Google Glass — Boon or Bane?
Depends which way you look at it!
There have been very few pieces of technology in recent times that have triggered as many debates or deemed more controversial than Google’s latest Google Glass.
The very nature of Google Glass, its ubiquity, its manifold capabilities driven by immense technology and the very fact that it is a device the likes of which haven’t really been seen before, lends some credibility to the world’s reticence to adopt, or even tolerate the usage of the device.
While people almost always fear the new and the unknown, yet in this case, the quoted fears may be somewhat warranted.
Allow us to explain.
For those not in the know, some background information — Google Glass is a wearable device developed by Google under it’s ‘Project Glass’. It basically mounts a small screen on the rim of a spectacle-like frame, allowing the user to receive a host of situationally-pertinent information on the go. Its interface, which is controlled using voice commands, allows you to check your phone’s notifications, emails, and even use maps all without having to take your phone or tablet out of the bag. Thus it allows you to keep your hands free to continue doing whatever they were. All fine so far?
Maybe.
The major problem that most people seem to have with the device is that it also has a in-built camera capable of taking photos and videos. This capability, coupled with the device’s inherent internet access could theoretically allow for the wearer to take photos or record and stream out videos anywhere, all without the explicit knowledge of the people being filmed.
With the rising privacy-consciousness (and it is often well-founded), it is of little surprise that more than a few people have jumped up in protest.
Google though counters this fear by reminding them that there is an LED on the device, that glows when video is being recorded. Thus making it clear when the camera is in use, and thereby allowing people to take the necessary steps to avoid being pictured in situations they do not find to their liking.
It could also be argued that there already are cheaper and far more concealable options available to film covertly. Hidden cameras have been around far longer than Google Glass, and the theory that some folks may buy a such an expensive piece of technology for a purpose easily achieved with a cheaper hidden camera, is hard to buy.
Another aspect of security harder to refute however, is Google itself. Let’s start with Google and its complicated, all-watching, omniscient capabilities. Many of us are already befuddled and concerned with how much of our lives, habits and personal data Google already knows about (and even uses — albeit for “innocuous” purposes like “suggesting ads”). Glass will only add to that information pool, about us and the people we meet, interact with, locations we frequent etc.
On the platform side, Google Glass currently runs on Google’s Android OS. Being open-source, Android as a platform, is relatively easy to hack. and this has been a long-standing concern of almost all Android users. And this is not an unfounded myth. Security giant McAfee has already demonstrated that Android can be taken over and run remotely by a third party. Additionally, almost every handset manufacturer that uses Android customises it’s code and user interface. Hence slipping in a “backdoor” is an easy possibility.
Concerns that a person may be able to remotely activate the camera on your Glass or smartphone are not new. Unlike smartphones, that spend a large percentage of their lives hidden in pockets, bags, purses or flat on tables, head-mounted cameras could increase that risk and consequences exponentially. A person with the required skill set could theoretically record whatever the user is seeing, with or without the user’s knowledge; a scary prospect to say the least!
Citing these concerns, many work places and recreational spots have pre-emptively banned Glass within their premises. There is legal action being taken against Google in Europe, where activists say it is possible that Google is tapping into its potential gold mine of user data.
Though these allegations still remain unconfirmed, yet they have taken a toll and led to the creation of doubt among the consumers’ minds.
And Google’s problems don’t end there.
While privacy concerns can be brushed aside with more stringent laws, or maybe even banning the use of Google Glass in specific places, the danger associated with the use of the device is another matter completely. Science has already proven that multi-tasking is not a common skill. We already see the effect of distraction when we look at the poor driving displayed by folks who’re chatting away on the phone. While we may brush it off as a minor irritant as we overtake them and go on with our journey, yet the risk cannot and should not be ignored as easily.
Back to Google Glass… it has been reported that the usage of Glass can cause a significant distraction to someone as they continue to work with their now free hands, thus posing a threat to both the user, and others around him.
A recent court case in the US, against Californian Cecilia Abadie, who was cited for wearing Google Glass while driving, marks what many believe is the first of many legal cases surrounding the device. While she was found not guilty as there was no proof that the device was operating while she was driving, the ruling brought to light the dangers associated with usage of Glass.
Glass may be a major distraction to drivers.
All this being said, it is important to remember that Glass is still in a very nascent stage of its development. Chip-Monks believes that Technology must be given equal opportunity to be evaluated, allow time to identify checks and controls, and most importantly, to realise its benefits.
The technology behind Glass has some other benefits that we mayn’t have considered yet, and with future App development there may be integrations between the car and Glass, the camera of which may perhaps be able to alert a driver of an unnoticed danger instead of putting him in it.
Placing too many restrictions on the device so early on, may prevent this technological innovation from realising its full potential. If Glass is never allowed in cars, developers may never be able to think of how it can be applied to improve the driving experience.
Let’s look at it another way, shall we? Glass is a device looking to redefine the way we look at portable computers and users have already begun to realise the many applications it could have. Facial recognition may sound creepy now, but consider a case in which Glass recognises a wanted criminal. Doesn’t sound too bad now, does it?
The problem is that Glass may never get a chance to meet these expectations if it is regulated prematurely. Considering the plethora of wearable devices that are going to be hitting the market over the next few years, governments and agencies should be looking to lay down laws concerning the usage of these devices at the earliest.
Google Glass is a true innovation in technology, completely changing the perception of what computers can be. The dangers to both privacy and health associated with its usage are also very real.
It is now up to policy makers to decide to what extent this device should be accepted and in what fashion. They must try their best to draw a line which, while not hampering the growth of the technology, tackles the problems it’s creating, effectively.
The future won’t change just because we don’t want it to! Else man wouldn’t have discovered fire…
Originally published at Chip-Monks.
