[Noisebridge-discuss] Google Glass at the space?

Gregory Dillon gregorydillon at gmail.com
Mon Apr 14 00:29:21 UTC 2014


I'd very much like to try Google glass out.   So if you have a try out
list, I'd like to apply.

But as a society in the US, and in Noisebridge, we haven't yet figured out
when its okay to use Glass and when it creates more negatives.

I am very certain that there will be a good number of  use cases where
Glass the will bring a lot of value to the world.   People speak of the
doctors doing surgery example, and a tool that can bring a lot of value to
the world, should continue to be developed.

For my own curiosity with tech items, I'd like to try them.   For the
bigger issues of understanding the balance between privacy and liberty, I
would like to see how they work so I can make up my own informed opinions
about them.



But societal,  in the US and in Noisebridge, we


On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 5:12 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a lot of people at Noisebridge that do not want to be subjected
> to continuous passive surveillance, myself included. Using Glass for
> experiments in the space (while leaving anyone who doesn't want to be
> recorded out of the frame) should be fine. Passively recording members and
> guests without their consent would not be okay.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Alfred Perlstein <bright at mu.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/14 3:54 PM, Nick Owens wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 03:37:13PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> This really is in no way a constructive response.  I would expect
>>>> that there would be a reasoning behind it as opposed to just a
>>>> "that's a bad idea" sort of reply.
>>>>
>>> okay.
>>>
>>> for starters, there's an item in the anti-harassment policy about
>>> 'harassing photography or recording'. ostensibly glass could be used to
>>> do that.
>>>
>>
>> I assume that trusted members noisebridge would use the glass only for
>> 1) experiments
>> 2) to review footage if there is an incident of theft of assault while
>> they are making use of the glass at the space.
>>
>>
>>
>>> secondly, a lot of folks at noisebridge just plain don't like people
>>> photographing or recording them. it's common courtesy at the space to
>>> ask everyone who could possibly be photographed or recorded if they
>>> consent to such.
>>>
>> Sure, if I was a laptop thieving junkie I wouldn't want people recording
>> me doing drugs or stealing things either.
>>
>>
>>
>>> on top of that, it's just plain stupid to expect that these devices will
>>> in fact remain at noisebridge. such an expensive and in-demand item
>>> would surely not last long.
>>>
>> Are you saying that the top echelon of noisebridgers (the board) are not
>> trustworthy enough to be loaned some hardware?  Remember we are talking
>> about a select few that have already been vetted as being trustworthy by
>> the community.  That said if the glass does happen to disappear then it
>> would be a very strong statement about the viability of noisebridge as a
>> safe and trustworthy space.
>>
>> Let's say we give glass to A and A's shortly disappears, we can easily
>> surmise that this person is not responsible nor trustworthy of their other
>> noisebridge responsibilities.
>>
>>
>>
>>> not only that, there's plenty of people in sf that just don't like
>>> glass. including many businesses in the near vicinity of noisebridge.
>>>
>>> http://www.glasshole-free.org/
>>>
>>
>> This would be for exclusive use inside the space, so I don't know what
>> your site has to do with anything I am proposing except that maybe we ought
>> to put a sign on the exit to remind people to remove the glass before
>> venturing into our unsafe neighborhood.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  We can all agree that anything learned via experimentation is worth
>>>> the money invested AND if we can get more security at the space it
>>>> would be an added bonus!
>>>>
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/
>>> 2013-January/034191.html
>>>
>>> i echo Martin's sentiment. draw your own conclusions.
>>>
>>> i apologize for being short with you in my first reply. i hope this
>>> email clears things up.
>>>
>>>  I think Martin should have installed tracking and surveillance measures
>> into the items he left out.  He could have very easily rid the space of
>> thieves.  Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alfred Perlstein
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>


-- 
Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140413/04458b01/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list