The Ethics of Google Glass: Do You Actually Think You Will Resist? #googleglass

I’ve been thinking about Google Glass lately and the singularly unusual antipathy this new piece of technology is receiving. I mean, have we somehow momentarily forgotten that we live an age where technology is what brings new possibilities and hope? (Microsoft Super Bowl Ad is embodiment of the great hope, even salvation? expected from and placed in technology) We are living in 2014 and do we still think we can resist the march of technological progress like a bunch of Amish?

Quite a few years ago I remember thinking that it would be great if you could blink your eye and start a video recording hands free. Of course recording just the audio of a conversation would be great as well. Its always with you, no fumbling for phone, then app. I wasn’t even thinking of a small screen, but that just increases the “possibilities”. Isn’t glass the perfect solution for unsafe driving mobile calls? Why, Glass could even avoid the “sea of phones” problem that the previous generation of technology brought us.

Why the luddite like hate and rancor over Google Glass? As I tried to answer this question for myself I could think of several things that might be igniting the current resistance:

• Super geek look (modern version of a pocket protector toting nerd?)
• Invasion of privacy by those with Glass
• Invasion privacy by big vendor

So if the “looking like an idiot” is an objection we have to Glass, what if the product is shrunk to a negligible size, will the problem be solved? Let’s say somehow auto magically it could be miniaturized so it was unnoticeable, would that address the issue? Well if size will address our collective problem with Glass, I suspect we can confidently expect a solution. Mobile phones now no longer need research to go smaller and smaller so all these manufacturers efforts can be focused on a glass-like product and inevitably this problem will be solved.

Or is our angst that we know it will become miniaturized and that is precisely the problem? Is it our concern with privacy that is triggering the luddite reflex? But hasn’t anyone that already has Gmail (isn’t that everyone?)..or Outlook.com, or you-name-it.com already surrendered privacy about their most private matters? Has our toleration level with a vendor that seems bent on creating a kind of “Brave New World”, a world that is both creepy and pleasurable, reached a breaking point? Or are we so squeamish about the possibility of being video recorded without our permission?

Is there an unwritten borderland (distance from our eyes?) across which a screen or tech may not cross? Are we concerned about tech getting between us and the real world? (apparently only visually, because we crossed the audio/microphone line some time ago?) Are we afraid of becoming cyborgs?

Or is it that in Google Glass we see a product that delivers a concerning balance of creepy and helpful, hope and fear? Something that we intuitively recognize as powerful, but along with it triggers a primal fear?

In the end Google Glass or something like it will arrive. It will be introduced into your life gradually: maybe at first only used in the warehouse or while exercising and it will grow from there. Perhaps we just want to complain a bit then comply?

I plan to keep thinking about Glass. I’d like to hear any thoughts you have as well. <end>

ID Strangers With Google Glass:
http://macdailynews.com/2014/02/05/new-google-glass-app-allows-strangers-to-id-you-at-a-glance/

NYPD Testing Google Glass:
http://www.zdnet.com/nypd-testing-out-google-glass-for-cops-on-patrol-7000026037/

Places that don’t allow Glass:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/top-10-places-that-have-banned-google-glass/66585/

Wired: Jets with screens instead of windows:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/supersonic-jet-video-windows/?cid=co18989384

Cyborg, slowly acclimate/part time, how it will modify us, crossing the wearable divide

Plantronics Demos Prototype BlueTooth Headset That Tracks User Movements

Interesting new research prototype by Plantronics. Some notes:

• 9 axis sensor
• Tracks Head orientation in 3 dimension
• pedometer
• free fall detection
• along w/ current wearing state events

Looks like it has a temperature sensor?

Polycom CX200, aka Catalina, Is Starting Journey Into Sunset: Is Dial Pad Here To Stay?

@jc_1875 notes that the Polycom CX200 is no longer available from suppliers in the UK and is no longer on the UK Polycom listed among the Lync Optimized devices on Polycom’s site (click here) (update: I now note the USA site is same: click here )

It is with a little nostalgia, as the CX200 was the very first OCS/Lync handset I video reviewed, way back in Dec 2009.

The CX200 lead the brave new world of dial pad less USB desk phone in the OCS/Lync hardware eco system. Today we have many USB speaker phones and some handheld devices---but this will mean the end of dial pad less device in an otherwise desk phone form factor. Considering the CX300, with a dial pad, remains, is this a little blow to no dial pad? Just a thought that hit me.

And, will the next dial pad less desk phone look more something like below? Interestingly enough, Lync may soon come to devices like the Mocet Communicator, via the new Lync 2013 Mobile client for iPad. The new Lync 2013 Mobile for iPad will do voice and video over IP, so could conceivably work on an iPad with the $229 device below.

I would say the wide spread federation usage will likely put the nail in the “dial pad” coffin more than driving this from device form factor. Microsoft Lync Server 2013’s native connection to thousands of other enterprise’s using Lync, Office365, Google IM/P and soon the millions of Skype users world wide will certainly move the things towards a dial-pad-free future: but likely not anytime soon.

<the end>

My Old CX200 Video Review for old times sake:
http://windowspbx.blogspot.com/2009/12/polycom-cx200-ocs-usb-phone-aka.html

Twitter Post:
https://twitter.com/jc_1875/status/310072912755445760

All My video reviews:
Click Here

Lync <-> Skype articles you might have interest in:

• How Do I Enable Lync <-> Skype Federation from Skype Side? Click Here
• How Much Will Lync <-> Skype Federation Cost? Click Here
• How Does Lync <-> Skype Federation Work Under the Hood? Click Here
• Nov 2012: Lync <-> Skype IM/P Has Started Working: Click Here
• Feb 2013: Lync <-> Skype Voice Has Started Working for Some: Click Here

Presence Is the New Dial tone. And Instant Message IS a New Kind of Voice, Linguist John McWhorter Notes

For some time I have been wondering aloud if Instant Messaging isn’t replacing more voice calls than we suspect. Are voice calls being replaced more with IM or video calls? I’d love to see statistics on this, but that discussion aside, a linguistics professor may be noting why IM is such a natural voice replacement: because it IS spoken language.

According to John McWhorter, linguistics professor at Columbia University:

“Texting isn’t written language, It much more closely resembles the kind of language we’ve had for so many more years: spoken language.”

He goes on to coin a new term: “fingered speech”. He also notes that if speech can become like writing (a written speech), can writing become like speech? (texting, and by extension IM).

Those interesting in the development of Unified Communication will really want to read this interesting TED 2013 article.

TED: http://blog.ted.com/2013/02/28/the-linguistic-miracle-of-texting-john-mcwhorter-at-ted2013/
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/03/texting-isnt-writing-its-fingered-speech/?cid=co6138824

Q&A with John McWhorter:
http://blog.ted.com/2012/07/11/lol-is-its-own-language-qa-with-john-mcwhorter/

uConnect p2p Communication Server

NOTE: this has nothing to do with Lync and is just myself keeping my brain cells stimulated. An evening, extra curricular detour…

After reading & thinking about webRTC, my take away is that the most transformative aspect is new “federation” models that webRTC has the possibility of enabling. One of these pointed out by Phil Edholm is a federation method that could be called “point at URL federation”. To envision how this would work I have started to write an extremely simple point at URL communication server (lab/proof of concept/experimental) to test the ideas.

The basic idea is that this type of “federation” (or inter organization connectivity) depends on nothing other than one user “pointing at another user URL” to connect to someone in the other organization. But what challenges will pop up with this? After scribbling on various napkins, I decided to just do a quick mockup app to test the ideas.

Pillars of this experimental Server/Client

• interconnectivity with as little connection “friction” is a foundational goal
• absolutely as little “start a conversation” friction as possible
• IM/P & note is foundational as well
• Note could serve as foundation for decentralized twitter-like social
• with media made possible by webRTC (or something like it)

Some of my initial goals:

• build an extremely simple server
• starting with IM/P and non-realtime modalities
• p2p server and client combined in web interface
• voluntary participating in directory connects many different p2p servers
• see how much can be achieved with GET model

(This is all a hobby/evening project so might take considerable time.)

Below: screen home user sees when logged in:

Below: screen guest user sees

GuestName –or- usernamepassword

Next the “external user” will see a screen similar to above, with themselves and other user (the url they typed in) in the conversation.