My thoughts on wearing Google Glass

[G+_Stephen Styffe]

My thoughts on wearing Google Glass 

 

I just couldn't help but side with Leo on this week's TWiG. I think Jeff is great, and most of the time he is spot on, but I think his defense of someone's right to wear Glass was taken to an extreme. No one has a right to wear Glass, really. Technically, they may have a right, but that does not protect from someone else asking you to take off Glass and or complaining about the fact that you have Glass on in certain circumstances, example discussed was a public bathroom, in which a Glass user really should just take them off or put them on their head. What is the true inconvenience to the Glass user? 

I personally would rather keep the peace with people and just be sensitive to how others feel about Glass or any other similar device, and I'd rather take it off to avoid being a jerk than to simply say, "Well, it's my right to wear Glass in public and we are in a public bathroom." That would be a very trollish argument and really ignores how other people feel about it. 

The argument simply comes down to the principle of courtesy. It's all about being sensitive to the fact that there are some situations in which other people might feel uncomfortable about the fact that you are wearing a camera on your head.

 

It's simple courtesy. That's all. And I believe that Jeff took it personally when Leo suggested that Glass shouldn't be worn in every situation. I don't think Leo was crazy for suggesting that. 

I just wanted to add my two cents to the issue.

[G+_Carl Green]

It is my right to wear a spangled leotard into a public washroom. It may not be a great idea. Regardless, I would not expect DHS agents to come in there and forcibly remove it before interrogating me, as happened in a well-publicized cinema recently. There will always be people that stand outside conventional behaviour, from hippies through punks to Justin Bieber fans. They have the right not to cut their hair, or remove piercings or to be forcibly thrown into a lake. I agree with the courtesy argument, but this really IS about civil liberties. No laws are being broken by those that wear Glass, any more than they are by commuting cell phone users. Annoying? Hell yes. But legal. Nobody has the right to forcibly remove piercings, and nobody has the right to forcibly remove Glass. Unfortunately, it is also illegal to throw Justin Bieber fans into lakes, though I am thinking of starting a petition. That is my position. :)

[G+_Stephen Styffe]

Carl Green I will say that the law enforcement's reaction to the guy wearing Glass in the theater was really too strong. And yes, no one can force you to take off Glass in public. That much I agree with, but once we get away from that example and talk about Glass in other settings, I think that it's best if people are considerate when wearing Glass.

[G+_Joe Phelps]

Carl Green you are wrong. It's against the law to record movies. Glass equals camcorder in that situation.

[G+_Steve Stewart]

The movie goer was not recording the movie and his wearing off Glass was no different than everyone else in the theater having a cell phone that is equally or more capable of recording the movie.

[G+_Joe Phelps]

Steve Stewart no it's not. With glass or a camcorder, the camera is pointed at the screen. A phone is not an issue til it's pointed at the screen.

[G+_Stephen Styffe]

Steve Stewart Joe Phelps  He only recorded the ending (like the movie credits), but he technically was still breaking the law, so the circumstance still brings up the issue of the legality of using Google Glass on private property. 

[G+_Joe Phelps]

Steven Styffe that is not the issue here. It is AGAINST THE LAW TO RECORD MOVIES IN A THEATER. That is the circumstance here. If you point a video recording device at a movie screen, you will get hassled by law enforcement. It's very simple.

[G+_Stephen Styffe]

Joe Phelps Yes, but did you listen to TWiG? They specifically said that it was only the ending credits. He did not record any part of the actual movie. The issue really is indeed the matter of using Google Glass in a public place that is privately owned (like a movie theater), in which the owner of the place has an interest in making sure no one uses devices like Glass to capture video. This has nothing to do with recording movies. The whole point that TWiG brought up was the issue of using Google Glass out in public. I don't believe that law enforcement acted appropriately, but the issue at hand has nothing to do with law, but more to do with conduct and use of Glass in public.

[G+_Joe Phelps]

Steven Styffe Yes, I watched TWiG. The report said he recorded nothing but he was wearing Glass because they were (it was) his prescription glasses. It's not the theater owner but the MPAA and  the feds that control this matter. The very specific issue was that this guy was pointing a recording device at a movie screen and was questioned by law enforcement. You have no idea what the true interrogation situation was. No one does except for the people that were there. Extrapolating this to anything else is irrelevant. Pointing a video recording device at a move theater screen will get you questioned by law enforcement.

[G+_Zulhaimi Abdul Hamid]

I agree with Leo too. There needs to be some social etiquette developed. Not sure how long it will take. We still haven't successfully resolved etiquette for smartphone cameras (and now 10 inch tablets too, ugh). Let alone the inappropriate checking of blackberry emails during meetings and luncheons.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Listening to TWiG, and mentioned here, there are a number of issues that I can see.

 

Firstly, the actual case involved. I think this is a more open and shut case than using Google Glass in general. You cannot record a film (or point a recording device) at the screen. So, whether the man in question was treated poorly, the cinema was well in their rights to ask him to not use a recording device.

 

Secondly, I agree with Leo, that there should be social conventions to using Glass. I also think people constantly checking their phones is rude - it says you're less important than what is going on in the real world - although I don't think there are laws against rudeness. However, Jeff's argument is that just because you can record something, doesn't mean that they are actually recording. That is saying someone is guilty by just having Glass. It's similar to gun law advocates - just because some people use guns for bad reasons, what about all those lawful users of guns, should they be allowed to have them?

 

Thirdly, the argument that Google Glass can only record for 5 minutes before the batteries run out is just stupid, as this will obviously improve over time.

 

Finally, I have another privacy issue which is a bit more vague. However, Jeff always mentions 'expectation of privacy', and says as soon as you step out of your house you cannot expect it. However, I feel there is a slight modification to this. When I go to the shops, I expect anybody who is physically there can see me. However, if I do something stupid, I do not expect it to be caught on camera, and on Youtube. I am not broadcasting myself to the whole world when I go out. Only to those people physically there. I feel there is a difference here that this issue of privacy is not binary - you either have it or you don't.

[G+_Peter Elst]

I think Jeff and Leo were coming from a different angle - legal rights versus social convention and being pragmatic.

 

Glass is just a first device where this is coming to the front and it will take some years to work out. How will we deal with a world were we have contact lenses or eventually even implants that potentially allow us to keep recordings of our day. Its an interesting world we shouldn't necessarily be scared of but its good to be aware and help shape the way society deals with this.

[G+_Carl Green]

Here is an inflammatory thought: It is legal to own a gun. It is illegal to point it at someone. Social conventions are in place to discourage firearm use in public places. Interesting comparison with Glass. Hmm.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

I'm not sure what has happened here. I had a another comment on this post, explaining my gun comment, answering another user, and...it's disappeared. I wasn't comparing Glass with a gun, I was trying to say that it's innocent until proven guilty in some cases, and not in others. I also said in that comment that that whole debate is different subject altogther.

 

Peter Elst  This is very important distinction. My initial reaction though is that relating to technology and the collection of data we should err on the side of caution, as it will be almost impossible to delete any errors we make regarding privacy.