THER than the fact that Google Glass is Linux-powered and partly Free/Open Source, I have never had interest in Google Glass. The fact that it is hackable — in the sense one can install one’s own system on the hardware — sure makes a difference, but most people will never practise this freedom. As long as Google, by default, hoovers in data from Google Glass (like it does on the Nexus series), the data is easily accessible to the Surveillance Industrial Complex. This ties into the previous post about peer-surveillance. There is no escaping it and there is reason to antagonise Google Glass as a concept, irrespective of whether one buys/uses it. A lot of people will have no choice as to whether their life(as dynamic imagery) is taken and then uploaded to a datacentre with weak data sharing/protection/retention policy. This is not the same as CCTV. Here we talk about videos that are captured in private spaces, too, more so than surveillance drones whose motion is limited to aerial and is still privacy-infringing, albeit they’re less ubiquitous due to cost, air traffic control, legislation and so on.

This is not about resisting a brand. It’s not hating advancement or fearing the future as Google likes to paint it. It is about telling the difference between marketing (the technology for Google Glass as an implementable concept has been around for decades) and societal effects. It’s like antagonising proprietary software for its effects on society, regardless of practical uses. Fog Computing (‘cloud’) should be rejected on similar grounds. Not everything that can be done should be done, at least or especially if it disregards the consent of non-participants.

To the user, the novelty here is the size of the hardware, the image resolution, and the wireless connection speeds (not related to Google at all).

To the Surveillance Industrial Complex, the novelty here is the ability to access a private (i.e. not accessible by us) database of videos for any given person queried (identity can be derived in a variety of ways, ranging from inter-personal connections to audio, video, and geographical location).

have become exceedingly concerned about a trend that I’ve been watching in recent years, especially after the great transfer of wealth, aka “economic meltdown”. Whistleblowers are ferociously attacked, sites are being gagged, and bank accounts get forzen for those who do effective activism against a corrupt banking system which is now clawing away people’s savings. Last night I changed my avatar in all social networks to a photo of me covering my mouth. As we approach a class war like never seen before we must fight for the right to free speech. Without it, only the plutocrats get to popularise their points of view.

ast year I asked Dr. Stallman to comment on what Ubuntu/Canonical had done with regards to privacy and since then he has expressed his view very clearly, most recently in this video.

LOT of people think that a presidential candidate will be chosen next week, and moreover that a party is to be elected to have a real impact. The truth is, those people are wrong.

The US elections were held behind closed doors a long time ago. The system as a whole had been abducted in a coup detre fashion and every once in a few years rich people meet to discuss what policies they want and which party is equipped to deliver the goods. The head of the party is a face and a character, but there is rarely enough power for that person to really determine a party’s policy. The business interests mostly conquered two parties in the Unites States. The rest are being marginalised and kept out of the public’s reach using the corporate media, which is of course influenced tremendously — if not owned by — the aforementioned rich people.

So should you vote next week? Well, the voting was done already, and you have lost. What remains to be discussed is, should one bother voting for the “lesser evil” to keep someone else out of Office? Should one make a stand by protesting? Should one vote for obscure candidates, who are often the most poorly funded because corporations cannot invest in them (i.e. corrupt their focus on people)? I am not eligible to vote in the United States, but many in my family are.

I don’t protest, but I do try to promote better understanding of a rather transparent-to-see problem. It doesn’t take an overly inquiring mind to see that elections hardly change policies which truly matter, e.g. policies regarding war.

Tuesday will be a good day out. Follow George Carlin’s advice and enjoy the day as though nothing special is happening. Because, let’s face it, nothing special is happening. The elections were held already, and guess what? You could not be part of them. You are not a billionaire.

INN conference New York 2010 from Annie Machon on Vimeo.