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.

Yes No see voting resultssaving...
8 opinions, 11 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted No.
3 votes
Apr 13, 2015

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.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote
Apr 14, 2015

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.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Jan 5, 2016

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.

subscribe
50
4 votes
Apr 13, 2015

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 24, 2015

I think the difference between a public security camera and a person's personal camera are pretty obvious. I am not one for surveillance, but I feel that if you do something in public there's a much smaller chance of it ending up online if it's filmed by a security camera as opposed to a person's camera phone. The problem with Google glass is that you look no different when you're filming than when you're not, because the glasses will be on your face either way pointing at whatever you're looking at. With a normal phone it's much easier to at least know when someone might be filming because their phone has to be both in their hand and pointing at you.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 13, 2015

I stand with Marvin on this one. Another thing is of course when the person who recorded you uses the video to publicly defame you. This is not fun anymore and such act should be strictly penalized.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Apr 13, 2015

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.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Apr 13, 2015

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
2 votes,
Apr 13, 2015

Um, the government videos you all the time in public. It may not be so in a small town in Minnesota, but you can be sure that in any medium or large city the local government is filming you from a variety of sources. Street light cameras, cop car cameras, police officer lapel cameras, public square or park cameras, public building cameras.

Wiki says 30 times a day per person in the US are the average times you get video taped in a day. wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_times_a_day_are_you_photog...eotaped?#slide=2

For those who would rather hear it from FOX, they say 75 times a day on one local affiliate story. fox16.com/news/local/story/How-many-times-are-you-caug...ZbpkSHz4SE6XAmNg

The addition of Google Glass makes no appreciable change to numbers like that!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 13, 2015

I understand what your saying what I said was the Government should not be allowed to video tape you at all unless your under investigation for a crime. I still support that view I think you do also. What a private citizen does is much different than what a government does.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 13, 2015

What about "safety"? Cameras on public transportation and cameras in schools. These are two examples of the government video taping the public. These might deter some types of crimes and are certainly useful when something does happen.

A blanket statement that the government shouldn't be involved in video taping the public would keep cop cameras out of the car making it more difficult in today's atmosphere for them to do their job. Traffic cameras could be turned over to private industry, but are they any better than the government? At least with the government, we have a chance at some kinds of control over what is done with the data. With private industry we have NO control over the data at all. We all like our traffic reports. Big cities use those cameras to operate those big message boards and direct emergency crews to accidents and problem areas.

I agree that we should have some limits as to what is done with the data, but we live in a video, tweet and selfie age. Doing away with the technology just isn't going to happen.

Do remember that the Supreme Court of our great land (US) has given the right of personhood to corporations. That means that the corporation may be treated as an individual in ever expanding ways. (We will see if they expand that personhood again with the Hobby Lobby decision). I am beginning to think that while we are focusing on Government intrusion into our lives, we will wake up soon wondering how the corporation became Big Brother!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 13, 2015

Tell me do you feel better and safer if you know your being watched. I don't. How many videos can you find on you tube of crimes being committed how did that stop the crime. Fact it has not. Good citizens who are willing to get involved are the answer to crime not cameras.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 13, 2015

You never know if a public camera stopped a crime if the crook did not commit it because of the camera. If your neighbor's homes were robbed and the camera helped catch the robber before your home was robbed would you demand the camera be removed. There are times that the camera may keep you from being charged because it proves you did not commit the crime.

What is the difference between a lapel camera or a handheld video camera and Google Glass.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 13, 2015

The valid point I just made was made by you your neighbors camera not the camera the government placed on the pole outside your neighbors home. Thanks we agree

subscribe
Load more (1) in reply to wtinc's post (Tell me do you feel better and safer if you know your being watched. I don't. How many videos can you find on you tube of crimes being committed how did that stop the crime. Fact it has not. Good citi...)
33
3 votes
Apr 13, 2015

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.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 13, 2015

We have no clear expectation of privacy in public. There exists no law that grants you such robust privacy rights. In fact, the supreme court has rejected complaints by police against citizens who want to film them. It seems that we can, and no one in public has a reasonable expectation of privacy....even if you 'think' that you are alone.

abajournal.com/news/article/Supreme_Court_Gives_Nod_to..._Amidst_Reports/
rt.com/usa/supreme-court-illinois-police-653/
carterlawaz.com/2013/06/no-expectation-of-privacy-in-public/

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 13, 2015

You are in a public place, what privacy is someone filming you violating?

I personally think it is quite the opposite.

If you could convince me that some actual right of mine is being violated when I am being filmed, then I would consider changing my stance.

However, as of now, I think it is unethical to deny someone the right to do what they want in public when those actions don't violate your rights. This protection would simply exist to stop people from feeling uncomfortable, while the right to always feel comfortable does not exist.

On top of that, I think we even have an ethical obligation to allow full protections to people recording others on public property, mainly for prosperity reasons, but also as protection from corruption and abuses by everyone and anyone.

subscribe
0
User voted No.
0 votes
May 3, 2015

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?

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: