Google Glass and the PR of Privacy

For more on Privacy and Tech, pls visit http://privacy-net.com

Google Glass is looking straight at a PR crisis in the making. Until now, there had been various rumors of discontent. A few places, notably casinos and bars, saying that Google Glass not be allowed on premises. Then, there was a letter from Congress. Now, with the sensitivities aroused by the PRISM controversy, the blowback has reached crisis proportions.

It’s reported today that ten government privacy and data protection officials from seven countries have have sent a letter to Google. They’re asking Google to address privacy concerns about Google. The letter was sent to Google CEOLarry Page by privacy officials from Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Israel and Switzerland.

The questions raised in the letter:

• How does Google Glass comply with data protection laws?
• What are the privacy safeguards Google and application developers are putting in place?
• What information does Google collect via Glass and what information is shared with third parties, including application developers?
• How does Google intend to use this information?
• While we understand that Google has decided not to include facial recognition in Glass, how does Google intend to address the specific issues around facial recognition in the future?
• Is Google doing anything about the broader social and ethical issues raised by such a product, for example, the surreptitious collection of information about other individuals?
• Has Google undertaken any privacy risk assessment the outcomes of which it would be willing to share?
• Would Google be willing to demonstrate the device to our offices and allow any interested data protection authorities to test it?

This week, scientist, activist and philosopher Noam Chomsky also raised questions. Actually, they were more than questions. In an interview Chomsky called Google Glass “ridiculous” and a “way of destroying people.” Pretty tough stuff.

The lessons here are of value to really anybody involved in creative pursuits. Lesson Number One is to identify and respond to concerns proactively. Google Glasses aren’t even available to the public. They’re in beta. Yet everyone is sure of the threats posed. Google should have done a much better response of responding to potential concerns proactively.

We’re talking about a public raised on comic books filled with advertisements for x-ray glasses. And here they are! Of course we’re concerned! Chomsky and others assumed incorrectly that the glasses would be include a camera and a recording device. Others assumed facial recognition features. It would have been easy to allay these concerns.

Lesson Number Two is to provide information. Don’t leave things to the imagination. When there’s an option people will generally choose to go with the one that’s more worrisome, especially when it comes to privacy. That’s just the way we’re wired. People ask, “If there’s nothing to be concerned about, why didn’t they just tell us?” We’ve been expecting it to be 1984 since George Orwell wrote the book.

The fact is that Google Glass operates much as an extension of your mobile phone, to which it’s connected. It can also take photos and record video hands-free, and connect to social networks, Google Maps and others send alerts and updates to a screen above the user’s right eye. As a fashion statement… Well the jury’s still out.

The reality of Google Glass is not in line with the concerns that are grabbing the headlines. It would have been easy for Google to head off concerns at the outset. Now, it’s much harder to control the concerns once they’ve gone viral.