It is evident that technology is changing day in day out and thatpeople embrace any form of technology that comes their way.Technology allows people to do things in new and more convenientways. As technology grows and the world changes, people are adoptingnew methods of communicating digitally through devices andtechnologies developed by information technology experts. Technologyseeks to lower the barrier that is used for accessing and sharinginformation. From the desktop computers to the laptops and later tomobile phones, technology has now moved to (Ventura,2014). This is a form of futuristic technology that has caught peoplesurprise. People could hardly believe that there is any imaginableway that a person would use on his or her head to take pictures, textfriends, take videos and even browse the internet using only glasses.However, this is exactly the wonderful and futuristic technology thates offer.
There has been a continuous debate on the possible positive andnegative effects of technologies such as . In thisregard, there has been conflicting opinions. Whereas the technologyseems futuristic, critics have argued that it is an intrusion ofpeople’s privacy. The prices of the Glasses at 1500 dollars hasalso been cited as exorbitant (Thompson, 2013). This paper seeks tolook into the uses of es, their pros and cons, as well ashow they have been perceived in the market by the public.
When Google X lab announced that it has developed wearabletechnology in the form of glasses that would allow people to takepicture, capture videos, text friends, and search the internet justby talking to them, people were surprised. Whereas numerous peoplethought and viewed this as an extremely futuristic and most creativetechnology, there were an equally many people who thought that theseglasses were a concern to people’s privacy. The es arewearable, head mounted glasses that require the user to only to talkto them and they function as instructed (Ventura, 2014). The glassescontain a screen just and a small camera at the top of the right eyethat the user communicates with to take video, photos or even searchthe internet. Google has set the prices of the glasses at 1500dollars, which has been argued to be an extremely high consideringthat the cost of their production is approximately less than 100dollars.
es have been classified as wearable technologies whichare aimed at offering a supporting role to the life of the user.Previously, the normal computers such as the laptops or the desktopswere the primary focus of the user. According to Google, the Googleglasses are a form of technology that is available when you need andthe user can opt not to have it when he does not need it. Previouslyand still currently, a vast majority of people have to takethemselves to the technology such as to the desktop computer or tothe laptop computer. However, the invention of es hasenabled technology to come to the peoples. The use of technology suchas has enabled people to communicate easily andconveniently. It has also eliminated the numerous barriers toaccessing information (Polyanskiy, 2013).
When Google started selling the glass, there were numerous ethicalissues that were raised by the public in regard to the issues ofprivacy, social interactions and perception by other people about theuser. The audience have raised concerns over the fact that this typeof technology may at some point control the world and limit thefreedom of the people. In other words, people are consideringtechnology as an aspect which might become more powerful than thehuman mind. These thoughts about the role of technology in the livesof people has led to the audience opposing pervasiveness of the in the society. The Glass technology has been said to bea means of gathering personal information from the users which mightbe shared to the government by Google. In other words, Google Inc. isviewed as benefiting or making profits through collecting people’spersonal information. The concern is the institutions such as thegovernment and advertisers that Google might share personalinformation collected on glass to. According to Google, the moreinformation about yourself you give to them, the more useful yourdevice will be (Polyanskiy, 2013). This has raised concerns over theusers of Glass who fear that their personal information will beshared with third parties. Whereas Google has tried to improve thelives of people thorough applications such as Google Now, it isevident that they make their profits through the use of theirclient’s data.
has also been a controversial device in terms of theprivacy of other people who do not use it. Non-users of the deviceare constantly worried over what might be happening behind the glassand they feel that the user of the glass is controlling them in oneway or the other. It is argued that people think wildly on what couldbe happening behind the glasses while talking to people using them.Research has indicated that people are yet to adapt to thistechnology of the glass and cannot imagine that there is a cameraeverywhere, which is spying on them (Greenwald, 2013). It is alsoevident that the lens of the camera points directly to people’sfaces, and there are concerns that the camera could be used to scanthem. There has even been such arguments as that the camera may seethrough their clothes or can scan their online profiles. The mainargument to the public has been the role of this omnipresent camerathat a human cannot do without it. However, users of the glass havebeen quick to point out that the glasses are just aimed atcomplementing their lives and not as a form of spying on otherpeople. It is apparent that the public cannot know when the user istaking their photos or videos, or when the user is checking theiremails. has created instruct amongst the people who usethem and the general public. It has been observed that people hardlybehave the same when they realize that there is a camera that isobserving each and every move they make (Polyanskiy, 2013).
Although the public has constantly raised the above ethical issuesin regard to , Google has responded by arguing that theethical concerns are just but a temporary side effect of the glassand that the is a perfect product by itself (Greenwald, 2013).However, research has also indicated that the glass is a barrier tosocial interaction. Imagining that a person has a constant camerafixed on his or her face creates an aspect social identity, status,as well as power and control. Furthermore, users of glass have beenobserved threatening the public that they would record them. Users ofthese glasses have pointed out that they feel uncomfortable aroundthe public due to the way they perceive them. In other words, theglass has had a bad perception amongst the public all across thecountries where they have been used (Greenwald, 2013). The users areforced to avoid looking at people directly since the people mightthink they are recording them or taking their photos. In addition,the users of the glass are supposed to speak the queries loudly toavoid suspicion from the members of the public around them.
There has also been concerns over the ability of a human being tomultitask. When users focus on the glass, they are alienated from therest of the world. In addition, glasses might be a source or cause ofaccidents when the driver fails to concentrate on both the glass andkeeping his eyes on the road. In addition, the es havebeen cited as a potential source of health problems. The radiationgenerated by the lens which is constantly on the body is a hugehealth concern. It is imperative to note that devices such as thesmart phones were permissive in the society since they are and werenot in contact with the body constantly (Ventura, 2014). Since theglasses are constantly on the head of the user, they are bound toexpose the user to extensive radiation rays which might result tohealth complications. Whereas Google may argue that the glasses do noimpede social interaction, it is evident that the uses can onlyinteract effectively with other people with the glasses.
It has also become increasingly apparent that the users of thees have also lost their identities. In their opinion,they seem to think that they are making technology smarter than them.However, it imperative to not that the technology helps them performtheir functions and run their lives easily. It is evident that thees are delightful and intriguing and therefore theaudience is quick to adopt such a technology (Miller, 2013). Thedesigners of at Google were intending to make a devicethat enables people to check emails and text messages faster andconveniently. However, people adopted the glass and used it to fancythe world around them. This developed to some form of attachment withthe device, which designers argue that it is completelyunderstandable.
The es have also been described an effective securitytool for its users. For instance, es can be used tophotos and 10 seconds videos if a user is attacked by thugs. Thiswould in turn provide evidence of to law enforcement officers on theidentity of the thugs. In addition, es can also be usedas a tool of recording knowledge (Butow & Stepisnik, 2014). Forinstance, students in a class can use the es to recordlecturers which they can refer to in a later date. The student canalso opt to video record some of the most critical parts of the classfor future references.
Whereas the public has been on the neck of Google Inc. over theprivacy concerns of the glass, experts are quick to point out thatthe glasses are not a huge threat to privacy as it has been portrayedby the public. They argue that for a user of the glasses to take apicture for example, he or she will have to shout loud, “O.K.,Glass, take picture“ in order to capture any image. In this regard,it would be extremely difficult for a user to use the camera in theglass to capture the photos of another person (Freeman, 2013).Equally, according to the experts, the users must reach to a buttonand press it in order to capture an image. This implies that theperson worried that his or her details such as images could becaptured can clearly see the intentions of the glass user.
Some users of glass have also pointed out the glass is notinterruptive and cannot limit a user from going on with his or herown activities. The glass can sometimes be extremely helpful. Forinstance when reminds a user of the heavy traffic. However, someusers have pointed out that there is nothing that glass does, that asmart phone cannot do. However, it is interesting to note that theglass allows the user to take photos, or record videos individuallyand then share them with other people. This has made the glass aunique device over the mobile smart phones.
It is evident that now the is a reality and part of thetechnology evolution that is taking place rapidly. The realizationthat the glass is a reality has caught numerous people by surprise.This is a form of futuristic technology that is taking people a longtime to adopt. Whereas people are still confused over the reality ofthe Google Glass, they continue to share their personal informationwith the company in the hope that they will receive better servicesthat are custom made for their demands (Souppouris, 2012). Althoughthe advertisers of this device have continued to defend it throughthe famous phrase that what is legal is moral, there still remainsnumerous questions in regard to the ethics of this device. In thislight, it is correct to suggest that he advertisers will have tocontinue defending the device until a point where the audienceconsiders the glass as a necessity, accepts it and loves it. Thehealth, privacy and social interaction concerns must be addressedbefore the device is impartially accepted as a permissive form oftechnology in the market. There has been numerous questions as towhat the means to the society. Is it a spy, a fancydevice or is it a product to complement the life of a human being.What is clear though is the fact that the technology that the deviceapplies is modern and futuristic. Therefore, the remainsmore of a question to the society than an answer.
Ventura, M. (2014). Google Glass and robotics innovator SebastianThrun.
(2014). 146 success secrets – 146 most askedquestions on . S.l., Emereo Publishing.
Butow, E., & Stepisnik, R. (2014). Google Glass for dummies.
Miller, C. (2013). “Addicted to Apps.“ The New York Times.
Thompson, C. (2013). Googling Yourself Takes on a Whole NewMeaning.
Polyanskiy, D. (2013). Google Glass: Overview and User Guide.Moscow
Souppouris, A. (2012). Google patches Glass exploit that allowedhackers full remote access. Retrieved from: http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4531186/google-glass-exploit-qr- code-patch
Freeman, J. (2013). Exploiting a bug in google’s glass. Suarik’sBlog. Retrieved from: http://www.saurik.com/id/16,
Greenwald, J. (2013). Personally Identifiable Data Most FrequentlyExposed to Breaches: A
Study. Business Insurance. Retrieved from: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20131101/NEWS07/131109979