An old joke
. . . stop throwing sand in his eyes, Missus
Google Glass users are set to look even more ridiculous following the release of code which allows the headset's wearer to take photographs by winking. Developer Mike DiGiovanni has released an app he calls Winky, which snaps an image when the user opens and then closes one eye. He has uploaded the Android source code to …
. . . stop throwing sand in his eyes, Missus
I can still see when I wink. It's when I blink that I miss things.
Therefore it would make sense to take a picture every time I blink, allowing me to check everything remained in order at my convenience.
"Therefore it would make sense to take a picture every time I blink[...]"
Do cameras work against Weeping Angels?
"snaps an image when the user opens and then closes one eye"
Is this a Web 2.0 wink? There was me thinking that winking is closing and then opening one eye
for any sexual harassment cases brought against you
This is covert filming without consent. How long before some bright spark does version that automatically starts taking pictures when <your image recognition preference > is in the frame?
I predict violence.
And who are you to tell me that I'm not allowed to document my own life?
Document your own life all you want, start peeking into my life and you might actually experience an event worth documenting!
Please read this wiki entry
It all depends on the country and the location, in the UK no such law is present. It doesn't matter if the filming is covert. I personally have used covert filming to prove to a council that a tenant was harrasing an old lady across the road. He did try to start a legal preceding against me and was most shocked when I turned up unannounced at his house with my handy cam to film his reaction when I told him the police wouldn't be pursuing his complaint.
Or put it another way, why should you go round filming people for no reason what so ever except you happen to own some silly glasses? I don't think most sane people will think its either a) very nice to go round filming people for no reason and b) worth doing.
Might as well just let David Cameron install a webcam in my toilet and be done with it. I think these things are a step to far in terms of eroding privacy.
By all means, document your own life. Go ahead and "lifelog".
Me, I'd rather just live mine.
Check out all the road traffic accidents that have been documented on youtube. There's one application right there.
And if I am walking through a park wearing a Google glass and some guy lamps me for it, Then I'll have documented evidence of his assault.
And you'll have all the witness in the queue formed behind him as well.
"Might as well just let David Cameron install a webcam in my toilet and be done with it"
No, the correct comparison would be *you* installing a webcam in your toilet. Nobody is forcing you to wear these glasses.
I see lots of big boob footage being uploaded to youtube, I cant yet think how this is bad though :)
Whether it is going to be ok or not, it's something society is going to have to come to terms with. Cameras have being getting smaller for decades. Digital storage is increasingly physically smaller and more expansive. The time will inevitably come (if it hasn't already) that people will be able to photograph/video everything that ever happens to them without giving any indication that they are doing it.
We cannot wind back the clock on this. What are you going to do? You could make it illegal to film in a private place without consent (good luck enforcing that). But unless you want to make all cameras illegal, or make it a legal requirement that you wave a big flag and announce on megaphone every time you are about to take a photo, you are never, ever going to stop this happening in public places.
I don't care for the idea of being covertly filmed by some weirdo any more than anyone else. But we all have to comes to terms with it. It's gonna happen, and it may not only be the weirdo's doing it. It may become commonplace.
I fear you are unclear on the concept. No-one is campaigning to prevent you using your Googletat in your own home.
It's what you do when you come outside and join the rest of the world that people are worried about. If you put your doings on Facebook you only have yourself to blame. If someone else puts them up, that is an entirely different matter.
And there should be specific and harsh criminal penalties for using this idiot technology while driving, akin to the drink driving statutes. I was almost killed yesterday crossing a carpark when a woman in an SUV first pulled across my path to park in a firefighter access zone, barely missing me and blocking me from the sidewalk I had been aiming for, then, when I walked around her vehicle she abruptly reversed it for no apparent reason, hitting me. All she had working against her was the iPhone she was holding while driving and a black glass rear windshield. Add Googletat to this scenario and it gets super-dangerous for everyone not in the car.
There's no self-governor on stupid.
Well who knows what Google will end up doing with all the video? Who knows what the Google Glass wearer will do with it! I don't want to be stalked by google in the real world, its bad enough online!
Maybe the video functionality could have a decent use - when the users of google glass go blind maybe the camera can be directly connected to their brains to restore their vision or something!
I'm the father of the child you're photographing without my permission.
If you are doing something in a public space you have *no* right to expectation of privacy!
However I do agree that there should be stronger penalties applied to people using any "distracting technology" whilst in control of a vehicle. If you do something stupid which hurts you, that's your problem. If it hurts someone else, that's a legal problem.
Right, because *no* cameras should be allowed anywhere in public for fear that they might capture the image of a child...
It's not the cameras or people taking pictures of me in public places that I have a problem with. I accept that in any public place I may be photographed at any time and that goes with the territory. In fact I get very shitty with people who tell me I can't take pictures in a public place.
What I have a problem with is the face-recognition software Google and Facebook use behind the cameras. I have no say in the matter. My dear mother has plastered photos of me all over Facebook, including ones taken in my childhood that she's scanned in and posted, and so against my will and without my consent, Facebook has a complete record of my face from childhood to present day and can potentially recognise me every time I pass a camera connected to it.
With Google Glass, and Facebook/Google having that kind of information on people posted by third parties, every time I pass someone wearing these things, Google/Facebook's face recognition software kicks in and their system knows exactly where I am at that time. They can profile my movements and habits even without me posting anything of my own volition.
No, I have no problem with cameras and using them certainly shouldn't be made illegal. But use of face-recognition software without the express written consent of the person whose face is being analysed definitely should be.
Not quite totally against your consent. Your mother can't tag you without a Facebook account. Log into your account, go to all the photos your mother has tagged you in and remove them. Ask your mother to quit doing it.
Now upload a couple of dozen photos of random people. Tag them all as you.
There you go. Facebook now has no idea how you look.
What on earth are you doing with your daughter in public that you wouldn't want caught on camera?
Use this in the pub and it can be only a matter of time until we see the first "google glassing".
I can't figure it out. Does this make you safe from the weeping angels when wearing Google Glass? Or not?
Not safe, decidedly unsafe.
Remember, an image of an angel becomes an angel. For a given episode.
>> I've taken more pictures today than I have the past 5 days thanks to this.
And also thanks to his nervous tic.
I wonder if it's able to detect your pupil size and start filming when this suddenly changes, i.e. when something interesting happens?
Yes! That's exactly what I need... Autosnap a picture whenever an attractive woman walks by. I hope they have this implemented by the time Google Glass goes on sale publicly.
"Yes. Nudge nudge. Snap snap. Grin grin, wink wink, say no more?"
... the association of Winking and snapping... couldn't help thinking of ... Monty Python
Cos it has no idea what the other eye is doing, does it.
... seeing as we are being filmed by CCTV on an almost constant basis.
Although I agree that is already a bad situation, at least the CCTV images are not splattered all over the interwebs (unless they record you doing something particularly unusual, stupid or funny).
With Glass, those images and/or videos may well be posted "just" to that users archive, but if it's anything like Farcebook. his/her friends can see it and more likely friends of friends down however many degrees of separation is allowed. Not to mention the facial recognition that could well "tag" you in those images/videos.
you can't beat a good wink
or even 40
If enough people wear these things to a demonstration, the police are going to be in for a shock.
Some police already wear shoulder cams - protesters aren't always without guilt.
Some police already wear shoulder cams - protesters aren't always without guilt.
At least now there will be no argument about quis custodiet, etc... it can and should work both ways.
"Some police already wear shoulder cams - protesters aren't always without guilt."
And, unfortunately, nor are the police. I've no issue with bad guys being sanctioned, but ultimately I'm a big fan of transparency and the rule of law. I merely note a potential enabler to both 8).
I hope no one wears these things into a rest room!
With my tourettes, I will be taking a lot of photographs. On the positive side, I will be able to see what I miss.
All the pictures so far appear to show the main body of Google Glass over only one eye, so how can it tell the difference between a wink and a blink?
I would expect duration. a natural (non-deliberate) 'blink' is fractions of a second, where as using a 'wink' as a command could be over the course of a whole second, so that the camera that is monitoring the state of the eye is able to tell that it is completely closed, for more than 1 or 2 frames.
Then why hasn't anyone posted about this?
They are cheap -- about $35-75, depending on the capacity of the microSD card.
Yes, the temple pieces are large. However, mid-ear-length hair will cover them.
The best part is that they are not tied to the evil empire known as google.
erm maybe because Google glasses are not just frames with a forward facing camera on them, they beam images into your eye to give you a HUD as well.
I own a pair of camera glasses as I am a cyclist (in the summer) and they are quite good for filming shit car drivers and the like. However because of where the camera is mounted you still can't do discreet boob shooting as you would have to be staring at them. This usually results in trouble.
If you really wanted some discreet snaps then disassembling an 808 carfob camera and mounting it in something else (like the toe of some shoes/boots) should do the trick....
"...mounting it in something else (like the toe of some shoes/boots) should do the trick...."
Except that the first thing women look at when passing or assessing you is your shoes. For some arcane reason known only to the feminine mind, shoes maketh the man - or the woman. This is exactly why so many would-be toe-cam upskirters get busted.
Besides, if you want titty shots, your best bet would be a cam hidden in a baseball cap or other hat (Australian slouch hats are perfect for this! ;) ). Women rarely focus on the top of a man's head and the camera angle looking down from there is optimal for snapping cleavage!
How delighted women will be, knowing that blokes are winking their pics for personal use, for posting, for hilariously-captioning and posting. And not only women -- imagine how much those with disfigurements, those who just 'look funny', those caught with an odd expression on their faces, captured and posted for eternity. In the UK, we have the added joy of a removal of ownership from 'orphan' images (i.e. all of them), so all of the above can now look forward to being used somehow by companies to flog merchandise and services. Google: you are truly helping the world not to do evil.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds