‘Scuse me, but this statement is wholly absurd: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt, then Google’s chief executive, in 2009.
First, the assumption that the only reason someone might not want to be photographed in public by some random stranger is because they are doing something they should not be doing is ludicrous. Second, the assumption that simply because we are slowly being provided with the technology that allows us to invade other people’s privacy anytime we feel like it means that we therefore should invade their privacy whenever we feel like it, is lunacy. Third, the assumption that everyone needs or wants to be a voyeur, despite what devotees of such practices might want to believe in order to justify their own tendencies, is wishful thinking on the part of a company primed to make a lot of money by convincing everyone that they are indeed – if only they knew it to be true, they would be free! – voyeurs. Fourth, the assumption that this endless recording of every bon mot, moment and activity we each have is even slightly interesting, is, dare I say it, completely uninteresting. Fifth…well, I don’t need a Fifth assumption, Four is enough.
_Thad Starner, a pioneer of wearable computing who is a technical adviser to the Glass team, says he thinks concerns about disruption are overblown.
“Asocial people will be able to find a way to do asocial things with this technology, but on average people like to maintain the social contract,” Mr. Starner said. He added that he and colleagues had experimented with Glass-type devices for years, “and I can’t think of a single instance where something bad has happened.”_
Seriously, Mr. Starner? That’s only because the technology wasn’t widely available. People love to take pictures of themselves and everyone else and plaster them all over the place without any thought whatsoever to the consequences.
Just you wait Henry Higgins, just you wait. You’ll be sorry but your tears ‘ll be too late…
I’m looking at my watch now and counting down until someone jumps on this post and tells me that this is the way the world is going and there’s nothing any of us can do about it.
Ten, nine, eight, seven, six….
#GoogleGlass #Privacy #Photography #Technology
May 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I agree but it does look like the world will be forced to change by the yucky people….I am glad I moved to the hinter lands and out of the various loops of the “new and improved”
May 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm
“OK Glass, reset to factory defaults.” I hope they didn’t leave that command out. 😉
Have you read David Brin’s Earth? The “Tru-Vu” goggles, that the old farts were fond of wearing, were much like this–used specifically to deprive (especially) younger people of privacy.
May 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Agree with every single point you make Giselle Minoli !
Matthew Graybosch , your argument reminds me a bit of the “guns don’t kill people…” argument. While both are formally correct statements, the question arises whether society, knowing of human weakness, should really be actively working towards giving us more and more rope to hang ourselves.
May 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Matthew Graybosch I promise you that when you become rich and famous, if I ever have the pleasure of having dinner with you and Catherine, I promise I will not take pictures of you and plaster them all over the Internet so that I can say I had dinner with the author of Starbreaker!
May 7, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Giselle Minoli I just posted the same article and quote this morning. Here was my comment:
This quote sums up much that is wrong with the solutionist mindset:
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt, then Google’s chief executive, in 2009.
As if there should be no gray area — and if there is, the purpose and calling of technology is to find it and eliminate it. Since when did technology become the arbiter of what we “should” or “shouldn’t” be doing? Disturbing.
May 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm
I don’t think Glass will be widely embraced anyway. I see little need for it and can’t imagine the masses flocking out to buy what is essentially a really expensive way to get a headache, look stupid and ignore the people you’re spending time with. And anyway, smartphones do all of that, without looking (as) stupid. Darren Rye those pictures taken by the public become the property of ‘the man’ as soon as they go online.
Well Said Giselle Minoli!
May 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm
I’m a former actor Darren Rye and photographers, filmmakers, etc. used to have to get “releases” to take and use pictures of people. I think that is called manners. I was in Italy several years ago and saw an old man sitting on a park bench in Arezzo. He was fantastic looking…sitting there smoking a cigarette staring at this house he used to live in. I asked him if I could take his picture, he said Yes, I showed him the digital image and I sent him a copy. I now a lot of people, men and women, who don’t like their picture taken and I think that should be respected. If you are not one of them then I can see why this wouldn’t either be of a concern to you or bother you. But some people really like their privacy and there should be a way to ensure that is respected. Remember when Jackie O’s stalker was given a restraining order? It was appropriate.
May 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm
If all you’re worrying about is the camera in glass, you should have started worrying a while ago. You can get key fob (and smaller) cameras with sound for about $5 dollars. They’re very popular with RC plane enthusiasts. You never know when your picture/video is being taken today so perhaps it’s good this conversation is happening now.
May 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm
I have a very strict rule. No photo of mine that contains the recognizable face of another human being is posted to the internet even in private without that person’s specific consent. I have photos I can’t display because even though no person was the subject, they violate that rule. (If the person is not recognizable, that’s another matter). Odd thing is, I don’t actually care if my mug happens to be in somebody else’s crowd shot. I just assume other people might.
May 7, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Personally, I believe Glass is going to tank, big. There are many other issues that will prevent it from being adopted in the way that, say, iPad was.
However, we should pay close attention to statements like Schmidt’s. While Glass may not be the thing that hits, there will be many more attempts at “helping” us live our lives. Like cell phones or set-top boxes that listen to all your conversations and offer advice on what you’re talking about. Don’t think that will ever happen? Look at what Gmail does with the written word — yes, this is certainly coming.
May 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm
I don’t use Gmail, Brian Titus. I use Earthlink and have since the beginning. Privacy! Yeah!
May 7, 2013 at 1:44 pm
How about stealing our souls with the picture!!!! No one should steal souls!
May 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Well, I know you’re wiser than me Giselle Minoli but you don’t have to rub it in! 😉
May 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
I don’t think it’s unfair Darren Rye. I think the assumption that everyone wants to be in someone else’s candid shot is incorrect. I do not. And whenever I’m at dinner and the cameras come out, I excuse myself and go to the ladies room. I think we are making a lot of assumptions about one another based on the technology being so available. I think people have a right to bow out. Even on phone calls now when you call a company you are warned that the conversation may be recorded and you can ask for it to be turned off. Why do we assume everyone wants to be photographed all the time?
May 7, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Giselle Minoli If your Earthlink account has Spam protection then, yes, they are reading your mail.
May 7, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Earthlink is very different from Gmail Michael Goasdoue. I may be one of two people still using it! I’m considered a dinosaur. But…I rather like dinosaurs! 😉
May 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Also Darren Rye, taking candid photos did not used to mean those photos were posted up to the global network. It usually meant they sat in a shoebox in the closet.
I’m pretty sure I have been an egregious violater of Jennifer R. Povey’s rule of thumb. I am going to make a point to look at my photo posting behavior and see how following that rule might change what I’m doing.
May 7, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Giselle Minoli
I have used Earthlink since 1997, I love it even though I have a wifi from another service I keep my Earthlink mails.
May 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Nora Qudus if you visit the graveyard at the Acoma Indian pueblo in New Mexico (or any other) you absolutely cannot take pictures. I think it is a most interesting belief, one that many people would find absurd, but what if it is a respect issue? And what is wrong with a little superstition? Maybe they know something we don’t know.
May 7, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Darren Rye I’m not so sure what it means for images to be “forgotten” now. Just because people aren’t viewing them, it doesn’t mean algorithms aren’t.
May 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Makes wearing a veil or burqa a bit more of a privacy issue now, If you do not want to be stared at or photographed by strangers who have no business taking your picture……. it is a creepy thing….wanting pictures of people you do not know….
May 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm
Darren Rye I don’t think that the issue I am raising invades the fine art photographer right that you are raising. I think it’s wholly different. Using a photo/conversation the way the young woman did in the article is what I am addressing. If people are photographed by a talented photographer who intends no harm I think that is another subject altogether, and not the one I am raising.
And I think you are very polite. I’m not sure I agree with you, however, that simply being in public means there is no privacy…or that we should assume everyone is fair game simply because they are in public. We may all be in Cartier-Bresson’s park insieme, but we also there with ourselves. In cases of certain very famous photographs that have become iconic (the soldier kissing the nurse) they are taken with tremendous skill and affection with no intention to harm whatsoever.
That is not the case with the young woman who Twittered her bird’s eye/ear view of two gentlemen talking. At least that’s the difference for me. Please don’t disappear! I have no issue at all with what you are saying.
May 7, 2013 at 2:06 pm
What a lot of people don’t realize is that your “name and distinctive license” is actually considered intellectual property that you own (in the US). For most people it’s not very valuable, but if you look at the terms and conditions on your ticket to a sporting event or a convention, you’re likely to find language like this (taken from the back of an old gaming con badge:
“the holder and his or her ward(s) and/or guardian(s) consent to being photographed (by film, tape, digitally, or any other means) for exhibition in all media”
and also
“authorizes and permits GAMA and its designees to use his or her name, voice, likeness, and all reproductions thereof, in all media now and hereafter known for all purposes in perpetuity”
This scary-looking language simply protects the people running the event from being sued when people’s faces show up in their promotional photographs, either on a privacy basis OR a copyright basis.
May 7, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Great post Giselle, and I sympathise to some extent – when privacy or liberty has been eroded, it’s nearly impossible to get it back. However I’d take issue with one small point in your opening statement “the only reason someone might not want to be photographed in public” – being public means exactly that. It’s public. When something is public then by definition others can largely do as they please unless restricted by law. Also I’m a heck of a sight more worried about US government snooping than Google http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ – but maybe they’re the same thing behind the cover… 😉
May 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm
As for the graveyard thing…I can definitely see that. I always respect “no pictures” rules, regardless of the reason. And I absolutely respect “no flash” because there’s always a good reason for that. (You often see it in museums and art galleries and it’s because the extreme light of flash photography can actually cause damage to some artifacts).
May 7, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Luis Roca and Darren Rye I wish I could trust that most people would be as conscious as the two of you, but recent stories (quite aside from Google Glass) illustrate that whatever sensitivity failings certain people might have are being heightened and strengthened by certain technological advances. Young girls’ reputations are being forever tarnished by photographs of them passed around from cell phone to cell phone (one young girl recently committed suicide), then there was the man in the article who was fired as a result of a comment he made being Tweeted.
It makes people giddy…new technology…there’s an Oh Goody a New Toy mentality that reminds me of the days (they slowly seem to be passing) of being in an elevator in New York when one person was on their cellphone carrying on a personal conversation and delighted to have their 15 minutes of Andy Warhol fame. Brian Titus I don’t have high hopes for the technology either, but Darren Rye I think Google is banking on the hugely lucrative misuse of the technology rather than the less lucrative but perhaps more respectful use of it.
May 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Is it me or did that blurb on the article said – “…strip people of what little privacy they still have in public.” What is that really! Do we even know how crazy that sounds. It must be me.
May 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Tutt tutt – me thinks I object to glass as of now.
Thank you for the post Giselle… I’ve claimed ignorance on the Glass hovering phenomenon until now.
All I am equipped to say is this – please NOBODY use glass in my company – I have a life-time restraining order against a most unstable person and DANG if he finds me through a picture taken at a venue that can trace to me…
As for the rest of the world – Giselle Minoli it is perhaps a fool who believes we are better off with electronics attached to our heads. My aunt has just been diagnosed with core brain cancer and the FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT thing they insisted is that she immediately refrain from any cellphone usage… something about the brain being additionally vulnerable with the skull protection being compromised subsequent to the operation.
I now understand just one thing I need to understand about glass, in my most humble view – it invades privacy without exception, without regard. As such and because I cannot know the circumstances of anyone else’s need for privacy – I shall, without question, support the discontinuance of anything that places our wellness at risk.
I like to call it preserving humanity – on a cheeky day.
And in the end, I am grateful that friends like you keep us conscious of our realities.
May 7, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Darren Rye if I am in public and a fine art photographer (you) sets up his camera on a tripod, or brings out a camera that is visible to me I can step out of the shot if I want to. Do I have a right to do that? I think so. That right is wholly removed if I don’t know there is a camera around and so I can’t “protect” myself if I want to. This seems to be a case of people not knowing they are being eyed because it isn’t obvious. The assumption that everyone should see everything around them…well, those two young men never thought someone right behind them was about to ruin their day, their week, their month…perhaps their year. I thought that woman did a horrible thing to that man.
May 7, 2013 at 2:22 pm
See, that’s why I have the rule…because I’m photographing on the move a lot. It’s a little different if I ask somebody (such as a cosplayer) if I can take a portrait of them, but I don’t post those pics either. They’re for my private collection.
But most of the time if somebody’s in my shot, it’s not intentional on my part or theirs. Even with a DSLR, in a crowded situation, people won’t notice you unless you DO set up a tripod. It’s impossible to take photos of some locations and venues without catching people in the shot…and sometimes I’ve taken 5-6 shots just to get one with no recognizable faces. The Minnesota State Fair was a particular challenge. The entire state goes. At once.
May 7, 2013 at 2:27 pm
I do think there is such a thing a “Privacy in Public.” I do not think it’s an oxymoron or that Private and Public are mutually exclusive. My mother was acutely aware of this forgotten phenomenon when I was little. We would be “in public” and because I was curious about everything and everyone (always was) she would say, “Don’t stare. That woman clearly wants to be left alone,” or, “Don’t talk so loud, there are other people here, not just you.”
Dancers call this kinesthetic sense of their surroundings and having a respect for it. In spiritual traditions it is in fact a way of being in a group and providing others with a sense of separateness, of privacy, of aloneness: “The kinesthetic sense is buried under thousands of years of civilization and human conditioning. Much of our conditioning within civilization has taken us away from an awareness of our physical depths towards an awareness and understanding of the world outside ourselves. We have become masters of the world and strangers to ourselves.”
It’s just that it is not practiced and so the assumption is made that in public there is no privacy. I simply disagree with that.
May 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Who is the arbiter of what is permissible in public Giselle Minoli? Is it down to the individual, is it a set of social norms that get adopted over time, or is it mandated by law? Personally I think Private and Public are mutually exclusive, though I can see Public having certain restrictions imposed by consent either informal (social norms) or formal (laws).
May 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Giselle Minoli Wow! This can be a dangerous precedence though. The next thing you know we will be saying – “There is no right nor wrong.!” The word “Public” has a meaning and so does “Private” and they are both opposite. We cannot redefine them and believe we have changed their reality. We are not talking about relativism here. Are are we? If we are then I withdraw, gracefully. There is always something deeper in meaning to what is on the surface when issues like these that are obvious, lead to an actual discussion about their validity or lack there of.
May 7, 2013 at 2:38 pm
+Darren Rye – I looked it up. You are both right and wrong. It’s not copyright, but the “right of publicity”. (Why is mentioning not working right again).
The right of publicity grants an individual the right to control how their image, likeness, voice, etc are used in a public situation. If you photograph somebody and PUBLISH that image without their consent, you are violating their right of publicity. Exact details vary by state.
May 7, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Matthew Graybosch Only because I haven’t read it yet.
May 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm
One problem is that the definition of “photographing” has changed drastically. It used to mean capturing light on emulsion, printing, and — in rare cases — publishing. Now it means digitizing, uploading, recognizing, storing and analyzing, often whether you realize it or not.
An eye-opener for me came through my use of Picasa (on the desktop) for organizing and storing my digital photos. A few years ago, they implemented face-recognition, and you could turn it on and let the software paw through your entire collection, looking for faces. Then, face-albums were created from all the faces that Picasa was able to find and group together.
It’s a fascinating tool for tracking the changes in faces over time – say, of your children. However, you quickly realize something else — it’s finding and grouping up people you don’t know at all, because they were “extras” in your photos. The a-ha (or maybe, uh-oh) moment for me came when I was looking at these “random” face albums. I found one that was created for a stranger who showed up in photos taken on different days. Granted, it was at a weekend-long event (F1 race in Montreal), but the photographs were taken in completely different areas of the venue — so it wasn’t like it was a grandstand-mate.
Yes, perhaps that should be an obvious consequence of this software. Still to see it happen in front of you makes you think about how you might be showing up in other people’s crowd photos, and how Google might be keeping track of that when those photos are uploaded.
May 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm
It’s…hrm. Looks like it’s about half the US. And the First Amendment does trump it, which is what protects street photographers. It also only technically applies to “commercial” use. It’s mostly to protect people who are famous from being photographed and then seeing those pictures used to fake endorsements. The waiver I quoted was from Ohio.
States that formally protect the “right of publicity”:
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. (This is from Wikipedia, full disclosure, but this IS the kind of thing Wikipedia usually gets right).
Most people’s face isn’t “valuable” enough for them to have a real case – and most people don’t even know this exists.
May 7, 2013 at 2:56 pm
I think we need to agree there’s a distinction between privacy (no one sees it) and being anonymous (someone sees it but can’t identify it to you).
When in public, you don’t have privacy but you are anonymous. Your actions aren’t tied to you or your name per se yet they can be seen by many. There’s a clear distinction between the two and something that should be discussed openly in this conversation and understood by all.
If you want privacy, do it out of sight. The moment someone can see it (hear it etc), it’s not private.
May 7, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Giselle Minoli Earthlink? Do you use an abacus also? (SMIRK)
It’s like I said in Brian Titus thread on this…. saying what’s the big deal is like saying what’s the big deal about a cop searching through you’re stuff if you haven’t done anything illegal. I get the “taking photos in public” angle… but there are too many people, including some in this thread, who seem to think that analogy covers the entire topic and they couldn’t be more wrong.
May 7, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Hey, I have an Earthlink account…mostly because every so often somebody from 15 years ago comes looking for me and that’s the address they have…
I do see the distinction between “private” and “anonymous”. I would also argue that if you would be embarrassed if somebody saw it then, sure, don’t do it in public. But I still consider it rude to plaster somebody’s face on the internet. And the facial recognition stuff annoys me, mostly because I don’t want to deal with the “is this you” spam :P.
May 7, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Darren Rye — it’s a start, for sure. Don’t know that it alleviates all concerns.
May 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm
Giselle Minoli Podcast topic……
May 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Good Morning ~ Excellent post and discussion. I’m with you, Giselle Minoli ~ I’ve been very concerned about the erosion of privacy we all face throughout our society. Recently, I posted an in depth article/essay on privacy from Santa Clara University ethics dept. It’s worth reading. Here’s the link to the article, for anyone interested: Why We Care About Privacy
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/internet/privacy/why-care-about-privacy.html
May 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Darren Rye — agreed, these are not necessarily Glass-specific concerns, however, Glass seems to be a good catalyst for the discussion
May 7, 2013 at 3:57 pm
It’s funny Darren Rye, my share of this article this morning was predicated on what I perceive to be the lousy reporting within it. Here’s what I said (since all the discussion has ended up over here anyway) —
I think Glass is going to tank in a big way. However, this article is clearly a case of NYTimes outsourcing the writing to Reddit and Social Media. It’s just a regurgitation of things we’ve been discussing for months here, with nothing new and no insight added. The Adria Richards thing at the end might have been a jumping off point to really discuss the issues a Glass future might bring, but it was treated so cursorily and incompletely, that they might as well not have even brought it up.
May 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Paging Jeff Jockisch — bring that chart & article you just posted over here! (Or, more correctly — everyone go to his stream and look at it)
Edit: Article title: Has Big Data Made Anonymity Impossible?
May 7, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Sorry…catching up here…first off I’m not proposing laws, rules and regulations…I wrote a post about awareness of what we might want to do individually having an impact on other people and not making the assumption that we can do whatever we want simply because we have the technology to do it.
There is the age old question, which many people seem to be unwilling to ask anymore, which is: Just because I can do/say something, does that mean I should? (in the ethical, responsible, moral, “right-minded” sense.)
I still disagree with the claim that public is public and and there is not “private” in it. Smoking in certain “public” places is no longer allowed because there is an “awareness” that someone else’s smoke does have an impact on other people. In certain “public” places (beaches, parks, etc.) music is not allowed or eating food or throwing trash. These “rules” are enforced because they were made in an attempt to keep certain spaces that a lot of people use civilized, preserved, nice, safe, pleasant…however you want to define it.
I could make an argument that certain technologies are so new that these issues that we are raising here are simply not “threatening” enough to enough of the population to come under scrutiny. But that doesn’t mean they won’t some day.
If you go to the Academia in Italy, you cannot take out your camera and snap a picture of the beauteous David. I know, I tried and got my hand slapped by an Italian guard. Now, I can have several opinons about that. I can feel a) I’m not going to let anyone tell me what I can do, I’m going to sneak a photo anyway!, or b) how dare they I’m going to take a sneak picture and plaster it all over the internet, or c) what skin off of my nose is it to respect this request?
So, too, we can bully our individual ways through the world telling ourselves that we should be able to do whatever we please whenever we please, convincing ourselves that our almighty freedoms are being infringed if we aren’t allowed to do our bidding 24/7/365, or we can say, “May I take your picture?” and if the answer is “No,” say “Okay…” or get huffy about it.
Frankly, I don’t think the latter is an exercise in any kind of freedom. The question is one of balance and manners (to me it is) and not assuming that what I think is okay (if I’m the one wanting to film everything all the time) is okay for everyone else.
Brian Davidson I agree with you about that poor drunken man. I think people are click happy.
May 7, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Giselle Minoli This is the way the world is going and there’s nothing any of us can do about it. 🙂
But seriously, I think we are already toast and I don’t think we can win our anonymity back. But there IS something we we can do, a way we can FIGHT BACK: Demand Transparency of businesses and governments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
It is only in that way that we can we protect ourselves.
thanks for the ping, Brian Titus. Its already hard to hide in the data.
May 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Brian Titus I’m glad you posted about it. Words do move people. We can’t stem the tide of technology but we can examine how we use it and ask ourselves questions about its purpose and whether or not we are contributing positively or negatively to anyone else’s lives (including our own). We can ask ourselves how we want to use something, whether we are being willing pawns in someone’s else’s money making machinery, whether we’re just going along for the ride and somehow choosing blindness about our actions.
I can make a laundry list of things people used to think were harmless but are now (after the harm has been done) are questioning: cell phones stuck to our heads, preservatives and chemicals in food, refined sugar sweeteners, GMOs, asbestos… Just because some is new and shiny doesn’t mean it’s great.
As for the art in it all, not everyone clicking away is an “artist,” and I still maintain that I’d like some say over the images taken of me and the conversations recorded and, maybe it’s just me, but I honestly don’t know one single person who doesn’t (secretly perhaps) feel the same way…
May 7, 2013 at 4:12 pm
re: Has Big Data Made Anonymity Impossible? Brian Titus
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100382758901355515850/posts/TketzWtfRct
Its not impossible yet, but it soon will be unless you completely unplug and move to a mountain cave.
May 7, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Jeff Jockisch How can I disagree with that? Transparency transparency transparency. It’s the way to go. Google Glass makes like surreptitious.
May 7, 2013 at 4:16 pm
Jeff Jockisch have the cave all picked out. Rugs, lighting fixtures. Vegetable plot is tilled. I cannot wait!
May 7, 2013 at 4:28 pm
It’s the small victories. I no longer use grocery store rewards card under my name. I use the “forgot my card” function so that I get the savings but what I purchase (with cash) stays with me. I see a future where what you eat ties into med insurance and life insurance.
Before I get mocked… Your SS# three decades ago wasn’t used in the purpose it is now.
May 7, 2013 at 4:46 pm
If I want privacy, I go to a private place. And I chuckle a little in typing, “public is not private”. I don’t know that a right to privacy exists per se. An expectation? Yes, but – and I wholly admit I may simply be flat out wrong – I don’t believe a right to privacy is codified anywhere in US law.
I can be embarrassed when a woman as attractive as Giselle Minoli catches me picking my nose because she is in the car next to me, but the fact is I was nasal mining in public.
May 7, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Jim Preis and you have no idea what it took for me to get Google to promise me, as the author of the Google Glass proposal, to leave out of the Press Releases the suggestion that catching just such an activity in progress would end up being the catalyst for 99% of Google Glass sales. Rats. Found out again! 😉
May 7, 2013 at 6:50 pm
ALL of us will soon be our own big brother. Authoritarians couldn’t ask for a better technology.
May 7, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Darren Rye I am not asking for anything in the traditional sense of asking, but when I read articles like this I am thinking way beyond them. I personally as an individual don’t have any problem in my life confronting situations or people doing things that are inappropriate. If someone was sitting near me and started taking pictures of me I would ask them not to. If someone were behaving badly in my home I would tell them to knock it off. I try to be as self-protective as possible and part of that is not accepting everything that comes down the pike. But there are people coming up behind us in age who are not comfortable disagreeing or sticking up for themselves or questioning what is being put in front of them or what they are told. I can tell you that had I been with that young woman and I had any inkling of what she was about to post on Twitter I would have told her not to do it – that it was harmful, mean-spirited, wrong, nasty, the whole nine yards. I would have spoken up.
And that is what my post is about: just because we are being presented with the technology, and we may be able to afford to buy it or are in a position to be invited to use it, does not excuse us from using our brains to figure out what is appropriate, what is right, what is potentially harmful to others (and ourselves?) and, well, to use that wonderful Buddhist phrase…what is “right-minded.”
And the article is heartening because there is, apparently, at least one bar where the owners/managers are saying…No, not here, this place is private.
May 7, 2013 at 8:49 pm
hear hear Giselle. I could not have said it any better or more respectfully. hear hear Giselle Minoli perfectly beautifully said indeed.
May 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Not really sure what you are advocating Giselle. Ban certain new technologies? Regulate certain new technologies? Teach civics and manners/politeness?
For me, bring all the technologies on – that’s how progress will happen. Some of it will be good for us, some will have mixed results or unintended consequences, and some of it will be harmful or at least considered harmful by enough people that regulation is a necessity to remove or mitigate the harm.
If it’s the latter, then thoughtful discussions like this are a great way to raise awareness and form consensus for such regulation.
May 7, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Could you point out to me in my writing where I say ban new technologies Darryl Collins? Where I say anything about regulating anything? Honestly, I think I’ve been very clear about what my concerns are. You may not have any, or, if you do, they may be different than mine and that’s fine with me…
May 7, 2013 at 10:05 pm
I was trying to understand your position on new technologies as they relate to privacy. I was asking a question, not putting words in your mouth. Maybe it’s a step too far to extrapolate from your comments at this stage. Sorry if you think I was being presumptuous. And I did outline my own position. As you say, if yours is different, that’s fine with me…
May 7, 2013 at 10:14 pm
I have a BBerry and an iPhone, an iPad, two iPods (I never download music for free and I have 100s of vinyl records), my car is wired for music and phones, I have three cameras, a ThinkPad, two MacBook Pros, and a Mac Tower Desktop. I have my own website, am a jewelry designer who is surrounded by tools and as a pilot I constantly have to learn new communications and navigations technologies and am looking for a video camera to strap to my head. I’m a film buff, love interactive media, am a huge fan of documentaries and performance art that use technology and traditional art forms combined, and my husband and I are two of the only people we know who still have a huge collection of movie CDs. I am wired and technologied to within an inch of my life Darryl Collins.
But that is not what this post was about. This post is about the assumptions that people are making about the use of technologies when they interface with other people. That is what the article that I attached is about and that is what I commented on. I love my technology. I also respect it. But I don’t assume that just because I have it I can do whatever I want with it…particularly when it has the capacity to invade another person’s space either against their wishes, without their knowing about it or…just because I can…
May 7, 2013 at 10:27 pm
My comment was about “your position on new technologies as they relate to privacy” – I assumed you were fully wired, as you have just confirmed!
Taking your comment “I don’t assume that just because I have it I can do whatever I want with it…particularly when it has the capacity to invade another person’s space either against their wishes, without their knowing about it or…just because I can…” – how would you suggest this is managed? Should it be regulated or should people be trained/encouraged to act in a certain way (call it manners or politness)?
May 7, 2013 at 10:29 pm
I think my position about how I feel about new technologies as they relate to privacy is very clear from this post Darryl Collins so forgive me I’m confused by your question…
May 7, 2013 at 10:33 pm
I don’t want to be argumentative or ask you to answer something you don’t want to or see no reason to! But the reason I asked, politely I thought, was because it wasn’t clear to me from reading your comments. Sorry if my question confuses you – it’s late, and I’m off to bed. Let’s just leave it, eh? 🙂
May 7, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Let me give you a specific example, Darryl Collins. I have a video camera and I am a ballroom dancer. All over the internet (YouTube/Vimeo) there are films of dance, some taken by amateurs, some made by people with more finesse. I take my camera to a space where my ballroom dancer instructors are performing and I whip it out and they come running over to me and say, “Please no videos!.” And I say, “But I’m a student and I can make a video to play back to myself so that I can learn, and why not what’s the big chewy noodle deal I don’t understand?” And they say, “Please don’t. We feel it’s an invasion of our privacy, our choreography, our steps, we don’t want videos of us on the Internet the quality of which we can’t control. We are professionals and want whatever work we put on the Internet to be filmed in a certain way and we ask you to respect that.”
I would respect it because I respect myself and I respect them. Someone else would surreptitiously take the video and post it anyway. I think the young woman who took a picture/recorded a convo of those two guys and then Tweeted it showed no respect for herself or other people. I think the Bar that says “No Google Glass here. This is a private space for our patrons where we protect their privacy” gets that. So I think this is the beginning of a very long conversation about the intersection of technology and privacy. But it is also the beginning of a very long conversation about people who are armed with technology thinking that they can do whatever they want with it just because they can.
May 7, 2013 at 10:51 pm
Similar to Giselle, when visiting an Arabian horse breeding facility, I honored the request not to photograph the stallions. While gorgeous in their natural state, branding is critical to business, & grooming for the show ring is amazing. Of course I would not take pictures, & instead had a lovely time enjoying some exquisite horses, one a world champion. What an honor!
May 7, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Ah, Mara Rose thank you for rescuing me from a clearly failed attempt to express what I think must still be manners in the use of technology. From time-to-time I do hear of we who abide by signs like “Keep off the newly seeded grass, ” and “Before the show starts, Please turn off your cell phones and unwrap all the candies you will need to eat over the course of the next two and one half hours,” and, when in museums, “No pictures, please,” or, when in lectures or concert halls, “No recording, please.”
But I can sense that we dinosaurs are a dying breed (is it possible to something that is already dead to re-die, so to speak?). The only hope I have for us is that every time I visit the Museum of Natural History in New York, or the Smithsonian in D.C., the line to see the dinosaurs is around the block.
Maybe they know something we don’t know.
Hey…do you watch the Kentucky Derby? I was rooting for Rosie Napravnik…
May 7, 2013 at 10:59 pm
OK that’s much clearer to me now, thanks.
In your example, presumably your ballroom dancing (lovely image in my head about that!) is in a private space. In that space the people that manage or own the space or the event are already entitled to have restrictions – it’s their party and they can do what they like within reason! The people at the event can also make their views known. I agree that it is bad from, all the way through to illegal in certain circumstances, to record or photograph people without their permission in a private space. So I don’t really see what else is required within private space – it’s already covered by accepted norms.
However in public, I don’t know what you can do apart from frown, run away, shout, whatever, but it’s up to the person recording the image if they want to continue in those circumstances. So I don’t really see what else is required in the public space.
That’s why I’m a bit confused about the point being made.
When it comes to manners, politeness, ethics, grooming, training, I’m there. But that’s mostly common sense (sometimes not so common).
May 7, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Darryl Collins I do know that you are a filmmaker…and so may I assume (I don’t like assuming) that your own POV is more than a little influenced by the desire, the need, the want, the wish, to have the freedom to film anything you want whenever you want? You might think that I don’t understand that, but the reality is that I completely understand the desire to do it. I just don’t think that we really, no matter what we tell ourselves have that right, even in public. I do think there are codes that apply, particularly when something that is more intimate rather than more obscure, particularly when filming something where someone could be hurt by it. It is the reason that filmmakers go to such lengths to get permissions and releases so that there is some consciousness informing the whole creative process. Do I get that it goes on otherwise all the time? Of course I do. But I made this post in support of people who frankly don’t want to be in someone else’s video or film or Twitter feed or photograph or cell phone stash, not without knowing about it and even having a say about it.
We rail against the thought of our government turning into Big Brother and installing cameras on every street corner. Is there really a difference between that and any ol’ Joe or Jane doing the same thing in the local pub? I’m not really sure there is…
Talk about it over a pint?
May 7, 2013 at 11:22 pm
I will always seek a release from someone being featured in a commercial production.
If I am filming in a public street, I don’t – it’s public space so there is no need to.
In a private space (classroom, home, store, or whatever) I would seek permission, or if not, often respect the wishes of the people in that space if they are made known to me. (I can see circumstances where it may ultimately be in the public interest to continue without permission).
I am equally concerned about losing privacy – I often rail against widespread use of CCTVs and the like. If I don’t want to be recorded, assuming I know that I am, I will make it known and/or remove myself from the situation.
Perhaps we need a counter to Glass – a sort of Glass-blocker that jams it or marks me in an image that should automatically blur my features. There’ll be a big market for such things!
A pint would be great craic I suspect! 🙂
May 7, 2013 at 11:24 pm
I’m so unhip…this is the second time you’ve used the word “craic” and I don’t know what it means. I know I will go “Duh…” when you tell me…
May 7, 2013 at 11:31 pm
LOL. It’s an Irish word for fun/enjoyment. It’s used a LOT here e.g. “sure it’ll be great craic”, or “what’s the craic?” Probably loses a lot in the translation on G+!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=craic
May 7, 2013 at 11:37 pm
Hi Giselle ~ I think you & I will likely always agree about good manners & privacy, both of which seem to be very sadly fading away. I missed the Derby, my cable not working. Next year. But since I get my horse fix every day, not tragic :).
May 7, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Thank you for not letting me feel hopelessly dumb, just a little dumb Darryl Collins. It’s a fabulous word. I have a dream of touring around Ireland one day. You all are such a lively bunch. I mean, seriously Darryl Collins – Swift, Yeats, Stoker, Wilde, Shaw, Beckett, Joyce, Heaney, Harris, O’Toole, Meaney, Branaugh, U2, Van Morrison…I bet they all knew what Craic means…
May 7, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Thank you so much Luis Roca!
May 7, 2013 at 11:45 pm
I was slightly surprised you didn’t know, what with your Irish Italian American blood line! There is no doubt, they were all born with the craic.
May 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Luis Roca I’ve listened to less than 10 minutes of this and I completely agree with him. I think it is the biggest ruse of all time…
May 8, 2013 at 12:57 am
Dropped out for a few hours and look what I missed. Will have to watch that vid.
May 8, 2013 at 1:51 am
My view is that things like Glass (and other technologies that do similar things) make it easier for creepy people to be creepier. People can wear them, that’s up to them, and it’s my right to start with the assumption that they’re creepy and avoid them if I see them looking at me for any period of time.
I know that being out in public isn’t necessarily private. But it’s nice to have the feeling of anonymity in a big city, and I resent people who effectively are constantly announcing to you that you have no space or privacy, and they want to prove it to you. I KNOW. Much how overweight people know they’re overweight, and that there are consequences, but it doesn’t make it any less rude to constantly tell them so, and give them proof.
May 8, 2013 at 2:17 am
Tara Mulder I think people who are constantly telling us that we have no privacy and anonymity believe what they are saying but I actually think it’s a form of personal, social and cultural abdication. There is something strangely ambivalent, passive and aggressive all rolled into one about it. I wonder what they tell their wives/husbands/children. I wonder what living with them on a day-to-day basis is like. I wonder what the quality of their life/work/creativity is like. I wonder what kind of bosses they are, what they tell people who work with/for them, I wonder what their entire Zeitgeist is.
By and large the most talented people I know are also the most respectful people I know. By and large the people I know who are the best photographers, painters, artists, writers, actors, directors, cooks, doctors, architects…you name it…are the people who have the most respect and greatest cultural concern. The wrinkle is where great money is to be made. People will say, do and sell anything to make that happen. It doesn’t mean the inherent issues go away. Someone may come along and completely succeed in stripping me of any of my privacy. But I can still get up in the morning with my own value system intact in spite of it. We can all choose how we are going to behave. The Twitter woman acted without thinking for two second about the impact of her actions. I’m with you. I don’t need any more proof. The issue is how we are going to react to it.
May 8, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Interesting conversation here. I wonder what Marshall Mcluhan or Guy Debord would have thought of Google Glass and the rise of the “image” based society, i.e. a society/culture where almost every event is now captured by someone holding a camera in one way or another.
Mcluhan might have been amused since he somewhat predicted that society would evolve to be a post-literate culture using image to convey the majority of its messages.
Guy Debord on the other hand would be appalled since his main supposition was that image would supplant genuine human experience.
Either way, since there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle, we need to evolve with our technology and adapt to how it will work within the human need for privacy and singular contemplation.
May 8, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Hi Edward Flynn. Interesting question. Post-literate/post-literature. You’re not kidding. Maybe the reason that people prefer “images” is that an image is instant gratification, there’s nothing to read, no words to look up in a dictionary, nothing to ponder, nothing to mull over, it’s like a blast of information that knocks you over in one fell swoop, rather than slowly, over time, like a poem or a book or a play might. Marshall The Medium is the Message McLuhan needed/wanted to predict that because he was in the advertising business. Debord, on the other hand, was more of an artistic thinker (in my view) and would therefore be appalled. The two schools of thought are very much in evidence here on this thread.
What the Heck, since I have a Marxist heart…I’ll sit with the Debordians on this side of the theatre. Meet you out front at intermission and let’s compare notes? Did you get an orchestra seat? I’m sitting in the Loge…
May 8, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Giselle Minoli A Marxist heart? Can a good Marxist love an Apple product?
May 8, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Yes James Barraford. Somewhere I have my very first one. All of the corporate shenanigans and disturbing news about manufacture and policy and the whole sorry story aside – an Apple a day keeps the doctor away. Best technological purchases I have ever made. Hands down. Most empowering. Most creativity giving. But this is a bona fide threadjack…Jamie…I know you. I could do a separate post about this…but I won’t!
May 8, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Darren Rye _”But sometimes the adage is true, why use a 1,000 of the little buggers if a picture will do?”_ Because literature and photography, painting, sculpture are entirely different art forms, which “speak” in different ways to different audiences. They are apples and oranges.
And I don’t think McLuhan meant fine art photography. But he might have meant cat gifs and Memes.
May 8, 2013 at 7:08 pm
Don’t you find that the act of taking a photograph very often interrupts the pure flow, the pure Zen, of an experience, by adding the egoic self, the I? The pure experience of Being becomes lost. I say that, as someone who also loves photography. I hope I am not veering OT here, but the last two comments brought this up for me, and I’ve been thinking, since I checked with this thread yesterday, about the loss of manners and privacy in our society. This thread is so rich, I need to read it several more times to really get everything!
Recently, I was at Esalen in Big Sur. One of my goals was to take some beautiful photographs. But I also found that doing so kept me a step back from complete immersion in the splendor of each moment. And so I had days where I put my camera away. I hate to think that as a culture we are all sliding further and further away from an experience Being, it’s hard enough to become open to transcendence without the onrush of technology. I wish I could say this better.
May 8, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Apple’s iconic 1984 commercial was essentially Marxist at heart by showing Apple freeing the workers from the yoke of corporate Big Brother. Unfortunately 20+ years later, the exact opposite is true of computers in that they have become the enablers of Big Brother in so many ways.
Heck after making this post I’m sure I’ll suddenly get served up all kinds of ads from Google’s ad servers for things like Apples and Marx Brother Movies. Thanks to computers rifling through our big data stream here.
Actually now that I think about it, That’s the kind of Marxist I’d like to be: A mixture of Groucho and Chico Marx.
May 8, 2013 at 7:16 pm
You said/wrote it just dandy Mara Rose. I like this thread, too…and the people who are participating. Free associating from your thought I might say that taking a photograph with a snap and click, rather than having to learn the skill of setting the F-stop, choosing the light, setting up the tripod, picking the film – all of that – is the same thing as the ease of using a computer with which to write – the ease of pressing Send or Save – which is an entirely different experience from sitting down with a blank sheet of paper and a pen (my stepson uses fountain pens and has a whole collection of them…it’s sort of awesome) and/or journaling in a books.
I think you’ve introduced the concept of instant gratification here and how, while it can be, well, instantly gratifying…there is something inherently disassociating about it as well. Balance again?
How great Esalen. Big Sur is gorgeous. I love that part of California.
May 8, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Edward Flynn You get two kisses – one for saving me from James Barraford, and another for wrapping Macs, Marxism and the Brothers Marx all up in nice big bow. I love that and am off to find my Groucho glasses/nose, cigar, Tails and a wig…that way Jamie will never find me, ’cause he’ll be lookin’ for some strange fellow with a white beard and black moustache named Karl…
May 8, 2013 at 7:30 pm
I’m with Matthew Graybosch on this one Darren Rye. I de-Ad everything as soon as possible. I don’t watch TV because of the Ads and I kick and scream and protest if I have to be “on time” to a movie because I can’t stand the ads. I know what your argument coming back at me is going to be – but that’s business…in my personal life Out Out Out Out Out.
May 8, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Just because they are unavoidable does not mean I have to like them, sanction them, welcome them with open arms or in any other way give the impression that all is right with tarnishing every single surface of life with advertisement Darren Rye. I will not go gentle into that good night. Silence is the greatest sedition.
May 8, 2013 at 7:35 pm
Good point Darren Rye ~ I think for me, at that moment in time, I realized I was in the midst of a peak experience, one of those rare and magical things, and my experience was even trying to photograph it pulled me down the mountain a bit, not that there is anything wrong with that necessarily–I had to come down some time…. We are all so individual in how we experience these very personal moments.
May 8, 2013 at 7:37 pm
I don’t care for ads, but I find the personalised ones creepy. I would rather that my personal information not be used to market to me. Even if it’s more relevant to something I might use, I’ll be turned off one that comes from something I just sent email about, for example.
May 8, 2013 at 7:41 pm
It’s the datamining required to get the worthwhile ad. So yes, I will berate the company who is going for my business by buying information about me.
May 8, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Giselle Minoli There is no saving a Marxist.
Obama is finding that out today at the hearings.
(Threadjack set to Defcon 1)
May 8, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Tara Mulder and Mara Rose suddenly next to one another here are addressing the same question in an interesting sort of way – why do we need to record every single moment of everything we see – as though our brains have become so small that they are incapable of holding within them beautiful “memories” of images, experiences, powerful moments in time, such that our insecurity and addiction to technology takes over and we shift into OOh quick take a pix – on the one hand – and why do we need to be bombarded every waking moment with the insecure need of businesses to cram down our throats every single thing they want to sell us because we are, what? Bereft of meaning without these products? Wandering aimlessly through the woods desperately looking for something to spend our last dollar on? Incapable of standing at a breathtaking vista and just, as Mara says Being There?
May 8, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Darren Rye, but not using their product.
Did I miss something, that by seeing a directed ad, that I’m using their product?
May 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Yes, Giselle Minoli I dream of an Invisibility Cloak, of peace and quiet and anonymity. What Tara Mulder describes creeps me out. I’m going back to Big Sur later this Summer, and also to a place closer to home, both for silent retreats. That calls to me right now.
May 8, 2013 at 7:48 pm
We all make choices when it comes to being online. If one doesn’t want targeted ads via email, don’t use Gmail. If one doesn’t want ads slowing down their browsing use ad blocker. If you want anonymous surfing, use a secure VPN.
I see it as picking and choosing our battles. The very fact you all are here on G+ means you can’t be that freaked out because you’ve already given over more info to the Google overlords that you likely will ever realize.
May 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Matthew Graybosch You are welcome to PM with your adblock tools, if you don’t mind 🙂
May 8, 2013 at 7:53 pm
I am as wired as possible Mara Rose but it is for the purpose of writing and exploring other people’s creativity, through film, literature, poetry, journalism…technology is there to help me do that, but I am very careful about making any assumptions about what I can do that would interfere with someone else’s anonymity (even in public…back to the original topic). Clearly there’s some sort of nerve here. With me it’s that I throw everything that comes in the mail out without even looking at it unless it’s a hand-written letter. It is always all junk. So the way that I get that ad-less, technology-less fix is to do exactly what you do. I sit outside with a glass of wine and stare at the sunset. Nature does it for me. The ocean? The best Zen there is.
May 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Matthew Graybosch We have a Potus who is selling out your right and my right to the 4th ammendment via our email and social media posts. Look at the news today. As a two-time voter for him, I’m dismayed that he has taken the cue of the Right and is showing no regard for privacy rights online in the silly false assumption that it will protect us from the evil doers.
May 8, 2013 at 7:57 pm
James Barraford I hear what you are saying and clearly am missing a chip because I don’t think about it at all. Whatever they throw back at me I just block. I will coming crying if they muck up my nice page here with Ads in the future however. I can’t be on FB for more than 60 seconds without getting a headache. I do what Matthew Graybosch although I don’t have is skills so I do the best I can. My life is as Ad free as possible. Being a woman is a wonderful thing, but when it comes to advertising it is a horror because they target us for everything day in and day out. It’s a wonder we’re all not poor. I suppose you gentlemen feel the same, Yes?
May 8, 2013 at 7:59 pm
I’m aware of this James Barraford. It’s very disturbing…like signing into law the Monsanto Protection Act. I do not understand why he has to do this in his second term. There is something going on here that I can’t put my finger on…
May 8, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Giselle Minoli I ad block. I VPN. And I know that it’s all for nothing when it comes to the gov’t.
The best I can do is tell Madison Ave I’m not interested in feminine hygene products or condom ads in my streams.
May 8, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Giselle Minoli I am so with you! Zen and Nature :).
I recently did a Google search on a topic that was innocuous, but obscure. Almost immediately, that topic showed up in my on-line New York Times in an advertisement. That creeped me out. I don’t want to go on, but there is my nerve. I’ve taken steps to protect my on-line privacy since then, but I also now recognize that it doesn’t really exist.
May 8, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Giselle Minoli He was never the progressive some wanted him to be. He is much more pragmatic then progressive, like Bill Clinton.
There are great powers behind the scenes that at the end of the day call the shots. Potus’s can have little things here and there to make them happy, but they have masters to serve and when the masters want something… Gitmo to stay open, my email to be searched without warrant, Monsanto to patent food… then it’s going to happen.
May 8, 2013 at 8:06 pm
James Barraford I haven’t seen the news today, no TV. Where can I find more on this disturbing story?
May 8, 2013 at 8:06 pm
But James Barraford and Matthew Graybosch that is exactly the reason that I don’t think about it. My father was blacklisted and I learned long, long ago what the gov’ment is capable of doing. My response to that reality, is to do everything in Public rather than hiding. I only post public. I saw everything publicly. I am who I am and I apologize to no one. If you are transparent there is nothing to accuse one of . My home is another matter entirely.
May 8, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Thanks Matthew Graybosch I use Firefox.
May 8, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Giselle Minoli You know we would have a killer show…. Jamie & Giselle….. Giselle & Jamie. There would be people gnashing teeth.
May 8, 2013 at 8:15 pm
Mara Rose http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/
May 8, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Matthew Graybosch If you can think of a way to deprive them of their wealth and power then I’ll be there for you. Until then, the strongest survive, the rest exist.
May 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Matthew Graybosch I think the food chain goes above the FBI, but I don’t have any proof so it’s just me talking.
May 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm
This is my view exactly Matthew Graybosch. My father’s dossier is a fascinating document. It is why the issue of true Freedom is so important to me. It is why I will post about religion, I will post about politics, I will post about the things that women particularly get told they cannot talk about. I will not be afraid of speaking out. Should something happen to my health such that I am not longer able to speak or express what I think, so be it. But I will not willingly give up my right because I am afraid of someone finding out what I think.
Thank you for the link James Barraford.
May 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm
I would love the Google powers to exam this thread. What an interesting twisting and turning going on.
Bradley Horowitz Vic Gundotra
May 8, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Well James Barraford now that you have thrown me to the wolves (okay…I threw myself), I hope you brought extra popcorn. I mean this thread was inspired by a Schmidt -ism that rankles. And should rankle. And if it didn’t rankle I hope it does now…
May 8, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Oh the Google Powers are examining this thread alright. What makes you think they are human beings?
May 8, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Did anyone else get a chance to listen to the interview with Jarod Lanier (the Father of Virtual Reality) that Luis Roca suggested last evening? It is worth it and here is the link. I think it’s still “active:”
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/may/07/
I’m really grateful to you for that Luis Roca because it’s pertinent and thought-provoking in ways that extend far beyond this post. 🙂
May 8, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Giselle Minoli I’m going to try to stream it in my car on the way home tonight. Will let you know what I think of it!
May 8, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Thank you for the link James Barraford ~ really sickening. IMHO there is a lot of corporate money behind the scenes, and Citizens United did not help. But very hard to prove. I think about gaslighting and how hard that is to prove, and how as a society, we are being gaslighted–being told we must submit to this violation of our essential privacy in the name of safety, when the real issues, it seems to me, are money, power, and control. OK, off my soap box now.
May 8, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Thanks for the reminder Giselle Minoli will do so tonight!
May 8, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Listened to the whole thing. He’s kind of a more palatable Morozov. Book could be worth a read. Didn’t really care for the interviewer however.
Edit — definitely worth a listen. Sorry for the terseness, i’m mobile!
May 8, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Leonard Lopate is the brother of the well-known essayist and memoirist Philip Lopate Brian Titus. I met PL at the Writers Institute in Upstate New York years ago. Very funny man. Talented quirky writer.
May 8, 2013 at 11:40 pm
What I like about Jaron is he’s trying to project out into the future of these devices — what if everyone had one? What would it mean? People like Scoble tout Glass as a personal solution for their world. In fact, this is the best possible time for Scoble because he’s virtually got Glass to himself. However, his experience doesn’t help us frame questions about the future because it doesn’t consider anyone else.
May 9, 2013 at 12:30 am
Brian Titus your comment is why I am always interested not in the technological or business sides per se, but in the artistic and creative side. James Barraford wondered if a Marxist can be an Apple support, but the reason that I was initially attracted to Apple was because the two people who started that company saw the potential for the individual. Of course they saw the potential to make money, so we don’t need to gnaw on that bone again, but it wasn’t easy. Everyone was against them and thought it was too expensive, too artsy fartsy, not grounded in reality, you know, yada yada yada. I have always worked in businesses where there was a creative department and it was interesting to see the “suits” on their PCs surrounded by the Creative Mo Fos and their Macs, which would stay late and work on that environment because it was so great to create on. And this is true in publishing in architecture in the music business, in film, in photography…much of the creative world is still on Macs…it was a vision of making everyone who wanted to be creative…giving them the opportunity to bring out of their imaginations something and manifesting it in reality.
Bill Gates (and Stephen Spielberg) did ask what if everyone had a computer? But great thinkers about the greater good have been asking what if every child can read? What if no child is left behind? What if everyone can have an education?
Those are powerful creative messages. But…for Schmidt to say that if there is something you are doing in public that you don’t want anyone to know about then you shouldn’t be doing it…this is not a creative message. This is a threatening message. This is a negative message. There is nothing there that makes me go Wow! I am so inspired.
I like what Jarod was saying about the people who are the thinkers, the ponderers, the imaginers of the future, the visionaries…they are not necessarily the best people to manifest it as a way to make a living.
Brian Titus at the beginning and end of my day I always turn in some way to someone who inspires me creativity. That is energy. That is fuel for the fire. And it can be a poet, an artist, a dancer…a thinker…but never someone who threatens me.
May 9, 2013 at 11:22 am
Speaking of creepy advertising…
On March 31st, I ordered Cracking the AP Calculus AB & BC Exams, 2013 Edition (College Test Preparation) from Amazon.com. For my high-schooler, of course.
Yesterday he took the AP exam (which he thinks he aced, by the way).
This morning I have an email from Amazon, subject line:
B. Titus, did ‘Cracking the AP Calculus AB & BC Exams, 2013 Edition (College Test Preparation)’ meet your expectations? Review it on Amazon.com
May 9, 2013 at 11:55 am
It’s the automated connection of events that I find a little creepy. But, that’s the way the world is going.
May 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Google Glass hands-on: This isn’t and never will be a good device for consumers
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/09/google-glass-hands-on-review/
If you’re using it recreationally, not professionally to complete a task, don’t kid yourself — it’s not enhancing your life. It’s robbing you of the joy of actually experiencing your life.
I was wondering when we’d get the first counterpoint from an owner. For a while now I’ve been thinking about Glass in the way she’s described it, but it’s good to see someone with the device do the writing. Also, I’ve been considering doing the same thing she writes in closing: And train yourself to rely less on your smartphone, while you’re at it.
May 9, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Loved the story, though never say never. My geek side wants to try Glass. My other side says…. my wife and I go to DC several times a year. While there we see the tourists doing Segway tours. Remember Segways and how they were going to reinvent cities and transportation?
May 9, 2013 at 5:21 pm
In general I don’t like that virtually every topic seems to boil down to a My Way or the Highway belief system, whether it’s agree with a foreign policy or it is technology…anyone who says they aren’t crazy about some new toy, some seemingly etched in stone policy, they are accused of not being with it, not being hip, not getting something, not understanding some deep, deep concept. Technology is here to enhance our individual lives in ways that work for us. It is not here to control us or make us feel less than if we have the courage to speak up and question it all.
So glad not every wildebeest is jumping in to the rushing river filled with hungry gators…
May 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Hi Giselle. Last night, as I was delving through the current book I’m reading it occurred to me that the book discussed much of what is being talked about here. So for your perusal and enjoyment might I suggest Douglas Rushkoff’s “Present Shock”. Very topical to this dialog.
May 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Giselle Minoli Where do you go in NYC to attend Luddites Anonymous meetings?
May 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
James Barraford I wrote up a post about Segway a week or two ago re: its comparison to Glass:
I don’t think people really understand why Segway did not “succeed” after all the hype surrounding it. It’s not because they were expensive, or dorky, or for lazy people, or even that they were a solution in search of a problem. It’s because in order to be successful, our society’s basic ideas about the purpose of powered transportation would have had to change. The world in which everyone uses a Segway is one with a very different physical arrangement of many things — homes, workplaces, shopping centers, and the infrastructure connecting them.
If you started with a Segway as a given, you would build very different towns and cities. But going the other way — starting with the towns and cities (and sidewalks and roads) we have and creating vehicles to navigate them — well, you get cars. And no matter how you look at it, the Segway could never replace the car.
So the big questions we should be asking should not be focused on individual use. Yes, whether or not I want it, or can afford it, or how I feel about someone taking a picture of me with it are things to consider. But I think the big questions are more like this: what would a world in which everyone uses Glass look like? How would society and its infrastructure (physical and virtual) have to change? What tradeoffs would we have to make and would we be willing to make them?
I know that many people think we’ve already answered these questions through our rapid adoption of smartphones. Perhaps, but I’m not so sure. I think the nature of Glass is very different, and we know that it’s different. Hence the hype and interest. And to me, it’s the answers to those “big” questions that will determine the success or failure of Glass.
May 9, 2013 at 5:26 pm
love that last bit Giselle 🙂
The wild
May 9, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Brian Titus I realized how fast I’ve become “borg’ed” when I was watching a tv show the other night from 2008 and the character had a flip phone and I mocked him. Then I realized it was 2008 when I traded in my flip phone for an iPhone 2.
May 9, 2013 at 5:48 pm
I wouldn’t know James Barraford. I can’t get out of my apartment what with all the wires, technology, ‘puters, monitors, keyboards, modems, tools, machinery and modernism. In fact I don’t often. I just load in enough food and wine for months and only go out when there is something artistic that coaxes me out!
May 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Hmmmm Brian Titus I love my BBerry more than my iPhone (crazy I know), but my favorite technology is my iPad which I take everywhere. I go back and forth between needing/wanting the nature solitude that Mara Rose described yesterday and that the Luddite-hunter James Barraford wrote about a couple of weeks ago, and wanting to go back to school and learn out to code. I think I would ask my favorite contrarian Matthew Graybosch to teach me if I ever did that. I vacillate between listening to Cream and silence, between wanting to fly a plane with the latest technology to wanting to be back in a glider, between wanting every room to be wired to wanting no one to be able to reach me. Makes sense to me.
May 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Giselle Minoli If you were really a tech Goddess you would whip out your iPhone and use Pizza Huts app and not have to survival mode hoard.
May 9, 2013 at 5:55 pm
Strange Brew and silence do not mix.
May 9, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Yeah but James Barraford you haven’t had my home-made pizza now have you? Ask Brian Altman. I warn you: come to my house to eat and you will swear off fast food for ever. The man hasn’t had a MacDonalds in years. Can’t make my pasta sauce with technology either. 🙂
May 9, 2013 at 5:57 pm
No they don’t James Barraford. In fact I would say that Strange Brew is to music what Martinis are to alcohol: Loud Mouth Soup!
May 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Giselle Minoli we are plant-strong eaters. We don’t do processed food, let alone fast food. Pizza Sounds yummy
You dare slam Strange Brew?
I don’t know you anymore.
Btw… I’m writing a story about my mom for this weekend you’ll fine interesting. Some names not changed to not protect the guilty.
May 9, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Giselle Minoli We’re going to The Magdalena Islands this September for a week. They are in the middle of Gulf of ST. Lawrence off Newfoundland. My always connected side is already starting to convulse. I’m praying for a wifi hotspot somewhere there.
May 9, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Comparing Strange Brew to a Martini (a real one) is a compliment James Barraford (what am I to do with you?). Kindly ping me your story this weekend???? So I don’t miss it????
May 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm
So I know this is a little bit of a tangent, but one of the things that Jaron Lanier mentioned several times in the radio interview was the idea of the “winner-take-all economy.” Today I happened to run across this story which references that phrase. Very interesting.
…it may be that the less lavishly educated children lower down the income distribution aren’t the only losers. Being groomed for the winner-take-all economy starting in nursery school turns out to exact a toll on the children at the top, too.
also,
It turns out that our children are feeling the same paradoxical strains of the 21st century that we all are. Increasingly, we live in individualistic democracies whose credo is that anyone can be a winner if he or she tries. But we are also subject to increasingly fierce winner-take-all forces, which means the winners’ circle is ever smaller, and the value of winning is ever higher.
Poor little rich kids
http://news.yahoo.com/column-poor-little-rich-kids-173011492.html
May 9, 2013 at 8:15 pm
I think it’s all of a piece Brian Titus. It’s what people want to be affiliated with, what they think will happen to their lives if they are affiliated with this as opposed to that. I just got off the phone with my stepson, who got into a Masters/Graduate program that’s pretty forward thinking and he told me that after the school won the basketball championship applications to the school soared. It’s where the money goes, it’s where the press goes, it’s where the story is, the energy…all that. So, right now, going back to “Glass,” there’s a lot of energy around it. As there is around the release of Gatsby…and so it goes.
May 11, 2013 at 6:04 am
Good Evening Giselle Minoli I finally had a chance to listen to the Lopate/Lanier interview. Excellent. Thanks for posting.
May 13, 2013 at 12:23 am
Ahem…for those of you (yoohoo James Barraford) who would accuse me of being a Luddite…I’m a terrible one compared to the elite of Silicon Valley: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/disruptions-even-the-tech-elites-leave-gadgets-behind/?hp
May 13, 2013 at 1:21 am
Giselle Minoli Just cause you use a solar powered abacus…..
May 20, 2013 at 6:27 pm
I’m confused by the privacy reactions when I see so many people on the street staring into their cell phones, texting, listening to music, or.are.they.taking.video.of.me? Can you tell? Neither can I… Smaller and smaller cameras, drones, CCTV, last I checked I’m being filmed everywhere I go, drive, shop, etc. without my consent and often without my knowledge.
There’s some truth to the statement “If you are acting like a jerk or an idiot, someone in the crowd or group may decide to shoot video from their cell, and post your crazy shenanigans on youtube, correct?
May 20, 2013 at 6:40 pm
I think this article makes some more nuanced points about the effects that Glass or Glass-like products might have:
https://medium.com/editors-picks/3b33af8109cb
Today we assume that our conversations and our image is not by default recorded by other people in proximity. Not having a persistent record allows us to present a nuanced identity to different people, or groups of people, provides with the space to experiment with what we could be. The risk that what we say will be broadcast, narrowcasted to people we don’t know, or may underpin someone’s future business fundamentally changes what we want to talk about. The challenge for Glass is that the costs of ownership falls on people in proximity of the wearer, and that its benefits have yet to be proven out.
May 21, 2013 at 3:03 am
greg piedmo I can’t get away from my instinctual assumption that for Google this is a potential money maker based on their “hunch” that people are essentially voyeurs who are looking for ways to promote themselves at the expense of other people’s shenanigans, as you say. Let’s face it, if someone wants to be an orthopedic surgeon, they are going to be spending their time studying medicine. If someone wants to wreck havoc in someone else’s life, they are going to figure out ways to make mischief. Enter Google Glass. It’s all surreptitious because if it were obvious, people wouldn’t be so “ballsy,” now would they?
May 21, 2013 at 3:04 am
Brian Titus thank you…will read this…passing through Columbus, Ohio on my way back to New York…
November 14, 2013 at 7:01 am
I don’t understand how the whole “privacy” issue got so hot with Glass. I GUARANTEE I have a better chance of taking a photo of someone unnoticed with my phone (or Samsung Gear or any number of micro-cameras) than I do with Glass. In fact, Glass seems like one of the most obvious camera systems ever created. Have I missed something?
November 15, 2013 at 2:58 am
I guarantee that you do as well Michael-Rainabba Richardson. The art of taking a photograph, of there being some sort of process involved in that, some thought…framing the shot, setting it up, arranging it…the disrespect for that art is all rather like texting becoming the shorthand version of conversation. Letter writing (I love them) as an art is gone. I don’t mind Google Glass. I do mind the statements about what it will take the place of or what it will mean in the future. We are so gadget hungry I think everything is up for serious grabs…
November 15, 2013 at 6:35 am
As usual Gisele you are spot on about this.
To me I see this all as another symptom of the world transitioning to what Marshall Mcluhan termed “The Post Literate Society”.
All these devices are extensions of our senses, but sadly we are rushing to use them without giving proper consideration to the consequences.
Which is unfortunate. While the written word is being superseded by the immediacy of video and other visual communication, we are losing that introspective space we had with written communication. Speedy transmission of messages and stimulus doesn’t allow for the pause to ruminate on what we are absorbing.
And that only makes for a world of knee jerk, ADD riddled fools.
November 15, 2013 at 11:29 am
“A world of knee jerk, ADD riddled fools.”
That’s a harsh assessment.
As each new technology from the fire onward occurred, learning curves were needed and people figured out what worked for them. Nothing has changed but the technology itself. Reading a book was/sometimes still is considered a waste of time.
Impulse control (or the lack of) is nothing new. We will figure out what works for each of us and move on. Not everyone wants to ponder and that’s okay.
November 15, 2013 at 1:06 pm
Hi James Barraford. I’m really not so sure. As I said, I don’t mind Google Glass, but I do mind the lack of pondering. I think much more has changed aside from the invention of and availability of new technologies. Those technologies are changing us…the way we learn, the way we respond to things. All of the parents I know see it in and talk about it with respect to their children. The first conversation (decades ago) was how easy it is not to learn Math anymore because of the lovely calculator. That seemed harmless. Or was it harmless? Now there is no need to learn grammar or spelling because computer programs will (sort of) do it (badly) for you. Yesterday I watched (another) disturbing video on the AOPA that came my way through email. I watch them all because they have usually to do with aeronautical decision making, which fascinates me. In this particular case a fairly experienced pilot met his demise, along with his wife, two young children, a friend and the family dog in a very fancy expensive plane flying in circumstances he shouldn’t have been flying in. He simply thought the plane would protect him in unprotectable circumstances. Later I read an article by an extremely respected aviator about the dangers of not giving oneself time to ponder. His comments referenced the phases of absorbing, understanding, accepting and responding (appropriately) to circumstances and situations Quite simply the brain needs time to process what’s going on. While it may seem appropriate only to a life-and-limb situation, I am now seeing it every single day in business. As recently as 5 years ago, if someone wanted me to write a speech, I would have been asked how much lead time I needed to do it. Now I will get a call telling me that I should be able to do it in 5 hours, simply because that person’s understanding of technology means that everything can now, or should be, done quickly. Fast. Fast. Fast. Hurry up. Hurry up. Hurry up. I think there are two distinct issues – the technologies themselves…and how are brains and maybe even creative selves are reacting to it all…
November 15, 2013 at 2:06 pm
I watch children adapting technology in ways that just a decade ago would have been unthinkable. Yes, grammar as we knew it is changing and evolving. I’m not convinced that’s a bad thing.
I listened to the same thoughts in the late 70s and early 80s about math and calculators. Yet, kids still learned math and incorporated it into computer sciences and other areas. The same will happen with grammar. There is a tendency to forget that we are only four-five generations removed from a large part of the populace lacking the ability to read and write. Education being available to the chosen few.
Now we have taken a quantum leap in terms of what is available to our children. The disparity regarding the education system is another discussion.
My grandparents were farmers without the luxury to ponder.
Do I like seeing people buried in their mobile phones? No.
But I don’t see the situation as dire. I think in the end it’s all just a part of the March to evolve.
November 15, 2013 at 2:33 pm
I don’t see it as “dire” either James Barraford, but I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing at all. My grandparents (and parents, in fact, even though my father was an architect/engineer) were also farmers with none of the luxuries that we have today. But ponder they did. All the time, in fact, even though they worked long hours. Because they didn’t have the luxury of “toys” in my view, and just in my view, they were much more connected to many things in life. I don’t think it’s an issue of education or accessibility to education, it’s an issue of what one is taught – either by parents, or peers, or bosses or culture, can be done with the technology and education available. To one degree or another education has always been unavailable to so many. I would not be able to get the education I had now, at this time, because I went through school on scholarships. The reason that I fly is because it illustrates all, literally all of the issues I think we face as a culture. The pilot dolled up with toys might not be able to find his/her way out of a mess when all they have is technology, whereas the pilot trained in looking outside can figure out where they are. That is the anology I would use about Google Glass. Wisdom can be applied or not depending on the person. But I can tell, you, Jamie, I would not sit down to dinner with someone who was wearing Google Glass, any more than I would have dinner with someone whose nose was buried in their iPhone or iPad. There would be absolutely no reason for me to be there. This is not an anti-technology post. I love my technology, but I am keenly aware of how it has changed my life and I would be lying if I said that it was all good. It isn’t.
November 15, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Giselle, I agree. It’s not all beneficial. There are many moments when I think back twenty years ago to my four daily newspapers, mags, books and nothing to do but lay on the couch or a comfy chair and read. Just read and think. While Eric Clapton played on the stereo. (God, does that sound white suburbia LOL)
My grandmother suffered horribly her life on the farm. She was an artist. A painter and writer stuck in a situation that didn’t allow for those pursuits until she was old. We talked often of it and I think that’s why I’m such a free spirit.
Back to stuff …. I have Spotify playing lists, TV on sports, mobile phone texting, and checking news on my tablet.
My couch is nowhere near as comfy as it was twenty years ago.
November 15, 2013 at 2:51 pm
There is a wonderful book, Jamie…on late life creativity by the poet Molly Peacock, called The Paper Garden: Mrs. Delaney Begins Her Life’s Work at 72. Mrs. Delaney was born in England in 1700 and began her “career” as a botanical artist at 72. Her entire oeuvre hangs in the British Museum.
And you are so right…it is hard to find a comfy couch that doesn’t cost a fortune. Sigh.
But Eric Clapton makes me smile the big smile (save what happened to his little boy). Sigh.
November 15, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Giselle, book recommend- United States of Paranoia by Jesse Walker. Terrific interesting read. Also, finally reading The Plague by Camus.
November 15, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Jeez, Jamie…I know a great book for you, too! It’s called Catcher in the Rye!
November 15, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Ha ha. I missed school the day The Plague was read. I was out in the woods smoking pot and drinking budget beer.
November 15, 2013 at 8:11 pm
You have always been able to make me laugh James Barraford. Belly laugh. Out loud. For that I am so grateful.
November 15, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Me and Holden….. Rebels without a clue.
November 15, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Giselle Minoli Back to the original post. I was one of the people selected as a beta tester for Google Glass. I would have had to pay 1500 dollars for that privilege. How stupid is that? Especially when they put restrictions on usage including monitoring your use via email address. In other words, to transfer the Glass to someone else was a severe process. Smarter people than I am signed up on the beta list using newly created gmail addresses so that they could transfer without Google knowing. I’m obviously not that bright. I know, i know, it was meant to keep unscrupulous dirtbags like me from reselling at a huge profit instead of using as Google wanted.
Fine.
But don’t charge me 1500 for that privilege then. And yes, i get it…. many people were willing to pay the money and deal with Googles restrictions.
Ahem… yeah right. Most sold them for 3000-5000 on ebay. I wasn’t going to be one of them though.
In the end I’m not going to have a conversation with someone wearing dorky glasses that emit a red light and takes shitty photos.
Not until they are 200 dollars anyway.
November 17, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Roaring James Barraford. In the end I predict people will not be walking around all day long wearing Google Glass, not if they are doctors, lawyers, business people or anyone who wants to actually give their clients, friends, co-workers or children the impression they are actually paying attention to them. And while driving? That will be outlawed soon. And how are people who have complicated prescriptions (me) supposed to use them? All that aside…I don’t like feeling as though I am unpaid advertising for a brand…unless there is something indisputable I have gotten out of it. There is, for me, with G+ but Google Glass is different. Wearing them would not make me a better writer and that is pretty much the only thing that would change my mind about it. BTW you are pretty bright. It doesn’t take brains to resell on E-Bay. It takes greed.
November 18, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Hey Matthew Graybosch now you’re talking a whole new level of scary. Become the camera for a hive mentality and kiss singularity goodbye. Might as well dress like a Star Trek Borg while you’re at it. Also consider the possibility that by jacking your brain into an open system, the flow of information becomes two -way. Would you be the controller or the controled? The concept alone has spawned I’d say nearly half of all the great scifi cautionary tales out there.