35 ms·

What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized eyewear

404 points by twentysix 14y ago

rikacomet 14y ago
this has to go front page!
kiba 14y ago
To me, google glasses is worth a buy for just only one reason: sousvelliance(or inverse survelliance). When somebody crashed into your house, or you witnessed a crime taking progress, or remembering an important details related to business dealing, it just may be worth the 1500 dollars you spent to get a Google Glass. Other application of google glass may provide utility on a daily basis. I can imagine getting 10 dollars worth of useful service from google glass everyday, and 5 dollars in security benefit for the surrounding society. Multiply that by 365 days which is 5475 USD in term of economic benefit every year. Don't forget to mention high value recordings such as record of criminal activities, abuse of authorities by cops. (Of course, if you're too poor, than google glasses isn't worth 1500 USD even if it may be someday worth 1500 USD of value to you.)
- codeulike 14y ago
  Interestingly, Steve Mann coined the word Sousveillance
- mamp 14y ago
  It sounds like an inverse-need situation. Those who can afford Google Glasses probably live in neighbourhoods they aren't attacked at a high rate, whereas those who live in higher crime neighbourhoods can't afford it. Will it help? Once criminals recognize the device they will either steal them or smash you in the face to destroy the evidence.
  - berntb 14y ago
    >>Once criminals recognize the device they will either steal them or smash you in the face to destroy the evidence Such a system for security ought to have video storage inside a hard shell with a high speed 4G link, able to send the last minute of video/sound (with gps position) to the police at the push of a button. The high speed link is probably a bit bulky (batteries) and will probably always be put into a pocket or something anyway, even without security considerations. But sure, criminals could get some equipment to disturb mobile connections.
    - driverdan 14y ago
      Glass does have a "high speed 4G link" - your smartphone.
- chanux 14y ago
  I'm scared of a future where you witness a crime with video capable glasses on and be hunted for having the incident recorded.
  - Steuard 14y ago
    If it becomes standard for that video to be continuously uploaded to a remote server, then hunting down the bystander would be entirely pointless. I think that's what we have to hope for.
    - ANTSANTS 14y ago
      1. You could still be targeted just for wearing such a device in the wrong place, then. 2. Do you really hope for each and everything you see to be uploaded to a remote server?
      - jimmaswell 14y ago
        Regarding 2, I'd get it to constantly upload to my home server. Seems easy to write an app for and set up on my server with php or maybe a custom service.
      - Steuard 14y ago
        1. Fair point. I think I had in mind a future where these devices were in such common use that any bystander could be assumed to be wearing one. That might lead to greater targeting of all bystanders, but at some point I suspect criminals (or other privacy seekers) would just adapt and factor "avoid bystanders" into their plans in order to settle at about the same level of violence they do today (rather than routinely attacking every bystander they see). This may be over-optimistic. 2. I find it to be an intriguing idea, but one that does admittedly scare the bejesus out of me. Unfortunately, I consider it all too probable that near-ubiquitous camera surveillance is in our future whether we like it or not, and in that scenario I'd vastly prefer for individuals to have their own recordings as well rather than blindly trust that the governments and/or corporations running the other cameras will always act with my best interests at heart.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  Recording in a public place in generally legal, but recording a private conversation, like a business meeting, is more complex. The laws vary depending on state (in the U.S.), and some states require the consent of all participants. I'm not sure that I'd want to wear a device that would expose me to felony charges if I inadvertently recorded some sensitive conversation that I didn't have permission to record. Also, private property owners (like store owners) can eject you for trying to record video on their premises. There are some places where recording devices will never be welcome, such as movie theaters, sporting events and workplaces that deal with confidential information (e.g., a doctor's or lawyer's office, or even a start-up company whose product wasn't yet announced). And I'm pretty sure that even Google wouldn't be happy if all their employees wore these to work every day. Would your work colleagues or managers speak candidly with you if they knew that their every word might be getting recorded?
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    >Would your work colleagues or managers speak candidly with you if they knew that their every word might be getting recorded? If I recall correctly, there's a light visible on the outside of the eyepiece (the lens part) that's on whenever recording is happening. There will be no question if recording is going on or not.
cromwellian 14y ago
I think eyestrain would be a factor if you're using these systems as an augmented display that's constantly on, but I don't think the point of these devices is to be constantly looking at them, but rather, to engage them as needed, otherwise, let them get out of the way. His devices in the pictures are shown to get in between the eye and the external world, whereas, if you look at glass, the screen is up and out of your line of sight. I think if your wearable tech display is always on and continuously visible, it'll be a problem, battery life will be negatively impacted, and the device will distract you constantly.
- dbaupp 14y ago
  I think that the problems you mentioned are either obvious (clearly being on always will reduce battery life) or just require better design: if the device is distracting, it needs to be adjusted so that it isn't (as an example, it could usually be pass-through displaying only a tiny information panel out of the line of sight like Glass, and only expanding over the whole field when some special feature is activated. Being artificially limited to never being an overlay isn't better than being able to be both an overlay and also just an info panel.) The author posits that Google placed the screen out of the line of sight to avoid vision misalignment and misadjustment problems. (Also, the eyestrain due to focus distances was mentioned, and apparently solved by using an "aremac": a pinhole camera in reverse which means the video is focused at every distance.)
  - gammarator 14y ago
    The author actually says that Google's design creates eyestrain by requiring viewing at a fixed focal distance.
Swizec 14y ago
All I really want from computerized eyewear is telemetry for sports. Current time/pace/distance/route/whatever when I'm running. Current speed, next corner severity/distance when I'm longboarding. (http://swizec.com/blog/ifihadglass-the-app-i-want-to-build/swizec/6035 http://swizec.com/blog/ifihadglass-the-app-i-want-to-build/s...) That alone would be worth the money to me. Such things already exist for skiing goggles, but those aren't extensible and only really fit one sport. So that's no good.
- berntb 14y ago
  All I really want is a network connection, an 80 chars wide Emacs terminal in the window and a chording keyboard strapped to my hand. This assumes a small Linux (BSD?) distro installed. The rest is trivial. (Iirc, this is a setup one of Mann's students had.) Edit: OK, I do want a camera too. And video log. And... But 80+% of usability would come from Emacs lisp (or short scripts run from shell) Edit 2: Love HN. I comment about a setup I read about years ago and have been waiting for buying the hardware -- and of course get answers (I assume that w/out employment contracts, they would have been more detailed). Thanks.
  - ronyeh 14y ago
    Remembrance Agent http://www.remem.org/ http://www.remem.org/ was created by Bradley Rhodes, one of the group of "cyborgs" doing wearable computing research at MIT at that time. ... and after a quick search, it looks like he works at the Google, most likely on Glass.
    - saulrh 14y ago
      I've actually worked with the Thad Starner and the Remembrance Agent before. Let me tell you, it's even cooler than it looks. Of note, there's a version of the RA that has additions that make it more suitable for use on wearable computers. The first item in the papers section (Using Physical Context..., 2003) describes all the extra stuff that the wearable version does.
    - networked 14y ago
codeulike 14y ago
The second issue, the eyestrain from trying to focus both eyes at different distances, is also one I overcame—more than 20 years ago! The trick is to arrange things so that the eye behind the mirror can focus at any distance and still see the display clearly. Sounds like he has some great insights here. He's also known as 'the worlds first cyborg' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann), and the lonely trail he seemed to be on is now shifting to the mainstream.
- frozenport 14y ago
  Certainly not lonely, its a gimmick that gives him legitimacy in his professional field.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Uh, please. He has very real and legitimate contributions to his field.
jaggederest 14y ago
I really wish someone would make an early-adopter version of his EyeTap v4/v5 and sell it. Would I pay cost plus 50% for one? Absolutely. Up to and including car-level prices. This is HN, a startup, anyone?
- rasur 14y ago
  I've been a follower of Steve's work since meeting him in '96 at work, and I can only echo your sentiments here. The EyeTap would be my preferred solution (compared to Glass, for example).
  - rdl 14y ago
    I've been planning to make one myself once the Microvision laser scanning displays got reasonable, but I've been waiting about...15 years for that? so it's probably a lost cause. The area which I think would be super-interesting and easy would be pure audio mediated reality. Vision is hard, but I could do audio for $500. I have shooting earmuffs which essentially do this already -- they have microphones and speakers, and amplify soft sounds while attenuating loud sounds.
ronyeh 14y ago
(In the far future) if Google Glass could automatically upload video of what you're seeing to your cloud storage, you could have a searchable log of your entire life. Reminds me of these projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLifeBits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLifeBits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SenseCam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SenseCam Maybe a V1 of this could have Google Glass take a photo every minute. You could upload it automatically to Evernote or your private G+ photo feed. Then, you could occasionally review and "star" the important moments of your life (and maybe even delete/summarize chunks that are less important).
- seabee 14y ago
  > you could have a searchable log of your entire life. Obligatory sci-fi cautionary tale: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode-guide/series-1/episode-3 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode-guid... A circular buffer and explicit save is the furthest I'd want to take it.
  - redcap 14y ago
    And perhaps some smarts that kick in when some heuristics detect when you are being assaulted and upload imagery of that event straight away. (I'm taking this from Transmetropolitan if anyone's in the know)
  - networked 14y ago
    As much as I enjoyed watching Black Mirror bringing a piece of fiction into this kind of discussion early on is potentially highly problematic [1]. Consider what mentioning The Matrix or Terminator does to a discussion about AI. What Black Mirror's "The Entire History of You" [2] does to lifelogging resembles what those films do artificial intelligence for dramatic purposes. I highly recommend reading Less Wrong's article on this issue [1] for an in-depth discussion of this issue. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza... [2] Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFCqK81s7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFCqK81s7Y, plot summary (spoilers): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#Series_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#S....
kayoone 14y ago
Computerized eyewear like Google Glass will kill the jobs of Rally Co-Drivers!
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Interesting idea, but rally drivers probably wouldn't want a level of distraction in their eye line. Vehicular HUDs have been around for a while now, so they could have adopted it a while back.
- bmj 14y ago
  Only if the FIA allows GPS for navigation. Co-drivers still exist because it is up to the crew to create their own pace notes. I suppose the driver could record his own pace notes during the recce, but there would need to be a tight integration of the notes with the GPS coordinates so the data is absolutely spot on during the stages themselves.
rogueSkib 14y ago
Visual perception is truly an amazing thing! The author's anecdotes about vision alteration and the brain's ability to adapt were very interesting to me. I have nystagmus: my eyes move back and forth quickly all the time. I've often wondered what it looks like to see without the movement; however, that is how I see: I don't notice the movement at all. My vision with contacts doesn't get much better than 20/40, so I do experience the effects of the movement. I tend to think of my vision as if it's an example of two-point wave interference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) The further away an image is from my focal points, the more the interference from movement affects my brain's ability to piece it all together; it's similar to tunnel vision, but instead of darkness on the periphery, it's progressively more blur. To see most clearly, I have to tilt my head to the side, to my "null point" where my eyes move the least. Not to mention my head moves often in some sort of sync with my eyes, especially while reading; once in school, a substitute teacher raised his voice angrily, thinking I was shaking my head at his work on the board! I'm curious how Google and other developers of high-tech eyewear will account for us with out-of-the-ordinary eye conditions. If the glasses or certain apps rely on eye movements for communication, we probably couldn't use them.
sudhirj 14y ago
Steve Mann: Old-fashioned welding helmets use darkened glass for this. More modern ones use electronic shutters. Either way, the person welding merely gets a uniformly filtered view. The arc still looks uncomfortably bright, and the surrounding areas remain frustratingly dim. Me: Hasn't this guy ever heard of HDR? He could have just used a couple of video cameras with some processing. SM: A few years before this, I had returned to my original inspiration—better welding helmets—and built some that incorporated vision-enhancing technology. [...] These helmets exploit an image-processing technique I invented that is now commonly used to produce HDR (high-dynamic-range) photos. Me: Oh. Right.
- dewiz 14y ago
  just to complete on HDR: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5828793&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=... From Wikipedia: Steve Mann developed and patented the global-HDR method for producing digital images having extended dynamic range at the MIT Media Laboratory.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Steve is the kind of person that makes you question your assumptions about just about anything. Doing a 'why does't he just' on him means you're going to have to do the equivalent of 6 months continuous reading first if you want to avoid making a fool out of yourself, so I wouldn't worry about not knowing about his connection to HDR. Steve and I had some interesting exchanges back in '95 or so when video on the web was still a novelty. Steve went on to make history with his series of inventions. What's extremely impressive to me is Steve's incredible faith in his own inventions, no clinical trials on others but dog-fooding in the extreme. Bolting things onto (and into) his body for attachment and augmenting his world. He's a real pioneer in every sense of the word.
  - omegant 14y ago
    Is this guy receiving any industry support? Is something he has invented availble to the public?
jwr 14y ago
I don't understand why Google hasn't hired Steve Mann yet, at least as a consultant on the project. Seems like hubris to me: this guy has been testing wearable systems for 20 years or so and knows more about the experience than anyone on the planet.
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  How do you know they haven't hired him, or that they approached him but couldn't come to terms? I'd say Google has been most un-hubristic with Glass, by revealing it early on to build acceptance and gain feedback.
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    I'd say based off a few things ("not made here") in the article that either they didn't approach him, or there's some other story.
    - codeulike 14y ago
      Perhaps the potential for headlines like "Google hire worlds first cyborg to help them develop Glass" put them off?
      - nicholassmith 14y ago
        Maybe, but honestly it's Google and that sort of thing wouldn't sway them. They have a product called Android after all.
- nirvana 14y ago
  Because Steve Mann is into wearable computers and google glass is not a wearable computer project. Your wondering this is understandable because google has mislead you. But glass has no CPU, there's not enough power or space for one. The intelligence lives on google servers where the speach recognition is done, and everything else, and glass is useless without a net connection (So you have to be in an area with wifi or have a smartphone handy to tether to.) Steve Mann has been working on head mounted displays, true, but he's been focusing on local horsepower wearable computers. Ultimately, I don't think google glass is anything more than a PR project to remove the stigma of google as ripoff artists and to make it look like they're innovative. Given current technology, glass on wifi should have about 20 minutes of battery life, maybe an hour. Which makes them pretty useless. There's really quite a difference between a wearable computer (what Mann works on) and a bluetooth headset with integrated display (what glass is.)
coldtea 14y ago
>What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized eyewear Apparently nothing about fashion?
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
  i don't know why Google doesn't team up with some lead designers in the eyeglasses and sunglasses business, and come up with some actual stylish shades for Google Glass. Maybe they just aren't at that stage yet.
  - antiterra 14y ago
    They apparently are: http://www.fastcompany.com/3006116/where-are-they-now/google-glass-warby-parker-frame-help-design http://www.fastcompany.com/3006116/where-are-they-now/google...
nirvana 14y ago
For the record, this guy has been wearing actual computers. Google glass is an accessory- essentially a bluetooth headset, display and camera built into glasses. The intelligence lives on the servers, and glass needs a bluetooth or wifi connection to talk to the net. I think google's engaging in a bit of a PR swindle by making people think google glass is like an iPhone. It isn't, it needs and iPhone or android phone to connect to the net. Consequently it can't replace a smartphone. I'm also pretty dubious about the battery time it will get, even without having to run a local CPU.
- icebraining 14y ago
  When did Google try to make people think that?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    When reading comments by nirvana you need to realise that anything done by Apple is good, and anything done by anyone not Apple (but especially MS, Google, and Samsung) is stupid, or evil, or crooked, a dumb. "Google is trying to swindle people with dishonest PR stunts" translates into "Google is doing the normal pr stunts that every company attempt; there are problems with most pr." In 1998 researchers with a 1000 subjects found a 93% confidence of predicting whether a comment was made by nirvana or not nirvana just from reading the post, based on phrasing such as "the real reality distortion field".
    - emiliobumachar 14y ago
      I could get a higher confidence just by guessing "not nirvana" all the time ;)
- elteto 14y ago
  Yes of course, technology will never progress beyond what we have today, we won't get better CPUs or batteries... ever!! /sarcasm. No, seriously, you should check out the Osborne 1. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1
maeon3 14y ago
I spend several thousand dollars testing a few "eyesight for the blind" products by taking video on a head mounted camera, encoding the image as an 1 image per second audio file that is transmitted to the ears. I was actually able to get it to work as advertised, and I believe that given 10 hours a day practice for a month, you could detect a sense of depth perception and make out attributes in your environment through your audio cortex enough to walk around slowly without bumping into things. I had the blind friend test out the best I could do, and although it was a technological marvel, he actually didn't like it because it made people ostracise him even MORE than him being blind. He can move around slowly without bumping into things much more fashionably with the system he already had, a stick, good hearing, touch, and memory. So a few insights: 1. If you are putting something in front of your eyes, or on your hat brim that looks like a hacked together bunch of cameras and wires and you wear it in public, there is millions of years of evolution causing people to ostracise you. It's so bad, that a blind person told me: "The ostracism from wearing it is worse than the ostracism from them realizing your blind." 2. You think you're confidant and can handle it? You aren't, inside you are millions of years of evolution to remove what is causing the ostracism. If you are the kind of person who can choose to remain single and lonely for life when you burn with passion for the opposite sex, then you have the kind of mettle it takes to wear cameras and wires on your head in public. 3. The experience I had with converting visual to audio and using my audio cortex was tremendous. For example objects that "popped out" at me during audio-vision were completely different than normal vision. Take a brick wall for instance: I could hear the distance between the bricks (cement) was smaller in one spot, and larger in another spot because of an anomalous blip in the audio file. When looking at it visually, you think "meh", it's just a brick wall. With the audio file, the different brick leaps out at you as an anomaly. Thus exposing the data structure/algorithmic differences between the visual cortex and audio cortex. Doing visual as audio makes you an infant again, the tiniest changes in things leap out as fascinating. This experience I had could probably be sold to people bored to tears with life. A billion dollar idea! Be an infant again.
- dkersten 14y ago
  I find this really interesting as I built an augmented reality headset that used only sound as output to the wearer as an undergrad project. It tracked the wearers orientation an position as well as using ultrasonic to detect obstacles. It then used 3D audio to convey this information to the wearer. It was built as a framework on top of which multiple applications could be built and three demos that we (I did this project together with another guy) made were: a guidance application that used 3D positioned audio as waypoints; a virtual band playing music so you could walk between the instruments as if the band were playing in the room and finally an application that used the ultrasonic sensor to detect walls. The wall detection would play a number of blips in quick succession and the tempo was relative to the distance to the obstacle. The cool thing was that you could turn your head and get a general sense of the shape of the room by how the blips sped up or slowed down as you scanned along the wall.
splicer 14y ago
As I went to speak with the driver, he threw the car into reverse and sped off, striking me and running over my right foot as I fell to the ground. Probably because the driver was like "AAHHHHH!!!! A FREAKIN' CYBORG!!!!"
- pwelch 14y ago
  Thought the exact same thing.
dbbolton 14y ago
>The impact and fall injured my leg and also broke my wearable computing system, which normally overwrites its memory buffers and doesn’t permanently record images. But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident. This image retention also happened when he was attacked at a McDonald's in Paris last summer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcdonalds-digital-eye-glass-photos_n_1680263.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked... Here's his account: http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdon... As far as I know, nothing ever came of it (i.e. there were no charges or settlements).
- staz 14y ago
  Yes it seemed to me like he already used this excuse. Yeah you don't have to worry my glass never record anything... well except when it's super convenient to me, then it magically break just at the right moment
woodchuck64 14y ago
> But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident. [McDonald's assault]: > when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system. Fragile design or, say, accelerometer-controlled backup memory?
shocks 14y ago
EyeTap, and this: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/scientists-uncover-invisible-motion-in-video/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/scientists-uncover-... I would pay for this. I would pay a lot.
aneth4 14y ago
This guy looks amazing, though he can hardly lament that lessons were not learned if be did not participate in the commercialization of the technology. Why is this guy not consulting for Google? And I'm not sure if I'm more astounded or thankful that he has not patents his research.
hnriot 14y ago
I wonder how much wearing a contraption on his head contributed to his getting hit by the car. Even state of the art high-end viewfinders with millions of pixels have frustratingly long lag, enough to easily take away the reaction speed edge gained from millions of years of evolution.
- wes-exp 14y ago
  Besides lag, computerized vision could be seriously distracting. People already nearly get hit by cars staring into their smartphones.
drsim 14y ago
Apart from the potential physiological issues, the author briefly touches on the sociological impact this may have. In my mind that will be even more profound. If you haven't seen it, 'Black Mirror' on TV here in the UK has an excellent episode where nearly everyone (voluntarily) has an implant which records everything they see. Well worth a watch: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od#3327868 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od#3327868 not sure how available this is outside the UK. It's called 'The Entire History of You'
WestCoastJustin 14y ago
Reliant: Steve Mann wrote "Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass" [1], back in July 2012. Speaks to the stigma Google Glass is likely to face. [1] http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdona...
ericbb 14y ago
The pinhole aremac idea is so elegant! Infinite field of view and no need to measure the eye's lens. I wonder if video games and head-mounted displays designed for gaming will one day take advantage of that.
- Shorel 14y ago
  I hope so. It seems the Occulus Rift does not have anything similar.
seatac 14y ago
I don't think the article said what the man's purpose was though (the one who crashed into his home and hurt him badly).
Tichy 14y ago
Couldn't the fashion problem be solved by making hats cool again. Already some hipsters are wearing them, should provide plenty of space for hiding computing gear. Perhaps even the projector into the eye could be hidden in the rim of the hat?
paulftw 14y ago
35 years? means we won't hear about any entertainingly silly patent claims?

404 points by twentysix 14y ago

this has to go front page!

kiba 14y ago

To me, google glasses is worth a buy for just only one reason: sousvelliance(or inverse survelliance). When somebody crashed into your house, or you witnessed a crime taking progress, or remembering an important details related to business dealing, it just may be worth the 1500 dollars you spent to get a Google Glass. Other application of google glass may provide utility on a daily basis. I can imagine getting 10 dollars worth of useful service from google glass everyday, and 5 dollars in security benefit for the surrounding society. Multiply that by 365 days which is 5475 USD in term of economic benefit every year. Don't forget to mention high value recordings such as record of criminal activities, abuse of authorities by cops. (Of course, if you're too poor, than google glasses isn't worth 1500 USD even if it may be someday worth 1500 USD of value to you.)

codeulike 14y ago
Interestingly, Steve Mann coined the word Sousveillance
mamp 14y ago
It sounds like an inverse-need situation. Those who can afford Google Glasses probably live in neighbourhoods they aren't attacked at a high rate, whereas those who live in higher crime neighbourhoods can't afford it. Will it help? Once criminals recognize the device they will either steal them or smash you in the face to destroy the evidence.
- berntb 14y ago
  >>Once criminals recognize the device they will either steal them or smash you in the face to destroy the evidence Such a system for security ought to have video storage inside a hard shell with a high speed 4G link, able to send the last minute of video/sound (with gps position) to the police at the push of a button. The high speed link is probably a bit bulky (batteries) and will probably always be put into a pocket or something anyway, even without security considerations. But sure, criminals could get some equipment to disturb mobile connections.
  - driverdan 14y ago
    Glass does have a "high speed 4G link" - your smartphone.
chanux 14y ago
I'm scared of a future where you witness a crime with video capable glasses on and be hunted for having the incident recorded.
- Steuard 14y ago
  If it becomes standard for that video to be continuously uploaded to a remote server, then hunting down the bystander would be entirely pointless. I think that's what we have to hope for.
  - ANTSANTS 14y ago
    1. You could still be targeted just for wearing such a device in the wrong place, then. 2. Do you really hope for each and everything you see to be uploaded to a remote server?
    - jimmaswell 14y ago
      Regarding 2, I'd get it to constantly upload to my home server. Seems easy to write an app for and set up on my server with php or maybe a custom service.
    - Steuard 14y ago
      1. Fair point. I think I had in mind a future where these devices were in such common use that any bystander could be assumed to be wearing one. That might lead to greater targeting of all bystanders, but at some point I suspect criminals (or other privacy seekers) would just adapt and factor "avoid bystanders" into their plans in order to settle at about the same level of violence they do today (rather than routinely attacking every bystander they see). This may be over-optimistic. 2. I find it to be an intriguing idea, but one that does admittedly scare the bejesus out of me. Unfortunately, I consider it all too probable that near-ubiquitous camera surveillance is in our future whether we like it or not, and in that scenario I'd vastly prefer for individuals to have their own recordings as well rather than blindly trust that the governments and/or corporations running the other cameras will always act with my best interests at heart.
greenyoda 14y ago
Recording in a public place in generally legal, but recording a private conversation, like a business meeting, is more complex. The laws vary depending on state (in the U.S.), and some states require the consent of all participants. I'm not sure that I'd want to wear a device that would expose me to felony charges if I inadvertently recorded some sensitive conversation that I didn't have permission to record. Also, private property owners (like store owners) can eject you for trying to record video on their premises. There are some places where recording devices will never be welcome, such as movie theaters, sporting events and workplaces that deal with confidential information (e.g., a doctor's or lawyer's office, or even a start-up company whose product wasn't yet announced). And I'm pretty sure that even Google wouldn't be happy if all their employees wore these to work every day. Would your work colleagues or managers speak candidly with you if they knew that their every word might be getting recorded?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >Would your work colleagues or managers speak candidly with you if they knew that their every word might be getting recorded? If I recall correctly, there's a light visible on the outside of the eyepiece (the lens part) that's on whenever recording is happening. There will be no question if recording is going on or not.

cromwellian 14y ago

I think eyestrain would be a factor if you're using these systems as an augmented display that's constantly on, but I don't think the point of these devices is to be constantly looking at them, but rather, to engage them as needed, otherwise, let them get out of the way. His devices in the pictures are shown to get in between the eye and the external world, whereas, if you look at glass, the screen is up and out of your line of sight. I think if your wearable tech display is always on and continuously visible, it'll be a problem, battery life will be negatively impacted, and the device will distract you constantly.

dbaupp 14y ago
I think that the problems you mentioned are either obvious (clearly being on always will reduce battery life) or just require better design: if the device is distracting, it needs to be adjusted so that it isn't (as an example, it could usually be pass-through displaying only a tiny information panel out of the line of sight like Glass, and only expanding over the whole field when some special feature is activated. Being artificially limited to never being an overlay isn't better than being able to be both an overlay and also just an info panel.) The author posits that Google placed the screen out of the line of sight to avoid vision misalignment and misadjustment problems. (Also, the eyestrain due to focus distances was mentioned, and apparently solved by using an "aremac": a pinhole camera in reverse which means the video is focused at every distance.)
- gammarator 14y ago
  The author actually says that Google's design creates eyestrain by requiring viewing at a fixed focal distance.

Swizec 14y ago

All I really want from computerized eyewear is telemetry for sports. Current time/pace/distance/route/whatever when I'm running. Current speed, next corner severity/distance when I'm longboarding. (http://swizec.com/blog/ifihadglass-the-app-i-want-to-build/swizec/6035 http://swizec.com/blog/ifihadglass-the-app-i-want-to-build/s...) That alone would be worth the money to me. Such things already exist for skiing goggles, but those aren't extensible and only really fit one sport. So that's no good.

berntb 14y ago
All I really want is a network connection, an 80 chars wide Emacs terminal in the window and a chording keyboard strapped to my hand. This assumes a small Linux (BSD?) distro installed. The rest is trivial. (Iirc, this is a setup one of Mann's students had.) Edit: OK, I do want a camera too. And video log. And... But 80+% of usability would come from Emacs lisp (or short scripts run from shell) Edit 2: Love HN. I comment about a setup I read about years ago and have been waiting for buying the hardware -- and of course get answers (I assume that w/out employment contracts, they would have been more detailed). Thanks.
- ronyeh 14y ago
  Remembrance Agent http://www.remem.org/ http://www.remem.org/ was created by Bradley Rhodes, one of the group of "cyborgs" doing wearable computing research at MIT at that time. ... and after a quick search, it looks like he works at the Google, most likely on Glass.
  - saulrh 14y ago
    I've actually worked with the Thad Starner and the Remembrance Agent before. Let me tell you, it's even cooler than it looks. Of note, there's a version of the RA that has additions that make it more suitable for use on wearable computers. The first item in the papers section (Using Physical Context..., 2003) describes all the extra stuff that the wearable version does.
  - networked 14y ago

codeulike 14y ago

The second issue, the eyestrain from trying to focus both eyes at different distances, is also one I overcame—more than 20 years ago! The trick is to arrange things so that the eye behind the mirror can focus at any distance and still see the display clearly. Sounds like he has some great insights here. He's also known as 'the worlds first cyborg' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann), and the lonely trail he seemed to be on is now shifting to the mainstream.

frozenport 14y ago
Certainly not lonely, its a gimmick that gives him legitimacy in his professional field.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  Uh, please. He has very real and legitimate contributions to his field.

jaggederest 14y ago

I really wish someone would make an early-adopter version of his EyeTap v4/v5 and sell it. Would I pay cost plus 50% for one? Absolutely. Up to and including car-level prices. This is HN, a startup, anyone?

rasur 14y ago
I've been a follower of Steve's work since meeting him in '96 at work, and I can only echo your sentiments here. The EyeTap would be my preferred solution (compared to Glass, for example).
- rdl 14y ago
  I've been planning to make one myself once the Microvision laser scanning displays got reasonable, but I've been waiting about...15 years for that? so it's probably a lost cause. The area which I think would be super-interesting and easy would be pure audio mediated reality. Vision is hard, but I could do audio for $500. I have shooting earmuffs which essentially do this already -- they have microphones and speakers, and amplify soft sounds while attenuating loud sounds.

ronyeh 14y ago

(In the far future) if Google Glass could automatically upload video of what you're seeing to your cloud storage, you could have a searchable log of your entire life. Reminds me of these projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLifeBits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLifeBits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SenseCam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SenseCam Maybe a V1 of this could have Google Glass take a photo every minute. You could upload it automatically to Evernote or your private G+ photo feed. Then, you could occasionally review and "star" the important moments of your life (and maybe even delete/summarize chunks that are less important).

seabee 14y ago
> you could have a searchable log of your entire life. Obligatory sci-fi cautionary tale: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode-guide/series-1/episode-3 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/episode-guid... A circular buffer and explicit save is the furthest I'd want to take it.
- redcap 14y ago
  And perhaps some smarts that kick in when some heuristics detect when you are being assaulted and upload imagery of that event straight away. (I'm taking this from Transmetropolitan if anyone's in the know)
- networked 14y ago
  As much as I enjoyed watching Black Mirror bringing a piece of fiction into this kind of discussion early on is potentially highly problematic [1]. Consider what mentioning The Matrix or Terminator does to a discussion about AI. What Black Mirror's "The Entire History of You" [2] does to lifelogging resembles what those films do artificial intelligence for dramatic purposes. I highly recommend reading Less Wrong's article on this issue [1] for an in-depth discussion of this issue. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza... [2] Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFCqK81s7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bFCqK81s7Y, plot summary (spoilers): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#Series_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_%28TV_series%29#S....

kayoone 14y ago

Computerized eyewear like Google Glass will kill the jobs of Rally Co-Drivers!

nicholassmith 14y ago
Interesting idea, but rally drivers probably wouldn't want a level of distraction in their eye line. Vehicular HUDs have been around for a while now, so they could have adopted it a while back.
bmj 14y ago
Only if the FIA allows GPS for navigation. Co-drivers still exist because it is up to the crew to create their own pace notes. I suppose the driver could record his own pace notes during the recce, but there would need to be a tight integration of the notes with the GPS coordinates so the data is absolutely spot on during the stages themselves.

rogueSkib 14y ago

Visual perception is truly an amazing thing! The author's anecdotes about vision alteration and the brain's ability to adapt were very interesting to me. I have nystagmus: my eyes move back and forth quickly all the time. I've often wondered what it looks like to see without the movement; however, that is how I see: I don't notice the movement at all. My vision with contacts doesn't get much better than 20/40, so I do experience the effects of the movement. I tend to think of my vision as if it's an example of two-point wave interference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) The further away an image is from my focal points, the more the interference from movement affects my brain's ability to piece it all together; it's similar to tunnel vision, but instead of darkness on the periphery, it's progressively more blur. To see most clearly, I have to tilt my head to the side, to my "null point" where my eyes move the least. Not to mention my head moves often in some sort of sync with my eyes, especially while reading; once in school, a substitute teacher raised his voice angrily, thinking I was shaking my head at his work on the board! I'm curious how Google and other developers of high-tech eyewear will account for us with out-of-the-ordinary eye conditions. If the glasses or certain apps rely on eye movements for communication, we probably couldn't use them.

sudhirj 14y ago

Steve Mann: Old-fashioned welding helmets use darkened glass for this. More modern ones use electronic shutters. Either way, the person welding merely gets a uniformly filtered view. The arc still looks uncomfortably bright, and the surrounding areas remain frustratingly dim. Me: Hasn't this guy ever heard of HDR? He could have just used a couple of video cameras with some processing. SM: A few years before this, I had returned to my original inspiration—better welding helmets—and built some that incorporated vision-enhancing technology. [...] These helmets exploit an image-processing technique I invented that is now commonly used to produce HDR (high-dynamic-range) photos. Me: Oh. Right.

dewiz 14y ago
just to complete on HDR: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5828793&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=... From Wikipedia: Steve Mann developed and patented the global-HDR method for producing digital images having extended dynamic range at the MIT Media Laboratory.
jacquesm 14y ago
Steve is the kind of person that makes you question your assumptions about just about anything. Doing a 'why does't he just' on him means you're going to have to do the equivalent of 6 months continuous reading first if you want to avoid making a fool out of yourself, so I wouldn't worry about not knowing about his connection to HDR. Steve and I had some interesting exchanges back in '95 or so when video on the web was still a novelty. Steve went on to make history with his series of inventions. What's extremely impressive to me is Steve's incredible faith in his own inventions, no clinical trials on others but dog-fooding in the extreme. Bolting things onto (and into) his body for attachment and augmenting his world. He's a real pioneer in every sense of the word.
- omegant 14y ago
  Is this guy receiving any industry support? Is something he has invented availble to the public?

jwr 14y ago

I don't understand why Google hasn't hired Steve Mann yet, at least as a consultant on the project. Seems like hubris to me: this guy has been testing wearable systems for 20 years or so and knows more about the experience than anyone on the planet.

mmahemoff 14y ago
How do you know they haven't hired him, or that they approached him but couldn't come to terms? I'd say Google has been most un-hubristic with Glass, by revealing it early on to build acceptance and gain feedback.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  I'd say based off a few things ("not made here") in the article that either they didn't approach him, or there's some other story.
  - codeulike 14y ago
    Perhaps the potential for headlines like "Google hire worlds first cyborg to help them develop Glass" put them off?
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      Maybe, but honestly it's Google and that sort of thing wouldn't sway them. They have a product called Android after all.
nirvana 14y ago
Because Steve Mann is into wearable computers and google glass is not a wearable computer project. Your wondering this is understandable because google has mislead you. But glass has no CPU, there's not enough power or space for one. The intelligence lives on google servers where the speach recognition is done, and everything else, and glass is useless without a net connection (So you have to be in an area with wifi or have a smartphone handy to tether to.) Steve Mann has been working on head mounted displays, true, but he's been focusing on local horsepower wearable computers. Ultimately, I don't think google glass is anything more than a PR project to remove the stigma of google as ripoff artists and to make it look like they're innovative. Given current technology, glass on wifi should have about 20 minutes of battery life, maybe an hour. Which makes them pretty useless. There's really quite a difference between a wearable computer (what Mann works on) and a bluetooth headset with integrated display (what glass is.)

coldtea 14y ago

>What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized eyewear Apparently nothing about fashion?

lilsunnybee 14y ago
i don't know why Google doesn't team up with some lead designers in the eyeglasses and sunglasses business, and come up with some actual stylish shades for Google Glass. Maybe they just aren't at that stage yet.
- antiterra 14y ago
  They apparently are: http://www.fastcompany.com/3006116/where-are-they-now/google-glass-warby-parker-frame-help-design http://www.fastcompany.com/3006116/where-are-they-now/google...

nirvana 14y ago

For the record, this guy has been wearing actual computers. Google glass is an accessory- essentially a bluetooth headset, display and camera built into glasses. The intelligence lives on the servers, and glass needs a bluetooth or wifi connection to talk to the net. I think google's engaging in a bit of a PR swindle by making people think google glass is like an iPhone. It isn't, it needs and iPhone or android phone to connect to the net. Consequently it can't replace a smartphone. I'm also pretty dubious about the battery time it will get, even without having to run a local CPU.

icebraining 14y ago
When did Google try to make people think that?
- DanBC 14y ago
  When reading comments by nirvana you need to realise that anything done by Apple is good, and anything done by anyone not Apple (but especially MS, Google, and Samsung) is stupid, or evil, or crooked, a dumb. "Google is trying to swindle people with dishonest PR stunts" translates into "Google is doing the normal pr stunts that every company attempt; there are problems with most pr." In 1998 researchers with a 1000 subjects found a 93% confidence of predicting whether a comment was made by nirvana or not nirvana just from reading the post, based on phrasing such as "the real reality distortion field".
  - emiliobumachar 14y ago
    I could get a higher confidence just by guessing "not nirvana" all the time ;)
elteto 14y ago
Yes of course, technology will never progress beyond what we have today, we won't get better CPUs or batteries... ever!! /sarcasm. No, seriously, you should check out the Osborne 1. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_1

maeon3 14y ago

I spend several thousand dollars testing a few "eyesight for the blind" products by taking video on a head mounted camera, encoding the image as an 1 image per second audio file that is transmitted to the ears. I was actually able to get it to work as advertised, and I believe that given 10 hours a day practice for a month, you could detect a sense of depth perception and make out attributes in your environment through your audio cortex enough to walk around slowly without bumping into things. I had the blind friend test out the best I could do, and although it was a technological marvel, he actually didn't like it because it made people ostracise him even MORE than him being blind. He can move around slowly without bumping into things much more fashionably with the system he already had, a stick, good hearing, touch, and memory. So a few insights: 1. If you are putting something in front of your eyes, or on your hat brim that looks like a hacked together bunch of cameras and wires and you wear it in public, there is millions of years of evolution causing people to ostracise you. It's so bad, that a blind person told me: "The ostracism from wearing it is worse than the ostracism from them realizing your blind." 2. You think you're confidant and can handle it? You aren't, inside you are millions of years of evolution to remove what is causing the ostracism. If you are the kind of person who can choose to remain single and lonely for life when you burn with passion for the opposite sex, then you have the kind of mettle it takes to wear cameras and wires on your head in public. 3. The experience I had with converting visual to audio and using my audio cortex was tremendous. For example objects that "popped out" at me during audio-vision were completely different than normal vision. Take a brick wall for instance: I could hear the distance between the bricks (cement) was smaller in one spot, and larger in another spot because of an anomalous blip in the audio file. When looking at it visually, you think "meh", it's just a brick wall. With the audio file, the different brick leaps out at you as an anomaly. Thus exposing the data structure/algorithmic differences between the visual cortex and audio cortex. Doing visual as audio makes you an infant again, the tiniest changes in things leap out as fascinating. This experience I had could probably be sold to people bored to tears with life. A billion dollar idea! Be an infant again.

dkersten 14y ago
I find this really interesting as I built an augmented reality headset that used only sound as output to the wearer as an undergrad project. It tracked the wearers orientation an position as well as using ultrasonic to detect obstacles. It then used 3D audio to convey this information to the wearer. It was built as a framework on top of which multiple applications could be built and three demos that we (I did this project together with another guy) made were: a guidance application that used 3D positioned audio as waypoints; a virtual band playing music so you could walk between the instruments as if the band were playing in the room and finally an application that used the ultrasonic sensor to detect walls. The wall detection would play a number of blips in quick succession and the tempo was relative to the distance to the obstacle. The cool thing was that you could turn your head and get a general sense of the shape of the room by how the blips sped up or slowed down as you scanned along the wall.

splicer 14y ago

As I went to speak with the driver, he threw the car into reverse and sped off, striking me and running over my right foot as I fell to the ground. Probably because the driver was like "AAHHHHH!!!! A FREAKIN' CYBORG!!!!"

pwelch 14y ago
Thought the exact same thing.

dbbolton 14y ago

>The impact and fall injured my leg and also broke my wearable computing system, which normally overwrites its memory buffers and doesn’t permanently record images. But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident. This image retention also happened when he was attacked at a McDonald's in Paris last summer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcdonalds-digital-eye-glass-photos_n_1680263.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked... Here's his account: http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdon... As far as I know, nothing ever came of it (i.e. there were no charges or settlements).

staz 14y ago
Yes it seemed to me like he already used this excuse. Yeah you don't have to worry my glass never record anything... well except when it's super convenient to me, then it magically break just at the right moment

woodchuck64 14y ago

> But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident. [McDonald's assault]: > when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system. Fragile design or, say, accelerometer-controlled backup memory?

shocks 14y ago

EyeTap, and this: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/scientists-uncover-invisible-motion-in-video/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/scientists-uncover-... I would pay for this. I would pay a lot.

aneth4 14y ago

This guy looks amazing, though he can hardly lament that lessons were not learned if be did not participate in the commercialization of the technology. Why is this guy not consulting for Google? And I'm not sure if I'm more astounded or thankful that he has not patents his research.

hnriot 14y ago

I wonder how much wearing a contraption on his head contributed to his getting hit by the car. Even state of the art high-end viewfinders with millions of pixels have frustratingly long lag, enough to easily take away the reaction speed edge gained from millions of years of evolution.

wes-exp 14y ago
Besides lag, computerized vision could be seriously distracting. People already nearly get hit by cars staring into their smartphones.

drsim 14y ago

Apart from the potential physiological issues, the author briefly touches on the sociological impact this may have. In my mind that will be even more profound. If you haven't seen it, 'Black Mirror' on TV here in the UK has an excellent episode where nearly everyone (voluntarily) has an implant which records everything they see. Well worth a watch: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od#3327868 http://www.channel4.com/programmes/black-mirror/4od#3327868 not sure how available this is outside the UK. It's called 'The Entire History of You'

WestCoastJustin 14y ago

Reliant: Steve Mann wrote "Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass" [1], back in July 2012. Speaks to the stigma Google Glass is likely to face. [1] http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdona...

ericbb 14y ago

The pinhole aremac idea is so elegant! Infinite field of view and no need to measure the eye's lens. I wonder if video games and head-mounted displays designed for gaming will one day take advantage of that.

Shorel 14y ago
I hope so. It seems the Occulus Rift does not have anything similar.

seatac 14y ago

I don't think the article said what the man's purpose was though (the one who crashed into his home and hurt him badly).

Tichy 14y ago

Couldn't the fashion problem be solved by making hats cool again. Already some hipsters are wearing them, should provide plenty of space for hiding computing gear. Perhaps even the projector into the eye could be hidden in the rim of the hat?

paulftw 14y ago

35 years? means we won't hear about any entertainingly silly patent claims?