I think the solution given by the article researchers that randomizes the locations of the numbers on the PIN entry is a much more effective solution than wantonly destroying people's property or assaulting them because of a perceived, imaginary threat.

Regarding the comments: they may seem ridiculous after you've been browsing HN and reading the comments on here. The kind of discussion on that Wired article is not any worse than your average Internet discussion, it's just that HN raises your bar because it targets a narrower demographic. Such niche communities tend to have the most sane behavior of users; on the other end is 4chan's Random board where "everything goes", and look at it, it's the asshole of the Internet.

That all said, I'm sure more people will buy into fingerprint passwords from articles like this ... which is just as insecure, someone can easily get your prints if they wanted to. Perhaps we need a bluetooth Yubikey plus manual entry for 2FA ;-)

https://twitter.com/Dymaxion/status/464457530677420034

(It's a case where physical security and physical accessibility come in pretty direct conflict!)

I hope this makes a push for more/better biometric locks on every day devices.

I would never consider my fingerprint to be a secure form of identification, nor should systems be designed that make this assumption.

The difference is that when you record someone with a non-wearable device, it's pretty obvious. In the phone example, you have to hold it up a certain way, which will immediately alert the target (as well as anyone in the vicinity) if they are paying attention.

With Glass though, who knows if you are recording or not? AFAIK there isn't a red "recording" light that comes on, right? So as far as people are concerned, you might just be casually glancing in their direction, except you aren't.

That's not really true. It's very easy to take a picture while holding the phone in a way that makes it look as if you're just reading it.

Without Glass, who knows if you are recording or not.

The hysterics (largely driven through anti-Google rhetoric, fwiw. People like Gruber are on the front-lines of anti-Glass hate) seem naively simplistic. In this case, there are people stealing your pin codes, and they do it in bulk, using tiny, concealed video devices that you never knew were there.

And as for everyone else, any of them, and any of your environments, can be absolutely coated with surveillance devices. High capacity, very tiny cameras are literally low-single digit prices now.

Singling out Google glass users is luddism that uses it as an easy bully victim in hopes that it makes technology suddenly regress. Only technology is long past it.

Yes, there is

I don't use the same password on any two things so it's less useful to get my mobile lock password then it might be for some but if you have a lock screen pin or password you do get an amazing amount of stuff for free on a person's mobile device...

If you can see what is done with an smartphone how is there are such a number of subreptitious videos and pictures taken with smartphones

And yes, it is possible to make a surreptitious recording with any camera, but there is no comparison.

With other cameras including cellphones, it takes a tricky and intentional effort, with the risk of social consequences if discovered.

Glass is designed to make it ubiquitous and effortless to record people, with no indication to those being surveilled.

Why is it that its always a fault with the new tech? I'm not a glass esplorer but still I take offense to this kind of idiocy. The problem is with passcodes/passwords in general, they have always been susceptible to this kind of attack, adding in a video recorder doesn't change this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_We_Remember

That title was also the inspiration for the title of a paper I worked on:

https://citp.princeton.edu/research/memory/

You can do the exact same thing by hiding a camera in anywhere your body, and they won't even be spotted like Google Glass. There are cameras as tiny as: http://youtu.be/CgtTg62GDfs?t=2m19s and I'm sure many intelligency agencies around the world have better cameras than this on their agents, and some one might be actually using them. Additionally, almost all the stores has security cameras, which are on top of you and potentially can do the same thing, and you won't even notice.

Even now, I would suggest there are more google glass wearers than people with hidden cameras.

However, this with a randomised button layout solve the problem quite well:

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/SDP_NaturalView/...

They have so many drawbacks, they are annoying each and every employee that works with a computer on earth, we have weekly massive password leakage posts on HN (only tip of the iceberg), and apart from fingerprints there is no contender?

Guys, startup creators, hackers, engineers: wake up! Find something, anything!

In 30 years, when passwords will be past, our future selves will be amazed to read stories about passwords: how could we bear this skyscraping level of stupidity and annoyance.

You can't do that with just your eyeballs.

Google glass didn't make that possible, the invention of the video camera did. Plenty of those around -- often in compact form -- with or without Glass.

Not at the distance from which a decent camera (as discussed in the article) can capture it, you wouldn't -- what Glass can do from 3 meters away, the camera they tested in the article could -- with greater reliability -- through a window 44 meters away (four stories up and across a street).

Most ATMs around here don't randomize the layout, but every once in a while I come across one that does, and I've found that it's actually quite difficult to use the latter. Apparently I have my PIN memorized mainly through muscle memory... when using the randomized sort I've occasionally resorted to drawing a keyboard and looking at what numbers my fingers hit! ><