netnerd85 wrote on Apr 30, 2013, 18:08:
Lol, you're crazy and paranoid. It's highly unlikely anyone would want a picture of you or your family. You have a bad view of the people around you mate.

Nah, I'm not crazy nor paranoid, you just have nothing to offer except personal attacks. If there was no value in active and passive video devices in a public manner then companies wouldn't be trying to make products like this. Again my problem isn't solely someone taking video, its giving people the ability to passively take it without the other party realizing so easily, there's a big difference between this and a traditional camera.

Also if you don't think there are some creepy people out there then spend a night watching the evening news. I don't have a bad view of people, I have countless examples of why people will use this to tramp all over others basic etiquette and stretch laws. Besides, who says its just about that? Google being the largest example of combined personal databases on people is behind this product, so I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they will find a way to datamine the video for commercial purposes. It's just common sense to want some regulation of new technology that can have both positive and negative connotations for society.

This comment was edited on May 1, 2013, 10:47.

Verno wrote on Apr 30, 2013, 07:25:

netnerd85 wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 21:33:
Got something to hide? ugly face? hunch back? small penis? tubby? whats the issue?

And of course laws are different from location to location. There are some really fucked up backwards places in this world.

Please don't project your personal problems on me I don't like weirdos creeping on me or my family, I'm strange that way! Maybe you don't mind or you're one of the creepers, either way you won't be filming us with your little wannabe spyglasses unless you want a broken pair

Lol, you're crazy and paranoid. It's highly unlikely anyone would want a picture of you or your family. You have a bad view of the people around you mate.

And no, I have no interest in taking pictures of people. If I were to take pictures, which I can't be arsed doing, it would be of nature or old buildings.

netnerd85 wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 21:33:
Got something to hide? ugly face? hunch back? small penis? tubby? whats the issue?

And of course laws are different from location to location. There are some really fucked up backwards places in this world.

Please don't project your personal problems on me I don't like weirdos creeping on me or my family, I'm strange that way! Maybe you don't mind or you're one of the creepers, either way you won't be filming us with your little wannabe spyglasses unless you want a broken pair

Verno wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 15:28:

netnerd85 wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 14:56:
Too bad, you go out in Public then stiff shit. I can film you, photograph you as much as I like. We live in an open society. And that should/will never change. You don't have a copyright on your face.

Actually no, it's not "stiff shit", laws on public filming vary from location to location and are nowhere near as open as you make out. You can certainly try photographing me by the way but you better hope I don't notice

Got something to hide? ugly face? hunch back? small penis? tubby? whats the issue?

And of course laws are different from location to location. There are some really fucked up backwards places in this world.

This comment was edited on Apr 29, 2013, 21:40.

netnerd85 wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 14:56:
Too bad, you go out in Public then stiff shit. I can film you, photograph you as much as I like. We live in an open society. And that should/will never change. You don't have a copyright on your face.

Actually no, it's not "stiff shit", laws on public filming vary from location to location and are nowhere near as open as you make out. You can certainly try photographing me by the way but you better hope I don't notice

Verno wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 09:45:
I don't want individuals anonymously filming me without any chance of my own consent or knowledge. Blah blah the gubernment does it blah blah but I don't like that either sooo.

Too bad, you go out in Public then stiff shit. I can film you, photograph you as much as I like. We live in an open society. And that should/will never change. You don't have a copyright on your face.

You're already in countless Japanese tourists photos (unless you never walked past any statue, building etc in a city before) so who cares! lol

The invasion of privacy is when they use your face to find out who you are, or use your private data that is attached to your account to sell you shit.

If we didn't have photography, then bad people would get away with the shit that they do. We would have no visual history of events which is important. I use to be a grumpy bitch about having my photo taken but as long as I'm not identified, it's fine... or end up as a meme, well, depends on the meme doesn't it

I don't want individuals anonymously filming me without any chance of my own consent or knowledge. Blah blah the gubernment does it blah blah but I don't like that either sooo.

I just want the anonymous internet experts on all things to better explain why the funky google glasses are so evil. Or whatever the hell these geniuses are yapping about. Is that so wrong?

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 09:32:
Use a better analogy. And stop being stupid.

What a charming person you are.

Use a better analogy. And stop being stupid.

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 29, 2013, 09:30:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 21:22:

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 20:35:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

Why is it terrible? Or are you just trolling like you normally do?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Or are you too stupid like most of the children who use terrible analogies? You aren't stupid are you?

Oh i get it, you dont understand what an analogy is. No problem bro, those big words are hard!

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 21:22:

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 20:35:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

Why is it terrible? Or are you just trolling like you normally do?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Or are you too stupid like most of the internet experts who use terrible analogies? You aren't stupid are you?

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 16:24:
Gun companies werent sued after certain shootings so i dont see how google would be sued from misuse either.

That's because there is a law that gives gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits.

bhcompy wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 22:11:

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 20:35:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

It's a real problem for blind pedestrians. Enough so that car manufacturers have added noise to hybrids and electrics to ensure that they can be heard.

To be honest it's a concern for those of us who can hear to. The amount of times a car has crept up behind me in a car park. They are too damn quiet these days, growing up in the 90's you could hear cars coming blocks away. If you lived in a small town you could tell who was coming too Drivers are always on their fucking phones too.

No computers or chips on / in me thanks. What's the point? Really... I have a phone so I can SMS my partner... that is all, oh and family so I don't have to call them all the time

Why do I need to google, email or whatever when I'm at the shop wondering why I'm not at home on the internet buying the same damn thing for cheaper. "GAH HA!, DOOHH!"

Scud wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:34:

Cutter wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 17:14:
Cameras are obvious GG are not. Believe me, they'll be held liable too.

So if I concealed a regular camera and used it to take naughty pictures then Canon, Nikon and other camera makers could be held liable?

In countries like Korea, they might, if the camera didn't make an obvious "shutter click" noise so that it was obvious that a photo was being taken.

Have you ever wondered why you can't disable the camera "click" sound on most cellphones?

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:
I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

I love that you brought this up. I came across this issue when I was studying business law in school many years ago. Naturally, car makers were forced to apply a sound to their cars, but then they had the idea of "vanity sounds." We had to delve into the legality of that while it was still working its way through the system, so it was an interesting chance to see how things like this actually come to pass. In other words, I think your analogy actually is pretty good in this case.

One could say that privacy is not involved while safety is, but then technically I could say I had the right to a (privately) silent car. Clearly, safety trumps privacy; that is not a new theme. Obviously people are fighting tooth and nail to say it's the other way around, but it's not. That's what Schmidt is saying here and that's what has people up in arms about it. Yes, he's arguing for the freedom of convenience, but he's also pushing for the Google automated car which (supposedly) increases safety all-around while also making it much safer to use Google Glass while "driving."

That may seem like a round-about way to connect the cars to the glasses but the reality is that's exactly what he's doing. If that sounds a little bit like a liberal argument for control over your life, well...duh. Stop being afraid of change.

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 20:35:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

It's a real problem for blind pedestrians. Enough so that car manufacturers have added noise to hybrids and electrics to ensure that they can be heard.

Mad Max RW wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 20:35:

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

Why is it terrible? Or are you just trolling like you normally do?

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 19:40:

I think a good analogy would be an all electric car that makes no noise hits someone from behind and the car manufacturer is not held responsible.

That's a terrible analogy, but funny to imagine.

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 28, 2013, 16:24:
Gun companies werent sued after certain shootings so i dont see how google would be sued from misuse either.

Technology companies get sued for a lot of things gun companies don't.