But you are still not addressing the fact that Glass has to be the most conspicuous way possible of recording someone. As other posters have shown “spy” cameras are readily available and 75 times cheaper than Glass. Also I think you are wrong about the legality, at least in most states.
No I would not be comfortable, not yet. (If you actually mean a changing room then no, never, but that’s okay because I will never enter one.) But for no rational reason. I think that more and tinier cameras are definitely in our future. How we will deal with it is something that should be discussed. The only problem is that this isn’t the conversation a lot of even well respected bloggers are having. The points commenters on here have made are much more nuanced and intelligent then Gruber’s “Not only predicted the hardware design of Google Glass, but also the glasshole personality of its users.” and the million similar “criticisms”. Note that I thought the video was funny and prescient, but the comment just makes no sense. He has invented the personality of the users, because their can’t be a defined personality with only a few thousand in existance, of which he’s probably only met a few. I focus on Gruber only because he is the smartest and the only person I follow of the many glass haters. I just don’t understand why he has nothing but negative comments about what is no doubt a very cool piece of technology. To do some speculation of my own, if Apple were releasing this (alright in a more finished form because that is the only way to take this couterfactual seriously), he would still probably have some misgivings about the privacy aspect, but may have a few positive things to throw in there as well.
No it is clearly not something that should be discussed. It is something that should be researched by scientists. Presumably this is something Google is fairly confident is safe, but other groups should also work on it. But what is the value of discussions among lay people?
