Privacy for Google Glass Users - Case Study Example

Title: Privacy law by office of Australian Information Commissioner to Australian Government Proposed by ……………….. on behalf of Google Glass Users Privacy for Google Glass Users With the new Google glass technology, the issue of how Google will safeguard the privacy of users as well as that of other people around becomes critical. Google glasses can be mounted on the head and the user can take videos and photos without people knowing (Dolcourt 2013). With is development the comfort ability of the public is in question. Therefore it is very much necessary to create a principal to rank the privacy grade that Google glass has the right to collect information belonging to the users and the community to protect their privacy by 2016. This is paper will discuss the privacy issues surrounding the Google Glass technology. Argument 1: Google glass will access the subconscious Google glass is basically a front on the eyes with a camera that faces in front. It is able to track the movements of the eyes and makes requests for data depending on where the eyes are facing. This implies that the glass picks information without getting active permission (Ghosh 2013). The movements of the eyes are unconscious and have very important meanings psychologically. For example, the movements of the eyes show who the individual is attracted to. They also show how the individual weighs his purchase options. It could even get more serious by revealing if the person is telling the truth or even lying. Since the movements of the eyes are to a large extend subconscious, glass can quickly obtain a big quantity of information that is not known to the individual himself. It goes beyond what a phone can do. The glass can definitely collect and send information if when the individual is not thinking about it. It does not need any swiping or clicking (Dolcourt 2013). Doing away with that little brief bit of choice after information has been collected ruins the control of the Glass user over shared personal information. The change to Glass basically makes it possible for a device to access another level of a person’s thought. A heads-up display with eye tracking technology and facial recognition can display icons that hover above people that are recognizable to the individual, provide directions as the individual walks and take video from the individual’s point of view. Some people claim that the Google Glass cannot raise any issues of privacy but is can only rehash the ones already existing in a better way. For instance, a stranger can record a person in secret and post that on the internet. People argue that we are already keeping devices every time that monitor where we go and we permit many web services and apps to gather our personal information and share it out (Agre & Rotenberg 35). So what is remaining? What particular differences arise because the device doing all this has now come in front of our eyes? However, the phone is different from the glass especially when it comes to the issue of privacy because the phone has to be permitted for it to capture anything. The glass does it without being authorized and that is why it becomes a big privacy issue. The phone must be picked up and swiped and clicked so as to make requests to it. At times there may be apps in the background but a conscious decision has to be made to use the phones (Ghosh 2013). Argument 2: Google Glass can make one become a snitch The use of Google glass can easily make a person to become a thief. This is as far as the police are concerned. If you pass by people shaking hands by the road side when you have the glass you could reveal a drug deal to the police. Police are turning to digital information to catch up with criminals (LeClaire 2013). They even find crime hot spots before the crimes can take place. The law enforcers will definitely add some kind of information obtained from the glass devices to the other methods used in tracking criminals. The police could directly gain access into what the individual sees. This would present a totally different level of wiretapping w hereby the police would need a warrant and also jump certain constitutional hurdles. Since Google has already complied with 93 percent of all government requests about private user information in 2011 it is already obvious that it will not be a difficult thing for the police to use the eyes of particular individuals or the information collected from these individuals’ eyes to search and seize criminals. People with Google glasses may not be comfortable with this. The release of glass would mean that the law enforcers can have new technology and methods for sharing information that can use an individual’s glass to put the individual’s friends behind bars (Dolcourt 2013). Argument 3: In case of a breach a person can lose everything In case a person’s private information is leaked, the individual can lose a lot of money and even property. It is possible for some people to forget to turn off their Glass when entering in their PIN. The individual’s credit card may also be visible even from the edge of his vision. Information may also be recorded when the person is opening his bills, filling health forms and tax information (Ghosh 2013). Computers have a capability of recognizing letters and numbers at a very first speed. For example, a glance by a person passing by another person’s wallet could enable his Glass to learn the cedi card number of the person with the wallet. All this kind of information could be subject to compromise with a breach in security and this can reveal the information of the person using the Glass and the individuals the person surrounds himself with. Security breaches frequently take place on phones without the knowledge of the user. For example, the FTC leveled charges against HTC, the Android phone manufacturer because the company had a serious security weakness in 18 million smart phones. Hackers may access an individual’s Glass and go a head to rob his house because they can tell when the owner is not home and where the spare keys are kept (Ghosh 2013). They can also get the person’s PIN and account number and also watch a person’s fingers as they key in the pass words to other accounts on the computer keyboard. When they have this information, the criminals can take all the money and send by e-mail the bad pictures they get to the person’s boss. The worst of it is that it is not only technical computer hackers that commit every security breach. Anybody can get this information if he attaches a small spy camera bought online to the Glass provides access to similar information (Jamison, Christensen & Botin 2011). It is agreeable that Google will continue to work at avoiding such problems. However, considering the quantity and variety in information that could be subject to compromise, it is true that solutions to the privacy problems identified may not be developed as fast as may be expected. Although Google is yet to release the exact features for the Glass is it obvious that with the simplest implementation, the above issues will appear. Although Google glass will be released to the public in the next one year, it has been reported that one bar has banned the Glass from being used on its premises because it can compromise the privacy of patrons (LeClaire 2013). Conclusion This paper has discussed some of the privacy issues that need to be considered in policy making about Google glass. The use of Google glass raises privacy concerns such as accessing the subconscious, making snitches out of people and causing property losses in case of security breaches. Google should investigate all the views and concerns of all stakeholders and incorporate them in the improvement of the device. Recommendations In order to address the concerns and allay the fears of the public, Google should follow all the privacy and policies for data collection as far as Glass is concerned. The Glass should have social cues that can help prevent violations of privacy (Kleinman 2005). Google should devise means by which it will ensure that privacy is preserves whenever it collects and stores data from the devices. It should ensure that it does not unintentionally collect people’s private data. It should also find ways of protecting the privacy of people that do not use the Glass especially when they are near to those using it. Google should also ensure that the device does not have facial recognition technology. The concerns raised by customers after testing the device should be put into consideration. New technology will always come with new issues. Google should therefore do extensive research and see some of these issues ahead of time (Von Schomberg 2011). References Agre, P.E. & Rotenberg, M. (eds.) 1998, Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Dolcourt J. 2013. Everything You need to know about Google Glass (FAQ). CNET. 6 May 2013. Retrieved 29 May 2013. Ghosh S. 2013. “Google Glass: The Scientists behind Google’s Augmented Reality Glasses.” The Telegraph. 9 March 2013. Retrieved 29 May 2013. Jamison, A. Christensen, S.H. & Botin, L. 2011,’ Perceptions of Science & Technology’, in C. Baillie (ed.) A Hybrid Imagination Science and Technology in Cultural Perspective, Morgan & Claypool, California/Colorado, pp. 13-26. Kleinman, D.L. 2005, Science and Technology in Society: From Biotechnology to the Internet, Blackwell, Oxford. LeClaire J. 2013. Google Glass Raises Congressional Privacy Concerns. News Factor Network. May 17 2013. Retrieved May 29 2013.. Von Schomberg, R. (ed.) 2011 ‘Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communications Technologies and Security Technologies Fields’, A Report from the European Commission Services. Read More