Congress Questions Larry Page Over Google Glass

[smeezekitty]

I have the same questions for Google..... I'm all for technological advancement...but Google's interest is solely in monetizing our lives by any means... Anyone that trusts Google more than the US Gov't, is extremely naïve. Neither group has any interest in protecting your privacy as they see your privacy as a threat to their own existence.

I don't anybody has proven that glass is actually doing any video monitoring without knowledge.

 

[sykozis]

I have the same questions for Google..... I'm all for technological advancement...but Google's interest is solely in monetizing our lives by any means... Anyone that trusts Google more than the US Gov't, is extremely naïve. Neither group has any interest in protecting your privacy as they see your privacy as a threat to their own existence.

I don't anybody has proven that glass is actually doing any video monitoring without knowledge.

You really are naïve.... It would be quite easy for a Google Glass user to do video monitoring without your knowledge...or consent.... THIS is the privacy concern. The simple fact that Google Glass users, as well as Google themselves, could use the device to record everything that goes on around them without consent of those around them...or without their knowledge. If you really think this can't or won't happen....it's time for a reality check. Google profits quite heavily from data mining. They're really no better than the groups/companies producing spyware and adware....or the US Gov't for that matter...

 

[smeezekitty]

I have the same questions for Google..... I'm all for technological advancement...but Google's interest is solely in monetizing our lives by any means... Anyone that trusts Google more than the US Gov't, is extremely naïve. Neither group has any interest in protecting your privacy as they see your privacy as a threat to their own existence.

I don't anybody has proven that glass is actually doing any video monitoring without knowledge.

You really are naïve.... It would be quite easy for a Google Glass user to do video monitoring without your knowledge...or consent.... THIS is the privacy concern. The simple fact that Google Glass users, as well as Google themselves, could use the device to record everything that goes on around them without consent of those around them...or without their knowledge. If you really think this can't or won't happen....it's time for a reality check. Google profits quite heavily from data mining. They're really no better than the groups/companies producing spyware and adware....or the US Gov't for that matter...

Secret recording by google would be possible to discover by watching the network packets. But yes Google is a big data miner.

Users recording is different from what I am talking about.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Shouldn't it be "Congress wants to know how Google plans to protect consumers using and not misusing Google Glass." ??

 

[back_by_demand]

It isn't unrealistic to expect the Government to try and protect it's citizens, forget it being Google for a moment, it is a private company that has a track record of illegal data capture for the purpose of monetization. Last time I checked Government drones or CCTV didn't take your pictures so they could send you targetted advertising.

 

[mrmotion]

This, as with most congressional "investigations" is going to be a triumphant waste of tax payer money for something that if so inspired people could do anyway. I knew a ton of people who used to film or take pictures of every aspect of their life, and no one was crying foul then(thanks American Beauty for inspiring all those weirdos).
Also the one thing republicans and democrats agree on? Yea, i can see that. They are worried they will say something stupid and not notice someone with Google glasses on as opposed to a cell phone.

 

[nieur]

It isn't unrealistic to expect the Government to try and protect it's citizens, forget it being Google for a moment, it is a private company that has a track record of illegal data capture for the purpose of monetization. Last time I checked Government drones or CCTV didn't take your pictures so they could send you targetted advertising.

I would be happy if someone throws me targeted add at me after taking pictures of me rather than throwing targeted drone

 

[wysir]

Dear Google,
It has come to our attention that your new upcoming product, "Glass", may infringe on citizens privacy. We ask that you take the privacy of our citizens into highest concern and that your new product does not infringe on the rights of citizens. If we feel that you do not intend to protect citizens privacy in the utmost regard, we will be forced to inspect your product and technology ourselves. If we find that your product does indeed infringe on the privacy rights of citizens, we will be forced to blacklist Glass from the American consumer market.
Sincerely,
Concerned United States Congress
P.S. If you allow us unlimited access to all collected consumer data, we will back your product and reassure the consumer and our citizens that their privacy is indeed is in good hands. Erm. "Protected."

 

[CerianK]

With the sky rocketing increases in technology, people have become a slave to the need for information access. In my case, just doing my job would benefit from this tech. I could see using at home, as well, to be able to quickly organize information required to just survive in this society. The question is if and when someone should be forced to turn off the technology. I worry that there may be a point when we can't (or will be unwilling to) turn it off. This eventually will be a fundamental question of evolution (e.g. my photographic memory and instantaneous ability to evaluate information will seem unnatural, just like 'Brain Man' Daniel Tammet).

 

[RJSmythe]

Technology is always going to be in the world around us. Yes, the government will always have it. There are places in this country that have cameras monitoring business districts, parks… so forth and so on which we have come to accept as a citizen until we can try to change it when elections come around. But enough of the political crap, let’s get back to us and how this will impact our daily routines.
Yes people have multiple types of recording equipment such as cellphones, tablets, standard point and shoot and video recorders of all different kinds. But the catch is we can see when one of these devices is being pointed at us or our families and we have the option to approach that person and ask that they stop taking our picture. As any father who has children would attest to if noticing someone in the park taking pictures or videos of their child at play this may be unsettling. If one observes the different group gatherings at the park or wherever you may be you might realize that they are recording there niece or nephew, If not then just take out your camera of choice and take their picture in return. Make sure he/she notices you taking this photo and if they are up to no good they may make a quick exit. Google Glass eliminates this obvious intrusion of you and your family’s privacy so you aren’t able to address it. Granted certain types of photos are taken with cellphone camera’s that people, specifically women, are unaware of but if this voyeurism is captured by a stores camera or possibly witnessed by a concerned citizen or friend it has a higher chance to be addressed.
Here are some more ideas that could be implemented by someone up to no good with Google Glass:
Eyewitness Protection programs can be in jeopardy.
The ability to visually identify an individual for some form of violence.
If allowed in places of business it can be used to get a layout of the building or try to capture one’s personal information.
Personally if I am out with a group for dinner or Happy Hour and someone brings a new friend to the group wearing a set of these I would appreciate whoever invited them to ask that the glasses be removed. Regardless of what you may think your group of friends will never be the same if they feel everything that they do at that time is going to appear in the Social Media arena.
We have all seen this type of technology created in our favorite Bond movie or Sci-Fi flick and yes it will serve a purpose in specific types of industries but not as an “I’m so awesome and cool with these on!” attitude. In time all they will do is alienate certain individuals further as we have seen with other forms of social media.
Yeah, yeah there are people who will say you’re an idiot. Go ahead and say what you want about my thoughts but as most people who post in anonymous forums, Blogs or other Social Media you don’t know me and I don’t know you.

 

[elbert]

Street cams can pull up our car plates and take a picture of the driver. Average internet users can watch these cams. Whats the difference? As long as business can ban them from their location I see no problems. Maybe government should look at using them to help protect law enforcement. Police could wear these so anyone they see can be pulled from the database. Imagine a policeman gets shoot and cant Id the person but Google glasses does.

 

[kingnoobe]

Businesses have the right to have people take these off and so does everybody else on their own property.
As far as the public, well it's public.
@Elbert I agree, you think these could really help cops also. Wither they or somebody else is wearing them. I don't know exactly how these works, but I'm assuming it would be just as easy if not easier to take pictures then with a cellphone.

 

[somebodyspecial]

This from a congress who constantly approve feds looking me up without a warrant? Warrant-less wiretapping? Wiretapping the Associated Press and a crap ton of it's reporters, even getting personal cell phone & emails in there?
Seriously? YOU stop looking into my business before even commenting on google. The REAL invasion of privacy is done by the govt daily.

 

[sykozis]

This, as with most congressional "investigations" is going to be a triumphant waste of tax payer money for something that if so inspired people could do anyway. I knew a ton of people who used to film or take pictures of every aspect of their life, and no one was crying foul then(thanks American Beauty for inspiring all those weirdos).
Also the one thing republicans and democrats agree on? Yea, i can see that. They are worried they will say something stupid and not notice someone with Google glasses on as opposed to a cell phone.

What investigation? They simply asked Larry Page a few questions. Hardly qualifies as an "investigation"....

This, as with most congressional "investigations" is going to be a triumphant waste of tax payer money for something that if so inspired people could do anyway. I knew a ton of people who used to film or take pictures of every aspect of their life, and no one was crying foul then(thanks American Beauty for inspiring all those weirdos).
Also the one thing republicans and democrats agree on? Yea, i can see that. They are worried they will say something stupid and not notice someone with Google glasses on as opposed to a cell phone.

This from a congress who constantly approve feds looking me up without a warrant? Warrant-less wiretapping? Wiretapping the Associated Press and a crap ton of it's reporters, even getting personal cell phone & emails in there?
Seriously? YOU stop looking into my business before even commenting on google. The REAL invasion of privacy is done by the govt daily.

When did they wiretap the AP? Last I heard, they simply pulled phone records...which is completely different.

Last check, warrantless wiretapping can only be done when there is a credible risk to national security....

 

[somebodyspecial]

This, as with most congressional "investigations" is going to be a triumphant waste of tax payer money for something that if so inspired people could do anyway. I knew a ton of people who used to film or take pictures of every aspect of their life, and no one was crying foul then(thanks American Beauty for inspiring all those weirdos).
Also the one thing republicans and democrats agree on? Yea, i can see that. They are worried they will say something stupid and not notice someone with Google glasses on as opposed to a cell phone.

What investigation? They simply asked Larry Page a few questions. Hardly qualifies as an "investigation"....

This, as with most congressional "investigations" is going to be a triumphant waste of tax payer money for something that if so inspired people could do anyway. I knew a ton of people who used to film or take pictures of every aspect of their life, and no one was crying foul then(thanks American Beauty for inspiring all those weirdos).
Also the one thing republicans and democrats agree on? Yea, i can see that. They are worried they will say something stupid and not notice someone with Google glasses on as opposed to a cell phone.

This from a congress who constantly approve feds looking me up without a warrant? Warrant-less wiretapping? Wiretapping the Associated Press and a crap ton of it's reporters, even getting personal cell phone & emails in there?
Seriously? YOU stop looking into my business before even commenting on google. The REAL invasion of privacy is done by the govt daily.

When did they wiretap the AP? Last I heard, they simply pulled phone records...which is completely different.

Last check, warrantless wiretapping can only be done when there is a credible risk to national security....

To me pulling records and finding sources of information is the same as listening in to my call. It is electronic Surveillance plain and simple. They are supposed to inform the press months in advance so they can mount a defense if necessary. When you notify me AFTER you've already pulled said records, got your information avoiding LAW, you illegally wiretapped me.

http/legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wiretapping
"Following the september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress broadened wiretapping rules for monitoring suspected terrorists and perpetrators of computer Fraud and abuse through the usa patriot act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). For example, the act expanded the use of traditional pen registers (a device to capture outgoing phone numbers from a specific line) and "trap and trace" devices (that capture the telephone numbers of incoming callers) to include both telephone and Internet communications as long as they exclude message content."

So you're WIRETAPPING me even if it contains NO MESSAGE CONTENT and just record the numbers of the callers (IE..My phone records of who I called or who called me). You are simply TRAPPING the numbers at the switchboard like DOJ did by pulling specific lines records.

Most of the headlines reported this as WIRETAPPING AP. The legal definition agrees or I guess lawyers don't know their crap and that law I quoted is wrong? Trap and Trace is NOT wiretapping to you, but to the law it is. Message content or not.