Feeds

back to article Google warns Glass wearers: Quit being 'CREEPY GLASSHOLES'

Google has updated its information website for its Glass Explorer programme to include a list of "dos and don'ts" for its head-mounted computers, including one rather unexpected admonition. "[Don't] be creepy or rude," the last item on the list cautions, "(aka, a 'Glasshole')." It's a surprising turn of phrase, coming from …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Hmmm..

I know this might sound a tad draconian, but it's time every camera came with a mandatory 'i'm taking a picture/recording video' indicator - might deter people from being 'creepy' more than words buried in an advice sheet nobody cares to read.. this goes for phones too - too many spoilt brats going around hoarding footage of potential internet abuse victims out there.

6
10
Gimp

Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

As is the recording light, the main reason being to prevent upskirt photos and other pervie behaviour.

Funnily enough, a recent survey found that at least one in five smartphone photographers here use silent cameras apps.

http://whatjapanthinks.com/2013/11/25/worryingly-significant-number-of-japanese-use-silent-camera-apps/

4
0
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

Surprisingly, all those people in the ads for Google Glass are good looking models, when we all know that wearers will be geeky or creepy looking, buck teeth, spotty, greasy haired, pale through lack of exposure to the sun and generally socially inept.

So, no matter what etiquette you might follow, you will still look like a Glasshole wearing them.

12
17
Silver badge

Re: Hmmm..

Yet another suggestion to stigmatise the majority for the actions of a few. Then the few will find a way to disable those things, apps, physical disconnection or a drill through the led.

4
2
Bronze badge

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

If they managed to actually force all apps to create a shutter sound and thus made taking pics of the panties in front on the escalator very risky and not worth doing 90% of the content for the police follow around shows here would be gone..

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hmmm..

it's time every camera came with a mandatory 'i'm taking a picture/recording video' indicator

Yup, that will go down well with people that make pictures of REAL wildlife, and it takes but a black marker to hide the LED.

What worries me more is Google telling people "Don't be creepy" - given that their "don't be evil" turned pretty much the opposite, is this Google telling people to go ahead and be creeps? Enquiring minds want to know. Personally, this stuff will not enter my house, or even my vicinity.

6
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

If they managed to actually force all apps to create a shutter sound

So they'll use video instead...

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

>So they'll use video instead...

The auto focus LED is usually forced on while taking video.. at least it is on mine and my wife's phones.

1
0
Gav

Re: Hmmm..

Yup. Cos being a glasshole is all about a shallow evaluation of how you look. And they all look the same, don't they? Ugly.

That was sarcasm.

0
0

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

'Worryingly' my arse. I have my shutter sound switched off as well, and if it was legally mandated I would also get an app that disabled it. Not because I take upskirt pics, but because it sounds stupid. It doesn't have a shutter. It's like playing the sound of a rotary dial being turned every time you press a number key.

And as I take a lot of photos for my running club in 'burst' mode it would be downright annoying to everyone around me if every shot was accompanied by fifteen tinny "khhh-cheek" sounds.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

There are number of completely legitimate reasons not to have any sound when taking photographs. I generally have sounds turned off when taking pictures because I don't want to be one of those arseholes announcing to the world that they are taking a photo. As Spleen mentioned - a digital camera doesn't have a shutter, and so we have been freed from another source of sound pollution (though there were film cameras essentially silent in operation without all this fuss). Anyone that thinks the reason people didn't take upskirt shots (or whatever it is you have decided society is falling apart over this week) before digital cameras is because they made a noise is deluded. Clue: it has more to do with cost, availability and size.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Here in Japan, shutter sounds are mandatory

> a digital camera doesn't have a shutter

A phone camera doesn't have a shutter. All serious digital cameras do have a shutter. Some noisier than others, but... see next remark.

> (though there were film cameras essentially silent in operation without all this fuss)

the main cause of noise in cameras is not the shutter it's the mirror, which exists only in SLR cameras.

0
0
Silver badge

Short rule of thumb, don't wear them...

Google is saying... don't wear them when you're going to be someplace and people find it offensive.

That could mean clubbing (bars), restaurants, movie theaters, coffee shops, essentially any place in public.

Google says don't use them instead of the big devices so you don't have to concentrate on what's on the screen. What does this mean? DONT WEAR THEM WHILE DRIVING BECAUSE THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL OUTLAW THEM EVEN IF YOU HAVE PRESCRIPTION LENSES.

So in short. Just say No.

Don't be a glasshole. period.

8
6
Anonymous Coward

Photographs / Recording Video

If you're taking pictures of me against my will in a public place there isn't a great deal I can do to stop you. I even support the laws that allow you to do it.

However, don't be surprised when I'm less than polite about it.

13
3
Silver badge

Re: Photographs / Recording Video

Record this $H1+**FG***#R* N #R#$R Q#R.

You want to record me then I'll say what I think right into the mike.

And make sure you zoom in on the people loudly swapping glasshole jokes in the corner.

Sure we might not be able to stop them legally, but we can make it unpleasant for them to infringe.

The rules of good society just need to catch up a bit.

7
13
Silver badge

Re: Photographs / Recording Video

>but we can make it unpleasant for them to infringe

And that would be harassment, they aren't infringing anything.

10
6

Re: Photographs / Recording Video

No, what they are doing is harassment.

4
10

Re: Photographs / Recording Video

No, what they are doing is harassment.

http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/page6/page6.html

10
0
Bronze badge

Re: Photographs / Recording Video

@Charles Manning

"You want to record me then I'll say what I think right into the mike."

Ah, you're one of those plebs who stands around gurning behind news reporters doing a location piece... only you also lean over and shout into their mic?

Yes, you do need to catch up with the rules of good society.

Whilst I don't really get the attraction of Glass, if you're walking down the high street and an "Explorer" is walking down the other side, you're probably not even going to notice that they're not wearing conventional glasses (unless you're paying unusual attention to them), and even then, how will you know if they're recording or not?

Do you you make a habit of walking up to people and shouting in their faces on the off-chance that they're wearing a recording device of some description? Or going up to every store CCTV camera you happen to pass and shouting/gesticulating at it?

"Sure we might not be able to stop them legally, but we can make it unpleasant for them to infringe."

Infringe what? You have no right or expectation of privacy in a public place. If they started following you around (for an extended period, not just because they happen to be walking in the same direction as you) that could constitute harassment, but we're all entirely at liberty to set up in the street and start snapping away, whether that's with a chunky SLR or Glass.

12
2
Silver badge
Big Brother

"Explorers"

Really?

How very cultish.

7
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: "Explorers"

"cultish"?

Well, that's one way to misspell it.

9
1

Retrospection

Did Google ever tried itself to not look creepy?

Also, did they warn the glassholes to not SEE the creepy things as they can all be part of the big data house.

2
1

don't get it

I really don't get the hatred. I know a lot of people who don't want to wear something on their face because "glasses aren't cool." I get that, I don't agree, or more to the point, I don't care, but I get it. The worry that the people around me are catching me on video while I scratch my rear or what have you, just isn't there. I am not belittling the concern, I just don't understand it. I would quite like a substitute for phone screens. I am looking forward to people walking around waving their hands in the air instead of walking into walls while staring down at their phones, its way more futuristic, and more amusing as well, especially if they/I still walk into the wall.

12
4

Re: don't get it

I for one find this entire concept creepy. I do not like people taking videos / pictures of me and sticking them on the interweb. This is the very reason I have no "social" network account. With facial recognition you cannot say with certainty that your image in a random pic will not be recognised by glass. Do you not care about privacy?

The only thing I can imagine glass being good for is an app that lets you see everyone naked - fake nakedness would work well here. Perfect for those of a nervous disposition and had to do a talk in front of a room of heads.

5
12
Silver badge

Re: don't get it

Do you like the feeling of being inspected or judged? Do you like the feeling of being on assessment or unable to relax or make mistakes? Do you like feeling that if you say anything controversial to a few people, or which might upset some other people, that it will be immediately passed along to them? Do you like where you go and who you go with to be readily available? In a world with pervasive surveillance and recording, there's little escape from these things for most of us. If you trip, if you say something others will not approve of, if you're angry and behave in an angry way, these are all the moments that someone is there ready to catch and pass along in a far more efficient and widespread and long-lasting way than has ever come close to existing before.

You're not doing the joined up thinking, either - facial recognition is increasing all the time making it easy to identify someone in a recording and join it up with their other information online.

The usual statements to people who feel this way (which is a huge proportion of people) are that no-one is going to be interested in that person, just celebrities or similar, and that people should get over themselves and be able to laugh at themselves or accept that they make mistakes or similar.

But there are very many of us who do NOT think that no-one will be interested in us. And out there, there's always some people who will be. And those who think people should be okay with being made fun of don't really appreciate just how mean-spirited and hurtful such attacks can be. Even if you think that no-one is interested in you now, it creates a chilling effect knowing that all those times you lost your temper or had a row with a partner in public, someone was filming you, ready to be found if you do dare to be a taller blade of grass. Or even if it's simply funny enough that it gets passed around even if you're unheard of.

I know of one person who got into an argument with someone over parking, and that person started filming her. She got really angry at that point and started insisting that they stop and they didn't and she got really angry and so the film got passed around and she was made an absolute mockery of online. Who knows what she's really like? Who knows what her day had been like up until that point? And quite frankly, who's to even say that she's not right to be angry that someone pulled out a camera and started recording her shouting and red in the face. All anyone ever saw was a long clip of a really angry person who was trying to stop someone filming her and who was telling her "this is going online". She lost her business over that. The tirade of abuse she got was huge.

That's everyone if you have pervasive recording. We all become Star Wars kid. Except for those of us who react by clamming up and not doing or saying anything interesting anymore because we're permanently being monitored. Of course the same critics come back insisting that everyone should have saint-like levels of not caring what others think. But that's not true or any of us really. Just a handful of nutters. The rest do not like the endless feeling of being watched, judged, assessed. That's my best shot at explaining it to you and why if you walk around recording people in their every day lives, you're going to get a lot of anger heading your way for ignoring how people feel.

21
6
Silver badge
Meh

Re: don't get it

Indeed.

in the future, the lines will be drawn. Glasshole or just plain Arsehole.

Most people won't give a shit.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: don't get it

Yes, whatever shall we do now our right to shout loudly at people in the street if we get into an argument is infringed.

If these things come pervasive, the level of 'thing' where people care will increase. Critics won't be able to call out one person for doing something silly when there's footage of 1000s of people doing the same thing, including the critic themselves.

It would be a huge sea-change in culture, and at first it might be a of shock, but in the end, once it settles down, I think it would make people a lot more accepting of each other. Note the example in your post only happened because that was the only footage of someone shouting at someone in the street over a parking argument. If it's as common as you think, with pervasive surveillance, there'd be loads of those things and no-one would care.

AC - for irony

1
1
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: don't get it

So you want to pay to put a camera on your face as you walk around.

Invading other's privacy because you don't give a rat's ass about your own?

So when you walk in to the pub, and focus on a person's face, Google glass could capture the image, try to identify the person using facial recognition and then track data about that person being at location X,Y at a specific time.... That's the creep factor. You're now a toad for Google. While you say that Google couldn't do that... want to bet? The concept came from a Japanese Anime Eden of the East. (And I'm sure someone could cite an even earlier reference. )

Many of you be-itch about the NSA spying... compared to Google, they are amateurs.

3
4
Bronze badge

Re: don't get it

People want to pay to put a HUD on their face. A camera adds functionality for things like Augmented Reality, or just replacing a separate bullet cam/GoPro.

As for invading people's privacy, I don't get this. Okay, sure you could walk around with it recording, but you'll fill the storage pretty quick. This idea of streaming it back to Google to run facial recognition just doesn't hold water - who has data plans that would permit that (and not burn through your allowance in about an hour)? Even if Google applied some magical compression the constant transmission would kill the battery. Most mobiles can barely last a day even just making a few calls and some light browsing.

Streaming 720p for 10 hours? Show me the AA-sized cold fusion reactor.

Yes, you could manually just record everything you see - you being creepy rather than google, but that's no different to leaving your phone poking out your top pocket recording video, wearing a button cam or covertly recording sound from a pocket. You can't blame google if users do that - just as you can't blame Apple or RIM if users of their phones quietly leave the voice recorder running to capture your conversation without telling you.

Yes, they could run facial recognition on a video stream. It's technically feasible, but it's not going to be underlying the system. And if they tried to sneak it in under the radar (sometime in the future when we all have unlimited 6G connectivity) you can bet a clean version of android would spring up to side-load just as SRWare Iron popped up as an alternative to Chrome.

More to the point, why would they try and sneak in a system to harvest video and run facial recognition? That's expensive both in bandwidth and compute. Glass doesn't even have GPS unless you've paired it with a phone that does, so in it's unpaired state it doesn't actually know where you or it are.

It'd be far easier to build a surreptitious GPS tracker into the Android kernel, and quietly listen in to your phone's microphone for voice recognition - you know, the one in your pocket that could be pinging your exact location along with an audio feed from an open mic without even the owner knowing, never mind the people around them.

Lat/Long are just a few digits - far smaller and easier to process than running computer vision to match a person against a location, and quietly streaming audio back would be far more effective for conversation analysis than disjointed snippets of conversations as someone wearing a Glass unit walks past.

I get the privacy concerns, but if Google wanted to track and spy on everybody, there are far more effective ways than trying to harvest data from a handful of headsets (compared to the number of Android handsets they have in circulation).

4
1
Silver badge

Re: don't get it

"its way more futuristic, and more amusing as well, especially if they/I still walk into the wall."

How amusing is it if they drive into your car? You? Your child?

That is my concern. You can wear and use these idiotic devices to your heart's content providing you don't use them in such a way as to pose a risk to me and mine. And given my personal experience with texters, cell phoners and push-to-talkers I prefer not to leave it up to the dolt wearing the glass to decide when that is likely to be the case thank you very much.

2
0
Windows

Warning: Uncensored Link

Google are merely extending the original version by adding Glass to the range of selfish things we can do to each other, sing it Dennis: http://youtu.be/UrgpZ0fUixs

2
0
Silver badge

Aren't these things $1500 a go? And Google wants wearers to answer questions in he same manner as a paid salespeson? Also; lecturing others for being creepy is a bit of a cheek too.

1
1
Silver badge

A small window

By offering these "suggestions", Google is obviously aware of the image these devices have - and the poor reaction that ordinary (or normal; you choose) people have to being confronted by them.

So I would expect Google will go down one of two routes: either quietly kill the device and learn not to be so socially clumsy, or develop the Mk 2 that will be a lot more ... discrete. The basic problem will still be the same: that people who realise they are being spied on will be annoyed, but a more concealed device will make it harder to know when this is.

It could simply be that us "normals" will stop worrying when a Mk2 Glass is in our presence, as it won't be at all obvious - or it could be that our outrage at being covertly monitored turns against the supplier, rather than the individual performing the unsociable act.

Either way, if this device is to be stopped, now would appear to be the time to apply pressure: while the supplier is still sensitive to public reaction.

5
1

Re: A small window

"develop the Mk 2 that will be a lot more ... discrete."

Agreed, it's almost certain that that will happen; I can't imagine myself wearing something like that for long stretches (I know it's probably not that heavy, but it just looks horrendously asymmetric and irritating for the wearer).

Several things would have to happen for me to consider getting one:

- a reduced price; $1500 is a bad joke

- a reduced size; unless it can be squeezed into frames no larger than stereotypical NHS/hipster glasses, it's not going on my head - offload some of the work to a phone or some other wearable computer if necessary

- it's also got to look like glasses so as not to tip off potential muggers, although if the price does come down this would be less of a problem

- a HUD mode; information off to the side of my field of view will be useful in some situations, information overlaying reality makes sense in a lot more. An unglamorous example of a killer app for this would be something that constantly scans my field of view and highlights turds on the pavement with a flashing brown warning symbol. Something more justifiable might be Haynes manuals highlighting engine parts as you look at them. Also, you know someone is eventually going to write a version of adblock for real life,even if it's going to be an inevitable sideload.

3
0

Re: A small window

"Something more justifiable might be Haynes manuals highlighting engine parts as you look at them"

Most vehicle manufacturers are developing augmented reality, but currently this is for mobile phone use, see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26134338

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: A small window

I would add on point to the list

Off-line mode. I want a model that is unable to connect to any form of internet. Give it space for some data so that I can include a map of the area I plan to walk and can put any video/photo I record on to the glass. Then I hook it up to my computer/tablet/phone and retrieve the data I want. Sure it's a bit more of a hassle, but it's a hassle I for one would happily be burdened with

0
0
Silver badge

In a C-shell ...

... deep down, the goo-tards know they are socially inept.

Shun them. It's the only way.

A couple weeks ago, the wife & I were enjoying a tri-tip sandwich at The Schellville Grill here in Sonoma (corner of Hwy 12/Broadway & Hwy 121 ... highly recommended!), when in walked a glass wearer. A patron asked the front of the house, loudly, "do you allow glassholes at this establishment?", pointing at said potential customer.

Potential customer bolted ... to applause.

10
17
Silver badge

Re: In a C-shell ...

Ho ho ho, how humorous, public humiliation, what's the correct response, ROFL. I don't have Glass, can't afford it yet I don't discard ever having it (what is the correct term, are they it them or what?) however if I did and that happened to me I can assure you the outcome would have been different.

7
9
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: In a C-shell ...

A patron asked the front of the house, loudly, "do you allow glassholes at this establishment?", pointing at said potential customer.

Well they seem to let regular assholes eat there...

22
1
Silver badge

Re: In a C-shell ...

"however if I did and that happened to me I can assure you the outcome would have been different."

You mean you'd have kept wearing them despite the current patrons being bothered by it? How social you are.

1
8
Silver badge

Re: In a C-shell ...

No. It means I wouldn't have bolted. Maybe I would have joined the, let's say, birthday party or 50th wedding anniversary group who wanted a memory of a special day without being overly conscious of being filmed.

Pointing at someone in an attempt to publicly humiliate them with no knowledge of the person or why they are there says more about the pointee than the pointed.

9
6

Re: In a C-shell ...

"How social you are"

You mean "Conform or leave"?

Who wants to be part of a society where individuality is shunned?

7
2
Silver badge

Re: Who wants to be part of a society where individuality is shunned?

You're setting up a new society?

0
0
Silver badge

@Tom 38 (was: Re: In a C-shell ... )

We're all assholes. It's part of being human.

Most of us sit on the badge, we don't wear them on our face.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: In a C-shell ...

"who wanted a memory of a special day without being overly conscious of being filmed."

Hire a proper photographer. Amateurs with kit that is incapable of a proper 26"X40" print milling around in the crowd aren't exactly conducive to "special" memories.

"Pointing at someone in an attempt to publicly humiliate them with no knowledge of the person or why they are there says more about the pointee than the pointed."

Sometimes. Glassholes? Not so much.

0
2
Silver badge

@DanDanDan (was: Re: In a C-shell ...)

Glassholes aren't trying to be "individual", they are trying to be "trendy".

Keyword? "trying". In several senses of the word.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Tom 38 (was: In a C-shell ... )

"We're all assholes. It's part of being human.

Most of us sit on the badge, we don't wear them on our face.".

But you wear the supercilious twatspanner badge with pride, don't you.

3
1

They are reclaiming the word!

0
0
Silver badge

@Ali

No. They never owned it.

If it were Apple, the word would be trademarked ... More proof that the goo-kids are short-sighted, and clueless about worldly affairs.

2
5
Bronze badge

Re: @Ali

If it were Apple, it would be called iSpy, regardless of whether Apple named it such.

7
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.