For Discussion 1, please have a conversation about the first Writing prompt, repeated below. This will help inform your Writing ideas in advance of the first deadline.
In the case of Google Glass, must we press ahead? Or should limitations be established—be they by government, by common agreement, or otherwise—that constrain this technology, in response to some of the concerns raised by the readings?
Discussion 1 takes place below. Erin Gordon will take up this conversation in class on February 2. Discussion 1 will officially close on February 9, but it will be most useful if you share your thoughts as soon as possible.
Google Glass could help people to contribute but also could destroy this society. We need some ways to avoid its bad and do more and more to help ourself.
Hi Jiahua,
I agree that Google Glasses can contribute well to our society. As displayed in the promotional video, it is possible to have it document important life events and adventures. If people were to use Google Glasses to document their travels, other people are able to live vicariously through their video.
I can also see how Google Glasses can harm society. Focusing too much on technology prevents us from living and enjoying life in the moment. I feel that with Google Glasses, it could very easily distract the user and put them at higher risk of injury or accident.
Google Glass has its unique points toward the human life which is it offer people an opportunity to record the pictures and videos at any time, but on the other hand, it limits people to keep wearing it. Because of the connivence of it, people would rely on it, which is kind of make a trap to the people. In order to share information with others immediately, Google Glass would become necessary, but it also acts like a trap.
I agree with you. Google glass is a type of reflection of advanced technology, which makes people life more convienient. But people will rely on it, then lose themselves. For example, they might rely on the management that google glasses, but our life should be managed by ourselves, not technology.
In my opinion, every new device or technology has a timeline. Google glass was launched to a lukewarm response, so much so that Google had to stop its production. But, we must not forget that even though production was stopped, it’s development is still on. I believe that we must press ahead – Google glass is a bankable technology. As discussed in lecture, Google Glass’s use in various professions has proven to be extremely beneficial. This technology is being used in the field of medicine amongst others. The article for the week mentions how use of wearable cameras by police officers has greatly reduced complaints against the police force and has also kept police brutality in check. Regulation is the key to Google Glass’s integration in our everyday life. In case any objectionable content is published or distributed complaints must be filed. On scrutiny if the user is found to be at fault then the content must be erased like it’s done on social media.
I agree with you that every new device or technology has a timeline, since technology keeps constantly improving. Also, Google Glass should press ahead, because the current trends of technology would not give much room for Google Glass to be trendy.
I really like the point of view of pushing forward it’s different and gives interesting ideas on regulation of new technologies. Do you think that regulation would be hard if technology keeps advancing faster than we can regulate.
Here is a link I want to share! A VR shopping device, Buy+, which means buying a lot in Chinese, for Taobao. I think it is interesting, and Google Glass can pretty think about that way to promote their device.
An important feature that these sort of AR technology can provide in order to remove the fears of spying that the general populace might have is to give a certain level of transparency to people whenever the user is using said technology. For example, we can look at the SnapChat Spectacles that was recently released to market. These eyeglasses provide the same functionality as Google Glass in that it lets the user wirelessly record videos through a pair of eyeglasses. However, these eyeglasses have a little spinning LED light in the corner of the eye wear whenever it is currently recording. This gives a warning to everyone around that who ever wearing the glasses is actually recording the moment, providing more transparency to the user’s action than what the Google Glass ever provided.
So instead of giving control of these aspects to higher level entities like the government or corporations, we can instead provide more user mechanisms that give control instead to the consumer to moderate the sort of data that is being collected.
Well, from what I understood, and the reviews I saw regarding Google Glass, they user has to tilt their head back; and then say something along the lines of “take a picture” “record a video.” The problem would then switch to looking at hacks. This was mentioned in The People’s Panoptican, hackers and hobbyist were messing with the software, and Google Glass would allow them to take pictures with simply a wink. So as you said, we can attempt to make diminish the fear of spying by offers a level of transparency–but we would have to do it a way that makes it very hard for the system to be hacked. If we don’t we will return to the same problem.
Even with SnapChat Spectacles–there have been people covering the light that shows you are recording–we would have had to find a way where we could make it obvious that the glasses were in use–but do it in a way that can’t easily be tampered.
I believe Google Glass should be pressed ahead based on its unlimited potentials, but at the same time, the government must establish certain limitations to eliminate public concerns about this technology. The privacy issue is something people worry about the most, in which I think the government really should try to restrict. I had read a piece of news before about fingerprint theft. Researchers at Japan’s National Institute of Informatics point out that a lot of people today tend to show certain gestures, such as the “peace” sign when having their pictures taken, which is very dangerous because the fingerprint data can be stolen. In today’s society, our fingerprints are commonly used as an identity verification in things like smartphone, laptop and even entry to certain buildings. So, if one’s fingerprints is stolen, he or she’s personal information may be leaked. Except for that, Google Glass can be very useful in specific areas, such as medical fields, outdoor activities, customer service departments etc. The thing I feel like is Google Company is just trying to sell its product and fails to realize that “Google Glass is nothing other than a smartphone.” If the company can put more effort in developing Google Glass to cater to specific needs in certain areas, I believe it will be a great success.
Yes, I agree with you Wei Zhao. The high technology device has two sides that apply to the normal life. Though it can make our life become easily, we should establish the limitations to these technology devices.
Hi Wei,
I am actually quite surprised that thieves are able to capture our fingerprint just by looking at a photo of us! This makes me more cautious the next time I take a photo. With that said, I completely agree that there should be some government regulations to protect users of privacy and other people’s privacy. I feel that Google as a company has done a good job maintaining their users privacy but not much of preventing invasion of privacy. If Google Glasses were to press on, I would like to see how Google plans to prevent invasion of privacy.
Hi Wei,
I agree with you. I also think that we need to press ahead the Google Glass, for the reason that it can make our life convenient, and make limitations on that , for the reason to be safe for human.
Google Glass is a project I believe should be continued to be pressed on ahead as its pros highly outweigh the cons ahead of them. As stated in “The People’s Panopticon”, Google Glass can be highly beneficial to those who cannot operate phones or other devices normally as most people due such as those with quadriplegia. In addition to being useful to those with disabilities, it can be highly resourceful and informative to those in the professional field such as doctors, business men and women, teachers, and etc. as they can use the product as a device to not only communicate but take that level of communication to a higher level as it promotes methods of sharing information and data with one another. This allows a heightened level of engagement that ties technology with face to face conversations. Obviously, people will be reluctant to try new products, and there will be those who argue against such devices, but those issues occur with almost every piece of technology nowadays and take time to get used to. As described in “Glass, Darkly”, there are 3 different reaction phases when it comes to people and age groups, those who are willing to try new things, those who are “Ok” with the new product, and those who resist new technology as it becomes overwhelming. These phases occur in every generation and all Google Glass really needs, is some getting used to.
Google Glass is a piece of technology that offers the potential to greatly enhance our lives with it’s capabilities that goes far beyond that of the smartphones we have today. It brings up the issues of decreased privacy and and a deeper immersion of technology and the real world. However, these are issues that are already present today, just on a lesser scale. People are engrossed in their smartphones and with a camera in every hand, privacy is simply out the window. Google Glass will not exacerbate these problems as much as they are already now and, in addition, will offer better features than what we have in our smartphones.
I like your point on privacy in its current state in the US. Reading the articles, I learned that several other countries already have laws or regulations on certain aspects of privacy, such as all devices making a noise when taking a picture in Japan. Beyond that, just in general we as people have been desensitized to having privacy in any sense of the word. Nowadays, you can look anyone up on the internet and find their address or phone number. I would agree that for the most part, Glass or a similar technology would not decrease our privacy in a significant amount.
I agree that we’ve been desensitized to having privacy in any sense of the world, because of the fact that we can look up anyone and their information on the internet. However, I would think that because our privacy will gradually decrease with the increase on Glass technology, companies will accommodate our needs and create some sort of restriction like they’ve always have. For example, Facebook still has options to private photos so that you can can choose who you want to see them. So I agree, we won’t experience any significant change in our privacy.
I would have to agree with you and say that we can reach a greater potential and better our lives with innovative pieces of technology. If we push technology and support it, we can reach things we could have never imagined. Although the issues with technology raise privacy difficulties, it is already something that exists right now. With hackers we are all in danger of our privacy. Also, if we do not support something because of the issues you have with it, then simply don’t purchase it and stay away from it.
In the case of Google Glass, I think that we should press on. There are many possibilities for abuse when it comes to a technology such as this, but I think that is to be expected with any new technology. If we let the few abusive people moderate every piece of new technology, we would never get anywhere. I believe that Glass is something that can resemble our future, and addressing the abusive possibilities while continuing to work and improve the technology is the best way to go. There is also the whole thing about the possibility of abuse by the government. However, with this comes a whole set positive uses by the government (such as helping identify criminals) that could outweigh the abusive possibilities. I think that we have to take the bad with the good when it comes to Glass, because it is something that I think can greatly improve our lives if we let it.
You offer some interesting points, but I have to disagree with you about pressing on. I think the abusive possibilities of the Glass far outweigh the benefits that it presents. Identifying criminals is quite certainly a benefit but the increased invasion of privacy means that criminals or hackers will have an easier time achieving their nefarious goals.
Yes, I agree with you. If set the limitation about these new technology devices. We will never get the higher level of the technology. We should encourage the new technologies and we can take the bad with the good after.
In terms of government limitations on the Google Glass, it could revolutionize the way our laws deal with things that we see. Should you be able to watch a movie while wearing Google Glass? If your eyes can see it once, why not again? I don’t see how, at a fundamental level, the rules should be any different for google glass then they are for video recording with more traditional equipment.
The main change is that we are entering an era when everyone can record what they see without being obvious about it. It’s like now, when you see someone looking at their phone with it pointed at an unusual angle, it probably crosses your mind that they might be filming. Five years from now, you will think this same thought about anyone wearing glasses. Twenty years down the road, maybe implants will bring us to the point where we suspect anyone looking at us might be filming imitated in Black Mirror. I think eventually we just have to live under the assumption that if you are in public, then you might be being recorded, and act accordingly. Privacy will be less of a thing.
I completely agree with your post. The idea of privacy being diminished would not surprise me at all in the future. Like you mentioned our laws in regards to technology and recording will change greatly if we move forward with Google Glass. The idea of an implant also does not seem that crazy who knows what will truly happen to our privacy in the future.
I agree with your post, and I agree that privacy will diminish in the future with inventions like Google Glass. Therefore the government should put limitations on technology like Google Glass to be only used in professional fields (medical, police force, etc). I do not think it should be allowed to the public and I do not think the public necessarily need Google Glass. Besides its “newness”, Google Glass functions similarly to the smartphones we already possess. I do not think its efficient to pursue further research/development into Google Glass. Also further research/development could lead to technology like Google Glass becoming a “necessity” (like our smartphone) in our lives which will diminish out privacy.
I do agree with your statement that a sense of privacy will diminish if they continue to develop Google Glass, however, I’m not certain to what extent it will diminish and even if it will even be significant enough to matter. I definitely think that professionals should have access to this technology as it could have a revolutionary impact in the fields of medicine and law but I do think that the public should have access to Google Glass as well. You stated that we already have smartphones and that these are similar so I’m not so certain as to why we shouldn’t proceed. We have a ton of things that are similar to each other (smartphones and iPads/tablets are essentially just smaller versions of computers and laptops) but it’s the little differences that make them worth having most, if not all of them. Not only that but they offer room for technological advancement, which is what Glass would do.
If there are any limitations placed on it, I don’t think the government should be the one to impose them. I think that it should more of a social contract (e.g. how we usually don’t take photos of strangers without their permission). Also, we don’t have government restrictions on smartphones which we have established are fairly similar to Glass.
It is similar to my ideas that government should put limitation because of privacy.
I believe the government should establish limits on this technology because it will bring a lot more harm than good. People’s privacy will be at stake when random people can take videos or pictures of anyone at any time just by looking in a direction. This could make anyone uncomfortable and paranoid while someone is wearing Google Glass or if we get to the point where almost everyone wears one. Another issue is people’s Google Glass being hacked and important/private information could be leaked since Google Glass would be connected to the Internet. Lastly, with we go too far with this technology then we could eventually lead to the world in Black Mirror Ep. 3, which would make everyone dependent on this technology, and make some people obsessive over it. Although Google Glass has benefits like for people in the Medical Industry, more harmful things may come from it than good. Why would we need to have something in which our phones can already do and more?
For the case of Google Glass, I think that Google should push forward, but ask the public through surveys and tests of prototypes to see what they want because the item is so expensive and has the potential to do many good things in terms of improving healthcare, other workplaces, and just every day life in general for consumers. Those who argue that the technology isn’t there yet at an affordable cost are the same as those who argued that high tech phones (iPhone in particular) would be an expensive luxury and only used by an excluded percentage of the population. Nowadays almost everyone has something similar. With proper funding, support, and encouragement from the public and government a technology like Glass could be pushed at an affordable cost and there should be some guarantee that it’s worth the cost.
I believe that we should press foward. I think Google Glass has potentials and will be able to transform the world, especially the healthcare industry. According to the article from The Economist, Google Glass can be useful in “medicine and the care of elderly.” With Google Glass, Alzheimer’s patients can regularly review their lives by looking at the videos recorded by Google Glass, which makes them remember better. I am aware of the privacy concern after reading the two articles. However I think that this concern is irrelevant considering how little privacy we have nowadays due to our smart devices. Everything we post on the internet and social medias such as Facebook, Twitter are potential targets of hackers. As a result, I think that privacy concerns are not justifiable reasons for not pressing foward.
I agree with what Loc said; I too believe we should press forward with Google Glass. The Google Glass spans many applications, be it for personal or professional uses and treatments. Technology is growing at a rapid pace, and we as a nation would only hinder ourselves from advancing even further if we placed restrictions onto our engineers. Yes, Google Glass does bring up privacy concerns and safety considerations, and as Loc said, much of our information is already out there on the web and hence a weak argument for the termination of the Glass development. But, there’s also the issue of privacy concerns regarding obscure video recordings with the Google Glass’s built-in camera. With the camera, people can easily and subtly commit crimes of identity theft (ex: you’re a waiter, you receive a customer’s credit card, and you record the number ever so slyly) and take “creep shots” of women and children without consent. This one’s a tough dilemma in my opinion that can’t be easily resolved. I’m still for the development of Google Glass, but to handle this issue on a large-scale throughout the nation would be impractical to carry out. Stopping the development of Google Glass is fruitless since people who intend to invade people’s privacy with the Google Glass probably would’ve done so anyway through other means. A crook will always find a way to commit wrongful deeds, so we shouldn’t obstruct the technology world’s advancement for those reasons.
Hey Loc,
I agree with you that we should press ahead because of the medical advancements google glass could provide. Along with helping Alzheimer’s patients, google glass could be useful in helping surgeons record breakthrough surgeries. Google glass would conveniently be able to record the procedure step by step through the viewpoint of the surgeon. In addition, glass could help doctors “see” patients. Being able to easily assess patients without having to physically be there would greatly benefit the army especially, who may be lacking in doctors out on the field. Doctors would be able to provide walk-through procedures, which would be beneficial and convenient for the patient and doctor. In terms of privacy issues, I agree that we do not have much privacy nowadays. Along with that, I think if google glass were to have facial recognition, this could benefit women as they’d be able to spot predators. Although there is a downside to having facial recognition, our privacy, like you mentioned, has already been breached through smart device use. As a result, I think the benefits of google glass outweigh the cons, and thus, we should press ahead with the development of the device.
I believe we should push on with the google glasses but there should always be limitations to this type of device because of the high potential for danger or immoral activities. We are currently in the most technologically advanced era which is why we should continue using such a device so that we will find flaws and improvements. This device will only get better over time as seen with the continued usage of phones. The advancement of phones has went from those flip phones to these much more advanced smartphones in just less than 10 years. Some problems I see with this device is a major violation to privacy because of the camera feature and this usage might affect the eyes negatively, but these drawbacks can be relieved with laws and surgical operations. I hope that in the future that this device will increase in popularity so that prices will hopefully go down to make it affordable for me to buy it in the future
I believe that this project should be released to the public, except that limitations should be made in order to ensure the safetey of everones privacy. It is acceptable to say that this project is in its early stage and has much work to be done before it is fully released to the public. Because, I believe that the major flaw is in fact the camera capability, I believe it should be adjusted to a point where taking a picture creates some sort of gesture that lets those know that a photo is being taken and therefore does not make this action so discrete. Aside from things like this the product is also going to need time to become a norm. So even if it does succeed, its going to be something new to humanity and its obviously going to seem wierd, exciting, etc. However, after this technology becomes a norm, I think that things should flow smoothly.
Google Glass’s technology should not be hampered and instead, it should be allowed to develop. Although the google glass did not turn out to be what we had expected, the features and functions that were shown in the trailer, it is still a tool that will continue to be refined. Although once the google glass achieves it full potential, there may need to be some restrictions regarding its usage; however, as of now, it should be allowed to grow.
I agree that Google Glass shouldn’t be discontinued. There’s too much potential within their product. Just because Google Glass hasn’t reached the vision that Google dreamed up there’s no reason to throw it away. It way not be beneficial for public use yet, but it surely could be used in professional occupations where Google Glass would be able to be more controlled.
I’ve read here and there that most people would be ok with the idea that google glasses being used in the professional setting and I agree. I feel that the technology that could advance from google glasses would be a beneficial one in the future in many different scenarios. Trying to stop an invention, or an idea that could possibly create other better ideas or invention seems like a waste. Personally, I’m not really hooked on my phone, besides texting my parents, going on youtube and having an alarm clock. But for other people, I know that they can become addicted to their phones. It’s social issues like that, that make me feel like intrusive technology need certain limitations, either social or legal.
Hey Sam!
I also think that the idea from the google glasses which produces an advance technology will be definitely beneficial. It also offers wearable photographic and video applications by having the user put them on like ordinary glasses. However, there still is questions being raised about the threat that the it poses by intruding on people’s private moments as well as its susceptibility to abouse and hack that could endanger both individual privacy and public safety.
I am surprised no one mention Sony’s video recording contact lenses and Tesla car’s technology (no driver, touch-screen windows). Well these are basically the descendant of Google Glass, just like how Google Glass is the descendant of the ideas of recording without hands. The point is there are always advantage and disadvantage sides of these technology advances (and I even believe that the government already have possession of these technology, and it had just not make common for normal people like us yet, because we don’t benefit much from personal use of it, yet). We tried to press down technology advances because we are afraid of the unknown, the unexpected results of these new technology, don’t know how to respond to it. It is just human nature, we just have to try to surpass that.
In conclusion, we should not try to limit our growth and advancement, nor push it too far ahead without the right resources to build it. We should just let technology advances make progress naturally.
As you mentioned above, all the technologies’s purpose is to create efficiency and simplicity. Not having to use your hands to record allows you to do other things with them. There should not be a limit to technology because technology is created to help people rather than hurt them.
@Carl Chan Commenting on your last sentence there, I think technology was created to replace human labor, we just haven’t accepted that fact completely.
I agree. I think the Google Glass should be celebrated rather than feared. There are many pros to the Google Glass that are treated to enhance our lives such as providing a true “hands-free” experience and allows us to be more socially connected aside from the smartphones, laptop computers, etc.
Hi Carl,
I see where you are coming from, but I think it is worth mentioning that while it allows you to be hands free, it also has the possibility to take up the users undivided attention. Google Glasses has the potential to seriously harm the user if they are not aware of their surround. Take a look at Pokémon Go, when it first came out, an increase in car accidents occurred because people were using it as they were driving, walking, biking, and not paying attention to their surround No. I feel that this exact thing will happen to Google Glasses if their is not some limitation applied.
Thank you for mentioning Sony’s video recording contact lenses, because I thought that was something I just made up in my head or briefly saw an ad for. Anyways, yes I think you’re right that the two examples you mentioned are branches off of Glass and that the essence and main components of Glass are still being developed just in other devices or even possibly the government. When having to answer should we let technology progress forward naturally, I think the answer by default is yes because technology seems to move forward really regardless of what the majority says because someone somewhere is furthering technology (even the government is probably hiding things are you mentioned) without permission.
“Glass, Darkly” mentions a quote about society eager to own the next best thing because they believe that possessing the product would transform our lives in some way.
“virtues and perils of early adoption, an allegory of consumerist
anxiety and desire, and a prism through which to comprehend the
contemporary faith in the transformative power of commercial
products.”
When I saw the ad for Sony’s contact lenses I automatically thought of Google Glass too. It has the same concept as “the Grain” from the episode of Black Mirror we watched in class. While I do agree that we should let technology progress naturally, we should still think about issues that may stump the growth of the said technology. The episode of Black Mirror shows a lot of the issues that these innovations can have.
I completely agree with your statements. I didn’t even know Sony had recording contact lenses but that is neither here nor there.
There are definitely pros and cons to not just technology but literally almost everything in society. I think by allowing technology to progress naturally and without shutting it down before it is even really used we should let it see what it will do. That’s the only way we can know what was unknown and if the technology turns out to be something truly horrendous, we can always stop using it. Or rather, those who make it can very easily stop manufacturing it, selling it, and updating the software.
Also, we are not at stage where robots or Google Glass or our smartphones will rebel against us and annihilate the human race. It is not the technology that we even have to worry about, it is the consumers that people who are against Glass are concerned about. I think we have a much bigger problem to worry about in terms of humanity just due to the simple fact that people are so afraid about what other people will do with the technology.
Google glass could be the most intimate device ever invented given the fact that it is a set of eyes that can record everything a person sees. It is connected to the user both in the technical world and the real world. It is no doubt a masterpiece, but everything that it shows has a potential of being exposed to others. Therefore, it is not suitable for everyday use as it leads to violation of privacy in many cases.
Google Glass technology appears to be in the early stages of what is soon to be an inevitable reality. Since the 1980s, virtual retinal display has been making progress, and Google Glass was the first big attempt at making such eyewear technologies available to the masses. As proven through the beta release, the functionality seems to be at the antithesis of what we hope to accomplish with technologies like these. Google Glass only succeeds if it actually proves to make life easier and more efficient for the user. Up to this point, it has accomplished singling out the user and making them look like a eager futurist who is too wrapped up in being online that they cannot interact solely with their physical environment. Not only do glasses visually distinguish those who use them out of regular society, but it also play on the fears that people have when it comes to constant surveillance. Not everyone wants to be like Stewart, the “transparent man,” most of us want to feel confident that there are not incriminating photos of ourselves floating in online forums. What opponents of Google Glass don’t take into consideration is that those negative aspects of technology exist regardless of the evolution of the device it occurs on. People continue to do the same functions on their regular smartphones that they could have done with Google Glasses. It is only a matter of time before devices that incorporate virtual retinal display, which involves lasers that create a large sharp image within the users retina, rather than the small display in the corner of a pair of glasses, are developed for mass consumption to make what we already do on our smartphone devices easier to do in a wearable device.
Most of the time, it is impossible it retract a technology when it is released. However, if Google Glass isn’t developed further, we may be able to analyze its consequences further. Today, Google Glass seems like the next step in integrating our human experience with technology but it is important to understand its downfalls. Due to the distraction of its interface, dehumanization of the user, and privacy issues, it is important for the government to limit the use of such technology. Since Google Glass is the “Model T” according to Gottfried, the technology will only become more refine which could lead to more features that engulf our daily lives. Do we really want technology to take over our lives even more?
Hello Aj,
The idea that once a seemingly new technology is released it is hard to retract is how we see society today. Society, once exposed to new technology, is intrigued and only expects more out of the company creating it. In modern day it is very difficult to abandon a project that has caught the eyes of so many people. As Samuel C. Florman said” in the face of technological change, we have no choice but to press ahead.” New technological changes exposed to the public will only yield the desire for that certain technology to advance.
I do not know. I do not remember.
Memories are fragile. They can be manipulated or simply, outright forgotten. Google glass presents a possibility where the weaknesses of the human memory can be circumvented. It’s powerful. Such degree of truth and reflection can strip a person down. However, it should not be feared. This is the next step to even greater advancement for human kind. The initial application of this technology fell flat on its face. With every failure comes the possibility of an even greater triumph. If privacy was the sole concern, then people need to wake up. Privacy is an illusion. Unless one lives in solitude, someone is always watching. Cameras are everywhere in buildings, streets, even in pockets. All those unread terms and conditions contracts people sign up for to create an account or any sort of transaction, has given them permission to collect and collate information to develop a profile that tells the company who someone is without asking any questions. Sure, this technology gives people the ability to record someone without consent. This is only an advantageous position if it is a power given to a few. Devote time and energy in helping this technology to prosper. Imagine if for every failure on a project, a researcher would simply watch a playback of their actions to find the cause for failure and immediately look for ways to rectify the mistake. Imagine being a defendant and the prosecution calls a witness, but the witness says some false and damning “evidence” that leads to a guilty verdict. According to an article in The Economist, “The availability of a tamper-proof record often sorts out disputes before they escalate, expensively, into lawsuits”. Perceived privacy is a small price to pay in the scope what a developed version of this technology could mean to the world. Lives would be change. Not only that, but the quality of life would also change. It would serve as filter against the gray areas of society. Technology is already at our fingertips, why not incorporate on how we simply view the world.
I know. I remember.
I never thought of this perspective. I took a different stance at whether if Google Glass should be pressed ahead or be limited, but I agree with you that human’s memory is weak and that Google Glass is a great option for us to “see” this world.
The Google Glass, though it has its setbacks, it most definitely paves the way for better technology and opens the future for endless possibilities. Pressing forward, though it may seem like a bad idea due to all the privacy issues brought about from things like the Google Glass, is something that should happen since it can potentially make life easier and much more convenient. For example, Google Glass allows its users to video record everything they turn their head to, allows for voice commands, pictures with a wink, and as stated in the article “The people’s panopticon”, allows for people with quadriplegia to do things they wouldn’t otherwise with an iPhone. Again, the question of privacy is brought up but I view the Google Glass as a sort of stepping stone for better things to come. All in all, I think that trying to achieve unity would be the best way to welcome new technology, even though that could be virtually impossible; everyone being open to change could be what we need to advance even further as a species.
Limitations should be established to Google Glass because it would be inefficient and dangerous to press ahead. As Theodore Ross mentioned, Google Glass has features the smartphone already possesses. In some cases, such as apps, Glass has less efficiency. In that case, Google Glass can be substituted with many other technological devices. Glass’s portability can be substituted with smartwatch, Glass’s hands-free features can be substituted with wearable cameras, voice activated speakers, etc, and Glass’s augmented reality can be substituted with VR. If Glass were to press ahead, it could increase the potential of cyber bullying, increase in “creep shots”, and increase the possibility of hacking. I believe there are more disadvantages to press ahead Google Glass than advantages. This portrays to be true considering how Google Glass got discontinued.
I believe that Google glass is a double edged sword; it is both incredibly useful, but also unquestionably dangerous. If this technology was used in the correct hands it could have incredible benefits. The use of google glass provides many new options to the technology world, and further enhances the “Smartphone” age. The possibilities with google glass could be endless. As we look back in time at inventions such as the alarm clock, or the simple telephone, and then compare those gadgets to today’s technology, we can only wonder what the future could be like with google glass. The only problem I see with google glass is that it could very easily invade peoples privacy, as discussed in “The People’s Panopticon.” Pictures could be taken, and no one other than the user would know. In the end, I believe that regulating technology advancement is a bad idea. If we have the possibility to create and move forward with something that could be incredible, we should work to make it a reality and not try to prevent it.
I really like how you said that Gooogle Glass is “a double adged sword” and I totally agree. Yes it sounds like a great device, but it also presents dangers to society. This kind of technology becoming a norm will be in fact quite difficult but then again, but then again it would be interesting to envison a future with glasses that can see more than the naked eye.
I believe we should absolutely not press ahead with Google Glass. Yes, it has its advantages and theoretically makes life easier but will it truly be for the better? The article “The People’s Panopticon” from The Economist proposes several cases that seems to benefit from the inclusion of Google Glass, one of the most compelling being its use for memory recall in cases of patients with Alzheimer’s. At first glance, this seems like a great idea but upon further inspection, this may not have any real lasting effects. In many Alzheimer’s cases, the patient will forget what had happened in the last hour or even less. The idea of recording their life for future recall will likely be futile because they will just forget having watched a recording on Google Glass. If anything, the patient will just be struggling trying to remember how to use Google Glass, only to most likely watch a recording of himself trying to remember a memory in an endless loop. It would be similar to the movie 50 First Dates (spoiler alert if you haven’t seen the movie) in which the female lead has to painstakingly watch a video over every day just to relive the same day in a maddening touching/depressing ending. My next point against the pursuing of Google Glass, is the fact that it is a distraction. After texting became extremely popular, it became an extremely dangerous distraction on the road and with the emergence of all of the popular social media and entertainment apps on smartphones, people have only become more distracted. Now picture an image/video/text popping up next to your eye while you’re driving, are you sure you trust people to be careful and resist the urge to look? My last point against this device is privacy. In today’s generation where information is so incredibly easy to access, you have to be careful with what you say or do. The government can monitor calls, social media isn’t a real safe zone either, so we have to really cherish our privacy. As stated in “The People’s Panopticon,” facial recognition technology is only getting better and the constant recording of your own life could be hacked easily most likely, so who is to say all of that information doesn’t get into the wrong hands? I feel like the Google Glass has some interesting uses, but I think we are much better off without it.
I think Google Glass should be press ahead with a strict suit of legislation support. First, it further advances the operation convenience of smart phones. As mentioned in reading, “The People’s Panpticon”, the technology is great for those people who are not able to normally operate the phones such as those who have quadriplegia. People can use it by freeing their hands, which not only provides most users to use it with more efficiency, but also allows disabled people who have difficulty in operating smart phones to enjoy the outcomes of technologies. Second, it helps users to collect information they have not even started looking for. This function is great for research area, which provides users a big database in advance. The other relative technological products, like smartphone and computer, also suffer a threat of privacy, so the worries that Google Glass may be unmorally used by hackers should not be a reason to stop pressing ahead the Google Glass. The law and technology should keep developing to make Google Glass being efficiently and safely used.
I feel that Google Glass would mostly be useful if it were used in professional settings; used by doctors, teachers, etc. so that the technology won’t be taken advantage of. With the privacy issues stated in the article, “The People’s Panopticon,” Google Glass makes it easy to invade any individual’s privacy without the other person knowing it. However, this technology seems like it would be beneficial in the professional world, making it easier to obtain files and information. It is less likely they’ll be used for privacy invasion if they were used strictly for business reasons.
The Google Glass is not the greatest in performing what it needs to do yet, but in pressing ahead with improvements and advancement, it can revolutionize the world in the new age of technology. The Google Glass is merely one of the first introductions to a completely hands-free technological life. It provides convenience in capturing memories and communicating and interacting with others on social media. It also presents a way where multiple gadgets, such as phones and cameras, will not be needed as they will all be incorporated into one life-changing device. By putting effort in bettering the device, it can even be possible one day where technology is incorporated into humans; the way of living and interacting with the world will be just as if one is living life without having physical connections to any gadgets.
Although Google Glass has its benefits to its users, there should be limitations to its existence. I agree with any suggestion of setting boundaries to where Glass can be used. For example, due to the apparent lack of concern for the privacy issues, Google could lay out a more comprehensive set of rules to determine the acceptability of device using in specific environments.
We must press ahead Google Glass. I love new technology devices. Google Glass should have function which make human life easier rather than more complicated and isolated but Google must firstly focus on technical limitations and problems. I think the biggest issue is privacy problem. Unlike video cameras and smartphones, people don’t know Google Glass taking video or not so Google Glass may give people discomfort. Voice recognition is also big issue too. They are necessary to say accurately pronounced it is very hard for people who do not have English as their mother tongue. For example, in order to take a picture, “OK Glass, take a picture.” Must be exactly indicated by voice. Google must has to solve these issues first.
Hi Tomoya,
I agree with you. Voice recognition of Google Glass is quite a big issue. Recognizing other languages except English should be an investing direction for Google. Giving orders to the glass by talking to it even seems stupid by others sometimes. I hope Google can also develop a new feature that it can be given order through brainwaves, instead of talking to it.
Hey Tomoya,
While I do agree with your statement that “Google must firstly focus on technical limitations and problems,” I completely disagree how “Google Glass should have function which make human life easier.” I think Google Glass is a neat technology that has its advantages and disadvantages such as technical issues, but it’s job shouldn’t be making people’s lives “easier.” There comes a price with the impressive development of technology in today’s world and that is the matter of privacy. Many who are impaired in certain tasks could definitely benefit from the device, but people shouldn’t trade their privacy for effortless chores. The further we press ahead towards this technological world where everything is connected, the more we give up our private lives. We share more, therefore, they know more.
Hi Tomoya,
I agree with your opinion. Google Class provides people with more operation conveniences than other physical devices, but at the same time, it causes more threats to privacy protection. So maybe the government should set law limitation of selling and buying of Google Glass.
To improve the accuracy of voice recognition, I think Google Glass can set difference voice recognition system such as British English accent, American English accent, and African English accent.
Hey Tomoya,
I agree with you that technology like Google Glass is great, but we need to fix the privacy problem first. For example, I would not want to sit in front of someone who is wearing a Google Glass, because I will constantly feel like I am being recorded and I am afraid that it will record my “ugly” moments. Those worries need to be fixed before we press ahead.
Although the Glass was made for good purposes, I don’t believe it’s good nor safe enough to press ahead. As stated in Glass, Darkly, it was written that the device has also been criticized for acting as a barrier between its wearers and other people, and by extension, from reality. The pros do not outweigh the cons and could potentially do more harm than good.
I agree with you. In the Wikipedia page it was stated that it’s intent wasn’t to become isolated; they had good intentions. However I was able to relate more to the Glass, Darkly article because I find the device to be overhyped and potentially dangerous when it comes to being social.
In the case of Google Glass, I believe that it should be further researched and developed for the future. The technology has great potential to change the way we live our lives and perceive the world in a different perspective. Technological innovation continually presses on and cannot be halted, as it is human nature for us to make improvements and advancements with the resources and materials that are available to us. I believe that the Google Glass is just another great way where technology brings greater convenience to our daily lives so that we can save valuable time that can be used on other activities.
Many may argue that the Google Glass violates the privacy of those being recorded and is an invasion of their lives. This raises the question of how Google Glass is any different from anyone with a smartphone or camera who is able to readily take pictures or record the people around them. The truth is that our privacy is being invaded constantly, be it by hackers through your webcam or strangers with binoculars. Others may say that the new technology is too expensive for the average consumer and is not worth the price. However, the pricing is exactly the reason why further research and development needs to proceed, so that there are methods to bring costs down. When smartphones and HDTV’s were first introduced, the costs were significantly higher than what is now and was not as advanced and feature-ridden as it now.
Google Glass offers wearable photographic and video applications by having the user put them on like ordinary glasses. Questions have been raised regarding the threat that the headgear poses by intruding on other people’s private moments as well as its susceptibility to abuse and hacking that could endanger both individual privacy and public safety. All these claims beg for restrictions to control its use.
I agree that the Google Glass can endanger both individual privacy and public safety. Thus, I believe that it is important to enforce limitations on this device that do not prevent people from using it to its full potential, but also ensure public safety. This balance between these two aspects will be the key to its success. These limitations, in my opinion, should be similar as those enforced for cameras in public places.
I concur that the Google Glass potentially could create a sense of insecurity when it comes to recording people’s private conversations, for example, and for this reason I forsee that the Glass not be distributed to the general public and only utilized in professional occupation settings. This would take care of all privacy and public safety concerns but still leave room for Google Glass to flourish as a product. This would also allow for the Google Glass to be possibly implemented into the general public at a later date rather than keeping this type of technology completely dormant.
I totally agree with certain restrictions being put with the use of Google glass. In addition, I think that since it is inevitable that more technology like Google glass will be introduced in the future, the social implications of wearing such accessories could potentially do the same work that actual restrictions would do. For instance, if somebody were to wear Google glasses and go out with friends who don’t want to be recorded all the time, they would have to choose between not hanging out with their friends at all, or not wearing Google glasses while hanging out with their friends. I would assume most would choose to just take off the glasses, and thus this social situation would eliminate the problem in a way similar to what certain restrictions would do…
Hi, Robert
I totally agree with what you are saying. I believe Glass restricts itself, just because it exposes how detached Glass wearers are from reality, forcing them to choose whether or not they want to be the outlier amongst other people in social situations. Restrictions by the government are not necessary because Google Glass plays itself. I believe that because we have other technological advances such as the iPhone, Glass is an unnecessary device.
Hi Barbara!
I totally agree with you, limitations will only be established when something is widely accepted by society. And this here, is where Google Glass fails. As stated in The Economist, “Google aims to take wearable cameras out of their current niches and make them part of the culture.” However, Google Glass has been anything but become part of today’s modern culture. And the reasons for this are endless. Here are some of the cons to name a few: illegal filming and picture taking, aesthetically unappealing, lack of polished functionality, increased health concerns, unreasonable price, and many more. Ultimately, in the end, it all boils down to the intended audience and how the audience accepts a new, unfamiliar product.
Hey Robert!
I definitely agree with what you are saying. I think that there have been questions about the threat that the headgear poses by intruding on people’s private moments as well as its susceptibility to abuse and hack that could endanger both individual privacy and public safety.
Although Google Glass has some great advantages such as being hands-free and convenient, I believe the technology poses some significant issues regarding privacy and distractions. It’s great how Google envisions a future where we can multi-task and do all of our smartphone capabilities with less hand motion, but to me, this doesn’t take into account the dangers of the distractions that might occur. One advantage that Google Glass has claimed is that you can drive while doing other activities such as using the Internet because you are still “looking ahead” such as in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdkIVS53Uw from 2:30 – 2:50. In my opinion, this might be even more dangerous than glancing at your phone every now and then because with the screen in your vision the entire time, any notifications or apps you choose to use can take your full attention for a potentially long period of time. Another point to oppose the Glass is that recording or photographing others becomes more discrete and readily available since a more obvious device such as a smartphone is not blatantly pointed around. In a world where things can literally become viral instantly, it is troubling to think that someone can be posting material of others without their consent simply by looking in their direction.
Hey Matthew! Using Glass while driving also came to my mind. I like how you brought up the debate whether or not it being more or less distracting than a phone. I think depending on what Glass allows you to do while wearing it and operating a car should be limited to specific things. For example, it’d be cool if Glass could communicate with your car and notify the operator of any problems with the car, such as low tire pressure, low gas, engine over heating. And possibly navigation if they could implement it in a safe way. I think it’s also be cool when driving if Glass could help prevent accidents, if it were to see things before the driver did. Also, I know a lot of people record the road when they drive, for liability issues. Especially in countries like Russia. I think Glass would function well as a device similar to these, because it would show what the driver was looking at/focused on every moment. Liability and insurance claims could be more easily disputed/settled.
An evaluation of Google Glass in Chinese. The author gave his experience of using Google Glass. Although it is pretty expensive, he felt it worth to have a try of the newest technology in 2014. As a fancier of technology and a user of Google Glass, he felt it was insufficient at that time and needed to be press ahead to make technology more interesting.
The Google Glass should be viewed as a stepping stone towards other advancements in which smart phones are unnecessary just as Black Mirror shows us. Gottfried describes the Google Glass as “the model T of wearable computing” which implies that this type of technology will continue to grow and this model of the Glass is just the beginning. This type of technology is clearly not able to be handled by the general population just yet as seen with “creep shots ” and facial recognition technology that puts privacy in danger but the Google Glass has been used in a professional workplace setting enhancing the ability to complete one’s job. As mentioned in The Economist, the Glass has augmented surgeon accuracy and knowledge, aided in the development of “anticipatory search” technology and could help professionals involved in legal liabilities avoid wrongful lawsuits. Having examined these cases, the Google Glass has many applications in the professional workplace setting which could benefit society but the usage of the Glass should stop there on the job site. Although, the Glass has proven to be an extraordinary aid in the convenience of everyday activities for the layman, the Glass has been seen as a way to invade privacy and disconnect people from the world around them. This fact is why there should be limitations established against general population consumer use but should continue to be used in a professional setting where seen fit.
I agree with you. The Glass puts too much risk on people if used by the general public. It can lead to an increase in abuse. The Glass is better off in professional areas where it can be used to its full potential and not were it can be misused. The Glass has many convenient apps which allows the user to worry about less and makes it easier on them. There have been many cases where the glass has been a huge help in professional settings.
The only problem now is how can the Glass be implemented into the general public in the future so that technologies as seen in Black Mirror can be trusted and put to good use? I believe that the Glass should slowly be integrated into the common persons life potentially only to be used while at work where everything can be supervised. There is too many unpredictable wild cards in the world for something of this caliber to be just thrown in so that anybody with the money can use it in anyway that they please.
That’s a really good point. Maybe they could slowly release models with limited functionality and as trust is gained from the general public, they can release more and more advanced functions. Obviously people with the ability to hack them might still try to do so, but it’s hard to think of a way around this.
I do think that Google Glass has its contemporary significance. Every moment of life can be recorded and shared with this thin headband. And in some sense, it even could take place of smartphones, if Google Glass has a more approachable price and broader target customers. Though as what is mentioned in “The People’s Panopticon”, new technologies, especially Google Glass and smartphones, threatens basic social communication, I think the reason why Google Glass failed in the battle with smartphones is because glass is a wearable object, which is totally different from a smartphone to bring with. When all your messages, social network notifications and camera appeared on a tiny screen which you can only by talking to it to require, the detachable smartphone seems to be a better choice. But Google Glass project should be press ahead if Google can develop a technology that we can give orders to the glass through brainwaves.
Hey Siyuan,
I agree with you and think it would be incredible for Google Glass to have some sort of technology that uses brain waves. I hadn’t thought of this, and I do think a device that works through brain waves would be extremely popular. Much like in the episode of Black Mirror we watched in class, if the device were to work similarly to the ones the characters used, I think it would also be of much use to the general population. The device would be convenient and could be used for memories and security purposes just like in the show. If Google can create a device like this, that would be even greater than Google Glass, and I think people would be more open to the idea of its development.
The further progression of Glass’ development would be another step forward into the future. It would become very handy once it can reach the potentials of becoming a second eye for humans. What I mean by that is if Google can make Glass so it can zoom in or out with our vision, analyze roads as we drive, or even be developed in prescription glasses, its invention would be a gift to human kind. People with bad eye vision already wear glasses everyday and in today’s society, the smartphone is also used daily. As a result of this, I would think that the unifying of the two items people use everyday would be a huge practical favor.
I agree that Glass is a step toward the future. And although there are flaws, there is also room for improvement. I like the idea of Glass also being used prescription glasses because it would make Glass all that much better. It would really be the next generation of glasses. By being a pair of glasses, it would target a larger audience who already wear glasses. This would be more practical in the long run.
I have seen on this discussion a very techno-phobic view, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. In Glass, Darkly, Theodore Ross states that Glass is an “empty vessel”, and that it’s many flaws could lead to larger life issues such as privacy violations and acts more like a “barrier” to its users. I could not agree more with this statement. However, Ross and I take this conclusion in two completely different ways. To Ross, it is obvious that Glass is a failure, and is more trouble than it is worth, but I disagree. Where Ross sees failure, I see room for improvement. It is true that at its initial release, it was lacking, but n o product is perfect on release. With the incredible progress that technology is making, I can see a much more convenient, safe, and fun to use product than what is described by Ross. So, for this reason, I do not believe that limits should be put on Glass and products like it. Doing so would only hinder natural human development.
I agree with Devin; although many people do not agree that Google Glass should be invested in, there is a lot of potential in Google Glass. In a world where accountability can be masked by anonymous buttons and fake profiles, recording a person’s every move can be seen as threatening. Although this idea may scare some people, it is important to press ahead. Many people do not agree with the Glass’ ability to record random people at the touch of a button, but there are many means of recording and documenting the world around us, and Google is not the first to present this idea. If people feel threatened by being recorded, then they should ask themselves why they are threatened and what actions they are doing to feel that way.
> It is true that at its initial release, it was lacking, but no product is perfect on release.
–
I agree. Somewhat related: the original iPhone intentionally didn’t have an app store, and now there are billions of apps being sold for the iPhone.
–
> I do not believe that limits should be put on Glass and products like it.
–
If technology wasn’t advanced or iterated upon, there would be no way to achieve something worth using. But some technologies should be limited. As smartphones developed, there came a point in time where privacy settings were introduced to limit third party apps from accessing things like the camera or location data.
The Google Glass is the ingenious man-made gadget that is similar to Big Brother. Rather than being societal orientated, the pair of glasses appeal more to the gadgets-friendly users compared to everyone else. Google Glass holds a hedonic value compared to other innovative technologies invented. Not only is this pair of glasses is expensive, but also serve as an invasion of one’s privacy. Even though there are top of the line features and applications lined up to prove the glasses’ worth, it can be a distraction. Like all electronic devices, malfunctions can occur unexpectedly that can put one’s life at stake. For example, if a Google Glass user utilized the pair of glasses while driving, the screen could “jump” and blind him/her. Thus, like any electronic products, the Google Glass can burn and cause harm and injuries.
> Not only is this pair of glasses is expensive
I’m not sure if Google intended to have Glass sold to everyone at $1500, but I believe that Google was still developing Glass, so the beta products that people got early access to had to be expensive. They wouldn’t mass produce a device that might still undergo changes, and there’s also the fact that they had no idea if it was going to be a commercial success. If Google actually started selling the finalized version, it would likely have a lower price. Maybe even after a few generations the price would decrease/new features would make up for the price.
–
> it can be a distraction
I agree. Although the screen shows up in the corner and you have to move your eyes to see it, the fact that anything shows up near your field of view may be enough to cause a distraction that might lead to an accident.
The idea of Google Glasses is quite fitting for our time. We live in the technology age where everyone and their moms like the idea of documenting life as it is. I can see why Google would come up with the concept of Glasses but I do not feel that it is unique enough to be press forward. Google Glasses looks like it does everything that your phone can do except that it is on your head. Its features aren’t extreme remarkable compared to all of the technology that is out there currently. The fact that you have to talk to the Glasses in order for it to operate is a bit obscure as well. Who is to say that other people cannot say commands into your Glasses as well. Furthermore, Glasses just does not seem very practical for everyday use. The idea of simply recording everything that you see through your eyes is very excessive and unnecessary and I don’t see many people feeling that they need to have this product in order to enjoy life.
I completely agree with this post. I agree that Glass is unnecessary not only because we already have Smartphones and simple search engines that perform the same functions but also because it increases the likelihood of social problems. Glass users could be using the product for all the wrong reasons. The technology is tied to invasion of privacy concerns. Life is just fine without the use of Glass ; its regular use will only be problematic.
I feel like phones are an intermediate technology like professor Jackson said. At one point, the idea of a cell phone will be ingrained into us so we don’t have to reach out to an external device which needs to be charged, bought, and updated.
I agree. They have already come up with a cell phone in a wearable form and that is a smart watch. The Glass is just another step forward to a wearable phone that is hands free. This could be useful in so many ways like journalism and surgery.
I agree. I’d also like to bring up that while it could be useful in journalism, it may also be harmful if the user isn’t aware of their surroundings. In today’s world, we spend enough time looking down at our phones as we walk around. I feel that with Google Glasses, this problem can worst and lead to more accidents and injuries.
Hi Jonathan, I agree that this stage is intermediate, but I believe we should avoid combining with our multi-use devices since it could be dangerous to society. There needs to be so many regulations and there are probably thousands that we cannot even imagine that to be in place.
Hi Steven,
I completely agree with you that Google Glass does not seem to be a practical device for everyday use. There are surely few circumstances and situations where I can see this device being a useful additive to the efficiency and effectiveness in our society. For example, the Wikipedia page mentioned its usefulness in the healthcare field with respect to the device’s ability to document health records. Perhaps in the fields of criminology and military, this device can scrupulously hold evidence and information that would otherwise be too difficult for us to retain on our own. However, for the common people like us, I too agree that this device does not significantly add to the quality of our everyday lives. I am not convinced that we should press ahead and market this device as a norm in our society knowing the privacy concerns mentioned in “The Economist”.
I disagree, although the smartphone has all the capabilities of the Glass, the Glass allows us to fix the social issue of always being stuck to our screens. We’ve been so unaware of our surroundings lately because even if we are sitting by a park bench, we aren’t enjoying the scenery, but instead, we’re checking our phone for directions to a nearby coffee shop. With the glass, we’re able to simultaneously use technology while being aware of our surroundings which is why I believe we should actually press on and make technology more fitted into our lives, without taking away from life’s moments.
The invention and idea of the Google Glass is not a bad idea and is made for good purposes, however, I don’t think the features it offers are worth it enough to press ahead. The Google Glass offers hands free, first-person photos and videos, which is super convenient, but I don’t think it’s that much different from using a GoPro or using an iPhone to record memories. It doesn’t seem worth it to me to press ahead on this invention if it’s going to increase security and privacy problems. For example, in “The People’s Panopticon”, the article mentions that the Google Glass could potentially identify strangers in public using face recognition and also broadcast private conversations. Also, even though the Glass offers applications that would make people’s lives more convenient and organized, I feel like those who would use the Google Glass would be disconnected from the world, having notifications and virtual reminders blind their perspective, instead of just viewing and enjoying the world as it is.
This is a good point you made and had me thinking. It’s really not that much different from a smartphone so it’s no wonder why smartphones are more used than the Google Glass (Google Glass is just repetitive). I think that speaks for itself.
Hey Michelle!
Reading your response made me really think about the use of this gadget because you are right that gadgets have already been made with similar capabilities. I think with that being said if this gadget were created it would be as successful as it’s creators probably would have hoped cause there are cheaper options out there.
As proven by multiple examples in class, many forms of technology – though envisioned for greatness and the pursuit of societal improvement – are often inevitably utilized for terror and societal destruction. Keeping this lesson in mind, I believe that putting governmental constraints on the usage of machinery such as the Google Glass is absolutely imperative. However, since I can imagine the joy and convenience that can be brought about by technology like the Google Glass, I believe that the governmental constraints should be decided cooperatively with input from the tech moguls. In this way, we could encourage the users’ tech desires, yet still protect the rest of society from fearing for their privacy and safety.
I really do agree with you that constraints should be done to the government when it comes down to technology such as google glass but the issue is trying to actually get the government to follow these rules. There have been many times in which the government has overstepped their bounds merely on the basis of thinking someone was possible risk or threat, which lead to unauthorized invasion of privacy. Either way I feel there is no way to prevent the harm that comes with the good of technology. I really feel that technology should just continue to advance and be put out because there’s always going to be an issue with anything that comes out so why not reap the benefits as well.
Google glasses are really convenient for their users. They can video everything they are going through. For extreme sports lovers, its impossible for them to carry a real camera when they are playing. So Google glasses offer them a great chance to record what they see during their sports. It is also great for extreme sports lovers’s families and friends that they get a chance to see the world in an absolute different angle. However, what does this great invention means for those who are strangers with its carriers. They might be recorded without being notified. Some of the scenes they may never wanted to be recorded for their entire life. However, it was still recorded. To make it even worse, the recorder( google glass carriers) may share these videos with their friends and might make fun of it. Maybe the victim may never know any of these, but this doesn’t make it never happened. Because of this, I think Google glasses is an unfair invention which is seriously violate people’s privacy.
Hi YuXin,
As long as I agree with how you said that Google Glass would create a different experience like never before in sport lover’s perspective, I think it can extend to a broader perspective. Not only we can do things with hands free like commercial portraits it already, but also we have a chance to regulate our privacy information. Like you mentioned that Google Glass carrier might take the advantage to easily snap a stranger and later on share it with others, we already face this situations already. Web personalized commercials, prompting emails that updated with our browsing histories and etc are a sign that our personal information is already exchanged in this Big Data setting. But the argument is that not every has the access to it. As it for now, those technologies favor the retailers by exposing our consumer’s personal information, without our permission. Now if everyone has the opportunity to do the same, we can take this opportunity to develop rules that protect our privacy.
Hi Yuxin,
I absolutely agree with your argument. I think the benefit that comes with the Google Glass does not outweigh the risk. Just like you mentioned, it will be a serious privacy issue or in some extreme cases, a more convenient tool for school bullying. I would say that government constrains is necessary.
I agree that Google Glass offers great convenience for a hands-free video recording perspective, although the consequences (as you mentioned) are just not worth it. They put too many others at risk of being bullied, stalked, or harassed in other unthinkable ways. If an athlete really wants to record their experience, they can use a Go Pro which is less likely to be abused since it doesn’t have an facial recognition features (or at least we don’t think it does)…
The problem with technology is not its existence but rather how we respond to it. In the case of Google Glass, and contrary to what Florman claims, we cannot be forced to press ahead– at least not yet. As we have seen with previous technologies, we like it. However we must recognize that with every technology we invest or discover, there will always be pros and cons. The example of the watch is a lot more simple to digest. Prior to this invention, we could not show up in class at 9:0am, like professor said. We found away to quantify time and thus found a way to control it. The question now is, to what extent does it control us?
Going back to the case of Google Glass, the only way we can escape it is by collectively accepting it or ignoring it and the thing is, we do this almost subconsciously.
I agree with this statement because technology has been prominent for decades now. It has steadily been advancing with time, but the only way we can add significance to technology is by how we respond to it. Of course with technology, like anything else, there will be pros and cons. It is how we deal with them that make it important in our lives or not. Technology in a way does control us because we rely so heavily on it to wake us up, entertain us, keep track of time, etc. There isn’t a functional 21st century life, without some sort of technology. Previous generations can be disappointed on how much we allow technology to take over, but present generations have literally been born into this technological era and that is out of our control. Google Glass is a huge step up from reality and can change lives. I think it should be used situationally, rather than just an everyday wear.
I agree with your statement that technology itself is not the problem but rather how we respond to it. I feel like the Google Glass would actually be a good invention and a useful tool if we don’t depend on it for our everyday lives and get so attached to this device to the point where we start to feel disconnected from the world.
after we watched the video about Google glass not being dead and seeing doctors continue to use it, it made me think that if their glasses had some features like those of the grain from black mirror it would be even more useful. with an all knowing medical suggestions implemented, doctors would be able to analyze patients with the glasses and zoom into their inflicted areas (like zooming into memories in the grain) and figure out whats wrong, allowing doctor and patient to have assurance of an accurate diagnosis.
Hi Amanda, I do agree with you, I do think Google Glass should continue for not only doctors but also people in other professional industries. Google Glass can be a great way to teach others, especially medical students, how to work in surgeries and tasks similar to that matter. It can decrease error and show students what the surgical process looks like from their point of view. This idea can be used in all fields that require hands on training as well.
Writing Assignment 1
I think the Google glass was a good concept, but I don’t think that it should ever be implemented.
It reminded me a lot of the device in Black mirror that people placed in their heads. It gave people the ability to over share their experiences and even personal memories. I think that such a device would limit our verbal communication. Instead of taking pictures and calling your friends to tell them about your experiences and use your voice to describe ideas, we would simply just be watching it. There would be no need to converse about it. If we were to continue on PAST the technology we have now, I think it will drastically impair people’s communication skills. Communication and speaking in general is already a problem among youth. I mean, it’s even mandatory to take a communications class in college because people’s ability to convey and organize ideas verbally is weak.
Technology should not ever become a physical part of a person’s body and I don’t think it should be hands free either. If we start relying on screens and other unnatural enhancements I think that the human race will start to decline. I don’t think people now are anymore more or less entertained than people in the 90’s, so anymore advancements would just be inhibitory and unnecessary.
Hi Rachel! I agree with you, especially about how technology shouldn’t become a physical part of our bodies. As you mentioned, communication is already a prominent issue today and I feel that Google Glass would significantly perpetuate such issues. Using Google Glass requires less physical motions than using smartphones and consequently, many things can be done subtly or even go unnoticed. Knowing this, people may end up spending a lot more time using the Glass than they would with their smartphones. The article Glass, Darkly states that Google has asserted that the Glass allows for more social interactions because it allows for eye contact. However if the Glass does become the next big thing, I’m doubtful of where user’s conscious and attention lies. The Google Glass does undeniably offer convenient features but I don’t think the benefits outweigh the costs and therefore believe that there should be limitations: the Glass should remain a professional tool and not become a product for the typical consumer.
The issue of whether we should continue with the idea of Google Glass is a weighty one full of pros and cons, and therefore, has been one of extreme debate in my mind for days now. On the one hand, the device is convenient, records our world from a new perspective, provides safety benefits and helpful assistance to citizens, doctors, military and businesses, and has the ability to merge life with social media and the information-rich internet. It opens us up to new and exciting ways of living, whether it be by identifying the types of trees we pass on our morning stroll, or by giving us instantaneous information closer than any other device can offer. On the other hand, privacy and safety concerns run wild with its use in everyday life. However many benefits and interesting features the device provides, I feel strongly that they cannot outweigh the terrifying cons.
For these reasons, I think we need to keep tabs on technology like this as a people. We are the ones who have the power to do this by not creating the demand essential to its advancement. Smartphones, in my opinion, offer the same benefits as and more than Google Glass and poses much less risk to our safety and privacy. The Economist’s article, The People’s Panopticon, explores the scary truth about facial recognition, hacking potential, invasion of personal privacy by businesses and the taking advantage of this, and how easy it is to take discreet photo and video recordings of people. The list goes on and I find it chilling.
I disagree with keeping tabs on technology. It eliminates the freedom people wish to have while using such a device. Also, smartphones are just as dangerous when it comes to safety and privacy. One could easily tap into another smartphone and control it, see what they are doing, and monitor another person’s actions through their smartphone.
My concern is with specifically the combination of facial tracking technology and the ability to take photos of people simply by winking. The privacy concerns mentioned in The people’s Panopticon reading reiterates how law makers are cracking down on “intolerable” acts in an effort to protect what seems specifically geared towards women such as ” sneaky photos (up skirts, say, or down blouses).” However these are not the only circumstances that bring harm to those being depicted and not all perversions of this technology will be identified as women; consider the LGBT community. Certainly not all cases will be sexual either. The wide spread social acceptance of “memes” raise concerns on the psychological and emotional torment of those being taunted. They obviously would not choose to have a unpleasant image of themselves scattered across the world for the entertainment of others at the expense of their confidence and emotional stability. It is all a big joke until someone commits suicide or has a breakdown. I feel that such “inappropriate” use of the “pictures of strangers” should hold the same merit as that which lawmakers so gallantly defend. The sexual objectification of women is not the only social group victimized for a good laugh. I think people (including myself) forget that far too often. The ability to permanently assign a face to a meme or moment of indecency, permanently labeling them as a racist, a slut, sexist, fat, or a queer, ect. could easily destroy anyone of us with the wink of an eye. Certainly the advancement of searchable/anticipatory image technology would make this database more readily available to us leading the “next generation of identification”toward a path of indecency and the continued degeneration of social morality.
From my perspective, Google glass is a cool thing for some geeks or professionals, but it is still really far away from our daily life. And I do not think that we really need it. So it’s a little bit too early to discuss whether they should be limited. In fact, we can hardly predict the way that technology will be developed. For example, the high-tech factors in Blade Runner are really different from the actual revolution route of science and technology today. People do not have flying cars but we have huge televisions with fancy user interfaces – but they cannot read a photo, we even do not have photo in that way, instead, we store photos in all kinds of electronic ways now. So it’s really hard to say that Google glass is the right developing route today, and we should overthink if we have started considering about the potential harm of it.
Hi! I agree with you that we do not really need Google Glass in our daily lives. Currently, we have smartphones, apple watches, and computers as the main way to communicate with others. In addition, the usage of Google Glass with the social interactions is simply quite awkward to walk around with. I think it is more natural for humans to socially communicate face to face free of technology, thus Google Glass is limited in that aspect. If we wanted to record videos or take a picture nowadays, we just use our smartphones. Also, just the fact that most people use Apple, Android, or Samsung smartphones in public; makes Google Glass the odd one out. It is definitely a fascinating toy to mess around with for tech enthusiasts, but not really for the daily consumer to go out there and use it.
I agree by the fact that this project is still very far from being considered part of our lives and actually thats what I think is a nother major flaw within this device. We definiteley dont need especially since there are alot of people that don’t even use glasses regularly. But who knows, this might seem strange only because it is the first of its kind but maybe other smaller companies will soon start making glasses of their own and maybe just maybe, Google Glass will actually be a thing.
While using Google Glass, it is inevitable to ignore what is happening in the corner of their eye. Users receive messages and notifications at any time which can cause distractions in situations requiring concentration such as driving. One popup is enough to cause a major accident; therefore, government limitations should be required for safety. Also, there should also be common agreements when interacting with people. There is negativity around the idea of people constantly looking down at their smart phones in social situations and it is the same for the Google Glass. It may not be as obvious but it may still seem rude when the Google Glass user is being distracted whilst they are in mid conversation.
Hi Stephanie! I did not look at Google Glass in this perspective and after reading your post, I totally agree with you! Technology can be a danger to everyone if they are more focused on their device rather than on their surroundings. People are so into their phones that this can cause not only harm to themselves, but to everyone around them as well. In addition, I can relate to paying more attention to my phone than on the people I should be socializing with. It really proves to be a huge problem when everyone utilizes their device to communicate with society instead of physically interacting with them.
I also share same thought with the distraction of the notification on the cornier of the Glass. If you try to focus your vision on the top right corner of your right eye, you can see that all the vision in front of you gets blurred. This is extremely dangerous when you are driving as the split second when you focus on the notification from the Google Glass could be the split second the car in front of you, for some reason, step on the break really hard you won’t be able to react in time.
I share the same thought about the Google Glass being a distraction. Just because it is not a hand held device, the truth is that our wandering eyes to look at the corner of the spectacles is a distraction. No matter what our eyes are still off the road when we are driving which can cause great danger. Because I thought this was a distraction much like our cellphones, I was thinking about ways to fix this or come up with a compromise. The only thing I can think of is having the device implanted like how the characters had a bean in their heads from Black Mirror. I know this is a crazy idea to have something implanted that can record your every movement but the fact that it will only work if you are using the remote control to rewind or look back on the events recorded is good. There are pros and cons to every situation though. The idea of the recording device is good when it comes to trying to recall a crime. For example, if someone happens to attack you while walking on the street, you are able to record their face and the events that happened. This video can then be used as evidence. In the case of trying to describe the attacker, it may be hard because you only catch a glimpse of their face. So in this kind of situation, the device is a pro. But in the event of privacy, it is a con.
Hi Stephanie, I agree that Google Glass can be a distraction, but the question is which technology is not? People text while driving and unfortunately get into accidents . Pedestrians that might suddenly J-walk are distractions too. According to be it boils down to how and when the user decides to use it. Since Google Glass is now in development phase once again, I’m sure they are working towards making a user’s experience safer and better. A solution that could be implemented is something like a ‘driving mode’. Our devices already have an airplane mode, one can probably program the glass to not cause distractions if the user decides to switch to this mode.
Hi, Stephanie! I agree with you on the distractions of using Google Glass in our daily life, especially when you are concentrating on something dangerously or seriously. When people put on their Google glass, they are like entering their own world without connecting to the real world. This kind of condition not only shows disrespect to the one who you are talking with but also causes accidents to their surroundings. For instance, using map the function on the Google Glass while walking on the street might make the users forget to check the car next to them and then bump into it. This would increase more problems to the society. Nevertheless, more and more people would forget how to communicate with the real person in the real world. This may not be a serious issue, but it is still weird that everyone in the classroom looks at their Google glass to search knowledge instead of discussing things throughout people’s eyes.
Hi Stephanie. When I read your comment on google glasses, one thing popped up in my mind. Just what society needs, a device that allows you to be ‘connected’ (and distracted) at every moment. How about slowing down instead? To enjoy walking down the street and not see it purely as a means to an end. To appreciate whatever natural beauty you can see at that particular moment or heaven forbid, noticing and acknowledging the people around you.
Hi Stephanie! I agree with you that Google Glass not only have privacy issue, but also safety concerns. Overlaying graphical info onto driver’s vision will be really dangerous. The laws does not allow people reading texts while driving, but people might be able to read that pop-up text by using Google Glass. The government should restrict the use of Google Glass while driving.
Although Google Glass has very promising features, it would be a tough decision to press ahead with it because there are also a lot of drawbacks. Putting all the features in one thing can be quite overwhelming. I know this is not different compared our phones but actually wearing the device makes it more personal for both parties. From a person’s perspective (who’s not wearing the glasses), I might feel like my privacy is being invaded even if the person wearing the glasses isn’t even recording me.
Also, when Google Glass was talked about in class, I immediately thought of the Snapchat spectacles which was released towards the end of last year. This specific glasses was made to record 10 second videos just like the app on our phones. These spectacles was well-received by people and I read an article about it where the creators purposely made a slow approach and advertised it to be used as a “toy” in order to see how it can integrate into the people’s lives. I think this was a good strategy in order to see how accepting people are and how much they’re going to use it in their daily lives.
Today’s lecture about Steve Mann talking about using technology to “extend” the body made me think about a video by CGP Grey called “Footnote *: I, Phone”. In the video he talks about our relationship with our smartphones and the scenarios that could play out in the future, especially from a legal standpoint. I found this argument compelling because it does seem that Google Glass, if not then some variant of it, is inevitable in our future. The information we keep on our phones now tell more about our daily lives than we can just off of our own memory. What kind of protections should be put in place to keep that information private from our government or other malevolent people? How will we implement these, not only today, but years from now when phones become irrelevant and instead we have chips inserted directly in our brains, potentially providing access to certain others that intend to do harm?
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE
The born of Google glass brought many benefits to the society. It helped human beings improve quality of life. However, it brought up many issues at the same time. When this kind of technologies appears in our life, we need regulations to regulate it and keep it in a good way for usage. Otherwise, it can lead to crime and may bad situations. Technologies does make our life greater and convenient, but it make people communicate less. We are human beings with emotions. It is not just digital world around us. We need to interact with our friends and families to express our feelings. This is the one thing technology can not provide us. As the technology developing more and more to make our life better, we need to focus on real world and people’s interaction more.
I believe that Google Glass does make certain criteria more easier. Such as recording, taking picture and researching. However, It does not improve our living nor help to live. When new technologies are invented, they have to be a reason for it. Example, smartphones, when we did not had smartphones, we had to use computers to research. Because of the smartphone invention, we are not able to research anything wherever with having smartphones. Therefore, there are no reason for google to make any new generation of the google glass.
If Google Glass does proceed and is sold to public consumers, there must be limits and regulations. Being able to record and take pictures of the public without their knowledge for whatever personal use is unsettling. Though there is security cameras that home and other establishment have that also records people, sometimes without their awareness, the purpose is only for security and not for any other motive. I think that’s why some people are so adverse to the idea of Google Glass or any other devices that allows an individual to record others in the street.
This concept of being recorded and watched without knowing is very creepy. It reminds me of the book 1984 by George Orwell. In 1984, there is advancements in technology that allows the government to have total surveillance on their citizens. This surveillance gave them the ability to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives because they knew everything that their citizens were doing at all times. I am afraid of technology getting too far (when there is no limitations) and creating some sort of dystopia, but for the essay, I think I am going to challenge myself by writing about pro technology without limitations and its benefits.
Michelle,
I agree with you, the Google Glass is the ingenious man-made gadget that is similar to Big Brother. Data received by the glasses can be sent by Google and shared virtually anywhere without our acknowledgment. Even if only a dozen of people wear the glasses, the information conceived in the glasses can multiplies with user’s interactions with other individuals. Evidently, this gadget intervenes with our natural rights and should not jeopardize our future.
In my opinion, new technology often brings immediate benefits to people but reveals its problems after a long time. History tells us that most people won’t see the downside of new tech, which is why pollution and climate change happens in our generation. What we can do about new technology is to keep refining it and put restrictions on it, so that it won’t become a burden in the future.
I agree with you, technology is the next step toward the future and could be beneficial in the long run. Technology is constantly being improved and putting restrictions on it could impede improving technology. Society is relying more and more on technology these days so putting restrictions on it would only be a burden.
I agree with you Kaiyi, technology will always have its down sides. I think people become a little too paranoid about security/privacy. It is a problem with all technology and we just have to learn to deal with it and me safer when using such technology.
I believe that in the case of Google Glass, limitations and restraints need to be established in order to protect people’s privacy. However, we should also press ahead such technology to not only improve the quality of our life, but to spread usage of technology on many other fields. As it is stated in one of the article, patients with impaired memories are encouraged to use such devices to help them recall their daily life and memories. Although many people have concerns about potential danger followed by technological devices, we should not prohibit them because their benefits could overtake those concerns and potential dangers. Instead of forbidding, we should enhance some laws and even use technology to help us solve those issues. In addition, we should also add strict conditions and requirements for using technological devices in order to prevent some criminals to take advantage of them.
Regarding the Google glass, i think we should not press ahead. I think we as economists and sale-driven competitors want to push forward so quickly and so unnecessarily that we find ourself trapped in this worshipping attitude towards the new best thing. In other words, how many times have we forgot our phones at home and are unable to remember what our afternoon scheduled meetings were taking place? What about when you had to call your significant other, but forgot their number. Worst, its because you don’t even know their number because every time we receive their text or calls, we blindly press the contact button; I’ve been guilty of that many times. In other world, we are a consumer society. Similar to why we have NY Fashion week, tech companies are pressured to design and produce newer versions of an already enhanced technological device to satisfy consumers and investors. In the article by Theodore Ross, he writes about Lori: “She didn’t care that Glass, for all its charming modishness, was a somewhat empty vessel.” An empty vessel. It’s fascinating how he calls it as an empty vessel because “her adoption wish was only tangentially related to technology – it was activated by Glass, not animated by it.” I feel like we’ve reached a point where we have so many versions of extending gadgets that a continual pressed forward would have minimal returns. Like fashion, once they run out of ideas, it becomes weird and just odd abstracts pricey polish coats. Our basic needs of communications are already met; we already have phones, laptops, landlines, satellite images of google earth, a camera. You already have 10 shirts in your closet, but you still have to get that new fall edition red blouse. This begins to cripple our society into a blinding worship of technology.
This is a great point, Sharon. The same thing happens in television shows; the crazy story lines pull in viewers, so writers are pressured to write more and more outlandish content, but there comes a point when the plot becomes so overdone that the original substance is stripped and what is left is just cheap fluff. Technology is advancing so incredibly fast that it seems to be struggling to keep up with itself! More and more devices are being churned out, and they aren’t necessarily advancing any needs people have, they often just provide something new that will pull in buyers temporarily and be part of a fad.
I think you bring up a great point in the fact that we rely too much on technology which is an argument I 100% believe in, but I also feel like that it is just the natural progression of humanity. A lot of times, all these technological improvements that we now rely on make our standard of living better. Of course we could memorize all of our loved one’s numbers, but now instead, I like to think we’re taking the brain power that would have been going into memorizing those numbers, or other random things about our daily lives, and putting it into something much more productive, such as creating a better cure to an illness to even just creating more technological advancements. I definitely think my opinion on technology and other topics like security are more lax because I see rapid technological advancement as inevitable, but either way there are still a lot of pros to having things like phones to make our lives easier and living standard better.
I don’t see the point in continuing with the Google Glass because I don’t see how it is furthering technology in general. It’s not pushing any boundaries or setting any new standards, so in that case I feel like it should be discontinued. It feels very monotonous and I think the entire market for virtual reality should be gone as a whole. In my opinion the market for virtual reality as a whole does not seem all that intuitive. In theory, it seems like a idea than how it is always executed.
I agree that Google Glass didn’t really do much to further technology. Compare Google Glass to a smartphone that most already have and the difference isn’t really there: One can access apps from the palm of our hand and the other on our head. Other than that, the two seem like they’re the same so it seems like there wasn’t much innovation to be had.
On the other hand, I don’t think we should stop virtual reality yet. I can see a market for VR use in terms of gaming and simulation. Right now it’s somewhat niche, but we should at least give it more time to flourish.
I think even though Google Glass failed in execution, it had potential to further technology; if anything, it definitely inspired others to fix the shortcomings that the Glass obviously had. It tried to push the boundaries of how technology could be further integrated into society and based on the many different opinions on Glass regarding privacy and security, many limits were pushed. When you mention virtual reality, how does that play into Glass? Glass is augmented reality similar to how Pokemon Go works. I’d recommend you give the VR market a try in any case; you mention that it’s a idea that was never executed correctly, but I think the improvements to VR have made it a very profitable and hopefully ubiquitous market.
I do agree with one part of your argument, but I also feel like your argument for Google Glass is a bit flawed. Let me explain, you talk about Google Glass being a virtual reality device. However, Google Glass is actually Augmented Reality. There is a big difference between the two and I think one can impact the future more than the other. Virtual Reality takes you somewhere else, like with the VR trend takes you into a video game, sporting event, etc. Although this is a cool idea, I do agree that it doesn’t really provide anything other than a simulation experience. Augmented Reality is different because it doesn’t take you out of your environment, but helps you build around it. For example, if I were to be using Augmented Reality, I can build a jet in an empty hanger I’m standing in or decorate a new house the way I see fit without actually having to bring the items into the area. This kind of technology is what Google Glass can offer for the future that make it actually worth continuing. Google Glass may be a bit outdated, but its concept can be some sort of foundation for the future.
P.S. Fix the grammar.
I believe that limitations must be established if Google Glass were the be pressed ahead. I think that technology is very important as it serves as a foundation for future technology. However, a major concern of mine is that Google Glass may provide more than just a virtual world, but a fake world. I think people should embrace the world as it is, not behind a screen or a piece of glass. I also believe that Google Glass should not be used as a tool to breach people’s privacy. I ultimately feel that Google Glass is a good idea and could be used in a variety of ways to benefit humanity, like in the sense of using it in hospitals for further examinations; however I do believe there should be limitations and that it should be used to assist individuals with imperative operations and not as an abusive tool for personal desire.
Hey Alex, I agree with your comment, theres a certain point to where pressing forward can become crippling to society. You said how the Google glass may provide more than just a virtual world, but a fake world, and I couldn’t agree more. Not only a fake world, but i think it’s a world too dependent on technology. Although it could be helpful to hospitals ad doctor use, I just wonder how dependent we become to one day, our doctors are no longer specialized in their fields but are simply reading like how you would on webMD to tread their patients. Imagine if they had the glasses taken away from them. Of course, I am hopeful our society would not allow such thing to happen, but its a very interesting topic to think about.
Hey Sharon, I totally agree with you on the medical use of Google Glass. It is scary that such an innovation and implementation into the medical world may render doctors to be less qualified, and I really hope that this doesn’t happen. However, I think that it could be very beneficial in extreme scenarios when a primary physician may have no idea what is wrong with you: they may be able to look things up quickly to get a brief understanding of what may be going on with you and then direct you to a more qualified and specialized department for further treatment.
Hello Alex, I also believe that limitations to the Google Glass should be put in place because many issues can occur with the advancement of this technology. For example, in one of the assigned articles, the author explained how the device has the potential to conflict with the laws and regulations of certain countries, such as the privacy protections in Europe. I believe that technology definitely has many great uses in our daily lives but, as mentioned in lecture, technology can also consume us if we allow it to. Connecting this idea to the Google Glass, I believe exploring new ideas for the future is great but it can also be a downfall for all of us in the long run.
I agree with what you are saying Alex, but I would like to add more to it. Limitations should not only be put up to protect people from privacy issues, but also from the dangers it would bring through distractions. Imagine always being bombarded by text and email notifications, ads, and visual and auditorial information. You would be very distracted, inefficient, and ineffective with the task at hand. Furthermore, these distractions can cause severe dangers to those driving or walking around because it decreases their concentration from their surroundings. In order to stop these potential distractions, there needs to be some law or limitation to how and when Google Glasses can be used.
Hello Will. I also believe that Google Glass may cause distractions. I believe that such limitations similar for cellphone usages while driving should be set in place for Google Glass as well. I think that limiting the usage of Google Glass while driving will be a major factor in reducing such distractions. If Google Glass should be pressed forward, regulations should be created at the very same time so that at the time of its release, there should already be existing laws regulating it.
Google Glass gave us a new experience of science and technology. Fortunately, I have used it before. I felt that it was convenient when using Google map to check the navigation rather than using an app on a smartphone. Due to the expensive price, I believe not many people will use it. As the Google Glass comes out, there are many new problems. One of the problems is that it allows people to take photos and video clips of other people without their knowledge. That’s why it has been limited in some occasions, such as cinema. Although Google Glass has been limited, the technology and idea behind Google Glass is not likely to simply disappear. It is important for society to press ahead when it is faced with such challenges, as overcoming them not only makes us stronger but also gives us greater achievements and successes.
I’m glad you got a chance to test it out, however, my friend had a different experience with them. She thought they were hindering her everyday task when having to awkwardly look into the tiny lens and try to find what she wanted to do. It’s cool to see how difference each response to the google glasses are!
I agree with you, Google Glass by concept is a great piece of technology. However, society is not ready for the change, but in time, it will be. Many people are concerned with the privacy issue behind Google Glass and you bring up a good with point with saying that society needs to press ahead and overcome these challenges for greater achievements and success.
I agree that the technological advancement of Google Glass should not be limited because advancement will improve our lives overall. However, I believe that strict regulation needs to be used in order to protect the public from the product’s potential distractions. For instance, you said that Glasses is convenient to use while driving because you can constantly check Google maps. However, this convenience can quickly become a distraction on the road if other notifications and visual and auditorial information were to pop up suddenly. There needs to be a law and setting where Glasses could be turned off or limited while doing important tasks.
Change is taunting and intimidating to some people because as Google Glass tries to improve our lives, it invokes the issue of privacy. For example, a person walking around wearing Google Glass can record a stranger’s movements without the stranger even knowing. However, as the Professor said during class, this is already happening. In many stores and restaurants, there is a surveillance camera recording a person’s movements, but why do we not attest this, why do we accept this? Is it because the recording device is not attached to a human and is in some way hidden? At this point in time, people are not willing to give up their privacy to the extent in which Google Glass raises. But also in a counter argument, a person can record a stranger and invade his or her right to privacy by recording or taking pictures with a smartphone. Society does not raise concern and smartphones are readily available and acceptable in the market. So, what about Google Glass makes the topic so controversial in the discussion of existence. The key point is it is new, its unfamiliar and it will take time for the human mind to tangibly accept and understand the concept of virtual reality. Google Glass is the forefront of a new technology realm that will in time prove itself in the market and become as used as our smartphones, televisions and other widely accepted technological devices.
Hi Lawrence,
I do agree with you on how our privacy is already invaded through the use of smart phones. You made a good point on how people do not attest to being recorded with surveillance cameras and that they are already being recorded in smart phones without their permission. People do need to be more open to new technology, as I’m sure most current technology went through scrutiny at some point. People will always have concerns about some new development or technology, so I think google should press ahead with the further development of Google Glass or something similar. Perhaps a device similar to the one seen in Black Mirror would be of use to society. Being able to record constant memories could provide safety in places such as airports (as we saw in the show), and may even help patients who suffer from Alzheimer’s or other degenerative brain diseases. As a result, I think Google should press ahead and keep attempting to develop technology similar to Google Glass.
Speaking specifically of Google Glass I do feel there is no reason not to keep going forward. Even though the initial release basically turned out horribly I feel there is enough of a market for this kind of technology to succeed not necessarily in the mainstream consumer market but maybe in other fields of work. As we have seen in class today there has been tested integration into the medical field which in my opinion is just one of many professions that can prosper from this kind of technology.
For continuing development though I mentioned in an earlier post that Google has already started work on Contact lenses and to be honest. I am totally for it. I do not believe there should be a limit to what technology can do or make for us. I am totally for a new world where we live in both a virtual and real world at the same time. There will always be early adopters, those who never adopt, and those who take their time figuring it out. People always debate on the morality/humanity of technology but I have no personal restraints or limits on topics like this (we’ll see if that changes). Let’s keep pressing forward!
I agree with you that we should press forward because Google Glass make our lives easier and help people in the medical field. However, we can’t trust other people to not use Google Glass to invade our privacy. As a result, I believe that we should press forward but there should be guidelines and rules that place limitation on the usage of Google Glass to ensure that people’s privacy will not be invaded.
I agree that Google Glass should have been developed further. Granted there will always be people who use the technology for indecent things, the technology had a lot of potential to enhance our lives. For every day use, the glass could have enhanced how we use apps. Instead of creating an entirely new world like the Oculus rift does, it could enhance our lives by adding entertainment to it.
My case would be for Pokemon Go, since using it on the phone was clumsy and limiting. The google glass could have done a better job portraying Pokemon in the real world, rather than seeing the Pokemon through a phone screen and having to throw a Pokeball while aiming the camera at it. While this would be fun it would need settings for restricting use when doing things that require one’s full attention, like driving.
Like many of the previous comments have said, inventions like Google Glass will come sooner than later. We are continually pressing towards technological advancement, and at a much faster pace than before. So while there can be preventive measures made, technology like google glass will eventually make its way to us. And while there are dangers to it, there are also benefits. Take things like the computer and the internet. While these things do have the potential to do great harm, they’ve advanced our society far beyond what we can comprehend. So while we can’t do much to stop it, we can try our best to be responsible with the use of new technology.
That’s an excellent point. I mentioned something similar to that in which I believe that people are unfamiliar with this new realm of technology; but it is just a matter of time until society widely accepts virtual reality technology such as Google Glass. When computers first came out, it is safe to assume that people had concerns with computers, unsure if they were okay with Internet Explorer tracking their history or if their information was safe from being hacked. Overtime, as computers were fully integrated into our world, people became more comfortable with its presence to the point where we are today; a computer is a necessity. The same will happen to Google Glass and any new technological advancement that boldly changes our everyday lives.
I think that the Google Glass was a step in the right direction concerning technology advancements. I think although it had its faults, there needs to be mistakes in order to improve and move forward. “The people’s panpticon” talks about the issues with face-recognition technology due to privacy issues and abuse. In turn, Google banned the use of face-recognition apps for the Glass which show that although there are faults, companies can work around it. It is important to note that we are becoming more and more dependant on technology and technological advancements is what makes life easier and more productive. I think that there should be advancements but it should be more affordable and easier to obtain new devices. Also, there are privacy issues regarding everything we use. From facebook, instagram, twitter, everything is of concern. Which is why it is very hard to advance with technology with all the issues. We must be able to adapt and find solutions to technological flaws because it is inevitable.
Like a lot of others in the discussion, my mind went straight to Black Mirror and the Grain when reading about Cathal Gurrin in “The People’s Panopticon” and how he records basically everything he does, and goes back to revisit his history with ease.
I think that Glass wasn’t what the people were looking for, functionality wise, and that’s why it ultimately failed. But that more products will definitely be following in its footsteps in the next few years. I think that as a people, mostly those of use privileged enough to access technology like this, are becoming accustomed to, and reliant of, these technologies. I agree with some that there is no real way to oppose moving forward with technology like this, as with most technology that gets people excited like cell phones and smart watches. If I remember correctly, in class we discussed how with some technology, it’s almost impossible to not adapt it at some point in time. It’s just a matter of how long you resist, and when you finally give in. Because otherwise, you’ll be left out and left behind.
With that being said, I think that when future variations of Glass do make their way to the market – in price ranges that the average person can afford – that limitations do need to be agreed upon and established by the community for what the social norms with these technologies should be.
People already hack into people’s computers and cell phones to spy on them. Which reminds me of another episode of Black Mirror I watched. But even with the knowledge of what hackers can do, I also think that certain limitations and safety measures should imposed via software through the manufactures. For example, if Glass were to recognize what’s it’s seeing/recording, and it were inappropriate, then it would stop the recording and only keep up until the thing was recognized. The common person couldn’t get around security features like this if the manufacture made it harder to “jailbreak” the device.
In the case of Google Glass, must we press ahead? Or should limitations be established—be they by government, by common agreement, or otherwise—that constrain this technology, in response to some of the concerns raised by the readings?
The article said that other companies were already looking into creating something like this, I feel that this could feel competition for their products to made good. That, and public opinion of their technology would mean a lot, so if we don’t like something they would change it. The cons as said in an article seemed to be mostly of hackers and inapprioarte photos. There will always be people that use it for the wrong reasons, and people already get hacked for other more important stuff such as bank accounts, emails, and photos. This would be similar to having an account for something like that. I feel that this should go ahead and be built but that us as the people should have a say in how we want it regulated government wise in that, what other people like the gov. can do with our stuff. I’m sure if the government tries to use our things or take control people will object and it shouldn’t be touched unless the person themselves offers it willingly and such. I think that this technology would be bring more good than bad.
I agree that more good than bad can come out of these types of devices. As for other companies considering devices like Google Glass, it’s already started; Snapchat Spectacles have recently made waves. I’m sure most people know what Snapchat is and the Spectacles is a device one wears like glasses and has the ability to record videos and pictures. Additionally, Google has announced some sort of Google Glass 2.
The point you’ve mentioned above about the government regulation makes sense to me. We are living the world with laws. No matter how awesome some hackers’skills are, if government concerns about this issue, officiers always will find someone who is greater than those hackers to fix the problem. Besides, we could also predict our future, which is mostly surrounded by internet ( even now). So the protection of privacy is necessary.
After reading “The People’s panopticon” and going through the pros and cons, I would argue that we should stop and slow down with the technology we are producing. The Economist made a really good point in arguing that Google glass would be a door into losing our privacy since there are so many possibilities with this new technology. In terms of Google glass, there should be limitations established by the government as to how far the technology can access the camera. The readings raised a lot of concerns about privacy with Google glass and how it’s not attainable because it has video and audio recording and there’s no way to regulate that. There is a need for a line to be drawn so that we can continue to make new technology but not compromise our well-being and peace of mind. The government should step in and do this because developers will continue to push the bounds unless they are told no and the only people that can stop them is for the government to make a rule that has consequences.
I agree that we should slow down and stop producing such devices and add government regulations. In addition to the lack of privacy is the decrease of human connection. There are sadly only a few times in our day when we aren’t using technology and using Google Glass will only lessen our time away from technology. And yes, it is true that that developers will continue to push bounds unless they are told no.
The potential of Google Glass could be limitless. On first thought, I see two primary directions Glass could go on. One is how Glass is like the next evolution of the camera. People like internet personality Casey Neistat said that Glass would be an ideal tool for him. It provides the opportunity to record one’s life in a first -person perspective and watching the promo video makes me think that is what Glass was initially marketed to be. The next “Go Pro.”
The next direction is in the realm of video games. With Virtual Reality gaming becoming increasingly popular, I think Google can take this opportunity to try and innovate the video game industry. Think of a better, more interactive Pokemon Go as one of the starting games but this idea could go further into fully immersive virtual reality as well, given advancing technology. An argument against this direction would be any argument against video games really, but with that argument comes a lot of counter-arguments as well and this is something we all hear enough of.
In my opinion, we should not press ahead with the Google Glass. I personally agree with The Economist’s article views on how it can it’s helpful especially with providing information when car accidents occur or hands-free photography. I like the idea of being able to capture images, record videos, or send texts with the power of my voice and eye movement it seems rather excessive. However, there are many other devices (i.e. Apple Watch, iPhone 7, Snap Spectacles, etc.) that can do exactly what Google Glass does. Everything that Google Glass offers can be done through the use of our smartphone. Also, using our smartphone is much more convenient and simple. If everything you needed was in the device that you always have in your hands, why would you waste more money to get the same thing but for your eyes? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Hi Thao,
I agree with you that the Google Glass project should not press on. As you said all of these functions are on our smart phones are it is somewhat convenient. However, I do believe that we depend too much on our hand held devices, if Google Glass is perfected and re released back into the market, we may become more obsessed with it. This will decrease your interaction with others and can overall be a danger to society. False news cold travel faster. In a way we’ll lose more of our freedom to technology because we’ve become so attache to it
Hello Thao,
I also believe that we should not press ahead with Google Glass. I’ve seen many comments on here arguing that it’s similar to a smartphone and others saying it’s not. However, for me personally, it would be like a smartphone except much more expensive and more inconvenient. If I were a surgeon, maybe it would come in handy to record procedures without having to hold any extra device. But when I think about what I’d do with the Google Glass, I can’t see myself doing anything that I don’t already do with my phone. I do like the idea that technology is advancing to make it easier for disabled individuals, but some features can be an invasion of privacy for others.
I think that we believe using our smartphone is much more convenient and simple, because that’s what we’re used to. The selling point of Google Glass is to be able to have the features without having to be constantly using your hands, displacing the role of your phone with the glasses. To be able to snap a picture in an instant; not having to 1. pull out your phone, 2. open the camera. Things happen in the blink of a second, and the glasses you would have the camera, ready and able to go.
I don’t think the execution might’ve been perfect, and I believe it didn’t even pass the beta stage (please correct me if I’m wrong!). I think that if the glasses had more time around, there wouldn’t been ways to improve them, but they stopped the production of them. I would’ve hoped that they provided more functions, that it did more than what a phone does. I believe that if it would’ve been developed further it could’ve possibly evolved into that.
Google Glass’ innovative concept progresses our world to the next step. Being able to record what we see is far from what humans believed they could achieve back in the day, let alone take a picture. As a wearable accessory, the Google Glass will grant its users the ability to record without having to hold up their phones–it is as if they are recording from what they see through their eyes, not through a replication on a small handheld device. I believe that the Google Glass is something that the world has to either fully commit to or not allow at all. If there are a few regulations with the use of the Google Glass then there will still be complaints from those who didn’t get there restriction law passed. However, in a civilization, as portrayed from the clip of Black Mirror in class where everyone had a “grain” and giving them the ability to record and monitor every second of their life, it is acceptable. If everyone wore a Google Glass in their everyday lives, it would become a social norm.
The concept of Google Glass could be somewhat connected to the show Black Mirror’s grain that is planted in people’s heads. Our society has integrated technology in our daily lives that we seemingly cannot live without it in the 21st century or even replace it. We have altered our lifestyle to constantly rely on technology. Though more increasingly, limitations have been realized and are put into place. If limitations do not exist to regulate the use and integration of technology in human lives, then our society will shift towards that of dystopian fiction. Whether it is the case of Google Glass or any other technological advancemnt, limitaitons must be set to protect the nature of being a human; to not humanize machiens.
Google glass should be released in the market with certain restrictions. There should be no blatant invasion of privacy through taking pictures of a person without permission. If caught guilty there should be punitive measures against the culprit. There are many public spaces where photography isn’t allowed. Whether these glasses must be allowed here, and the user trusted to not take pictures through them or simply forbid carrying them inside the property is a matter of discussion. I personally feel that this device isn’t user friendly enough yet where it would make our everyday lives easier. The only thing I can see it useful for is recording and clicking pictures on the go. Other features especially viewing data on a screen at the top corner doesn’t seem as convenient as the company portrays. It would be paying a lot of money for a few goof features.
We are on the same page, Aditya. So far, the cons outweigh the pros in my opinion. However, like you mentioned, I also wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of releasing the product with heavy restrictions and set boundaries to avoid the privacy and safety concerns it brings with it. If the product’s makers can change it to be much more difficult to record others discreetly, utilize less invasive technology like facial recognition and data collection by companies, and hacker holes, then Google Glass might have more of an appeal to me.
In the case of Google Glass, I do not think we should press ahead. Although Google Glass provides the same features as a smart phone contains, it also provides the uses with the freedom to record freely at any moment they would like. There are other forms of technology that can perform the same tasks to the same degree, if not better than Google Glass. I feel like Google Glass just takes a different form, per se of any smartphone. In The Economist’s, The people’s panopticon, it is argued that reviewing the daily lives of patient’s with impaired memory should use such devices as wearable cameras, but such “important events” can also be captured with a camera on a phone. If such device, Google Glass does become more prevalent in society, privacy agreements should definitely be placed. While capturing memories for one can be enjoyable, the privacy of those filmed and those around them are compromised.
Hi Alyssa !
You mentioned there was better technology than the Google Glass that does the same thing but what kind of examples would those be ? You mentioned it being a different form of a smartphone but I don’t think they’re exactly the same. I think the google glass can be compared to the apple watch and the iphone, where they have similar functions but in no way is the apple watch an iphone.
Technology, all forms of, has its pros and cons. Technology can help expand our spectrum of communication and to an extent has the potential to shape how we perceive ourselves. Google Glass, was the technology that was supposed to bridge the gap between what different individuals experienced. In some ways it did manage to do that, but the product itself was not very practical. The cost to own and maintain one was just not affordable or desirable to those who were on a budget. Google Glass was meant to help others see the world from their perspective, yet it wasn’t an attainable product. Privacy issues also came to light due to the fact that recording others without their permission was unethical.
Hi Aura,
I agree with your points. If Google Glass was really meant for the public, it should have been at a much more affordable price and convenient. The idea is amazing, but the execution of the product wasn’t the same.
Hi Aura and Thao,
I get your points that Google Glass is not really for public and affordable by now, yet I think every products except “luxury” items (once time passes and demands increase) will soon to be at the point where they will be affordable enough to a lot of people, especially because it has its own technology in it which improves our life better or rather more convenient. I think it will be better for us to think about some of outcomes and predictions on the use of Google Glass rather than making firm conclusions. However, yes, I agree with you that all forms of technology have pros and cons and I believe this is why we need to consider about some different outcomes on the “birth” of new technology devices.
The Google glass commercial was so popular when it first came out. Because the commercial makes people think it is a pioneer of the technology development into everyday life , and people have hoped that lives will get more convenient after this. However, google glass turned out to be a rather disappointing product since it is not as magical as people thought it would be. Technology is developing everyday, and it has dived into people’s life. Like X-Box, playstation, iphone, computer and so on. Think about it, what has been kept using are still those that make our lives convenient and fun. Others just faded away as time goes by. In other words, human has been choosing or in another word limiting the technology regardless of if they did it consciously or not. I believe that people have the ability to judge what types of technology are really worth developing. Nevertheless, there are many technology products that are used by professionals like scientists. I would not have enough knowledge to understand all of them. Google glass might be something beautiful and new at one moment, but just because of its impracticalness, it would not catch much of attention later on. Therefore, technology should be developing in a useful and helpful way.
Hi Yue.
I agree with your statement that human unconsciously limit technology due to the impossibilities of making everyone agreeing to the said technology. I personally believe that Google Glass is still a great concept. The ability to display certain apps or functions quickly on a Google Glass instead of taking out my phone to open the same app which is less convenient (not inconvenient). Others might disagree with me because of how they view the Google Glass as an invasion of privacy.
I disagree with Google Glass being impractical because its 24/7 access to apps can be helpful in certain ways. For example, construction workers can use the Glass to convey designs and assigned tasks with each other without taking their hands off dangerous construction tools to use a phone. Doctors and nurses can benefit from the Glass to convey a patient’s health information instantly instead of looking for it in a computer. The reason why Google Glass failed in the eyes of the consumers is because their aim towards consumer use was too early and misleading as most Google Glass ads showing off world-class experiences was just appealing the consumers to those world-class experiences , but not the Google Glass itself.
There should be limitations on something like Google Glass. It basically did not provide something innovative for the public consumer which is why it failed. Phones nowadays do everything the GG. There should be an agreement, be it by anyone who has jurisdiction over something, on what a company may produce; if it is not innovative, it should not be allowed to be produced since it can actually hurt the company or economy in the long run. In terms of privacy, something like the GG should probably not have video recording ability since it does allow anyone to be recorded. Yes, a smartphone does have the ability to take pictures and record videos but we can easily tell when someone is doing such.
I dont think the new technology device like Google glass should be limited, and I agree that it wont be used by many people right now because of the price. Although it is convenient for people ‘s daily lives, even it can do a lot of works which normally human being do, it can not replace the identity of human in the society. On the other hand, as a glass, it is easy to break. By considering the price and this property, I think it will not be popular right now. However, limiting this glass means we stop the development of technology, in some degree.
Hi Lu,
I agree with your points. When Google Glass comes out, It has been used in many areas like medical science. It was a very good idea, and really powerful. If it needs to be popular and be used in people’s daily lives, Google Glass need a much more affordable price.
Hi Lu and Li,
Google Glass has some use in areas like medical science as you said. They are also recently used in aerospace industries like Boeing. So while it is useful there, I don’t think Google should press on with the Glass for people’s daily use, even if it was affordable. We can already do most of what Glass can do on our phones, so there is no point.
One of the arguments that I have seen floating around is that Glass is basically nothing more then a smartphone. However, I would argue that if Glass is ever released commercially to the public then different apps and functions would be created by different developers around the world. Glass is a completely different apparatus then a phone or a table which has a whole new world of possibilities in what it could do. The concern for privacy is undersandable as well although in this day and age how much privacy do we really expect to have once we leave our homes and enter the public.
Hi Lara, I totally agree with you on this. I think that if Google Glass were ever implemented into society that many other third-party developers would release game-changing apps to take Glass to the next level. As Google understands their own product better, they may be able to make adjustments/alterations that may increase its functionality for more everyday-use scenarios. At which point would start gaining popularity among the public and then more and more people would want to get it, maybe even despite the privacy issues. Google just needs a chance at its breakthrough invention.
I agree with Lara’s statement that in this day and age, privacy is never gaurenteed. I believe that breach of privacy is not at the hands of the device but instead the intentions of the user. One does not need the Glass to take inappropriate pictures because they can just do it on their smartphones. http://sites.uci.edu/art12aw17/writings/1-due-february-5/comment-page-1/#masthead
I think we should press ahead, but we should also have some limitations about google glass. Google glass is a good example of the development of the technology. If we use google glass, it can really make our life become convenient. We could record everything we saw and we can also see everyone’s information through the google glass. However, everyone’s privacy will be exposed to the public so we should have some policies about these kind of things. In one word, google glass should be press ahead. and google glass should be a part of our life.
With the growth and rapid expansion of technology advancements throughout the years, devices such as the Google Glass are inevitable in today’s world where the consumption of technology is found everywhere before our eyes. As controversial as it is, the Google Glass is a prime example of the evolving technology that with a continuance on the project will prove to be helpful to society. The issue with privacy is one that can be argued with numerous technological devices in today’s world thus pressing ahead with Google Glass should not be limited by the concerns of privacy. It is typical to remain skeptical and avoid new technologies, but with technology rapidly changing and progressing, we should embrace it and learn how we can use devices like the Google Glass to benefit us.
We should put more limitations on some technological products like Google Glass. Though Google Glass makes people’s life much easier apparently, Google Glass also fundamentally can be regarded as “a degradation of human”. If Google Glass manages all of the things in our life already, people’s meaning of life becomes dim. Why life is brilliant? Because you can do things on your own to get a sense of honor, self-inner peace, and an acceptance to yourself. The reason why human being is more advanced than any others is that people can share thinks and have their own personal unique perspectives on anything. However, Google Glass makes each person identical with any others because Google Glass has fixed routine and ways of thinking. It makes our lives much easier but make us become “the same”. That is not variety of human being but a degeneration of human being.
DON’T RELY ON TECHNOLOGY TOO MUCH!
Hi Xi,
I love your sentence that “Google Glass manages all of the things in our life already, people’s meaning of life becomes dim”.
Although I definitely support using Google Glass, as the “People’s Panopticon” emphasizes, to help and improve humans’ life through the use of better technology in hospital, law firm, and criminal investigation, yet I think relying too much on Google Glass and making them as cultural norms are quite dangerous and destructive. Just like you said, we should be careful not to rely too much on technology because we may lose our own sense of thinking, privacy, and perspective.
In my opinion, we should discreetly put limitation on products like Google Glass. I think the Google Glass cannot be called a successful product, but a forerunner in that area. It has three major problems: Battery, Appearance, and Privacy Concern. Only two hours’ endurance cannot even be called a mobile device. Also, it makes people looks strange while wearing it. Most importantly, people are afraid of its hidden characteristic. Many people think Google Glass is nearly invisible while using its camera or recording function. However, there are, actually, many invisible devices, such as pinhole camera. It’s much easier to use those devices, rather than Google Glass, and people didn’t put any limitation on those devices. Also, due to its appearance, it’s easy for others to see it, just like the Go Pro. Beyond that, is our privacy really safe without the development of these portable, wearable devices? I think the answer is no. Even now, our personal information is still disclosing. The phone/net fraud we get everyday is the best proof. In this way, we should not limit the development. Further, we need to make it a open source platform in order to attract more and more developers and companies.
Hi Weichen,
I completely agree with your points, especially about not having privacy with the devices we have out there now. We live in a time where everything we do is being recorded and published by us or surveillance, we simply don’t have privacy anymore. And devices such as these may be convenient in some aspects, but the cons outweigh the pros by a lot. As much as I would love to see technology develop and progress, I would like to keep it limited to ones with high potential and low risk of privacy concerns, i.e., advances in medical technology for starters.
I believe that we should press ahead with google glass. The functionalities of the Google Glass has no difference in comparison to a smartphone . Google glass is much more convenient than pulling out a phone and physically holding it, and the fact that it is on your face allows others to physically see them so they would be aware of what they are using. A breach of privacy is less likely since everyone can see them, and rather than a phone that could be hidden in your pocket secretly recording conversations. With technology becoming more involved in education, students can use their google glass in order to assist them with learning, such as taking pictures of lecture slides they aren’t able to write down fast enough.
Hi Isaac, I agree with you that we should proceed with Google Glass. Like you said it is very similar to a smartphone and can be more accessible. I also agree with you that they could be used greatly when it comes to learning. However, I do think there may be some limitations or regulations set because I agree with you that the glasses are more visible but still some people may not use them at appropriate times for example while driving and may put their lives and other lives at risk. Overall though I do agree we should proceed with the google glass because I think they can be beneficial to students and can bring new teaching techniques into the classroom.
I totally agree with your opinion. I think if the Google Glass is being widely used, the issue of privacy should be paid a lot attention. People could never realized their privacy is being recorded until being showed in front of other people, and surely it will become a serious problem in the nation.
Hey Isaac and Nadine, I totally agree with you both I think that for educational purposes Google Glass would be very effective. It is well known that college students have the tendency lose a lot of sleep while they are in school and as a result cannot pay attention to their full potential during those long lectures. With a valuable resource like Google Glass, students will be able to record and replay lectures in sections of that lecture that they may have “zoned out”, “nodded off”, or simply were just not fast enough to write and process the information that a professor may have said. In terms of the limitations revolving Google Glass, I do think there should be rules/laws made that restrict the use of Google Glass in certain situations such as while you are driving so as not to endanger your own or other people’s lives. In terms of privacy, I think that Google Glass should not be used in private areas like the restroom, your own home (such as a complete stranger that may be checking out the schematics of your unless; unless you give your consent for it to be used), or in private establishments. I believe that anybody and every business or establishment has the right to decline the use of certain devices such as Google Glass if that is their choice.
We still have a choice. It is a case that engineering and computer science pioneers pushing people forward. It seems alright in the eye of the followers of these people but they should also consider the other side for the people, with their knowledge. Pressing ahead, in this case, will not cause too much trouble for human race. It may change our social life like cell phones. Don’t forget, as a commodity, the market may not response positively 100%. Engineers’ view of our future should not be demonstrated as the correct answer then using words like “we have no choice but to press ahead”.
I think in the case of Google Glass, we should press ahead, but should establish some limitations by the government and common agreement. The technology is always advancing, so I think there is no way to push it back. In stead, after reading the two articles, Glass, Darkly, by Theodore Ross, and The People’s Panopticon, From The Economist, I start to think about the disadvantages of the technology be too much advanced. I think the government should give regulations to lead the Google Glass to a good way, rather than let it do bad things secretly. The government should protect human rights. Also, I think common agreements should add on to help government to regulate the Goggle Glass.
I totally agree with you. We cannot stop any king of technology from coming out but limitations can be placed. There are people who would tend to misuse such advances in technology. There is barely any innovative device that hasn’t been a part of a misdeed. So there has to punitive measures to keep the wrong-doers in check.
There are both advantages and disadvantages on Google glasses. On the one hand it has witnessed the progress of science and technology, achieved the previous people longing for science and technology. However, in order to develop Google glasses, consuming a lot of manpower and material resources. I do not know how many people contribute to the big data for Google glasses. Google glasses is to achieve a major step in the development of science and technology, but also brings security risks. If some criminals use Google glasses, it will bring great danger to society. We can not control the sale of Google glasses, the identity of the person, so it is necessary to increase the supervision of Google glasses. For example, to strengthen the management, the implementation of a three year recycling policy, through such means to confirm the flow of Google glasses
Whether we must press ahead is a decision that should be made by the generation that’s born for it. As we get older, we become more knowledgeable. However, at the same time, we start to think too much. When we see new things that we are not familiar with, we would consider their pros and cons before trying it. These concerns eventually grow into fears which prevent us from accepting new things. The knowledge we gained limits our imagination. In the case of Google Glass, people, who are abandoned by the new technologies, are concerned about the privacy issue. They are the people who consider the pros and cons. If you are concerned, find a way to fix the issue. Therefore, limitations should be established so that innovation won’t be stopped. If you don’t like the rules for the game, make your own rules, don’t throw the game away.
Hi Matt,
I both agree and disagree with your comment. I do recognize that with age comes wisdom and fear of the unknown because we gave grown up in a world that has set specific standards and rules to coincide to that particular era’s social and political unrest . Nevertheless, our imagination’s development is not hindered as we grow old, but it, too, like technology matures and progresses. While our five-year-old self would dream of chocolate milk rain, our thirty-five-year-old self would reinvent current ways of communication, for instance Glass. If anything, the ability to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of an invention are only capable with our newfound ability to focus on a single idea while broadening our understanding of its potential impacts domestically and internationally. The knowledge gained from proper schooling and personal experiences shape our thought processes to the point where childhood curiosity meshes with adult fanaticism to create technological advancements. I do, however, agree that without limitations being placed on these innovations, we may slowly begin to transition toward a primary state of adult obsessiveness. The most notable example being social media where young adults feel the need to consistently check their notification status rather than acknowledge technologies presence without letting it consume us like when we were children.
Hi Lilith,
I 100% agree with your comment. I often find myself wondering if as I grow with age, will me dependency on technology grow as well? If you would have asked me a few years ago I would have definitely said yes press ahead with Google glass! Why not!? But after taking classes such as this one, and watching movies and tv shows such as Black Mirror, I have my worries. After reading both articles, I couldn’t help but ask myself “Why?”. What would be the point of recording our every movement? We can already do that with our smart phones and cameras. Do we feel like we need Google glass because we as humans are growing far too lazy to simply reach into our pockets and grab our phones? What is the real reason for Google glass? I think the cons definitely outweigh the pros here. I think there are way too many privacy issues and in general, Google glass is a distraction from reality. We already have laptops, cameras, smart phones, tablets, virtual reality, and the list goes on. Do we really need another piece of technology to distract us from real life?
From my perspective, in the case of Google Glass, some limitations should be established. No doubts that Google Glass is a high tech product, it will benefit us not only in our daily life but also in working. However, there are still some disadvantages. For instance, people care more and more about personal privacy in our contemporary society. One advantage of Google Glass is the convenience of video or photo shooting. You could take pic or video whenever wherever you want with just a tiny move of your facial move, but in that case, others around you would not notice that. So it does harm others privacy.
I agree with your comment in that there are pros and cons about something like Google Glass that can very well be the exact same thing. The downside to it can be that the GG does not present anything new that a smartphone can do besides us being able to wear them. They are not so practical but can be useful with changes and limitations.
I think it would be a smart idea to press ahead because technology is always advancing and people become more creative with technology. Users are able to invent new ways to use a product that had no intent of being used like that when originally thought of. If there serves a purpose for a given technology at the time, it will be used for that purpose. If there is not, then it will not be used and there should not be any reason to have a restriction on it. Given the example of Google Glass, many were fearful that people would record others without their knowledge or consent and that it would be as ubiquitous as a smart phone. Now they are able to see how Glass was a commercial failure, only to be seen by the techiest of people, and there was no reason to enforce any restrictions on the technology in the first place.
In the case of Google Glass, although it is a very controversial issue that consists of both pros and cons, I think we must press ahead. There definitely should be limitations to it such as privacy settings and regulations regarding safety issues. However, it is such an innovation that it should be further developed and promoted so it can be widely used among people. As for smartphones, just seven to eight years ago, they were not as developed as now, and many people were so accustomed to the “2G” phones that they doubted the comfortability of smartphones. But now, it is hard to find anyone without a smartphone. Similarly, if properly developed, I think Google Glass would contribute a lot to the society.
Google Glass is a controversial topic in which if it should pull ahead. I have been watching the show Black Mirror and their episode about the grind installed into a persons head seems very similar to google glass on a more technologically advanced society. But, one thing about pushing forward with this product and if it will be a huge success like an iPhone which most people have, making it strange or out of the norm to not have one, is getting people or a society to converge to this product. Like today there is many things an individual cannot perform without said smart phone, and is out of the social aspect of media. Getting people on board to switch to this advanced technology if it is to be re-released might be hard at first with skepticism and the questions about the limitations performed by the product. Google glass is suppose to make life easier, but to what extend is too far? I think that the government should have limitations on the product to protect people and for the product to be used in other ways it was not initially designed for.
Hi Janelle! I definitely agree with you when it comes to the issue that if the Google Glass does become successful and it becomes the norm to have one, then it would be weird if you were the only one without it. I like how you brought up Black Mirror just because I think films and television shows can really portray where society is heading. For example, I think the show Westworld is predicting a futuristic world that we might be a little bit far from reaching quite yet, but it addresses the reality that one day our world would be headed towards a different technology-dependent world. So I do think we should press ahead just because we will get there anyways. It just depends on if it will be sooner or later. The show also brings up the question like you brought up, which is when is it too far? So I think to answer that question is that we just have to wait and see.
I agree that Google Glass is indeed a controversial topic. It also reminded me of the Black Mirror episode in which the device similar to the Google Glass controlled the character’s life. Placing limitations towards technology like Google Glass is necessary as it may be used for what it was designed for. On another note, I think that we can interpret regulations on technology as something similar to internet censorship. For instance, the internet isn’t heavily regulated in the United States. Thus, there are times when the internet has gone too far, from fake news to cyberbullying. Yet, we can all agree that the internet allows us to access multiple sources and to communicate with many. In other words, without regulation and if pursued, Google Glass may introduce technology that will help law enforcement and medicine while also inviting new problems such as the violation of privacy and “risk the very frankness and honesty of human communications” as mentioned by David Gelernter in one of the readings.
There are pros and cons to everything and Google Glass is no exception. It’s essentially a new field of technology that could pose unexpected problems, but at the same time it also holds promises of untold possibilities. We don’t know how Google Glasses could impact the many fields of our lives. It could pose new problems in school, driving, social life, child development etc. And yet at the same time it could make our lives a lot easier through multitasking, making quick notes, subtle improvements. As of the models that were released to the public, the google glass would be an aid to smartphones, not replace them. I feel like they would be in a similar lane to the apple watch. Ultimately, until this technology substantially improves, I would say that this is not a necessary device in our lives yet. I currently feel the same way about the apple watch and this is essentially the same. The public does not need this kind of device yet because it doesn’t offer us anything life changing. I’m for this technology improving and one day becoming something necessary in our lives, but until then I see no value in it. As for limitations, I feel like everything should be regulated. Whether it be strict or not would have to depend on the initial public reaction, but there definitely should be some degree of restriction to this technology in order to prevent issues such as the ones in our reading.
Hey Jessica,
I also agree with what you said about Google Glass possibly posing unexpected problems in our daily lives. Although the concept is great and actually very cool, I also seeig it as being unnecessary and eventually becoming a fad in this quick-moving generation. I feel that unless everyone has it and uses it on regular, people will just grow tired of it. The concept to me reminds me of all the apple and google watches that people use. Only it is more complicated to use. I also think that it needs to have regulations as it can be distracting in many ways. It can be distracting as far as just walking in the street, driving a car, or talking to someone. I don’t think this concept will get very far and also agree that there needs to b a degree of restriction to this technology in order to prevent further issues.
Hey Jessica,
I agree with the point you made about Google Glass’s unknown potentials. At the current stage, Google Glass does have many disadvantages, such as its high cost, its outdated appearance, privacy issues, health and safety concerns, as well as the lack of practicability. However, I think Google Glass should still be pressed ahead. Like you said, since Google glass hasn’t been fully developed, we should not expect it to be perfect. As the technology grows, maybe 10 years, 20 years or even longer, I believe many of the concerns we have today about Google glass can be solved, just like the cell phones,which keeps improving and adding new functions.One of the important reasons that Google Glass is unpopular in these days is because it doesn’t meet the demands of the consumers. People generally believe that “it has nothing more than a smartphone.” In order for Google Glass to stand out, I think it will be a good idea for it to focus on the need of specific customers, such as people in medical field, people getting in involved in outdoor activities or people work in Customer Service department.
Hi Jessica,
I agree with you that the list of pros and cons continue and that its impact on society is still ambiguous. I find it interesting that you mentioned that it is similar to the Apple watch because that was also my first thought. Though it doesn’t contain all the technology of the Google Glass, it is an extended technology of a smart phone that’s worn on the wrist! Almost the same way people always have their cell phones next to them, the Apple Watch allows people to always have their ON them. So I do believe that if Google were to press ahead and continue improvements, it could be a useful tool to society. It can serve as a solution to lower crimes and complaints against police officers or even help those who suffer from dementia or Alzheimer’s disease to cope with their memory loss.
Hi Jessica, you make a pretty valid point. We can’t really make concrete facts and predictions on how this technology can benefit our and the future generations, we just have to just wait to see!
Google Glass is a controversial product to argue about it. From my own perspective, I do see there are some benefits of this glass; however, it still exists more disadvantages than advantages that we should not press ahead to google glass. The google glass has similar functions, contrast to mobile phone. In modern society, almost everyone holds a smartphone in hand at every moment. If both of them have the similar functions, the google glass will produce a transient boom to catch consumer psychology and then constantly fade away. People who buy the google glass is because of its novelty in appearance. In functionally, google glass is not as perfect as smartphone, such as selfie and photoshop. Normally, people are now used to record anything they are interested in by taking photos and selfies and share to the social medias. Before sharing, they are more willing to use photoshop or some other apps to embellish and consummate. In this point, google glass does not provide humanized service. Also, the google glass may produce potential dangers, for example, when we are driving. If we want to clearly see what is the content, we have to pay more attention on something in front of our right eye. Then, it causes distraction from the outside things.
I agree that Google Glass has both advantages and disadvantages. On the wikipedia page we read about the advances in medicine; however, in everyday life there isn’t much use to it. It’s a distraction because people will be so focused on capturing every single moment. We do that enough with our phones. Like you mentioned, taking photos and selfies and sharing them online is the norm when we want people to know what’s going on in our lives. It’s bad enough that we feel the need to share every moment instead of living and enjoying the moment– so I don’t think we should press ahead either.
I think you bring up a very good point in that people are more attracted to the appearance of Glass than its actual capabilities, and I agree with your statement. Some people are afraid of the changes the technological world will bring and how it will alter how things look or how we look while others are all about embracing the new trends. This can be blinding in a sense because as you mentioned Glass has some of the same features as the smartphone, but even so the smartphone is still the boss. I think that Google should not press ahead as well because the risks that come with it are more concerning than what its looks have to offer.
We should press ahead with the Google Glass. The Google Glass can record incidents which will hold people accountable. The Google Glass can also eliminate the problem of people holding up their phones too much to take a picture. There can be privacy issues with the Google Glass, but since people wear the Google Glass on their face, people will know when they are recording or using them. Unlike phones, people sometimes hide them to take photos. The Google Glass is in plain sight, so if someone is taking a photo of you, you would be able to notice it better than a phone. If places decided to ban them, people would not be able to sneak them in since they’re visible on your face. People would not be able to use Google Glass without wearing them either. However, people still sneak phones in and use them when they are not suppose to like a movie theater or restroom. In my opinion, the Google Glass is easier to regulate than a phone and safer in terms of privacy.
Hey Gina,
Thank you for bringing up your various points. I hadn’t realized how useful it could be to be able to easily record accidents by having the Google Glass. The argument could be made that it’s extremely quick and easy for people to flip out their phones and catch a hit and run driving off, but having something on your eyes pointed at the scene is much more quicker and reliable. Recently there’s a new law that prohibits drivers from holding their phones in their hands as it is a distraction for people to switch back and forth between the road and their phones, with the Google Glass this would eliminate this problem completely. As for your comment about people being able to notice if people are taking pictures of them, I would have to disagree. I think it’s much more obvious for someone to point their phone towards you rather than them glancing over in your direction. It’s much easier to spot someone trying to press the capture button on the camera rather than the google glass taking a photo of you.
Hi Gina!
You bring up many good points in your argument. Google Glass does have the ability to record just about anything, when you want it to. It can aid you if you happen to capture a video of whoever backed up into your car, but how would we know when to record since we do not know when situations like this can happen. I think dashboard cams are better in this sense since they are just constantly recording. I would have to disagree with you that Google Glass is easier to regulate than a phone. With Google Glass there is a higher chance that you catch something unlikely or possibly confidential because it’s what is right in front of you as opposed to a phone which most people when they need it. Using a phone is more obvious than Google Glass because it is like a screen within a screen.
I think we should definitely press ahead. It is clear that many people have stated the disadvantages such as cheating, but the advantages of this innovation is superb. There is a time and place for a convenient technology like Google Glass, and I agree with most of the people that Google Glass should not appear in tests. The convenience it would bring to people’s lives is impressive as people do not need to stare at phones all the time; and looking at phones has been a big problem for contemporary society as people think phones diminish time for social interactions. The only limitation I can think of right now is during exams, because people can record lectures and maybe taking notes by using this impressive technology. Therefore, this should be press on for sure.
Hey Robert,
After reading your post I instantly thought of the episode Black Mirror episode, The Entire History of You. You mentioned that phones diminish time for social interactions, but I feel like if the technology advances far enough for Google Glass, this problem would only get worse not better. People will constantly have the glasses on their face whereas now it’s easier for people to put their phones away. If we were to press ahead and advance in this field, people could be having lunch together and from the outside it may look like their paying attention to each other, but in reality both people are browsing the web while appearing to look directly at the other person. It’s much easier to “multitask” and say that you’re not whereas with smartphones it’s easier for us to tell what someone is focusing their attention on.
Looking at Google Glass and the reach of technology today, I think that it’s safe to say that if Glass is continually developed, there would need to be some sort of regulation in terms of privacy, functionality, or possibly usage locations. It’s hard to say what kinds of things Glass would be able to do in the future, but I don’t think it is necessary for us to press ahead with Glass because we will probably gain the same functions in different forms through other upcoming technologies.
Hey Tucker,
I agree with you as well I believe that technology on it’s own is going to improve and I mean Google glass does have it’s perk but I believe that if it didn’t work out the first time maybe that particular innovative idea wasn’t quite successful and it might be later on only if there is a complete change of the entirety of the project. There are many downfalls that have been seen by many people. It could be because they aren’t used to it but I believe that it’s just not as efficient and practical as what it is portrayed to be.
Hi Tucker,
I agree with you. It would be hard for us to avoid the development of new technology. Every time the new technology develops, we must deal with the problems that comes with it. Even if we try to avoid using it concerning some problems that comes with it, we would probably face with another gadget with similar function. If we cannot avoid using it, then we should use them with some regulations. Therefore Google Glass, especially concerning other people’s privacy, there must be some regulations using it.
Although there are disadvantages and concerns about Google Glass, I still think it is a fantastic innovation and should be promoted. First of all, it allows us to record every memorable moment in our lives. Many things take place in a second and by the time we have come up to record them, they have already finished. With such camera on the head, we can record every moment in our lives and we won’t miss any memorable moment. Secondly, it increases the fairness of the world. With camera recording everything that is happening, there is always an evidence if something go wrong. It is like a judicial supervision system that supervises the law-enforcing department. Thirdly, it makes life more convenient. It allows us to surf the internet wherever we want and whenever we want without even having to move our fingers.
I do agree with you that it could be a great innovation! but looking at the points that you raised as an advantage of having it,they could be disadvantages at the same it. why would you want to record every single moment of your life while you can just live it and enjoy it. I mean if we really want to snap a great shot of a moment that we really want to come across it again, we can use any of many innovation that enable us to do like a camera or a phone.However, it can be useful to record those moments that help figuring out the truth and fair judgement but this will bring the argument again about privacy and not everyone will agree or feels comfortable being recorded and observed by others.
Yes I totally agree with you. Advantage and disadvantage always show up at the same time. The innovation of technology will bring up moral conflicts because different people have different ideas about technology. In my opinion, what we ought to do is try to use the technology adequately and don’t bother others.
I agree, when I first thought of the Google Glass I thought of recording and capturing moments without having to hold your phone up such as at a concert, people can pay more attention to the performance and less on holding their phone up. I also thought of how much evidence Google Glass can provide us. For example, the article from the Economist talks about how people have dash cams in Russia to record car accidents. The Google Glass could also do this. The Google Glass could even record the police which could make them more accountable for their actions. Like the article mentioned, the public complained about the police less when they were being recorded. With the Google Glass, people would act better, knowing they are being recorded.
Hi Shengwen!
You bring up some great points in your argument. While there are some disadvantage to Google Glass that is no reason to downplay it because all technology and its devices have pros and cons. Although Google Glass was not a success, I have seen this new device similar to Google Glass called Spectacles by Snapchat, which has nearly the same concept as Google Glass but is only used for Snapchat. Google Glass provides us with the opportunity to capture some of our best memories as they are happening right before our eyes. But, if we are too focused on capturing these moments, are we living in the moment or just there to replay it later on? As for your point about evidence, Google Glass does seem ideal to solve the issue, but also arises the problem about privacy. But, in my opinion if it came to it justice trumps over privacy. I would much rather like to be on my phone or a laptop to surf the Internet rather than to look into a projected screen right before my eyes because I think the look of Google Glass is not designed to look “ideal”.
Although there are a lot of concerns about privacy issues of Google glass, I think we have already had same concern with smartphones. That’s why in many classes, students are asked to turn off their phones and put those phones into their bags. And nowadays, when we want to record something by our phones or cameras, we seldom ask consent from people who are recorded by accident. But I think it is still a good idea to add some limitation to Google glass to make it safer and less controversial. In addition, I think Google glass still have a lot of things to improve, not only this privacy issue, it still has a long way to go.
I remember when Google Glass first came out, I didn’t think too much of it since I grew up with the rising popularity of many technological products. We’ve all seen movies like Iron Man, Mission Impossible, Star Trek, the list can go so long but the point is many realize that this is the technology of the future. It would be wrong to restrain technology from advancing since it is so relevant in our everyday lives and has many benefits. However, with advances in technology comes uncertainty in how private our personal lives actually are. If Google glass-like technology were to become as prevalent as it is now, the issue with privacy may become no more. In Mission Impossible—Ghost Protocol, William Brandt (played by Jeremy Renner) had a mission to take a picture of confidential documents from Russian spies to avoid a nuclear war and although he played the “good guy,” we must ask ourselves how far we will go. Perhaps if this technology truly exists, people will violate others privacy without consent. As the article “The People’s Panopticon,” states about privacy, “If people have accepted, as Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, has claimed, that privacy is no longer a “social norm”, few will make such demands—fewer still if ever richer digital memories offer real benefits.” Although I am all for innovation, we must ask ourselves how private do we want our lives to be.
I think that a compelling point made in Glass, Darkly was the idea of “phases” of accepting technology. Although they are relatively broad and stereotypical interpretations of how generations view technology, they do hold a certain truth. So I think when it comes to the question of pressing forward, it falls on the developers to consider the generational differences in their target consumers. If we think about how a future generation would use this kind of technology, what would they do with it? Could we shape how people view Google glass and similar technology so that they would use it responsibly? The problems lie in the users and not the technology itself. As generational shifts take place, our focus should shift as well.
Hey Michelle,
I totally agree with your point. There is a contrast in how for example we view this technology versus maybe how our parents see it. These are the things that the developers would have to consider when thinking about how to expand their technology. I think these differing views would ultimately decide on whether we should place limits ir press ahead with this type of technology.
Hi Michelle,
I agree with your point that we should consider the future usage instead of the current value of technology itself, but I also do not think that human should exert too much effort to innovate new technology. Everything comes with its meaning, and thus some technology innovations exist with their purpose. The Google glass represents one of the latest technological achievements that relates to people’s daily life and makes it more convenience. Definitely, it is an innovative product but the effort to invent it makes it at a price that is unaffordable for a majority of people. The reason that I do not think the technology need to be press too hard ahead is that modern people rely too much on technology products. During meals, people stare at their cell phone instead of chatting. In the subway, people look at their devices instead of paper media. For me, this relationship makes me worry and the dependent on technology becomes a burden on me.
The Google glass is one of thousands of IOT devices that have or are now emerging into the market. As we all know, one of the biggest societal problems with the Google Glass is the fact that you can record or take pictures of anything, even without the consent of the person being recorded or photographed. After some coders created a hack that allows the Google Glass to take pictures with just the blink of the eye, the victim might not even know they are being recorded. I think many people would agree that Google glass, or anything similar should press ahead, but there should be limitations established by the government. Though I also feel this way, I also feel that its inevitable that everything will soon be recorded, and may even now be, whether we like it or not. So, in the case of the Google Glass or other wearable IOT devices with a camera, would there be a point in even creating these limitations or rules? Maybe, in the beginning when a new and updated Google Glass first comes out, it will be needed probably just to create something like an etiquette or a common agreement to not randomly record people, but in the end, there will always be people doing it illegally. Basically what I’m trying to say is that, yes Google Glass or something similar should continue to be developed, especially right now in such a tech driven world, and there should be limitations set, but in the end, they should be taken away just because its inevitable that people will be recorded without them knowing.
In the future, this might be something that could come in handy when it comes to finding criminals. If people’s POV is always recorded, autonomous software could be used to scrape data from it and find wanted criminals.
On a totally different note, if Google does continue with the Glass, for the love of God, lets just hope they make it much more user friendly and that the screen will be much easier to read without having to squint awkwardly through the corner of one’s eyes.
I believe that Melissa shed some light on the privacy issue that has risen when Google Glass was introduced into our society — the ability to record one’s point of view. However, I don’t believe that being able to take pictures and videos of others without their consent is the main issue with the product, it is instead the lack of an indicator that the user is recording. When someone is recording their surroundings using everyday technology such as cell phone or video camera, it is not difficult for peers to notice that the user is putting the camera to use. It is much harder to tell when someone using Google Glass is actually recording. In CNET’s article, “Hey Google Glass, are you recording me?”, writer Dan Farber explains, “The act of recording video or picture taking may not be that obvious from a distance or to the uninitiated. It’s clearly less obvious than someone pointing a phone in your direction.” Snapchat’s new product, Spectacles, is similar to Glass since it is essentially a pair of sunglasses that records one’s POV. There are light indicators on the front of the glasses that let others know when a recording is taking place.
Another issue about Google Glass is its inability to fit into our society. The headpiece itself screams, “I’m new, odd, and different!”, but what might be even more unappealing is the gestures that users have to make to use the product. Making odd gestures to yourself in public is not the norm, and another reason why it is not as successful as it was anticipated to be. I believe that since the Snapchat Spectacles are less obvious and attention-grabbing than the Google Glass, it is able to fit into society not entirely, but much more smoothly.
I would also like to focus on the video recording/picture ability of Google Glass (although it is obvious that is not the only use).
I actually also thought of Snapchat Spectacles. The only thing that I would like to note is that it definitely is not as ‘high tech’ as Google Glass. Spectacles are mainly used for point of view pictures and videos where as that is only one small aspect that Google Glass can do. That being said, the topic of invasion of privacy is definitely not just black and white. I don’t think it is possible to ever know exactly how many pictures there are of you, whether you are the subject of the photo or if you are just in the background. However, constant surveillance can be perceived as a good thing. Not only might it keep everyone on the straight and narrow, but yes it can also be used to identify people who are out there breaking rules. I also agree that if Google continues to push with this, having a way of notifying others that recording is in process would help ease any discomfort of being recorded.
I agree with melissa. It’s also funny how we are weirded out/ or the Mcdonald employees that were being recorded were weirded out when we are being recorded every day. Everyday we are leaving digital footprints throughout our world. We simply just don’t have a face projected on a screen when we’re surfing the web and giving away information about ourselves. I think because the idea of having your privacy be knowingly violated, it becomes a bigger issue.
The two readings present Google Glass in different ways, The Economist looking at the different positives and negatives Glass can potentially be used for and why people might or might not want to hop on this product, whereas the blog piece gives us the closet insight experience of Glass by the Explorers. From The Economist article I felt there was a feeling of caution and doubt in the way Glass would be seen by the public and if it and the people were really ready for this type of technology. Talking about the possible “creep shots” and privacy issues, The Economist article points out the technology may not be received well by some, also pointing out the fact that Google is more of a driving force in programming products and not necessarily a product marketer, which may be a reason why the Glass wasn’t as well received. As for the blog piece tries to give himself and the public a review by the few lucky Explorers on Glass, coming out to find that it is an accessory with limitations. With the two Explorers we see that Glass isn’t something to be worn all the time as it takes away from real life interactions with people and had some type of superiority if worn out in public, having others constantly ask to see or experience the tech not yet released. Also the two articles do say Glass has use in the certain work settings, but from a public standpoint I think both critics have doubt about the products success. Each pointed out the tech was not fully adequate, not really ready for the public, definitely still in it’s prototype stage. For me I thought that was really strange, like why give out the tech when it’s not fully at its best potential? I guess trial run, but when you give out the tech to a large majority of people to give feedback who aren’t required to actual turn in a review, it’s pretty pointless. And as we all know Glass didn’t become the big hit, Google thought it could be, like honestly I don’t even remember it’s existence, thought it was a future idea. Saying that maybe Glass can be something in the future, maybe we weren’t ready for this type of technology.
The article from The economics and that from Theodore Ross are utterly different with their personal thoughts. From either way, they both agree with some advanced spotlights from the glass that could bring to make people lives easier. For people who have short memroizing problem, they could use google glasses to take piture of every single thing to deal with this problem it used to make the life hard(P The economics. However, there are worries showing up in the two articles. Privacy is the most concerned in the first article. Will our email addresses, bank accounts and personal information be leaked after we using the google glass? No one knows how it will work because the google glass basically could do anything while you give a order and maybe it will leak our personal information in an unrelated order. Similarly but some sort of distuinguished side, Ross concentrates more on how will people accept it. Whether it’s modish or uncanny for people, it will join in our lives sooner with shortcomings. Depending on people, it could be a fantastic tool helping in life or a fancy but useless trash. Technology has its two sides. We fix their mistakes and improve the good side of it. Also review from the history of developing technology.
I agree that Google glass is an amazing invention since it has so many functions. I also believes that it has pros and cons. Google glass enables people to record their daily life. But apparently, it is not necessary to record everything. Privacy is the main concern when it comes to google glass. The constant recording may accidentally violate people’s privacy. Another issue is that when people have got used to wearing the Google glass, they may actually rely on it. People may overlook something right in front of them just because Google glass helps them to see everything.
Hi Yikang, I agree with your point that it is not necessary to record everything. Many of us have fallen into to the habit of snapping a picture or recording a video when we are out. I was once at a concert and I pulled out my phone to record a video. As I was recording, I caught myself looking at what was in front of me through my phone screen and I just felt like I was not living in the moment. I was at the concert physically but it still felt like if I was at home watching a concert through a TV. I believe that google glass is something that is along the same line as this and that you will find yourself looking at the corner of glasses instead of looking at what is right in front of you.
As I read the two articles from the Economist and Theodore Ross, I kept on noticing that the themes of the two articles intertwined. In the Economist, I thought that the article talked a lot about privacy issues and how the technology of today is pushing our culture to become more transparent, yet in the piece by Ross, he stated that it is acting as a barrier for us to communicate. While it may be that our culture is advancing our technology to have a better form of communication, it may also be decreasing that ability. In relation to Google Glass, the articles have stated that there are many privacy concerns such as facial recognition or the feature to record without anyone knowing that make those without the technology apprehensive towards those with the technology.
Hi Cecilia ,
I really like how you brought up the part about, “Ross [and how] he stated that it is acting as a barrier for us to communicate. ” I know this wasn’t a focus in your post but I would like to discuss it. I think it’s pretty ironic how despite how interconnected we are with the internet as we can literally send someone a message in a matter of seconds, and yet we as a generation are finding it increasingly difficult to hold a conversation. Rather we text the person we are sitting right next to as our eyes and fingers are glued to our devices. Bringing this conversation back to the topic of Glass, I definitely feel that this type of technology will further cripple us in the sense of human interaction as the device is literally attatched to our body.
To be direct, I believe that there should be limitation to Google glass because it is very dangerous to the user. In “Glass, darkly” by Theodore Ross, the author mention that his friend “[Lori] ask if [he] wanted to take a turn with Glass but [he] declined … due to its expense and fragility: [He] didn’t want to be responsible for breaking it.” If for example the Glass broke when it is in contact with something, the pieces of glass will poke the eyes of the users which can blind them forever. Some people can say how about people who have myopia and have to wear glasses already, well if they are wearing those glasses then they couldn’t possibly be using Google Glass because I think that Google would not work for them, they would not be able to see clearly. In addition, there is another thing mention by Ross that I believe is very dangerous to the users as well, he mention “Glass pushes notifications to you, and the map function appears in one corner of your vision.” I think this is very distracting to the users especially when they are driving. This is in a way the same as using cellphones while driving because I was looking at the promotional video and if I only focus on the map box, I was not able to see or away of what was on the road. Therefore, I believe that the government should be restricting the use of Google Glass because common agreement would never work since people have different point of view. Though there are some benefit but I do not think it is worth it to risk our life or vision.
Hi Brian,
You actually brought up a really good point here that actually changed my mind on this argument. Should we press ahead? At first, I said, “Yes, why not?” because it wouldn’t be much different than from our smartphones which we use for just about everything. For example, I’ve seen people use snapchat (an app where you take pictures/record) to record a stranger doing something funny without that person knowing they are being recorded. Point is, Google Glass wouldn’t really make that much of a difference since we already do much of its functions with our smartphones.
But then you recalled what Ross had mentioned in his article, “Glass pushes notifications to you, and the map function appears in one corner of your vision”. Although its only at its early stage/development, as Ross mentioned that most of its capabilities require internet connection, should Google Glass improve, I realized just how much danger it could bring into this world through one particular issue that struck my mind: ‘Google Glassing and Driving’ (in reference to Texting and Driving).
11 teenagers die everyday due to texting and driving, and as we all know, there are regulations for this – texting and driving is simply illegal- yet this issue keeps arising. Now imagine the increased popularity and use of Google Glass and the possible issues it could bring in terms of our safety when driving. I know this is just one aspect that Google Glass may bring about, but I definitely think it’s worth mentioning and acknowledging. Technologically speaking, I think it is amazing how far we have come, but the more we “succeed” in making such innovations, the less safe I feel.
As every technology out there, there will always be pros and cons, including Google Glass. According to “The People’s Panopticon” article, Google Glass has its benefits of recording one’s life and having it in storage to watch and remember one’s moments. On the other hand, it proves to be a lack of privacy like every other recording device out there. People do not like to be recorded and it is difficult to ask everyone for consent to release this footage or to keep it for the viewer. Although anything that Google invents will be big for some time, it will eventually downgrade and people would not be needing it anymore. Therefore, the only way to figure out to press ahead with an invention like this is to consider whether people would continuously utilize the device. At the same time, there should always be limitations on all of the inventions that anyone produces because there will always be a fear of something going wrong, someone feeling uncomfortable, or someone without any privacy.
I agree Kelly! There are many pros and cons to Google Glass. While the benefits include being able to record things as evidence or record memories, there will be people who take advantage of this. People will also loose their privacy regardless of how the Google Glass is used, because they have to worry about being recorded or accidentally being in the background of a photo or video. This is already a common problem with cameras though. I think the solution should be people being more considerate when they record or take pictures.
Upon reading about the concerns in the article from The Economist, the concept of “life logging” using the Google Glass was eerily similar to “the Grain” from the episode of Black Mirror watched in class. I do not think it is a good idea to record your daily life because there will be some people that you come in contact with who will feel uncomfortable about being filmed. It would be too difficult to obtain everyone’s consent before recording their interactions. However, I do think it could be useful (after more fine-tuning and bug fixes) for healthcare professions or during combat, as exemplified in Wikipedia. The bottom line is that if it can be used to benefit everyone involved I think it could be a useful tool for the future.
Hi Vivian,
I completely agree with your comment on consent and the comfort of people around the user. There are definitely positive applications for the technology that could be helpful in the future. I think one of the hardest things is for the technology to be regulated effectively. There are so many possibilities for a technology like Google Glass and the society won’t know exactly how to regulate it until the time comes when everyone is using it.
Hey Jacob,
I really liked your comment about how society won’t know exactly how to regulate Google Glass until everyone uses it. I believe that society won’t fully acknowledge the issue unless society takes this new technology as the norm. Problem is if it is this hard to regulate it already the market for Google Glass won’t go anywhere and more privacy issues will arise as development progresses. Thus creating this endless loop of people not wanting to use it because of privacy issues which entails no concrete regulations on it and thus loops back to people not adopting the Google Glass.
Hi Vivian,
I really connected with your post. I completely agree with you on the fact that our daily lives should not be constantly recorded. I not only believe that it is a privacy issue, but I also believe that it takes away from truly enjoying life. It is sad that in today’s day and age, we are more consumed with documenting and sharing our lives, rather than actually living our life.
Hi Vivian. I agree with your post. I do not think it is good to record every aspect of your life. I was thinking the same thing when you said that it would be difficult if not impossible to get everyone’s consent around you. Also, chances are most of the people around you will prefer not to be recorded. I think if recording devices like the Google Glass are to be used by professionals, there needs to be some regulation on it so people’s privacy can be respected. I am hesitant to believe that recording devices like this can ever be used in the future without consequences like violation of privacy.
Hi Everyone! Just a reminder to keep your comments short and to the point. You do not need to write your entire writing assignment as a comment here. Use this opportunity to practice being concise in expressing yourself.
Hi San La!
I agree with you that we need Google Glass as it serves as form of help as all technology is essentially created to do. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to have technology although I do understand that there is some restraints. This could include social situations. For example, the world we live in today, we often look up and be surrounded by people who are on their phone instead of formulating a conversation with you. Technology however is a big advantage than disadvantage to me because it not only helps us with our daily activities everyday, but also saves us a lot of time. There is infinite amount of examples of how technology saves us time. But in the article, The Economist when the surgeon uses the Google Glass as a camera is something that is very efficient. After all, he only has two hands which is already being used to operate on the patient, so how could he hold up a camera to take a video? I feel that we must press ahead because we owe it to ourselves to keep exploring. If people before our time never ‘pressed ahead’ would the iPhone be here? Computer? Car? No, none of these things would be here because we drew a line at where the limitations of technology could be reached.
This technology would be great for medical professions; especially general surgeons and orthopedic surgeons. According to Forbes, and other databases, many physicians spend a majority of their time filling out paper work. It is in my unprofessional opinion that with the introduction of google glass, doctors may be allotted more time to spend with their patients. It was stated in the wikipedia article on the class website that the use of google glass has been used in a few practices to nearly eliminate the need for an electronic health record. Scribes would review the footage in an alosteric location whether it be the same day of the interaction, or a few days later. I am not sure how such a method would increase efficiency, but I am assuming that using playback options on the recording instrument allowed the scribes to complete the job without needing further iteration from the physician. Ultimately, the google glass device had proved to not be obstructive and saved the physician fifteen hours of paper work.
Although google glass showed promise in alleviating the burden of low skill labor among those who perform the most skilled labor in the country, one should be concerned if such technology will distract physicians and be counter intuitive to creating better patient doctor communication. It is no secret that hospital apps designed for doctors that have been meant to improve efficiency, have actually had a hand in distracting them. New York times quotes a study conducted by a journal titled Perfusion when noting that, “55 percent of technicians who moniter bypass machines acknowledged to researchers that they had talked on the phone during open heart surgery, while 40% of the same physicians recognize that doing so is dangerous.” It is plausible that google glass may exacerbate the unsafe, distracted behaviors existing among physicians that put many at risk already.
Hi Michael, this is a great comment. In today’s culture, many people are already so distracted by their electronic devices. This phenomenon has invaded the not only workplace, as you have mentioned, but also in daily activities such as driving or the dinner table with family. How do we know that Google Glass will help our future rather than cause more destruction or distraction? The Economist article says that people will be “more observant, more absorbed” with the use of Glass. I am not so sure that this is a pro rather than a con. Users might become so caught up in the features of their hands-free device that they could bypass the unique experiences that are right in front of them– or on the other side of the Glass. Worse, they may be constantly looking to the corner of their frames, taking their focus away from what they are doing and thus putting them into danger.
To add to the comments above, I agree that there are pros and cons in the technological growth of the devices we use in our everyday lives. Google Glass was released with a optimistic view of aiding our daily lifestyles through the use of automated voice controls and a visual screen in front of your very eyes. As I begin to grow older, I become more fearful of how others (and admittingly even myself) become so addicted to technology, more specifically handheld electronic devices. Phones have evolved tremendously over the past decades and transcends the simple function of calling someone. The ability to surf the web, play games, navigate GPS, and even read a book without being plugged in the wall makes our smartphones feasible and almost a must-have (especially after observing how many people DON’T have smartphones in class).
Concerns have been expressed by the public and some companies are already responding. For example, Nintendo has implemented a Parental Control function for their game system, the Nintendo Switch. This function allows parents to set restriction times for gameplay throughout the week and even displays a summary of how much their child plays for the month. This is a one example of constraining technology, but we have to keep in mind that it’s a setting for a small audience of Nintendo Switch users in comparison to millions of others who rely on smartphone technology.
I personally disagree with barricading the limits of technology. Though I understand that there may be distractions that may affect our daily lives, progress in our lifestyles will inevitably change as it has in the past thousand years. Capping our potential to advance further into resolving global issues such as health will only straggle the human race’s growth.
I agree with both comments.
Google glass definitely is an amazing invention. However, it has cons and pros. Google Glass can help us to record our daily life and enable people to learn new things more efficiently. Especially, Google Glass can play an extremely helpful role in medical field, engineering field, and biological field, which can encourage other technological and medial developments. Nevertheless, Google Glass also produces some negative effects. If the government supports and encourages people to use some technological products such as Google Glass, people will gradually rely on this kind advanced technological product. Even though Google Glass indeed can provide convenience for people’s lives, it will also prevent people to think about their own lives and cost people a lot of time to focus on something that is irrelevant with their lives. For example, phone, a great invention decades ago, provides people more convenient and efficient lives, but it also occupies people most time, which blocks people to pay more attention to their families, friends, and themselves.
I don’t think that the government (especially under Trump who is a businessman that believes in competition) would favor google as a company or their product. Google glass seemed like a great product when it first came out, and the implications of the product are still quite promising. Such a devise would be perfect for law enforcement, and help to alleviate the lack of trust between communities and the police officers. Body cameras have already been invented and have shown to be quite effective in Spokane, Washington, however no state has come up with legislation/ policy that will adequately protect the privacy of pedestrians, while ensuring that interactions between law enforcement and civilians may be recorded objectively, and provided for all to see. In Spokane, computer science experts have developed a program that immediately redacts all faces on the camera screen, yet the redaction will engulf important features of civilians such as their hands, arms, and body language. Such obstruction prevents anyone from getting a clear representation of the interaction. I’m excited to see if body cameras and google glass can co-evolve to produce technology that allows us to increase accountability among police officers AND pedestrians that come into conflict, to increase fairness when officer related causalities do occur.
That’s an interesting comment because you mentioned that Trump, as a businessman, would not show his love to Google glass. I agree with you that I do not think that Trump would give permission to Federal law enforcement department. However, I am still hoping that local police officer and highway portal officer would wear google glass while working because Google glass is such a convenient tool to use. They could record videos or take pictures anytime especially when car accidents or local residents conflict occur. Secondly, I agree with you that body cameras technology would be included in Google glass. It would definitely help Google glass improve its function for many uses in different professional fields, such as sports training and law enforcements.
When thinking about the writing assignment and choosing a side, I ponder about how you can argue against the idea of new technology similar to the grain. I see how you can talk about privacy regarding face recognition and having first impressions on society as stated in The People’s Panopticon, but all of the arguments against it can be alleviated. There can easily be an options category where you can customize your wanted privacy and if you even want the technology on. The benefits of this new technology are endless. It would bring honesty and truth to society. People would be on their best behaviors for fear out of social and political consequences. Lawsuits in common life, the medical field, and law would be truthfully resolved. Let’s look at a common example that anyone can relate too instead of bringing in a specific field such as medicine or the law. When driving on the road, a untruthful and immoral person can slam the breaks when they see that you are a little closer than you should be. You have now slammed into their rear bumper and potentially totalled their car. In most situations, the person that rear ended the other is at fault. Your car insurance would go through the roof and you could have a lawsuit against you especially if that person suffered any health related injuries. Technology like the grain would prevent everyday situations like this from happening. Society with be truthful and honest. I would love to hear opinions of those who think this technology shouldn’t be invented. What do these people think?
To say that all arguments against technology similar to Google Glass can be alleviated is a bit excessive. Just because you can toggle on and off the option of face recognition doesn’t change the fact that it is recording the actions of others. It’s easy to say that you can just turn it off, but how are others supposed to be aware of its state? Just wearing the technology already brings about curiosity from the public. Yes, the technology can bring truth and honesty to society but its also possible to distort the truth and create suspicion and chaos. Potential factors of this are deleting and editing certain parts of the recording, inaccurate sound quality, or a lack of proper graphical resolution. Also, constant surveillance would not cause people to be on their best behavior. If that were so then we shouldn’t be seeing any robberies in the 21st century because as you know, security cameras are a thing. In addition, I don’t think people would appreciate being monitored at the time. Orwell’s book 1984 depicts such a situation where the government monitors the life of every citizen and as it turns out, not everything is sunshine and rainbows.
I definitely agree with you Jacky. It is easy to turn the option of face recognition on and off, but many people forget about this feature and could be going on through out the day with this feature on. This device has many privacy issues like you said recording the action of others and especially without them having any knowledge that they are being recorded. I do also agree with the point that people can use these recorded videos to their advantage when in a situation where truth is needed, but there are crooked people who could manipulate these videos intentionally so it serves in their favor. This definitely would not cause good behavior because there would also be those naive people using the Glass to record themselves performing mischievous acts and crimes just like how some people do with their phones and post it on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. To say the least, it would make it easy for these people because they would have the ability of both their hands, such as if they were tagging up a nearby school. I feel like also this would be a huge distraction because some people would use it while they were driving, just like how they use their phones, and end up risking not only their life but also the people around them. I can definitely see many advantages to this device, where one could use it for legal options and recording memories, but there seems to be more disadvantages with the concern of privacy, manipulation, and distraction.
I can see the points that you are making regarding privacy issues and dishonest people manipulating this piece of technology. However, I believe a product like Google Glass is just something that is inevitable in our society. Once something of this caliber is released to the public and it becomes more widespread, it’ll be something we see as normal just like smartphones or any other piece of technology that we constantly use today. Something that comes to my mind right away when privacy issues are brought up are the privacy issues with the technology we use today. Google Glass wouldn’t be the first controversial product because of privacy issues. Social media platforms such as Facebook have brought up their own concerns regarding privacy. There is also voice assistant technologies like Microsoft’s Cortana that can keep an eye on everything you are doing on your laptop. In regards to people being worried about being filmed, this is a valid concern that can be brought up today with so many people recording their every move. There are Youtube Vloggers that record their daily life and other people are present in the background. I highly doubt they would go up to every single person they come across and ask if they could be featured in their video, yet they still publish it on a highly visited website such as Youtube. This is similar to people using GoPros to record their adventures. Strangers are around them, but they aren’t making sure that none of them show up on camera. I believe Google Glass would have some privacy concerns but I believe technologies we have accepted have already introduced those concerns and have ignored them. I believe the pros to a new technology such as this outweigh the cons.
This was an interesting discussion that you kickstarted, Connor. I’m curious about your response to Jacky’s claim that it may be a bit excessive to say that arguments against Google Glass can be easily alleviated. That fact that Google Glass is a discontinued technology (for now) could signal that we have not succeeded in alleviating some of its privacy concerns.
As Google Glass is currently, it is a device clearly more emphasized to be used either recreationally or for business ventures such as in the medical field or police enforcement. Google glass is a system where it may not be convenient to be used daily solely on the fact that it may record everything because of incorrect reading of eye movement or if the user would take pictures by physically clicking the shutter button as stated in The Economist’s article which makes Google Glass very inconvenient. However, I do believe that there should be a small amount of regulation because it may take images of things without the user knowing. As of right now it seems that Google Glass will not be used daily, but it may be the next step towards something similar. In other words, society is moving towards a world where it is trying to be hands free and ease movement by making things “wireless” which may lead to technological advances that may impede on a person’s privacy. There is already camera that can be controlled to take pictures with remote control. A remote controlled camera can take images of someone without that person knowledge, so who is to say that people would not use hands free cameras to take inappropriate photos. Some regulations that may help prevent these types of situations would be controlling the places or times the items such as Google Glass may be used. For example people will not be able to use Google Glass on crowed busses, trains, or in line during check out. I understand that Google Glass is not an inconspicuous device and has not developed to be used on a day to day basis; it is on the users face and cannot be missed, but by following these regulations a person can avoid being accused of taking incriminating photos as well as people do not have to be worried about pictures being taken of them.
Oops, if a TA sees this can you delete my original post please? That was an early version of my discussion thread. Here’s the new one :
Like a lot of others in the discussion, my mind went straight to Black Mirror and the Grain when reading about Cathal Gurrin in “The People’s Panopticon” and how he records basically everything he does, and goes back to revisit his history with ease.
I think that Glass wasn’t what the people were looking for, functionality wise, and that’s why it ultimately failed. But that more products will definitely be following in its footsteps in the next few years. I think that as a people, mostly those of use privileged enough to access technology like this, are becoming accustomed to, and reliant of, these technologies. I agree with some that there is no real way to oppose moving forward with technology like this, as with most technology that gets people excited like cell phones and smart watches. If I remember correctly, in class we discussed how with some technology, it’s almost impossible to not adapt it at some point in time. It’s just a matter of how long you resist, and when you finally give in. Because otherwise, you’ll be left out and left behind.
With that being said, I think that when future variations of Glass do make their way to the market – in price ranges that the average person can afford – that limitations do need to be agreed upon and established by the community for what the social norms with these technologies should be.
People already hack into people’s computers and cell phones to spy on them. Which reminds me of another episode of Black Mirror I watched. But even with the knowledge of what hackers can do, I also think that certain limitations and safety measures should imposed via software through the manufactures. For example, if Glass were to recognize what’s it’s seeing/recording, and it were inappropriate, then it would stop the recording and only keep up until the thing was recognized. The common person couldn’t get around security features like this if the manufacture made it harder to “jailbreak” the device.
I also think that these technologies can also be helpful in public safety. Kidnappings, sexual assault, theft, and much more would be deterred if people knew that there were eyes on them at all times. I’m for these technologies, we need to embrace change and find out how to use it for our advantage. The whole reason for technology is to change the lives of humans, in one way or another. And we won’t move forward unless we give it a chance.
I think that we should press on with Google Glass because it’s an innovative technology with potential to benefit a lot of professionals. For example, in the article from the Economist, the author mentions Google Glass’s hands free camera being used for surgeons who wanted to record their surgeries. I think having that type of technology adds to the amount of resources students and others to use who want to learn surgery techniques. This type of recording could be applied to a number of professionals who need both hands and to be attentive at their task but also want to show people what they are doing. Furthermore, having a hands free camera is beneficial to the average people too. People nowadays are always recording things on their phones, either through snap chat or other social medias. I don’t think this is too different from having Google Glass. The biggest difference I feel like would be that the Google Glass is less obstructive. This leads to the concern of privacy. The camera can be used to record anything you can see and the concern is that it can record private situations and such. However, I think that type of issue is with every recording technology. For example, phones can be hidden and used to record things and so can any other cameras. This does not lead to phones being the issue for invading privacy but it’s the individual committing the act.
Hi San,
I agree with your opinion regarding the potential advancements that the Google Glass could create in education and in professional fields. I think the Google Glass should be slowly integrated into society, first by being accessible to professionals who can use it to make innovations in their fields. The general public should be able to enjoy its benefits as well, though not until proper legal boundaries are established to ensure the safety and privacy of users and non-users alike.
Yes, I agree that we should continue to advance with the Google Glass. Advancing and finding solutions to troubled technology is the only way we can improve in technology for the future.
There is no doubt that Google Glass is an excellent invention. Nowadays, I can see a lot of people using Google Glass in lives or in some TV program because it is very easy to record people’s life and camera what happen. The cost of sharing people’s life and communication are dramatically reduced. Anyone can record his or her life at anytime and share the moment with anyone. However, like every coin has two sides. Google Glass also bring some negative effect that people have to face and think about. According to Thad Starner, glass is a horrible life-logging platform (The people’s panopticon). Google Glass is more like a platform to share people’s life by recording a video. However, as some one records his or her life, it also affect other people who do not want to appear in the video. In other words, the privacy is affect by Google Glass. Besides, security is also problem that we need to consider. When people share their life, they completely expose themselves to others. Based on that situation, who is responsible for the negative result if there is some accident, such as stealing. Therefore, restriction for Google Glass is necessary. With the protection of law, people who like Google Glass and dislike Google Glass will be both protected.
I totally agree with your idea. Google Glass could be very useful in the future due to its numerous functions. However, the limitation is also required. For example, it is very easy and convenient for us to record a video by Google Glass but it is either quite simple to take pictures of others which may affect people’s privacy.
Like Samuel C. Florman’s assertion, I do not think we even have a choice whether to press forward. Since the idea was already presented to the public, we will move forward with perfecting this invention. It has already caught the attention of so many. I too believe that the Google Glass takes away human qualities. We would no longer have the feeling of nostalgia because we could relive our lives through the recordings of the Glass. It is kind of similar to the Black Mirror episode with the Grain. People do not feel the need to remember anything since the Grain does it for them. And although nostalgia may not be a great feeling when we desperately want to recollect memories, it’s a part of life. You forget things, you remember things.
With that being said, I don’t think the cons outweigh the pros. The Glass just seems like an advanced version of our phone and GoPros. In my opinion the privacy concerns raised in “The People’s Panopticon” is not a good enough argument. It’s true that people can take “creep shots” and that there are hackers who can exploit these photos and videos. People are already doing these things all the time with their phones, so I don’t see the difference in recording with the Glass. I also believe that the group of people that would use the Glass for these purposes is a lot smaller than the number of people that might use it to record incidents (on the road, face to face racial or sexist conflicts, police brutality, etc). It’ll provide concrete proof of evidence similar to the use of police body cameras. Yes, there are many possible problems. But I don’t think the solution is to stop the invention itself. The solution is to improve. To put restrictions on where they could be used, to improve the product so that video recording and photo taking isn’t as surreptitious (implementing the shutter-click noise like South Korea and Japan).
Hello Lauren,
I completely agree with the statement that there is no choice really on whether to press forward in the manufacture of technological devices such as the Google Glass. The advancements we see in the technological world today have been extensive and as was mentioned in class, humans have served as very useful resources in the promotion of such products. When it comes to technology, our primary goal is not always to utilize our devices for any beneficial aspect. On the contrary, the primary emphasis has become to be on top of societies demand and keep up with the latest trends. Some of the best examples of this particular trend include the purchase of smartphones like Apple’s I-phone. Despite the minor upgrades made from one generation of phone to the next, many go out and purchase these devices simply to be able to say that they are up to date with the latest technology.
In the case of Google Glass, continuing in the manufacture of this product would simply add to society’s desire to get their hands on the newest technology available. Some of the concerns which were brought up regarding the Google Glass such as hacking I agree will not be fixed with simply seizing manufacture of the product. These concerns are faced on a daily basis by other things such as the internet, and credit cards. In those cases, there are always new innovations being made such as the new chips being used in most credit cards today. The same idea could be carried out in the further development of the Google Glass and only through continuous trials of the product will they be able to come up with new forms of dealing with these concerns and making their products a successful buy for consumers.
Crysbelle, I totally agree with your statement that advances in technology are primarily focused on society’s demands. Of course any kind of invention will come with pros and cons that people will single out as a reason to buy or not to buy, with this case being between a better way to record your life versus raising the question of privacy and security issues. I find it extremely telling that Google Glass was a highly hyped up product that would “[offer] the chance of defining an entirely new category of consumer product” (The people’s panopticon), but ultimately became a product that the public moved on from before it could become commonplace. The trailer offered up dozens of possibilities to use Google Glass in modern life, yet it failed to appeal to society and was discontinued.
If we consider some of the most popular inventions of the past, the first ones that come to my mind are radios, TVs, and phones. Those three inventions were also intended to become common household objects like Google Glass, yet the products managed to fulfill their goals while the latter was rejected. To me, Google Glass can serve as great inspiration for future technology, but since it wasn’t accepted by the majority of the public, progress on it in particular shouldn’t be continued.
Hi Lauren!
I completely agree with you, with the fact that we don’t really have a choice anymore since the idea was already presented to the public. Technology is advancing so quickly and drastically that there are many new inventions that are going to be made in the near future. As we heard in lecture, Stelarc, believes that the human body is obsolete and we need to add technology to improve ourselves. This may seem like a completely radical idea but it seems as though it is already happening with wearable technology, such as fitbits, apple watches etc.
Google glass is great innovation for people who loves taking pictures and enjoy using new technology. It is a symbol for our new era, which people can do anything by using the new technology. However, it also has many concerns. First, Google glass can take pictures without others’ notice. Besides privacy problem, it also has issues on cheating. If a student wears google glass on an exam, he can easily search answers without any studying. It is not fair for other students. It is just an easy example. The most important thing is people will not put any effort into their life. They will rely on the google glass, and human civilization will not develop any more. According to the article The People’s Panopticon, “The fact that technology makes these things possible does not mean that law and regulation can put no check on them.” Technology can change the world, and also can change human in both good and bad ways.
I would agree with you that Google glass is for those who love capturing pictures and memories, as well as testing out new technological advances. I think that it has both positive and negative outcomes. A positive can be helping police officers and other professionals taking on legal liabilities (The People’s Panopticon). It can aid lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, and many more people, saving them thousands of dollars. One main concern would be the privacy issue with Google glass. This concern is already a major concern that exists today with all the hackers hacking into phones and invading people’s privacy. I think this is a cool invention that needs improvement and would definitely benefit the public in many ways .
I agree that Google glass can have a privacy problem like in your example of cheating. However, when you compare it with smart phones that have the same potential to be used for cheating that problem is easily fixed by banning smart phones during exams. The same thing could be done with google glass. I think the issue lies in the fact that it can be more discretely used but as of now google glass is still new and is very noticeable.
Hello San! I agree with you that Google glass is more noticeable than smartphones. to use Google glass, you must wear it on your head which is very obvious and to control your Google glass, you should either speak a command or take an explicit action, which can so easily be caught in any exam. And nowadays, nearly all people have phones with cameras. So I think they can do all things Google glass can do in some more subtle ways.
I am actually very excited to see if something similar to google glass will be released in the future. I think that this breakthrough technology will make people more careful about what they say and how they act. In today’s society there is a lot of leeway for people to cause disruption in public areas. Many teenagers and young adults address these acts as “trolling.” While pulling a phone out and taking a video is possible, many people are too lazy to reach into their pockets, purses, or backpacks. It is also slower than taking a recording from glasses. The idea of technology similar to “the grain” in black mirror will make society run with more honesty. In The People’s Panopticon in The Economists, the importance of technology like this in the medical and law fields is pointed out. Many lawsuits and acts of treason can be resolved truthfully. In regards to the common people in their everyday lives, technology like this would help resolve disputes. Many people are concerned with privacy, but I believe this same issue came up with social media like myspace and facebook. The solution was a settings section with customizable privacy settings. This can be done with face recognition as well. In regards to cheating on a test, one can disable or remove the device from their test taking area. Overall I think the privacy issue stems from people not wanted to change their behaviors. I think that after implementation, people will be more honest and careful of their actions, speech, and body language. It is for this reason why I believe people are most opposed to this technology. In the end of the day, people will treat each other better, commit less crimes, and convey the truth.
In the case of Google Glass, I believe that Google was smart to stop working on their product. Even though Google Glass has many attributes that are quite compelling, for example, helping to protect policemen from legal liabilities by recording their every move with the blink of an eye and assisting dementia patients to remember important events from their past with the ability to “photostream” their lives (The People’s Panopticon), it’s flaws outweigh its benefits. This is especially true when users put innocent bystanders at risk by using face recognition for hacking purposes or “putting at risk the very frankness and honesty of human” (The People’s Panopticon). Whatever happened to a citizen’s privacy? In fact, Google Glass can further have a harmful outcome with its simplistic feature of being able to “record, rewind, and rewatch” (The People’s Panopticon) person’s life 24/7, much like the tragic episode of “Black Mirror” we watched in class. In that episode, a grain was implanted behind a man’s ear that recorded every second of his life. When the man had suspicions about his wife and rewatched his recordings, he found out that his child was not his own biologically and his wife was unfaithful.
Furthermore, Google Glass makes life much too easy for us, and, invariably, we end up becoming dependent victims. Equallyimportantly, we end up missing out on actually living in the moment and making discoveries on our own. Instead, we are glued to a distracting figure that sits in the corner of our eye that might actually have ill health effects on our vision, or better yet, our brain.
Google Glasses is one of the best inventions in the last decades. During the 21st century, the mobile phones and computers become widely used. As what “The People’s Panopticon” said, Google Glasses combines the screen with the world. It is often seen that plenty of people playing with their phones in the lunch time and students spending lots of time on their phones during classes. Actually, this idea to combine the world behind the screen and the real world is extremely excellent but there are still a lot of problem throughout the developing process. For example, in the promotion video, by using Google Glasses, it helps drivers could use the glasses instead of their phones as the navigation. However, this function may be dangerous as well. If the map appears on your glasses, it might affect the sight of the driver. Therefore, if there are some people in the front, as the navigation map just cover that area, it is difficult for the driver to recognize them immediately. I have a different opinion towards the Google Glasses from the authors of the assign readings. I believe the wearable devices will dominate human’s future like what the phones and computers do today. However, our engineers still need more time to develop these devices and test them whether they are useful for our real life. As a student major in electrical engineering, I hope in the future I can dedicate myself to this area and invent the product which can change people’s thoughts of such wearable devices like Google Glasses. If these products become widely used by people, at that time more and more limitations have to be established like what we have today for the mobile phones.
Hey Hongyang! I agree with you that Google Glass is quite innovative and that wearable technology will definitely make it’s way to casual in the near future. However, I think you are forgetting to take into account the main issue of Glass that the authors and most of the general public have — privacy. It is the quick and easy accessibility to photo taking and video recording that led to Glass’s downfall; not it’s actual function (though the navigation map does indeed have its issues). That being said, I definitely think that you shouldn’t forget to address the issues of privacy in your actual writing 1.
It’s true that privacy is an issue, and will probably always be an issue. But we have to remember, we’re actually always being watched anyway, be it by surveillance cameras or by just some one else. But the point is, we are being watched anyway! With everything being recorded, doesn’t just bring negatives with privacy issues but also may benefit consumers in other cases. For example, this could definitely help during court cases to ensure lies aren’t told, or maybe for people with Alzheimers, who have memory issues. There’s definitely good and bad with Google glass, and I definitely think as time moves on, we are going to learn to deal with always being recorded.
Although the Google Glass is suppose to be revolutionary as it provides users a new way to catalogue their daily lives, there needs to be some type of limits / safeguards against this kind of technology. Probably a strong argument against the Google Glass is in the article “The People’s Panopticon”, where people may take advantage of this machinery to obtain “sneaky photos” of women whom did not give consent to be recorded in the first place. This is a simple example of the negative effects that could result from the glasses. In the “Glass, Darkly – Medium”, Theordore mentioned how this is a “blunt invasion of privacy,” (Ross, 3), which is very true as people with the computing skills can hack an individuals glasses and obtain private videos or photos. Put it this way, if a businessman records a meeting of confidential information in order to relay it to his superiors, imagine the repercussions if someone else were to intercept the video. In addition, seniors as mentioned in the article are usually pressured into using the technology their grandchildren use because they want to stay socially active. However, their memory is not as what it used to be and with the Google Glass giving them to ability to record everything, then whats to stop them from recording their bank accounts. It might seem a beneficial to them, but as mentioned above, there are always hackers who are out to turn the very same technology we hold dear against us. Giving a third person party your private information is dangerous and for those reasons must be stopped. Lawyers need to come up with a clear set of rules that will not only protect the manufacturers from getting sued (if their technology ends up in the wrong hands) but also protect the general consumers from outside attacks as well.
The google glass is in my opinion a great resource, however I am skeptical with giving another human being the ability to record myself or my loved ones if they happen to be int eh same room. You never know whats going to happen, and in our daily world where information is power, it is crucial that we keep our person information safe. That being said I do believe that the government will need to restrict some of these features from the Google Glass in order to protect us but also there should be a general consensus from everyone to not take advantage of the technology. I know the latter may sound impossible, but with the help from corporations and the government, it may in fact come true. Technology is growing at an alarming, and it is our duty as citizens to ensure that they are being used properly to keep everyone safe. It is not unjust to allow people to target a minority and attack them with it. Everyone needs to help protect each other and limits need to be set.
Hi Raymond,
This was a well-written post and I agree with everything you’ve said regarding the importance of consent and it being an invasion of privacy. I really liked your example about the businessman because I felt as if it put things into perspective. In the world we live in today, there are people and organizations who are trained and are skilled at hacking, even though this is not a good thing. If hackers have access to important information, they can easily take advantage of this and blackmail people into giving them what they want in order to keep their secret. If people had access to this kind of information, there would be no such thing as “secrets.” I also think that if everyone was capable of getting their hands on the Google Glass, they would lose sight of what was truly in front of them and disregard little details. They wouldn’t have to completely focus on what’s in front of them because of their ability to go back and “rewatch” it. For example, if students had this device in a lecture hall, they could sleep the entire time and go back and watch the lecture later on.
Having known several friends who were early developers for the Glass I have seen firsthand the rapid excitement and enthusiasm and then the slow fall from glory that befell this one-of-a-kind product. I do mean that statement though as Google Glass was a revolutionary technology and a step in the right direction if one is looking from the viewpoint of a incorporating technology to assist in our everyday needs (more than they already do). In my personal opinion though, I find myself struggling to adopt such a technology, and as I look back, I wonder if the generations before me felt the same way about the technology invented in their times. The New York Times said in 1939 that, ““The problem of TV was that people had to glue their eyes to a screen, and that the average American wouldn’t have time for it.” Now look how TV has evolved since then, becoming rapidly accepted and almost staple in most households in one way or another. Turning back to Google Glass, although it may have floundered now, this type of technology seems to be the next step in what many see as the evolution of the modern human to adapt more and more technology into our lives. To me personally though, I don’t want to go down that path, but I do not think people will agree to limit the technology that we are allowed to use. Even as we get closer and closer to realities such as those found in Black Mirror, people will always want more and more technology until something happens to prove them wrong. People may make arguments that the technology can be used for bad intentions such as described by The people’s panopticon, but as one bad idea is proposed several good ones take its place as people will find anyways to protect the technology they have in their life as they believe that the more technology they have the better their life will become. All in all, I believe that technology like Google Glass and other wearable tech will continue to advance and become more and more accessible and accepted in our society, whether we want it to or not. People will always push the agenda to move technology faster and further, but I just hope we don’t forget what life was like before.
I agree with your beautifully written commentary, Andrew. From another believer that the Google Glass falls under the particular type of technology that may not be easily accessible by a broad range of users, I am still well aware that the Glass serves as a preliminary model for what the technology of our future entails. Although these devices that “should be” employed in our daily lives serve to facilitate mundane activities, I also believe this will promote a society based off laziness and inactivity. With computers and machines becoming dominant forces in the human race, there is a likely chance that they will take over many of our job markets as well.
I think one of the biggest problems with Google Glass, which was mentioned in class, is that it was somewhat made for the wrong audience. No one on the team was able to see the bigger picture about it, and saw it as just as something others could use to supplement their lifestyles, rather than something that everyone could use. The commercial only showed people who had all the time and money in the world and could go out and use it to record things that not a lot of people see. I definitely think if they decided to change the way it was used, along with the usability, more people could understand it and be more willing to adopt it into their day to day lives.
Google Glass is an interesting product in which an individual is wearing a glass in which he or she can communicate with another individual, access information with a click of a button, take pictures, record videos, etc, but it is not a perfect product. In my opinion Google should be allowed to be given the freedom to perfect this technology in which they can release updated version of the glass which will be beneficial to society in various ways and government should not be involved and restrict the way this technology is being built, similar to what Apple is doing with their iphone, ipad, smartwatches. Apple has been updating their products to make sure individuals are benefitting from the purchase of apple products and trying to convince people that without an apple product such as apple smart watch or ipad, it will be harder for someone to track their fitness or present an information. After watching the trailer of Google Glass and reading reviews and listening to people opinion about google glass, I realized that google has to make sure that the glass that they are portraying will help and change the way people interact with one another and not portray a luxury product used for adventurous people. Furthermore, if google fixes and updates the google glass, then in the long run, they may solve the cons of the glass because in the article from the economist, “The People Panopticon”, mention certain cons about the glass such as people will abuse this technology by invading another individual’s privacy such as obtaining another individual’s information by staring at them with the google glass and in order to avoid this problem, google has to create a software and test out new update glasses in which individual’s walking on the street will not be allowed to do this, but government workers, FBI, CIA, law enforcement are allowed to do this and will have a better judgement of an individual and their background. Overall, google glass is a product that will be beneficial to individuals, whether they use it for sending business information, recording live surgeries, government and law enforcement obtaining background information, teaching a class about a certain subject, also at the same time google engineers has to make sure the software on the google glass functions properly throughout the years, they need to test if it is water proof, so that swimmers, surfers, scuba divers can record videos and take picture, and in order for any of this to work, government can not put barriers and restrictions in how to build a this product.
Just to bring up a the other side of the argument, this then brings a lot of power to government agencies and brings the problem of the security of your data and the privacy of your life becomes exposed to those you may not want to see it. As this technology becomes more advanced and more available, Google will be in a constant battle against hackers and those wishing to do harm to others through their technology and the Internet of Things. Even in today’s society, people are hacking into houses using printers, cameras, and other devices connected to WiFi and have the ability to steal data and potentially information worth thousands of dollars. I do not mean to ignore the points you have brought up though as the inclusion of body cameras and wearable technology used in law enforcement today has already shown to reduce police violence and complaints against police departments by increasing the transparency of officer encounters. This has really done a lot of good and has really improved relationships between neighborhoods and their protectors, allowing people to grow trust and prosper. All I want to bring up though is that I think we should tread carefully into these new fields of technology, as they may open doors to side effects that we may not have prepared for.
Prior to reading this prompt I watched an episode of Black Mirror, and seeing how technology took over in that show, I personally feel that soon this will be an even greater problem in our society. In the Google Glass ad you’re taken through a variety of adventures, showed the greatest of sites, and so forth, but what I personally feel hasn’t been studied enough is how this invention can affect every day life. Reading through some of the comments already made, I’d say that we could press ahead with it’s creation. Every piece of technology has it’s own pros and cons, but I think it’s vital that some limitations be made on it. The bad part is we won’t know exactly all the cons of this object unless it’s actually created. With the growth of technology, it’s important that we do make limitations because if no limitations are made we allow for technology to grow greater than all of us. Yes it does have dangers, but it has great potential to improve both the industrial and medical field.
I also thought of Black Mirror. In the beginning of the class when I watched a few Black Mirror episodes, I noticed how much each character’s life revolved around technology. We experience this phenomenon in our lives as well. Advancements in technology have occurred and technologies such as phones and computers dominate our lives. We can see that there are many good parts from these advancements as well as many bad. For example, although phones allow us to have better and easier communication, they have also become a danger to us like usage while driving. Similarly, I believe Google Glass can be viewed as something equal to this which is why I believe limitations are very necessary in the production of a technology like this. In the article “The People’s Panopticon”, they explore this very issue discussing the problem that with the production of the Google Glass, it will be a violation of people’s privacy. Because the Google Glass can take pictures without the surrounding people noticing, this can call for promiscuous photos that people are unaware of. In my opinion, Google Glass has more cons than pros. I think Google Glass would also create dangers while driving and may distract the driver from being aware and cautious on the road. Measures will have to be taken but creating laws against this would be more difficult considering that they are glasses. Though advancements in technologies are good, limitations must be made so that they do not become out of control.
Google glass is very controversial primarily because of privacy issues. In my opinion, the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to Google Glass and the further development of technology like it. While the article in The Economist mentions a few reasons for wearable cameras such as Google Glass, like use for professionals who encounter legal liabilities, I do not think that it is worth compromising the privacy of citizens. Google Glass reminds me of the Snapchat Spectacles in the sense that they are wearable cameras as well. Only the people wearing them can control when and what they are recording. The people around them have no say as to whether they mind being recorded or not. People and places are already recognizing the consequences technology has on our privacy. It is known that Google and other companies already use their technology to collect data on us. This makes me wonder if Google could access all the video and audio recordings from Google Glass and other technology like it. If this is true, it means that people sharing the videos they record on Google Glass through social media would not be the only violation of privacy.
Hey Stacey, I agree with your claim that the “cons outweigh the pros” as I was discussing in my post, with our world being all connected through a single access point called the internet it makes everyone vulnerable to hackers. Especially now that the Google Glass has the capabilities to record our daily lives, those videos have the chance to become public, which not only violates a person’s privacy but could lead to unknown repercussions. There needs to be limits placed and thorough testing of the product before it it let out to the public because with something so important like a person’s private information being threatened , no short cuts can be made. A key example is Pokemon Go, although this is quite different from Google Glass, its principle issue can apply. Pokemon Go was said to be a huge advancement in the gaming industry because it was the first game to include Artificial reality on the scale that it did. However, a week into its release multiple people started to be affected by the product negatively. Some fell of of cliffs, some were hit by trucks because there weren’t looking when crossing the streets, and some people gave up their lives (financially) trying to complete this game. There are more issues than these, however, it is important to realize that with any type of technology there needs to be away to moderate it and set limitations to it especially when involving a camera. Cameras have come a long way, but still have the same problem – violation in people’s privacy.
Hello Stacey. I want to add in a point about the privacy concerns of google glass. In today’s society, almost all people have phones with cameras and many stores have surveillance systems. Anyone can easily pull out their phone and start recording. The moment you step in Walmart, you are already being filmed. The issue with being recorded in these manners are no different than being recorded on another device, google glass. In other words, privacy should not be a reason to halt the advancing of the next innovation. The depth of privacy invasion from being recorded in any manner today do not go into the deep private lives of individuals such as in their home. Its extent is only in places such as public areas. These are surface level worries. People don’t care if their faces are seen under for example, surveillance. If there are concerns about, well now we cannot tell that we are being recorded, you must think if you were to pull out your phone camera at any moment, I am sure that 99.9% of the time there would be nothing of your interest to record. What’s so interesting to record strangers walking to class or someone just typing on their laptop by starbucks? People record only when there is something happening. So to me,I do not think that this is too big of an issue.
Ryan, I completely agree with your statement, this issue of privacy concerns isn’t anything new. People are already able to record videos of other people without them knowing on their phone or cameras or with other devices. Most stores and public areas have surveillance systems that people may or may not be aware of, but they are being recorded and watched essentially without consent. I wanted to add in the idea of face recognition and the concern people have with this for Google Glass. As the Economist article states, Facebook already uses face recognition technology to match portraits to people and suggest names of people to tag in pictures. So it’s not like this is new technology, it’s a combination of these put into a new form of device. I agree that there should be certain limitations and regulations set for this device for safety reasons but I believe we should press ahead because of the great benefits it could provide in professional settings, especially in healthcare.
EDITED
Technology, like Google Glass has become something of a love, hate relationship. As individuals, we are able to see the ever growing dangers of technology, yet we find ourselves wanting more. We no longer yearn for the meaningful face-to-face experiences, but we have become “hooked” on the instant gratification that technology provides us with. Individuals are always wanting the next “big thing.”
After dissecting and pulling apart the readings: Glass, Darkly and The People’s Panopticon, I was further enlightened by the notion that individuals do see the dangers of technology very clearly, yet we push these dangers to the side because technology has become something of an addiction and something we simply cannot live without. If we do try to live without technology, we find ourselves stuck in isolation to the rest of the world. Therefore, individuals cling onto technology as a way to hold onto existence, instead of facing the “nothingness,” the very thing that Heidegger tells us that we fear because it is so fragile and short lived. For instance, mankind would much rather record and post what they are doing, rather than actually enjoy what they are experiencing in that moment. Consequently, instead of embracing our existence and living in the moment, we find ourselves glued to our technological devices, momentarily sheltering ourselves with the comfort of justification from the world around us.
Although, Google Glass could be utilized in positive ways, which were mentioned in, Glass, Darkly, with the example of the dance teacher and her students, it has become evident that the device possesses more cons then pros when looking at the big picture. For example, The People’s Panopticon, highlights the danger of privacy invasion when it comes to Google Glass, “an unapproved software hack already allows Glass-users to take photos simply by winking” (The People’s Panopticon). This aforementioned passage illuminates the fact that if we do not set limitations on Google Glass, society will lose every sense of the word “privacy.” Once this technological door is kicked opened, everyone’s lives become exposed and put on display, with your permission or not. Additionally, with the implementation of devices like Google Glass, present and future generations will never be able to fully live their own lives, they will become consumed with either living someone else’s or broadcasting their own.
Technology like Google Glass has become something of a love, hate relationship. As individuals, we are able to see the ever growing dangers of technology, yet we find ourselves wanting more. We no longer yearn for the meaningful face-to-face experiences, but we have become “hooked” on the instant gratification that technology provides us with. Individuals are always wanting the next “big thing.”
After dissecting and pulling apart the readings: Glass, Darkly and The People’s Panopticon, I was further enlightened by the notion that individuals do see the dangers of technology very clearly, yet we push these dangers to the side because technology has become something of an addiction and something we simply cannot live without. If we do try to live without technology, we find ourselves stuck in isolation to the rest of the world. Therefore, individuals cling onto technology as a way to hold onto existence, instead of facing the “nothingness,” the very thing that Heidegger tells us that we fear because it is so fragile and short lived. For instance, mankind would much rather record and post what they are doing, rather than actually enjoy what they are experiencing in that moment. Consequently, instead of embracing our existence and living in the moment, we find ourselves glued to our technological devices, momentarily sheltering ourselves with the comfort of justification from the world around us.
Although, Google Glass could be utilized in positive ways, which were mentioned in, Glass, Darkly, with the example of the dance teacher and her students, it has become evident that the device possesses more cons then pros when looking at the big picture. For example, The People’s Panopticon, highlights the danger of privacy invasion when it comes to Google Glass, “an unapproved software hack already allows Glass-users to take photos simply by winking” (The People’s Panopticon). This aforementioned passage illuminates the fact that if we do not set limitations on Google Glass, society will lose every sense of the word “privacy.” Once this technological door is kicked opened, everyone’s lives become exposed and put on display, with your permission or not. Additionally, with the implication of devices like Google Glass, present and future generations will never be able to fully live their own lives, they will become consumed with either living someone else’s or broadcasting their own.
Madi! I didn’t know that you were in this class! It looks like you’ve definitely done all of your reading.
I think that in dealing with the question of privacy and Glass, we should first look to the privacy level that we now have with our cellphones because, to an extent, all Glass really does is bring the capabilities that we have in our pockets to our faces. Sure, unapproved software does exist that can take pictures from wearers’ devices without consent, but similar software probably also exists for our smartphones (be it through the main camera or the Selfie one). On top of that, Google is the company behind this device and in comparison to others in the field, they have arguably some of the smartest software engineers and computer scientists around. As one of the pioneers of wearable technology, they would have to do everything in their power to ensure that hackers do not get through in order for their product to be successful.
With that being said, however, Glass definitely is not hack-proof and never will be. If anyone is able to access your device without your consent, it’s Google itself or the government. Alarming as this may sound, think back to the scandal that Apple got into with the federal government just a few months ago (See here for the NY Times coverage :https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/03/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-fight-explained.html?_r=0). If either agencies want you info, they will get it.
Must we press ahead with Google Glass? I think not, unless the market demands it, of course (as others have pointed out). If it does become mainstream though, I personally stand with minimal regulation – mainly for the logistical reality that policing such a device would be a nightmare. Mentioned in “The People’s Panopticon”, the solution that Japan and South Korea conceived is probably my favorite: a permanent loud audible “CLICK” that alerts others around that a photo is being taken. Furthermore, even though “Glass, Darkly” reveals that capturing either video or photo requires clear voice activation, there will probably be an app that let’s users bypass this and record incognito. If Google ever launches, I believe that they should never allow such an app to be created or used.
……and of course, one could also just cover the camera with tape.
Hey Ryan! I know, it is a small world! I thought I saw you in class the other day, but I was not sure (haha).
I agree with you on the level that we need to assess where we stand in terms of privacy. However, I feel that as the technology is advancing, so is the advancements in the “hacking world.” More often than not, individuals are blind to the privacy dangers of utilizing common applications such as Facebook. For instance, I remember in the art class I took last year (Art 12B), Professor Penny informed the class that Facebook collects thousands and thousands of information from individuals who have a Facebook account (without their consent) and selling it to various companies. This very fact scared me and shocked me. I knew that companies were aware of what I was looking at, but I did not know that companies went to that extent to reach consumers. At the end of the day, I often fear that technology is being utilized for more harm than good, although I am hopeful that this could change.
Thank you for sharing the link! I found it very informing and interesting.
Technology is meant to ease the life of the user yet more often than not, we, the consumer, are confronted with the realization that we have become slaves to technology. Our attempts to innovate, to better our current conditions have left us in an addictive state. The emergence of Google Glass, while capable of providing several opportunities for research, such as within the medical field, or promotion of skilled artisans in small businesses as shown in Glass, Darkly, should not surpass its current production phase. Not only is privacy a concern with this new “must have gadget,” but the fact that one could quite literally operate the eyeglass while conversing with a friend brings to light the potential such technological advancements will have on our social development. Cell phone users and social media followers have already showcased a constant need to attend to their device even when company is present. Attention is, thus, drawn from reality to the virtual realm where we can shape and mold what we wish to see and ignore what we don’t. I agree that in spite of technology’s attempts to interconnect the world and its inhabitants, we are more alone than ever. It is impossible to walk outside and not see hundreds of people with their heads tilted forward and down toward their devices. The tradegy of this sight is that it has become the norm. If Google continues its product manufacturing, we will begin to invest ourselves solely in the digital world. The media has already made several versions of this eyeglass takeover in well-known animated series, for instance Futurama (“Attack of the Killer App”) and The Simpsons (“Specs and the City”). While these episodes are meant to serve as a form of satire for current human weakness for innovation, the underlying meaning rings a deep truth. With advancements toward societal improvement there will always be a distinct division between the winners and the losers. Creators of Google Glass are able to play off peoples’ needs for acceptance and inclusion by providing a product meant to draw the public’s eye and the unsuspecting public will eagerly pay the toll needed to enter the world of acceptance. Throughout this process, we lose the our ability to distinguish need from luxury.
Hey Lilith,
One of the things that I found most interesting about Google Glass is the opportunities it opens up within the medical field. Like mentioned in “The People’s Panopticon” article, Google Glass can be used to help those with Alzheimer’s, which I personally think is a great way to cope with the condition. I agree with everything you have to say about it drawing attention from reality. Almost everywhere I go, I see people with their eyes glued onto their phones – restaurants, lecture halls, everywhere. I think that if Google Glass was something that everyone was capable of getting their hands on, it would have the same effect. People would be much more focused on this than what’s actually in front of them.
Hi Lilith,
I think you bring up a great point on the enigma of how our attempts to be more connected further separate us from what is directly in front of us. However I do believe that technology is to be pushed, is it not the natural path of mankind to evolve? Maybe with the integration of technology things that we consider normal human behavior will become obsolete an no longer needed. This of course seems to be quite the stretch, but with progress there is always some type of push-back or concern, but I don’t believe that we should quit. As stated in the articles provided and in this discussion, Google Glass presents problems with personal privacy but in developing it I’m sure that solutions would also be presented.
Hi Steven,
Sadly, I feel as though prevention of Google Glass is a futile endeavor as societal progression never ceases. I acknowledge that, with time, the current privacy issues the eyeglass poses may be lessened as people will come to accept strangers’ stares as commonplace and meaningless. Nevertheless, the recurring satires that are so prevalent within animated features depict two possibilities that humankind may progress toward. The first is that our obsession with technology and innovation will only enhance our laziness, connecting us with loved ones through a virtual screen rather than physical contact; such a horrendous future is depicted in Wall-E. The second may result in societal advancement upon recognition of technology as a tool to further our current state of well-being, where both humans and technology coexist in harmony; this possibility can be seen in Meet the Robinsons. The debate of progression goes beyond that of Google Glass. It becomes a test to determine whether humankind is capable of utilizing a tool versus abusing it in daily life.
hi Lilith,
I agree with your opinion about the usage of technology devices will distance people’s interaction with each other. Even though the google glass is not very widely spread in the our lives yet but it is a problem that we need to consider when using technology devices like it. We need to learn to control and restrict ourselves in using them. You have mentioned how people are distant and alone already when the technology device like cell phone are used by them and are supposed to make people “closer”. Also considering personal privacy, google glass is less considerable on that because there are a lot of voice commend and it is hard to use in many working places. This makes google glass not very convenient.
Whether we should press ahead and adopt google glass as another form of accessory like the apple watches is really dependent on the demand of the consumers. As illustrated by the articles, we are provided examples in which this product can have both a positive and negative impact on society with really the only main (obvious) concern revolving around the issues with privacy and potential facial recognition being one of them. With this concern, establishing some form of limitation is necessary (like all things) so things like law suits against google as a company can be diverted.
Hi Jeffer!
I really liked reading your response! I completely agree with your argument that Google Glass and other technological devices like it are utilized as much as the consumers demand for it. Therefore, if we are going based upon this argument, we can make the assumption that as the demand for trending technology like Google Glass increases, consumers will ultimately disregard the dangers associated with Google Glass, and press forward because everyone else is. People want to fit in, therefore, more often than not individuals will ignore their negative feelings toward technology and buy the device so that they can “communicate” with society on the “same level.”
Google Glass is somewhat controversial in its application. I can see the use for it in every day life but can also see how it could negatively effect how we interact with each other. Considering that technology is not advanced enough to support Google Glass yet implies that we might need restrictions. Restrictions involving usage and the applications of the Glass because at what point are we letting technology live our lives for us. Although some of the applications mentioned in the Economist article were very appealing such as knowing what type of plant, song, bird, or painting your looking at or listening too without having to search the web. Professional applications as well sound very exciting for doctors to be able to record surgeries easier than ever before, or for police and security to have more accountability and safety. However, we still have a long while before any of these ideas becomes reality which in turn gives us time to prepare and ready ourselves. That being said I can not imagine Google Glass being something that the average person could afford or reasonably use.
Taylor, you include some good points about restrictions. I also think that while this technology seems very appealing and potentially helpful, especially in learning, it can lead to concerning effects on social interaction. Already, we are so consumed by technology on a daily basis ( e.g. cellphones, tablets, laptops, etc.) that Google Glass or future similar products will likely only encourage this phenomenon. Once we rid ourselves of hand-held devices, it may be increasingly more difficult for us to “unplug.” Another idea is that since Glass is not as obvious and sort of blends in, it will be harder to determine when and how a person is using it– similar to a bluetooth device. Gelernter, in the Economist article, says that Glass may “risk the very frankness and honesty of human communications.” In a more literal interpretation of this quote, Glass could be used in dishonest ways such as cheating on exams or filming others without consent (as seen in “Glass, Darkly”).
“Once we rid ourselves of hand-held devices, it may be increasingly more difficult for us to “unplug.”” – Kari, this is precisely my fear.
Well…more of a pet peeve as pre-mature luddite, but in debating this issue with my roommate, I was enlightened by the fact that everything that Glass can do during its current 5 hours battery time, our smartphones can also do just as well (if not better), all day long. The difference is convenience and user interface: having the world wide web in one’s pockets versus in their face.
With this point, however, brings the factor of smart watches, which are a similar, nearly hands-free device. They all do the same things, but at different points of access, ultimately leaving society with a choice. Say Google Glass went into full swing and got past its beta phase and is now fully operational and free of technological issues. A person can choose to have a smart watch, or a person can choose not to. A person can also choose to have Google Glass, or they can choose otherwise. The same goes for a cellphone because they all fundamentally deliver the same functions. What a person cannot do, however, is to choose none of the above. At the very least, smart phones are almost required for functioning in today’s world.
Security and social impacts considered, must society push ahead with Glass? I think not – not unless Glass can replace and outsell smart phones.
Hey Taylor! I think you made some very good points. I too believe that currently Google Glass won’t be something an average person will really use in their everyday lives. It would be a nice thing to have of course, but I think because of it’s price and uses and with how our society is it’s not a necessity in our time.
Hi Taylor! I agree with you that Google Glass is really controversial in its application. The article “The people’s panopticon” pointed out that Google Glass opens both fascinating possibilities and alarming ones. Without doubt, Google Glass is a success, it is packed with Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, GPS, speakers, camera, microphone and touchpad together. People can capture a moment with high-resolution picture and video, send a message, search the internet, navigate the timeline to see notifications by using Google Glass. However, Google Glass also have downsides, such as privacy, security, and ethical concerns. People may also use Google Glass surreptitiously for bad things. It is not easy for people know that they might be photographed or filmed by Google Glass, and there is also privacy issue for Google Glass users that Google will know where they are and what they are looking at by Google Glass. In my opinion, some limitations should be established to constrain this technology.
The article by The Economist proposes a concern about Google Glass–the potential invasion of privacy. Many are appalled by the idea that they could be captured by a stranger without consent. However, many people seem to be forgetting that we are already being captured by strangers all the time, and have been for many years. For example, I’m sure anyone that uses Snapchat can relate to either taking picture of a stranger (and probably attaching caption like, “WHAT ARE THOSE??” or “omg lol i see my professor at the movies”) or having those kinds of pictures sent to them. I’ll admit that I’ve also tried to subtly raise my phone pretending I’m looking at it when i was really trying to take a photo. The Google Glass can do the same thing, yes, but I would argue that it’s even harder to be subtle. For the Google Glass to capture an image or video, the wearer would have to be directly staring at the thing they want to capture. Also, if you’re close enough to them, you will see that the LED screen will display when it is in recording mode. It won’t be seen from a distance, but if you’re that far away, I don’t think it’s different than taking out your camera and taking a picture/video of someone. I also feel that because the Google Glass was so rare, people would definitely notice or be more cautious around someone wearing one, whereas they wouldn’t think twice if they saw someone holding a phone.
Hi Katrina!
I definitely agree with you! We can all admit to trying to secretly take a picture of someone or something so that we could show our friends. If I saw something out of the ordinary that someone was using, or doing, I’d be super curious like if someone was wearing glasses that don’t look like the average ones. Also, you brought up a good point how the glasses would light up when it’s in recording mode so people would know that the person with the glasses is recording them and that could cause problems with invasion or privacy or recording without permission.
Katrina,
I definitely agree with you about the privacy issue in today’s society. We are always being watched, and can easily be recorded without consent by anyone with a smartphone. This issue of the Google Glass is just a minor one that can easily be ignored if people were cautious about their surroundings. Like you said, it would be obvious if someone using Google Glass was recording you because of the visible technology on one’s head. That is why it would be very obvious if someone were filming you through Google Glass.
There was a chunk of the essay The People’s Panopticon, that I had found quite interesting as it spends quite some time talking about the device being used for face recognition. This immediately made me think of the TV show, Person of Interest, as if everyone were using it, one could hack into all Glass’s and use it as an even better security camera since Glass can literally capture anything to passing by strangers to the orientation of the room. Although many people may not think to capture such moments, the ability is definitely there, and able to utilize in the hands of a hacker. Although the concept of Glass I find very interesting, and great in some cases, I definitely feel that the possibilities where the device can be utilized for other purposes that just capturing a cheerful memory, outweigh the benefits of having the device.
While I do see the benefits of Google Glass, especially in regards to its use in the healthcare field and its intended purpose of putting the user back into control of their technology, I can understand why there is a call for limitations. It’s ability to record and take pictures of anything around us and at any time can be daunting for those simply passing by, creating an air of uneasiness and insecurity. It is the issue of privacy that hinders Glass’s success. Despite Google taking steps into letting others know what is being done with the device, whether through a clear shutter sound or a flashing red light indicating video recording, there is always the fear of future apps being able to bypass such signals. Thus, it is important that regulations are established as to when it is appropriate to wear Google Glass and what can be installed. As mentioned in “The people’s panopticon,” facial recognition is one particular controversial issue. On one hand, it could be extremely useful in terms of policing and being able to identify criminal. On the other hand, it can spark issues in public consumption as users would be able to easily identity strangers and obtain information.
That being said, I am in favor of Google Glass pressing ahead and implementing features that one could find beneficial or even revolutionary. As Theodore Ross recalled in his article, Phase One is a time were we “celebrate every advance, no matter how nominal or financially disadvantageous.” Undeniably, I am a part of this phase and I am all for what Google Glass can do for the industrial and medical field; less so for casual use. The version given out to the explorers has what I believe to be the appropriate amount of features without creating huge ethical issues. Anymore technological advantages should solely be in the interest of specialized institutions.
Hi Amelia,
I agree with your statement about Google Glass growing as a tool meant for beneficial circumstances. Much technology that has been introduced now have been revolutionary in it’s own sense. But back when Google Glass was introduced it was only for a matter of months and weeks before it died down since the complexity of the glasses in reality was probably worse than it may have seen in a Youtube commercial. I believe that the casual use of something so innovative is only a way for people to have as a form of distraction and a negative effect to what they can really do as being self sufficient. The limitations should be placed with regards to these glasses operated by Google since it is unsafe to think that our identity is no mystery but it is basically available for many to see if they look our way. Google glass from my point of you is a piece of technology that benefits those who do research or have corporate duties but for a regular person to have it can definitely lead to insecurity as you mentioned. Hackers exist and many times technological innovative materials has its soft spot it is something that can potentially lead to the worst case scenarios. So I say Google Glass should grow but should be restricted in a sense that it a benefactor to improving society and answering the unknown question that lurks in our world.
As illustrated in The Economist’s article, there are quite a handful of positive contributions the Google Glass has extensively made in the fields of medicine, jewelry design, art and entertainment, business, service sectors, as well as in recreational activities. The pros, in my opinion, outweigh the cons, much of which are geared solely towards security and privacy issues. Additionally, the fact that the Google Glass’s campaign video seems to portray not-so-ubiquitous events experienced by an average individual shouldn’t be overlooked. As enticing and inspirational the promotion video is, it is also misleading for the fact that Google Glass serves better for adventurous, rather than daily, tasks. For this reason, I don’t believe it necessarily too big of an issue yet to have to establish limitations.
Hi Jacqueline!
I really like how you present your argument, it was really clear and easy to understand! Great job!
Although, I wish I could see Google Glass as more of a positive device, I find myself gravitating towards the negatives that are brought up in the readings. I know that you mention that the ad illustrates that Google Glass would not be utilized in daily life, but from a Business Major’s perspective, I have to believe that they intentionally picked what to include in their ad, in order to evoke certain feelings in their target audience. Google wants customers and they will portray their product in the ways they feel will attract the most people.
Hi Jacqueline,
After reading about Glass’s opportunities in the professional field and seeing its excitement-inflated promotional ad, I was in a similar train of thought as you. You are very correct – most of these activities are not as universally suited for everyone and they can also currently be recorded using a GoPro for a much cheaper cost. Sure the ease of use of setting up a GoPro does not come close to that of Glass, but if the market demands an even smaller, even more portable camera, it will receive it. Google Glass, however, does not have to come into existence for this need to be fulfilled.
I mentioned this in another comment, but if privacy is a concern, one can always tape his or her camera!
Although, the Google Glass is a cool concept, it is something that can push the limits for some people. It may be convenient in a sense where you don’t have to hold a device to capture an image or video but it also invades some privacy. The Google Glass captures data based off eye movements and as humans, we naturally move our eyes a lot so the glasses will collect data that we don’t want or need and will not ask for permission to store the information. Also, if you are standing in line about to pay for groceries the Google Glass can easily pick up your credit card number or the credit card number of the person in front of you and store it. This could put you into a lot of trouble if someone hacks your phone and finds that you have someone else’s information and they may even take all the money you have in your account because they have the numbers for your credit card. I feel like you have to be extremely cautious while wearing the Google Glass because you don’t know what it’s going to pick up and how that will affect you.
Hi Jeanny,
Despite how many people may have thought Google Glass’s commercial was inspiring and leaving many in awe, I too agree with all the negative side effects, some of which you have expressed, is just much too dangerous. I think that this topic is definitely very interesting as it relates a lot to how such technology can often just as easily be used against us, as expressed through Brooker’s TV show series Black Mirror, specifically the one that was shown in class speaking on the idea of having a “Grain” implemented into our brains to record all memories. I often think that people are too quick to buy into the latest technology, without really even knowing the detrimental side effects. I really like the example that you use on credit card and how easily someone can take a picture to forever have these numbers readily available. I think that if publicized how scary this product can be by using such an example, it will allow people to second guess that next buy, just to feel like they are in the loop and up to date with technology.
While reading The People’s Panopticon, the speaking of face recognition and security made me think of the TV show, Person of Interest, on steroids, as the camera is not just restricted to one street corner at some undesirable height, but literally everywhere, at the place of people’s eyes. I definitely see a lot of danger is this, as it definitely puts to question how much privacy we can actually still possibly have despite our advances in technology. Although this may not sound alarming to some, as as long as one is not guilty of something they should be hiding from the government, there should be no problem, this does put a dent in possible unwanted exposure through hacking.
Given the insecurity of technology above, although I acknowledge the advances that have been made with the help of technology, I definitely feel that people should give technology another though before actually buying.
Hi Jeanny,
I really like what you said about the possible dangers of Glass. I think many people just see and buy the newest technology on an impulse without really taking into consideration the possible dangers that may arise from this new technological device. When you had talked about everyday things such as standing in line to pay for an item, it made me think of the episode from “Black Mirror” where then introduce the concept of the “Grain” which is a device that is implemented into their brains to help the characters remember every memory. Glass is a bit different in the sense that we can use the device to choose when to store information, rather than it being a continual, ongoing memory storing device. Although not the average person would think that standing in line at a store is the time to utilize glass, as its commercial only feature precious and glorified moments such as one spent with family, or doing something outdoors such as skydiving, I think the thought is interesting as it poses one of the many ways that Glass can be utilized inappropriately.
I agree with the idea that privacy should be of main concern when it comes to google glass. What’s stopping Google (or anyone) from just activating the camera on the glasses without your consent and without your knowledge? Especially if you’re wearing that thing throughout your daily life. The chances of information being stolen because of reasons that you provide will be quite high. I feel if something like google glass will continue to be developed, high security must be one of the main priorities in order to make it harder for someone to just hack the glasses.
But then that would only stop any random person from stealing information. What about companies doing the same thing? So like you said, while the idea of google glass was something of interest and is an example of technology pushing forward, it had to be used with extreme caution.
It is definely true of seeing the posibility of lacking security. Even as a normal person who could see the possible problem on google glasses, Its higher manager may predict the issue earlier and seek the way to solve it. All those smarttools are developing with risks. For example, iphone. Apple does not announce any perfect version of iphone yet but it upgrades everytime when it releases a new version of iphone. What I mean here, google glasses may improve several times to approach to the final version. Risks of privacy during this process may occure and this is what people worry about.
As many of people mentioned, there is are some abuse that can occur with the usage of the Google Glass. “The People’s Panopticon” mentions that the Google Glass can be hacked or be used for used for taking creepy photos of people without their consent. However, this is no different from any other regular technology. Our phones can take creepy photos and can still be hacked as well. It’s not about what the Google Glass can do but it is about what people are going to be using it for. This connects to the Black Mirror because the husband also reveals how beneficial the grain was. He was able to find out that his wife was cheating on him through the usage of the grain. The similar thing can be done with the Google Glass. The Google Glass can capture videos or photos of incidents that can be used as evidence to defend yourself. Something that does the same thing is a dash cam. The dash cam is capturing videos of people without their consent, but its actual use is to collect evidence if something were to happen to the car. Again, it is not about what the Google Glass can do, it is about how people decide to use it. Overall, the Google Glass should press on and keep being reformed because like any technology, there are benefits and dangers depending on how people utilize the product.
Same as our futuristic smart car as well, doesn’t it seems creepy when someone hacks into your car and knows where exactly you are, and just mess you car up trying to kill you? There will be always the good, the bad and the ugly to everything. People just have to accept it and find more good to outweigh the bad and the ugly.
I totally agree with what you said overall.
Exactly, there will always be people that abuse the system. However, the creators knows about these abuses and are able to make counter measures. That way, technology will still be able to press on without outside constraints.
Hi Jeanny!
I agree with your stance on this issue. I had not fully thought about the implications of the use of our eyes, when utilizing the device, so thank you for bringing that up. To go along with that argument, I believe that more often than not, we as individuals do not stop and think about the unwanted data that our technological devices are collecting from us each day. I can only imagine what Google Glass could lead to. As the technology progresses and gets more advanced, the scarier it appears in terms of the consequences it potentially holds.
In the case of Google Glass, I don’t even think that it will become part of our social life and therefore it wont even need limitations established. Google Glass wont become a part of our social life because its purpose is meant to be hands free, but this requires technology that is better than what is available to us today. For example many people do not use Siri on their iphones regularly because the voice recognition is not good enough to completely rely on it. Google glass will also be very expensive as well and i’m sure that not many people would like to put a really expensive piece of technology hanging on their heads where it can easily fall and break. If Google Glass were to make it into our social life then of course there would need to be some type of limitations because all new technological advances require some kind of restrictions to keep people safe. I do see the potential for Google Glass in the future being used by professionals while they are on their job, but i cannot see people using Google Glass as an everyday piece of technology and replacing our smart phones
Hi Anthony,
I agree with your opinion that Google Glass won’t be part of our social life as it is now, especially since you mention its lack of durability and expensive price. After reading both articles and watching the promotional video, I believe Google Glass, like you said, has potential for professional use. For example, the article mentions how a similar device to Google Glass helps prevent more police officers from having to use force and that there were less file complaints to the police. Also, its hands-free purpose can be beneficial to those who want to record or look something up without having to take out their smartphones.
As Samuel C. Florman states, technology is always changing so moving forward is the only option we have. There will always be side effects when it comes to the latest technology, and there is also the concern with becoming too reliant on such technology. But as humans we always strive for improvement to better and protect the community. With that in mind, I don’t mind Google Glass moving forward as long as priority for security is considered.
I totally agree with both comments!
As already stated, I don’t see Google Glass being re-vamped and implemented into society for everyday use (anytime soon). As for professionals who have high liability associated with their jobs, these will definitely come in handy as a defense when being accused of various acts. But even with professionals (or those who live extravagant lifestyles and want to document certain activities), there’s definitely a time to “turn it off” or “take them off”. I don’t see these being worn 24/7 as a “replacement” of a computer for reasons that violate privacy rights, factors that include individual’s integrity, and the distractive nature of the device.
this is exactly what i was thinking. Google glass probably wont be worn 24/7 because that kind of technology isnt ready to be used in that sort of way. There are too many issues with reliability that google glass simply wont catch on. But i do really think that this kind of hands free video recording technologyt could come into use for professionals that can use in while on the job.
I was thinking the exact same thing. This technology is very far out I believe. I also agree that it would be used mostly by professionals. Although if this technology were to be released, it would replace hand held devices. Slowly but surely, those with smart phones would be analogous to those with flip phones today. If a company such as Apple were to come up with this technology, mass production will make it available and affordable to everyone. As Professor Jackson said in class, the Iphone is a $10,000 device but available to us for under $1000 due to mass production. Technology like Glass and The Grain from Black Mirror would allow the government to put out incentives. Electric cars now have incentives for those who purchase them including tax write offs, carpool benefits, etc. Glass and Grain-like technology could allow people to board flights more quickly, access the DMV faster, and get security clearance faster for many aspects of life such as buying a gun. All of this would give a reason for everyday people to have a recording of their recent life that they can playback. It would bring honesty to society and cause people to be wholesome and very conscientious in fear of social consequences for acting out inappropriately.
Hello Anthony,
I respectfully disagree with what you have said in your above comment. I would say that the technology that is needed to make Google Glass become fully functional and convenient is right around the corner. I would say that in the next ten years or less, voice technology will become virtually flawless, and it is likely that the glasses themselves will become smaller and more durable, as has been the trend with technology for quite some time now. Think about ten years ago when voice technology was nonexistent, and the first smartphones were just beginning to become popular. They were the bulky, hard to use Blackberry’s and the flip phones that could barely text. Now we have the samsung galaxy s7, and the iphone 7, both of which are leagues beyond what we had then. Think about what the next ten years could bring for things such as phones and Google Glass and any new or existing technology. It is likely that these are actually very solvable problems that only need time and the work of engineers to fix. If Google Glass does fix the problems it has, then I could see it, or at least something like it replacing what we have now.
Hey Devin,
I guess thinking about it, the technology could be there within a couple years and maybe it would be possible for this type of technology to fulfill the purpose it was created to do. The real issue that I believe this technology will have that keeps it from becoming very popular is that it might not be used by many people. The reason i say this is because i have been thinking about virtual reality. I have tried it and there are issues that a lot of people have with the headaches that VR can give you. I can’t say that i can imagine many people using Google glass (it has a similar viewing concept) on an everyday basis and having it replace our smart phones. It seems like it could catch on for a while, but eventually it would fade away. I can’t see myself really using Google Glass, but maybe in the far future some type of technology like google glass will come up.
There are some good points being laid up here for discussion. I am not someone who has an extreme opinion on these sensory extending technologies, and because of maybe opinions like this won’t be as heard as much, but anyways I think there is a future with the Google Glass technology. When researching this area a bit for the short paper, I came across the history of the “smart watch.” The smart watch is a technology that I think can be used as a comparison to Google Glass, more than 10 years ago Microsoft came out with their version of a smart watch but it failed miserably. Not 11 years later did Apple piggy back on the idea with advanced tech and clever marketing, making a huge success for the product. I think that if Google or any other major tech company came out with a version of the Google Glass but that mimics something daily, like actual sunglasses with transition lenses, then the public would jump at the opportunity. I think the key is appearing like the ordinary with a subtle extraordinary. That and a sleek design with a famous person wearing it.
Hi Anthony!
I do agree with Google Glass not being a part of our social life in this specific time in our generation. I feel like the product would need significant improvements and even a lower cost to be able to be spread to more people. Even if this technology spreads, I still do not believe that it would need limitations. I think that putting limitations on technology would cause consumers to either not purchase this product, or just not follow the regulations. As of now, I do not see this becoming a problem. Thanks for your post!