Privacy Issues at Google - Research Paper Example

Solutions Regarding Google Glass Privacy Issues Google Glass, a device that has a microphone and is worn like a pairof glasses, is a wearable computer that can take photos and record video and audio. Safavi and Shukur in "Improving Google Glass Security and Privacy by Changing the Physical and Software Structure" contend that despite the exciting initial reaction, Google Glass has come up against serious criticism for perceived privacy and security threats. They add that cyber privacy is the most critical threat to business enterprises and private users. On the other hand, Jason Hong in “Considering Privacy Issues in the Context of Google Glass” draws on his over 10-year experience studying privacy and mobile computing to examine the negative sentiments that have afflicted Google Glass. He looks at the issue from the perspective of lessons learned about privacy from the ubiquitous computing project in the 1990s, as well as current expectations of privacy change. Yesenia Duran in “Google Glass Finds Its Way into Law Enforcement” discusses the use of Google Glass by law enforcement and government agencies to increase situational awareness. Ribeiro Furlan in “Google Glass” discusses the risks posed to users of Google Glass with regards to hacking, which can make private information available to unauthorized people. Finally, Schreiber discusses the considerable challenges that Google Glass portends on existing privacy laws and paradigms, examining implications and solutions. From these articles, a question arises: What are the solutions to Google Glass’ privacy issues? This paper will argue that Google Glass should seek to improve security by ensuring recording can only occur with the knowledge of people around the wearer, as well as ensuring that information collected through the device is secure from unauthorized access. “Google Glass displays information in a smartphone-like hands-free format that can interact with the Internet via natural language voice commands” (Duran 18). However, because of this, Google Glass wearable computers pose pertinent privacy questions that need to be addressed before Google can make them available on the market. To begin with, Google Glass threatens those not using it as they are always under surveillance. Most of these people will react to people wearing Google Glass as if they are recording them, even when they are not. In turn, this will threaten their ability to hold anonymous, candid, or private social interactions, increasing the likelihood of social venues banning its use. In addition, although the Google Glass user may have come to a conscious decision to waive their privacy by using the device, those captured by the device have not, meaning that it invades their anonymity and privacy without consent. The use of Google Glass, says Duran, “could leave the officer’s personal cell phone records open to a subpoena” (p. 19). While individuals do not normally have any expectations of privacy when in public spaces, they do expect anonymity, preferring not to be filmed or recorded without their knowledge and consent. “Privacy law concerning visual privacy—taking and publishing pictures of others—needs to meet the wearable computing challenge” (Schreiber 71). A solution for the privacy concerns surrounding Google Glass is for the devices to produce an audible sound when recording or capturing photos and videos. The sound effect made by a camera shutter on a smartphone, although seemingly at odds with the sleek Google Glass, may perform two critical tasks. On top of alerting the user to the fact that they have taken a photo, it also allows those around the user to know that one has just taken a photo or recorded a video. Smartphone manufacturers in Japan came together a few years ago to ensure that every digital camera and camera phone produced an audible cue that alerted those nearby that a picture had been taken. This was a deliberate move aimed at discouraging stealth photography in crowded places, such as public transport and public parks. Schreiber notes that “there are good grounds for recognizing a Right to Opacity—a right not to be subjected to constant surveillance and photography” (p. 72). Therefore, Google should install an accompanying shutter sound on their device that has a minimum decibel range audible enough to be heard by those in close proximity to the wearer. Privacy issues that have been raised with the invention and introduction of Google Glass can also be solved by integrating LED light on the device that alerts others on the activity of Google Glass. “Google Glass being useful for all departments in the future especially as more applications are integrated into the system such as LPR systems and facial recognition” (Duran 20). Although not all Google Glass devices are always on and recording what is going on around the wearer, most people are already worried about being recorded or filmed secretly without their knowledge, necessitating a method to alert them when the device is actually working. Google has made the argument in defense of Google Glass that the device is only an extension of the user’s smartphone, which can already invade privacy by filming and recording what the user wants. Although this is true, it is important to note that with smartphones, the public can tell when a picture of them is being taken, because the device has to be held up and pointed in their direction. Duran states that Glass has “the capability of supplying real-time streaming video and Geo-location information,” which may result in suspicion of spying (p. 19). In order to solve the suspicion among the public that their privacy is being invaded, a little red light placed at the front of the device will indicate when Google Glass is enabled. This could go a long way in dissipating worries about secret recording and privacy intrusion. Another way of solving the privacy issue surrounding the use of Google Glass in public is by installing software that detects network intrusions. “At present, Google Glass makes it easy for cyber hackers to gain access to our personal data, banking and credit card details, passwords or personal identification numbers” (Safavi and Shukur 114). For those who are worried about Google Glass, one tool that could be useful is the packet sniffer, which is an application that scans network ranges, such as Wi-Fi networks, through the probing of specific ranges of possible IP addresses, all the while searching for corresponding network ranges. This will enable people near the Google Glass wearer to be made aware of specific devices that are using a similar Wi-Fi router as they are, enabling them to take precautionary and appropriate steps. These steps include shutting down their wearable computers and connected smartphones, after which the device can only be accessed through voice recognition technology. Safavi and Shukur also introduce the idea of using jamming, such as with mobile phone jammers, in public spaces and establishments used by the public. This is because “Google Glass makes it easy for cyber hackers to gain access to our personal data, banking and credit card details, passwords or personal identification numbers” (Safavi and Shukur 115). While this technology will not act to stop devices recording information onto memory cards, it will prevent any live broadcasts or cloud uploads using the Internet. Privacy issues are not only a threat for the public but also for the Google Glass user, whose smartphone could be hacked trough their Wi-Fi connection, which raises the need to protect devices from malware. “While Internet security is a vast field, users of Google Glass have the capacity to strengthen their security and to ensure that their devices are able to withstand malicious access by hackers and information thieves” (Furlan 24). Some of the steps include being careful when loading websites and scanning QR codes, especially since the evolution of malware that attacks mobile devices means that the same caution exercised when using PCs should also be applied to Google Glass. In addition, it is important when downloading apps for Google Glass to ensure that the permissions requested by the program are needed and necessary to avoid hacking. “Anti-malware software used to protect intrusions of the device must also only be purchased from vendors of repute” (Furlan 25), and in this case the anti-malware software bought must be specifically made for Google Glass. Finally, Google Glass users must ensure that their mobile device anti-malware programs are regularly updated. User authentication may be another way to solve the privacy issues that threaten to stop Google Glass’ introduction into the market. As stated by Hong, “Expectations of privacy can change, and perceived value is a major factor in driving that change” (p. 11). Therefore, Google should introduce an auto-protect system for its Google Glass device, which will bring identification functionality to consumers that gives them perceived value. Such authentication processes include use of PIN numbers or systems based on biometrics including voice scanners, retinal scans, and eye focus that can unlock the device. This will prevent hacking and use of information gathered with the device without the owner’s knowledge. The locking approach for Google Glass could also incorporate auto cover that allows the wearer to utilize voice command to close it, which will ensure information privacy for the user and those around them. “We all lack experience with how we might use wearable computers, and so it is very likely that most of our expectations will be off the mark” (Hong 10). This is especially true of physical security, particularly since the device is personal in nature, making it essential that any incidents of theft leave the user with the opportunity to track the device. Moreover, through this covering of the physical security adjustment, Google can improve the device’s media access control. In conclusion, the introduction of Google Glass tests across the US and its imminent placement in the market has raised several issues surrounding privacy. These privacy concerns have to do with both the information collected by the device user, and the expectations of anonymity for those around the Google Glass wearer. However, there are various means through which Google can address privacy concerns to ensure that Google Glass is accepted by the general public. They could address the fears that people will be recorded and filmed secretly by installing a shutter sound on their device similar to that on smartphones and digital cameras, as well as LED light that informs others that the device is switched on. In addition, the use of software that detects network intrusion will prevent loss of information by users especially that stored in their smartphones, while the use of anti-malware software will prevent the theft of information through malicious software. Finally, the devices should be auto-protected to avoid use by third parties and their use restricted in sensitive areas. This can be done by jamming Internet connections for the latter in areas where Google Glass poses a national security risk, as well as voice recognition technology to avoid unauthorized use by third parties. Works Cited Duran, Yesenia. "Google Glass Finds Its Way into Law Enforcement: Through the Looking Glass." Law and Order 62 (2014): 17-20. Print. Furlan, Ribeiro. "Google Glass." IEEE Spectrum 50.10 (2013): 23-26. Print. Hong, Jason. "Considering Privacy Issues in the Context of Google Glass." Communications of the ACM 56.11 (2013): 10-11. Print. Safavi, Seyed. & Shukur, Zarina. "Improving Google Glass Security and Privacy by Changing the Physical and Software Structure." Life Science Journal 11.5 (2014): 109-117. Print. Schreiber, Anne. "Through the Looking Glass: Google Glass?? Privacy, and Opacity, with an Israeli Law Twist." International Data Privacy Law 4.1 (2014): 69-82. Print. Read More