ImaginativePRO Blog

GOOGLE UNVEILS THE FACIAL RECOGNITION FEATURES OF GOOGLE GLASS, BUT LAWS TO PROTECT CONSUMER PRIVACY OR OUTRIGHT BANS WILL BE NEEDED

For those who wish they could better remember names and faces, a new demo app for Google Glass gives you notes on how you know each person.

Although the concept seems perfect for party or networking events, the app — called MedRef for Glass — was actually designed for hospital employees. By using facial recognition technology, staffers wearing Google's high-tech specs can pull up patient folders with photo, voice and text notes.

 

For example, a doctor might want to record that a certain patient likes to be rolled over on one side of their body or is allergic to nuts. And because the data is shareable with Google Glass, other nurses and physicians can have immediate access to this information.

The app was created by a team of computer programmers at a medical hackathon.

Here's how it works: MedRec adds timeline cards and sharing contacts via Google Glass. By saying a patient's name or taking a picture of their face, the device will bring up their records.

Lance Nanek, a computer programmer who worked to develop the app says. 

"Hospitals are full of very busy people — often with their hands full — who work with a lot of information.  Google Glass and making [data] wearable is especially being looked forward to there."

For a full look at how the app works, check out the video above.

Do you think Google Glass and its apps will revolutionize how we use technology across various fields, including the medical world? Let us know in the comments.

COMMENTARY:   So far Google Glass is not illegal, but some businesses have began posting "Google Glass Is Banned On These Premises" signs.  Despite a front page story appearing in the May 7, 2013 issue of the New York Times suggesting that Google is already facing a bunch of legal pushback over its face computer of the future, there are no laws on the books that make Google Glass illegal -- Yet.  

Click Image To Enlarge

A Los Angeles privacy lawyer tells the New York Times's David Streitfeld.

"This is just the beginning.  Google Glass is going to cause quite a brawl."

It's unclear how true that is, of course, because there hasn't been much actual courtroom brawling so far — mostly just Internet whining, really.

The New York Times cites a proposed bill from West Virginia statehouse politicians who "were not joking at all" about a ban on Glassing-while-driving. Except the bill seriously hasn't made it to the house floor yet. And while the New York Times cites the bill's sponsor in saying he's "likely" to reintroduce the legislation, well, Rep. Gary Howell has also said that he will introduce a study resolution to see how dangerous Google Glass really is. You know, in the meantime, and in the reality outside front-page privacy freak-out trend stories:

"If we do that, I would like to invite Google to provide a demonstration and explain if they will have some type of feature that will turn off everything."

Howell has said, in addition suggesting that he's open to other alternatives outside of the anti-Google Glass law.

But even if Howell takes his law back to the West Virginia state legislature and it passes, that hardly makes Google's new device illegal. After all, according to the New York Times,

"This is the most anticipated piece of electronic wizardry since the iPad and iPhone we're talking about here." 

And by the logic of the New York Times's scare tactics, cell phones would be considered illegal in all these states that ban use while driving. Even the group Stop the Cyborgs, which has launched an anti-Glass campaign, doesn't want to outright ban the devices.

"We don't want a total ban but do we want people to limit it's use."

the group insists (in bold), in the About section of its website. While other, logical places — like strip clubs, or casinos — have banned Google Glass, people don't necessarily need laws or formal prohibitions to tell them how to properly regulate their usage of the world's foremost walking computer.  Already a whole bunch of people have written about their inclination to have specific etiquette while using Google Glass. 

However, even Google admits that its much discuss hardware is still in beta — and that the company is open to changes to better suit our apparently myriad privacy fears. That's basically all the Stop the Cyborgs of the world want, anyway. The Cyborgs group has three main points suggesting ways in which Google can build in enough privacy to placate the interests of privacy hawks the tech world over:

• They will never allow any face recognition system or any app which automatically identifies people to work on Google Glass or on any server system connected to Glass.
• They will implement a do not track system which allows people to opt out of being tracked or having information captured about them by Glass. This system should not require the person to identify themselves.
• That all information gathered by Glass will remain the property of the owner or subject and will be encrypted so that it is impossible for it to be data-mined, made available to security services or used for commercial purposes.

Google chief Eric Schmidt sounds equally as open to those kind of changes himself. Schmidt said in response to a question about the scary future of data-tracking that Google will help create. 

"I think you're describing a world of tracking which I think is highly unlikely to occur, because people will be upset about it in the same way you are."  

He continues: 

"Governments won't allow it, and it'll be bad business. And ultimately, in a competitive market, companies want the consumers to be happy. So it's true tracking in this context...you're taking a much broader view of the word ['tracking'] than any I would use. A situation where you go to people and say, 'Oh, here's our phone, and we're going to track you to death,' people are not going to buy that phone. It's just a bad business model."

I am in total agreement with The Cyborgs group recommendations to limit how Google Glass can be used.  We certainly do not want automobile drivers to know the identity of random people by glancing at their vehicle plates.  Individuals have a right to their privacy and preventing the disclosure of their identity to the masses.  Google Glass' face recognition technology opens a can of worms that will become a legal nightmare for Google.  I understand that Google has over 100 attorneys on their staff.  They better get them ready for the onslaught of lawsuits that are likely to come if face recognition and private information about individuals is disclosed without permission.  

Courtesy of an article dated May 13, 2013 appearing in Mashable and an article dated May 7, 2013 appearing in The Atlantic Wire

APPLE AQUIRES INDOOR-GPS STARTUP WIFISLAM FOR $20 MILLION, BUT DOES THIS SIGNAL A NEW ERA OF PEOPLE STALKING?

$20 MILLION IS SMALL CHANGE FOR APPLE, AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT ALL ABOUT SIMPLE INDOOR GPS.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple has bought the "indoor-GPS" company WifiSlam for $20 million. Apple has acknowledged the deal but won't comment further, but we know that the two-year-old startup has patented technology to enable precise indoor geo-location of a Wi-Fi enabled portable device.

The system works by using crowd-sourced Wi-Fi fingerprints--essentially the map of which wireless network is visible at what strength from a particular place on the planet--and it's precise enough to very accurately locate a user in a particular corridor in a large building. This is a very similar trick to the Wi-Fi and GPS techniques that Apple uses to power its iOS location services, including its traffic reports. Apple got into hot water for this a while ago, partly through an error and partly because users don't understand that it's thanks to anonymous crowd-sourced location data like this that all our smartphones are actually good at GPS.

Speculation is now abounding that this purchase is a play by Apple to super-power its mapping services by including indoor GPS and maps in its location products. Google has been trying a similar trick, also using wireless fingerprints but in this case recorded deliberately, and Microsoft and Nokia have separately been looking at this system for future use.

But the advantages of precise non-GPS-based systems like this go far beyond simple location indoors--as useful as that is likely to be for navigation and so on.

• Navigating Crowded Streeets and Shopping Malls - WifiSlam's system may also be useful in crowded city streets where GPS signals are blocked by buildings, and it will be incredibly useful in locations like shopping malls. 
• Precise Location Finding - Integrated with other iOS systems like Siri, WifiSlam's tech could let your phone tell you how to get to a particular store in a mall or even a section in a department store. 
• Targeted Location-Based Advertising - Combined with something like Apple's Passbook, it could also allow ultraprecise coupon-based advertising. 

This isn't futuristic nonsense, by the way: Macy's indoor GPS iOS app already has a lot of this functionality, in this case provided by indoor location expert firm Meridian.

And if Apple's future iPhones do include fingerprint systems, then this sort of indoor location precision would create an extremely secure payment system that far surpasses your plastic credit card's usefulness--because the company would be able to precisely ID the account owner and confirm that the phone is in fact in a particular store paying at a particular cash desk. This security solution is in an existing Apple patent for next-gen ATMs.

There are also plenty of other potential implementations, including buddy finding and indoor augmented reality systems--the sort of tech, in fact, that Apple has been patenting for a long time for its standard GPS solutions.

COMMENTARY:  When I first learned that The Wall Street Journal had reported that Apple was acquiring WifiSlam, I thought it was just another Wifi service company, but I was wrong. Once I visited WifiSlam's website and learned about their technology, I feel that it is my duty to warn my readers of the potential for privacy invasions on a monumental scale.  This acquisition, if it is true and finally consumated, has nothing but sinister implications written all over it.  Imagine if I knew where you were, and maybe even knew what you are doing.  A jilted girlfriend of wife could track her boyfriend or husband's secret affairs.  Good for the girlfriend or wife, but bad for the boyfriend or husband.  Or what if your employer tracked your whereabouts or behaviors while at work or on your lunch break or off work?  Do you see what I am driving at here?  

We have fundamental and legal rights of privacy, and WifiSlam's location-based applications have the potential to uproot and destroy any resemblance of privacy, legal or otherwise.  It is an intrusion of our very way of affairs of our daily life.  In a recent poll of women, many of them had grave reservations about being tracked by LBS applications, or even worst, being stalked by individuals with malevalent intentions.  WifiSlam's LBS applications maybe acceptable to some circles of society, and I won't name any, but it certainly gives chasing women or vice-versa men, new meaning, and even new concerns about our privacy.  

I cannot begin to tell you just how dangerous WifiSlam's applications could become through malevalent missuse.  I can certainly see the need for tracking dangerous criminals and terrorists, thankfully there are laws on the books that allow this, but tracking an individual for the pure enjoyment and without due process of law, is not only illegal, but could lead to some kingsize lawsuits if iPhones are equipped with anything close to what WifiSlam says on its website about its proucts:

"Allow your smartphone to pinpoint its location (and the location of your friends) in real-time to 2.5m accuracy using only ambient WiFi signals that are already present in buildings.

We are building the next generation of location-based mobile apps that, for the first time, engage with users at the scale that personal interaction actually takes place. Applications range from step-by-step indoor navigation, to product-level retail customer engagement, to proximity-based social networking."

WifiSlam's description of its products sounds to me like a windfall for brand marketers, research firms, pranksters, child molesters, convicted rapists, ex-husbands and ex-wives, jilted boyfriends and girlfriends, and any individual with malevalent intents, who would like to know real-time information about the whereabouts, interests and shopping habits of iPhone (and possibly even Android users, God forbid) users anywhere, and without them knowing about it.     

Foursquare, the locaton-based social network, tried to offering its users a mobile app that made it possible for guys to pinpoint the location of nearby women on a map and view their personal data and photographs.

What really raised privacy concerns about the app — unabashedly named Girls Around Me— is that the women it tracked hadn’t opted into the service and weren’t made aware this was going on.

Here’s how it worked. The app took information women made public about their location on Foursquare, paired it with photos and personal details those same women made public on Facebook, and then put it all together on a map to show names and faces of women near a user’s location.  Boy, this eerily similar to WifiSLAM doesn't it?

Thankfully, due to an uproar by females over privacy concerns, especially being stalked by strangers, Foursquare took the product off the market.  

In closing, WifiSLAM is a company that I definitely intend to track in my blog, and learn everything I possibly can about, because I believe this is the next frontier in location-based mobile tracking apps (it says so in the above product description).   Let's just call it what these mobile apps are -- people tracking apps. 

Courtesy of an article dated March 24, 2013 appearing in Fast Company and an article dated March 31, 2012 appearing in The Wall Stret Journal

HYPERSTEALTH CORP DEVELOPS CLOAKING TECHNOLOGY THAT REALLY WORKS, U.S. MILITARY SHOWS KEEN INTEREST

 

Over the past few years there have been tantalizing reports that scientific progress was on the cusp of creating a real life invisibility cloak. But upon a closer reading, these experimental technologies didn’t amount to much beyond reminding us just how far off we are from the fictional universe of Harry Potter.

• University of California researchers announced last year that they had developed a metamaterial fully capable of hiding objects from the naked eye. The breakthrough does, though, lose much of its luster considering that they’d still have to figure out a way to scale up the technology to mask objects beyond the size of a red blood cell. 
• Duke University just last month announced a diamond-shaped design that bent light around an object so perfectly, it even concealed shadows. Too bad the illusion only worked when looking straight and in one direction.

HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp. created the following mock-up photos to show the public what they claim their 'invisibility fabric' (Click Image To Enlarge)

Now, a little-known Canadian defense firm called HyperStealth Corp claims to be closing in on a breakthrough technology that should soon lead to a true, in every sense of the term, invisibility cloak. And to allay skeptics, company CEO Guy Cramer told CNN in an interview that they’ve even garnered strong interest from the U.S. military after demonstrating to officials how the fabric’s light-bending properties prevent the wearer from being detected entirely.

 

Development of the material codenamed “Quantum Stealth” has been kept shrouded in secrecy. The project’s web site reveals very few details about how the technology actually works, except that it’s lightweight, inexpensive and reduces 95 percent of an object’s shadow. The page also includes a few mock-up photos that illustrate what the material’s remarkable camouflaging effect would look like, along with an explanation from Cramer as to why they’ve decided to at least go public with their design.

Click Image To Enlarge

According to the site, Cramer started to receive a lot of attention from the media after giving a talk at a military trade show about the company’s development of an inexpensive and lightweight “light-bending material.”   He said.

“After enough press had been written on the subject, the U.S. Military Command finally asked to see the real material to verify that it worked.  Those meetings took place with very limited ‘Need to Know’ access and the technology is now moving forward.”

Click Image To Enlarge

If substantiated, the implications are tremendous. Snipers would be able to position themselves covertly with very little risk of being spotted, while troops could use the cloak to elude capture or to carry out surprise raids against enemies. On a more ambitious front, the invisibility-inducing material may even someday enable aircraft and ships to take the notion of “stealth” to a whole new level.

However, Cramer says that, once available, it’s likely that only the military will have access to the Quantum Stealth’s special effects, at which point, it’ll be hard to hide the collective excitement.

COMMENTARY:   Guy Cramer, President and CEO of HyperStealth, said that there have been similar inventions over the years but his is the only one with a 360-degree view.

He said he isn’t able to discuss details or do demonstrations of Quantum Stealth for security reasons, but claims several military groups in Canada and the U.S. have expressed interest.

Cramer said.  

“We’ve also got a countermeasure for the device to be able to detect it.  It [costs] about $100 to $200 per soldier which is about what their uniforms are costing them right now.”

Only mockup photos are currently available to the general public.

Colin Worth, a recently retired RCMP officer, said he went to Ottawa with Cramer to demonstrate Quantum Stealth in front of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Worth said. 

“I don’t have a vested interest in the company or the technology, but I’ve seen it work.  The stumbling block last time I talked to Guy was how does he make it big enough and how does he make it portable enough to work in a real life situation?”

Worth said that he signed a secrecy and confidentiality agreement so he isn’t able to give any details, but said “stuff just seems to disappear. It’s weird the way it works but it does work.”

Bill Jarvis, a retired Navy Seal, also said he has seen the fabric work at U.S. Military Command meetings.

Cramer said that he would consider marketing Quantum Stealth to the general public only if the military allowed him to do so.

He hasn’t been approached by any Harry Potter fans yet.

On October 19, 2012, Guy Cramer, President/CEO of Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp. announced its new cloaking technology called "Quantum Stealth."  Here's a copy of that press release.

Quantum Stealth; The Invisible Military Becomes A Reality By Guy Cramer, President/CEO of Hyperstealth Biotechnology Corp. from turk5555

Courtesy of an article dated December 11, 2012 appearing in SmartPlanet and an article dated December 13, 2012 appearing in MetroNews

THE AMAZING SPY GADGETS AND DEVICES EXHIBITED AT THE "SPY: THE SECRET WORLD OF ESPIONAGE" SHOW IN NEW YORK'S TIMES SQUARE

MEET “CHARLIE,” A ROBOT FISH DESIGNED TO TAKE WATER SAMPLES NEAR POWER PLANTS AND FACTORIES. HE’S JUST ONE OF THE GADGETS ON VIEW AT SPY: THE SECRET WORLD OF ESPIONAGE THIS FALL.

In pop culture these days, we only hear about spies if they’re starring in a movie, or if their leader is sleeping with his biographer. Which is maybe not surprising, given the sensitive nature of the job--but still, whence comes the fake-mustache-and-secret-recorder spy culture of yore?

 

Thanks largely to the ubiquity of digital devices, those classic, Bond-style gadgets we associate with spies have long been outmoded. But some of the most amazing can be seen this fall at Discovery Times Square (I guess that’s a thing?), where a show called Spy: The Secret World of Espionage is on view until next spring.

 

In trying to describe some of the objects on view in Spy, It’s tempting to play a game of “real spy gadget or made-up joke.” For example, the keystone of the exhibit is a robot fish named "Charlie,” built to swim in a fairly realistic impersonation of a live catfish. Amazingly, Charlie is only 12 years old--the CIA won’t reveal why he was built, but some speculate he’s intended to collect water samples around nuclear power plants and factories. Salon has already christened him with a nickname: James Pond.

The CIA won’t reveal why this robotic fish was built, but some speculate he’s intended to collect water samples around nuclear power plants and factories (Click Image To Enlarge)

Other objects in Spy hearken from World War II, like the Enigma code-making machine that encrypted Allied messages. There are plenty of secret disguise aids, like a reversible cape, and recording devices abound, from the shoe-borne variety to a super-sensitive recorder, developed by Swiss scientists, that can be worn under your clothes. The show is surprisingly topical, including several fairly recent objet d’espionnage, such as the ice pick that is said to have served as a murder weapon for Trosky in Mexico, in the 1940s, and a Chanel purse belonging to “sexy spy” Anna Chapman, who was arrested in the U.S. and returned to Russia just a few years ago.

The Enigma cipher machine used by the German military and intelligence services during WWII to create what they thought were unbreakable messages (Click Image To Enlarge)

A precision miniature audio tape recorder was built in Switzerland to the highest possible standards. As a very slim device, it could be worn inconspicuously under normal clothing (Click Image To Enlarge)

The icepick that was--allegedly--used to murder Leon Trotsky in Mexico City (Click Image To Enlarge)

Amidst the clutter of outmoded gadgets, what comes through clearly is the sense that information was a precious physical commodity up until a decade ago or so. Today, we walk around with whole gigabytes of data on our person--but for decades, transporting a piece of text or audio was a matter of life and death. Go check out Spy until March of next year.

COMMENTARY:   The "Spy: The Secret World of Espionage" exhibit also includes the following items of interest:

• K.G.B. model of the umbrella that injected a poison ricin pellet into the Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov in 1978. 
• Handmade pair of shoes made for a United States ambassador to Czechoslovakia in the 1960s that Czech intelligence officers bugged with a listening device in the heel. 
• Stasi kit (see below) created molar that was hollowed out to allow microdots to be safely stored in a spy’s mouth. 
• Well-preserved rat with a Velcroed body cavity that was used by Americans in Moscow for exchanges of information without agents’ actually meeting. The rodent, treated with hot pepper sauce to discourage scavenging cats, was easily tossed from a passing car for these “dead drops.”

The Stasi Kit, a kit of tools used by East German members of the Stasi secret police, concealed in a leather case, for spying and surveillance purposes (Click Image To Enlarge)

The gadgets here are full of concealments and misdirection; nothing is what it seems. And much of it is almost quaintly old-fashioned. There are some hints of technological experimentation: a Stasi attaché case fitted with an infrared flash camera that could take pictures in the dark, or the C.I.A. bug that was built inside a cinder block in the visitors’ area of a Soviet embassy and could drill its own listening hole.

A special-purpose small key cutting kit designed for use in a motel room to allow an MI6 agent to duplicate keys for a covert entry (Click Image To Enlarge)

But most of these objects, tools of the trade over a half-century, are not the stuff of the “Mission Impossible” franchise; they are almost all deliberately mundane. They are not meant to startle; they are meant to fade into the background. They work like tricks sold in a magic shop. And they must be used with similar skill.

Something else is similar: once explained, the magic is gone. The objects used in espionage can almost seem silly. Really! Grown people sprinkling dust (nitrophenylpentadienal) on objects to track the movements of whoever touched them? Using a hat, glasses and a fake mustache as a disguise? Employing a hollowed-out nickel to hide top-secret microfilm? All of espionage can easily seem like a kid’s game, except for the trails of blood and insight that are invariably left in its wake.

And this show, produced by Base Entertainment, contains more than enough to make it resemble a child’s game: interactive screens on which you can disguise a photo of yourself; kiosks where your voice can be distorted and filtered; a mist-filled dark room with shifting laser beams that challenge you to make your way across, without breaking the circuit. (A password-oriented interactive game is too lame for its climactic position in the exhibition.)

There are also larger objects here that reveal, more dramatically, that technological sophistication is not a requirement, nor is it something that necessarily increases over time. Next to a collapsible motor scooter with which Allied spies parachuted behind enemy lines during World War II is a saddle, draped with an Afghan blanket, that was used by a C.I.A. officer riding across the forbidding terrain during the first months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

If you are a history or nostalgia buff, and just happen to be in New York City between now and the end of spring, visiting the "Spy: The Secret World of Espionage" exhibit in Times Square could be a very worthwhile experience.   Tickets are as follows:

• Adults - $27.00
• Kids (4-12) - $19.50
• Seniors (65+) - $23.50
• Group discounts are available 

 Courtesy of an article dated November 16, 2012 appearing in Fast Company Design

ONLINE SECURITY FIRM SECURE.ME SAYS MAJORITY OF FACEBOOK APPS PRESENT SECURITY AND IDENTITY THEFT RISKS

How many apps have you installed on Facebook? More importantly, how many of them could post something in your name right now, without your knowledge? Chances are, it’s more than half of them.

Privacy protection company Secure.me analyzed some 500,000 Facebook apps, and shared the results exclusively with Mashable. The biggest takeaways: 63% of those apps ask for the ability to post on your behalf — and 69% of them want your email address.

Secure.me founder Christian Sigl says.

”It has become second nature to connect various apps like Instagram, SocialCam, AngryBirds, CityVille, and Spotify to your Facebook ID.   You just click ‘agree’ without even really knowing what you are agreeing to. What you don’t realize is that social apps linked to your Facebook profile can pretty much track your and your friends’ whole life.  It doesn’t matter what your privacy settings are, the apps still get this information.”

What the app makers could do with that information beggars belief.   Not only could the app developers effectively hack your Timeline and sell your email address to any unscrupulous buyer — they’re also potentially well on the way to stealing your identity.  Some 30% of those apps know their users’ birthdates, which would in theory allow them to uncover their social security numbers.

The permission puts your friends at risk, too. According to Secure.me, 21% of apps — 1 in every 5 — can access the personal data of the user’s friends including friends‘ birthdays, education and work history. Some 12% of the apps can grab your location information at will.

Of course, few of us are concerned about the big name apps — the Instagrams, the Spotifys. These are companies that have won our trust. But big-name apps make up just a small portion of the 500,000 total.  What do you really know about the maker of that personality test or music quiz you just posted to your Timeline?

Part of the problem, as Sigl suggests, is the fact that there’s no granularity here. You can’t initially decide which permissions the app really needs, and which go beyond its remit. You can’t give an app limited permission for a day or a week. App permissions, when they first pop up, are far too one-size-fits-all.

We reached out to Facebook, and here’s an official response from a spokesperson:

“We give people a variety of tools to control their app experiences on Facebook, and hold developers to our Platform polices. Apps must specifically request the data they need to operate, including email addresses and publishing capability."

“After a user installs an app, apps are not permitted to post to that person’s Timeline without their consent. If an app is found to be in violation of these policies, we will take action against it.”

How many Facebook apps have you given permissions to? Let us know in the comments.

COMMENTARY:     It hardly surprises me that some Facebook apps are violating our privacy. The same thing has happened to iPhone apps.  In a blog post dated December 28, 2010, I reported that The Wall Street Journal  had conducted an investigation and discovered that 101 Apple iPhone apps was supplying private information about its users to advertisers.  Both Apple and the app developers were named in a class action lawsuit.

All of the major social networks have already been investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and were found guilty of numerous privacy violations.  

• In a blog post dated March 31, 2011, I reported that Google and Twitter both agreed to 20-year sanctions and annual privacy audits after numerous privacy violations.  
• In a blog post dated March 29, 2011, I reported that social-networking site LinkedIn was sued for violating users' privacy by allegedly leaking information about them to advertisers. In a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco resident Kevin Low alleges that LinkedIn enabled ad networks and other third parties to discover his name and connect it to tracking cookies.  No word on whether that lawsuit ever went class action, dismissed or was settled amicably.
• In a blog post dated November 11, 2011, I reported that after a lengthy investigation by the FTC, Facebook agreed to 20-year sanctions and annual privacy audits after numerous privacy violations.

In a blog post dated Aprill 25, 2011, I reported that after intensifying concerns over privacy and the widening trade in personal data,  a Wall Street Journal investigation discovered that Apple Inc.'s iPhones and Google Inc.'s Android smartphones regularly transmit their locations back to Apple and Google, respectively.   Google and Apple are gathering location information as part of their race to build massive databases capable of pinpointing people's locations via their cellphones. These databases could help them tap the $2.9 billion market for location-based services—expected to rise to $8.3 billion in 2014, according to research firm Gartner Inc.  

The propect that a Facebook app developer could steal your identity without your knowledge is terrifying.  This is why I never buy anything through Facebook, buy Facebook virtual currency, because doing so would require providing my credit or debit card number. I also do not provide a lot of private information other than my name and email address.  The bare minimum is my recommendation. 

Courtesy of an article dated September 4, 2012 appearing Mashable

"DON'T BE EVIL" IS GOOGLE'S UNOFFICIAL CORP MOTTO, BUT CAN WE TRUST IT AFTER ITS NEW ALL-INCLUSIVE PRIVACY POLICY?

Google's contentious new privacy policy officially takes effect today, despite some objections from Canada's privacy commissioner and others around the world.

Google insists it had users in mind when it consolidated the privacy policies for most of its more than 70 products and streamlined the text.

The main concern being raised by most critics is how Google will now start saving user information collected from all its services in one place. For example, users who log into several different services — such as Google.ca, Gmail and YouTube — will have data about all their searches and clicks stored together.

Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, product and engineering, in a blog post to users said.

"Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience."

Users can stop this data consolidation from happening by staying logged out when using the search engine or YouTube, or by having separate logins for each different site.

In a letter to Google, Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart said the search giant's efforts to created a more user-friendly privacy policy was "a step in the right direction." But she raised several concerns. For one, she said users aren't being told enough about how to effectively opt out of Google's new plan.

She wrote.  

"We would strongly encourage you to make it clearer to users that if they are uncomfortable with these new uses of information, they can create separate accounts. This is not clearly stated in your new policy." 

"As we understand it, the policy changes do not mean that Google is collecting more information about its users than it currently does. They do, however, mean that you are going to be using the information in new ways — ways that may make some users uncomfortable."

She also said the new privacy policy isn't clear about how long it will take for personal information to be deleted when requested by a user.

Google is also facing heat in Europe over the new privacy policy, which France's privacy regulator said is a violation of the European Union's data protection rules.

A letter to Google from the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes (CNIL) reads.

"Our preliminary analysis shows that Google's new policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection.  The CNIL and the EU data protection authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of data across services and have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing."

CBC's Ron Charles looks at the upcoming changes to Google's privacy policy. Some users are concerned about their internet use being tracked by the tech giant.

  

"Don't Be Evil," Google's unofficial corporate motto was originally adopted as a company-wide belief as well as a jab to its competitors.  However, Google has come a long way since it was incorporated in 1998, and that has some users wondering if the company's philosophy has changed. BackgroundCheck.org asks, "Mother Can I Trust Google?" in the following infographic:  

 Click Image To Enlarge

COMMENTARY:  Google, Twitter and Facebook have been the subject of investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for numerous privacy violations.  

In a blog post dated March 31, 2012, I reported that Google and Twitter had both been placed on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits.  

In the press release about the FTC settlements with both Google and Twitter, it states:

"A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000".

If the FTC had imposed that $16,000 per violation penalty, it would've been sufficient to put both Google and Twitter out-of-business.  However, the feds would never impose a penalty that serious because it is not in their best interests.  The Feds depend on and carefully monitor the activities of users on social networks and other sites to compile and track down criminals and terrorists. Attorney's also use social sites to gather evidence they can use in lawsuits and divorce cases.  What a racket.     

In a blog post dated November 30, 2011, I reported that Facebook had settled with the FTC for numerous privacy violations going back into 2010.   Like Google and Twitter, the FTC placed Facebook on 20-year probation, and must undergo annual privacy audits. 

Co-founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a lengthy post on the company's official blog on Tuesday.

"I'm the first to admit that we've made a bunch of mistakes." 

He said a few "high-profile" mistakes, such as changes to the service's privacy policy two years ago, "have often overshadowed much of the good work we've done."

To ensure that Facebook did a better job, Zuckerberg said the company had created two new corporate privacy officer positions to oversee Facebook products and policy.

In its complaint, the FTC said that Facebook had repeatedly violated laws against deceptive and unfair practices. For example, it said Facebook promised users that it would not share personal information with advertisers, but it did.

Also, the company had failed to warn users that it was changing its website in December 2009 so that certain information that users had designated as private, such as their "Friends List," would be made public, the FTC said.

Facebook's Timeline feature, which it rolled out for all users on February 29, 2012, has been a subject of much controversy because of the huge potential for even more privacy violations.  Also, only about 10% of Facebook users actually like Timeline.   

The new Timeline feature makes everything a person has ever done on Facebook appear on a single screen that scrolls down year by year right back to when the person was born.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described Timeline as letting you "tell the whole story of your life on a single page".

However, as Timeline makes all of a user's photographs and wall posts visible to friends, critics have warned the mandatory change could erode users' privacy.

There are also concerns that this will instantly make it easier for identity thieves and stalkers to profile individuals.

However, a spokeswoman for the site said the change would not alter existing privacy settings. 

As you can readily see, user privacy is a huge concern, and the FTC has come down hard on both Google, Twitter and Facebook.   LinkedIn maybe the subject of sanctions as well over ads using pictures of users without their permission.   

It should be obvious by now that Google broke from its motto of "Don't Be Evil," and  that controversy over privacy continues to haunt it like flies over a picnic table.  If we are to hold Google accountable, then we must do the same for all the major social networks, who have violated our privacy and continue to do so to this date. 

Courtesy of an article dated April 18, 2012 appearing in BackgroundCheck.org and an article dated March 15, 2012 appearing in Socialphy

$2.5 BILLION OF SMARTPHONES LOST OR STOLEN EACH YEAR, TIPS TO PROTECT YOURSELF, REMOTE GPS SECURITY APPS

 

If you have never lost or had your smartphone stolen, you are probably the exception, rather than the rule.  I have lost at least two phones, and it is such a helpless feeling which they now call mobophobia.  

iPhone and iPad theft is big right now.   There is a small criminal economy developing around stolen iPhones and iPads.   Thefts are often violent, conducted by one or more perpetrators, and in broad daylight.  So pay attention no matter where you are.  Avoid using your smartphone when you are alone. A lot of thefts occur on buses, the theft happens so fast, and the thief is gone like a flash, and a lot of victims are helpless women.  

Whatever you do, make sure you backup your contact list to your cellular service provider's servers.  Put it on automatic update, so that everytime you add a new contact or change an existing contact, your contact list on the phone carrier's servers is automatically updated.  Should you lose or have your smartphone stolen, you can quickly retrieve your contact list intact, and not be inconvenienced.      

Never, ever save your user ID's and passwords, or vital I information like credit card numbers, social security numbers on your smartphone.  If you do lose your smartphone, you could quickly become a victim of identify theft and the thief could take money out of your bank account or charge things to your credit cards. 

According to BackgroundCheck.com, $2.7 billion worth of smartphones were lost in 2011. Checkout this very interesting infographic.

Courtesy of: Background Check Blog 

Tips To Protect Yourself Before or After Your Cellphone is Lost or Stolen

A decade ago, losing your cell phone wasn't a huge deal. Sure, the loss of your text message history, contacts might be a painful blow, but you'd be able to get a replacement and move on quickly. Nowadays, our smartphones reveal much more; our phones are packed with our close friends, Facebook contacts, photos, location data, and tweets as well as access to personal banking, shopping and social networking tools. 

Fortunately, security advancements have kept up with smartphone development, so remote locking, tracking and wiping is an easy-to-setup reality. These apps, many of which are free, only take a few minutes to install on everything from your iPhone to the latest Windows Phone device, so we urge you to take the time to install one. Taking just a few security precautions with your phone can turn the potential disaster of a phone accidentally left in a cab into a minor inconvenience.

Click Image To Enlarge

Here are a few tips on securing your cell phone and what to do if you lose it or have it stolen.

• Call Your Cell Phone - PCMag recommends using another phone to text your lost phone with a message offering a reward for the device, and you can always try calling it as well. If you don't have a phone handy, you can use a service like Skype, Google Voice or fonefindr.com to ping your phone. It can't hurt -- someone may have found your phone or maybe you'll find hear it ringing between the couch cushions. 
• Notify Your Cellular Phone Carrier - After you've called or texted your phone, and retraced your steps, you'll want to call your cellular phone carrier immediately and tell them your phone has been lost or stolen.  Ask them to suspend service (i.e. disable messaging and calls) on the device, because thieves could rack up thousands of dollars in international calls or app purchases.  AT&T will even let you do this from your account on the Web.
• Password Protect Your Cell Phone - With all the messages, years of email, contacts, social networking accounts and other personal data stored on today's smartphones, we can't recommend password protecting your phone enough.  Refer to your users manual for instructions on how to password protect your cell phone.  A thief could still remove your password, and there's always the possibility you just lost the phone for good, the alternative (going password-free) leaves not only your cellphone account but your bank, social networking, and e-mail accounts completely open. If your phone was stolen and you haven't locked it down, immediately change the passwords to your online accounts and alert any banks or services that you enabled on the phone.
• Use Remote Security Apps - Many remote security apps are now available for smartphones and tablets, and they offer everything from near real-time GPS location tracking (often showing your phone's location on a map via a Web interface) and the ability to remote wipe your phone in case of theft to remote photo and data backup. There are many free options, and they take just a few minutes to install and set up.  Here is a list of remote security apps:
  • iPhone - Apple's Find My iPhone, GadgetTrak and iHound 
  • Android - Plan B, Android Lost, Mobile Defense, Prey Anti-Theft, GadgetTrak, Phone Found, Anti Theft, burglar alarm,lock, AntiDroid Theft, Android Anti Theft Security, GotYa! Lite : Face trap !, Android Theft Prevention Alert, Don’t Touch My Droid!, Anti Theft Installer, Seek My Android, and Wheres My Droid.
  • BlackBerry - MobiStealth
• Save Your Phone's Unique ID Number - Take a note of your phone's ESN, IMEI or MEID number (often found behind the battery or on the back of the iPhone near the FCC ID).  This number will come in handy when reporting a lost or stolen phone to the police or to your cellphone provider.
• Schedule Regular Backups - Regularly back up your smartphone to your computer or cellular carrier's servers (if that service is available), to ensure that you don't lose essential documents, purchases, apps, videos and photos that are stored on your phone.  Even if you're forced to wipe your cellphone or if it's lost for good, you can often restore a factory fresh replacement to the last backup you've got, complete with apps, settings and documents. Depending on how much you use your phone, we recommend backing up between once a month and once a week.  NOTE: Many cellular carriers install an app that will allow you to automatically upload your contacts, photos and other valuable data to their servers.  Some of them may charge an extra charge for this service, but its well worth the cost.  Check your phones settings or contact your cellular phone carrier for instructions.
• Other Preventive Measures - Don't lend your cellular phone to strangers unless there is an obvious emergency.   Be aware of cell phone and tablet thieves.  The theft of iPhones, iPads and Android phones are on the increase.  Many involve muggings or "grab and run" tactics on subways and buses.  Always be aware of your surroundings, and don't walk and text or use your phone when you are alone or in a crowd.       

Cellular Phone Carriers Band Together To Counter Act Rise of Cell Phone Theft

The nation's major wireless providers have agreed to a deal with the U.S. government to build a central database of stolen cellphones—part of a broad effort to tame an explosion of thefts nationwide.

The database, which the wireless companies will build and maintain, will be designed to track phones that are reported as lost or stolen and deny them voice and data service. The idea is to reduce crime by making it difficult or impossible to actually use a stolen device, reducing resale value.

Currently, Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. block phones that are reported stolen from being reactivated. AT&T Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG's T-Mobile USA don't. All four have agreed to be part of the new database.

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, which negotiated the database proposal said.

"New technologies create new risks.  We wanted to find a way to reduce the value of stolen smartphones."

Cellphone theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the U.S., law-enforcement officials nationwide say. The deal between the FCC and the wireless carriers is partly the result of pressure from frustrated police chiefs. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, an affiliation of 70 police chiefs from large cities across the U.S. and Canada, published a resolution in February calling on the FCC to require telecom companies to implement technology to disable stolen devices.

Behind the increase in crime: A lucrative market for used phones. Thieves can sell pilfered devices to local merchants or street-corner middlemen—or hawk them on sites such as eBay.com, Amazon.com or Craigslist.org, where a used iPhone, for instance, can fetch several hundred dollars.

In New York there were more than 26,000 incidents of electronics theft in the first 10 months of 2011—81% involving mobile phones—according to an internal police-department document reported by the New York Daily News.

The report said electronics are now the most stolen type of property, surpassing cash. In Washington, D.C., cellphone-related robberies jumped 54% from 2007 to 2011 according to the Metropolitan Police Department.

Details of the national stolen-phone database have yet to be worked out, but a broad outline has been agreed to.

Wireless phones that have been reported stolen to the carrier will be listed in the database using unique serial numbers associated with mobile gadgets. The carriers will block listed phones from accessing carrier networks for voice and data service.

Courtesy an article dated April 12, 2012 appearing in the Background Check Blog, an article dated March 10, 2012 appearing in Business Insider and an article dated May 9, 2011 appearing in Huffington Post and an article dated April 9, 2012 appearing in The Wall Street Journal

STUDY: FACEBOOK BEING USED BY EMPLOYERS TO SELECT WORKERS AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA SNOOPING FIRMS THEY USE

Employers already know it’s a good idea to check job candidates’ Facebook pages to make sure there aren’t any horrible red flags there. The reddest flags for most employers seem to be drugs, drinking, badmouthing former employers, and lying about one’s qualifications. But there’s another good reason for checking out a candidate’s Facebook page before inviting them in for an interview: it may be a fairly accurate reflection of how good they’ll be at the job.

That’s the conclusion in a study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology last month. The researchers hired HR types to rate hundreds of college students’ Facebook pages according to how employable they seemed.

One of the study author’s, Don Kluemper, of Northern Illinois University says. 

“We asked them to form impressions of a candidate based solely on their Facebook page.”

This involved looking at what was publicly available on those pages (photos, status updates, and conversations with friends) and then assigning each person a score for a number of qualities important to being a good employee, such as their degree of emotionally stability, conscientiousness, extroversion, intellectual curiosity and agreeableness. (In other words, will they flip out on you, care about completing tasks, be fun to work with, be creative in problem solving, and be willing to kiss up when necessary?) The review took about five to ten minutes per profile.

Six months later, the researchers got in touch with their guinea pigs’ employers to ask about their job performances. Unfortunately, of the over 500 guinea pigs, just 56 of the employers responded. So the sample is small, but the researchers found a strong correlation between those employers’ reviews and the employability predictions they had made based on folks’ profile pages.

I asked Kluemper about the “personality red flags” that their reviewers looked for. He was a little vague but said that a person with obvious mood swings, who is overly emotional in their postings would not be an attractive candidate. Meanwhile, a person with a lot of Facebook friends who takes a lot of crazy photos would be rated as extroverted and friendly — which are attractive qualities in a candidate.

Key takeaway for hiring employers: The Facebook page is the first interview; if you don’t like a person there, you probably won’t like working with them. The bad news for employers, though, who are hoping to take the Facebook shortcut Kluemper said.

“So many more profiles are restricted in what the public can access.” 

Given the small sample size for that first study, I was more impressed by the second. In the second study, the researchers did a similar assessment of students’ Facebook selves and also had the students take personality and IQ tests. Then, instead of following up with employers, they turned to students’ transcripts.  Kluemper says.  

“We were able to better predict a student’s academic success based on their Facebook page than on the cognitive tests.” 

(Most universities claim they don’t stalk applicants on social networking sites during the admissions process. Maybe they should?)

Of course, there are some legal questions to think about before jumping into someone’s Facebook page. Employers can discriminate against potential employees who seem like bummers based on their Wall postings and interests, but will get into trouble if what the Facebook user has said about their religious views affects the hiring process.

COMMENTARY:  For quite a while I have been warning my readers about the dangers of posting or saying offensive things on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.   Unless you make your Facebook or Twitter page private, you are an open book, and whatever you post on your social network page, could come back to haunt you, no matter how qualified you may be for the job.  

The addition of Facebook's Timeline is going to be a goldmine for employers because it makes it much easier for an employer to dig up dirt you may have long forgotten about.  If you've said some derogatory things about an opposing political party or candidate, a former employer or co-worker, or even an ex-girlfriend or spouse, even the boss' favorite sports team, this can be viewed very negatively by employers.

Law enforcement organizations and government agencies like the FBI, NSA and the CIA are actively involved and working closely with many of the major social networks to conduct investigations, gather evidence and track down criminals and terrorists.  Much of this investigation and data gathering is done under the auspices of the Patriot Act in the interest of national security, so in special circumstances they may not be required to obtain a subpoena to access your private Facebook or Twitter account. The former Director of the CIA testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee about the billions Facebook had saved the agency. The director said with a smile on his face,

"After years of secretly monitoring the public, we were astounded that so many people would willingly publicize where they lived, their religious and political views, alphabetize a list of all their friends' personal email addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates of what they were doing moment-to-moment.  It is truly a dream come true for the CIA."

Here, checkout the YouTube video yourself.

   

To assist employers in their hiring decisions, many employers are now using what I call "professional social media snooping" firms to scour the internet to find out what you say and post online, particularly on social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and others.  In a blog post dated October 3, 2010, I profiled Social Intelligence Corporation, one of these social media snoopers, and at that time called it a "creepy startup" and "truly scary" company.  

Apparently consumers hurt by this companies activities filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), claiming they were in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of 1996, 2004 with amendments there to.

On May 9, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission ruled on behalf of Social Intelligence Corp claiming that they were not in violation of the Federal Credit Reporting Act.  This effectively gave Social Intellignece Corporation the legality to provide social media consumer reports to employers conducting background checks on prospective employees.

On February 3, 2012, I told you about the growing trend by employers to use social media snooping firms to help employers screen employees through their social media behaviors. It's not just a U.S. trend, employers all over the world are now using social media snooping firms.  More than half of my readers are from countries outside the U.S., so you should be aware of this.  

 

According to Social Intelligence Corp. CEO Max Drucker, the company focuses on screening social media profiles for the usual suspects -- racist remarks, sexually explicit content, pictures with guns, knives, or other weapons, and other illegal behavior (think bongs).

There are some limits on how employers may use archived social media content, however. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, companies are required to tell prospective employees (or, say, credit applicants) that they are going to perform background check and obtain their permission to do so. Employers are also required by law to tell the applicant about any damaging information they find online.

The majority of my readers probably have nothing to worry about, but if you have a previous felony conviction, been fired for cause, previously lost your job due to a layoff, and you voiced your anger online, you have a lot to risk.  By some estimates, as many as 40% of longterm unemployed may be in limbo and simply unemployable because of their online social media behaviors.   Social media snooping firms have already expanded into the insurance industry.   Their reports could cause you to lose your health or life insurance coverage or prevent you from obtaining insurance coverage.  If you have any experience or information about the activities of these snoopers, post it on my blog, or shoot me an email.   I have a feeling we have just scratched the surface.                            

Courtesy of an article dated March 5, 2012 appearing in Forbes 

 

LONDON'S SUNDAY TIMES ALLEGES FACEBOOK READS THE TEXT MESSAGES OF THOSE USING FACEBOOK'S SMS APP

Let's take a healthy sodium-dose here, but London's Sunday Times is alleging that Facebook has admitted to reading users' text messages. People at Facebook supposedly read the private SMS messages of users who downloaded the Facebook app on their smartphones.

This was allegedly in preparation for Facebook launching their own messaging service, but it is not known if it still continues today. Or, really, if it happened at all. The Sunday Times article is very scant in the way of evidence, quoting only unnamed sources, and then devolving into a rehashing of every other known privacy concern to pad the article.

While it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it happened—we've come to expect this sort of thing as of late—let's hold off on the torches and pitchforks until we have some more substancial proof. We are reaching out to Facebook for a comment, and will update if we hear back. Then we can light our pitchforks and sharpen our torches. Or something like that. [Sunday Times viaTechCrunch]

UPDATE: Facebook has responded to Business Insider's request for a statement, and boy is it a mouthful.

"There is no reading of user text messages."

"On the Android App store, the Facebook app permissions include SMS read/write."

"The reason it is on there is because we have done some testing (not with the general public) of products that require the SMS part of the phone to talk to the Facebook App. That's what the read&write refers to – the line of communication needed to integrate the two things."

"Lots of communications apps use these permissions. Think of all those apps that act as replacements to the build-in sms software."

"That's not necessarily what we're working on. SMS can be used for carrier billing (where users opt to pay for things like apps through their phone bill). Again – that's not to say we're launching this. It's just an example of why an app might use these permissions. The Sunday Times leap to the conclusion that is was a messaging feature."

"Anyway – we have yet to make any such features available to the public. (so the Sunday Times is completely wrong when it says Facebook is reading people's SMS. Wrong on the terminology, and wrong on the suggestion that it has been implemented)."

"But Facebook is right to insert this into the Android app permissions – because yes, the app technically has the capability to integrate with the phone's SMS system – even if that is just for our own testing."

So, there you have it. As we suspect, sounds like a lot of getting excited about what isn't much, or at least isn't much yet. It looks like they're working on a new feature, so we've probably got some time before that rolls out, and then we can freak out when we realize that it's sold all of our precious love-letters (or love-texts) for drug money. Or something. Until them, BOOOOOOto the Sunday Times for trying to trick people into paying to read their sensationalized article.

COMMENTARY:    That Facebook response is all PHOOOEYYY!! if you ask me.  I didn't actually understand much of it.  It was just too lengthy, and a bit too technical.  Anytime I have to read something two or three times, it's probably mumbo jumbo, or something that the writer has problems explaining.  

Our locations and reading our messages is one of the last frontier of privacy violations that are now occuring.  Facebook would love to hear what people say outside their social network like in their text messages about brands and their products, or what they say about Facebook, for that matter.  

They would love to know where we are all the time so they can feed us a mobile ad or two, or a text message reminder that McD's has a two-for-1 sale on their hamburgers.

I just turned off the GPS function on my smartphone through my settings because any app I run on it could be tracking me right now.  GPS also wears down your battery.   Unless you absolutely need to turn on GPS, because an app needs your location, I would be very careful about turning it on.  

Finally, I don't trust most social networks, especially Facebook, because Facebook has committed the most privacy violations of any of the big five social networks.   I have warned you that Facebook is under the grip of the CIA, FBI, NSA and numerous law enforcement organizations. They just love it that you post everything about yourself on those sites.  Everytime I post a blog post, it ends up on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and now Google+.  I need the traffic, but when it comes to providing personal information about myself, watch out.   

This latest allegation about Facebook reading our SMS text messages would not be too farfetched. Take the above denial with a grain of salt.  It's probably happening under our noses.  The more they deny, the more it seems they are nice guys, but don't think about it that way.  When a company doesn't make anything, then YOU are the product. 

Courteshy of an article dated February 26, 2012 appearing in Gizmodo

GOOGLE TO SELL CONTROVERSIAL AR HEADS-UP-DISPLAY (HUD) GLASSES BY YEAR-END, RAISES HUGE PRIVACY CONCERNS

People who constantly reach into a pocket to check a smartphone for bits of information will soon have another option: a pair of Google-made glasses that will be able to stream information to the wearer’s eyeballs in real time.

According to several Google employees familiar with the project who asked not to be named, the glasses will go on sale to the public by the end of the year. These people said they are expected “to cost around the price of current smartphones,” or $250 to $600.

The people familiar with the Google glasses said they would be Android-based, and will include a small screen that will sit a few inches from someone’s eye. They will also have a 3G or 4G data connection and a number of sensors including motion and GPS.

A Google spokesman declined to comment on the project.

Seth Weintraub, a blogger for 9 to 5 Google, who first wrote about the glasses project in December, and then discovered more information about them this month, also said the glasses would be Android-based and cited a source that described their look as that of a pair of Oakley Thumps.

Click Image To Enlarge

They will also have a unique navigation system. Mr. Weintraub wrote this month. 

“The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click.  We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”

The glasses will have a low-resolution built-in camera that will be able to monitor the world in real time and overlay information about locations, surrounding buildings and friends who might be nearby, according to the Google employees. The glasses are not designed to be worn constantly — although Google expects some of the nerdiest users will wear them a lot — but will be more like smartphones, used when needed.

Internally, the Google X team has been actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses and the company wants to ensure that people know if they are being recorded by someone wearing a pair of glasses with a built-in camera.

The project is currently being built in the Google X offices, a secretive laboratory near Google’s main campus that is charged with working on robots, space elevators and dozens of other futuristic projects.

One of the key people involved with the glasses is Steve Lee, a Google engineer and creator of the Google mapping software, Latitude. As a result of Mr. Lee’s involvement, location information will be paramount in the first version released to the public, several people who have seen the glasses said. The other key leader on the glasses project is Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, who is currently spending most of his time in the Google X labs.

One Google employee said the glasses would tap into a number of Google software products that are currently available and in use today, but will display the information in an augmented reality view, rather than as a Web browser page like those that people see on smartphones.

The glasses will send data to the cloud and then use things like Google Latitude to share location, Google Goggles to search images and figure out what is being looked at, and Google Maps to show other things nearby, the Google employee said.   They said.  

“You will be able to check in to locations with your friends through the glasses.”

Everyone I spoke with who was familiar with the project repeatedly said that Google was not thinking about potential business models with the new glasses. Instead, they said, Google sees the project as an experiment that anyone will be able to join. If consumers take to the glasses when they are released later this year, then Google will explore possible revenue streams.

As I noted in a Disruptions column last year, Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist.

Last week The San Jose Mercury News discovered plans by Google to build a $120 million electronics testing facility that will be involved in testing “precision optical technology.”

COMMENTARY:    In a blog post dated February 8, 2012, I commented on the article by Seth Weintraub of 9to5Google.com, that revealed Google's development of "Terminator" style, Android-based head-up-display (HUD) glasses.   That was just a rumor, but it now appears that Google is rapidly moving towards launching their new HUD glasses by year-end.

I hate to say it, but these augmented reality HUD glasses are going to be very controversial and create many privacy concerns and liability issues.  Information about you is now readily available on the internet, especially from social networks, and Google will be able to tap into that information to display your name and possibly your contact information, and anything else you may have posted online.  

In an article February 22, 2012 by Thomas Claburn appearing in InformationWeek, there were 7 potential problems Google may encounter with their new augmented reality HUD glasses:

"Here are a few potential pitfalls:

"Privacy - The outcry over people beaming images back to Google's data centers will be deafening, far worse than complaints about Google's monitoring of Web browsing habits. Google engineers are said to be actively discussing the privacy implications of the glasses. But the company's history of repeated privacy blunders suggests controversy is inevitable."

"Google has the technology to enable facial recognition with its Google Goggles app, but has avoided doing so for fear of privacy problems. And that's the real shame here, because augmented reality glasses should be able to do things like present the name of the person you're looking at. That kind of technology will be available eventually, at least to police departments. But as a society, we're not ready for it."

"Redundancy - Augmented reality is cool. But putting the technology into a pair of glasses isn't strictly necessary. Everything your Google glasses might be able to do, your Android phone will do better, particularly given the assumption that the glasses will be intended for periodic rather than constant use."

"Cost - For several hundred dollars, you'll get what? Services already available on your smartphone. Augmented reality makes a lot of sense if you're, say, a NASA astronaut who needs to see Space Shuttle schematics in your visor while you're on a space walk to make repairs. Augmented reality makes less sense for consumers. A more cost-effective solution might be a smartphone scaffold for mounting your phone on your baseball cap."

"Health - There's already enough FUD about mobile phones and brain cancer. But even the most scientifically-minded are likely to balk if Google's glasses rely on anything more powerful than Bluetooth to transmit and receive data. And that's to say nothing of the potential health effects of visual distraction and impairment. No one wants their last thought to be, 'Hey, Google Maps says I'm walking across Highway 101...'"

"Liability - And if there are health risks, there will be liability problems. People will wear Google's glasses while driving, despite explicit warnings not to do so. They will collide with elderly pedestrians and someone will get hurt. Someone will end up going cross-eyed. There will be lawsuits. And some politician will hold a hearing. Add the cost of an insurance policy to your Google Glasses bill."

"Battery Life - Battery life continues to hinder the utility of smartphones, tablets, and notebook computers. And in these devices, you can generally feel the weight of the battery. Glasses need to be light to be comfortable, so the battery will necessarily be small. As a consequence, the glasses are unlikely to be useful for very long, unless they require a separate tethered battery ... and that would ruin the experience. The ideal augmented reality glasses will be able to run perpetually on sunlight. We're probably several decades away from that kind of photovoltaic and processor efficiency."

"Control - Head-tiling will not be enough if the glasses are to offer services beyond navigation. The glasses will either have to convert hand gestures to commands or accept voice commands. So add a microphone, which adds another layer of privacy problems and engineering requirements."

"The glasses will also have to be extraordinarily responsive--when you turn your head you won't be happy with information related to where you were looking three seconds ago. That will mean either a very fast network connection--something many mobile carriers can't manage consistently--or displaying as little data as possible for the sake of speed and to appease mobile carriers, which already consider you a data hog."

Wow, it looks like Thomas Claburn covered all the possible pitfalls that Google could experience. Notice that privacy was No 1 on his list.  I wonder if Google's X-Labs team asked themselves, "What would Steve do?"   Better yet, did Google confer with their attorney's about liability and privacy issues and did they conduct field studies and get feedback from consumers?

This is a great time to mention that the Obama administration is working hard to legislate an online "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights" bill, and if the proposed bill passes in its present form without Congressional infighting, it could change the entire internet landscape with regard to privacy concerns.  Checkout my blog post dated February 23, 2012 about Obama's proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights bill.   

I also envision a lot of ads appearing to the HUD whenever you look at a restaurant, movie theater, product whether a book or consumer electronics device, and a message telling you what it is, where you can get it, the price and if there is a deal on that item.  So unless you don't mind receiving these invasive ads appearing on your HUD, then its going to open up a whole new world for those individuals willing to forkup $250 to $650 and the software to use these new HUD glasses.    

I have always felt that technology would be heading this way, and it looks like it will be happening sooner, rather than later.   You can expect Microsoft, Apple and others to introduce similar devices, but they will probably wait to see just how much traction Google is making with their new HUD augmented reality glasses before launching their own.

Courtesy of an article dated February 21, 2012 appearing in The New York Times Bits