Is Google’s new eyeopening experience
threatening to glass out
society? by Leandra Behrens
Google Glass, expected to hit the market
by the end of the year, is the world’s first
concrete step into wearable devices and a
huge innovation in computer technology.
Equipped with an eye-level camera,
social media capabilities and the various
functions of Google Now also found in
smartphones, wearing Glass changes
everything.
Wearing Glass sets you apart from
everyone. It says you not only had $1,500
(£906) to plonk down to be part of the
“explorer” programme, but Google deemed
you special enough to warrant inclusion.
Glass is a class divide on your face.
Such is the fate of early adopters
of new technologies, whether it’s the
Sony Walkman, the first iPod with its
conspicuous white ear buds, or the
Segway scooter.
Google calls the people who wear Glass
“explorers,” because the device is not yet
available to the general public.
Fairly soon after Google announced
Glass, a bar in Seattle banned them,
stating: “People want to go there and be
not known … and definitely don’t want
to be secretly filmed or videotaped and
immediately put on the Internet.”
Not long after that, the term “glasshole”
entered the popular lexicon, a word
specifically created to belittle early
adopters as pretentious posers or
hipsters. For all those moments in life
when you’ve thought “I wish I had a
camera in my eyeball right now so I could
capture this moment,” well, this is it.
However, the Google Glass was
designed for full use, not partial,
restricted use.
That precious time when we are not in
front of a screen – walking, looking at the
world around us, not being bombarded
by electronically mediated information
right in front of our faces – is now also to
be mediated by technology.
How relaxed will you be sitting at
a bar with your friends, knowing that
potentially every dumb thing you say or
do – and you say dumb things all the time
at a bar – could be broadcast on the Web
for your relatives or co-workers to see?
Google has heard all the concerns about
Glass. They’ve heard people’s fears they’ll
be secretly recorded by some Glasswearing creeper.
They know somebody’s going to be
stupid and drive while using them. And,
yes, they know that some people might
think you’re a “glasshole.”
Google suggest Glass wearers should
be polite and offer demonstrations to
possibly win over the wary. “Respect
others and if they have questions about
Glass don’t get snappy.”
But the truth is that it’s a groundbreaking device, even if it is deeply
flawed in terms of basic human privacy.
Just remember one thing: “Don’t be a
glasshole.”
I can see the grass grow… make a spectacle of yourself and the whole world can be your oyster
6 FANFA R E JUNE 2 0 1 4
Are badly behaved
dogs the result of cruel
owners? by Jan Golen
The latest spate of dog attacks has
brought renewed calls for tougher curbs
on big fierce breeds. Every 30 seconds
on average someone in England and
Wales calls an emergency hotline for
help with dealing with a problem dog.
The RSPCA says its 24-hour
cruelty hotline received more than1.16m
phone calls pleading for help in 2012.
And inspectors now investigate more
than 150,000 complaints of cruelty and
neglect every year. Latest estimates say
dog attacks are on the increase in the UK.
On the other hand, there are rarely
stories questioning how the dog was
treated by its owner. The focus always
seems to be classifying yet another
breed as being inherently dangerous.
And the danger list goes from breeds
like the Rottweiler, right down to the
Chinese Chow. Name the breed, blame
the dog. In contrast, if person of a
certain race commits a crime, would we
hold the entire race responsible?
Even trained police dogs have been
involved in attacking 150 innocent
people between 2011 and 2013, costing
the police £120,000 in compensation
claims. Victims included children,
joggers and a photographer.
And yet police dogs are supposed to
be highly trained to respond to specific
commands of their handlers. If they
don’t, the teeth can come out.
And most of the worst attacks seems
to feature children. Recent victims
who have figured in lurid newspaper
stories have included Ava-Jayne Corless
who was just 11 months when she was
savaged to death.
In many cases, the animal involved
has led a miserable existence. In one
widely reported case, an offending bull
mastiff was kept in a crate for 24 hours
a day where it could not even raise
its head, and three dogs in the house
– another mastiff and two pit bulls –
were kept indoors and never exercised
despite there being a park just two
minutes away.
But it’s far too easy to blame the dog.
The simple psychology of domestic dogs
needs to be considered. Owners needed
to earn their animal’s love.
The plea to dog-owners came after
the RSPCA reported that over the whole
of last year its inspectors investigated
150,833 suspected cruelty cases and
issued 78,090 advice notices.