"...Student learning outcomes: Glass can be used in situations where it is difficult to observe student behavior. For example, problem based learning and active learning (flipped) classrooms often require students to work in teams. Given the number of teams working simultaneously in large classroom settings it is difficult to observe each one long enough to see the arc of their interaction. Students working in groups can wear and use Glass to record what has been going on for self-evaluation and instructor review. In another example, students can use Glass to do field work that is later shared with the class for dissection, discussion, and shared learning."
"...."The question is, 'Will Google Glass become mainstream and popular?' I guess I am worried that we have already made that decision. It has already been precluded by the question of whether we will allow a few large private technology companies like Google to determine by decree how we behave in contemporary society. And the answer seems to be yes."
For more information about Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital's participation in the Google Glass Explorer Program please visit http://childrens.memorialhermann.org/google-glass/ Learn more about the Houston Zoo at http://www.houstonzoo.org/ Children's Memorial Hermann teamed up with the Houston Zoo, located across the street from the hospital, to allow patients to visit some of their favorite animals through Google Glass.
"...Interview with Mitch Jackson - lots more on Mitch Jackson here - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MitchJackson/about "
"...I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line this [ Google Glass ] will be the norm....or whatever the mobile technology is." - 2 April 2014 9:24AM AEST
Mitch Jackson provides an account of how he perceives Google Glass playing out across the legal profession in his state and perhaps across the United States more broadly. Mitch also provides feedback on a range of far ranging questions that included:
1. Mitch, which part of the US do you call home? 2. In your email signature you identify as a trial lawyer with 28 years experience. How is it then that you have identified as a #glassexplorer and what does that do for your credibility as a Lawyer? 3. There have been some very public events of late that expose both the good and the bad sides of #glass - what do you consider is the difference? 4. Have you or do you envisage in the the near future dealing with cases that involve #glass legally in any way? 5. Where dont you wear #glass ? 6. What has your Family reaction been to #glass ? Rotary ? your sports associations? 7. When you say your involved with social media and #googleglass in your G+ profile do you see these as separate entities or mutually complementary? 8. #glass is at this point still a relatively unknown phenomena here in Australasia. What do you consider will be the impact of #glass more broadly on the professional communities across Australia? 9. Given that society has changed significantly since the inception of the Internet do you have any ideas on what likely changes might happen with the functions and form of #googleglass in the next iterations before it's public release? 10. What is the likely shifts in law and governance that we are going to have to tackle as a Society and internationally or even perhaps across all of humanity as a result of #glass ?
"...Short Interview with Cathie Reid - #glassexplorer - More about Cathie - https://plus.google.com/u/0/117806724842643433035/about "
I've invited Cathie to come to Canberra, Australia and connect with the public at the INSPIRE Centre, University of Canberra as part of the 2014 #glassmeetups . These blended face-to-face and online events provide an opportunity for discussions as to what other areas of the medical, healthcare, aged care industries might have in development or even in conceptual proof of concept such as the depiction below.
"...This is the official Autographer app. It allows you to review, tag, share and delete images from your Autographer when you’re on the go. Preview and browse all of the images on your Autographer in chronological order. Select a single image or use several to create GIFs . Share these directly from your phone. You can also tag images and mark your favourites for later."
Tit for tat. Citizens turn camera on police; so police respond by turning cameras on society. Who wins? What next? Memory implants?
Video can lie because context can be missing- let us not fool ourselves... discussion on wearables as applied to a multitude of applications is the topic of the next IEEE Technology and Society Magazine (June 2014) after this program in 2013. Check out http://sites.ieee.org/istas-2013
Interested readers might also like to look at this pioneering summary from the Point of View Technologies in Law Enforcement Workshop (2012) http://works.bepress.com/kmichael/249/ in addition to the Human Rights and Policing Conference (2013) http://www.ceps.edu.au/events/2013-ceps-human-rights-and-policing-conference/technology-and-forensic-science which featured the work of Mick Keelty et al.
"Some officers have already paid for their own miniature cameras, raising concerns about the storage of data on personal computers.
The Keelty Review into the QPS last year flagged privacy issues around the storage of police recordings on home computers. It recommended investigating a solution to storing “big data”.
The camera revelation came after The Courier-Mail won a more than 12-month Right to Information battle to overturn a police decision to keep secret the results of a trial of cameras on Tasers.
It was released after the Information Commissioner overturned the QPS’s decision.
The 2011 review found Taser Cams were operationally ineffective, but recommended investigating body-worn cameras to record all use-of-force incidents after an extension of the trial found the body cameras superior in all areas.
The release of the report comes as the police Ethical Standards Command prepares to interview a Logan woman as part of an investigation into how she lost her eye after being Tasered in February.
Police are unable to rely on footage of the incident as Queensland’s 1000-plus Tasers do not have cameras and police are not issued body-worn video cameras.
An analysis of police use-of-force reports obtained under RTI for 2012 found that of the 63 people stunned by Tasers that year, only five were caught on CCTV.
Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers said the review findings supported his repeated calls for the QPS to issue body-worn cameras.
“Body-worn cameras are the modern equivalent of the police notebook and should be compulsory equipment for all police,” Mr Leavers said."
"Keeping track of your emails and staying on top of your calendar might be hard enough, but for American software developer Chris Dancy, life doesn’t feel complete without several hundred data sets about his life being fed to him simultaneously at all times.
Today, Dancy is “travelling light”, only wearing seven devices: above his eyes sits the unmistakable horizontal bar of a Google Glass headset, which records everything he sees, while around his neck hangs a Memoto narrative camera, which takes a picture every 30 seconds for good measure. On one wrist is a Pebble watch, which sends him alerts from his two smartphones, while around the other is a Fitbit Flex, tracking his movement and sleep patterns 24 hours a day. And then there’s the stuff you can’t see: a Blue HR heart rate monitor strapped to his chest, a BodyMedia fitness tracker around his upper arm and, lurking beneath his waistband, a Lumoback posture sensor – “which vibrates when I slouch,” he beams.
“Right now I feel pretty naked,” he says, “because I can’t control the room.” Back at home in Denver, Colorado, all the data from these devices feeds directly into his ambient environment, which automatically adjusts according to his mood and needs.
“The house knows my behaviours,” he says. “If I get really stressed out and don’t sleep well, when I wake up the light is a certain colour, the room a particular temperature, and certain music plays. My entire life is preconditioned based on all this information that I collect in real time.”
“All this stuff [...] needs to be in my clothing. Why can’t your shoes have haptic sensors in them, so if you’re walking you don’t need GPS – your shoe just vibrates left or right? I think this low-friction, ambient feedback is really the future, but for now we have to strap all this stuff on and look silly.”
Dancy is perhaps the most extreme exponent [of] a community dedicated to tracking and archiving every aspect of their known existence. But might others also be watching them too?
“That’s a very real concern,” says John Weir, director of the Wearable Technology Show. “You can quantify yourself as much as you want, but a lot of that is fed back on the web, and a lot of the companies now hold immense amounts of data on their customers. Particularly with medical applications, where people will hopefully be feeding stuff back to their doctors, the ownership of data and privacy is going to become a big issue.”
Dancy shares these concerns, but is more optimistic about the beneficial power of mastering our data, as long as we stop giving it away. “We don’t have a sharing problem, we have a data intimacy problem,” he says. “It’s urgent that people look at the data they are creating and giving away – so much of it can be used to make our lives better, rather than lining the pockets of mega corporations.”
In reality, few have the software skills to ensure their personal data is not being harvested against their will, so maybe it’s for the best that most wearable tech still makes you look like an extra from Star Trek. For some, that’s a useful deterrent from ever wearing it."
"...On a chilly morning in early January, I joined a hundred students in a lecture hall on the Georgia Tech campus for a class called Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing. The professor, Thad Starner, looked up at his audience of aspiring programmers, industrial designers, roboticists, and user-interface specialists. He is forty-four, with a boyish face and sideburns that yearn for the 1990s. He wore, as he often does, a black T-shirt and black jeans. “In this class we’re going to talk about four main things,” he said. “Privacy, power and heat, networking on- and off-body, and interface. Every time you make any decision on any four of these dimensions, it’s going to affect the others. It’s always a balancing act.”
Hard to believe that Alexander Hayes and I were at ISTAS13 with Steve Mann, Raymond Lo and the crew in June 2013 and had been working toward Veillance.Me conference for 18 months prior! One of the few times a socio-technical theme-based conference has pre-empted dialogue on what is allegedly going to be so prolific.
Photo: META (now)
Photo: META (future vision)
AR and META
Iron-man style glass visualisations
Real live-action video games could become more real with Meta. Photo: META
Taking everything you know about the world of computers, the history of screen experience and the trajectory of emerging technologies—say with Google Glass, for example—combined with this culture’s love affair with instant gratification, recording, surveillance, narcissism, and control; what could one be left looking at?
The Entire History of You explores some of these ideas in a world where most people have an implant behind their ear called a ‘grain’ which records everything they do, see and hear. Memories can be played back either in front of the person’s eyes or on a screen—a process known as a ‘re-do.’
Nothing is off limits. Everything is recorded, archived, and scrutinised.
Scrutiny comes to social events too. ‘Re-dos’ are done with friends and family, analogous to the current culture of social media ‘sharing’ and the solipsistic sense of self lived vicariously through screens.
In this world—and of our own—what are the myriad personal, interpersonal and social implications? What do the profound repercussions for relationships and even individual existential experience look like?
The Entire History of You is part of a series of films called Black Mirror which explore different aspects of “the way we live now—and the way we might be living in 10 minutes’ time if we're clumsy.”
Great to see a few scholars coming out and questioning the data being gathered by event data recorders in cars. MG Michael and I have raised such concerns in the past, and have even pondered on the IMPLANTABLE black box recorder in the body that might one day well and truly make its widespread diffusion heralding in the age of uberveillance!
It is few times I have been surprised by how fast technology moves... one of these surprises has come in the early childhood sector...
When I wrote the Muffin Man post reflecting back to a time in 2005 for the Veillance.Me conference I program chaired at the University of Toronto (2013), little did I know that a few years on, one of the superloopers I personally met at my first child care exposure as a parent, would be talking about kinderloop... interesting name, I must say... I wonder what the 'loop' bit means... maybe something akin to 'replay'... or how the world goes round and round...
We've all become accustomed to hearing about NannyCams and even crib webcams in hospitals. A great way for family to share in the experience, especially if extended families can't be there to share in the moment... I imagine a joyous experience esp for grandparents who are immobile or live overseas.
An infant sleeps in the neonatal intensive care unit at St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, watched over by a webcam.
If you study the image above, you will see the camera less than a metre directly over the baby's head.
Each unto their own... but when I had my kids, one of the things I enjoyed most was not having technology invade my space. I did use my mobile phone but that too sparingly. I tried to appreciate the feeling and smell of a new baby.
The above image brings a new meaning to cradle-to-grave surveillance. Mind you I can also see the benefits. One couple I know had to use Skype to film the baby's birth given the husband and wife had been separated by none other than a VISA issue!
And now we are even proposing secure video streaming for peace of mind? Why? Because it is easier than just photographing the good bits and make journaling about the child easier?
Here's what I've started to ponder of late...
Do parents leave their kids at a child care centre only to look up what their kid is doing many times a day?
What happens to the moments where the kid is caught doing something either embarrassing, compromising (because kids should be allowed to be carefree) or just plain wrong?
Deletion is always more difficult than recording. Carers might always find it more convenient for recording to be continuous because it saves time in compilation but the reality is having a child care worker vet 10 hours of footage a day is not cost-effective.
Compliance handling and accreditation processes are demanding proof of policies put into practice- might they be demanding realtime childcare footage in the not too distant future?
What about when gathered evidence is requested and parents decide to subpoena the child care for "recordings" taken to replay the playground incident where little Jack or Jill broke their arm or leg or were bitten by another child? Might this cause controversy or animosity between children or parents?
Might parents feel pressured to consent on behalf of their child to filming? How does the Centre delete another child from the "scene"?
Just a few days ago, an academic I know even shared with me the possibility of remotely supervising an examination using a web cam. Each unto their own I guess... but who is really thinking all this through? No one seems to be asking permission for these practices? Most people claim it is now a part of everyday life? Well, is it?
Are we playing into the hands of the Googles of this world when we start to strap recording devices ONTO people! Next the baby will be wearing the camera, and it won't be long before the camera will sit in the translucent layer of the skin, inside all of us. That's right, the future might well be a PersonView on Google Earth, and that person might happen to be your baby! Why pay for the security when everyone is touting the benefits of transparency?
If we cannot see this "transformation" or better still "metamorphosis" occurring in our world, then we are probably being blinded by the tech hype.
I am not advocating for zero tolerance of images or video or audio in child care centres, but we need to deeply deeply consider the implications of doing so. What is our intent? To inform parents? To help the child develop? To track milestones? Does video really do that? Perhaps very short clips achieve this aim but I'd be wary of any system that wants to setup a sophisticated local area network of CCTVs, just to offer a parent transparency.
In 1997, a colleague of mine at Nortel had begun her daughter's web site 6 months BEFORE her birth into the world. Beyond the fact that we were both Star Trek fans, I wondered how a child who had her life documented online even before her entry into the world might feel some 15 years down the track. Likely "very" normal if social media and electronic exhibitionism is anything to go by these days!
But what are the tradeoffs?
We can argue sousveillance vs surveillance BUT how long will it take to become uberveillance?
Has anyone bothered to read the Surveillance Devices Act of Australia? Or are those principles and laws to be abandoned?
High-tech robots called PackBots will be unleashed during the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil to help boost security and examine suspicious objects.
The Brazilian government purportedly spent US$7.2 million to buy 30 military-grade robots from designers iRobot that will police the stadiums throughout Brazil’s 12 host cities during soccer matches.
PackBot is a hunk of metal with an extendable arm and tactile claw, jam-packed on-board sensors and a computer with overheat protection, nine high-resolution cameras and lasers and two-way audio.
But is it overkill to implement wartime robots to a sporting event?
Sport’s history of violence
On April 30 1993, then-world number 1 tennis sensation Monica Seles was stabbed in the back while playing a quarter-final at Hamburg’s Rothenbaum. She was only 19.
That incident not only changed the course of women’s tennis history but also changed the face of security in sport.
Of course, we can also point to the Munich massacre of the 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team during the 1972 Summer Olympics in West Germany in rethinking approaches to the safety of high-profile athletes.
It was Seles’ plight however, that brought attention to an ever-increasing problem of public figure security. Her stabbing in Hamburg had naught to do with terrorism, and more to do with her perpetrator’s fixation on arch rival Steffi Graf. Player safety was going to become even bigger business.
It was floated that the Rothenbaum tournament organisers had spent A$650,000 on security, and that Seles herself had employed security guards to protect her at all her tournament appearances. So what went wrong?
The human factor
Not only are people unpredictable but intervention is almost impossible if one cannot anticipate the actions of another. On November 13 1982, one of Australia’s great wicket takers Terry Alderman made a costly mistake when he took security matters into his own hands.
The West Australian was disabled for over a year with a shoulder injury he sustained when he came off second best after attempting to tackle an English-supporting ground invader at the WACA Ground in Perth.
Such has become the concern over security that spectators can no longer spill onto the grounds after the final siren to get close to their heroes.
Pitch invasions had long been a tradition of Australian Football League (AFL), and at the end of matches supporters could run onto the field to celebrate the game and play kick-to-kick with their family and friends.
But in recent years stricter controls were introduced and finally the “rushing the field” was banned, to the great disappointment of fans.
The non-human factor
What makes PackBots attractive for civilian security situations, such as large-scale sporting tournaments?
PackBots made their debut in Afghanistan as far back as 2002. During the “war on terror” these uninhabited systems had several tasks:
to clear bunkers
search in caves
enter collapsed buildings in search of life
This began a trend of development subsequently in Iraq and other US conflicts, until recently when they went where no human would want to go, the Fukushima nuclear facility in March 2011 after the devastation of the Japanese tsunami.
There are certainly positive uses to these uninhabited systems which few would argue against.
PackBots can move faster than 14km/h, rotate 360 degrees, traverse rugged terrain, climb up 60% grades and even swim in water, being able to cope with being submerged up to two metres. It can even be remotely operated with hardly any lag using a joystick.
iRobot’s bots are not recent entries into the commercial market. No, many of us would have been introduced to the domestication of the robot by the introduction of the company’s Roomba household cleaning machine.
And the use of electronics in sport isn’t new. Hawk-Eye officiates whether the ball was in or out of the sideline, FoxCopter hovers above spectators at the cricket just to give us up-close personal shots of players and the third umpire adjudicates challenges.
But now the PackBots are coming: ostensibly precise, they are not supposed to malfunction or act against the controller’s wishes (or those instructions that they have been programmed with) and they cannot be easily destroyed. In the not-so-distant future they could use their cameras to observe you, their chemical sensors to breathalyse you, their extended arm to trap you and their claw to handcuff you.
We are giving over control to machine entities, or better still, “objects and units” outside of ourselves.
In fact many argue we have already lost great chunks of our autonomy without the expected commensurate increase in security. Will the natural instincts and creative inputs of human beings become increasingly redundant in a world where the “tin man” has the final say?
Katina Michael receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). She is affiliated with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Australian Privacy Foundation (APF).
MG Michael does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
This morning I listened to the Dr Katherine Albrecht Show (see archive of 27 February 2014). Katherine was discussing the impact of video gaming on children. I watched this clip as a result of the program she aired.
Yesterday, Dr Albrecht appeared on George Noury's Coast to Coast program (see technology update here) and discussed the 'I want my iPad' phenomenon in toddlers. Here is another video she pointed to:
And another... She maintained that she would generally NOT wish for listeners to view these kinds of clips online but in this instance, it was the only way to raise awareness to an epidemic occurring in our society.
This phenomenon is a known phenomenon. See more. So what are we doing about it? Gathering the evidence and putting our kids online so that our Youtube hits increase ten-thousand fold?
I feel so sick in linking these videos of these kids up online in the uberveillance.com environment. But I am calling people out there to wake up to the what is occurring in most of our households.
What is the answer?
Better friends and extended support groups?
Zero tolerance on screen time for toddlers?
Schools saying 'no' to technology in the classroom?
Are we adding fuel to the fire?
What is blatantly obvious to me is that we need more research into SOLUTIONS. We can't have kids crying like this and profusely suffering anguish, and we cannot have parents surviving this kind of daily misery... and most of all we need to feedback these problems to developers... we cannot point the finger at Apple or Google alone... we need to point the finger at ourselves... society... yes 'we' perpetuate the problem. We can plead ignorance but we all know someone going through this- a child, a grandchild, a niece or nephew, a friend or a neighbour... in fact, we might be even going through it ourselves!
Where have we gone wrong?
Beyond that obvious point?
Why are the parents of these poor children putting their kids up online for everyone to comment on? Are they deep down seeking help? Do they want their prayers answered? Do they want to make their kids well?
We cannot claim ALL of these children appearing in thousands of uploads (just search online) are due to autism or some other mental illness or developmental problems! And if we claim that, are computers somehow contributing to these developmental issues?
The other thing that becomes apparent to me is the use of the mobile phone video camera as a weapon. Have we become so heartless, that we begin now to film these traumatic events and post them online for others to comment on. You were right on the mark Dr Albrecht. This is evil. Instead of going over and gently comforting our kids to return to their senses, we take out the camera to record the reality-tv... and so our children are now a part of a global theatre!
In previous posts, I have discussed the importance of NOT capturing these moments so we can allow our children to grow and develop, and not be held accountable for things they did as children. MG Michael and I have discussed the limits of watching. With Christine Perakslis we have also written an extensive book chapter on veillance (in press)!
Can you imagine being one of the kids in this video? How would that make you feel 5 years on, 10 years on, 20 years on, or when you first discovered it was online for all to see on Youtube? Would you be typecast for life?
Everyone, we have to wake up! I am not being alarmist... if your heart doesn't feel sad over these videos then I personally don't know what to say...
And then we are contemplating taking Glass into the classroom? Right-o! Don't you think these tantrums don't happen at school? Will our children become "objects" not just "subjects" in the classroom? Let us tread VERY carefully. We can't use our kids as experiments. We need to think ethics.
And it is not just children that react this way... no... no... adults too, have this reaction but just convey it in a different way. See my article on high-tech lust!
We need to take the negative social implications of computers more seriously. Yes, some guys out there claim that computers can help kids... all my fellow collaborators and I are claiming is that the opposite is also true. Let's not be so narrowsighted. This is our future we are talking about!