back to article Glassholes beware: This guy's got your number

An artist/engineer working in Germany is sure to have sparked the next Google Glass debate: is it okay to simply block them from a network you control? There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes” taking the devices where they're not wanted or aren't legal (for example, driving), with outcomes ranging from being charged to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Paris Hilton

My network...

...my rules.

91
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

This is a perceived problem at the moment, as a percentage there are very few Glass owners out there. It might be more problematic if 20 million people were walking round with them.

Anyway why put the effort disconnect them from your network when it would be more fun to beat them up.

7
9
g e
Silver badge

Re: My network... connection to it is...

A privilege, not a right

27
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

@OP - Would you also say my network my responsibility if anybody downloads illegal material over it?

You are just pandering to the popular vote and fashion for the dislike of google glass, you either poilice your network completely or don't. If you block one thing and not another then it can be interpreted as you condoning the latter.

9
41
Silver badge

Re: My network...

@AC - He said rules not responsibility.

"If you block one thing and not another then it can be interpreted as you condoning the latter."

Only by someone ill-informed enough to believe it's possible to actually block everything you don't like.

It's up to admins what they allow on their network, and you can police certain things without being compelled to police everything, it's really not an all or nothing situation.

31
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

>Only by someone ill-informed enough to believe it's possible to actually block everything you don't like.

Ooo bitchy, that hurt, handbags at dawn.

>It's up to admins what they allow on their network

You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

4
34

Re: My network...

Well, I have to disagree, on the basis that your position is morally untenable to me.

I was taught to believe that that all power (such as the ability to impose rules on your own network) has an associated responsibility. It's one of my earliest moral lessons and still holds true.

The disassociation of responsibility from power is the cause of many of society's problems, and your statement is a perfect embodiment of a culture of entitlement, based on power and rights without any responsibility.

Sure, it's your network, so you can impose whatever rules you wish, but it is then your fault if you do not explicitly block something illegal when you could, because you have demonstrated that you have the power to do so.

7
22

Re: My network...

@photobod - As the OP is blocking devices, wouldn't that mean that he is responsible for blocking other devices once he finds out they are performing illegal actions rather than blocking content that you and the poster above were implying.

I say this as by blocking a device you're not implying that you can stop devices from downloading illegal content as you've done nothing with the content.

12
2
Silver badge

Re: My network...

> Ooo bitchy, that hurt, handbags at dawn.

Wasn't actually meant that way.....

> You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

True, but you used the word 'condoning'. Allowing something through inaction is not the same as condoning it.

21
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

"You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it."

I was going to make a long drawn out argument, against this with examples, but instead I've just deleted what I typed because...Total and utter bullshit...has more weight in this situation!

8
5
Silver badge

Re: My network...

To paraphase the BOFH: "Show me an Ethernet collision and I'll show you a network that could do with one user fewer"

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

>was going to make a long drawn out argument, against this with examples

Aren't you the clever one. Go on admit, you couldn't come up with anything so decided to be ever so slightly on the edge and use a naughty word. I bet you can tick off all of these http://tinyurl.com/mudx9hn

2
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

>Wasn't actually meant that way.....

OK, I'll take the horse shoe out of my handbag.

>Allowing something through inaction is not the same as condoning it.

True, but I did say "can be interpreted as" not "is" and in this case action would have been taken so inaction can't be claimed. Imagine PC Plod comes alongs and nabs your equipment, he gets back to you.

PCP : I see you've blocked google glass users from your network, why?

You : I don't like them

PCP : So you're pretty clued up on how to configure these network things?

You : Yes

PCP : Then why is there a whole lot of child porn flowing across your network?

You : ???

Now can you see how it can be interpreted as condoning illegal activity.

2
18
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

"Aren't you the clever one. Go on admit, you couldn't come up with anything so decided to be ever so slightly on the edge and use a naughty word."

I thought it was pretty obvious that the legal systems in half the countries in the world work on an express permission in law. Everything being illegal unless permission is given. So the argument only works for countries where that is not the case. But of course you would need a bit more knowledge than what you can gather from the inside of your own arsehole. so you are forgiven for not getting the point.What you aren't forgiven for is being a daily fail reader.

2
1
Bronze badge

Re: My network...

You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

You are blocking the type of hardware connecting. You aren't blocking the data that gets accessed once connected.

6
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

Gordon, I think that has already been established, however by actively blocking something you have demonstrated you have the knowledge to configure your network.

I actually find all this rather irrelevant as I would have thought in general the best policy is to deny all access then add policies to allow specific access. The question should not be one of blocking google glass but would you allow it.

2
4
Facepalm

Re: My network...

@AC So if you are, say, blocking port 25 outgoing to all hosts but your mail provider, you are condoning people downloading child porn? #logicfail

10
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

It appears we have more dailymail readers on here than people will own up to.

>you are condoning people downloading child porn

Tell me where I said "you are condoning", I've even said it twice "can be interpreted as". If you have shown sufficient knowledge to be able to block port 25... then you can bet your shirt that the law will consider you have sufficient knowledge to block other things and will want a good reason as to why you didn't.

1
11

Re: My network...

Incorrect as the law recognises that you can only take "reasonable" steps to protect your network. It's the same as trying to protect your house. The law doesn't say that because you installed a lock it's your fault for not turning your house into an impenetrable bunker when it gets broken into.

Equally the law doesn't say that it's your fault if someone steals something of your if you told other people to leave.

The same's true in the IT arena. If you block port 25, that doesn't imply that you can block vpn connection 1..300,000 or that you can block traffic from www.kiddyfiddliersare.us without also blocking www.google.com - Infact I'd go so far as to say that there's a fairly high chance that you don't have access to the full black list of sites for kiddie porn. If you're saying, why don't you put a proxy in the way and use content filtering - Proxies don't deal with https very well (at all?).

If someone download kiddie porn over your network in the clear and the police trace it to your network. You'll be in for an arse of a time without your computers for the next 6 months while they go through them looking for any illegal content. But assuming that it wasn't you doing the downloading, then you'll get them back again eventually.

edit to add : Additionally having an auto deny process that monitors who's attached to the network and kicks of those that you've black listed every 30 seconds is very different to putting a proxy server on your connection and firewalling content/ports from those inside the network. They have a very different level of skill set needed to start with. Again it's similar to the difference between being able to fit a new lock to your house compared with being able to fit emergency shutters that are activated when an unauthorised person tries to enter the house.

1
0
Bronze badge
Pirate

Re: My network...

"Would you also say my network my responsibility if anybody downloads illegal material over it?"

Wow... I've heard some pretty stupid comments on here, but wow.

Yes, if someone is DLing illegal stuff, i.e. rips of movies, guess whose anus the MPAA is going to have NSA all up in...

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

@DragonLord - I thought we were talking about commercial networks so apply your analogy to a bank and it falls down. Granted, it wouldn't have to be a mini fort Knox but it would be expected to fit more than a lock on it's front doot to protect itself.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

>Yes, if someone is DLing illegal stuff, i.e. rips of movies, guess whose anus the MPAA is going to have NSA all up in...

Let's see : Commercial concern. Your boss isn't going to be very happy with you that the MPAA is threatening his company with a lawsuit because you've allowed his employees to download illegal stuff let alone have not clamped down on using a company resource for personal use.

1
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

Our IT folks must connect employee WiFi devices to the network by providing the password AND adding the MAC address to the system. If one of those is missing, there is no allowed connection. We've had people plug in their own WiFi routers to get around that, but we shut them down fairly quickly.

By policy, Google style glasses are not allowed. We started by banning them just from bathrooms, but people (Well, one guy to be fair) kept "forgetting". Smart phones are allowed on a case by case basis and must be running specific OS versions with software to delete the info in case of loss or theft. Personal cells not meeting those standards are free to connect via the towers, but they don't get on our internal systems.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

...my iptables.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

> You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

Apologies for the insult, but I have the impression you may be one of those argumentative idiots who will keep on pushing their side of the argument with no interest whatsoever on listening to what the other side has to say. I will refrain from acting under that assumption for now, and respond to you.

* The other poster is talking about blocking devices from his network, not content (nor even users), so your argument is entirely moot.

* The law determining the extent of responsibility of network operators, where it is legislated at all, varies by jurisdiction. Where it is not legislated, and no jurisprudence exists or is applicable, is up to the person responsible for the network to decide what uses are permitted on his property, and who is responsible for what.

* Out of morbid curiosity, I can't help wondering if you're not the (ahem) proud owner one of those Google Spectacle Thingies.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: My network...

> I thought it was pretty obvious that the legal systems in half the countries in the world work on an express permission in law. Everything being illegal unless permission is given.

Could you please state the name of the country where you live, in which apparently a law says that it's OK to be an idiot?

0
0

Re: My network...

To make such a statement means you have witness'ed it or are doing it.. that means you have access'ed the network some how. If you cannot prove it, then it did not happen.

False statements can and WILL get you in trouble

0
0
Silver badge

Power and responsibility

If you have the power to rid the world of glassholes then, yes, you have the responsibility to do so!

0
0

Re: My network...

@AC - OK, so Imagine that I'm a small "mom & pop" cafe that provides internet access to increase the amount of time that people stay in the cafe, and thus buy more drinks...

Whoops there goes a commercial concern that may have the know how and kit to do one thing but not the other.

Why do you think that, in the UK at least, the major teleco's are providing the blocking software on their end rather than the consumer end?

0
0
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: My network...

Seems to me preventing glassholes to video everybody on the premises is taking one's responsability seriously.

Secondly, he's only looking at the MAC address. He's not peeking into the traffic. Very hard to police for illegal stuff, unless of course certain MAC addresses must be prevented by law or court order from accessing publicly available networks.

0
0

Re: My network...

No, no, no. Blocking devices by MAC address is not the same as deep content inspection, classification, and filtering. A MAC address is presented to your network and easy to check. Lots of bog standard kit will allow and disallow specific MAC addresses, or assign them specific IP pools, or what have you. It's easy to automated. Knowing that the file someone is seeding to a torrent (maybe over SSL or TLS) is an underage porn pic or that the credit card information they just ordered from Amazon with (definitely over SSL or TLS) is from a purloined card are not even in the same conversation.

1
0
Silver badge

I wonder what this does...

...about Glass users connected to the portable access point in their pocket?

Or a 4G-enabled Glass?

Well, I expect some people just have to be like that. Question: Why's he not blocking phones with cameras, if it's really about recording artworks?

Personally I don't think it is, and has more to do with "durr hurr aren't I clever I piss dem Glass users right off". Well, fine. I hope he enjoys his exercise in futility.

21
17
Silver badge

Re: I wonder what this does...

It's an issue of controlling what you can, not simply ignoring everything because you can't get 100% control.

On blocking phones, you can make someone surrender their phone before betting your property, but as far as I know it's not legal anywhere for civilians to block broadcast comms signals without explicit permission from their government.

But determined people are hard to stop. More than a theft prevention effort this seems like a marketing exercise. In which case the guy should be commended for figuring out how to get international news coverage without killing somebody or something similarly drastic.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: I wonder what this does...

After all, camera shades have existed long before Google Glass. Even a number of years ago, the kind of camera shades that could rival those specced in Transmetropolitan were around and required no networking (they used MicroSD). Completely self-contained and very hard to distinguish it as anything other than a pair of glasses. Fit them with prescription lenses and you can make a legal case for keeping them on everywhere (corrective lenses required for normal function), meaning someone can have a spycam no owner can force off. So what now?

1
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: I wonder what this does...

'So what now?'

That's just it. You can only go so far in physically preventing somebody from doing something. I suppose it's more accurate to say you can only legally go so far in physical prevention. Trap doors and alligator pits sound hilarious, but the upkeep on alligators will eat you alive.

But what if prevention isn't actually the goal? What if the goal is to generate media attention and challenge people to visit exhibitions specifically to snap covert images and brag about it online by posting the pictures. That's two seperate marketing vehicles for the price of nothing and the only difference between a starving artist and a Warhol style 'popular artist' is marketing. Commercial art without buzz is just a job creator for art supply companies :)

2
0
Silver badge

Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

There's a "simple" solution to 4G Glass. Replace your drywall with metal lath plaster walls. Windows with triple pane, ultra low-e treatment on the inside and outside layer. Unless those windows overlook a tower, no cellular will penetrate that building :)

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

There's a "simple" solution to 4G Glass. Replace your drywall with metal lath plaster walls. Windows with triple pane, ultra low-e treatment on the inside and outside layer. Unless those windows overlook a tower, no cellular will penetrate that building :)

That would block any and all mobile calls and data, including, I presume, emergency calls. Fair enough. The thing that gets me the most though is the picking on Glass specifically, when any mobile device can do what Glass does. And, as various people have mentioned, it's not like cameras don't have SD cards.

So yeah, "preventing people from recording artworks" is a bloody piss-poor excuse for "nerr herr I block you, Glass user." Even then, he doesn't block jack shit asides a MAC address that, given the supposed hackability of Glass, might well be a simple ifconfig eth0 hw ether 00:01:02:03:04:05:06 away from being something entirely different.

I think he wasn't loved enough as a child, myself.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: I wonder what this does...

Trap doors and alligator pits sound hilarious, but the upkeep on alligators will eat you alive.

Just put a kiosk next to the trap door, with a banner "Free $enticing_illegal_product here" and instructions to enter some personal data[1] and accept the EULA[2]. The problem you'll now face is Alligator Obesity, though.

[1] for striking entries off the Missing Person's list, to keep unnecessary searches, anxiety by next-of-kin etc. to a minimum.

[2] Eject User as Lunch for Alligators. Nobody reads those, as we all know.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

That would block any and all mobile calls and data, including, I presume, emergency calls. Fair enough.

Serious question: why would blocking cellphone reception in specific public areas such as theaters and cinemas be the problem it's made out to be? Why should everybody and their dog need to call emergency services from their seat, when there's functioning communications infrastructure just outside, which you would have needed to get to first anyway, thirty years ago?

The thing that gets me the most though is the picking on Glass specifically, when any mobile device can do what Glass does.

Technically, yes. As inconspicuously as Glass, no.

0
0

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

I think the problem with google glass vs using a camera/phone to take photos is that there's no easy way to tell if a glass wearer is taking photos or not, while a camera/phone user needs to go to some lengths to make it not easy to tell that they are doing so.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

The big blinking LED is a bit of a giveaway.

As for phones, I wouldn't say that a top pocket with a hole in is all that great a length to go to. Somewhat less detectable, too.

0
0

I agree, if it's your network you can do as you wish. If it's a network which you manage on behalf of another party, as in a workplace, you should of course follow the wishes of that party however you're free to advise them in this regard.

That said I have to agree that if someone is really determined they'll just use 3G/4G, not all of us have access to 4G yet... in fact my hometown only gets GPRS... as a matter of fact I'd have probably gone the cellular route anyway since there'd be no guarantee of a venue having wifi. I also don't see how this would stop glassholes from simply recording to an SD card.

7
0
Silver badge

They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

Kicking 'em off the network is the wrong approach.

Allow them access initially so that they qualify the AP as viable, then floor 'em to under 1KBit/s. The MAC address ranges for Apple, Glass, etc are all very well known so you can apply this in any particular way you like. Alternatively, if you have BSD in handy apply a dummynet delay of 4 seconds to traffic combined with whatever horrid jitter curve you can think of (Linux still does not have that feature 10 years past it appearing in BSD).

So you get a very connected glasshole that is incapable of excercising his glass. Rinse, repeat for fandboi. Rinse, repeat for redmond fans, etc.

By the time Joe Average Luser has figured that out what's going on...

17
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

If I recall correctly there is a proxy setup that was used at a hacker conference to mess around with the images in a data stream. Make that Glass sensitive and you could have all sorts of fun, but I suspect the stream will be SSL protected (I would, if I were Google).

As for the general question, I agree with "my network, my rules", although that is too limited. It's also "my home/office, my/our rules". If Glassholes are a problem for you for whatever reason it is not unreasonable to keep them out or ask at least they take the damn thing off and don't use it. If they can ask you in a cinema not to use a camera it certainly must be possible to control the use of a Google device. As soon as you're off the public space, privacy rules apply - it may even be illegal to use it inside a company as you could be accused of spying on staff. I can imagine, for instance, that in Germany you'd immediately end up talking to a union rep..

What I really want to see countered is any attempt to declare this crap "fashionable", because that's the sort of con job they pull on the weak of mind. Glassholes is a good term for it - declare it as uncool as it gets. That will work better than any ban..

4
4

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

The possibilities are quite endless...

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees, and watch as people using Glasses all start to tilt their heads...

4
1
Bronze badge

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

...apply a dummynet delay of 4 seconds to traffic combined with whatever horrid jitter curve you can think of (Linux still does not have that feature 10 years past it appearing in BSD).

I think you'll find it does, via iptables/iproute. e.g.

http://www.linuxpoweruser.com/?p=41

3
0
Bronze badge

How true. In most cases of those saying 'my network' I would imagine that they are only the managers of it and not those that actually own it and therefore by blocking something on a whim are, in fact, leaving themselves open to censure.

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees

That's the evilest thing I can imagine! :')

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums