Google Glass and CAP uses

[Eclipse]

The phone you're talking on?  Surreptitiously recording you via the rear-facing camera.

The iPad in your hand at the briefing?  Surreptitiously recording you via the rear-facing camera.

The majority of the notebook computers sold today?  Surreptitiously recording you via the front-facing web camera.

Everything on that list needs to be banned as well if Glass or its ilk is banned because it "might be recording".

Just like the GoPro, Glass could be a very effective tool for training as well as forensics when things go wrong,
but regardless, the "might be recording" barndoor was was opened about 10 years ago.

Too late to close it now.

[a2capt]

Too late to close it now.

That's my point. That's what CAWG is saying now. You summed up my point.

[sardak]

Do you suppose that this was prompted over the incident a couple of days ago in South Carolina where a guy was yanked out of a movie theater for wearing Google Glasses? The MPAA and ICE, who removed him, said that they take movie piracy seriously.  They found that his Google Glasses weren't recording.

Mike

[Eclipse]

Do you suppose that this was prompted over the incident a couple of days ago in South Carolina where a guy was yanked out of a movie theater for wearing Google Glasses? The MPAA and ICE, who removed him, said that they take movie piracy seriously.  They found that his Google Glasses weren't recording.

Mike

Ohio, actually.

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/

A great use of taxpayer and municipal money.

[a2capt]

..and they got egg on their faces over that one. Big time.

I've not been largely hassled anywhere, and in a few instances once I showed the subject how the device worked they agreed, it's not any different than a device of similar capabilities.

It boils down to where it's mounted.

Ironically, I wanted to do a still motion capture of when I picked up the device and the people at Google asked me not to film inside the actual room where I was picking up the device, for "privacy of the others". I thought that was quite ironic.

[Panache]

Actually, ever notice that most security cams are video only?

The laws on this are generally wiretap laws, and as such, ban audio recording only.

Speaking strictly from the perspective of laws in Pennsylvania, this is exactly the case.

The law says that video recording is pretty much unrestricted, as long as it doesn't violate a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. in the restroom, locker room, a "up-skirt" shot, etc.).  If you're out in a "non-private" area, anybody can take video images of you without your consent.

Now, audio, on the other hand, is highly restricted.  All audio recordings, even in a public venue (with some exceptions), must have the consent of all involved.  To do so is a felony in PA.  This includes Law Enforcement as well.  (Police dash-cams have to be in audio-off mode unless everybody consents to being recorded).  There was a case in this neck of the woods a couple of years back where a member of a HOA's board made a recording of his phone discussion with another HOA board member.  He was sent to prison for a couple of years.

That being said, the ban on Google Glass is stupid.  As many have pointed out, there's really no difference between Google Glass and me using my cell phone to record you.  And if you're really paranoid about somebody who's wearing Glass recording you... ask them to take it off.  Simple.

[Brad]

Now, audio, on the other hand, is highly restricted.  All audio recordings, even in a public venue (with some exceptions), must have the consent of all involved.  To do so is a felony in PA.  This includes Law Enforcement as well.  (Police dash-cams have to be in audio-off mode unless everybody consents to being recorded).

That's interesting. Here in SC it's a one-party consent state for audio, which for us means the Trooper, lol. In fact the Troopers tell us when they clear a stop if their mic died on them for us to note in the traffic stop call in case the subject tries to claim a "cover-up" against "improper police practices"   

[a2capt]

All I know right now is that what I said earlier, that they said "since it can be recording" .. 'otherwise why wear it". Really sounds like a knee-jerk answer based on lack of understanding.

Waiting to see what the actual policy says in writing.

..and can't imagine at all what anyone could come up with, because what Glass does is nothing new except in the packaging.

Every. Single. Function. Is available in other devices, many with all the same functions, some even have head mount straps. So what's the difference?

[PHall]

All I know right now is that what I said earlier, that they said "since it can be recording" .. 'otherwise why wear it". Really sounds like a knee-jerk answer based on lack of understanding.

Waiting to see what the actual policy says in writing.

..and can't imagine at all what anyone could come up with, because what Glass does is nothing new except in the packaging.

Every. Single. Function. Is available in other devices, many with all the same functions, some even have head mount straps. So what's the difference?

It's new. Thats the difference.