black holes and gray matter. in one thousand tangos.

             
Thirty-Five Arguments Against Google Glass

I put forth the modest proposition that Google Glass, conjured and constructed and conceived only in terms of “cool” and propped up by ostensible “journalists” who have never thought to question Mr. Brin’s brilliant PR, could pose more problems to our world than any digital invention we have seen in some time. Contrary to Mr. Brin’s suggestions, his device will not “free” us. It will quite possibly destroy several vital qualities of life we now take for granted, preying upon kind and decent and hardworking people who are still playing pickup from an economic blitzkrieg in which they had no power, little hope, and no control. One would think that a man born in Moscow under Brezhnev would grasp the cruel irony of being directly responsible for an entirely new set of encroachments upon freedom and human possibility. On the other hand, great hills of money often move mountains in other ranges.

Here are thirty-five arguments against Google Glass:

ARGUMENT ONE
It could destroy whatever shreds of privacy we have left.

This is the greatest criticism against Google Glass. So let’s look at this in terms of law. If present terms are not refashioned by Congress in the next year to meet the realities of 2014 digital life, Google may be helped by current law, which may not protect the American public from the “electronic communications” of video recorded from a pair of glasses and uploaded to Google. The Stored Communications Act, drafted and legislated in 1986, was put into place well before webmail, social media, and cloud computing were realities. And until the SCA is updated by legislators to reflect today’s world, it remains possible that a Google Glass video — if it is defined as an “electronic communication service” comparable to email — will remain unprotected because of how the SCA now defines “electronic storage.” (See these recent cases for the present state of affairs, including Jennings v. Jennings, in whichthe South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that accessing another person’s email doesn’t count as a violation — even when the other person correctly guesses the email account’s security questions. But see also Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256, 258, 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), in which a court defined YouTube as “remote computing service” — the counterpart to “electronic communication service” — without supplying a reason.)”

READ ON.

/ Show
  1. teenage-handmodel reblogged this from kateoplis
  2. cynaschism reblogged this from kateoplis
  3. thinkingupblognamesishard reblogged this from kateoplis and added:
    Google Glass troubles me and this covers it all rather better than my thoughts had got to.
  4. puddlejump reblogged this from kateoplis
  5. narcissasstic reblogged this from pointdironie
  6. pointdironie reblogged this from kateoplis
  7. a-zesty-lo0n reblogged this from kateoplis
  8. evillordzog reblogged this from kateoplis
  9. grumblelog reblogged this from kateoplis and added:
    Google, PLEASE leave us alone!
  10. west-ward reblogged this from kateoplis
  11. thirdeyedave reblogged this from kateoplis
  12. monsterbeard said: This whole thing made me want to throw up :(
blog comments powered by Disqus
©2011 Kateoplis