> Oh I love this..... > > "[Wearable owners want to] record what [someone] is saying and transmit > what they're saying across great distances and without their consent," she > said. > > :-/ kinda like how [Gun owners want to] kill everyone that they meet and > propagate violence and drug use in america.... > > Who was this nut? let's ship her off to another country. or was the press > as usual re-writing someones words to make it sound like all of us are > criminals. That was my question too. I was sitting in the front row of the audience, with my Wearable Wireless Webcam (WearCam) while the panelists discussed primarily wearable cameras and their social implications. I was kind of wondering if any of the panelists had had any personal experience with wearable cameras in ordinary everyday life. When they asked if there were questions from the audience, I asked the panel how their theory of wearable computers and privacy (e.g. various taxonomies of privacy, they proposed etc.) compared to what has already been published on the subject of wearable computers and privacy. One of the panelists (the one who made the above quote you refer to) responded by indicating she was relatively new to the field of wearable computers. This is strange because the WiReD article seems to indicate that the panelists were researchers "involved in developing the wearable computer". [from the WiReD article:] >Allen and other panelists, mostly researchers involved in developing >the wearable computer, wrestled with the privacy implications of the >tiny computers that are only now beginning to leave the labs and hit >the consumer radar. A while back I was thinking of organizing a panel on privacy and wearable computers, but I was thinking someone more like John Perry Barlow, would be good on the panel, especially if I was also going to have lawyers or law people on the panel as well. There's nothing like having a little bit of balance and fairness on the Surveillance Superhighway. Otherwise you just get the "Dorothy Denning" side of the story. Kind of unbalanced in favor of the Bigs, in my opinion. I feel that many panels are constructed to railroad a particular agenda or viewpoint through rather than to create a controversy-laden yet balanced view of a subject. [ by the way, a while ago, i was asked to give the keynote address, on the subject of wearable computers and privacy, at the mcluhan conference on culture and technology. my presentation is today, 4pm, and hopefully it will get webcast if the crew can tap my wearcomp7 feed. http://wearcam.org/mcluhan-keynote.html ] steve = N1NLF http://wearcam.org/privacypubs.html some files in wearcam.org on wearable computing and privacy: drugtest_upheld_because_shower_together_thus_cant_expect_privacy.html netcam_privacy_issues.html privacy_forum_digest_nakedradar.html privacy_forum_digest_on_CCTV.html privacypubs.html privacythroughovertness.gif privacythroughovertness.html privacythroughpublicityofpersonalinformation.html websterprivacy.gif -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.ml.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail