reported earlier this month that Google is resuscitating its much-maligned Glass project under the new name Project Aura. Glass, you might recall, was an ill-fated wearable technology device that some likened to a “dystopian skull accessory.” Promos had touted the benefits of augmented reality and quick access to photo and video capture. With a wink, nod or swipe of the finger, users could purportedly remain “in the here and now” by accessing the Web within their field of vision or seamlessly recording events for later viewing.Both of these features spawned a tidal wave of parodies on YouTube and late-night comedy shows. Other responses were more serious, addressing the “creepy” factor of personal and corporate surveillance. Glass soon came to symbolize the excesses of Silicon Valley as a whole, and the backlash culminated in a small but well-publicized number of violent street and bar-stool skirmishes between angry bystanders and those who could afford the $1,500 price tag. One such victim, Sarah Slocum, described her experience as a “hate crime” — a comment that further infuriated those she called “Glass haters.” The #Glasshole hashtag emerged as a catch-all for what critics saw as Glass users’ attitude of entitlement and disregard for basic social etiquette. The return of Glass, by whatever name, thrusts these issues back into the spotlight.
As Google tries Google Glass again, we need to think about tech rules – or risk becoming even bigger jerks
">We are all glassholes now: Privilege, Silicon Valley, and our new wearable tech problem
To the delight of geeks everywhere, and the chagrin of everyone else, Business Insider reported earlier this month that Google is resuscitating its much-maligned Glass project under the new name Project Aura. Glass, you might recall, was an ill-fated wearable technology device that some likened to a “dystopian skull accessory.” Promos had touted the benefits of augmented reality and quick access to photo and video capture. With a wink, nod or swipe of the finger, users could purportedly remain “in the here and now” by accessing the Web within their field of vision or seamlessly recording events for later viewing.
Both of these features spawned a tidal wave of parodies on YouTube and late-night comedy shows. Other responses were more serious, addressing the “creepy” factor of personal and corporate surveillance. Glass soon came to symbolize the excesses of Silicon Valley as a whole, and the backlash culminated in a small but well-publicized number of violent street and bar-stool skirmishes between angry bystanders and those who could afford the $1,500 price tag. One such victim, Sarah Slocum, described her experience as a “hate crime” — a comment that further infuriated those she called “Glass haters.” The #Glasshole hashtag emerged as a catch-all for what critics saw as Glass users’ attitude of entitlement and disregard for basic social etiquette. The return of Glass, by whatever name, thrusts these issues back into the spotlight.