Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

‘Cyborg Unplug’ Is a Personal Jammer Against Drones, Glassholes

<< < (3/4) > >>

Renegade:
Here's an example - Say Cindy Citizen Journalist is filming herself on the steps of city hall to get the news out about the horrible new by-law making it illegal to park your car with the windows down! The frame isn't zoomed into only her nose, but rather a more reasonable full body shot with the sinister den of iniquity (city hall) behind her. People are still going about their business and most people walk behind her, but are clearly visible in the frame. Shy Stan walks behind her and is also captured in the video.

QUESTIONS:


* What is Cindy filming?
* Is Stan "being filmed"?
The first is obvious - Cindy is filming herself in front of city hall.

The second has 2 answers - yes and no. Those 2 answers have very different presuppositions regarding "filming".

Yes assumes that anything in the frame is "being filmed".

No assumes that the intent and main focus of the frame is what is "being filmed".

But, that's just one example of a focused recording, and doesn't include the "Google Glass" scenario.

For general surveillance cameras, it seems that we would usually say that whatever is in the frame is being filmed, similar to the "Yes" answer above. i.e. Shy Stan walks past a surveillance camera, so, he *IS* being filmed.

Does the same apply to Google Glass?

If not, would we then say that someone is being filmed (by GG) if they are framed and in focus, but not being filmed if their appearance in a frame is incidental? Where does the line start to blur?

This site has a lot to say on the topic:

http://stopthecyborgs.org/

wraith808:
But... what if they aren't filming?  They're trying to stop anyone from wearing/using them.  Just because there is the 'possibility'.  Just for one possible use.  It's a device that can do a *lot* of things... and this one use is the one that they're trying to get the whole thing thrown away because of.  And it's funny that most of the people on the other side of the issue, are those that are usually for the freedom.

Seems pretty simple to me.  It takes an active use in a manner that offends/is an imposition to others before anyone else has a right to step in.

Renegade:
But... what if they aren't filming?  They're trying to stop anyone from wearing/using them.  Just because there is the 'possibility'.  Just for one possible use.  It's a device that can do a *lot* of things... and this one use is the one that they're trying to get the whole thing thrown away because of.  And it's funny that most of the people on the other side of the issue, are those that are usually for the freedom.

Seems pretty simple to me.  It takes an active use in a manner that offends/is an imposition to others before anyone else has a right to step in.
-wraith808 (September 11, 2014, 07:08 AM)
--- End quote ---

I've not made up my mind quite yet. Which is why I posed questions above.

But I certainly do like the technology!  :Thmbsup:

Here's another example...

You have a coffee shop or bar near a university where you offer free Wi-Fi, but disallow Google Glass. Since it's your place, well... you make the rules.

Conversely, if I'm a patron, and you change your policy to allow Google Glass, and I disagree with that, I can't see how I can legitimately block GG on your premises from your Wi-Fi.

The issue gets muddier in public places. But, that would seem to be already covered by harassment or stalking laws.

Dunno. Haven't thought about it too much. I can see both sides of the coin. I'm leaning towards zero restrictions on GG in public places. It's really no different than someone walking around with a video camera.

Is following someone (who doesn't want to be filmed) in a public place with a video camera harassment? Possibly. I can imagine scenarios where it clearly would be. I can also imagine other scenarios where it wouldn't be. Muddy.

wraith808:
Dunno. Haven't thought about it too much. I can see both sides of the coin. I'm leaning towards zero restrictions on GG in public places. It's really no different than someone walking around with a video camera.
-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
I think it is.  With a video camera, there is only one purpose.  And you have to point and shoot.  But there are also covert video cameras that have nothing to do with GG.  But I've been looking at my phone, and someone gave me the stinkeye... and I figured out only after thinking about it they were paranoid that because the camera was pointed at them, that I was taking pictures or something.  Is that my problem?  Or is that theirs?

Is following someone (who doesn't want to be filmed) in a public place with a video camera harassment? Possibly. I can imagine scenarios where it clearly would be. I can also imagine other scenarios where it wouldn't be. Muddy.
-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)
--- End quote ---

It's not just a video camera.  That's the whole difference to me.  When I was going to get it... I wasn't even looking at the video applications.  I was looking at it as an HUD.  I hate being on camera, or even having pictures taken of me... that whole lifeblogging thing is mind boggling to me... I just hate videos and pictures, or even watching people's vlogs.  But it had a whole wide world of applications that I could use it for.

I do think google isn't doing itself any favors by not trying to get the price down.  More people would push these things to the fore sooner than later.  As it is stands, others are driving the dialog... which makes it a toss up how it will end.

Stoic Joker:
The issue gets muddier in public places. But, that would seem to be already covered by harassment or stalking laws.
-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)
--- End quote ---

No it doesn't. You simply need to overlay what is prudent and everything becomes nice and clear. Sure if you are in a coffee shop next to/near a university it is safe to assume that most folk will be equally enamored with whatever piece of camera based tech you wish to be fiddling with. However...

If you are in a dive bar at the edge of town the very last thing you want to be associated with is any kind of recording equipment ... Because some folks take being camera shy to a very (very...) serious level ... And "I didn't know" makes for a rather lousy epitaph.

Now multiply ^that^ times the amount of attention you might end up getting from the fuzz regarding that footage of yours they'd like to see ...(and talk to you about in depth)... and I do believe that the angle at which the concept of less is more becomes rather obvious.


No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page