Worried about ever growing bans on Google Glass, Google publishes 'how not to be a Glasshole' FAQ.

[onehandle]

Officially embraces the term 'Glasshole.'

[IMG][/IMG]

Don't be creepy or rude (aka, a “Glasshole”). Respect others and if they have questions about Glass don’t get snappy. Be polite and explain what Glass does and remember, a quick demo can go a long way. In places where cell phone cameras aren’t allowed, the same rules will apply to Glass. If you’re asked to turn your phone off, turn Glass off as well. Breaking the rules or being rude will not get businesses excited about Glass and will ruin it for other Explorers.

https://sites.google.com/site/glasscomms/glass-explorers

[upaloopa]

1. Explorers?

Exploring what
I see no reason for this but voyeurism

[frylock]

4. voyeurism? how so?

these aren't x-ray specs.

[upaloopa]

5. It's a camera you can share what you see

You tell it to take a picture. It's like walking around carrying a camera pointed at what ever you are looking at. Taking a person's picture without their consent is voyeurism.

[frylock]

6. do you have this issue with photographers?

I oftentimes will grab my camera, hop a trolley downtown, walk about and snap pictures of people that I see. is that to be considered voyeuristic now?

[MineralMan]

8. Really? And nobody has ever objected to that?

Photographing people is an invasion of their privacy. If people notice you doing it, it's very likely that some will object, for a wide range of reasons. Nobody pays attention if you are photographing the scenery or taking photos of someone with you, but taking photos specifically of strangers is rather impolite. In some cultures, it's a real faux pas, and can lead to unexpected results.

[frylock]

9. nope, nobody has ever objected..

are you aware of having your photo snapped while you are out in the public, and if so, have you ever objected?

[Orrex]

12. If someone were to object, how would you respond?

Would you tell them that no one ever objects? Or would you respect their objection?

[frylock]

14. i would respect their objection, and try to engage them in dialogue to better understand..

what they are objecting to.

[Orrex]

19. If you a snapped a super-duper picture and someone objected to being in it...

Would you use the picture regardless?


In any case, the analogy between a camera and Google Glass is flawed because you probably don't walk around with your camera covertly poised and ready to film at all times. Presumably you would need to raise it to your eye or at least point it at something, whereas Google Glass can be filming at any second.

[frylock]

24. while that is true, i also record some of my rides on a GoPro..

if someone were to inadvertently get captured on my video as I rolled past them on the trail, is that also an invasion of privacy?

[Orrex]

46. Probably not if it's inadvertent.

I mean, maybe if you were riding through someone's yard, but if you're riding in a public space and you happen to snap something as you pass, then that's probably fair game. I have to disclaim that this isn't a legal definition but is rather a matter of aesthetics.

In a broader sense, the proliferation of cameras can be argued to make citizens comfortable with constant surveillance, so that's problematic in its own right. I'm not naive, though, so I see the spread of cameras to be more or less inevitable, but there are still matters or privacy to be considered, and it's probably better to consider them before we look back on them with nostalgia.

[MineralMan]

13. When I have been aware, I have objected.

I've photographed professionally, and know that photographing someone without permission is not really acceptable. If I were planning to use photographs for any purpose, I'd need a release, except for obvious crowd shots in public places. And why would I be taking photos of individuals in the first place? I can't think of any reason to want to do that. What would be my goal?

When I have taken photos to illustrate travel articles, for example, any photo of any identifiable person would require a release before I could use the photo. Similarly, now that I'm no longer photographing for money, I still would not post an identifiable photo of someone online anywhere.

I guess I don't see a reason to photograph individuals I don't know without their permission. So, if someone is photographing me, specifically, that person is going to have to answer my question about why they are taking my photograph. Photograph strangers with caution. They may not wish to be photographed, and may well object. Especially, do not photograph children surreptitiously. I guarantee that their parents will not take it kindly.

[frylock]

15. have you ever heard of this thing called art?

believe it or not, cameras are used for other endeavors than just making money. do you suppose that these folks signed a release form?

[MineralMan]

22. That's rather a famous photo, actually.

It was taken by a news photographer, long ago. It's now appeared in hundreds of places. I don't know who took it, exactly. Everyone in that photo is dead now, most likely.

It's an iconic photograph. Just like the ones you take, no doubt.

[frylock]

26. nice dodge. you can do better than that..

or maybe not. after all, you're one of the largest advocates of the NSA's overreach that one could find on this site. so if I follow your logic correctly, a person out in public has every expectation of privacy, while a person on a private phone line conducting a private conversation with another party is subject to surveillance. is that assessment correct?

[MineralMan]

32. No, that assessment is not correct.

You were speaking of photographing individual people. You have still not answered my question about why you are doing that, nor about what you intend to do with those photographs. As a stranger, you violate someone's privacy by photographing them.

As for the NSA, I do not approve of what they are doing, and never said that I did. What I said is that I know they are doing it and know that they will continue to do it. It's the same thing, as far as I am concerned with the camera at the ATM and the one in the convenience store that is capturing everything that is going on. I may be included, but I know that I am not a person of interest to either the NSA or the bank or the convenience store. There's a reason they're doing that, and I understand it. Your snide comment about how I feel about the NSA is incorrect and not pertinent in this discussion.

But, you are not the NSA, nor are you a bank or convenience store. So, why are you taking photographs of individuals in public places? You see, I don't know your motivations. If you're making art, will you be exhibiting it? If so, I do not wish my photograph to be exhibited as a work of art by you. If there is some other reason you are taking my photograph, I will ask that you explain it.

I know why the NSA collects information, and I know why the bank and the convenience store is capturing video of me. I'm OK with the reasons. Your "snaps," however are being taken for a reason I do not know. So, if you take one of me, you can expect me to inquire about your reason, and to object to being photographed.

[frylock]

37. why do i have to be doing ANYTHING with those shots?

what did I do with those shots I took at the zoo last weekend?

[MineralMan]

39. Why would you take photos you will do nothing with?

Are you going to look at them? That is doing something with them? If you like a photo, will you print it out? That is doing something with it. If you really like it, will you show it to others, or post it on the Internet? That is also doing something with the photo.

If it is a photo of someone else, a stranger, what makes you think you have a right to do anything with it at all?

[upaloopa]

10. Yes

You should ask permission to take someone's picture.
I realize that if you are out in public you are subject to having your privacy invaded. But if you take a picture where the subject can be recognized without their permission you are a voyeur.
Here is where I am coming from. I have a long history of going to free or nude beaches. We have such a thing as beach etiquette. One is no taking pictures unless you have permission. Now I have extended that to anyone in public. It is just a plain rude thing to do.
In some cultures it is thought of as taking someone's soul.

[frylock]

17. vo·yeur

1. a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity.

I'm walking around downtown ffs. I'm not invading anyone's "privacy," nor am I taking pictures of people at the nude beach.

[Orrex]

21. That definition is problematic

You're arguing that you're not a voyeur if you peek through someone's curtains to watch them showering as long as you're not gaining sexual pleasure from it. If you peek simply for the sake of giggles, you're not a voyeur, in other words.

[frylock]

29. and you're conflating innocent cityscape photographs with peeping toms

[MineralMan]

42. You said you liked to "snap" photos of people, not cityscapes.

People. You've changed the description of what you're photographing. Which is it?

[frylock]

43. holy fucking fuck..

i snap photos of the fucking city! there are actually people out there in the fucking city!

[MineralMan]

45. Dude, you specifically said photos of PEOPLE.

Go read your post. You're being inconsistent. I quote you:

"I oftentimes will grab my camera, hop a trolley downtown, walk about and snap pictures of people that I see. is that to be considered voyeuristic now?"

{my emphasis}

That's what you wrote.

[frylock]

47. PEOPLE in the CITY

I'm fucking done here. you go ahead and think the worst, but i am fucking done here.

[MineralMan]

50. I won't give it another thought, I promise...

[MineralMan]

23. And why are you taking photos of individuals? That's my question.

You said you often "snap" people. Why? What people? What do you do with those photos? It all makes a difference, you see. If you "snap" me, you'll get a question from me about why you took that photo and what you intend to do with it. I guarantee.

You said something about "art." Will you be exhibiting those photos? If so, you need releases from recognizable people. Even if it's a homeless person or someone you find quaint or interesting. What will you be doing with those "snaps" you're taking?

[frylock]

35. i'd be curious to know what you THINK that i'm doing with those shots..

because it says a lot more about you then it does about me.

[MineralMan]

38. No, you see, I'm not telling you what you're doing with them.

I'm asking you. You know what you're doing with them. I don't. And neither do the people you are "snapping." I don't have to THINK about what you're doing with them. If you photograph me, I will ask you directly what you are planning to do with them. Won't that be a surprise? And then, you'll be surprised to find that I do not want you to do anything at all with a photograph of me. I do not want you to hang it in your living room. I do not want you to post it on your Facebook page or anywhere else. I didn't want you to take it in the first place.

I will ask you, politely, to delete it from the memory on your camera in my presence, and I will expect you to do so. These days, Google will go and look for photos that are similar to another photo. I can, if I wish, find most photos of myself on the internet these days, by asking Google to compare a photo I have and see if it can find others.

So, I ask why you are taking photos of individuals you don't know and what you intend to do with them. You said "art." Well, what will you do with your "art?" Will you exhibit it? Sell it? What? If you do any of those things you need a release. Will you publish it on the Internet? Well, if I find a photo of me, I will ask that you remove it. And you'll need to do that, because you do not have permission to use my image to make money, promote yourself, or for any other reason.

Nor do you have permission from any of those people you "snap."

[frylock]

40. i've already stated i'm not selling the photographs..

so you've never in your lifetime taken pictures for your own personal enjoyment, pictures that may be appealing not only for the subject matter, but because of certain lighting, or composition? and you've never in turn gone back over those photos because they are visually appealing and thought, damn, that's a nice shot? you've never ever done that? so to reiterate:

a) I am not selling these photos and
b) these photos are for personal viewing

you seem to think I have some ulterior motive, despite the fact that I have explained to you that I don't. yes, great, I get it. YOU don't want your picture taken in public. you go right ahead and do everything in your power to ensure that it doesn't happen. I've also stated that if someone, like yourself were to object, I would remove the photo in question. are we good here?

[MineralMan]

44. Are we good? Does that matter in some way?

Here's what I'm betting. I'm betting you have a place on the internet where you post your photos, especially those you think have interesting lighting or composition. I'm betting you've printed out some of them, framed them, and have them hanging on a wall. Are any of those photos of people whose names you don't know?

Think about it frylock. Think about taking photographs of people you don't know.

Look again at that photo of that breadline or soup kitchen you posted. You'll notice that several of the people in that photo are looking directly at the camera. Some of them don't look all that happy. That old news photo appeared on the pages of some newspaper, and is now considered an iconic photograph of poverty during a depression. Some of those people were embarrassed, annoyed, and ashamed that they were in that soup line. They did not have the power to stop their image from being captured and, indeed, the photographer was taking a news photo and didn't actually have to get the permission of anyone in that crowd.

You, on the other hand, are not a news photographer. Nobody has to allow you to photograph them, perhaps in a way that is not flattering to them or that depicts them in a way they do not want to be depicted. I'm thinking of that awful website of "The People of Walmart," where people have posted ugly photos of people they consider to be ugly. No releases were given. That site is an obscenity, and violates the privacy of those who appear on it. Ugliness.

I don't know, and don't care what you do with the "snaps" of people you take. But each one is a violation of someone's privacy. Think about it.

[frylock]

49. tl;dr..

you assume a lot.

[MineralMan]

51. LOL!

[upaloopa]

25. They don't have to be nude.

I guess you have never seen the look of anguish on a person's face when they see you taking their picture.
I understand there is no point in us talking because we will never agree on this

[MineralMan]

28. Taking surreptitious photos of strangers is an invasion of privacy.

It's always an invasion of privacy. Nobody cares if someone takes a photo of a building or some tourist destination and they happen to be in the crowd of people. But, when someone points a camera specifically at someone else and is a stranger, it is an invasion of privacy.

Most people won't say anything about it, but some certainly will. I'm one of those people. I'll march right up and ask the person why they are photographing me and what they intend to do with that photo. Then I'll ask them to delete it or never to use it in any way in public. I don't wish to be photographed by strangers, and I will object if it happens.

[upaloopa]

30. I agree with you

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, and thanks.

I was just restating.

[frylock]

34. look of anguish? i can say without equivocation that i have not..

just look at the anguish on this fellow's face.

[MineralMan]

48. There's no fellow there.

That photo appears to have been deleted, or your photobucket page is set at private. That's a good idea, BTW, setting your photobucket page to private. More people should do that.

[onehandle]

41. The difference is that these things can be always on, recording in all situations.

Locker rooms, doctor's offices, bars and clubs, hospitals, movie theaters, sports events and concerts, law offices... any offices.

And before you start parsing the above, Google itself banned Glass from a shareholders meeting last year.

This is about invasion of privacy. Not 'photography,' which is an art.

[jsr]

18. It's perfect for creeps

[Orrex]

20. No no no. It's "art." Didn't you read up-thread?

[frylock]

31. clearly you can't read..

by all means point me to the post where I referred to google glass as art. please do that, please.

[Orrex]

52. Nor did you distinguish Google Glass from art.

You offered up an iconic photograph to justify your own habits of covert photo-sneaking, and you did it in the part of the thread that equated the use of Google Glass to the use of a conventional camera.

That's kind of like saying that any random paint that I splash on the wall is art in the same sense that a Goya fresco is art.

[enlightenment]

2. Newsflash -

if anyone thinks it is appropriate to wear that thing during a "romantic" dinner, they should know that it will be the last dinner they have with their dinner partner/date/SO. "Romantic" and "weird, creepy recording device stuck to your face" are antithetical - unless, of course, your dinner partner also has one, which is a whole new level of hell.

I would (and will) shun people wearing those things - I'd rather have a conversation with an end-stage TB sufferer coughing up a lung in my face.

[The Green Manalishi]

56. disagree

Why would I want to romance the sort of luddite who *wouldn't* get off on the latest high tech?

All the freakazoids worring about glass are akin to the people whining about cars in the streets a century ago, or freaking out about those newfangled flying machines.

Fact: everything and everywhere everybody does is known and/or knowable. "Privacy" is a quaint concept that deservedly will be thought of alongside chastity belts and whalebone corsets.

anywhere I go, anything I do, anyone who really wants to can find out. I just deal with it.

Anyone who has a problem with google glass needs to be told "the 20the century is calling, and you can't come back".

[enlightenment]

57. How delightfully rude.

And ever-so 21st century of you.

Your opinion is noted.

[The Green Manalishi]

58. "rude"?

Rude is the people calling folks "glassholes" (not that you did), whining about "gentrification" and being envious of people with better jobs who are doing something vital, interesting and creating the future. Sorry if someone's skills have not kept up with the times, we should have training and support programs for people who can't code or design. But as a second generation SF native I'd rather have a googler or any other techie as a neighbor than somone who is still pining for the 1960's.

Hell, I don't even have a cell phone, because I can't hear and because they cost too damn much. But if I wanted it I'd get google glass, where it anywhere I wanted outside of private property and consider anyone having any sort of problem with that to be the sort of useless idiot without whom the world would be a much better, (more high tech, more connected) place.

Everybody should know, or be able to find out, anything. "Privacy", or to be specific the need for it, is a mental aberration.

It's 2014; you're on camera, everything about you (and me) is known, to any entity that has either the money or governmental authority; the people who can't or won't deal with it are not only messed up in the head, they are nearly as much of a detriment and laughingstock as that rancher who thought the feds couldn't own land. Either someone can deal, or they are effectively insane.

As a progressive my goal, my desire is economic equality, personal freedom and social justice. Nobody is going to accomplish that with their head acting like it's 1776 or 2006.

[enlightenment]

59. Yes, rude.

And painfully self-absorbed - and frankly, given your very limited world-view, not terribly progressive.

[The Green Manalishi]

61. better rude than a luddite. Better a 'glasshole' than having my head in the sand.

[kiva]

60. You can give away your own privacy in any way you like.

You don't get to give away mine, or anyone else's privacy because you think it's a 'metal aberration'...but then I think lemmings are suffering from a mental aberration.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Google Glass is a pox IMO

The gizmo is perfectly emblematic of our times and the death of privacy and dignity.

[cinnabonbon]

11. +1

[phleshdef]

54. Oh christ... its a hands free camera, not the fucking Fourth Reich.

[MineralMan]

7. I suspect that it will mostly be "glassholes" who wear Google Glass.

I further expect that they will pay no attention to the concerns and wishes of others while they are wearing it. Like people who constantly wear and speak on a Bluetooth headset, most folks will assume that the person wearing Google Glass isn't actually interacting with them, but with some other person in the same subset of humanity.

I think I'll pass on both.

[jsr]

16. More eyes and ears for the constant surveillance industrial complex

[El_Johns]

27. That's what I think. Feeding info to the borg on the micro level.

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. Other companies have made one too

Folks they are here to stay at least until someone makes a contact lens which I think is possible down the road.


Recon Jet, pebble, sixth sense are just a few of the offerings.

[icymist]

53. Golden Tate just released a bunch he recorded through google glasses at the Super Bowel.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1944343-golden-tates-super-bowl-experience-through-google-glass#ooid=MxaGZoazqlrn_yKeWhwufNS0_NmwVPGW,BtZ2ZoazoQErFao870wbirVR5iGj8BXM

[wandy]

55. I guess there are somethings I'm to old to understand...........

Having some type of "flip down glasses" would be nice for working on a car or other electro/mechanical thing.
The first thing involved in working on the old "pet" is remembering where you stashed the service books.
The books for new beast, at least built in this century, are soft-copy. This means dragging the laptop out to the garage, reading the 'destructions' on a 10 In screen and messing up the keyboard with all manner of car gunk.
Happiness would be flipping down a pair of 'goggles', looking at a part and saying "show me how that comes off".

Wearing those things out in public? Around people? To the grocery store?
No way! Guess my age is telling.