Coffeehouse Thread

46 posts

I'm not sure I like where this is going.

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • CaRDiaK

    It's a shame to see this fantastic piece of technology fall foul to privacy.

    All these issue have existed long before and will way after, even if Glass never happened.

    There's more camera's than people in the UK these days and if / when someone wants to abuse peoples privacy, it will happen. It's the exception, not the rule.

    We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.
    Last modified
  • cheong

    @CaRDiaK:There's something different regarding Google Glass.

    Most of these phones with camera would be put into bag/packet if you're not using it, but with Google Glass you're wearing it even if you switch it off and use it as plain glasses.

    If someone managed to have some malicious software installed, chances are you'll be recording something without knowing it yourself. (Remember the case where people being able to take pictures while your phone is locked, and reconstruct 3D model of your room and workplace based on those photos?)

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • CaRDiaK

    Thanks for sharing. I do understand where you are coming from but by the same token, how do I know if someone opposite me really is making a call and not taking pictures of me discretely? Or how do I know if my MD has one of those camera's you can get in a tie? Or how do I know if I walk past someone with spectacles on they don't have a hidden camera in the bridge.. the answer is I don't know.

    Each of the above  you can get for less than Glass in a novelty shop.  

    I totally get the argument. I can just see this getting out of control and Glass getting canned, which would be such a shame seeing as the problem already exists with or without the Technology... downside being there are so many positives and potential benefits to it, it's a big leap in the right direction in my opinion, which I suspect the tabloids / govt / people who don't value tech will play down because someone "could" and probably will take a picture sometime. There needs to be some form of sensible and socially acceptable balance.

    We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.
    Last modified
  • davewill

    , CaRDiaK wrote

    There needs to be some form of sensible and socially acceptable balance.

    There already is.  "What happens between you and I stays between you and I unless we both agree otherwise."

  • Richard.Hein

    If a person has an eidetic memory, are they not allowed in certain places?  Are you concerned that a person with total recall is talking to you and may be remembering everything?  Would you require a mind wipe of all memories that person has of a movie or concert so that they cannot remember it later without paying for accessing that memory? 

  • Richard.Hein

    My point is that it's stupid to try to stop people from having 100% perfect memory, if it's something we'd all desire.  It's our choice to record or delete whatever we want.  It's also our choice if we choose to communicate with another person.  If I could communicate my thoughts perfectly, and that includes a memory, then that should be my right and my choice to do that.

  • cbae

    @Richard.Hein: I don't think the issue has to do with whether or not an individual has a right to recall past memories, perfectly or otherwise. The issue has to do with the ease in which those memories can be distributed to others.

  • Richard.Hein

    , cbae wrote

    @Richard.Hein: I don't think the issue has to do with whether or not an individual has a right to recall past memories, perfectly or otherwise. The issue has to do with the ease in which those memories can be distributed to others.

    Honestly, I don't like the idea of people recording and publishing embarrassing or incriminating stuff about me, anymore than anyone else would, but how could it ever be anything else than a culture of mutual fear of reprisal that would ever stop it?  Unless you could put some kind of protection that requires everyone you are recording to give explicit permission for you to transfer some "memory", how could you ever stop it?  If our children and grandchildren grow up in an "always recording" state, then they probably won't even care.  The only plausible deniability that something happened would be to claim it's edited or CGI, and then the tools should be so good, who knows? 

    EDIT:

    Let's specifically think about memory sharing.  How could preventing certain memories from being shared ever be a right thing to do?  If you share a secret, you trust a person not to tell.  If they break that trust, then you don't trust them again.  You flag them as a betrayer of trust and everyone knows. 

    If you watch a movie and share that memory with perfect recall, such that it's equivalent to another person watching that movie themselves, what right does the copyright holder have to your memory or your right to share that memory?

  • davewill

    @Richard.Hein: Choice is key.  Unfortunately some not so nice people take information bypassing choice.  Choice has consequences as it always has.  But when others take the information without your choice who suffers the consequences now?  What happens to the balance?

  • figuerres

    , cbae wrote

    @Richard.Hein: I don't think the issue has to do with whether or not an individual has a right to recall past memories, perfectly or otherwise. The issue has to do with the ease in which those memories can be distributed to others.

    wha .... um well a "memory" normally when I see that word or hear that word in general use means something from the human brain.   digital recordings stored on some form of computer system are not "memories" they are files that have data.

    so I do not think this is about rights to anyone's "memories" , it's audio and video created my the use of a device and then what rights they should have to them

  • Richard.Hein

    , davewill wrote

    @Richard.Hein: Choice is key.  Unfortunately some not so nice people take information bypassing choice.  Choice has consequences as it always has.  But when others take the information without your choice who suffers the consequences now?  What happens to the balance?

    I'm afraid you don't have a choice when it comes to allowing other people into your presence in public places nor do you have a choice whether they look at you or remember your face, or publish pictures of you if you are in a public place.  Even if you are in private with another individual, I think we've probably all had pictures that were less than flattering make it online, even if it's just a bad photo, and it's annoying, but what can you do?

  • Richard.Hein

    , figuerres wrote

    *snip*

    wha .... um well a "memory" normally when I see that word or hear that word in general use means something from the human brain.   digital recordings stored on some form of computer system are not "memories" they are files that have data.

    so I do not think this is about rights to anyone's "memories" , it's audio and video created my the use of a device and then what rights they should have to them

    If you disagree that computer memory is an extension of human memory, then why are these memories made if not for humans to use?  It is not going to be far off, that people will have computer memory integrated into their biological memories.

  • GoddersUK

    @Richard.Hein: No matter how good your memory, or how much of me you see in the public convenience, you cannot upload that image to the internet or share it with others. And, even if you could, 99.9% of us will not have perfect memories so they'd never have that level of "photos or it didn't happen" authority.

  • Richard.Hein

    @GoddersUK: You live in the UK, surely you know that if you are in a public place, I can record and post images of you if I wish.  And when people do use these types of devices, eventually they will record everything, all the time, ever, and put it in the cloud, making some things public and some things not.

  • Richard.Hein

    @GoddersUK:  I don't know what the rule is for private photos, i.e. say of you at a party in your house, or someone else's house, but if someone did post them, you'd have to ask them to remove them, and if they didn't comply, you'd have to sue them ... not sure about the laws concerning such circumstances.

  • blowdart

    , Richard.Hein wrote

    @GoddersUK:  I don't know what the rule is for private photos, i.e. say of you at a party in your house, or someone else's house, but if someone did post them, you'd have to ask them to remove them, and if they didn't comply, you'd have to sue them ... not sure about the laws concerning such circumstances.

    In private homes, and workplaces (basically any non public space) you have an expectation of privacy that the courts will uphold.

  • davewill

    It is official.  I have crossed into "old fart" territory.  I don't take pictures or videos in any places without the permission of those who would be in them.  Doesn't everyone provide that courtesy?

    Maybe it is all rooted in the concept of personal space.  There seems to be a segment of the population that believes personal space is a fixed location instead of the 3 feet around you that goes with you whever you are.  Every individual's three feet of space is never public unless they choose otherwise.  Every individual decides who is allowed in their three feet of space.

    I'll pack up my Depends now and go in search of the most remote location on earth. Smiley with 2 gigs internet access of course. Smiley

  • cbae

    , Richard.Hein wrote

    @GoddersUK: You live in the UK, surely you know that if you are in a public place, I can record and post images of you if I wish.  And when people do use these types of devices, eventually they will record everything, all the time, ever, and put it in the cloud, making some things public and some things not.

    It's not "when". It's still very much "if". That's why we're having this dialog now, before it comes to pass. You're acting as if it's a foregone conclusion that there are going to be recording devices in every square inch of society. Even if we have such technological capability, we really ought to be asking "why?".

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.