written by mhoye and filed under business digital fail future hate interfaces life losers toys vendetta / April 11, 2013
If you own a public establishment, consider putting one of these near the door.
The keynote file it comes from is right here, under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, and you’re welcome to use it as often as you feel is necessary.
Aww, you’re a curmudgeonly old man who hates and fears new technologies.
Unlike Mike K I’m not going to make fun of you, but I am going to ask why? Who cares, we’re surrounded by cameras all the time, some are cc security cams, some are phones / tablets, and some are still and/or video cameras. It’s not like one more makes a difference.
Jamie, one of the most important reasons is to keep our anonimity in public spaces. As you correctly say, we are surrounded by cameras, but only government agencies can (hopefully only in legal ways) access that data.
With this kind of product, people will be transformed in walking security cams, and knowing how much the “social” aspect of techonolgies are being pushed nowadays, the key feature will be face recognition, and all of this tasty data will be in the hands of a private corporation.
And it will not be one more, there will be hundreds of thousands more.
I am a total supporter of new technologies, but there are real concerns for these glasses that cannot be easily dismissed by statements like yours or Mike’s.
I’m with the camera-haters BUT it feels futile to me.
People are outraged that they can’t take photos of their meals at high-end restaurants to post to their fucking Instagram accounts. Rapists post photos of their acts and are supported by their communities. The social capital people accumulate from their social media fronting outweighs any ethical qualms.
Plus the “if you’re not doing anything wrong” argument seems to still be all the rage.
I don’t detect any strong threads of resistance to these trends, us objectors may end up being just as marginal as Facebook abstainers (also me). But I guess campaigns like this are an attempted discursive intervention so we can have a grand critical discussion.
Every technology has problems. Heck, most of the terrifying things being bandied about with Glass are also possible with cameraphones (specifically including surreptitious creepshotting, which was hardly even a word before cameraphones). And yet, still and all, we’re not in a dystopia, and most of us think these techs are totally sweet on net.
Maybe this time is different, but when one’s first instinct is “new technology, omg problems, we need to stop it” rather than “new technology, wow, what cool new things can we do with this, and oh yeah, we’ll deal with the problems”… well, that’s curmudgeonism.
“deal with the problems” uh-huh
At some point the megaphone was new technology as well, and it turns out there’s plenty of middle ground between “omg problems, we need to stop it” and “what cool new things can we do with this, and oh yeah, we’ll deal with the problems”, particularly when the “cool new things” involve rudely imposing yourself on other people.
So, yeah, I get the whole “I’m going to keep things terse and not really respond to arguments thing beyond reiterating my original position, because that’s cool” vibe you’ve got going here, Hoye, but it’s a little annoying to read.
I didn’t really think there was a substantive argument to address there. “Let history decide” is a classy-sounding abdication, not a position of any substance or merit.