Feeds

back to article Google 'disappoints' US congressman over Glass privacy controls

Google's response to privacy concerns expressed by US legislators over its Glass headmounted hardware is "disappointing," according to Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). The Chocolate Factory needs to give consumers more privacy choices, he says. "There were questions that were not adequately answered and some not answered at all …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge
Joke

Surveillance made 'cool'

I predict some very awkward social situations when these are finally released - with the possible inclusion of expensive rhinoplasty & dental bridgework bills for some.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Surveillance made 'cool'

Cool?

Has anyone wearing these things actually looked in a mirror?

0
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: Surveillance made 'cool'

The courts will be sympathetic to anyone who gives a google glasses wearer a good smack in the chops.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Go tell a policeman

Having recently been at a classic car show my children were on one of these bouncy castle slide things.

Just to the side of us a parent was taking photos of his children coming down the slide.

A policeman came over to him, told him he'd had a complaint from a member of public that he was taking photos of children and demanded to see the pictures on his camera.

He was then warned not to take anymore.

All you need to do is complain to the police (if you can find one) every time you see someone wearing Google Glasses and say you thought they were recording inappropriate material. Can't wait!

1
2

Re: Go tell a policeman

Depends where youre located.

If its a public place, plod has no powers to stop you nor do they have the right to see or delete the images, unless youre taking pictures of certain things of a "national security" nature.

That said, its still good practice to at least listen to the officer before making sure youre on public land and continuing.

3
0
Silver badge

Scary

That a god bothering primitive is in charge of privacy in technology (I bet he doesn't even own a mobile phone)....

14
2
Silver badge

Re: Scary

Possibly a visit to the proctologist?

I don't see how they think they can ban resale any more then Ford could.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Scary

I can't see any difference between resale of glass and the resale of a mobile phone. Both have camera and store video.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scary

@Thorne - Do you walk around with your phone perpetually held up in front of your face ? If not, then there's a difference.

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Scary

"@Thorne - Do you walk around with your phone perpetually held up in front of your face ? If not, then there's a difference."

Well no I don't hold my phone up to my face while I'm selling it. I usually give it to the person buying it but then again I'd expect the same if I was selling Glass too.

The conversation was about the right to resell.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scary

@thorne then why the emphasis on video and camera ? A phone also has a, well phone ..

0
1
Meh

Re: Scary

A (far too large) minority of people do...

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Scary

"@thorne then why the emphasis on video and camera ? A phone also has a, well phone .."

My point is there isn't any features in Glass that is not in a phone so logically banning Glass from resale should mean phones should also be banned from resale for the same reasons.

Personally I can't see any point to banning resale.

2
0

Re: Scary

@Thorne

>> My point is there isn't any features in Glass that is not in a phone so logically banning Glass from resale should mean phones should also be banned from resale for the same reasons.

"Logically," a phone is different because,

1. It has other functions (e.g., phone);

2. Under normal and common usage, it is not ever-present on the face of the user, ready and willing to snap photos or record video at an instant;

3. It is harder to use for surreptitious recording, since a stock phone needs to be placed in line of sight, which is not necessarily the optimal position for common personal usage;

4. Is not as creepy.

Not being able to perceive nuance in real life situations is the mark of a basement-dwelling nerd. So, take your self-involve, anti-social, Aspergers view of the world elsewhere. In the real world, things are a bit more complex than merely saying "x looks like y, ergo x = y. QED. I HAS TEH LOJIKS."

dZ.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Scary

3. It is harder to use for surreptitious recording, since a stock phone needs to be placed in line of sight, which is not necessarily the optimal position for common personal usage;

What a load of bollocks. For you to record someone with google glasses, first off, you'll be wearing google glasses and looking right at them. Secondly, you then need to say "glasses, record". Probably twice.

If you wanted to surreptitiously record with a mobile, you simply hold it in your hands, entire phone hidden apart from the lens, and angle it towards the subject. No voice command, no facing the subject, no fuck off obvious glasses.

However, and this is the main issue, if you wanted to record really surreptitiously, you would use any one of hundreds of covert cameras, button hole cameras, watch cameras, pen cameras, even cameras in glasses that look like real glasses. All of which are legal, all of which have been readily available for many years without requiring over-the-top-arsehole-driven legislation to save society.

Not being able to perceive nuance in real life situations is the mark of a basement-dwelling nerd. So, take your self-involve, anti-social, Aspergers view of the world elsewhere.

Dear me, try knocking yourself out of your paedo-terrorist daily mail fantasy for a moment and read the drivel you are spouting.

3
2
Trollface

Re: Scary

Of course he has a mobile phone. You can get a 25 foot phone extension cord at any Radio Shack.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Scary

I think the point is (which I agree with) that a phone is also likely to have lots of personal and private information, including photos/videos. Maybe it's not as ever-present as Glass, but it's still something that people use an awful lot.

Point 3 is a worry, but not to do with the argument about resale - if someone has secretly recorded, that's already a violation of privacy anyway.

I also wonder how they intend to enforce this? And if they put in technical measures, how that will comply with various countries and any laws on right to resale...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scary

>> @DZ-Jay

>> My point is there isn't any features in Glass that is not in a phone so logically banning Glass from resale >> should mean phones should also be banned from resale for the same reasons.

>> "Logically," a phone is different because,

>> 1. It has other functions (e.g., phone); "

Google Glass also works as a phone, video and audio. So that's not the greatest difference to note first between Glass and a mobile phone. That there *ISN'T* that difference between them.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scary

@Tom 38 - Your points are easily dismantled.

(1) You _might_ need to activate record mode verbally .. now. You seem to ignore the most likely outcome, which is glassholes will be perpetually recording everyone they look at. Alternatively given that the glasses are hackable it is easy to imagine a recording mode that does not require verbalization.

(2) Viz recording with mobile. I don't believe you have actually tried this or you wouldn't have suggested it as a serious alternative.

(3) Yes truly motivated perverts can buy any number of hidden recording devices. That is beside the point. Google are attempting to make their glasses pervasive. That lowers bar of entry and shifts the burden of proof. To clarify. If you are caught with a hidden recording device at the moment there is probable cause. There will be no probable cause with goo-glasses.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Scary

"Yes truly motivated perverts can buy any number of hidden recording devices. That is beside the point. Google are attempting to make their glasses pervasive. That lowers bar of entry and shifts the burden of proof. To clarify. If you are caught with a hidden recording device at the moment there is probable cause. There will be no probable cause with goo-glasses."

I'm sure you can find some gauze to hang from your tinfoil hat that will mess up Glass' facial recognition....

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Translation: "Your checks haven't cleared yet...."

Methinks the CongressCritter would like some campaign donations....

1
1

Re: Translation: "Your checks haven't cleared yet...."

Barton is Mr. Anti-Science and Mr. Pro-Oil.

Excuse me, The Honorable Mr. Pro-Oil.

Yes, the message is being sent, not enough Googlebucks delivered to enough Republicans.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Translation: "Your checks haven't cleared yet...."

>> Barton is Mr. Anti-Science and Mr. Pro-Oil.

>> Excuse me, The Honorable Mr. Pro-Oil.

Oh no. What's his stance on gun law, that's probably relevant to the discussion too?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Simple explanations are more often the correct ones.

In the case of this congresscritter It more likely than not means he's just another technoboob. He don't understand it so he better grab his shotgun 'n blast it.

Privacy concerns. Why is the feeble-minded Bible thumpers immediately jump to the offensive usage? Because that is their true nature. That same perverse use was probably the second or even third thought of the inventing geek.

4
1

Re: Simple explanations are more often the correct ones.

Joe Barton used to be my congresscritter, and I assure you he's much more than a technoboob. He's a self-serving, self aggrandizing, chest thumping, all purpose boob. His antics are good for a laugh ... until you realize he's not a comedian and his antics have serious consequences.

Trust me, Joe Barton's disappointment will fade when the first campaign contribution arrives.

1
1
Silver badge

Google could end this hassle today

Just include secret facial recognition and ship the results to the NSA.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: Google could end this hassle today

"Just include secret facial recognition and ship the results to the NSA."

They don't already?

0
0

He Has a Lot of Gall

The absolute last people who should be expressing disappointment with anything or anybody are US House Representatives, especially the luddite Republicans. These are the people who think that rapes are god's will and women's bodies can shut down pregnancies for 'legitimate rapes'.

10
1

Well I'm disappointed in Congress. They can't seem to get get anything done. Stop with your b.s. and work and solve some of the important issues facing America. Never have I seen such incompetence in america.

2
1
WTF?

Seriously though. The US Goverment, post PRISM, bitching about privacy and sousveillance? Methinks maybe the Big G is being less forthcoming with access to Glass data and specifications than the Fed likes.

3
1
Silver badge
Trollface

"New technology should have built-in privacy"

No doubt that people of the RIAA keep dreaming of going back in time to insist that DRM be built in that new fangled Internet technology…

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "New technology should have built-in privacy"

The RIAA would prefer that you buy their product but have some form of lobotomy so you cant actually remember what you heard.

Mind you the Stones gig at Glasto required that you could remember what you heard on the albums...

0
0
Bronze badge

One possibly look at the future

The date is 2100. Mankind has evolved technologically. We can now interface man and machine. Everybody wears a device that permanently records what they see, say, hear and smell even, all the time, from the moment they are born. They have to wear it, it is the law, and the device is implanted in their head right from the start and linked to their brain. Anyone found not bearing one is arrested and forced to undergo an operation to implant one, or is "terminated" for the common good of society, as a deviant. The device stores the data either in its own memory or in a huge, remote bank of servers, either of which can of course be scanned by government agencies and accessed by select advertisers who pay a high price to do so and to serve you subtle, augmented reality advertisements. Some people say the device can be commandeered by the police or by a virus to make you obey their will...The only protection against this is an extra-strong tinfoil hat, available for £200,000 (the price of a house) on the black market, so nobody except big-time criminals can see the point of buying one...

0
0
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: One possibly look at the future

Nice to hear that at least the cost of housing will be lower...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: One possibly look at the future

The problem is the currency symbol - he got as close as he could, but the currency of the future isn't denoted by £, but rather by a new symbol added into Unicode in 2087, that looks sort of like a cross between the symbol for The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince and a Euro sign being spit-roasted by a dollar sign and a pound sign - informally known as "d munie".

In order to combat rampant inflation, the ruling UN House of Bankers created d munie and valued it at 1 d munie := 10000£, before beginning a new program of qualitative rapingeasing, leading to the inflation such that a discarded Big Mac box (the new standard for "large, luxury housing") went for 200000 d munies.

0
1
g e
Silver badge

"could change societal norms"

Yep, coppers being videoed beating people up could increase, politicians caught pinching cute women's backsides, accidental egress from a whorehouse, etc

God forbid the public might be able to record as much behaviour as Us without Us being able to get to it first and destroy it, must get ahead of the curve and legislate in Our own favour.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Not allowing recognition at this time - what the hell kind of an answer is that?

It's the one that they could say without actually lying or coming in danger of lying, I know. But are we actually interested in what they are doing, and not what they intend to do?

I'm not engaging in sexual intercourse at this time - but that doesn't mean I don't intend to at a later time.

I'd prefer an offline version of any from of glasses that could potentially monitor my every move. Something with a small memory card built in, onto which I can upload maps of my area, and from which I can copy/move the pictures/movies I've made onto my computer. Allow it a GPS function, but no way of relaying information about the usage of this function to anyone.

You know something where I can at least be a bit more sure that it isn't uploading everything I do directly onto the NS... Google servers.

0
0

Hah! Like our government is concerned with our privacy! That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Our government is so screwed up and our politicians are only concerned about being in office.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Better tnan a smartphone

To me this Glass is about a lot more than taking pictures. Coupled with a Bluetooth voice/data hub (a screenless phone, the size of a Bluetooth GPS - a Nexus 0 perhaps), it fixes everything I hate about a smartphone: small screen or big size, poorly readable outside, need to hold it. Embedded GPS and ubiquitous Web access sounds really attractive. Now, if I can also use it to video the car that's about to make my bicycle fly, even better!

0
0

So why do they need both?

"banning resale of the headsets to ensure that private information isn't transferred, and the headsets can be remotely wiped if lost or stolen."

If they can do the second, then they have absolutely no justification otther than greed for trying (I hope unsuccessfully) to prevent buyers using their legal right to resell.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.