Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Privacy Government

Congress Demands Answers From Google Over Google Glass Privacy Concerns 201

Posted by Soulskill
from the do-any-of-you-know-what-a-smartphone-is dept.
Today eight members of the U.S. Congress have sent a letter to Google's Larry Page, asking him to address a number of privacy concerns about Google Glass. In the letter (PDF), they brought up the company's notorious Street View data collection incident, and asked how the company was planning to avoid a similar privacy breach with Glass. They also ask how Google is going to build Glass to protect the privacy of non-users who may not want their every public move to be recorded. Further, they ask about the security of recordings once they are made: "Will Google Glass have the capacity to store any data on the device itself? If so, will Google Glass implement some sort of user authentication system to safeguard stored data? If not, why not?" Google has until July 14th to respond.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Demands Answers From Google Over Google Glass Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:32PM (#43755477) Homepage
    I would love it if Google responded back stating that it infringes no more than the government already does.
    • by mystikkman (1487801) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:35PM (#43755517)

      You can vote out the government, atleast theoretically, or move outside its jurisdiction. No such luck with people wearing Google Glass all around you in public, in the office, even the bathroom stalls at Google I/O.

      • by morcego (260031) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:43PM (#43755615)

        You can vote out the government, atleast theoretically, or move outside its jurisdiction. No such luck with people wearing Google Glass all around you in public, in the office, even the bathroom stalls at Google I/O.

        If everyone else, or the majority of people, is wearing them, how is that different from voting? It is exactly the same principle.
        I'm sure it take more people to make a Google product like this viable than it takes to elect a senator.

        It is "the democracy of the wallet".

        Notice: for people who will say that your privacy will be violated even if the majority is not using it, read again my second phrase about electing a senator.

        • by icebike (68054)

          If everyone else, or the majority of people, is wearing them, how is that different from voting? It is exactly the same principle.

          Its not even remotely the same principal, and you know it. Stop trolling.

          Voting for the lesser of two evils because you need someone in Congress is not even close to giving every random visitor to your store, or office, or home, the right to record everything that you have, say, or do in these places.

          As soon as we get over this false idea that giving up privacy in public places protects us from crime we will no longer tolerate being monitored 24/7.

          But until that happens there is STILL no reason to grant th

          • by morcego (260031)

            Cool. Are you also planning on replying to anything I actually wrote in my post?
            Because what you wrote would be better located in a threat of its own.

            Even if what you wrote on your post was 100% correct (and it is not), it would still have nothing to do with what I wrote. Just because saying "the sky is blue" is correct doesn't mean it is a valid answer to "how fast is your car?"...

            • by icebike (68054)

              I couldn't find a rational chain of thought in your post.
              As such, it was clearly a troll, and I treated it that way.

              • by morcego (260031)

                I couldn't find a rational chain of thought in your post.
                As such, it was clearly a troll, and I treated it that way.

                Them let me explain it to you.

                My point is that, if people are buying and using it, they are VOTING it is a good thing. It is a characteristic of capitalists societies, and generally referred to as "voting with your wallet". Thus, "the democracy of the wallet".

                It is very easy to say "democracy is good" and that you defend it when people agree with your point of view. When they are doing things you don't agree (like violating your privacy), it gets tricky. But if you defend democracy (I'm making an assumption

                • by icebike (68054)

                  You have a very twisted interpretation of Democracy.

                  You also labor under the false impression that the US is a Democracy. Its not. Its a republican form of government [wikipedia.org].

                  Even in a Democracy (let me know if you can find one) there is no room for the idea that people could vote you into slavery or death by a simple majority vote. Nowhere will you find the concept of voting with your wallet enough to trump someone else's rights.

                  Stay in school.

                  • by morcego (260031)

                    Republic = Res Publica = Public Thing, Public Affair. It means the state belongs to the people
                    Democratic = Demos Kratia= Rule by the people (literally: the power belonging to the people of the community)

                    Both are correct to describe the USA. Technically speaking, the USA is a Representative Democratic Republic (you can also add "Constitutional" in there, if you like).
                    You know that piece of paper that starts with "We the people"? That pretty much defined it as a democracy. Maybe you are confusing it with Dire

      • by spire3661 (1038968) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:49PM (#43755685) Journal
        Google Glass is merely the public facing tip of a very large iceberg. Wearable cameras arent going away.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:55PM (#43755737)

          Yep, very soon our every move will be monitored. Not much we can do about that, but we could legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution so that most people have nothing to hide, and we no longer create black markets for desirable items. We'd also stop treating peaceful people as criminals.

      • by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:21PM (#43756025)

        You can vote out the government

        No, not even theoretically can you do that. All you can do is vote IN leaders, who MIGHT be able to make changes in government organizations... but the organizations are very entrenched, and have many levers to prevent the people voted in from making changes.

        This is why it is such a bad idea to form any new government entities, because they exist only to keep existing and to exert more and more control.

    • by bhagwad (1426855)

      Is Google even legally obligated to respond? Why? The product hasn't even been released yet. And as far as I know they're not breaking any laws. So why can't they tell Congress to go fuck themselves? Reply by July 14th...or what?

      • Presumably "contempt of congress," a federal crime. Congressional inquiry is just a fancy way of saying "Bill of attainder" these days. Which is awful. The only time there was a serious attempt in congress to study something and get feedback that I can think of in the past couple decades was the 9/11 commission. And that was far from a success story.

        • by icebike (68054)

          No, not contempt of congress. The Bipartisan Privacy Caucus is just that, a caucus. It has no official subpoena power.

      • by Sir_Sri (199544)

        Congress has lawful subpoena power in the US.

        Failure to comply would be a contempt of congress

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

        The product hasn't even been released yet

        Tell that to the thousands of people walking around with them. Not released to the general public, not released at a price for the general public, still in a prototype phase they are still in the wild and could pose a threat to public safety. Imagine if they had a serious risk of catching fire for example.

        And as far as I know they're not breaking any laws

        Congress can still compel them to provide anything they ask

        • by bhagwad (1426855)

          So...if congress feels like it they have the legal power to call a person because they like the color of his tie? No appeal? No justification? No legal redress? I find that difficult to believe.

          • That's all they can do. Put you up on a stand and make you answer silly questions. They can't shoot you. They can't even put you in jail (unless you don't show up, that's Contempt).

            Besides, Washington is beautiful this time of year.

          • by Sir_Sri (199544)

            No legal redress? I find that difficult to believe.

            You are free to ignore a congressional subpoena and tell us about the experience.

            It does go through the attorney general and a grand jury, so you can try and defend yourself though.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          this caucus has no subpoena authority.

        • by emag (4640)

          What if one already finds Congress contemptible?

    • Hell froze over (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SirGarlon (845873) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:55PM (#43755733)

      My first thought when I read the summary was that hell had frozen over: Congress is thinking about privacy!

      My second thought was that *Congress is thinking about privacy*. This can only be a good thing. I think we should encourage them, saying "you're on the right track, keep going that way" rather than being derisive.

      Parent is right, government surveillance/data collection is a huge privacy issue. That does not mean it's the only privacy issue. It is easier for our inherently timid Congresscritters to start by pointing the finger outward from Washington, and I'm OK with that because it at least starts the policy discussion we so desperately need.

      • Re:Hell froze over (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:58PM (#43756475)

        My first thought when I read the summary was that hell had frozen over: Congress is thinking about privacy!

        My second thought was that *Congress is thinking about privacy*. This can only be a good thing. I think we should encourage them, saying "you're on the right track, keep going that way" rather than being derisive.

        Parent is right, government surveillance/data collection is a huge privacy issue. That does not mean it's the only privacy issue. It is easier for our inherently timid Congresscritters to start by pointing the finger outward from Washington, and I'm OK with that because it at least starts the policy discussion we so desperately need.

        No, what happened is that the interest of politicians and the people they're supposed to represent aligned in this one case.

        You see, imagine if people were using Glass - and recording stuff around them. Let's say it captures a politician coming out of a less-than-completely-upstanding business (which could be anything someone can raise much about). That image is stored and uploaded to Google, and possibly tagged. Now any political opponent can go and claim that said politician believes in X because they just came from a store that supports it.

        Think of anything mildly controversial and see how it can get blown up. Perhaps it was a store selling porn - I'm sure the family first groups will use that at any opportunity (and I'm sure it's probably a common enough event, but one that can be used as leverage).

        Basically, they're worried about politicians being captured on film doing stuff. It may be normal behavior that gets twisted around like a quote out of context, or it could be someone capturing actual backroom deals taking place, etc.

        And the cynical side of me says it's because the politicians don't want any recording of them doing anything "bad" like being seen with industry executives that support them, or being hypocritical, etc.

    • I would love it if google responded by saying it infringes no more than eyeballs do.

      • by Dins (2538550)

        I would love it if google responded by saying it infringes no more than eyeballs do.

        Right, but when you walk past someone on the street now, you have a reasonable expectation that you're going to be seen by one set of eyeballs per person, not potentially millions.

  • by Mike Van Pelt (32582) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:32PM (#43755485)
    Google Glass is visible, right there up on the wearer's face. What about all those cell phones that can do video recording, and can do that video recording right there from your shirt pocket, with no visible indication? Cameras are getting pretty small these days. Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons.
    • Why does it have to be nefarious? I have a real desire to be able to record everything i encounter if i desire. It opens up some very interesting possibilities It is not nefarious to collect photons in public.
      • I think it would be pretty obvious if you were holding up a cell phone in the men's/women's restroom. It's a whole lot less obvious if you were wearing a pair of Google Glasses and wearing a baseball cap.

        I do invite you to test our your theory of if being ok at the next Raider game at the Oakland Coliseum.

        Please record what you want and then call 911 via VOIP.

      • by hawguy (1600213) on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:06PM (#43755857)

        Why does it have to be nefarious? I have a real desire to be able to record everything i encounter if i desire. It opens up some very interesting possibilities It is not nefarious to collect photons in public.

        That depends how you define "public" since Google Glass may be worn in places that aren't traditionally "public" like restrooms, gym locker rooms, etc. I don't really care if you peek over from the next urinal and watch me pee, but that doesn't mean that I want you capture it with your glasses and post it to Youtube. Likewise if I hire a plumber to fix my leaky bathroom faucet, I'm fine with him snapping a few photos of the bathroom sink so he can get the right parts, but I don't want him using Google Glass to record everything in my house on his way to the bathroom which could be exploited (by him or someone who hacked his Glasses) to build a database of attractive theft targets along with a detailed map of everything of value in the house.

        Cameras (even ubiquitous cell phone cameras) are a known risk and it's generally easy to see someone recording with their cell phone, but Google Glass becomes a "hidden in plain view" spy cam.

        • by Shoten (260439)

          Why does it have to be nefarious? I have a real desire to be able to record everything i encounter if i desire. It opens up some very interesting possibilities It is not nefarious to collect photons in public.

          That depends how you define "public" since Google Glass may be worn in places that aren't traditionally "public" like restrooms, gym locker rooms, etc. I don't really care if you peek over from the next urinal and watch me pee, but that doesn't mean that I want you capture it with your glasses and post it to Youtube. Likewise if I hire a plumber to fix my leaky bathroom faucet, I'm fine with him snapping a few photos of the bathroom sink so he can get the right parts, but I don't want him using Google Glass to record everything in my house on his way to the bathroom which could be exploited (by him or someone who hacked his Glasses) to build a database of attractive theft targets along with a detailed map of everything of value in the house.

          Cameras (even ubiquitous cell phone cameras) are a known risk and it's generally easy to see someone recording with their cell phone, but Google Glass becomes a "hidden in plain view" spy cam.

          I think the limiting factor here is the same as that for any video recording device, including the hidden ones that are much more subtle (and yet even better suited for the "bad" scenarios listed here). It's a simple lack of interest. You can buy a hidden camera...a very good one with a lot of capacity, in any number of form factors...for less than $100. They're available at Amazon, on Thinkgeek, and on a wide variety of other sites and shops. Yet you don't see many of them around, because honestly most

          • by hawguy (1600213)

            I wouldn't want a plumber recording everything in my house either...but more importantly, why would he, for that matter? First off, what about it would actually be interesting to him in the first place? Second, given the limited battery life of Google Glass and challenges of storing tons of data, it seems that there's actually a powerful disincentive for him to record indiscriminately. I think this is the flipside of Twitter mentality...people got so that they thought the world cares about them going to the bathroom, and now they're worried that people care about them going to the bathroom. But the truth (and the good news) is...they don't. :)

            The current generation of GG may be battery and power constrained, but future versions likely will not be. Once you have the ability to record everything and archive indefinitely, why wouldn't you just record everything just in case you want to refer to it later? Especially as image recognition and searching gets better, so it's easy to refer to something that's been recorded. The plumber might get a call from the homeowner a year after his last visit about their kitchen sink and the plumber can run a quer

        • by icebike (68054)

          The thing is, the camera is not even an integral part of google glass. Its more or less an afterthought add-on so you could share your vision with some distant person. But for most functions of Glass, its not necessary. With GPS and a compass the Glass could still show you real time maps and real time street view, and serve as a general purpose personal HUD.

          There is no reason it need for Glass to even have a camera to be useful.
          Your smartphone doesn't do this unless you overtly whip it out and take a pic

          • by hawguy (1600213)

            The thing is, the camera is not even an integral part of google glass. Its more or less an afterthought add-on so you could share your vision with some distant person. But for most functions of Glass, its not necessary. With GPS and a compass the Glass could still show you real time maps and real time street view, and serve as a general purpose personal HUD.

            There is no reason it need for Glass to even have a camera to be useful.
            Your smartphone doesn't do this unless you overtly whip it out and take a picture. Yet your smartphone does just about everything Glass does.

            I think Google intends the camera to be an integral part of the Google Glass experience, or they'd just drop the camera which gets rid of the most controversial part of the device (distraction while driving is still a concern, but most people seem more concerned with its ability to surreptitiously take photos/video).

            • by icebike (68054)

              Google's intentions aren't particularly well thought out at this point. They did it because they COULD, not because there was any big need.

              It adds very little to Glass. Infact, it will HURT Glass more than it will help it, because most shops, workplaces, homes, restaurants, will simply ban them in the interest of privacy of other patrons, or security concerns.

              Even Google wouldn't let you use your camera in their skunk works.

        • by Aryden (1872756)
          or, since it is your property and the serviceman is there for you, you can ask him to take them off. This is not difficult and it is nothing that can't already be done using a cellphone.
          • by hawguy (1600213)

            or, since it is your property and the serviceman is there for you, you can ask him to take them off. This is not difficult and it is nothing that can't already be done using a cellphone.

            "I'm sorry sir, I can't take these off, these are my prescription eye glasses, but don't worry I'm not going to record anything... *wink* We can send another guy out next Wednesday that doesn't wear glasses, but you'll still need to pay me the $75 service visit fee..."

        • "public" like restrooms, gym locker rooms, etc.

          why do you think those places aren't public?
          Many are public. For example the police don't need search warrants in many of them.

      • Yep. I'm recording people I meet all the time, with a low-fidelity camera called "memory." What privacy?

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      "Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons."

      You have been able to do that for over a decade now.

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=button+hidden+camera [amazon.com]

      They are dirt cheap now to the point that they are almost free. Back in the 90's they were $300-$400 but still readily available.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Google Glass is visible, right there up on the wearer's face. What about all those cell phones that can do video recording, and can do that video recording right there from your shirt pocket, with no visible indication? Cameras are getting pretty small these days. Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons.

      Thing is, Glass is like spectacles - it becomes common enough, you don't know who's recording and who isn't. (And apparently, the recording indicator is a l

  • by FrankSchwab (675585) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:34PM (#43755507) Journal

    Can I ask Congress the same question about the US Governments data collection efforts?
      - How is the US Government going to protect the privacy of Citizens who may not want their every public move (phone call, email, etc ) to be recorded?
      - What about the security of the recordings that are made - Will the US implement some sort of user authentication system to safeguard stored data? If not, why not?

    There's a whole sequence of questions that I'd much rather hear the answer to than similar questions about a dorky headpiece.

    • by zlives (2009072)

      answer to
      1. by putting them in a safe,secure, offshore facility where they may roam free from cameras (just not free to roam).
      2. yes, your data will be only accessible to secure corporate entities that pay to have access to it, we call it (National Strategy for Information Sharing and Safeguarding')

    • by cold fjord (826450) on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:10PM (#43755897)

      Good luck with that. Even if Congress goes to the trouble of answering it, much of the media, including social media, will likely down play it if it might reflect badly on the current administration.

      Heard anything about this one?

      IRS sued for improperly seizing the medical records of 10 million Americans [dailycaller.com]

      It is just an adder to the growing pile.

      The IRS Scandal, Day 8 [typepad.com]
      Benghazi Emails Directly Contradict White House Claims [weeklystandard.com]
      Congressman Paul Ryan on Benghazi, IRS, and DOJ Snooping the House: “Of course I’m troubled. Are you kidding?” [hughhewitt.com]

      One of the interesting controversies regarding the MX missile was the plans for basing. One of the proposals was called "dense pack." The idea was that if you put a bunch of missile silos close to each other, attacking one silo with a nuclear warhead would result in so much turbulence, blast, and local radiation that if more warheads were arriving at the same time, they would be battered by the effects of the previously exploding nuclear warhead and be ineffective in attacking the silo they were targeted at. (No, I'm not kidding.) You might be seeing the political equivalent of that right now. There are so many scandals coming out of so many agencies, they compete for attention, confuse the public, allow the media to more or less squeeze them out, and attenuate the political damage. This could be one of those, "They are incompetent, insane, or brilliant" moments. I don't like much of any of what has been revealed, but I wouldn't place a bet on it having any lasting impact on the administration. Most of the media, minus AP, seems indifferent to being spied on, and you would expect that to rouse them if nothing else would. Apparently not.

    • by peppepz (1311345)
      A dorky headpiece that could soon be worn by millions of people, continuously taking billions of high resolution photos and video clips with precise date/time/gps locations, and sending all of that data to a single commercial entity whose business is to harvest and process personal data, with a track record of privacy stumbles, an extremely high computational capacity and already knowing lots of details about millions of persons including faces, names, email and street address, whole phone books, geographic
  • Grandstanding (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:35PM (#43755533)

    Eight members of Congress on Thursday formally demanded that Google address a range of privacy concerns about its new wearable technology device, Google Glass.

    Blah blah blah. Yadda yadda yah.

    Give us some campaign contributions, and use of your private jets and we'll be gone - in the meantime, we'll use this to fool our constituents that we care.

    Cynical? Yep.

    Am I right? Yep.

  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:36PM (#43755549)
    There are valid questions to ask, but every time I see "congress demands answers" I imagine clowns piling out of a tiny car and want to root for the interrogated.
  • How can the media and government put their spin on events when it is documented from various angles by several people?

  • Maybe I missed the memo where I will be forced to wear these Cyborg looking glasses but, given the news coverage these things are getting, I have the feeling I did.
    • by Georules (655379)
      TFA mostly talks about what it's like being around other people wearing glass. Then, potentially taking pictures of you going to the bathroom -- perhaps even accidentally. No one is forcing you to wear it, but you may be an unwilling participant in the product's capabilities and Google's services.

      No worries though, I'm sure google will just write in "private parts" detection, using all of those pictures as data to improve the detection over time. Pictures of you whizzing in the bathroom will be immort
      • by Georules (655379)
        Sorry about that, TFA from another slashdot post just a moment ago about Glass. Regardless, I think this point is valid.
      • by Lumpy (12016)

        TFA is mostly bullshit written from someone that did not even do a cursory search of information about the device. There is a big bright LED blaring at you if the camera is active. Only the blind will not know if the Google Glass is recording them.

        But don't let reality and facts get in the way of everyones fearmongering.

        • There is a big bright LED blaring at you if the camera is active.

          Good thing LED's can't be covered up or disabled, right?

        • by Georules (655379)
          Great, a big light so that I can confront the person who just took a picture of me going to the bathroom. Not to mention the photo has already been uploaded to Google during said awkward confrontation, and that pictures might not actually be deleted when you "delete" them.
          • by geekoid (135745)

            Maybe you should realize you aren't that important and it really doesn't matter that someone took a picture of you in a PUBLIC restroom?

    • by Dins (2538550)

      Maybe I missed the memo where I will be forced to wear these Cyborg looking glasses but, given the news coverage these things are getting, I have the feeling I did.

      Citizen #472284, I have reported you for non-compliance with Google regulation #48279573, subsection 5, paragraph 3. You have until July 14th to explain your actions.

  • ugh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Huggs (864763) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:41PM (#43755589)
    They only care because that means a individual may accidentally record them picking up a hooker or something else scandalous. If congress was somehow exempt from the decrease in privacy, they wouldn't give a rats behind.
  • You will have the very same abilities to surreptitiously monitor and record in real-time the private lives of citizens as you would with any smartphone and most other mobile devices. Data is stored in the cloud and open for government intrusion while providing the theater privacy and security. If you don't bungle your public show feigned concern you shouldn't have anything to worry about from the voters on this issue. Now go back to your hookers and blow and leave your fingers out of it.
  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:47PM (#43755653) Journal
    Where were these questions when LEO and private businesses rolled out CCTV everywhere?????????
    • Where were these questions when LEO and private businesses rolled out CCTV everywhere?????????

      They didn't care, because there was little to no chance said CCTV apparatus would be pointed at them.

      Considering the occasional "Senator caught soliciting gay sex in a public restroom" stories that pop up, I for one am not surprised.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:47PM (#43755667) Homepage
    between the benghazi conspiracy theory, the 37th repeal of healthcare reform, and the shitstorm over patriot groups applying for a form of charity that explicitly prohibits them from political activity its a wonder these guys can find a minute in the day to "write a letter to google" about their privacy concerns. its also kind of amazing because i didnt hear a fucking peep from most of these career policitians during the patriot act or warrantless wiretapping and im pretty fucking sure that involved a large telecommunications company. one question committee head Joe Barton is asking is:

    When using Google Glass, is it true that this product would be able to use Facial Recognition Technology to unveil personal information about whomever and even some inanimate objects that the user is viewing? Would a user be able to request such information? Can a non-user or human subject opt out of this collection of personal data? If so, how? If not, why not?

    Substitute "google glass" with "United States Law Enforcement" and you begin to see how fucking hypocritical this entire endeavor is

    • the shitstorm over patriot groups applying for a form of charity

      The real shitstorm is over the IRS also sharing tax data from conservative groups with liberal groups.

      If you are OK with that, good luck when Republicans eventually take power again...

    • They're just looking for a little campaign cash. "Nice wearable camera you got there google. Be a shame if somebody outlawed it."

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:52PM (#43755713)

    I think being in public means you are free to be recorded at all times. You can't enforce this without also enforcing every company take down their outside facing security cameras.

  • by minstrelmike (1602771) on Friday May 17, 2013 @02:53PM (#43755715)
    I'm trying to figure out what the actual legal issues are between google glass and a tape recorder or film camera.
    Seems like the technology makes things appear more different than they really are. Taping or photoing people already has laws.
    Posting it on the internet could be exactly the same as publishing in a paper if they want. Or not.
    But there isn't anything new to discuss. It will be the same old discussion: why can I take a picture of anyone in public or a photo of a house from a drone aircraft but I cannot record the words they use unless they give me permission?

    The current laws are totally screwed up. Google glass has nothing to do with that.
  • They should just say. "Sorry we are not sure yet. Google Glass is still in Beta. We don't even know if this will be sold to the public. We will get back to you later"
  • They just want the details so that can hack Google Glass wearers and add to their existing monitoring programs... Especially clear given the authentication questions.

  • Is when they think it has the potential to affect them directly.

  • Glad to see Congress worried about stupid crap instead of doing their jobs.

    Good grief, The US government has turned onto a complete joke.

  • explain to me again the parallels between street view and glass. I think we'll avoid a similar privacy breach by not being even remotely the same thing.
    Aside from that, we're talking about sticking a camera phone to your face. I don't think that really raises any new issues.
    • explain to me again the parallels between street view and glass. I think we'll avoid a similar privacy breach by not being even remotely the same thing.
      Aside from that, we're talking about sticking a camera phone to your face. I don't think that really raises any new issues.

      Street view cars can't go into restrooms or other 'public' places with a certain expectation of privacy.

      That's my main bitch, and it's going to have to be solved culturally, not legislatively (especially considering it's already illegal to record in bathrooms).

      • by WillgasM (1646719)
        I don't really see this being that much of an issue, at least not in my neck of the woods. People get dumped in ditches for less. All I ask is that if you're gonna take a picture of my dick, let me fluff first.
        I'm sure most clubs and such won't let you through the door wearing Google Glass anyway.
  • by roninmagus (721889) on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:20PM (#43756003)
    Google glass takes pictures and videos. So what? So does my phone. I could walk down the street holding up my phone recording everybody and everything. Streetview was a google system being operated by a google employee (or contractor.) Google glass is just some guy wearing some glasses. My point is, why is everyone all pissy that "google is invading privacy" when it's actually the person wearing the glasses?
  • by LocalH (28506) on Friday May 17, 2013 @03:26PM (#43756077) Homepage

    "privacy of non-users who may not want their every public move to be recorded"

    I wasn't aware people had that sort of privacy. Public is public, and private is private. Pictures are pictures, whether they're taken by a film camera, digital camera, cell phone, or Google Glass.

    Google should tell Congress to go fuck off. Congress already exerts more power than they're legally supposed to, and this is just another small step in the erosion of the Constitution if this is allowed to continue.

  • What a pleasant surprise to see Congress asking intelligent questions about a technical topic. I think we should encourage this type of thinking.

I cannot draw a cart, nor eat dried oats; If it be man's work I will do it.

Working...