Last week I received an e-mail from a reporter scheduling an interview regarding Google Glass and its social impact. Until this e-mail I hadn’t really thought Google’s newest product was in debate. After all, it’s a pair of glasses with a small camera and built in monitor.
I did a bit of research prior to my interview and discovered these little glasses were the focus of much controversy. From privacy to safety, Google unwittingly opened the doors to a new breed of activists. I couldn’t imagine how a new spin on an old idea could lead to such dispute.
Basically, the premise of Glass is a pair of glasses with a built in camera. One lens has, from what I understand, a see through monitor. With a tap on the temple or voice command the glasses can record and immediately upload video and snapshots to the internet. Unlike a phone’s camera that needs to be blatantly pointed at the subject, the lens is attached to the user’s head.
The interviewer seemed focused on privacy so I tailored my research appropriately. He opened the interview with an interesting scenario. “Imagine getting dressed in a locker room and someone is wearing Google Glass.” Personally, I would be flattered someone would want my video.
We’re all entitled to reasonable privacy in places like locker rooms, restrooms, and our homes. Stealth video surveillance products have been around far longer than Google Glass. People have been installing small cameras into clocks, smoke detectors, and just about everything imaginable for the purpose of hidden video. Google Glass is not fostering a voyeur outbreak.
Glass is easily distinguished from “normal” glasses; they don’t have lenses and there’s a subtle camera over the right temple. Disguising these as something other than technology would require a major overhaul. With so many other small cameras currently available, purchasing and modifying Glass doesn’t seem logical.
After realizing I didn’t share the same views, I was asked about potential safety concerns. Specifically, he wanted to see how I felt about their use while driving. Though I’m not a police officer or an expert in safety, I figured I’d answer his question from a technologist’s perspective.
“Google Glass is designed for recreational use and appears to have been designed for entertainment. Though the very small monitor [which looks to be 1cm] could impair vision or be a distraction, the possibility of this seems minimal. Texting while driving is illegal because it poses obvious safety risks. Google Glass appears to be hands free.”
Finally, I was asked about the potential of facial recognition and privacy. His contention was the product will make it easy to be identified. I think it’s fair to state the obvious which is in public there is no assumption of privacy. Speaking for myself, I have no criminal history so I don’t care if people know who I am and can be identified.
I simply don’t understand reasons for strife. Cameras are everywhere and I’m sure there’s thousands of pictures of me far and wide I’m unaware. Many of my own pictures have strangers in the background. Using Glass while driving doesn’t appear to be any less safe than monitoring a GPS while driving.
Any piece of technology can potentially pose a violation of privacy, become a concern for safety, or simply be used to identify those who wish to remain anonymous. Glass is in the limelight simply because it’s a Google product. While the debates over Glass continue, I’m waiting for Google to develop a product that thinks and forms opinions for me.
(Jeromy Patriquin is the President of Laptop & Computer Repair, Inc. located at 509 Main St. in Gardner. You can text him directly at (978) 413-2840 or visit www.LocalComputerWiz.com.)