But filming should be allowed ONLY after the person taking the pictures has gotten a written release from every single person who may have been or will be filmed (unless friends or family, of course, but with the laws not exempted in the event friends and family don't want to be videoed), else stand the likelihood of facing, and losing, civil lawsuits based on infringement laws.
Google Glass is a wearable computer (glasses) with an optical head-mounted display (OHMD). It was developed by Google with the mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous computer. Concerns have been raised by various sources regarding the intrusion of privacy, and the etiquette and ethics of using the device in public and recording people without their permission. More: en.wikipedia.org.
Sure, given that on any given day you are on camera several times every day and many times you don't even know your being filmed, banks, traffic camera, CCV, police etc as long as it's in public.
So what is the problem with people walking around with a camera? Is it that you might be seen doing something you don't want others to see? Then odds are you shouldn't be doing it in public. BTW where I work I'm on camera almost all day so go ahead film away.
I don't like it, but yes it should be allowed. As others here have pointed out, we do not have a right to privacy in public, and are photographed constantly by security cameras, cell phones, and police lapel cameras. Why single out Google Glass? Someone mentioned that you can't tell when people are filming you or not with Google Glass, but unless you have omnidirectional vision, someone from some angle might be pointing their cell phone at you. A man could cover up all but the lens of a lapel camera with the lapel on his suit and have the lens peeking out through the boutonniere hole and you would never know it. Likewise, a woman could conceal such a camera behind a large piece of jewellery, with a hole in the middle for the lens to peek out. Even before cameras were as small as they are now, t.v. reporters for 60 Minutes and 20/20 were (somehow) concealing cameras on their persons for hidden camera interviews.
I don't like the idea of being filmed in public. I agree with Richard Wee that if you don't want to be filmed doing something, you probably shouldn't do it in public, but sometimes we do embarrassing things without intending to. I once walked across a crowded pedestrian mall without realizing that my fly was open. It's embarrassing enough to think of all the people who personally witnessed my stupidity, but what if it had been immortalized in a YouTube video? I could have been Open Fly Guy to everyone I met for the next five years, including people interviewing me for jobs. But I don't have a right to privacy in public, and technological advancement will probably continue to make cameras even smaller and more concealable than they are now, making enforcement of a hypothetical anti-camera law nearly impossible. So if I don't want to be on YouTube, I'll have to make sure all my zippers are zipped, that I don't trip and fall in a comical way, and that I never have an emotional outburst in public, be it in anger or over exuberance.
I find it interesting that the backlash against public video is against Google Glass. We have no privacy in public. The Constitution guarantees us no privacy in public. We don't seem to care that people video us all the time in public with their cell phones. Have never heard a story where someone walks up to someone using their cell phone as a video camera and smashes it (several of those stories out about Google Glass). Cities have cameras everywhere. Many intersection have cameras. Most large city public spaces have cameras. Every public business, such as Walmart, Target, JC Pennys, the local Quickee Mart, the gun store, the bank, the mall, the drug store, Home Depot, McDonalds, you name it: it has video recording. We don't even think about that, even justify it in some cases for safety.
You do understand that the guy at Starbucks, using his laptop or appearing to tap out a text on his iPhone, or the gal using her tablet, could be recording, right along with the camera Starbucks is using!
Why is Google Glass any different than cell phone video and public video? I just don't understand.
I voted no because I know people and they lack good judgment. I think people should refrain from filming people they know do not want to be filmed. I also think it is an impossible to enforce a law though, and probably one that shouldn't be enforced. Yeah contradiction I know.
So long as that person is not the Government I don't care if your out in public then your out in public no problem. I do have a problem with a government that will video people anywhere without there consent and they have not commit or are suspected of committing a crime.
No. It would be a clear violation of privacy rights we all have, the rights we always should have, no matter how far the technology goes. Unfortunately, if something can be created, then no matter how much immoral consequences it may bring, there will be a day, and there will be a person who will create it (legally or illegally). I'm not saying that Google Glass is something really dangerous, my point is that we have to observe the technology really carefully and be ready to add new laws to ensure this world is going to be a place worth living. I would hate being unsure whether someone is secretly filming me while I'm drinking my coffee.
If cops have already been ruled to have no right to being free from being recorded in public while doing their jobs, then I can't really see the distinction between people, in public, being filmed.
Or is there some nuance that allows one but not the other?