Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Google Glasses BANNED!
SeraphimLabs:
Then facilities that want to disallow recording only have to purchase a small transmitter to provide the required disabling signal.
-SeraphimLabs (March 11, 2013, 12:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's a little dicier a proposition if the disabling mechanism isn't built into the device itself. And I can't see Google willingly doing that without legislation forcing it to do so.
-40hz (March 11, 2013, 06:39 PM)
--- End quote ---
The government is paranoid about maintaining control.
Recording devices in large numbers could very easily be pitched as a threat to national security, because lets face it the government won't be able to get away with anything if everyone who sees it can record it and show footage online. That police abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. False flags? Government inside jobs? Top secret technology? Even just possible political scandals. If they can keep it covered up just by pushing a button on the dash of the cop car, why wouldn't they.
Simply mandating that when devices are exposed to a certain transmission pattern on a certain frequency results in disabling their recording capabilities would be an easy way for them to continue to keep people ignorant. Officials then merely need to make sure these signals are being transmitted while on official functions to prevent them from being recorded, except by authorized equipment for government use only that has the option to override the shutdown signal.
It would be no more questionable than gun control, and far less difficult to implement since the consumer hardware industry would happily lobby in favor of a bill that allows them to sell small transmitters styled similar to wifi hotspots intended to provide this signal for facilities that do not allow recording equipment.
Carol Haynes:
What happens when Google glasses become indistinguishable from normal glasses?
wraith808:
To take the devil's advocate stance here- so we're banning things based on what others *might* do with them? That seems a bit draconian...-wraith808 (March 10, 2013, 08:39 PM)
--- End quote ---
You mean like banning guns and accessories?
-Tinman57 (March 11, 2013, 07:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
That was the (thinly veiled) point. Thanks. :Thmbsup:
But to continue, the same people saying that there out to be more bans are the same people saying that there shouldn't be controls on guns. Hmm...
40hz:
people saying that there out to be more bans are the same people saying that there shouldn't be controls on guns. Hmm...
-wraith808 (March 11, 2013, 09:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
A wise old college professor of mine once said that when people demand new laws, it's invariably with the intent of regulating somebody else's actions or beliefs. Never their own. Because rules are for other people.
;)
TaoPhoenix:
What happens when Google glasses become indistinguishable from normal glasses?
-Carol Haynes (March 11, 2013, 08:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
They almost are, the non-Google ones. I've been absently following this trend for years, and it's gonna come to a collision point real soon. Because between Carol and Tinman, "they can only ban what their currently stilted imaginations let them ban".
As for "magic disabling carrier frequencies", I don't see that approach really working, it will just lead to "un-moderated" Chinese versions of stuff or something.
On a show of The Panel there was a disturbing response from the panelists that "it's okay to not hire someone based on their Facebook posts because it shows bad judgement to post a pic of you getting drunk blah blah". Oh really?! Now I know why I avoid that hard place only to risk being deemed an anti-social critter for not being on there to begin with.
I love the stories of "Police say _____ _____ _____ ____". 12 hours later: "Man posts pics on Facebook denying police account." Police: "Well, um, we didn't yet have the full information on our officer's conduct".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version