feed, in the course of some investigation or other. A hacker >> might even hack into your system to take a look… >> >> …and this last risk, the risk of hacking, is a very real one. Weaknesses >> in Google Glass have already surfaced. As the Guardian reported a few days >> ago: >> >> “Augmented reality glasses could be compromised by a hacker who would be >> able to see and hear everything the wearer does” >> >> This particular weakness may or may not turn out to be a real risk – but >> the potential is there. Where data exists, and where systems exist, they >> are hackable – Google Glass, by its nature, could be a clear target. And >> what they get, as a result, could be seriously dangerous and damaging. >> >> Risks to others’ privacy >> >> Equally worrying are the risks to those the wearer looks at. There are >> specific risks – anyone who knows about the concept of ‘creepshots’ – >> surreptitiously taken photographs, usually of young women and girls, up >> skirts, down blouses etc, posted on the internet – should be see the >> possibilities immediately. As Gizmodo put it: >> >> “Once these things stop being a rich-guy novelty and start actually >> hitting the streets, the rise in creepshots is going to be worse than any >> we’ve ever seen before” >> >> They’re right – and the makers of Google Glass should be aware of the >> possibilities. Some people are even working on developing an app to allow >> you to take a picture using Google Glass just by winking, which would >> extend the possibilities of creepshots one creepy step forward – at the >> moment, at least, voice commands are needed to take shots, alerting >> the victim, but with winking or other surreptitious command systems even >> that protection would be gone. >> >> Creepshots are just one extreme – the other opportunities for invasions >> of privacy are huge. In mitigation, some say ‘Oh, at least you can see that >> people are wearing Google Glass, so you know they’re filming you’. Well, >> yes, but there are lots of problems with that. Firstly, should we really >> need to check the glasses of everyone who can see us? Secondly, this is >> just the first generation of Google Glass. What will the next one look >> like? Cooler, less like something out of Star Trek? And the technology >> could be used in ways that are much less obvious – hack and disguise your >> own Google Glass and make it look like a pair of ordinary sunglasses? Not >> hard for a hacker. They’ll be available on the net within a pretty short >> time. >> >> Normalising surveillance >> >> All these, however, are just details. The real risk is at a much higher >> level – but it may be a danger that’s already been discounted. It’s the >> risk that our society goes down a route where surveillance is the norm. >> Where we expect to be filmed, to have our every movement, our every action, >> our every word followed, analysed, compiled, and aggregated for the service >> of companies that want to make money out of us and governments that want to >> control us. Sure, Google Glass is cool, and sure it does some really cool >> stuff, but is it really worth that? >> >> Now there may be ways to mitigate all these risks, and there may be ways >> that we can find to help overcome some of the issues. I’d like it to be so, >> because I love the coolness of the technology. Right now, though, I’m not >> convinced that we have – or even that we necessarily will be able to. It >> means, for me, I think we need to remember that just because we can >> do things like this, it doesn’t mean that we should. >> >> >> >> Dr Paul Bernal >> Lecturer >> UEA Law School >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Research Park >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> >> email: [email protected] >> Web: http://www.paulbernal.co.uk/ >> Blog: http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/ >> Twitter: @paulbernalUK >> >> On 10 Jul 2013, at 17:52, Yosem Companys <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Fortugno <[email protected]> >> >> I am a student writing a paper on the potential privacy issues caused by >> Google's upcoming product Google Glass. I was wondering if anyone could >> advise some good resources for my research. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bruno Fortugno >> -- >> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by >> emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >> >> >> >> -- >> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by >> emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at >> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >> > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > > > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech >
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
