Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Privacy in the world of [Google Glass] and wearable computing . . . and wifi, apparently
Posts
I think people come up with these analogies because it's easier to conceptualize this issue in the context of something tangible (water, a locked door, a hamburger) rather than intangible (radiation, wifi particles, mind waves, etc.)
So let me counter your point with cupcakes.
Let's say we're neighbors. Let's say I enter a contest for a lifetime supply of cupcakes. I get a delivery of 200 cupcakes delivered to my doorstep every week.
These cupcakes are fresh and go bad in about a week. I go on vacation for a month. You know this.
The postman comes and leaves 200 cupcakes on my doorstep. You know they are just going to go bad.
I would say that even in that context there is no justification for you to take/eat my cupcakes. Maybe this is selfish but just because I have unlimited cupcakes and are not using them doesn't mean anyone else is entitled to them, even if they are sitting on my doorstep.
Also these particular cupcakes self destruct after a week so there is no danger of an ant or badger infestation so please don't say that you'll eat them as a public service.
I'd totally use my neighbor's leaves for my own mulch if they fell in to my yard.
So Google [air quote]accidentally[/air quote] comes across data that just happens to leave itself on the server?
So... that's even worse?
(My bad if you weren't even making an analogy)
So we have a situation in which not only does eating your cupcakes not harm you, not only does it not affect you in any way, but you won't even ever know?
If we change it so that the cupcakes are sitting somewhere where I don't need to walk onto your property to get at them, I think it's a pretty good analog. If we add in some way in which we can be 100% certain that you haven't gifted them to someone else, and that the choice really is between me eating them and them just ceasing to exist in a week, I'm not sure I understand why it's wrong. Basically, I think that taking something in that case is wrong because it might lead to harm, not in spite of the fact that it will definitely not lead to harm.
@DarkPrimus - Yes, a lot of people have data caps. That's beside the point. A reasonable response to "What about situations where it's not actually measurably harming the owner of the network" is not "There are cases in which it will harm the owner of the network."
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
We have quite a few large, data hungry companies but none of them are the data devourers that Google is. Their entire business model is collecting analytics and selling advertising. They've made nothing off Android but it has allowed their search proliferation (and in turn, advertising) to become absolutely dominant.
Lets also discuss the idea that Google is some benevolent corporation that totally gets people. In 2012 alone there were several incidents that changed my mind about the company to the point I don't even have a Gmail as a trash account. The fact is that they are an advertising company and they're pushing really hard to control a vast majority of where the data flows in the Internet. They are not any better than Oracle, Microsoft, Samsung, or Apple. In fact, judging on their recent escapades they may even be as bad as 1990's Microsoft.
Now they're developing a tool that will probably have targeted advertising as well as always on data gathering... not just about what you're doing, but what other people are doing, wearing, watching, etc. That technology fully exists already, and if you think the worlds largest advertiser is going to let Verizon just keep that in its cable boxes then I have a bridge to sell you.
It may sound like unwarranted paranoia but the simple fact is that advertising companies need analytics to function, and Google has the necessary stuff to collect that (which is why they are incredibly successful).
Sorry, but the whole concept is too full of privacy violation and has the potential for some extreme abuse that effects more than just the user.
Count me out in this.
Seriously this is just rocks on a mountain.
Because its easy for a camera to process this in your pocket.
You're already SOL on that front.
Connecting to a unsecured private network, because you and the company that have made the phone (and generally the routers) have assumed that all private networks have passwords isn't a virtuous act. But it's about as morally wrong as not holding the door open for someone who've you've not seen behind you, or overhearing a conversation as you walk by. This isn't a situation where the government needs to be involved. Especially when the obvious next stage to the google glass project is to increase the amount of freely available wifi in towns and cities provided as a public service so that this option is increasingly common and useful.
Stealing broadband is a different issue, which has to be tackled as a different issue, because the scope, intention and potential harm are completely different.
Is Verizon not a big cable company?
Verizon wireless doesn't offer unlimited. Verizon not wireless is very a much a "we will inspect your traffic and throttle you accordingly" setup.
I don't think anyone has been talking about that.
And if they had, my guess is legislation would be aimed at those people who sold phones or wrote software with auto-connect on it.
That's the alternative, unless we're just talking about etiquette. Not sure if something can even be rude if no one finds out and you didn't know.
Stuff like... an entire lunch conversation and you entire day?
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Smartphone proliferation makes it so there's always at least a camera on. If glass is used, then were talking about a significantly higher amount of cameras being used a significantly higher amount of time.
I assume that it'll be like Bluetooth headsets, and I see those pretty much never.
Note: I'm not talking about how many people with buy them, but how many people would wear them all the time, and not just when they use them. (Guess that also depends on how easy they are to attach/remove)
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I think we are in the "determining the morality" stage. the "how to legislate" stage is two or three steps into the future.
The first gen won't be seen as much. Its not going to really proliferate until other, less... ahem, dorky form factors are available.
If it becomes available in prescription glasses and/or sold in Oakley shades expect it to be everywhere. Whereas with headsets that was something people didn't wear prior to their invention, but glasses are something a huge amount of people wear constantly.
On a CSMA/CA network, you'd have to be a fortune teller or running a packet sniffer to know that you've done 0 harm.
Probably allows them to tout the open source idealism of "data should be free" so they don't have to pay for internet.
They're more like glasses though, which are worn all the time - if you've got a prescription version you're not going to want to keep switching between the two. Especially not with how easy sunglasses get lost and this thing is going to be iphone priced to start with.
I think there's an 'if' stage in there too. It could be considered rude to connect, but unless you then do something then there's a good chance that neither party knows about this. If they do know about it, it's because you've done something else (and pretty major, unless we're including trolls who are setting open wifi networks just to catch people it's unlikely someone's going to be able to moniter what's connected to their network but know nothing about basic security) - so perhaps that something else is what we should focus on rather than the connection.
My position is that a thing doesn't naturally default to public domain just because it isn't being used and taking it won't cause any harm.
That's my moral position at least. I don't begrudge you yours.
For the record, I'm not the kind of person who would let a lifetime supply of cupcakes go to waste. If I were your neighbor and had such a hookup and were going away, I would undoubtedly offer them to you in my stead. But I think it is my property to use or not use. It is literally mine to waste. It's not yours to take, even if it isn't being used.
My intention in discussing no-harm scenarios was to figure out exactly what moral principle was being violated by connecting to an unsecured private network, which is A) interesting to me, and
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Water runoff is like someone going through your garbage. You have discarded it. Who cares?
Unlimited data plans aren't really relevant since you are still paying for bandwidth and because you are still paying for that data anyway. That's why companies are switching to data caps, because the spread-the-cost-out model of "unlimited" data was getting pricey for them.
So an easy way to spot douchebags?
Because the cupcakes are not yours. Period, end of story. It doesn't matter where they get left, they are not your property and you have no right to them. Would the cupcake owner be a douche for letting the cupcakes go bad instead of putting out a sign saying to take one? Sure, but that doesn't change your right to take the cupcakes.
So in this specific situation, should the law be involved (or specifically created), or just a stern look and some tutting at both the cupcake owners and thieves?
Neither. I adhere to my own moral code even when other people are not watching. I don't mean to insinuate that you and others don't, but I'm really curious why you think the potential consequence or recourse of doing something is relevant.
If you don't think it's wrong to take the cupcakes, okay. I do think it's wrong, and I wouldn't take them, and it's not because I'm worried someone will see me or I'll be arrested but because I don't feel they belong to me.
Punishment is required for ethics?
Here I am being all moral like a sucker when I could've just been a douchecanoe the whole time!
Sure, everyone has a cell phone, but not everyone walks around setting it to record mode and pushing it in your face. You can tell if someone's cell phone is safely in their pocket, or if it is in their hands, pointed at you, ready to take a picture or recording.
With Google Glass, there's no way to tell if the person is recording you or not.
Anyone wearing a Google Glass had better not even glance at a police officer. Because of the terrorism.
If you're talking about the people in this thread, you're making a huge, and arbitrary, leap.
As I see it, the WiFi discussion has two topics.
1- Onus on people (either the owner and the user) in identifying whether the network is for public use.
2- The harm or lack thereof.
Nothing about "Free the data!"
From what I've seen, they're currently attachments that use your existing frames.
Kinda like clip-on sunglasses.
Having actual frames with expensive technology built in sounds like a pain to be honest.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I mentioned this earlier, but on the train there are tons of people with their phones in their hands.
You can't actually tell who's recording, or reading, or playing angry birds, or just holding it while they stare out the window.
I notice these thing because I'm paranoid people think I'm going to take a photo of them, so I make sure to hold my phone in a way to make that impossible.
Edit: One of the reasons for my paranoia on this btw, is that when my phone takes a screenshot, it makes the photo sound. And it takes screenshots very easily.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/Mort-ZA/
@MortNZ
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
. . . What if someone made a 'nude patch' app that worked on children and teenagers? What if people could take pictures of the resulting nude image and share and upload those pictures? Would that seriously not be a problem for anyone? Obviously that can happen now but you have a good chance of noticing if someone is trying to take a picture of you.
I am mostly on the same page. It's not so much that I believe I have a right to privacy while in public places, but I do think society still treats many public places as being anonymous. The chances of you being seen/identified/recorded if you are trying not to be is relatively small. Proliferation of smart phones makes it slightly higher, but still relatively small. Proliferation of always on recording devices on everyone's face would drastically change things. I don't think it's currently illegal or against any moral code, but it isn't really a world I want to live in. Given that I can see the impetus to want to create legislation to mitigate the impact on individual behavior.
It is impossible to use a google glass without pointing it at someone, unless you walk through life staring down at your shoelaces. That's kind of the whole point of google glass.
I can be surrounded by people with cell phones but I can tell none of them are holding them up and recording me. In that same train, if everyone had google glass, if anyone glanced at you you'd think "is he recording me? Did that perv just take a picture of me?"
People have already cracked the built in safeguards where it makes a sound or requires you to say something to get google glass to take a picture and now it can be very unobtrusively activated, as absolutely everyone foresaw would be the case.
Now you might say "Well we have no expectation of privacy in the public sphere anyway so this is just a tiny step" but I can totally see why all these private venues are banning it. And I think it does represent a real step towards invading privacy that cell phones do not.
I mean, but your own account, you adjust your behavior to signal to people around you "I'm a considerate guy who is not being an asshole and secretly taking pictures of you". There is NO WAY to do this with google glass- unless you just studiously avoid looking at anyone ever. And then even if you ARE looking at someone, engaged in a conversation with them, you can be quietly looking up stuff instead of paying attention to them.
Given that one of the stated reasons for google glass is 'oh it was so emasculating to have to look away from the person I was talking to to look at my cell phone' I feel like google glass is actually pushing us in a more potentially hostile, anti-social situation. I mean, now, growling "What are YOU looking at" instead of just being a surly anti-social statement can actually be a valid complaint.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson