Is the World Ready For Facial Recognition On Google Glass? 469
An anonymous reader writes "Since the first demonstration of the plausible future abilities of Google Glass, instant facial recognition has been one of the most exciting ideas in the pipeline. According the the development group Facial Network, the time for real-time facial recognition through Google Glass is coming a lot sooner than we originally expected. This isn't an app developed by Google, it's a 3rd party developer group — they've gone and done it first!"
The application is not on the Play store due to the ban on facial recognition. It performs real time recognition, and pulls information from public databases. The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.
Time to start putting make-up on (Score:5, Interesting)
How to Beat Facial-Recognition Software [technewsdaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't going to matter. Like all tech, this will be used by governments, and even if you persuade all your friends to wear masks, they are going to have so many cameras that it will come to a point they can know who anyone is by process of elimination.
Re: (Score:3)
Google glass wearers are going to need make-up to cover up that black eye and bloody nose.
Re:Time to start putting make-up on (Score:4, Funny)
Okay, then wear a niqab [wikipedia.org]: technically it's not allowed in many countries (for the very reason that the police can't see your face), but it falls in the "religion" category, so niqab wearers often get away with it on the ground that society as a whole is supposed to show the greatest amount of tolerance for religious stuff for some reason.
With a garment like this, even men can wear one and become virtually undetectable.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a fab crowdsourcing idea.
Re: (Score:3)
"Google Glass should have no ability to recognize anyone that does not wish to be recognized. Nothing more should be said, and a class action law suit should remedy the problem. The US Constitution provides me an amount of privacy, and this would remove my privacy."
In my opinion, the only reasonable way to ensure this is to make ALL these privacy intrusions "opt-in" only. By law if necessary (and I think it will probably be necessary.)
If somebody wants to be recognized, let them opt in. Everyone else should be excluded. And you should be able to remove your name from the opt-in list at any time.
As an organiser of events. (Score:3)
I don't much care for face-recognition, in fact I can imagine a lot of venue's banning internet-connected (full-time recording) head mounted camera's (for guests), but AGE-recognition would be a useful feature on the door if you have a liqueur-license or some other age-related barrier.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know, I think the technology will be very interesting going forward. Not sure what the technical term would be, but as a memory assistant / aid it would be great, especially if you have a disability or otherwise diminished memory capacity.
Imagine having 24/7 audio/video recordings for the last day/month/year/life. The video feeds could be automatically marked whenever you have encountered somebody through facial recognition. Voice could be automatically transcribed and then indexed for search. Hell
Re:As an organiser of events. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine being able to watch you whole life, it could cause massive mental problems.
How would you ever get over a broken heart if you could replay all of your happiest moments alongside the mistakes you'd made.
Recording our lives is just asking for a tsunami of unforeseen consequences.
Re:As an organiser of events. (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans are flexible. I'm sure we'll find a way to deal with it, like we have everything else that's come along.
Re:As an organiser of events. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love facial recognition. I have a really bad memory for names and faces, and I often end up in the embarrassing situation of meeting someone in the street who knows who I am but I only vaguely recognise their face and certainly don't remember their name. Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.
Re:As an organiser of events. (Score:4, Insightful)
Having a prosthetic "face to name" system would save me from many embarrassing situations.
I have that too and this is still super creepy to me. Learn to deal with it, by replying something like "oh hi how are you" and winging it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one thing if it uses your personal database with only photos of people that you took with their consent, but not if it goes off hunting Facebook for pictures. If you had to ask people's permission it would kind of defeat the purpose for you.
Re: (Score:3)
Some nightclubs in the UK ask to see your Facebook profile as proof of age... because apparently you can't lie to Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As an organiser of events. (Score:4, Interesting)
If it clearly says on the tickets and a sign by the entrance (for instance) "No video/audio recordings" or some such, you are of course free to attempt to circumvent our request. We are of course free to remove your ass from the premise if we catch you ; ). As an addendum I would personally do everything to avoid harming a visitor or his / her belongings, but some security or even artists or fellow guests might take offence, so it's also for your own protection that I would discourage it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that would not prevent someone to take a picture/record a movie of you and then use some facial recognition algorithms at a later time, but it would still mitigate some of the abuse that "instant" facial recognition apps would bring to the table.
Re: (Score:3)
If I have six thousand people coming in over a two hour period any second I can shave of the interaction between guest and staff is money. As long as its voluntary (opt-in) I see no problem with an age-identifier glasses-ap (gAge, I like it) instead of carding people. Of course legislation would have to be made. And I think it could actually be a data-point used in court, if the data is retained. Maybe the guest wore a fake gAge e-dentifier?
Killer App (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares?
Know what I hate? People in my way. If I just carried an AK-47 around with me all the time, my life would be so much better. People would stay out of my way. I wouldn't actually shoot anyone, I promise... I just want some respect!
Point is, there will be backlash to people wearing internet-connected face-recognizing cameras, and it won't matter what the excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this of course is that it constantly does the facial recognition on everyone, and sends the results back to the mother ship. If enough people start wearing these, and only 1 mugshot of you makes
Re: (Score:2)
The stand-alone device brings another problem. Social conventions say it is very rude and offensive to fail to recognise someone - if you have to look down at your face-database device, it's going to lead to people getting very upset. The glass approach has the advantage of complete transparency. You look, it tells you all you need to know, and from the perspective of everyone else you just remembered unaided.
Power constraints would make it impractical to send every face seen back to google. Radios use a lo
Re: (Score:2)
And sure, currently there are constraints on the number of faces in a Glass database, constraints on power and on the wireless connection used to talk to Google, but that's just a matter of time. If there will be enough apps on these glasses that appeal to those in the mainstream, and unless there is some violent backlash against these things (again, from regular people, not privacy advocates), then I give it 5 years or so
Re:Killer App (Score:5, Insightful)
I have prosopagnosia, but I prefer the stress/awkwardness over people being able to know my name at a glance whether I trust them or not. From firsthand experience, having your name makes it feasible for an unstable, pissed-off, or obsessed individual to track down your contact info, school, workplace, home, and family members; even if they don't do any real damage, the situation can become really fucking creepy and last a very long time.
I also just don't want to make it any easier for the government or law enforcement to keep track of me everywhere I go.
Re: (Score:3)
Opt out? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I don't want my name popping up on some random Glass-hole's screen whenever I have the misfortune to be in one's proximity, I have to go find some random app's website and opt out? How is that supposed to actually work in practice?
Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?
This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/ [slashgear.com]
Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.
blinders are effective in low light (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone know if those LED baseball caps really work? What about a can of spray paint, aimed at the Glass-hole?
This looks promising, it's an IR based 'camera blinder' that hides your face:
http://www.slashgear.com/surveillance-cam-blinder-2010369/ [slashgear.com]
Dunno how effective it is against different camera types and it does require you to wear a dumb-ass headband but it looks like a promising concept.
I've been playing around with various IR LED types, such as this one [ebay.com], at a couple wavelengths, and I found that in darkness and twilight, you need only very few to become a huge blob of ghostly light, but in good lighting conditions, a good camera like an Axis P3367 [axis.com] and even some of the crappy webcams I tried will see them as merely little points of red light. So I'll integrate a bunch in my backpack's straps and on it's surface, to at least get that commute, including subways etc.. covered, but with little hope of completeness.
So the real challenge may be: can we build a device that automates lens detection, focuses a small laser on the lens in question, and keeps it there while both the lens and the wearer of the countermeasure laser move along. +1 for a switch that will briefly increase laser power to burning strength. As in using a 2W Laser diode [ebay.com] at low power. Capability :-)
No opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be opt-in. How could it be? Would you opt-in for something that lets you be tracked and recognized everywhere by anybody (and more importantly by evil corporations)? Would you opt-in to receive telemarketer calls at home? Would you opt-in to get spam emails?
Of course not: even if you only have doubts about something, your doubts make you *not* opt-in.
That's why every service that people don't want or don't like are opt-out only: for one thing, the bastards who foist it on us hope people will be too lazy to jump through the hoops to opt-out, and as an added bonus, the opt-out database itself can be mined and monetized.
In any case, even if you opt out, how will you know your mug won't be tracked anyway? Do you believe in corporate morals? Who's the overseeing body? The government? Do you believe in government morals?
Re: (Score:3)
Then the technology doesn't fly. They need permission from the person being identfied, so unless they contact everyone they can identify to give them a chance to opt out, they shouldn't be legal. It's not like an email system or an app where the user is being asked for permission.
No one else has the right to give my permission by proxy -- especially not the glassholes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. If someone stares at me wearing those things without asking me first, I'll punch him or her in the face.
You would get arrested... (Score:2, Informative)
Assault and battery at a minimum.
More likely get sued and have to pay their support for a couple of months.
Some might even see that as a way to make a living. A bit painful for couple of days... but each lawsuit would pay for a months wages for three or four people.
At your expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of people punch plenty of other people in the face all the damn time and don't end up in jail, or even being talked to by the police.
Re:No opt-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Google glass is and has NEVER been meant to be a real marketable item, it is meant to see if people will accept it into society, and THEN put the lenses of cameras into 'normal' looking glasses, that you can't tell have the camera, or onto breast pocket or necklace deocrations, with the HUD eyepiece being built into normal looking glasses.
Google glass purposely looks like glasses +(something) so that google can learn how others react to it.
I thought all this was obvious, but apparently not from seeing everyone's reactions to this... PLUS what is everyone going to do when people have camera implants to give vision to the blind... or just 'body modification/improvement' ... THAT is the real question that we as a society need to address... also... gods... the MPAA/RIAA is going to bitch/moan about replacement eyes... and probably try to have DRM put into them so that they can't record movies/music, or turn off when you walk into a theater :/
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google (or any company willing to take these technologies right now) have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands. And while it's true that we should never forget that there is a thing called stupidity, it wouldn't do any harm to go for a what-if. After all, this could certainly be the point where we define just how the technology is going to grow and how is it going to enter our lives, with small adjustments afterwards. Changing course afterwards
Re: (Score:2)
What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.
People with demencia live in nursing homes with carers that tell them who's visiting them. They don't walk around in the street with Google glasses on thinking "who the hell's this guy? Oh yeah it's Kevin. Thanks Google!"
Re: (Score:2)
What about people are having problems with demencia? With a lot of people not wanting their names on the list, the demincia person will have trouble identify their friends, fellow workers, asociates or relatives and etc.
These people with dementia are somehow going to remember to put on their Google Glass?
Hardware not YET efficient enough to scare me.. (Score:2)
The hardware is not ready, at least not until they use hardware to build composite mutation-images that show relevant (pixel) changes only. There is no point in trying to parse a single image a second, or -on the opposite side- a video stream.
In my opinion, efficient wearable vision software should ignore lower quality versions of what it already saw, it would make a huge efficiency leap. I believe this architecture ultimately would be a software skeleton for a mental world reconstruction much like humans p
3 strikes and you're out? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glasshole...! Love it. I would give you points and even some internets if I hadn't posted in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm on the jury, I promise not to convict you! Fully justified, I say!
Glass users! (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you're ready to get the shit kicked out of you, because that's inevitably what's going to happen. I can't really see how it isn't going to happen.
I suspect it'll happen so frequently, that the police in any state won't even bother to charge anyone doing so with a crime after a short while.
Good luck!
Google introduces robot.txt... for your face (Score:5, Funny)
Just tattoo the standard robots.txt entries on your forehead, and Google Glass will obey. Don't want to be indexed at all? Disallow: * Or perhaps you just don't want people to see your stomach? Disallow: stomach. You can also keep stalkers at bay with a simple "Noindex,nofollow" above your lips.
Yes! Please! (Score:2, Insightful)
I am completely unable to remember the names of people even in my small office. "Oh, you need to talk to Sam about that"... Shit. Sam who? I can't ask; I've been here three years! And the name's gender neutral even!
The ten or so people I interact with on a daily basis; fine - but beyond that? Argh!
So yes. Yes please. This is a WONDERFUL aid for an uncommon disability. And pretty much EVERY feature of wearable computing that was promised to be useful; context-based calenders, noting down things you'
Re:Yes! Please! (Score:5, Interesting)
Try working in a school. I long ago stopped trying to track the number of times I catch some student destroying school property. There's nothing I can do: I can't identify them, they know well enough to lie if asked for a name, they all refuse to wear their name badges*, and if confronted they run away. Staff are forbidden from ever making any sort of physical contact with a student (As this could result in the student making a claim of assault and suing the school), so they can get away with just about anything so long as they aren't in sight of a teacher who can recognise them. There are two thousand-odd students, I can't memorise every face!
*The girls in particular have some strange phobia about letting anyone see their photograph, as they all consider it hideous.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, google glass wouldn't help here. They'd be forbidden instantly: We also don't permit any photographs be taken of students, nor do we allow even the use of cameras on site except for those students on photography courses, on the grounds that taking a photo of a child could be seen as preparing for sexual abuse.
Yes, I live in the UK. The country where everyone is a pedophile until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Just ask - "I'm sorry, I'm having one of those days - who is that?". If that's too embarrassing, just ask if they can remind you where Sam's desk is.
Struggling to remember the names of people outside your immediate department is not an "uncommon disability". Yes, it sounds like you have more trouble than most people, but it's perfectly normal to forget peoples' names. That's why people are so impressed when someone knows everyone's name in a company.
Everyone has been in that exact situation, and they aren't
Yeah. (Score:2)
The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.
Like Facebook lets you "opt out" of stuff?
Fair warning to Google Glass wearers in near future: people will sucker-punch you and destroy your toy.
I certainly won't guarantee your safety if I see you with one pointing in my direction.
Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Assault someone in view of a wirelessly connected camera. That's a genius plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google Glasses brings out the Internet Tough Guys.
On the one hand, sure, there are "Internet Tough Guys" who talk big online but would never back it up in the real world.
On the other hand, there are "realists". The simple fact of the matter is that the world is full of people who have ZERO problem with assaulting somebody for invading their space. I don't have to claim that I'll punch anyone personally in order to point out that it is an absolute FACT that Glass wearers are going to face physical consequences for their invasive behavior.
Merry Stasi Christmas! (Score:3)
The boys at the Fort Meade KGB (oops, I mean NSA) HQ are throwing a party, while the local pigs are ordering extra sprinkles on their doughnuts as we speak.
Glass is the ultimate (to date) example of why "because we can" technology is a very bad thing.
And yes, even though I don't befriend the kind of narcissist that would use Glass, if one shows up at my home or office they will be asked to leave and never return. No exceptions. None.
Re: (Score:2)
>the kind of narcissist that would use Glass
This doesn't even make any sense, unless you are implying that they'd be staring at themselves in the mirror all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>Besides shotgunning a couple of over-generalized links to Google searches (thorough research there!),
Thank you.
>you might have noticed the part about selfishness, which does not perforce involve mirrors.
No, but the part about the very origin of the word 'narcissism' does.
Why don't you read up on logical fallacies, especially the one called 'moving the goalposts'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine the local pigs are looking rather worried. The US has a few issues with police getting carried away with their authority. The use of cellphones made it a little bit harder for them to abuse their power and intimidate people, but only a little - few people pull out their phones to record traffic stops, and if you try it there's a good chance the cop will make up something to arrest you for on the spot just out of annoyance. Add Glass though - potentially a device where recording everything is as
Re: (Score:2)
One word: dossier.
The rub is not with the user, but with the records. This sort of thing would make a lovely tool for establishing proximity to a crime scene as part of a contrived case. A perfectly innocent act of common public politeness by a passing stranger involving the actual purp could easily be portrayed as complicity.
Prosecutors and police routinely lie, distort, and intimidate. It's in their job description.
Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (Score:5, Insightful)
When did Slashdot become so full of luddites?
Years ago there would have been nothing but comments full of ideas for amazing things you accomplish using a device like this.
Now it seems like the site is populated almost entirely by pubescent teenagers acting macho and boasting how they'd beat someone up and break their glasses.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA's spying is clearly technically feasible. Boston has been scanning license plates to identify vehicles, not people.
Are you ok with that, too?
If it's not ok for the government or police to spy on you, why some random stranger?
Even the TSA doesn't use technology like this.
Re:Hurr durr, I'll punch someone for recording me (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago adverts didn't follow you around the web, stalking you. Companies like Facebook didn't create shadow profiles of people who hadn't even signed up. The NSA/GCHQ wasn't known to be spying on everyone and strongly suspected of having access to traffic from this kind of application to build a vast tracking/facial recognition database without the need to get approval for rolling out the technology themselves.
Basically, there wasn't the abuse that there is now, at least not on such a large scale.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you punch every person you see with a camera?
No? Hypocrite.
Won't be long (Score:2)
Until everyone is wearing a ballroom mask.
How bulglary helpers :) (Score:5, Interesting)
1. goto the airport check for people which take a long distance flight
2. check a few names
3. lookup facebook&co to get an idea whether they live alone or not
4. search the local phone book (or similar) to check where they live
5. drive over to their home and rob the place if no one is there
note:
step 1. could be replaced with a static camera
step 2.-4. could be replaced with a script
Also monitoring someones home with a static camera (could also be mounted on a drone) should make it really easy to create a general schedule plan for when which people regularly come and go -> no more man power intensive stake outs! :)
Face recognition has so many nice applications, can't imagine anything going really wrong. :D
Re: (Score:3)
Far easier to:
1) Pick an area at around 7pm when it is dark outside and see what lights are not on.
2) Rob the place.
why so 1984 ? (Score:3)
I want glasses with facial recognition. In fact, if it worked the way I want it to, I'd buy them tomorrow.
I don't want this 1984 "we'll stalk everyone on the Internet for you" bullshit. I couldn't care less what the guy opposite me on the bus posted on Twitter this morning. I really, really don't give a fuck.
All I want is my own personal database of the people I know. They come in three categories:
And /. doesn't do ordered lists. wtf?
Arrest mugshot databases (Score:3)
Cheap conutermeasure (Score:2)
Queue internet tough guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
...saying they'll punch someone in the face if they wear Google Glass near them.
Without looking at any other comments, was I right?
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of application is like file shaing: it's just gonna happen, whether you like it or not. You can't legislate it away, and you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face. In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster, and you'll be none the wiser.
Get ready to live in a panopticon world. It'll happen. It's already happened in fact [bbc.co.uk]...
Sad mistake of technology-focused people (Score:5, Insightful)
It all depends on what society at large thinks is a worthwhile price to pay. Take file sharing (of copyrighted files) for example. It's perfectly possible to stamp it out: just legislate to allow the MPAA and RIA to demand all ISP's to install monitoring software and match whatever you upload to a database of signatures of copyrighted works. The Snowdon papers show that it's very likely that the infrastructure is available to do just that.
Encryption is of course to be outlawed for use by private citizens. US-style "damages" will pay for the enforcement effort and file sharing will be killed in short order.
Of course there are such pesky things like the first amendment that would get in the way, but those are only *legal* and *political* obstacles, not technological ones. Which means they can be removed whenever people feel like it. And people's perception of what is or isn't acceptable can be changed by abuses of technology.
For example, it's perfectly possible to legislate that whoever uploads your mug without your consent is liable for damages (freeing the ones pictured from having to prove any actual damages) and legislate that all and any ISPs and hosting companies must give their full cooperation and assist anyone who can show that their picture has been uploaded without their consent to identify the perpetrator. That would also necessitate the end of anonymous internet access.
What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.
If you thought that no amount of political pressure can effectively take away your rights to upload pictures of people, just wait until the first pedophile ring is discovered scouting schools for attractive "candidates" using Google Glasses and putting the lot online for perusal.
Unfortunately people have a way of abusing new technology in ways that lead to hitherto unheard of legal constraints.
Re: (Score:3)
What you really mean is that you don't wish for this to happen, not that it can't happen for technological (or political) reasons.
No, what I mean is, technology that's simple or natural enough, or hidden enough, will be used regardless of the law because the law is unenforceable.
It's already forbidden to share copyrighted files but people do it all the time because enforcing the ban is vastly more expensive and time-consuming for copyright holders than getting around it for file sharers. If the **AAs sudden
Re: (Score:2)
Active Jamming.
Re:Sad mistake of technology-focused people (Score:4, Funny)
Of the camera.
With spray paint.
Re: (Score:3)
No, what I mean is, technology that's simple or natural enough, or hidden enough, will be used regardless of the law because the law is unenforceable.
It's already forbidden to share copyrighted files but people do it all the time because enforcing the ban is vastly more expensive and time-consuming for copyright holders than getting around it for file sharers. If the **AAs suddenly had the powers to become truly nasty, as you describe, people would encrypt their files. If encryption became illegal, people who use steganography.
What the parent post was saying is that if society wanted to legislate against it, we could. It would take measures that make Stalin look like a Nelson Mandela, but it could happen.
In the case of face recognition, how do you know if someone is recording you and processing the image? How do you know if a company does it secretly? If the law prohibits it, who's to say this or that guy does it anyway?
All it takes is laws that require all ISPs to actively monitor all downloads to any device, and enough government regulators to catch people who may be using facial recognition software on consumer hardware. And then laws that make the MPAA look tame. Device creators could be mandated to record the last few days of anything the u
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:4, Insightful)
you can't make facial recognition technology disappear by punching people in the face.
No. But you can make one person at a time stop using it.
Re: (Score:3)
In both cases, someone will come up with smart contact lenses (or something else that's pretty much undetectable) even faster
There's a hard limit on personal technology. It can't advance beyond the point where putting a pocket knife on someone's throat to steal it becomes a profitable job. That's why in most cyberpunk scenarios one of the technological advances is in self defense.
i.e.: There won't be ultra-tech glasses/contact lenses/etc unless someone thinks of a way of protecting the clients form increasingly profitable mugging.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If there won't be a consensus that wearing something like Google Glass with even just the potential for facial recognition or other data extraction is unacceptable, then most people will just have to live with it. There are however people who can and will evade this surveillance, simply by owning everywhere they go. Private, gated communities, holiday resorts, beaches, theaters, clubs, boutiques and wherever else the privacy conscious rich flock will forbid this intrusion. The rich and famous have plenty ex
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, laws about assault, battery etc. mean you can't punch people in the face.
That and being a decent human being.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That... and the fact that some of us carry guns... if you punch us in the face, unless you're prepared to follow through and kill us, we'll shoot you dead...
Rest assured if someone ever walked up to me and just punched me in the face and knocked me down, if I'm still breathing and able, I'd draw and fire at them, assuming they mean to kill me.
And the laws here allow me to do it. The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.
However, I suspect the poster above you was just trying to be a funny troll. :)
Probably, but you are scary. You honestly think it is ok to shoot someone for punching you in the face? I guess this explains why US gun deaths are on par with 3rd world countries and war zones.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gun nuts are like tweeny boys waiting for their bits to grow.
I agree with this - and I often think exactly the same when reading pro-gun posts on Slashdot.
I can recognize that there are advantages to allowing gun ownership. Unfortunately, the gun proponents often sound like the real reason that they want a gun is that they're really, really hoping that they will get the chance to shoot someone dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes you a complete idiot, because a huge number of people have died from being punched in the head once.
That's not to mention how you can blind them, create permanent disabilities etc.
And you know, on top of "beat some sense into them" as a worldview making you functionally indistinguishable to fascists.
sarcasm detector: failure indicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, deadly force IS an appropriate response to a punch or attempted punch by a stranger on the street. There are many cases of one-punch kills, and even more of people simply being beaten to death. Once you're dazed from a solid punch it's very difficult to defend yourself from the next, which will daze you even more. If you don't end the fight immediately your life is at your attacker's mercy.
You'll want some luck when you argue that in court. Absent some other circumstances like wounds on the back of your head from an assailant pounding your skull on concrete, or other evidence that you had reasonable cause to believe the assailant intended to kill you, you're at risk of going to prison. In most jurisdictions it's on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person in your position would not have expected deadly intent, but in practice it can seem like the burden ends up on the
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:5, Interesting)
The minute you use physical force against someone, deadly force is a legal response.
(Concealed Weapons Permit instructor here)
Bullshit. There is no state in the the US which permits use of deadly force in retaliation for a punch, nor even to prevent less than deadly force being used. Deadly force is only justifiable to prevent the use of deadly force, plus a few select other violent felonies (e.g. rape).
If you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you'd better hope that you can convince the jury you had a reasonable fear that they were going to follow up by beating you to death. Personally, I expect (and hope) that you fail to convince the jury.
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:4, Interesting)
FWIW, my friend who is a former LEO who shot someone in the line of duty and is now a criminal defense attorney who has defended civilians who have shot and killed others in self defense, is the primary source of my opinion, backed up by statements from officials at the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigations, who specifically covered these issues in my instructor training course.
Keep in mind that in many states (such as my current state of residence, Colorado), the only thing that is required for instructor certification is an NRA certificate, and the NRA instructor course is all about teaching target shooting and doesn't address the legalities of self-defense at all. So many CCW instructors, unless they've taken the initiative to personally study these issues or consulted with someone else who has, aren't really any more informed on this topic than any other random person.
Re:are google glass users ready for... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 19 states that impose some "duty to retreat" [volokh.com].
It is not reasonable to think that deadly force, or any force for that matter, is a justified response when "any" physical act is visited upon you.
However, a duty to retreat is very complicated and requires a jury to agree with your point of view; whether you are the prosecutor or the defendant.
I teach defensive firearm classes and concealed handgun permit classes. One of the things I teach is that if you're paying attention you should never have to draw your weapon and, if you do, it is unlikely you will have to fire a shot. However, students always raise a ton of "what if" questions.
I always answer the "what if" questions by explaining that if you're able to stand there and objectively go through a check list justifying why you're in fear of losing your life or of grievous bodily harm then you are probably not justified in using deadly force. When faced with impending death or serious bodily injury you will not be analyzing legal options; you will be trying to survive. When trying to survive, the firearm becomes one of many tools available to you to aid in your survival. Another tool includes tactically retreating.
I apologize when someone bumps into me even when it's their fault. I back away from aggressive drivers to avoid road rage incidents. I tend to be quite deferential to jerks and their rude behaviors. I want to avoid trouble and I go out of my way to make sure I do. I understand that someone might be acting like a jerk because they've had a rough morning or are just having a bad life in general. They aren't my problem and I will do whatever I can to keep them from becoming my problem.
On the other hand, if someone punches me it will be difficult for me to believe it is anything other than the start of an ongoing attack and will do whatever I have to do to survive. If increasing distance from my attacker is possible then I will do so because it is the safest, most efficient way to stop the immediate threat and to ready myself to respond with greater force if necessary.
In force-on-force simulations it is not unusual to see someone "run away" from the danger presented. The analysis and de-brief after the exercise centers on whether the person being attacked ran away in the safest and most effective way possible. The de-brief doesn't include admonition on why the student should have used their gun to stop the attack. Running away safely is a valid tool to survival.
I get nervous and become uncomfortable when someone, even joking, threatens violence. I winced when I read the parent post that started this discussion where the poster said, "doesn't mean I can't punch someone in the face." That attitude of justifiable violence for being offended is what scares me and it's fairly prevalent in these comments. Then again, I suspect that most of the people advocating a punch to the face are, as you call them, "internet tough guys" and, I hope, wouldn't actually commit the act of violence they are so quick to advocate.
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Insightful)
The authors intend to allow people to opt-out of the recognition database.
How about letting us opt in to the database?
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ready or not (Score:4, Informative)
I even wonder how opting us all in automatically is even legal in my country. I don't care about the US but I'm pretty sure that here in Belgium there are laws against this. Sorry for the Dutch article, but here is an example of it: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portretrecht [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Just recognizing people on the street is perfectly OK, you do it all the time with your built-in eyes.
Way different concept there - let me put it in similar terms: you only recognize those people who have "opted in" and given you (or more specifically, that database behind your eyes) their personal information. Also note that the information those individuals give you is often incomplete.
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Interesting)
This will make redundant all those claims of "I value my privacy that's why I am not on Facebook." Well you are now.
This is definitely not a good thing. OTOH, someone should develop a small projector that will project ads onto my forehead, so I can turn it on when a 'glasser' comes up to me. Yeah annoy the crap out of them, and/or hopefully get my image blocked, and/or earn some ad revenue. Yay, win/win.
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were feeding into your own personal storage and prevented from being phoned home I wouldnt even care. But we both know that isnt how it works and isnt how its going to work. And given the reality, your actions constitute assault on everyone around you. You shouldnt really be surprised if some of them defend themselves physically.
"No one would opt in so it's not a good idea."
In other words you realize that "no one" consents to this, so what makes you think it's ok to do it anyhow?
Re: (Score:3)
your actions constitute assault
That's a very unusual definition of "assault" you have there.
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Insightful)
"It doesn't know anything about you that isn't out in the public."
I find it difficult, nay impossible, to believe that that is *and will always remain* the case.
This thing is taking pictures and phoning them home for identification. You really believe the system it sends them to will not keep them and store them and use them to the fullest extent?
I have never put a picture of me on the web. Nonetheless google manages to find a couple (one they grabbed out of my account and put to nefarious use without permission.) How much worse will that get when a significant number of people become walking surveillance points for them?
Re:Ready or not (Score:5, Insightful)
No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
Maybe that should be a social cue, that it is unacceptable behaviour on your part, your attention is unwanted.
People are not computers most of them have feelings they like some people they don't like others and most people respond negatively to being catalogued and targeted for adverts, this would be similar behaviour.
knowing my name will not be a positive thing for you, as you obviously do not give a monkeys about me just how you can use me to your advantage. At a minimum I will ignore you, if you persist I may do something negative this might be as passive as choosing your competitors to do business with instead of your company.
Maybe meeting and greeting is just not your strong suit, perhaps somebody else should be doing it instead? I'm not saying this because I am good with names and faces, far from it. If you want to get people on side with you then you talk to them not stalk them.
You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.
Being prepared to enter a situation with relative strangers prepared to assault them is rather worrying. If I had a problem with you and your creepy behaviour. I could complain to the event organisers who would probably ask you to remove your google glass or have you ejected from the building if you refused. There is no need to get involved with you in a physical confrontation. In fact if I really wanted all I need to do is mention to a female colleague that you are scanning her with google glass and you will be ejected and possibly police called.
Re: (Score:3)
You do not want to be known as the creepy socio-path with Google glass.
Well good thing for privacy advocates that early technologies like Google glass can be noticed. But the next generation will not be as conspicuous. Just wait until regular glasses have this technology and are completely unnoticeable.
And beyond glasses we have artificial retinas. We have had artificial retinas for a while, and they keep getting better each year. Since 2010 researchers have been having success even intercepting the connection from the retina to the brain. I wouldn't be surprised if we are onl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No one would opt in so it's not a good idea.
Rubbish. There's no shortage of narcissists out there. All you have to do is come up with the right marketing strategy ("Let everybody know where you are!") and your database will be full in no time.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps not.
But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
So you are going to assault someone and commit distruction on private property because you don't like a app they may or may not be using? Prepare for them to own your ass(ets) after the lawyers get involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Likely not as easy as that...
Sure, he'd probably eat a assault/battery charge (though getting a conviction off it is not 100% certain),
You're assuming the police ever get involved. Unless there happens to be one right there when everything is happening, there's unlikely to even be an arrest. Around here reporting an assault after the fact will accomplish nothing aside from you having a 10 minute conversation with a cop who is annoyed that you're wasting his time with your petty crap.
As for the broken Glass, he'll fill out a report for you so you can submit it to your insurance company. That's pretty much as involved as the police like t