The tech nerd in me loves the idea that Google’s new eyewear device “Glass” has been developed and will soon be on the market. A part of me is astonished that such technology can be developed, while another part is unnerved, afraid of this invention’s social and political consequences.
Google’s new gadget has already made some cracks in our legal code. The device has been distributed to thousands of lucky beta users — some of whom have met with legal confusion surrounding its use. Unfortunately, I think these instances have only marked the beginning of what will be a long series of court-cases, as lawmakers battle to keep pace with today’s fast evolving technology.
For those of you who don’t know, Glass is an eyepiece that is similar to a pair of glasses. The device sports a small, transparent screen that sits just above the right eye so as not to obscure the user’s vision. Users can use voice-command to record pictures and videos, engage in live video-chats, send messages, use GPS, and even translate languages.
But despite these interesting features, some beta-users have gotten in over their heads. Last October, a San Diego woman was pulled over in her vehicle for speeding. When the officer saw she was wearing Glass, he also gave her a ticket in belief that she had been driving “with monitor visible to the driver.” Later, the court decided to throw out the citation due to lack of sufficient proof that she had been using the monitor.
Just last week an Ohio man was suspected of recording a film he was watching while at the cinema. After the cinema had him reported, he was drilled by officers from ICE Homeland Security Investigations. While the man proved that the recording feature was inactive, this does not mean that other users can’t at least use the same excuse.
Glass is the first gadget on the market that is truly secretive in its execution, and this secrecy has made authorities suspicious.
While it’s easy to tell if someone is using a cellphone while driving or a camera to record at the cinema, it’s nearly impossible to tell if a user is doing so with Glass, as it carries similar features. This apparatus is the first truly personal accessory. Only the user knows what is happening through the lens.
Furthermore, it’s far too easy to evade legal trouble if one is using Glass to break the law. If questioned by authorities, the user could simply state that he or she was not using the gadget for those intended purposes. Officers, like the one who took the speeder to court, will not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was in use. In other words, expect more “Glass-Criminals” to hit the headlines in the near future!
Google Glass makes me nervous. Because it is such a leap in technological advancement, Canada’s lawmakers need to get their asses in gear and discuss modifications to our current code. Considering the pace at which our society evolves, I can’t imagine the stress these people go through. But laws must reflect modern technology. Glass is only the beginning of a series of personal, wearable gadgets and the abundance of problems they will cause.
