Google Banning Facial Recognition Apps on Glass

Status
Not open for further replies.

aeurix

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2008
34
0
18,530
0
I got into a discussion with my hardcore libertarian friend about something like this. It came down to basically anywhere your personal eyes can view, you should be allowed to record.
So you could prevent trespassers from filming while on your property, by stopping them from entering your property (same with security at banks, top secret govt. agencies, etc.) if you didn't want it on camera.
I would love to have a Google Glass App that told me I was walking by a celebrity or famous scientist...
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
3,441
0
20,780
0
They are just holding back the tide with this. As soon as Glass goes public in an affordable way apps will come out for this immediately.
Personally, I agree with aeurix's friend. It should be legal to record/analyze any sounds/images from public property. The only way to mostly prevent this is to completely ban any device that records video.
 

Mike Honcho

Honorable
May 1, 2013
25
0
10,530
0
My mom told me I couldn't stay out past midnight when I was younger. Guess what? I did anyway. Stay classy Google. Privacy is overrated to you guys.
 

Mike Honcho

Honorable
May 1, 2013
25
0
10,530
0
My mom told me I couldn't stay out past midnight when I was younger. Guess what? I did anyway. Stay classy Google. Privacy is overrated to you guys.
 

neodude007

Distinguished
May 25, 2008
125
0
18,680
0
I am having a hard time seeing what is different about Glass vs a smartphone that can already do the same thing in terms of privacy. Are people freaking out about Glass simply because it is harder to tell WTF the person wearing them is making it do???! That seems sillly.
Anybody can put their phone in video recording mode, hold it to their ear like they are talking and walk around a gym locker room and record faces/wangs. Glass is different how...?
 

hoofhearted

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
1,020
0
19,280
0
Sideload the Spokeo APK. It will hover a balloon over them with their income, street address, etc. Then a GPS style app the will show a virtual arrow going to their house like in Bioshock Infinite. Muggers should have an easier time picking their marks now.
 

hausman

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2010
22
0
18,510
0
Why not allow facial/voice recognition for people already in your contacts? Seems to me to be a way to allow for technological advancement while protecting the privacy of strangers.
 

Jacek Ringwelski

Honorable
May 24, 2013
11
0
10,510
0
I don't see what the issue is. If you are on public property the 1st amendment grants you the right to take pictures and video of ANYTHING you want. What you do with that information is your own business, it does not violate anyone's right to look them up as the information you are looking up is public knowledge. ie. A criminal record and driving record check will tell you pretty much everything you need to know about a person.
I can see this as being a GREAT tool for use by police officers. Forget dash mounted camera's in their cars, here comes google glass with face recognition. Big RED target sign over anyone with an outstanding warrant, instant driving record when you approach a vehicle. Just think of the possibilities! Heck google glass can even examine your eyes while the police officer talks to you to detect intoxication or the probability you are lying the to police officer.
 


Than only applies to PUBLIC locations. The vast majority of places you go are not public and all have rules, many with "no photography/recording". Is it ILLEGAL? No. But you dont have any rights on private property, including the mall/grocery store. You don't follow the rules you get thrown out.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
1,636
0
19,860
27


Boiled down the 1st amendment prevents the making of laws that would impede Freedom of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition. Where did you read "and the right to record video and audio of anyone on public property"?

In many states it is illegal to record audio or video of any person without their prior knowledge or consent. This directly relates to the 5th amendment self-incrimination, the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the 1st amendment freedom of speech and the right to assemble. Sure, you might not be available for trial in a federal court, but you could still rot in a state prison easy enough.

As a tool for police, rural police are primarily elected to their positions and have to play by the rules to keep their jobs. City police on the other hand are generally immune to the effects of abusing the rights of or breaking laws placed on normal citizens.

The potential for abuse of facial recognition software in the hands of police is far greater than any benefit that could be had from using it. "Who watches the watchmen?" As for military, counter intelligence, or anti-terrorist uses this could be a great tool, but for police it would be far overstepping their authority.
 


So to be clear, your position is that police instantly knowing if they are looking at a suspect, or wanted criminal (who is a danger to you) and arresting them is much MUCH worse than them having to stop, question, and possibly detain innocent people trying.to find the suspect? Let me hold your tinfoil hat.

That's like arguing license plate scanners are abused. The system. And the cops. Don't give a farm who you are and it doesn't even register unless the COURT is looking for you.

most of us don't live in horrible giant cities and have no issues with police. Most who do live in horrible cities don't have problems. the police divisions that get out of hand are operating in criminal areas where they can get away with it, and hiring corrupt people. And for the most part the corrupt cops in major scandals are just criminals "abusing" other criminals.
 

blurr91

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2004
339
0
18,780
0


How about if I take the publicly available information on cops, and load them to a data base. Anyone with an app will instantly know if there's an off duty or undercover cop roaming about?

We still have the police roster as public information, do we not? Or have we advanced to using secret police to do government biddings?
 

echozero

Honorable
Mar 15, 2013
17
0
10,510
0
People have problem with this? It is not just for privacy but also safety for everyone.
Other than what blurr91 have said it will be nightmare for law reinforcement.
Have you ever consider what it will happen if it fall into wrong hand? Stalker / sex predator don't even need to stalk to know their victims. They can just scan and they will know everything of his potential targets instantly while drink at coffee shop or wait for public transportation.
 

David Zientara

Honorable
May 23, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
Sounds like a good way for Google to shield itself from legal liability while jailbroken versions of Google Glass would be able to run the facial recognition apps.
 

abbadon_34

Distinguished
Aug 7, 2008
1,869
0
19,960
63
it will be interesting to see how the loved billion dollar company navigates the regulatory waters compared to the similarly revolutionary but less politically connected Segway, now relegated to the wheelchair and scooter market.
 

superblahman123

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2009
144
0
18,680
0
"I don't see what the issue is. If you are on public property the 1st amendment grants you the right to take pictures and video of ANYTHING you want. What you do with that information is your own business, it does not violate anyone's right to look them up as the information you are looking up is public knowledge."
Tell that to Google and their mostly people-less street view... Tell that to reality tv producers that spend money to blur out peoples faces and license plates... No, you're wrong.
 

Jacek Ringwelski

Honorable
May 24, 2013
11
0
10,510
0


"Boiled down" the US 1st appellate court ruled unanimously that taking pictures and video in a public place, you are permitted to be in, of objects and people in plain view from said public place is protected without exception (!!!) under the U.S. 1st Amendment. This ruling was passed in March 2010, due to a civil rights lawsuit against the city of chicago. (police officers arrested a civilian for video taping them)

so...."boiled down"....we a citizens can at any point claim we are citizen journalists (iReporters for CNN for example are all citizens unaffiliated with any major news media group). And as journalists we can take pictures and record video at any time we are on public property, or on private property with the permission of the property owner. The only exception is audio record, including when video is recorded with audio, because it violates state wiretap laws in CERTAIN states. Consult your state laws to see if you have wiretap laws which recording video in public locations would violate. If it does, disable audio recording and your legal once again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY