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.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Ken Y-N
      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/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            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.

      2. Spleen

        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.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          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.

          1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

            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.

    2. LarsG

      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.

      1. 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.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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. Anonymous Coward
      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.

  2. Ian Michael Gumby

    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.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Charles Manning

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Photographs / Recording Video

        >but we can make it unpleasant for them to infringe

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

        1. SundogUK Silver badge

          Re: Photographs / Recording Video

          No, what they are doing is harassment.

          1. Tachikoma

            Re: Photographs / Recording Video

            No, what they are doing is harassment.

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

      2. rh587

        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.

  4. Winkypop Silver badge
    Big Brother

    "Explorers"

    Really?

    How very cultish.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Explorers"

      "cultish"?

      Well, that's one way to misspell it.

  5. solo

    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.

  6. Glyph

    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.

    1. FreeTard

      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.

    2. h4rm0ny

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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

    3. hplasm
      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.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby
      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.

      1. rh587

        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).

    5. Stevie

      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.

  7. Colin Ritchie
    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

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  9. Pete 2 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.

    1. S4qFBxkFFg

      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.

      1. JurassicPark

        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

        1. Eguro

          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

  10. jake 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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      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.

      1. h4rm0ny

        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. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          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.

          1. jake 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.

        2. DanDanDan

          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?

          1. sabroni Silver badge

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

            You're setting up a new society?

          2. jake 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.

    2. Tom 38
      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...

      1. jake 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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They are reclaiming the word!

    1. jake 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.

      1. deadlockvictim

        Re: @Ali

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

  12. Gordon Pryra

    Glasshole fits.

    Untill Google sort out the look of this thing, the name fits anyone stupid enough to wear one.

    Aesthetics IS important, and 15 hundred quid for something a 1st yeah design studant could slap together is crap, leaving the wearer looking like an utter glasshole.

    1. David Lucke

      Re: Glasshole fits.

      Why is it that anything that looks futuristic and space age is derided as ugly and stupid looking? These things look like something out of a high production value sci-fi film: awesome.

  13. Valeyard

    argh

    I do stupid things in public sometimes. i trip over, or i have to do an embarassing 180 when i realise i turned a wrong corner or or i say hello to someone who just LOOKS like a person i know or i fall asleep on the bus and jump awake or realise i've just walked 2 streets with a nerf dart stuck to my damn coat thanks to my nephew.

    The thing is to capture any of this people tend to have to have lightning quick reflexes with phones which is different with an always-out ready-to-start-at-any-time camera. i don't want to have to iron all my clothes just to go to the corner shop and always be conscious of every slight action in case the fucking internet-humiliation style-gestapo happen to catch me picking my nose or something and put it on the internet

    It'd be an explosion of those "spotted" facebook pages, which were basically just "holy shit, this woman is fat LOOK"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: argh

      Do you really think anyone would be interested in seeing you or anyone else do any of those things? And are you remotely bothered about what a complete stranger would think if they saw you doing them? Where do you draw the line at what you consider to be excruciatingly embarrassing? This is life, it goes on and there are far more important things to worry about than if you've not tucked your shirt tails in properly and someone videos it.

      1. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: argh

        You've not been on the internet much, have you?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: argh

          It's been pointed out to me that I'm on google maps, I've seen the images and they do not capture me at my best. A brother-in-law gave me a pointer to the online edition of some obscure backwoods rag where he was in the foreground of a picture that went with an article yet they changed the picture and I turned up in the middle of a crowd, he wasn't pleased. In both cases you'd have to know who you were looking for but do I care these images were taken without consent, not a bit. Do I care that there maybe others are out there? No.

      2. Valeyard

        Re: argh

        Where do you draw the line at what you consider to be excruciatingly embarrassing?

        when it's on the frigging internet for giggling youths...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: argh

          It's not uncommon for people with a disfigurement or disability to be stared at, pointed at in the street, verbally abused often on a daily basis whenever the venture out in public and all you have to worry about are giggling youths. Grow a back bone.

          1. Valeyard

            Re: argh

            sent from your google glass? :/

            You're taking this very personally i must say

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: argh

              I don't have google glass.

              I think you'll find the those who are taking this personally are the ones so full of themselves that they seem to think everybody is interested in seeing them pick their nose in public. I just don't understand this fear. Maybe I'm not a good sample, but I for one couldn't care less about what any body does even if it gets posted on youtube.

              1. Valeyard

                Re: argh

                ok good, but don't look down your nose at us for it and react really rather horribly and childishly as you have been up to now

                people are allowed opinions that differ from yours, you know, and shouldn't be shouted down, bullied or made to feel vain for wanting to maintain their dignity and privacy in life

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: argh

                  I don't wish to bully nor do I look down my nose at anyone, it's incomprehension. I've gone through life not caring what anyone thought of me and I have difficulty in understanding those who worry about what complete strangers or someone they pass in the street who they'll never meet again may think of them. My wife falls into the latter group and after 30+ years I still don't understand her.

                  It does appear that people wouldn't mind being in Joseph Merrick's shoes providing nobody filmed them scratching their butt. That I find strange.

                2. hplasm
                  Meh

                  Re: argh

                  "people are allowed opinions that differ from yours, you know, and shouldn't be shouted down, bullied or made to feel vain for wanting to..."

                  Wear GoogleGlass?

                  Sauce. Goose. Gander.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: argh

        > This is life, it goes on and there are far more important things to worry about than if you've not tucked your shirt tails in properly and someone videos it.

        That's fine until, 30 years later, you decide to run for president and suddenly everyone is worrying about it.

  14. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    BORG!

    Glassholes are just one type of BORG. Others walk around as if hypnotised by the magic box in their hand, some have a flashing blue earpiece, others have the Watch proudly strapped to their wrist. You can tell by their reaction to the "pay attention to me" sound that they are thralls to the device and have already surrendered their souls. Have you been assimilated?

  15. ukgnome

    No Bull Riding?

    that's a deal breaker......pass

  16. RyokuMas
    Coffee/keyboard

    On the list...

    It's the third item on the "Do" list that makes me laugh:

    "Ask for permission. Standing alone in the corner of a room staring at people while recording them through Glass is not going to win you any friends (see Don’ts #4). The Glass camera function is no different from a cell phone so behave as you would with your phone and ask permission before taking photos or videos of others."

    So Google want us to ask for permission to capture data (visual data), while sifting through our emails, web activity etc., to profile us with no opt-out or comeback?

    Hello pot, this is kettle...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: On the list...

      It does appear that Google needs some nutritional device concerning their Recommended Daily Allowance of irony.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Balanced view

    I agree with a lot of people who dislike the thought of being constantly and covertly filmed/photographed for no other reason than that Google wants to know everything about everyone in order to sell more adverts; I would politely but definitely refuse to have a conversation with someone wearing one. However, the technology itself does have potential outside of the advertising/data collection arena; think of partially-sighted people, or perhaps surgeons in operating theatres. It would be interesting (if naively optimistic!) to see if something like this could be developed in conjunction with the medical sector to aid humankind rather than advertisers.

    1. rh587

      Re: Balanced view

      Give it 5 years and I could see it as a replacement for audio guides in tourist locations - pick one up in the Tower of London and use augmented reality to overlay the stages of development - how it appeared in 1100/1200/1600/1700/1800, insert a few period ghosts wandering around, etc.

      Or it could be interesting in art galleries - a not insignificant number of paintings have under-drawings where canvases were reused or rough work was painted over. Get in front of a painting and have Glass provide AR versions of the underlying layers, or more information than they can fit on a little card.

      I also recall standing in one gallery where they only had 2 of the 3 sections of a triptych. Some means of pulling up the 3rd would have been nice (although they could also just put a miniature version up on the wall for people to look at).

      Both those are more rental-oriented of course rather than wandering round the streets wearing them...

  18. bigtimehustler

    To all these people who hate the idea of google glass, do you get as nervous when you enter a really busy tourist area? Everyone carrying cameras and ready to snap you at the slightest embarrassing moment? You probably don't because over your life you have accepted tourists all have their cameras out and ready as a social norm. Pretty much what will happen over the next 20 years with technology like glass.

    1. RyokuMas

      "You probably don't because over your life you have accepted tourists all have their cameras out" - that's because we acclimatised to the camera before the advent of cloud storage, data mining, facial recognition, profiling and targeted advertising.

      Also, a single snapshot or a few seconds of video in a well-broadcasted spot tells people very little more than "I was at location [x] on [time and date]". Whereas the idea that a significant number of people around me could be constantly recording and sending their data back to base is a worry - combine this with Google's current dabbling in robotics, and it could end up something like this...

    2. gbru2606

      I havn't met many tourists that point their cameras directly at my face and record me when I'm giving them directions though. Have you?

    3. sabroni Silver badge

      But if it was one tourist..

      ...with thousands of cameras all over the town you were on holiday in, able to piece together your every movement for the entire holiday, it would be fucking creepy. Individual glassholes may not be an issue, but Google getting the feeds from millions of these things is well beyond creepy and into sinister.

      It's bad enough that they know where most Android phones (and their users) are most of the time, but that's something you opt in to when you take their services. I haven't opted into that and I don't want them spying on me.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Bet that is an argument....

      .....that someone like Googles PR department would be keen to put forward.....

  19. Martin H Watson

    I have a large collection of secretly photographed 'NO PHOTOGRAPHY' signs from all over the world. My favourite is from the souvenirs shop at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. You are welcome to snap the former crossing point, but not the gift shop!

  20. Chad H.

    Okay Glass..... Stop being Creepy!

  21. an it guy

    website design

    I guess that their do's and don't's are annoyingly hard to read so no-one does?

    Seriously, light grey on a white background?

  22. gbru2606

    Sound

    Maybe we should insist the device deliver the sound a reversing truck makes when they're filming. That should sort it.

    1. hplasm
      Facepalm

      Re: Sound

      And then they could film you getting run over by the reversing truck behind you...

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No problem you can wear them with this on.

    Glass BFA.

    Where it is deemed inappropriate to take pictures the owner of the establishment should be able to hand out fluorescent Blank Firing Attachments for Google glass cameras so that wearer can visibly display that they are not taking pictures but can still use the display.

    GBFA

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lots of comments on the price. Just FYI I believe google have said they want to get the price point down to 300 (don't recal if it was a US or UK article) for the release of the retail version.

    but yes, the development/v1/"explorer" model is $1500

    Amazed that some of you, must never leave the house. I don't get the distinction between a few people where you are wearing Glass and almost everyone where you are having a smartphone in their hands 90% of the time. Baffling.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Do not get the distinction....?

      Baffling. If you work for Google. Not baffling. If you do not work for Google. So it seems.

  25. DropBear
    Mushroom

    Fine advice from Google...

    ...but apparently about as effective as trying to be nice, civilised and polite in front of a redneck lynch mob with pitchforks and torches and a "we don't take kindly to your types here" attitude: everybody knows the beating is coming no matter what the victim will do. Which makes the reference to "assholes" all the more ironic, frankly.

  26. Badvok
    Black Helicopters

    Paranoid schizophrenia

    I read somewhere recently that schizophrenia affects about 1 in 100 people. However, these comments pages seem to attract more than would be expected if that were true.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: Paranoid schizophrenia

      Or maybe you write off things as paranoia when there is more rational explanation?

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Overt To Covert

    It's not about photography in public and "rights". It's about Glass making it easy to carry out covert photography in public. The average person using a consumer device to take photographs needs to use their hand(s) to point it at the subject. If they want clear and reasonably sharp images free from extraneous clutter then they have to use both hands and or hold the thing in a position that makes it obvious what you're doing.

    This allows the subject and anyone else near, if they see the photographer, the option to avoid being photographed.

    Glass removes that option.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: Overt To Covert

      > The average person using a consumer device to take photographs needs to use their hand(s) to point it at the subject. If they want clear and reasonably sharp images free from extraneous clutter then they have to use both hands and or hold the thing in a position that makes it obvious what you're doing.

      Of course not. I take most of my "street" pics with my camera around the neck, belly height. It has a leaf shutter, almost completely silent, which helps.

      That's when I'm not using my huge and noisy Mamyia RB67 Pro SD... which, appart from being a superbly reliable setup, attracts a lot of attention; some good, some bad.

      Generally speaking I don't do "street" with my 35mm SLRs or my "35mm" dSLR as I find it too "middle ground". In the street I find I take better pics when I'm either completely unnoticeable or extremely obvious.

  28. Tikimon

    Glass is Google's Eye O' Sauron

    You're all missing the obvious., Glass is Google's wandering spy eye to gather all the info on everything and sell it. It's creepy for anyone but the wearer.

    I don't want a Google Eye pointed at me either. I would be MUCH cooler about a device that's not tied to a private spy agency that believes I have no right to privacy of any kind.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    if glass wearers are glassholes, public iPad fondlers are just assholes.

  30. smackbean

    Take your glasses off if you want to continue this conversation...

    This is how I'll start, but I think I will get increasingly pissed off with people who don't do this as a matter of course.

    So maybe it get to the stage when introduced to someone:

    "Hey, this is my mate Dave"

    - "Hi Dave, oh..."

    *headbut*

    - "Did no one teach you any manners?"

    - "Pint anyone?"

    Something like that anyway...

    1. M Gale

      Re: Take your glasses off if you want to continue this conversation...

      Maybe in your head it'll go like that.

      Personally I'd rather not start fights. People tend to die in fights. This isn't a ring, there are no Queensberry rules, and nothing's stopping the Glass wearer from responding by using a hard kick, firm squeeze (or perhaps an outright bite) to remove your ability to ever make children.

      They'd probably get away with it under a self defense ruling, too. So, perhaps your more polite first idea should be where you draw the line, eh?

  31. ThomH

    Are we expecting "businesses [to be] excited about Glass"?

    Hey, businesses, wouldn't it be great if your staff were more distracted? Hey, businesses, wouldn't it be great if all your commercial practices — whether genuinely dodgy or just ordinarily proprietary — were more widely and more easily recorded? Etc.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is one situation in which I am OK with a Glasshole

    The key issue is simple: Glassholes affect OTHERS without them having an ability to object to it.

    If the camera would record the OWNER and what they are doing I'd have no problem, as that is a choice everyone can make for themselves.

    The bit I don't agree with is someone else arbitrarily making me their entertainment, and I think I'm not unfair in promising a reaction to that. For the Glasshole's sake, I hope the parts are edible.

  33. Mussie (Ed)

    cant wait

    I was at the beach one day and caught some female tourist taking sneaky pics of my daughter, in the end i confronted her and told her to stop or her camera was going for a swim (I should have called the cops).

    Google glasses is a cool idea but the world being full of dickheads it will inevitably be seen as a tool for perverts and wankers.

    And sooner or later someone is going to end up missing a few front teeth.

    It might not happen over night but as sure as shit it will happen.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: cant wait

      > i confronted her and told her to stop or her camera was going for a swim (I should have called the cops).

      Better not to, as you were the only one doing anything objectionable (threats like that? Psshhh!).

      Taking pics in a public place (as I expect the beach was) is perfectly OK. Now you can politely ask them to stop as it is making you uncomfortable, and they will likely stop. Being rude in a case like this makes you the asshole. Being _threatening_ in a case like this most likely make _you_ the outlaw (depending on your local legislation).

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Year 2023

    Law enforcement will have NSA-style backdoor access to a world of LIVE surveillance thanks to all the wearable cam tech.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like