Congress Demands Answers From Google Over Google Glass Privacy Concerns 201
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.
The devil you see vs. the devil you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn the question around (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I would love it if (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Grandstanding (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to be on the ball Congress. (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would love it if (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I would love it if (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The devil you see vs. the devil you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Privacy in public? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what might be a more useful link: The Photographer’s Right [krages.com]
You cannot vote out government (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hell froze over (Score:4, Insightful)
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.