The right to privacy in public is generally regarded as a right to casual privacy - in the sense that many people can hear and may capture or accidentally record what you say, but won't publish or broadcast these events.

It seems the problem with Google Glass is more that it's forcing people to consider what has been true for a very long time: that wherever you go, chances are you're recorded in dozens of ways, by dozens of people, and the only actual defense is essentially social ettiquette in handling this content (and the fact that most people just don't care about who you are or what you do).

> "If a complete stranger holds a camera to your face you know what he is doing and you have a legitimate reason to tell him to stop doing it, most of you will probably object to it."

As a street photographer, that last part is entirely false. The vast majority of people have no objections to being photographed in public - almost all reactions I've ever gotten have ranged between "huh? meh" and "oh cool!".

The reactions he got in the video was because he was behaving like Lord Regent of the Universe, not because he was recording someone. My unscientific estimate is that >95% of the people I've ever taken pictures of (all strangers, almost all without seeking permission beforehand), are either ambivalent or downright approving.

Which goes towards the point: Google Glass is the vehicle for the problem, not the problem itself. The problem, as it has always been, is with assholes.

I also won't interact with people while they are wearing Glass. I do not like it when people take my picture without my permission, and Glass is practically a spy camera. Worse, it not only takes pictures, but video with audio and GPS information.

Can you imagine everyone you know who wears glasses now using a camera at all times?

Or it will result in a literally violent backlash against constant privacy invasion.

Or hopefully something in between, like the village who just ran the Google Street View car out of town when they heard it was coming (though it was disappointing to hear that Google later went back and got the footage anyway).

Mass surveillance is not OK, and is a Pandora's box situation where once the data is out there, realistically it's never getting deleted again. Privacy has evolved as a valued concept in just about every civilised society for good reasons. It's just a shame that a generation of Facebook addicts are too busy getting their hit to notice all the negative consequences to the kind of culture they're inviting.

I don't think much of Glass. Just doesn't appeal to me but I am curious about what makes it special for others.

Unfortunately, the current model requires both a microphone (to hear you) and a camera (to see gestures), so even well-intentioned users will still be brandishing recording devices in ways that make others uncomfortable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/03/10/the-ban-...

I drink gallons of Google-Koolaid, but even I can see(pun intended?) that Google glasses is going to have some social issues. Even I will be a bit uneasy talking to someone wearing them.

I'm still guessing a ban will happen somewhere.

How will they push their stock price above $1000? $1200?

I'd like to suggest another metric: September 11s (or "9/11s"). How many 9/11s will it be before Google's reuse of the data they collect is popularly legitimized, in their new role as the nation's biggest defence contractor? This is an insane idea, but I fear not sufficiently insane. I'd peg it at under a quarter of one 9/11.

The company must grow somehow. It must keep growing. As it exhausts its old business areas and sacrifices any ideals it may have once held, you have to at least entertain these crazy outcomes.

That's why it can't be too surprising that when a little player turns into the main player, they suddenly lose enthusiasm for standards.