- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Google’s new augmented reality device “Google Glass” is promising, to say the least. The head-mounted computer boasts the ability to take pictures, record videos, start Google Hangouts, and get turn-by-turn directions, all through a visual overlay controlled by voice commands. (For more on the technology itself see Katie Kuhn’s post. For a proposed ban on using Google Glass while driving, see Kendall Short’s post).
The new technology has been called the most advanced device since the iPhone; yet, as the buzz over the device has increased, so have privacy concerns about its use. Critics of Glass have focused on two major privacy issues: surreptitious recording and facial recognition.
Joshua Topolsky from Verge recently got to demo the new tech. When he entered a Starbucks with his camera crew, employees asked him to stop filming, and the camera crew did. But nevertheless Topolsky managed to secretly keep the Glass’ video recorder going for the entire visit. This concern extends beyond corporate policy–even in casual encounters with friends it may be hard to tell if the Glass-wearer you are talking to is recording. And at least in public, such surreptitious recording or photography is not illegal–it is only outlawed in places where there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
But is this anything new? Smartphones have been able to silently take pictures and videos of people for years now. Entire blogs are based on pictures of people in public, often taken without their knowledge. However, while keeping your phone pointed at someone may eventually arouse suspicion, recording with Glass requires nothing more than casually looking in their direction. Does the ease with which recording can be concealed fundamentally change the privacy debate for Glass? Or does this new device simply raise the same concerns as smartphones? It is worth noting that taking a picture or recording with Glass is not entirely clandestine. It requires a spoken command (“Okay Glass, Take a Picture”) or a tap on the side of the device.
More Orwellian concerns focus on the facial recognition potential of the new technology. Critics imagine a world where “you’re never going to see a stranger as a stranger again”–Google Glass would recognize the faces of people you meet and display their personal information directly from their Facebook or LinkedIn account. However, it seems unlikely that Google would risk including a feature like that anytime soon, at least not without accommodating privacy concerns. Consider Facebook’s own facial recognition service, “Tag Suggestions.” The social media giant’s much more innocuous service quickly aroused the ire of government agencies in Norway, Germany, and Ireland, and landed Facebook in a Congressional hearing. In contrast, Google has shown more restraint with their own social media service Google+, requiring users to “opt-in” in order to be included in their facial-recognition-based tagging feature. And Senator Al Franken (D-Minn), one of the most vocal critics of Facebook at the hearing, was optimistic about Google considering privacy in rolling out the new device. (Although he hinted that he would be “talking” to Google about its deployment of Glass.) At the very least, Google will be talking to the FTC: as a response to Google’s past privacy transgressions, the company entered a 20-year consent decree with the federal agency that requires biennial assessments of its privacy practices.
Although Google Glass is still in early user testing, and will not be available to consumers for some time, the privacy debate is in full swing. States have proposed laws banning their use while driving, a restaurant has banned them altogether, and groups have sprung up to protest the use of the augmented reality eyewear. The issue will continue to evolve as more people use the device and more is revealed about its capabilities. Will more states pass laws about use while driving? Will more restaurants and stores ban their use? Or will social norms end up governing? (“Hey, take those things off when you talk to me!”) The future of Google Glass is certainly unclear.
Recent Blog Posts
- Digital Asset Forfeiture: Dispensation of Cryptocurrency in Appropriated in Connection with the Proseuction of Silk Road
- “A Rape on Campus” = $25 million Defamation Lawsuit for Rolling Stone
- Another One Bites the Dust: Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network
- New York Attorney General Attempts to Tackle Daily Fantasy Sports Sites
- Artists Beware: Pitfalls of Increasingly Popular Song Registration Services
- The Private Sector as a Potential Solution for the World’s Climate Problem
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution