Glassholes beware: This guy's got your number

An artist/engineer working in Germany is sure to have sparked the next Google Glass debate: is it okay to simply block them from a network you control? There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes” taking the devices where they're not wanted or aren't legal (for example, driving), with outcomes ranging from being charged to …

[Alan W. Rateliff, II]

My network...

...my rules.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

This is a perceived problem at the moment, as a percentage there are very few Glass owners out there. It might be more problematic if 20 million people were walking round with them.

Anyway why put the effort disconnect them from your network when it would be more fun to beat them up.

[g e]

Re: My network... connection to it is...

A privilege, not a right

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

@OP - Would you also say my network my responsibility if anybody downloads illegal material over it?

You are just pandering to the popular vote and fashion for the dislike of google glass, you either poilice your network completely or don't. If you block one thing and not another then it can be interpreted as you condoning the latter.

[Ben Tasker]

Re: My network...

@AC - He said rules not responsibility.

"If you block one thing and not another then it can be interpreted as you condoning the latter."

Only by someone ill-informed enough to believe it's possible to actually block everything you don't like.

It's up to admins what they allow on their network, and you can police certain things without being compelled to police everything, it's really not an all or nothing situation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

>Only by someone ill-informed enough to believe it's possible to actually block everything you don't like.

Ooo bitchy, that hurt, handbags at dawn.

>It's up to admins what they allow on their network

You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

[Ben Tasker]

Re: My network...

> Ooo bitchy, that hurt, handbags at dawn.

Wasn't actually meant that way.....

> You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

True, but you used the word 'condoning'. Allowing something through inaction is not the same as condoning it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

>Wasn't actually meant that way.....

OK, I'll take the horse shoe out of my handbag.

>Allowing something through inaction is not the same as condoning it.

True, but I did say "can be interpreted as" not "is" and in this case action would have been taken so inaction can't be claimed. Imagine PC Plod comes alongs and nabs your equipment, he gets back to you.

PCP : I see you've blocked google glass users from your network, why?

You : I don't like them

PCP : So you're pretty clued up on how to configure these network things?

You : Yes

PCP : Then why is there a whole lot of child porn flowing across your network?

You : ???

Now can you see how it can be interpreted as condoning illegal activity.

[countd]

Re: My network...

@AC So if you are, say, blocking port 25 outgoing to all hosts but your mail provider, you are condoning people downloading child porn? #logicfail

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

It appears we have more dailymail readers on here than people will own up to.

>you are condoning people downloading child porn

Tell me where I said "you are condoning", I've even said it twice "can be interpreted as". If you have shown sufficient knowledge to be able to block port 25... then you can bet your shirt that the law will consider you have sufficient knowledge to block other things and will want a good reason as to why you didn't.

[DragonLord]

Re: My network...

Incorrect as the law recognises that you can only take "reasonable" steps to protect your network. It's the same as trying to protect your house. The law doesn't say that because you installed a lock it's your fault for not turning your house into an impenetrable bunker when it gets broken into.

Equally the law doesn't say that it's your fault if someone steals something of your if you told other people to leave.

The same's true in the IT arena. If you block port 25, that doesn't imply that you can block vpn connection 1..300,000 or that you can block traffic from www.kiddyfiddliersare.us without also blocking www.google.com - Infact I'd go so far as to say that there's a fairly high chance that you don't have access to the full black list of sites for kiddie porn. If you're saying, why don't you put a proxy in the way and use content filtering - Proxies don't deal with https very well (at all?).

If someone download kiddie porn over your network in the clear and the police trace it to your network. You'll be in for an arse of a time without your computers for the next 6 months while they go through them looking for any illegal content. But assuming that it wasn't you doing the downloading, then you'll get them back again eventually.

edit to add : Additionally having an auto deny process that monitors who's attached to the network and kicks of those that you've black listed every 30 seconds is very different to putting a proxy server on your connection and firewalling content/ports from those inside the network. They have a very different level of skill set needed to start with. Again it's similar to the difference between being able to fit a new lock to your house compared with being able to fit emergency shutters that are activated when an unauthorised person tries to enter the house.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

@DragonLord - I thought we were talking about commercial networks so apply your analogy to a bank and it falls down. Granted, it wouldn't have to be a mini fort Knox but it would be expected to fit more than a lock on it's front doot to protect itself.

[DragonLord]

Re: My network...

@AC - OK, so Imagine that I'm a small "mom & pop" cafe that provides internet access to increase the amount of time that people stay in the cafe, and thus buy more drinks...

Whoops there goes a commercial concern that may have the know how and kit to do one thing but not the other.

Why do you think that, in the UK at least, the major teleco's are providing the blocking software on their end rather than the consumer end?

[PirateKing]

Re: My network...

To make such a statement means you have witness'ed it or are doing it.. that means you have access'ed the network some how. If you cannot prove it, then it did not happen.

False statements can and WILL get you in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

"You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it."

I was going to make a long drawn out argument, against this with examples, but instead I've just deleted what I typed because...Total and utter bullshit...has more weight in this situation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

>was going to make a long drawn out argument, against this with examples

Aren't you the clever one. Go on admit, you couldn't come up with anything so decided to be ever so slightly on the edge and use a naughty word. I bet you can tick off all of these http://tinyurl.com/mudx9hn

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

"Aren't you the clever one. Go on admit, you couldn't come up with anything so decided to be ever so slightly on the edge and use a naughty word."

I thought it was pretty obvious that the legal systems in half the countries in the world work on an express permission in law. Everything being illegal unless permission is given. So the argument only works for countries where that is not the case. But of course you would need a bit more knowledge than what you can gather from the inside of your own arsehole. so you are forgiven for not getting the point.What you aren't forgiven for is being a daily fail reader.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

> I thought it was pretty obvious that the legal systems in half the countries in the world work on an express permission in law. Everything being illegal unless permission is given.

Could you please state the name of the country where you live, in which apparently a law says that it's OK to be an idiot?

[Gordon 11]

Re: My network...

You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

You are blocking the type of hardware connecting. You aren't blocking the data that gets accessed once connected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

Gordon, I think that has already been established, however by actively blocking something you have demonstrated you have the knowledge to configure your network.

I actually find all this rather irrelevant as I would have thought in general the best policy is to deny all access then add policies to allow specific access. The question should not be one of blocking google glass but would you allow it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

> You said it yourself, by not blocking something, you are allowing it.

Apologies for the insult, but I have the impression you may be one of those argumentative idiots who will keep on pushing their side of the argument with no interest whatsoever on listening to what the other side has to say. I will refrain from acting under that assumption for now, and respond to you.

* The other poster is talking about blocking devices from his network, not content (nor even users), so your argument is entirely moot.

* The law determining the extent of responsibility of network operators, where it is legislated at all, varies by jurisdiction. Where it is not legislated, and no jurisprudence exists or is applicable, is up to the person responsible for the network to decide what uses are permitted on his property, and who is responsible for what.

* Out of morbid curiosity, I can't help wondering if you're not the (ahem) proud owner one of those Google Spectacle Thingies.

[photobod]

Re: My network...

Well, I have to disagree, on the basis that your position is morally untenable to me.

I was taught to believe that that all power (such as the ability to impose rules on your own network) has an associated responsibility. It's one of my earliest moral lessons and still holds true.

The disassociation of responsibility from power is the cause of many of society's problems, and your statement is a perfect embodiment of a culture of entitlement, based on power and rights without any responsibility.

Sure, it's your network, so you can impose whatever rules you wish, but it is then your fault if you do not explicitly block something illegal when you could, because you have demonstrated that you have the power to do so.

[DragonLord]

Re: My network...

@photobod - As the OP is blocking devices, wouldn't that mean that he is responsible for blocking other devices once he finds out they are performing illegal actions rather than blocking content that you and the poster above were implying.

I say this as by blocking a device you're not implying that you can stop devices from downloading illegal content as you've done nothing with the content.

[Charles Manning]

Power and responsibility

If you have the power to rid the world of glassholes then, yes, you have the responsibility to do so!

[Sander van der Wal]

Re: My network...

Seems to me preventing glassholes to video everybody on the premises is taking one's responsability seriously.

Secondly, he's only looking at the MAC address. He's not peeking into the traffic. Very hard to police for illegal stuff, unless of course certain MAC addresses must be prevented by law or court order from accessing publicly available networks.

[Christopher E. Stith]

Re: My network...

No, no, no. Blocking devices by MAC address is not the same as deep content inspection, classification, and filtering. A MAC address is presented to your network and easy to check. Lots of bog standard kit will allow and disallow specific MAC addresses, or assign them specific IP pools, or what have you. It's easy to automated. Knowing that the file someone is seeding to a torrent (maybe over SSL or TLS) is an underage porn pic or that the credit card information they just ordered from Amazon with (definitely over SSL or TLS) is from a purloined card are not even in the same conversation.

[Rick Giles]

Re: My network...

"Would you also say my network my responsibility if anybody downloads illegal material over it?"

Wow... I've heard some pretty stupid comments on here, but wow.

Yes, if someone is DLing illegal stuff, i.e. rips of movies, guess whose anus the MPAA is going to have NSA all up in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

>Yes, if someone is DLing illegal stuff, i.e. rips of movies, guess whose anus the MPAA is going to have NSA all up in...

Let's see : Commercial concern. Your boss isn't going to be very happy with you that the MPAA is threatening his company with a lawsuit because you've allowed his employees to download illegal stuff let alone have not clamped down on using a company resource for personal use.

[Annihilator]

Re: My network...

To paraphase the BOFH: "Show me an Ethernet collision and I'll show you a network that could do with one user fewer"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

Our IT folks must connect employee WiFi devices to the network by providing the password AND adding the MAC address to the system. If one of those is missing, there is no allowed connection. We've had people plug in their own WiFi routers to get around that, but we shut them down fairly quickly.

By policy, Google style glasses are not allowed. We started by banning them just from bathrooms, but people (Well, one guy to be fair) kept "forgetting". Smart phones are allowed on a case by case basis and must be running specific OS versions with software to delete the info in case of loss or theft. Personal cells not meeting those standards are free to connect via the towers, but they don't get on our internal systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: My network...

...my iptables.

[M Gale]

I wonder what this does...

...about Glass users connected to the portable access point in their pocket?

Or a 4G-enabled Glass?

Well, I expect some people just have to be like that. Question: Why's he not blocking phones with cameras, if it's really about recording artworks?

Personally I don't think it is, and has more to do with "durr hurr aren't I clever I piss dem Glass users right off". Well, fine. I hope he enjoys his exercise in futility.

[Don Jefe]

Re: I wonder what this does...

It's an issue of controlling what you can, not simply ignoring everything because you can't get 100% control.

On blocking phones, you can make someone surrender their phone before betting your property, but as far as I know it's not legal anywhere for civilians to block broadcast comms signals without explicit permission from their government.

But determined people are hard to stop. More than a theft prevention effort this seems like a marketing exercise. In which case the guy should be commended for figuring out how to get international news coverage without killing somebody or something similarly drastic.

[Charles 9]

Re: I wonder what this does...

After all, camera shades have existed long before Google Glass. Even a number of years ago, the kind of camera shades that could rival those specced in Transmetropolitan were around and required no networking (they used MicroSD). Completely self-contained and very hard to distinguish it as anything other than a pair of glasses. Fit them with prescription lenses and you can make a legal case for keeping them on everywhere (corrective lenses required for normal function), meaning someone can have a spycam no owner can force off. So what now?

[Don Jefe]

Re: I wonder what this does...

'So what now?'

That's just it. You can only go so far in physically preventing somebody from doing something. I suppose it's more accurate to say you can only legally go so far in physical prevention. Trap doors and alligator pits sound hilarious, but the upkeep on alligators will eat you alive.

But what if prevention isn't actually the goal? What if the goal is to generate media attention and challenge people to visit exhibitions specifically to snap covert images and brag about it online by posting the pictures. That's two seperate marketing vehicles for the price of nothing and the only difference between a starving artist and a Warhol style 'popular artist' is marketing. Commercial art without buzz is just a job creator for art supply companies :)

[Stoneshop]

Re: I wonder what this does...

Trap doors and alligator pits sound hilarious, but the upkeep on alligators will eat you alive.

Just put a kiosk next to the trap door, with a banner "Free $enticing_illegal_product here" and instructions to enter some personal data[1] and accept the EULA[2]. The problem you'll now face is Alligator Obesity, though.

[1] for striking entries off the Missing Person's list, to keep unnecessary searches, anxiety by next-of-kin etc. to a minimum.

[2] Eject User as Lunch for Alligators. Nobody reads those, as we all know.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

There's a "simple" solution to 4G Glass. Replace your drywall with metal lath plaster walls. Windows with triple pane, ultra low-e treatment on the inside and outside layer. Unless those windows overlook a tower, no cellular will penetrate that building :)

[M Gale]

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

There's a "simple" solution to 4G Glass. Replace your drywall with metal lath plaster walls. Windows with triple pane, ultra low-e treatment on the inside and outside layer. Unless those windows overlook a tower, no cellular will penetrate that building :)

That would block any and all mobile calls and data, including, I presume, emergency calls. Fair enough. The thing that gets me the most though is the picking on Glass specifically, when any mobile device can do what Glass does. And, as various people have mentioned, it's not like cameras don't have SD cards.

So yeah, "preventing people from recording artworks" is a bloody piss-poor excuse for "nerr herr I block you, Glass user." Even then, he doesn't block jack shit asides a MAC address that, given the supposed hackability of Glass, might well be a simple ifconfig eth0 hw ether 00:01:02:03:04:05:06 away from being something entirely different.

I think he wasn't loved enough as a child, myself.

[Stoneshop]

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

That would block any and all mobile calls and data, including, I presume, emergency calls. Fair enough.

Serious question: why would blocking cellphone reception in specific public areas such as theaters and cinemas be the problem it's made out to be? Why should everybody and their dog need to call emergency services from their seat, when there's functioning communications infrastructure just outside, which you would have needed to get to first anyway, thirty years ago?

The thing that gets me the most though is the picking on Glass specifically, when any mobile device can do what Glass does.

Technically, yes. As inconspicuously as Glass, no.

[DragonLord]

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

I think the problem with google glass vs using a camera/phone to take photos is that there's no easy way to tell if a glass wearer is taking photos or not, while a camera/phone user needs to go to some lengths to make it not easy to tell that they are doing so.

[M Gale]

Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...

The big blinking LED is a bit of a giveaway.

As for phones, I wouldn't say that a top pocket with a hole in is all that great a length to go to. Somewhat less detectable, too.

[Craig 28]

I agree, if it's your network you can do as you wish. If it's a network which you manage on behalf of another party, as in a workplace, you should of course follow the wishes of that party however you're free to advise them in this regard.

That said I have to agree that if someone is really determined they'll just use 3G/4G, not all of us have access to 4G yet... in fact my hometown only gets GPRS... as a matter of fact I'd have probably gone the cellular route anyway since there'd be no guarantee of a venue having wifi. I also don't see how this would stop glassholes from simply recording to an SD card.

[Voland's right hand]

They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

Kicking 'em off the network is the wrong approach.

Allow them access initially so that they qualify the AP as viable, then floor 'em to under 1KBit/s. The MAC address ranges for Apple, Glass, etc are all very well known so you can apply this in any particular way you like. Alternatively, if you have BSD in handy apply a dummynet delay of 4 seconds to traffic combined with whatever horrid jitter curve you can think of (Linux still does not have that feature 10 years past it appearing in BSD).

So you get a very connected glasshole that is incapable of excercising his glass. Rinse, repeat for fandboi. Rinse, repeat for redmond fans, etc.

By the time Joe Average Luser has figured that out what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

If I recall correctly there is a proxy setup that was used at a hacker conference to mess around with the images in a data stream. Make that Glass sensitive and you could have all sorts of fun, but I suspect the stream will be SSL protected (I would, if I were Google).

As for the general question, I agree with "my network, my rules", although that is too limited. It's also "my home/office, my/our rules". If Glassholes are a problem for you for whatever reason it is not unreasonable to keep them out or ask at least they take the damn thing off and don't use it. If they can ask you in a cinema not to use a camera it certainly must be possible to control the use of a Google device. As soon as you're off the public space, privacy rules apply - it may even be illegal to use it inside a company as you could be accused of spying on staff. I can imagine, for instance, that in Germany you'd immediately end up talking to a union rep..

What I really want to see countered is any attempt to declare this crap "fashionable", because that's the sort of con job they pull on the weak of mind. Glassholes is a good term for it - declare it as uncool as it gets. That will work better than any ban..

[Nick L]

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pete/upside-down-ternet.html

The possibilities are quite endless...

[phuzz]

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees, and watch as people using Glasses all start to tilt their heads...

[Crisp]

Re: Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees

That's the evilest thing I can imagine! :')

[ItsNotMe]

Re: Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees

No...the "evilest thing I can imagine" would be to intercept and replace the image with a very bright, rapidly flashing, strobe light. Now that would be evil...and a whole lot of fun. :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Instead of flipping images upside-down, just tilt them by a few degrees

No...the "evilest thing I can imagine" would be to intercept and replace the image with a very bright, rapidly flashing, strobe light. Now that would be evil...and a whole lot of fun. :-)

That would not be evil for the effect on the Glassholes, but for effectively reviving the <blink> tag, which is too evil for words. I would almost leave the Glassholes alone. No, I said *almost* - one has to prioritise.

[Gordon 11]

Re: They will have to switch to 3/4G manually

...apply a dummynet delay of 4 seconds to traffic combined with whatever horrid jitter curve you can think of (Linux still does not have that feature 10 years past it appearing in BSD).

I think you'll find it does, via iptables/iproute. e.g.

http://www.linuxpoweruser.com/?p=41

[Anonymous Coward]

How true. In most cases of those saying 'my network' I would imagine that they are only the managers of it and not those that actually own it and therefore by blocking something on a whim are, in fact, leaving themselves open to censure.

[scarshapedstar]

I generally prefer tethering 4G over using some dodgy public wifi anyway, and that probably won't change if or when I become a glasshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I suspect the sale of jammers will go through the roof. If someone comes up with a way to identify IMEIs specific to Glass and build a jammer for it they could make a lot of money, I reckon..

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely..

The imei plays no part in it. Jammers, well, jam. They dont differentiate between imei of one device or another, they just flood the local area with RF.

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/rx90.html

For example, has selectable bands to block 2g but not 3g, or wifi but not bluetooth etc.

So you could blanket jam everything within a 20 metre radius. Of course, the legailty is a different issue altogether but thats about the most advanced jammer out there that Joe Bloogs can own short of military based stuff.

[Richard 12]

Re: Unlikely..

And all radio jamming devices are absolutely and definitively illegal to operate throughout the EU, and most other countries.

Technically they usually aren't illegal to own but turning them on will land you in court.

[Mark 85]

We block incoming through the firewall, so why not block that going out? Many companies will probably block them just due to the bandwidth they use. Plus there are privacy issues, IMO.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what the bandwidth requirements are for glass but companies tend to block things that eat bandwidth like sporting events.

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you block encrypted streams in and out as a matter of course? Because if the streams pass through in an encrypted state, all you can tell from packet sniffing is that it's a blob of encrypted data.

[M Gale]

What you CAN tell is where the packets are coming from and where they are going to. If you couldn't, then the network would be a notwork.

[Tom 7]

Hi Honey

I'm in the Dark!

[dan1980]

Yes.

[JDX]

There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes”

Far more stories about people being assholes to glass wearers than stories about glassholes themselves.

[lurker]

Re: There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes”

Yeah that line stood out to me as well. So far as I can make out, most of those stories get the bulk of their bandwidth footprint from The Register anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes”

Far more stories about people being assholes to glass wearers than stories about glassholes themselves.

That's because they're thankfully still thin on the ground. Personally, I like that..

[Flyberius]

Re: There's plenty of stories about “Glassholes”

Why are they so inherently evil?

Why is it assumed that as soon as someone owns one of these devices they are going to be using it to film you and invade your privacy?

If I had google glass I would be using it to experience augmented reality overlays of my every day world. Something reminiscent of the AR specs that everyone uses in David Brin's novel Existence. I certainly wouldn't be using them to spy on the activities of a bitter sysadmin with nothing better to do than try to block my glasses from accessing the internet. I'd be using them to post virtual sticky notes pointing people to good bars and reading restaurant reviews that pop out and hover in front of the restaurant as you walk down the street (above head height so you can see where your going, duh). To me, that sounds exciting and fun. Maybe I'm just a techno facist bastard though. Or a glasshole.

In summation. Grow up. If you want to spend all your time blocking these things from your corporate/home/starbucks wifi then more fool you. You will make a laughably small impact. The rest of the world will have moved on.

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm.

quickly checks google play for mac address spoofing apps.

laughs

[Neil Barnes]

I have been suffering from a misapprehension

I had (after huge amounts (=none) of research) vaguely assumed that storage on the glassthing was local, and now I discover it must be connected to the borg?

This makes my antipathy to it even more, I think. Were I in such a position, yes, I think I'd block it.

[James Hughes 1]

Re: I have been suffering from a misapprehension

That's what I was thinking - don't they have local storage? In which case you take as many pictures as you want, and download when you get home. Like a camera.

So I'm really not sure what this effort is trying to achieve, because as far as I can tell, it achieves...nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The borg?

I fail to understand how you can assume that Google Glass will connect to Microsoft? Or are you the AC that keeps trying to associate "Borg" with Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

If it's the 'spying' angle that concerns you, may I point out that many people might be surprised how many cheap covert cameras can be bought online these days. Anyone with a watch, pen, lighter, keyfob, sunglasses, could be filming you without you knowing. The cameras really are that small, recording HD video onto tiny SD cards, and only needing a pin-hole to see from. The days of privacy are over, alas. At least with Glass you do actually have a chance to watch what you're doing and turn your back :)

I think society will get used to people wearing glasses-based displays before long, and we'll end up wondering what the fuss was about, even if you strongly disagree right now; argue against me only if you're certain that I'll be proven wrong in the fullness of time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

"I think society will get used to people wearing glasses-based displays before long, and we'll end up wondering what the fuss was about, even if you strongly disagree right now; argue against me only if you're certain that I'll be proven wrong in the fullness of time!"

No it really wont. If you think that people will be happy to wear this on their face then you are very much mistaken. The problem is that people just wont be willing to look like a twat all the time and getting over that initial hurdle will be the stumbling point for this technology. The general public spend billions of pounds a year on various things so that they don't have to wear glasses at all (contacts, laser treatments) they will not be willing to go back to wearing glasses especially when they don't do much more than their current mobile phone does.

It's different in a working environment where they may take off a bit, especially for stock control in warehouses, but for the general public, no, not going to happen (please bookmark this comment so that you can review in 10 years time to see that I was correct, and therefore it was okay to argue against you. As an aside the fact that you stated this at all means that you probably aren't the sort of person who is in touch with what the general public think so I don't expect you to understand why people wont want to wear these).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

"The general public spend billions of pounds a year on various things so that they don't have to wear glasses at all (contacts, laser treatments) they will not be willing to go back to wearing glasses especially when they don't do much more than their current mobile phone does."

Except people do wear sunglasses so why not sunglasses that mean you don't have to pull your phone out of your pocket?

I have to wonder if Google had decided to not include a camera would there be so much anti-glass?

[Brian 18]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

"I have to wonder if Google had decided to not include a camera would there be so much anti-glass?"

From me, yes. While I admit I find the camera creepy, it is not the most dangerous part of GG. I have seen way too many idiot drivers* using lap tops on the passenger seat, texting, web browsing on their cell phones. These idiots represent one significant advantage to me over GG. I can see that they are not paying attention driving and give them plenty of room. That way when these accidents looking for a place to happen finally find it, I don't get injured. With GG, you can't tell.

* Not sure I can really call them drivers because they certainly didn't pay much (if any) attention to driving.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

>people just wont be willing to look like a twat all the time

You mean like those people who wear sunglasses inside?

Yes, I know some of them have auto-darkening prescription lenses, so do I, but they clear up quite quickly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shades! Indoors! (was Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.)

>> people just wont be willing to look like a twat all the time

> You mean like those people who wear sunglasses inside?

Some people suffer horrendously from photo-sensitivity and are hugely susceptible to glare. Oddly enough, a seemingly harmless point source of light in a dim environment can be as bad as snow glare.

I'm not as bad as my Aunt (who is albino and wears shades pretty much whenever vertical) but I do get glare migraines if bright light comes in the side of my eyes, and when the sun is low I won't take a chance that I cannot drive home (and will have to spend the next few hours in pain, throwing up) because I took my shades off at the wrong moment.

That said, I'll never be accused of being fashionable - I need polarised wrap around to cover my full field of view: pretty they are not! If I can avoid the migraine, I'll take looking like a twat...

[OokamiChan]

Re: Shades! Indoors! (was We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.)

Or one have prescription sunglasses, and the ordinary ones is at home, so you cant change back to them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

As others have pointed out, what about sunglasses?

You're missing the Show-Off aspect of human nature. Make it look expensive, and it becomes a status symbol. Don't forget how pathetic and ostentatious cellphones used to look, now we all use them with no qualms. I hope I can come back here in 10 years and see :)

[RyokuMas]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

"If it's the 'spying' angle that concerns you, may I point out that many people might be surprised how many cheap covert cameras can be bought online these days."

Ah, but how many of said cheap covert cameras <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/24/google_glass_spyware/>can report everything they see back to Google HQ</a>?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: We'll get used to it. Resistance is futile, as ever.

@RyokuMas - but how many of said cheap covert cameras can report everything they see back to Google HQ

So, in other words you don't mind spycams filming you in any situation providing the footage isn't forwarded to googlwe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why allow them to connect and then kick them off? Surely it makes more sense to block them from connecting in the first place.

[Pirate Dave]

I was wondering the same thing. If you know the MAC prefix, just reserve a special pool for them in DHCP and give out leases with bogus gateways and/or DNS. Problem solved.

Although I do like an earlier commentard's suggestion of traffic-shaping them down to 1kbs. Sweet...treat them like we used to treat P2P file sharers...

[JC 2]

Or simpler still, merely disallow the connection with a MAC exclusion list. I suppose it depends on what your kit firmware or OS flexibility allows you to do.

[fishman]

Of course, MAC address spoofing is trivial. Problem solved.

[Ben Rosenthal]

Well isn't he a big silly.

[Breen Whitman]

"with outcomes ranging from being charged to regrettable cases of assault"

Link to "assault" article, girl claims her glasses being snatched and being abused was a "Hate Crime".

Which begs the question, is reacting violently to someone so abhorrent such as Adolf Hitler, serial pedophile, child murderer, Google Glass wearer an actual hate crime? If it "right" to hate Adolf Hitler?

And yes, I am lumping Glass wearers in with Adolf and the kiddie fiddlers. Vile entities.

[JC 2]

Yes, reacting to anyone who isn't immediately threatening to your person is a hate crime. I'm not suggesting that means one should or shouldn't react, at some point there's a fuzzy line between tolerance, forgiveness, and not turning a blind eye.

[wdce]

Time, please!

The policy of 'Sorry mate, you're not coming in.' is well known, but you don't know what they'll do if they are allowed. So I don't have a problem with gate-keepers. As an aside, can I block Apple products from my home wi-fi, just to annoy the cousin of my soon-to-be ex-wife?

[wdce]

Time, please!

The policy of 'Sorry mate, you're not coming in.' is well known, so I'm on the side of the gate-keepers. But one can't always predict the behaviour of those allowed access. As an aside, how do I block apple things from my home wi-fi, just to annoy the cousin of my soon-to-be ex-wife?

[RyokuMas]

Is this why...

... Google were slurping for unprotected wifi networks with their streetview cars? So that they knew what networks their glasses would be able to hook up to on the quiet in order to phone home with yet more data for the great Google spying network?

[TopOnePercent]

We're gonna be overwhelmed - may as well accept it.

I find the whole idea of Glass to be a little odd. Constantly invading other people’s privacy so you can watch cat videos on the internet instead of looking where you’re going. That said, at 40, I’m not exactly the core target market.

The celebrity obsessed, fame hungry, me me me generation of post millennials will lap this up once it drops in price, as they’re used to having significant chunks of their life posted online.

If the borg marketing department are reading this, what you need to do is pay a celebutard (the more vacuous the better) to wear these so Heat magazine readers can experience life through the eyes of Paris Hilton/Jordan/Peter Andrex/whoever. Then they’ll want to emulate them like literally every other aspect of their lives, and they’ll fly off the shelves. This idea is yours on licence for the princely sum of 0.25% of revenue in the 12 months following the celebutard Glassing.

[JC 2]

Yes an admin can block anyone they choose to whether it be glassholes or people wearing brown shoes.

[DryBones]

How Droll...

This is what's known as an "attention grab". Usually (lately, it seems anyway) done by taking an odd or extreme measure with relation to a controversial topic that otherwise nobody would give two shakes about. Since we're techies here, obviously it found some audience/success.

Google Glass specs are here: https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en

Hmm. 12GB storage, Bluetooth, wifi. Okay, so the guy may be able to do such, on his network. One I will never see, and never want to see if it's unsecured like it would need to be in order for some passing Tom, Dick, or Harry to link in. Given the out-and-about nature of most users, Glass will be tethered to their phone or a hotspot for data connection. They should have such a setup readily at hand, so if kicked off the network they will shrug and use their default method. Or, more likely, they won't have it on the network in the first place if it's not an approved device at work.

If they are allowed to use it at work as an approved device and bother to find out why it's being dropped, they will rightly conclude that he's a tit, and HR may get involved. Regardless (such as if the rules are his to make), their use of Glass via their normal roaming means will be unimpeded.

Storm in a teacup, sound and fury amounting to nothing, etc. If Glass users are behaving so badly as to warrant such measures and ire, they need reminding of common courtesy. You don't see people using their camera phone to take video of you during a casual chat, should be the same with this.

I'd say this was fear and paranoia, does anyone know if there's a "camera on" indicator seen from the outside (and positioned to not have prism imperfection mistaken for it)? Seems that would resolve the issue quite simply.

[GKLR]

And the/a flip side is...

Turn the question around.

If you are the admin of a network covering an area that covers copyright material (say a gallery or the like) or in which people have an expectation of privacy (say a gym which has a change room in it) which may be legally enforceable can you afford *not* to make the effort - whether it is ultimately effective or not - to block a glasshole's network access?

What happens if pictures of copyright material end up on the Internet or some creep streams a little video from a change room and then someone sees it and throws a sue ball at you (and the glasshole one would hope)? Ask a lawyer, but I'm thinking that a glasshole block in place would probably make it much easier to dodge the sue ball (and maybe lob one at the glass hole).

I'm afraid I'm firmly of the opinion that when Google decided to put a camera in the Glass they were doing evil; by not recalling all Glasses and physically removing the camera they continue to do evil. I say to Google: Don't be evil.

[DryBones]

Re: And the/a flip side is...

Psst. Psst.

Hint: It's the same as if they did it with a cell phone camera. They can store all the data on the device, cutting them off the net does nothing, and they should have their own connectivity with them anyway.

Your line of thinking has met innumerable technological advances in the 21st century. You may want to check your perspective.

[Christian Berger]

The problem aren't glassholes

The problem is Google/Facebook/etc.

I don't care if people privately photograph me without my knowledge. As long as they don't publish the pictures or hand it over to someone who can influence me in a bad way, that's perfectly al right. Should some secret service or the police get access to it it's no longer acceptable.

The problem is when they upload it to some "cloud service" where those images will be processed and made available to people I don't want them to have. Since Google is trying to get "backups" to your devices which they will have to hand over on request, this is not acceptable.

In general we really must work on more democratic computing. We must find ways to increase code and computing literacy.

[razorfishsl]

The issue with all this…. is that whilst google 'blocks' faces and registrations on maps, it still has the un altered data available for them to be able to profile ALL the faces, and by default so does the NSA.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Heck yes! I class them as spyware.

Or Spywear.

Simples.

[Nameless Faceless Computer User]

Google Glasses is one of the worst inventions ever conceived. It provides no useful images, scrapes away our last best hope for privacy from security cameras, traffic cameras, cell phone cameras, street view cameras, ATM cameras, nanny cameras, and dash cameras. Now let's all just record everything we see all the time. Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because WE WANT TO. Put it this way. Expectation of privacy ONLY applies to oneself. Anyone else, we're bloody nosy. With 99-to-1 disadvantage on the street, basically, you lose. All you can do now is live with it.

[Flyberius]

Just jealous...

[Eduard Coli]

Great idea

It would generate fewer legal fees than my lethod of rapping them in the face with a tire iron.