Steve Mann (EyeTap)

So if you're going to go through the trouble and expense of getting prescription lenses mounted onto this thing, then maybe it's also worth your while to get a second pair? You know, to avoid situations like this? We've seen people get into trouble with stuff like this before [0]. This is a new, socially unproven device meant for developers. As an early adopter, you should expect to run into occasional resistance until the general public and law enforcement become more familiar with devices like this. Expecting everybody to automatically be on the same page as you regarding what is and isn't reasonable with this device is pretty naive. You are the public image of this technology. Behave appropriately. [0] http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.h…

I've taken your suggestion as the basis for a proposed shorter letter for translation into French. I posted this draft letter as a comment to my latest weblog entry in http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/08/unanswered-letter-to-mcdonalds-head-… Please take a look at this proposed shorter letter, and I would welcome comments on this proposed draft short letter in http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/08/unanswered-letter-to-mcdonalds-head-… Best regards, Steve

I can’t find anything recent but it’s a topic he’s thought a lot about over the years: http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-sousveillance-scenarios.html?m=…

http://eyetap.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for… Not Google Glass, but similar.

The difference is that taking photos or filming with a mobile phone or digital camera is an explicit action that is usually obvious to the people being filmed. With always-on gadgets like Google Glass, you can never be sure whether the wearer is recording you or not. I guess that some people wearing Google Glass might not even be aware that they are violating someone else's right to privacy. Therefore, it is certainly helpful to explicitly declare one's place a 'no recording' zone - if only to avoid events such as [1]. [1] http://eyetap.blogspot.de/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.ht…

>The impact and fall injured my leg and also broke my wearable computing system, which normally overwrites its memory buffers and doesn’t permanently record images. But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident. This image retention also happened when he was attacked at a McDonald's in Paris last summer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/steve-mann-attacked-paris-mcd… Here's his account: http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.h… As far as I know, nothing ever came of it (i.e. there were no charges or settlements).

Reliant: Steve Mann wrote "Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass" [1], back in July 2012. Speaks to the stigma Google Glass is likely to face. [1] http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.ht…

This guy qualifies for gargoyle in my book. http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.h…

(victim) Prof. Steve Mann's blog post of the incident: http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.ht…

pg, I have discovered in my many years that the truth is often simpler than we expect. Your theory is interesting, but I have http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.h… Thank you for pointing the way.

I think many might not be aware of the incident, I haven't seen it get a huge amount of coverage. The original report: http://eyetap.blogspot.fi/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.ht…

I'm assuming this is a reference to this: http://eyetap.blogspot.ca/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.ht…