New Tech and National Security -- Google Glass
Earlier this year I started an episodic feature on new technology and how it might impact national security. My first offering was on a life logging system known as Memoto. At the time, I noted some interesting privacy and civil liberties issues and also that Memoto would raise issues similar to other ubiquitous surveillance systems, like Google Glass.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Earlier this year I started an episodic feature on new technology and how it might impact national security. My first offering was on a life logging system known as Memoto. At the time, I noted some interesting privacy and civil liberties issues and also that Memoto would raise issues similar to other ubiquitous surveillance systems, like Google Glass.
Well, as the photo attests, I have now had a chance to wear a pair of Google Glass, albeit only briefly. I thought I'd report on the experience and also note some salient differences between GG and Memoto that will affect our legal and policy analysis.
First, the most obvious thing -- it's pretty cool tech! The small blue rectangle in the upper right corner of your right eye is a display terminal. Tilt your head backwards like a horse to activate it and it comes up with a default display of the time. You can shake your head left-right to scoll over to the local temperature. Not that I needed Google Glass to tell me but it was 99 Thursday morning in Washington DC.
To access the web, you simply say "Go Glass" and a menu comes up. You can say "take picture" or "take video" and the functionality starts. You can also make the search function comes up by saying "Google xxxxx" where "xxxx" is whatever you want to search on. I didn't have a real chance to try it out, but the voice recognition program seems to be very effective.
Three things were apparent to me from wearing the glass, all of which will effect how and when it is used and implemented. First, despite a snafu I had in turning the video off (it kept running), the controls for Google Glass that I used were not automated. Unlike Memoto which is, essentially, a "fire and forget" system that you turn on and ignore, to make GG do something the user needs to interact. The user, then, will be the legal point of control, I think -- not the technology itself.
Second, if the activation of the functionality does not happen in your presence there is no way for the non-user who is being filmed or photographed or recorded to tell that the GG is on. It operates in the background. In fact, the small blue rectangle is so unobtrusive that I don't think people will even know that someone is wearing a GG unless they look hard. Certainly, many in the coffee shop had no idea that a Google Glass was in the room.
Third, there is actually some risk of hijacking the Google Glass. The fellow I borrowed the glasses from was kind enough to show me how to use them. He did that by talking to the glass while =I= was wearing them. In effect, he could control my display. While that was exceedingly convenient for demo purposes, I can certainly imagine situations in which that would be an inconvenience or a downright security risk.
And finally, of course, the Glass brings with it all the same, privacy, surveillance and counter-intelligence issues I noted with Memoto.
Bottom line: Fascinating technology. I want to try it again soon. But I think I will be careful when I use it.
Well, as the photo attests, I have now had a chance to wear a pair of Google Glass, albeit only briefly. I thought I'd report on the experience and also note some salient differences between GG and Memoto that will affect our legal and policy analysis.
First, the most obvious thing -- it's pretty cool tech! The small blue rectangle in the upper right corner of your right eye is a display terminal. Tilt your head backwards like a horse to activate it and it comes up with a default display of the time. You can shake your head left-right to scoll over to the local temperature. Not that I needed Google Glass to tell me but it was 99 Thursday morning in Washington DC.
To access the web, you simply say "Go Glass" and a menu comes up. You can say "take picture" or "take video" and the functionality starts. You can also make the search function comes up by saying "Google xxxxx" where "xxxx" is whatever you want to search on. I didn't have a real chance to try it out, but the voice recognition program seems to be very effective.
Three things were apparent to me from wearing the glass, all of which will effect how and when it is used and implemented. First, despite a snafu I had in turning the video off (it kept running), the controls for Google Glass that I used were not automated. Unlike Memoto which is, essentially, a "fire and forget" system that you turn on and ignore, to make GG do something the user needs to interact. The user, then, will be the legal point of control, I think -- not the technology itself.
Second, if the activation of the functionality does not happen in your presence there is no way for the non-user who is being filmed or photographed or recorded to tell that the GG is on. It operates in the background. In fact, the small blue rectangle is so unobtrusive that I don't think people will even know that someone is wearing a GG unless they look hard. Certainly, many in the coffee shop had no idea that a Google Glass was in the room.
Third, there is actually some risk of hijacking the Google Glass. The fellow I borrowed the glasses from was kind enough to show me how to use them. He did that by talking to the glass while =I= was wearing them. In effect, he could control my display. While that was exceedingly convenient for demo purposes, I can certainly imagine situations in which that would be an inconvenience or a downright security risk.
And finally, of course, the Glass brings with it all the same, privacy, surveillance and counter-intelligence issues I noted with Memoto.
Bottom line: Fascinating technology. I want to try it again soon. But I think I will be careful when I use it.
Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, a homeland security consulting company and a Senior Advisor to The Chertoff Group. Mr. Rosenzweig formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. He is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University, a Senior Fellow in the Tech, Law & Security program at American University, and a Board Member of the Journal of National Security Law and Policy.
.png?sfvrsn=2f011ea5_5)
