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
Here's the thing - if you aren't going to use the data, then why collect it in the first place? Furthermore, Google's conduct in the Wi-Spy case is a form of trespassing, since they were going onto private networks that they had no authorization to be on. I find disturbing that you are trying to justify a major corporation collecting information on the private networks of individuals around the world, using it to improve their own products and make them more money without even once asking for permission or offering compensation. Which is sort of a reoccurring theme with Google - see Google Books for another great example.
And frankly, Wi-Spy isn't the most they've had to pay out to the US government. That honor goes to the half a billion (with a
Leave your wifi unlocked and you deserve what you get. Same for leaving your house or car unlocked. Yeah, stealing from it is still illegal, but it's equally your fault. Irresponsibility leads to great lessons.
And she shouldn't have worn that short skirt, right? Victim blaming is always wrong.
As is stealing. . .
"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
I didn't say anything about blame. I said you deserve what you get. You do something irresponsible or put yourself in a bad situation and yes, you deserve what happens. Blame is irrelevant. You put yourself in that position.
Again, she shouldn't have worn that short skirt, right?
Your position is victim blaming, it is bad, and you should feel bad for holding it.
You are literally engaging in victim blaming here. Please read the following and explain how it is different from what you wrote:
I didn't say anything about blame. I said you deserve what you get when you dress sexy. You dress in a way that is irresponsible or put yourself in a bad situation like a party with men and yes, you deserve to be raped by them. Blame is irrelevant. You put yourself in that position.
"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
This is not equivalent. Google would have to have actively tried to NOT collect data from your unencrypted network. They have no responsibility to do that. If you have an unencrypted network then you are effectively blazing your data out into space, meaning that any appropriate receiver will collect it.
This is not 'She shouldn't have worn that short skirt', this is 'She shouldn't have seduced that guy in order to cheat on her boyfriend, later regretted it, and sent her boyfriend over to beat the guy up"
Nope. Not enough accountability in the world. The planet is established. People are established. There is no grey area with how shitty people are. If you drive to a ghetto in a BMW then that car is going to be gone and I will feel no sympathy for you, REGARDLESS of how wrong the thieves are.
I'm well aware I'm nearly alone if not alone in my opinion. I do not care. People get away with far too much shit and just point the fingers elsewhere, and that's all this Glass shit is going to be. "I didn't say he could look at me in a wholly open, public area that I CHOSE TO GO TO. I demand justice!"
The hypothetical person that quote belongs to can fuck themselves.
If by "actively tried" you mean "not engaged in large scale wardriving", then I guess you're right.
So, in short, you're a moral scold.
If that's how you want to view it. I've far more reasons to be that way than the opposite. Please note I've never said that people deserve every single thing that happens to them. Just the things that they set themselves up for. The rape comparison everyone keeps using (must be the go-to) could have a myriad of different situations and in 99% of them my attitude would not be what it is in here. We're talking about Glass. Not rape.
Victim blaming is wrong. Period. Full stop.
And your justification for engaging in it is classic moral scolding. After all, people need to be held accountable for doing things that they should be allowed to do, right?
In a perfect world you are 100% right. Absolutely. But this is not perfect, and pieces of shit will remind you of that if you aren't careful. If you CHOOSE to not be careful then *I* will choose not be sympathetic. I do not care if you are, AH. That's your right. I'm not going to coddle every little loser that brought shit on themselves. Purely a difference in perspective and opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.
"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
If we're in public I don't care what you want. At all. Especially if I'm not impeding you in any way.
To be clear, "brought shit on themselves" in this context means walking outside in public and expecting to be seen by the people that you run into on the street, not recorded and placed in a searchable database that anyone in the world can look in. So the only person who would be entitled to the customary degree of anonymity currently enjoyed by pretty much every person in the world other than celebrities according to you is someone who changes their whole life to avoid situations where this may happen. If glass is successful, that basically means you can't leave the house without accepting that you will be recorded/broadcast. Do you not see what a fundamental shift that is?
"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
Of course I do. Have I said anything to seem otherwise? It's just a shift I welcome and can't wait for. Like I said a few pages back, in 100 years people are going to think it's utterly hilarious that people were concerned about Glass.
I think you would fall afoul of the same recording / wiretapping laws if you started putting microphones next to every pay phone. Even if the pay phone is in public.
There are places where people have an expectation of privacy. Or do you think it's defensible to put hidden cameras in every bathroom / changing room?
What's to stop it being used for blackmail or exploited by corrupt authorities?
You mean the same fitting rooms where people can merely take pictures with their phones through any number of cracks? No, it isn't defensible. A fitting room also isn't out in the middle of the public, either.
The payphone part I can't comment on as I honestly don't know enough about the laws around it, but I assume someone could stand behind you and record with their phone without issue? That's all Glass will allow.
Like everything else today? Exactly.
And I think that the reasons you've given for your eagerness are utterly terrifying.
You mean - nothing? And this doesn't concern you? Its bad enough as it is with wiretaps post- 9/11, this is going to make it much worse and with less accountability.
Google Glass: If You See Something, Say Upload Something
As SKFM has been pointing out, what tends to stop these things are cultural norms and the rule of law. The scary thing with Google is that they are looking to shift both in the direction that they want. And they're not above engaging in a little rabblerousing to get there - the anti-SOPA protest movement is a great example of that.
Off topic, SKFM and I are in agreement. The Apocalypse is nigh.
Most states require one or two party notification (or consent) to record phone calls.
I'm sure if you really dig into the law it's all nuanced and shit, but I'm pretty sure that standing behind someone and recording their phone call - by tape recorder, smart phone, or Glass - would fall on the 'not kosher' side of eavesdropping laws. At the very least, in some states. Evidence collected that way would probably be inadmissible too. Of course, IANAL and I think eavesdropping laws vary enough that there isn't any solid metric.
It may be different if it's a open pay phone vs. a phone booth...and I don't know how that would work with audio enhancement.
I would imagine that - in one party states - the person on the phone seeing you present with your Glass on, with the recording light shining, there would be a legitimate argument that they had notification / consent.
I don't think criminalizing the use of an antenna tuned into the unrestricted and unlicensed spectrum is a good idea. Otherwise, anyone with a phone set to "automatically connect to open networks" that went by those locations is also guilty
So, if you leave your house door open and unlocked, are you literally saying "c'mon in, use my house"? Seriously, it's not that hard to tell if a access point is intended for public use or not. I don't think it's all that hard to argue that wardriving (and let's call what Google was doing by its proper name) sits in a rather gray area legally.
In what way would it allow for this that a phone or button cam already doesn't?
Isn't this on a wider scale? Isn't it harder to notice to trace the Glass technology back to their owners?
Edit: if that's not what other posters meant, it's what I mean :P
paxprank.org | paxcommunity.net | Steam | XBL
If you leave your door open with a sign on it saying "free for use", sure!
If you just leave it unlocked, that's the equivalent of an unsecured hidden network, which these weren't. And the only way to distinguish someone who didn't secure their network vs a deliberatly public one is by looking at the ssid and guessing. But by the time you do that, it's too late really. You would have to go in with a whitelist of only known public networks
Or, y'know, you can start with the state that permission is denied except when explicitly granted and go from there. Which, amazingly enough, is how the rest of society works!
Wider sure. It's a new device and will probably be popular. How much wider would it actually be though?
Open networks are literally granting access to everyone
I wouldn't deny that it would add to it.
It's just that it kind of strikes me that it'd be throwing some rocks on to a mountain.
Once the software to effectively search video exists Glass users would be only an extremely small portion of those generating content.
I suppose the proper "moral" way to go about it would be to knock on the door and say "hey you're broadcasting an open network, can I use it?" but that public broadcast does raise a grey area in a way that even leaving a sign on your front door that says it's unlocked would not.
paxprank.org | paxcommunity.net | Steam | XBL