I thing what people bugs most about Glass is the fear to be taped all the time without consent and without even noticing it. Glass should be clearly signaling when its filming/streaming via a hardwired LED or something, so that it is obvious when someone is filming and when not.

Anecdotally, the Glass team had a large internal battle about exactly this: half of the team wanted a hardwired LED indicating when it was recording, the other half of the team didn't. Supposedly the debate grew so heated that it fractured the team completely, and the half that lost mostly transferred onto other Google X projects, like Loon.

That sounds silly,unless they were going to do a test of the LED in order to activate the camera. Otherwise people determined to record could just break the light. It's not like there isn't a ton of spy cams available anyways.

Hardwired LEDs for cameras are common, precisely to prevent what you describe. Laptop cameras have their own processors, memory, and software, and if the light doesn't turn on then the camera won't turn on.

This isn't just so others can know when your device is recording them, it's for you to know when your own device is recording you.

Of course, it can still be hacked. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/perv-utopia-light-on...

What's to stop someone from just disabling the light? Can you not jam a pin in it or something?

Yes but if someone went to those lengths they could just use a hidden camera. My fear is not some very unlikely determined person secretly recording my conversation, my fear is giving every single person in the world an easy tool that they will use that can also secretly record conversations.

Hidden cameras exist, but there is very little reason to use one in everyday. But giving every single person a thing they have constantly that does this functionality is a real change. The linked article mentions how cameras were banned, but I still dislike cameras and if I see people with one in public taking photos I will avoid them. If those cameras were always out and always pointing at people I would feel very uneasy.

As far as I know (which is very little), you're right - disabling the ability to produce light doesn't disable the camera as long as the software thinks the light is on. There are likely hardware-only approaches but they may be prohibitively expensive for a feature no customer wants to pay for.

That's the big difference between designing a light for the owner's protection (who probably won't disable the light and will notice if it breaks) versus a light for the protection of others (who might not know to look for a light in the first place, especially once Glass evolves to look like regular glasses).

There's a laptop accessory market for physically blocking camera switches with state determined at glance. Wearable cameras may need to adopt a similar mechanical approach for today's social expectations, but putting switches on your face is somewhat at odds with designing away from the Glasshole Borg look.

It's all about good intentions - assholes who want to record without permission will still exist, but the vast majority would not enable that hack, unless it was socially acceptable to do so.

I think the LED lost out because then it would look all too much like the Borg.

So what's gained by hardwiring an LED versus forcing it via software? The stuff I saw has a front light fairly clearly.

You can, of course, always remove/unwire the LED if you're that desperate to discretely film people.

when you're recording something the light is turned on and it's very noticeable.

The light seems to turns on for a number of reasons, which makes it an unreliable indicator.

I watched a googled give a talk (on privacy) with his google glass on, the display lit up about 20 different times throughout his talk.

It's not even just the fear of being taped.

But I imagine there would be a very strong correlation between those who wear Google Glass and those are technically astute. Which then leads you to think they would put that video on the internet somewhere.

A lot of people don't wan't their drunken, embarrassing moments on the internet. It can affect relationships, career, etc.

Since the video cameras were made, people have known that they're being taped. You know that almost all buildings have security cameras, or that they're being taped by a tourist, weather they know it or not. The public is just not seeing the full picture, I could honestly, before Glass came out, recorded people with a camcorder or security camera. Also... If people are worried about others seeing how they act in public, then they need to fix how they're acting. A picture can mean a thousand words, but a video be chapters of your life. Choose how you want to have your book written, don't make bad decisions.

This concept is useless because it relies on an honor system. It should be painfully obvious by now, that honor systems cannot be trusted to preserve privacy.

Google Glass is the Crystal Pepsi of the internet. It's only interesting in that it represents a definite violation of ordinary, common, everyday privacy, but stands out as one boundary that certain interested parties are determined to invade.

...uh no? If the camera is physically not pointed at you, it can't record you. It's clear and concise.

EDIT: My exact thought on this subject has been that the camera needs a mechanical shutter. But I'd say thinking of Glass like sunglasses is probably also the way to go - a way to "take it off" without having to take them off (i.e. like when you put your sunglasses on your heard to talk to someone indoors).

I think the failure of this idea starts with the assumption that it's perfectly reasonable to have a trigger-happy camera constantly at the ready, strapped to your forehead, "just in case" but "trust us because we swear we won't point it at you in your most compromised, yet entertaining moment" only everyone else.

This sounds exactly like the bygone panic over cameras on mobile phones.

But, ma'am, I swear these mirrors on my shoes aren't for looking up ladies skirts. I just have them because I'm in a gang and I need to check underneath my car for car bombs every morning.

It can still record sound, which may be just as significant in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

How's that different from someone who's holding a cellphone not taking photos of you?

Can we actually be serious here ? How many situations have you seen where someone is at a party constantly holding their phone in the air for hours on end. Never. And if someone was I am quite sure they would be treated equally as suspicious.

Google Glass is more akin to someone wearing a GoPro to a party the whole night. Not someone who pulls their phone out of the pocket for a minute or two.

You must not go to parties with bored people.

Equally obnoxious and unnerving.

And yet lacking the insane, uninformed backlash that Glass is getting.

Because cell phones are discrete fashionable accessories that serve as status symbols displaying varying wealth and disposable income, while Google Glass is a lopsided glowing deformity on the side of your head.

I donno. Add some options for racing strips, a hello kitty theme, some godawful gold stipple (a Dalek fashion, but popular), or whatever, and suddenly people will love it.

Remember how popular the iMac (~1999) was when they started adding colors and patterns to the outside?

Cellphone cameras had the exact same backlash when they first started showing up.