Fight the Google Glass Cyborgs with Glasshole.sh

Glasshole script

We live in a connected world where social media is ubiquitous and many people feel compelled to share every waking moment with anyone who will listen. In this type of world, wearable computers like Google Glass allow us to share experiences like never before. A Glass user can take photos, record video and audio, or potentially even stream video live on the Internet with the greatest of ease. That might be great for the Glass user, but what about the rest of us? As wearable computing becomes more and more mainstream, people are naturally going to become divided on the issue of privacy. Is it a good thing to have “cyborgs” with wearable computers and cameras constantly at the ready, or is it a privacy nightmare? The cyborg war is coming, and [Julian] has already chosen his side.

It would seem that [Julian] lands on the side of the privacy advocates, based on his “glasshole” script. Glasshole is a relatively simple bash script that relies on some other common network security tools to take care of the heavy lifting. The basic premise relies on the fact that every manufacturer of network interface devices is assigned their own MAC prefix. This is a piece of the MAC address that is unique to that manufacturer.

[Julian's] script uses a utility called arp-scan to obtain a list of all MAC addresses on a given wireless network. It then loops through each address and compares it to the known Google Glass MAC prefix. If it finds a match, it will make an audible beeping noise to alert the script user. The script then launches aireplay-ng in de-authentication mode. This will send spoofed disassociate packets to the client (in this case the Google Glass device), hopefully forcing them to disconnect from the access point. The script runs continuously, ensuring that once the device reconnects to the network it will get booted off once again. The script is designed to be run on a small Linux computer such as a Raspberry Pi or a BeagleBone black. This way, the user can carry it around with them as a sort of portable defense mechanism.

How do you fit into the cyborg war? Will you stand proudly with your computer on your face for all to see? If so, what kind of countermeasures would you deploy to prevent this type of attack from working on you? If not, what other types of interesting attacks can you think of to keep the cyborgs at bay?

[Thanks Syed]

Comments

  1. Generally I have my Glass using Bluetooth through my phone, unless I’m at home. And since it can’t get on any wifi that uses a captive portal (most public coffee shop wifi, etc), there’s not many cases where this would be useful. It is definitely a clever hack, though, I’ve got to give it credit for that. Scarier thought: perhaps this could be used to boot Apple users off a network. Or Android devices, depending on what side of the fanboy war one happens to be on…

    • Piero Giorgi says:

      Well… If I have a WI-FI hotspot, and it’s MY hotspot, and I pay for it… I think I should be allowed to choose who and what can connect to it, amirite?

      • chiefcrash says:

        Sure. But wouldn’t a case like that be better served by setting up a MAC filter on the access point or router, as opposed to this?

        Besides, the assumption here is the user of this device *isn’t* the owner of the wireless network…

  2. onebiozz says:

    … … … wow

  3. Jag says:

    If you’re running this script on a portable machine and bringing it around with you everywhere to disconnect people’s devices, wouldn’t that be highly illegal?

    Not to mention the fact that it just turns you into a total asshole.

    Asking people to put a cover on their head-mounted glassss is entirely different than banning them from your establishment and being a dick to them in general…

    • justice099 says:

      Illegal? lol Under what law? Being an asshole is not illegal in any jurisdiction I am aware of (if I am wrong, let me know because I would probably move there.)

      • opless says:

        Denial of service is outlawed federally in the UK and US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack#Legality

        • justice099 says:

          Fair enough, how about the legality of recording someone or taking their photos without consent?

          • opless says:

            It’s a tricky subject that one, and one I’m not going to discuss as it’s nothing to do with the post. If you’re interested however, read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Legal_restrictions_on_photography

          • mrasmus says:

            In public spaces? It’s… pretty much legal, at least in the US. Photographers’ rights are pretty strong, which is good, because if consent was a requirement it would impede the press in a pretty hardcore way. Private property obviously differs from this.

          • justice099 says:

            “pretty much legal”

            No…. not really. Not at all, actually. “Private property” is 99.9% of all property, btw.

          • justice099 says:

            If you are standing in a public park and film me walking in a parking lot, I am on private property even though you are not.

            Of course nothing is automatically illegal. That’s why we have courts. People get away with doing many illegal things because nobody sues them. That doesn’t make it “legal.’

          • Eirinn says:

            Ban 3d printers because you can print guns with them. Ban Google glass because you can take pictures. Aw come on, get over it already. You’re not special, no one gives a shit about recording you.

          • justice099 says:

            Not even remotely the same thing. Think with your brain, not your emotions.

            Anyway, nobody is banning anything. We already have laws against the improper uses. If you do something illegal with it AND you are caught/sued, you will be held responsible. No reason to ban it.

            The way I look at this is very simple…. you have the right to wear your glasses and do wtf you want, but I have the right to my privacy. So, when I am within your sights, I have every right to prevent you from recording me. When I am not, do whatever the fuck you want until you get caught.

          • MrX says:

            If my memory serves me right, in public taking photos is perfectly legal (UK), and public would be classed as a publicly accessible space IIRC, even if its owned privately.

            BUT saying that, even though I want a HMD myself, google glass is very anti-privacy.

          • justice099 says:

            Mr. X, honestly… that is for a judge to decide and lawyers to argue. You are providing an “argument” and someone affected will provide a counter-argument. I argue that I had a reasonable expectation of privacy and you argue that I do not. On one side, yes I am public, viewable to anyone around me. But I don’t expect that I will be RECORDED and possibly made viewable to others not in my immediate vicinity. That’s called surveillance. A totally separate set of laws.

            Again, nearly nothing is automatically illegal. It’s a civil issue which means I would be claiming that you are infringing on my rights. It is up to me to prove that you did. If you recorded, it will be used as evidence. If I appear to be the focal point of your surveliance, chances are very high that the court will agree. It is up to the court to decide if they agree and you must comply with their decision. End of story.

            Nearly nothing is automatically illegal or legal in a case like this.

          • Garbz says:

            @justice099 Not in the USA you’re not on private property. A publicly accessible private space is still considered public property according to the law. That’s why shopping centres have no right to throw you out for taking photos. Elsewhere in the world things are different.

            The carpark you are in in the USA is considered public space concerning your privacy. Actually in many countries around the world if someone is videoing you walking on private property from a public space then you’re still considered making a public display. Now if there was a massive wall around your lot then that would be quite different.

          • justice099 says:

            I think you grossly misunderstand the laws. You are wrong on the whole. A shopping center has every right to throw you out for whatever reason they feel like aside from descimination. It is PRIVATE property, period.

          • justice099 says:

            @Garbz, also it is one thing to view me or even stare and gawk at me. It is an entire different thing to surveil me which is the recording and remote viewing of my supposedly “public display.”

          • mrasmus says:

            Justice — you’re actually the on who’s mistaken. If I am on public property, I can photograph anything I see freely; just because a private party owns the land you stand on does not magically mean I have to avert my lens. This is, as I mentioned before, a key part of photographers’ rights, and any cursory glance at the relevant US statutes would show support for my position. This has been tested in the courts already, no interpretation necessary. The only infringement upon that right has come in recent years in the form of national security scaremongering (photographers harassed for shooting publicly visible “infrastructure”) and even most cases of that that were brought to court ruled in favor of the photogs, IIRC.

            In a private establishment, as I said, proprietors have the right to define rules, but in public spaces, it’s all fair game. There are also different rules on videography that are fairly recent and that I’m not up on, but considering your blatant ignorance with regard to still photography that you showcase with your rumblings, I doubt you’re up on that minutiae either.

          • justice099 says:

            No. You can’t. “People do it and get away with it” does not make something legal. How ignorant. This is why we have so many assholes in this country. Your OPINION of how you THINK things should be legally does not equal law.

            First thing, which nobody has even bothered to point out (which is the first sign of your ignorance)… these laws vary by state (in the US anyway.) Second, the rules you guys keep arguing have to do with “looking”, the laws are VERY different when it comes to recording. If I am just some random person off the distance, MAYBE you could argue that in court. But if you happen to appear to record me as the focal point, well, you are in for a pretty dismal court battle.

            I’m done arguing with ignorant people. Nothing to be gained. Do as you please until you get caught.

            Good day.

          • ylexot says:
          • justice099 says:

            That has got to be the most God-awful OPINION piece I have ever seen.

            And if you were not ignorant, you would have read it yourself before throwing it up here as an example to defend your point and realized that it essentially says “gray area” all over it. It’s not law, it’s not facts, it’s a lawyer argument and a poor one at that.

            An “implied right” is not legal talk. It’s a defense lawyer’s argument. It’s vague on purpose and means absolutely nothing unless the lawyer can get the court to agree. But NEVER ever do YOUR rights trump the rights of the property owner, period. Never. Not even arguable.

            If the owner says you can’t film here, you are trespassing if you film there. If he asks you to delete your picture off your camera and you don’t he has every right to call the police, who will most likely make you delete the picture off your camera.

            Why the fuck do you think people need to get consent? Jesus Christ people use your fucking brains or shut up.

            Bottom line: NO you are not allowed to record me without my permission. Period. Yes, period. Any arguing to the contrary is flat out wrong. Period.

            If I am a shop owner and you are in my store and take a picture and I tell you to delete that picture, you’d better do it or trust me, you are going to get in trouble. You are now trespassing.

            No wonder there are so many assholes…. the funny thing is that if someone recorded YOU with a google glass and YOU got in some form of trouble or inconvenience because of the video, you would be the first motherfuckers to scream “burn them at the stake.”

            Assholes. Every one of you.

          • ylexot says:

            See, now you are talking about something completely different: you being on YOUR private property. That is not the 99.9% you talked about previously. You in a restaurant or in a parking garage or in a hotel lobby (unless you own all of those places) do not have the privacy protection of requiring permission for someone to take your picture unless the owner of the establishment says so.

          • justice099 says:

            Not at all. I have been talking about the owner of the property all along. Because you misunderstood that doesn’t make me wrong.

            Regardless, I can sue you and I will have grounds to. It may not be illegal in the sense that you will go to jail. But it is illegal in the civil sense. You do not go to jail for infringing on my rights, but I have grounds to sue you for infringing on my rights.

            Civil law and criminal law are very different things. How is this NOT clear?

            Just because people do it and nothing usually comes of it does not make it “legal.” I can’t understand why you guys can’t get this through your heads.

          • ylexot says:

            YOU can’t sue for anything if YOU do not own the private property or get get the private property owner to say no to it.

          • justice099 says:

            Dumbass, I can sue you for ANYTHING. I can sue you for wasting my time arguing with a moron. I may not win, but I can file a lawsuit. If my lawyer is better at arguing than yours, I can win.

            In this case, however there are plenty of statutes on my side.

          • arachnidster says:

            Can you cite one? Earlier you were lambasting people for not providing legal justification for their claims – and when they did, rubbishing them – but you haven’t backed up your own claims. Photographers’ rights have been repeatedly defended successfully in court.

          • mrasmus says:

            I’ll also back up Garbz’ statement and confirm that the public/private delineation is much more public than just party ownership of land.

          • Squirrel says:

            https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

            Basically, public spaces = allowed
            Private spaces = property owner’s call

            But IIRC you can still be had for harassment if you continually photograph one specific person. Also, since the Glass is a covert means of recording, different rules might apply (e.g. eavesdropping laws).

          • Aahzimandious says:

            I am NOT a lawer, but.. and it varies from State to State, but the main consensus is…

            At least in the States, if you are out in public there’s not a lot you can do about getting photo’d – if you want to be able to take videos of cops beating people you have to be able to take video in public spaces.

            Now, if they distribute or sell it without ‘model’ permission/consent then there are options for the ‘model’ to take.

          • Note that this is for *pictures*. The audio part of video falls under wiretapping laws and two-party consent states.

          • Whatnot says:

            That is enforced in the UK and US. Don’t you watch the news? Or see the posters?

        • opless says:

          Additionally, this script only disconnects glass from the same wifi network that you’re on, not *any* network it can see. Though as a proof of concept, weaponisation can’t be far behind.

          • DarwinSurvivor says:

            Not that I advocate this, but that restriction is due to his use of arp-scan. If he used a passive monitor to capture MAC addresses, he could de-auth someone on any network (even WPA2). Du-auth attacks are actually a crucial step in most wifi cracking strategies.

        • static says:

          That’s not entirely applicable here. Say I own a gym where I provide WiFi for use by my customers and I don’t want patrons ogling other patrons using Google Glass and streaming the images to the web, I would be within my rights to use this. As read the law a customer couldn’t legally use this to block other customers access to WiFi I own.

          • chiefcrash says:

            I think you’re correct, but in that case, wouldn’t setting up a MAC filter on the access point or router be a better choice than this?

        • Someone says:

          Denial of service attack on a server is illegal not the cancelling of a WiFi connection. DoS attacks are entirely different things. Also the owner of a WiFi hotspot has the right to disconnect anything at will by any means and it can be argued that this script is designed for use by the owners of WiFi hotspots who don’t want to change the setup of their hotspot or don’t know how to change it. For example for temporary disconnection during an event.

    • Anon says:

      I always called the people on video the Glassholes. The only reason they are being recorded in most cases is the asshole is threatening the glass wearer and demanding that they stop recording them. At this point the person wearing glass actually starts recording because they want to document the glasshole threatening them with physical harm for the police.

    • Lwatcdr says:

      I say we smash all the devil machines!

  4. M says:

    considering that you just need to join the network and not “own” it this is really an obnoxious thing to do. feel free to do what you want on your network but only a douche would go around arbitrarily dropping users from a public network.

  5. Sam says:

    I’d just use smaller, more concealed device then. Or a cell phone that has more resolution and more storage to record. I think attacking google glass for privacy reasons is like getting mad at people who have campfires for polluting the air.

    • Whatnot says:

      You go and walk around filming everybody by holding your phone up, see how long it’ll take before the phone becomes part of your face and you have your very own ghetto google glass.

  6. arachnidster says:

    Is it just me, or is the user of this script being far more unpleasant than anyone wearing a camera could possibly be?

    • Neil says:

      Well, I can see how this could be a fun proof-of-concept project, but I would agree that anyone with intention of actually using this with malicious intent would be much more unpleasant. As a Google Glass user myself, it really is baffling sometimes how willfully ignorant and misinformed some of the Glass haters are. I used to be pretty strongly against Glass so I got it to get behind enemy lines, but after using it for 6 months and being part of the Explorer Community to see first hand, I can see what it is all about and anyone that is a “Glasshole” with Glass was a **** before. In real practice, if someone wanted to be recording you or doing something ill-willed without your knowledge, Glass would be one of the absolute silliest ways to do it. Still, this is a pretty cool little script and I was unaware that it was quite this simple to narrow down devices via MAC address prefixes.

      • parry, thrust says:

        Yet people freak out when seeing someone carrying around an assault rifle in a populated area. It isn’t illegal, yet the risk of what could happen is what gets people upset.

        Willful ignorance indeed.

        • dex drako says:

          the only willful ignorance I see is in comments like yours.

          people freak because the person with the rifle can kill someone while the person with a camera can only show other people what you’ve done. if you can’t see the difference between the risk the two objects hold you have your priorities messed up.

        • Lwatcdr says:

          And where it the +1 not the same thing mod button?
          Exactly how many people have been killed using Google Glass?
          Get back to me when you actually have a point.

          • Blufires says:

            If Google Glass was available for $50USD during the Arab Spring, many people could have died due to secret recordings of their actions. A lot of people were already put in danger by their governments hacking their Facebook accounts.

            In the western world it’s not a big issue anyway due to the surveillance we are already under. London for example has a centralized CCTV system already operating.

        • CptJistuce says:

          Very few people carry assault rifles in public. Something about having to get a machine gun license to own one makes it a real pain in the backside.

      • anon says:

        How much does google pay you to post stuff like this?

        • Neil says:

          Google doesn’t pay me to post stuff like this. A cell phone is much more powerful and capable of everything Glass does, with the exception of a display on your face, and would be a much better device to use for douchebaggery at a small fraction of the $1600+ for Glass. As Glass user, I welcome anyone to come ask me about my Glass and I show it to everyone and let them check it out. If anyone has a camera of any kind pointed at me, whether it’s Glass, a phone, tablet, etc, they should be expecting me to come see what they are doing, and so I expect no less. Also, Glass by itself really doesn’t have the power to do much – it isn’t an augmented reality device. It’s just made for quick glances.

          • untrustworthy says:

            If you’re a ‘glass’ user, then you’re already a glasshole. And you’re incredibly naive and insensative to how hostile you are to others when you’re wearing google’s survielence device.

          • Neil says:

            @untrustworthy
            I am a programmer and developer. I got Glass because I hated it and I didn’t want to be ignorant to it’s capabilities. After 6 months of use, testing, flashing, developing, and debugging, I now know what we are dealing with from Google to the best of my abilities. As far as surveillance, Glass simply doesn’t have the power to do much of anything and to assume that Glass would make a better surveillance device than a simple, cheap, mass available Android device is naive and uneducated. I assure you that I am not insensitive to others’ privacy. I paid Google their outrageous price for the device solely because of my will to protect privacy and inform others. Have you ever used Google Glass?

          • untrustworthy says:

            Neil, as I’ve been saying ad nauseum that you don’t seem to get, is that the processing doesn’t have to happen on the ‘glass’ itself. Can happen on a tethered deviced, uploaded to a ‘cloud’ service, or a facebook type site.

            And yes, I have had hand on experience with a ‘glass’. I didn’t like what I saw it could do, it makes it far too easy to take pictures or videos unoticed.

          • John says:

            If someone walks around with their phone out and camera pointed in from of them at all times they will be treated like a google glass user. Luckily, no one is that insane.

          • Eirinn says:

            “If you’re a ‘glass’ user, then you’re already a glasshole. And you’re incredibly naive and insensative to how hostile you are to others when you’re wearing google’s survielence device.”

            Why, because it has a camera? Do you also believe the KGB is stalking you and that people are poisoning your food in public areas?

          • Matthias says:

            @Untrustworthy First, what makes anyone so special that they think I care in the least about recording them… if you wind up in the background of my friends, or something, and that bothers you I apologize. Have there been any instances of people recording people on glass where it was an intentional sneaky invasion of privacy? How many times have we seen cellphone record into places where they weren’t welcome? I’d bet many, many, many times more. With Glass you are broadcasting to the world that they’re there, they’re not concealed in any way.

            Secondly, glass is a TERRIBLE “surveillance platform” You can barely run the video camera for more than a minute consecutively without the thing trying to leave burn marks on the side of your head, and won’t record for more than ~30min if you’re lucky on a charge.

            There are many more interesting and purposeful uses of glass that have little to do with the camera, or just use if for contextual information at best. WordLens is incredible abroad, Refresh keeps my meetings in order and Concur makes my expense reports a breeze when traveling.

          • Marty Lawson says:

            @untrustworthy
            You do know that video camera glasses are a thing already right? A 30 second search, found an ugly pair for $60 on newegg.com and several nice looking $200 pairs that look like normal bulky sunglasses. Never mind all the security cameras that already watch your every move…

        • Google pays Glass Explorers nothing. Which is a shame, considering how much effort it takes to deal with all the Glass haters. I wish they would do more to showcase how much Glass can do which doesn’t involve the camera, and highlight how recording on Glass is not nearly as capable or inconspicuous as people seem to think.

        • Metalwolf says:

          @anon and untrustworthy
          I’ll say this as a security officer. You apparently have no idea how many times you are recorded daily. many public places have security cameras. Malls, schools, etc. Traffic cameras are showing up in more cities. While I was working at a school, a security officer i worked with carried a mini camera that blended in with his uniform well enough you wouldnt notice it unless he pointed it out. A few students have been caught doing things they shouldnt do and when they said “prove it” he had the evidence.

          Even if you own a private island and operate completely off the grid, no internet, provide your own power and water, grow your own food, and never make contact with another human, you could still be on camera. I showed another coworker at a different site a picture on google maps that has his car parked in a bad spot at work.

          Yesterday I was waiting in the hospital for someone. I was reading a book on my cellphone, but i was holding it at an angle which would let me record 75 percent of the room. Nobody accused me of recording them.

          Any morons who say ” X Device is evil and i hate anyone who uses it because they could record me” need to wake up. Chances are, you have been recorded and not known it already.

      • Shakipu says:

        “the Glass haters are”. I don’t care about wearing google glass or others computer-glass (we’re focusing about google glasse but they are not the only ones). I care about my privacy. So there isn’t “glass haters”, in fact people that doesn’t like to see someone hanging around with google glass are people that does care about their privacy.

        • Neil says:

          By “glass haters”, I’m referring to the people who know nearly nothing about the actual device, yet go out of their way to make sure they tell people about how bad it is, or about all the nasty things you can do with it. I’m not talking about people just genuinely concerned about privacy who have done their research. Cell phones, Glass, Tablets, Watches, they all have cameras now, and the “glass haters” I’m talking about seem to have no regard for these devices, but blindly hate on something they know very little about. I’m not trying to offend anybody, I’m just pointing out that there are is a lot of misinformation out there about Glass and a lot of misconceptions.

          • untrustworthy says:

            Sounds like you don’t know the capability of the device you’re wearing that observes others. And you can easily tell if someone is holding up a cellphon, tablet, or a watch to record others. Not so with a ‘glass’.

          • anon says:

            As already pointed out, if someones recording you on a cell phone its pretty obvious. There holding it up to their face with the camera pointed at you. If someones recording you with a camera, once again you’ll notice the same.

            Googleglass affords none of those telltale signs, as someone merely looking in your direction could easily be recording you and you’d be none the wiser. and that fact alone would make me constantly uneasy of anyone wearing one. And then theres the question of where that data goes as someone said… who could use it ect. (Mass goverment surveillance anyone??)

            not to mention the “jacked in” type of society this device is leading too, are people so dependant on technology they need it constantly strapped to their head?

          • dan says:

            @Anon: While I agree that there should be a way to tell if something is capturing video, smartphones are not that different. Cameras in smartphones work even if you don’t hold them up to your face, and its unlikely that you pay that much attention to everyone around to be able to notice them filming if they want to hide it.

          • Matthias says:

            @anon, if someone wants to surreptitiously record you, which no one does, there are far better means available than google glass.

          • Nathan says:

            @Anon: What about holding a cell phone up to your ear while recording? What about forward facing cellphone belt clips. You can also record audio from your pocket if you like.

            If you actually wanted to record someone you would buy one of these for $150 http://www.proofpronto.com/eyeglasses-with-hidden-camera-dvr.html
            or
            http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/f03a/

            If someone is wearing glass they get a lot of attention, if you want to record without the screen on showing anyone looking at the guy what he is recording you have to load http://www.edukun.com/ through adb.

            I think you would have to be pretty dumb to try and use glass to snoop on anyone.

        • aoeuidhtns- says:

          +1 anon. I was about to say the same myself.

          • Devon says:

            @anon While the device is recording the display remains on (probably the reason it gets so hot) and it is very easy to tell that the display is on as an observer. As far as where the data is going and who is using it… well that would be all the same people already using the pictures that everyone posts on existing social media sites with their phones… it is literally no different in that respect.
            Also it is very easy to record people without their knowledge on a cell phone. If you happen to have a shirt pocket, many phones nowadays are large enough that the camera will stick out and they have no “record” light. I used this method before to try and make POV videos. I am not going to say that no one has every used Glass in an inappropriate way. I am not so naive. But the same can be said for just about any technology out there. Should we restrict ourselves as a people just because a few of us cannot behave themselves?
            As far as being “jacked-in” it is true we are becoming more dependent on technology and for many people that is a serious problem. For myself I am slightly addicted to having constant internet access. But this access also places the wealth of human knowledge at my fingertips. I don’t spend all day tweeting and playing Candy Crush. I am addicted to having the ability to look up anything I could want to know. For all the bad that comes with it. The wealth of information that has become available as a result of technologies that allow us to “jack-in” has led to some amazing discoveries that have been used for the betterment of life around the world.

        • Eirinn says:

          I do care about my privacy, I do not care about Google glass in particular. It was that easy for me to debunk your claim. Now find something else :)

          • anon says:

            Yes your reply that consisted of 75% of someone elses comment, coupled with a highly unlikely senario that issnt even related to the privacy concerns raised by the use of googleglass has completely debunked our concerns. We bow down to you.

        • Lwatcdr says:

          So do not let anyone wear them in your home. When you are out in public guess what? You are out in public. What you do and say is not private and never has been.

    • untrustworthy says:

      Nope, glassholes are by far the most unpleasant. Anyone runing this script is doing a public service of good as far as I’m concerned.

    • Whatnot says:

      You have to be clear to people that do not understand something that the most simple mind can understand without aid.

  7. Kemp says:

    Preventing the use of Google Glass on your own private property? I can understand that. Using a portable device to walk around being an ass in public places or other people’s private property? That’s just not cool.

  8. r4k says:

    So, you don’t have any problems with someone with their iPhone/Android device in their lapel/shirt pocket with the camera open?

    Do you really think that anyone doing anything devious would be using an open WiFi network to begin with?

  9. Reading the original link, it seems this is meant to be used in a situation where you want to keep Glass off a specific network, such as at a conference. As an alert system, this could be a good way to notify an organizer that someone is trying to use Glass on the network. Kicking the Glass off the network would just make it fall back to bluetooth, but still the event organizer would at least know there is a Glass present and would potentially slow down the connection. Since the stated fear is live-streaming of video, this could degrade quality somewhat.

    An alternative solution could be to ask attendees to not record or live-stream video, from any device, including Glass. We can be civil, this doesn’t have to be an arms race for technical defences and counter-measures.

  10. echomrg says:

    do what you want on your own network, only a douche would go around arbitrarily dropping people from a public network. just like @arachnidster whoever uses this script on a public network is orders of magnitude worse than anyone wearing a camera could possibly be.

    • untrustworthy says:

      Not as much as the glasshole. Right to privacy > some glasshole recording and auto-tagging everyone within view, conveintly creating timestamped location data on everyone around them, giving google all sorts of info, for marketing/advertising and other purposes, conviently also scooped up by TLAs.

      Google glass = glassholes, period. An order of magnitude, or several, worse than friends that tag you in photos without though when uploading them to facebook.

      • Kemp says:

        While I’m not endorsing the use of Glass, I think your comment is rather an overreaction. Every new technology that comes along is stated as being the one that will remove all privacy and give the corporations unfettered access to our personal details. The thing is, even if that’s their plan, the technology simply isn’t good enough yet. It’s easy to get carried away with what *could* be possible, but the reality of what *is* possible is usually quite boring.

        • untrustworthy says:

          Hardly an overreaction. The technology is here already. Facial recoginition is definitely there. One of google’s stated ‘glass apps’ they want to put out there is to be able to pick faces out of a crowd and overlay their name on them in the HUD.

          • Kemp says:

            I can almost guarantee that the app idea you mentioned is purely to get people excited (though seems to have the exact opposite effect here). Facial recognition is sort-of-almost good given a static image which is known to contain a face and a sensibly sized list of possible matches. Recognition using a live feed bobbing around on someone’s head using a tiny camera and with a potential match database of millions (assuming they at least pre-filter by region)? I don’t see it happening with any usable success rate.

          • Kemp says:

            Not to mention an unknown number of faces with unknown orientation and who-knows-what combinations of makeup and accessories.

            If I was that software, given a crowd I’d just highlight everything in one big box and say “people”.

          • untrustworthy says:

            Kemp, that software to identify faces in a ‘live bobbing around’ feed already exists, and has for a while. Hell, there’s an implimentation of face finding in video streams that’s been in OpenCV for a long time now.

          • Kemp says:

            OpenCV can do facial recognition, yes. However, I stand by my statement that given camera motion, and especially the sort of motion associated with being attached to a person, the technology isn’t there yet. Maybe in a controlled environment where your match list is a handful of very different looking people. Not in public, not with that camera, and not with a match list of millions.

          • Erkki Seppälä says:

            I imagine you would feel the same about people who would go around and recording all sounds 24/7, in addition to tracking which devices are connected to which access points and what bluetooth addresses are visible in the neighbourhood. Possibly uploading them to a cloud service for easier perusal later on, save geolocation and do voice recognition to keep tabs on people.

            Hang on, a smart phone could do that.. So infact all smart phone users are assholes because they could be saving all our speech and sending them for advertisers to scan! HOW DARE THEY!

          • untrustworthy says:

            Kemp, hell there’s been ‘toy’ imlimentation of video stream facial recognition in flash pages that overlay silly pictures on the face. Those work by identifying facial features and a transform, and can find multiple in a image. Just send off the found faces to facebook or other some site to get it identified.

          • Kemp says:

            This is getting old real fast. You’ve made your point, Glass is somehow the device that will end privacy, just like every other device before it, and every other device after it. The technology has come together perfectly to allow massive data mining from live streams despite the fact that there are already much better ways to mine everything. Every person in this discussion is wrong except for you. I’m heading back to the real world where some random guy on the street doesn’t care about tagging me (who he has never met and has no reason to look at twice) and where Google already own all the personal data about me they could possibly want, before the invention of Glass.

          • untrustworthy says:

            Kemp, doesn’t make much of a difference if the camera is moving, or the head is moving around. It ends up being relative that ends up with motion in a frame. And OpenCV is quite good at detecting faces in motion. I think you’re confusing facial detection, and facial identification. Detect the faces on a local device, like a teathered phone, and upload to something with a huge database like facebook for identification. Or just upload the picture or video to something like facebook to do both detection and identification. Have you used iphoto in the last couple of years? It excells at both based off your personal photos you put into it. Facebook’s capability are far better than iphoto.

          • Wrong. Google specifically states that they are not allowing recognition apps on glass.

            Google-
            “When we started the Explorer Program nearly a year ago our goal was simple: we wanted to make people active participants in shaping the future of this technology ahead of a broader consumer launch. We’ve been listening closely to you, and many have expressed both interest and concern around the possibilities of facial recognition in Glass. As Google has said for several years, we won’t add facial recognition features to our products without having strong privacy protections in place. With that in mind, we won’t be approving any facial recognition Glassware at this time.”

            Also, running the camera continuously kills the battery faster than a short and gets hotter than all hell.

          • HackTheGibson says:

            You know the bad part is that facial recognition is the only reason I was interested in glass. I have almost 2000 members at my work, not to mention their guests, that only meet me so it is easy for them to remember but not so good the other way around, especially when they come out once or twice a year. I was interested just so I could see them coming and great them personally. Oh well.

      • Neil says:

        Glass doesn’t do those things. Not that that isn’t one of the goals of all these fancy face computers, but Glass isn’t that. At least not now or anytime in the very near future.

        • untrustworthy says:

          You’re telling me it is not currently possible right now to take a picture with ‘glass’, and upload it to facebook? And that GPS info won’t be in the exif header, like every other current cellphone does when taking pictures? Because that’s all it takes to do what I described above.

          • Neil says:

            No, Glass can do that just fine. I’m not saying it can’t be used that way – I’m just saying it doesn’t come that way and that isn’t what it is made for doing. Glass doesn’t have facial recognition or tagging, or even a Facebook app (except to upload photos with a quick description). All these other new augmented reality glasses are what I’m more concerned about, because most of them are designed for things like that. I’ve always hated cameras everywhere and I value privacy very much, but after 6 months with Glass, I can tell you that cell phones are more to worry about.

          • untrustworthy says:

            Neil, doesn’t matter if ‘it doesn’t come that way’, but it most certainly is what it is made for doing. I would say most people will hook it up to a facebook or other such app as regular use. And it doesn’t matter if glass itself doesn’t have the processing power, it’s the data source, the processing can happen elsehwere (like facebook facial reconition, or the ‘identify a face in the crowd and overlay their name’ app would process on a tethered phone).

          • Neil says:

            I’m starting to doubt you have read much about this, but in what world would it make sense to use a $1600 piece of gear to do something that a $100 piece of gear would do 10x better? Yes, Glass can take pictures. It can also send them across wi-fi and bluetooth and then anything can happen. But the fact is that it just isn’t practical with Glass as it is now. You are very correct to think that there are wrongful people trying to steal our information and privacy to target us with ads, etc, etc, but I’m telling you that Google Glass is not the device to worry about right now.

          • untrustworthy says:

            Neil, so you’re telling me it’s not practical to expect people with a ‘glass’ to take pictures or videos, and upload them to facebook, twitter, vine, tumblr, etc?
            That combined with the non-obviousness of a glasshole…
            The glasshole may not even realize the consequence of their actions. Doesn’t make them non-culpable or innocent.

          • AP² says:

            @Neil, “as it is now” is irrelevant. The problem with Glass is not that it can take pictures, it’s that it normalizes the concept of constant surveillance. Right now, filming in public
            either requires a hidden camera, which most people won’t ever buy, or being very obvious about it. When Glass and similar devices become common, there’ll be no way to avoid it; you’ll be constantly being filmed and uploaded, probably by someone who isn’t even interested in you, but who is still helping in the surveillance.

            Glass-the-actual-device is irrelevant; people are objecting to the concept it represents.

          • anon says:

            Whats that? NSA backdoored googleglass and have been secretly scanning petabytes of photos and videos to to find, track and identify any target the please?

            Im sure they wouldnt violate anyones personal privacy in such a way…

          • arachnidster says:

            Google Glass doesn’t upload everything it sees through the camera. It couldn’t, not without completely slaughtering your cellphone data connection.

          • untrustworthy says:
          • Quin says:

            So you are honestly angry at someone wearing google glass, because they might get you in the background of a video or picture at a party; when any other person taking a short video or picture with a cell phone does exactly the same thing? The glass wearer is at least, by wearing glass visibly, informing you of the direction and possible intent to take a photograph while a cellphone user may not. You are, imho, more likely to be in the background of any number of gps located and timestamped pictures taken by those other sources.

            Now, if you are so worried about being in the background of pictures and being logged by “big brother” then why not only attend events that have posted “No Photographs” rules posted everywhere. It would solve your problem, and you could avoid the “glassholes” as you call them, and avoid any possible risk of being identified.

          • Lwatcdr says:

            So can my cell phone.
            Destory them all they are tools of the devil I tell you.

      • M says:

        so you’re basically saying that’s ok to walk around banning people from public networks simply because you don’t like how you *suppose* they’re using it?
        and all in the name of privacy.

        what’s the next step? a script that bans access to sites you don’t like?
        or maybe something that parse what’s being written and keeps it from being posted because it doesn’t fit your opinions?

        and all in the name of privacy.

        i repeat, do what you what on your network or on your property, but if you taint public networks arbitrarily deciding who can use them and who can’t you’re even worse than the NSA,
        at least they simply what to know what you do on the net, they don’t pre-emptively deny you access on their assumption of what you might do.

        • AP² made a very good point in his comment above. It’s not what people are currently doing with glass. It’s about what is accepted by society. If google glass is becoming an accepted accessory, then it becomes harder and harder to object to being filmed everywhere in public.

          This is a controversial statement that someone makes against this seemingly unavoidable future. I think it’s a good thing that it will be discussed over and over again, until everyone is aware of the possibilities of a wearable forward facing internet connected gps enabled camera.

      • echomrg says:

        so you’re basically saying that’s ok to walk around banning people from public networks simply because you don’t like how you *suppose* they’re using it?
        and all in the name of privacy.

        what’s the next step? a script that bans access to sites you don’t like?
        or maybe something that parse what’s being written and keeps it from being posted because it doesn’t fit your opinions?

        and all in the name of privacy.

        i repeat, do what you what on your network or on your property, but if you taint public networks arbitrarily deciding who can use them and who can’t you’re even worse than the NSA,
        at least they simply what to know what you do on the net, they don’t pre-emptively deny you access on their assumption of what you might do.

        • Drake says:

          Meh, we do that at work but for different reasons (productivity + bandwidth usage). TBH I would change the script to monitor bandwidth and knock it down to a .5Mbit or less stream if it was indeed streaming video … which I doubt

          • echomrg says:

            that’s a private network and its owner (your employer, i suppose) dictates who can access it and how it can be used. it’s a whole different thing.

      • AC says:

        The same main idea to agregate data also is behind internet of things, but people seems to love it here.

        Unrelated to prewious coment: Can we somehow render useles every security cam? And why would that be somehow diferent? IMHO any jaming should be ilegal.

      • Phil says:

        What if you were being investigated for a crime and the Glass data could save you a trip to prison, would you refuse it?

        • Vic Velcro says:

          If you were innocent but being investigated for a crime, and needed time for the authorities to find the real perp, would you want to be identified and located by somebody’s camera or google glass immediately?

  11. davedarko says:

    it reminds me of the discussions about cameras in cellphones and how that could turn everyone into a creep making snapshots without anyone knowing… and it is not even hard to tell that it is a google glass. It’s in their faces. It’s not hidden. They have the same functions like cellphones, so what’s the fuzz? Do you need a red LED blinking if it is recording?

    • Kemp says:

      First: I’m not endorsing this script or the use of it. See my comment above.

      However, there is a difference between Glass and a cellphone. With phones it’s really obvious if someone is recording you with it – they have it held up in front of them and pointing at you. Someone using navigation software (for example) doesn’t hold their phone like that. With Glass it’s only ever in one place. What’s the difference between recording you and doing something else while happening to look in your general direction? Nothing.

      I suspect the core issue here isn’t that someone might record you. It’s that you don’t know if or when they’re recording you. That uncertainty is the problem.

      • davedarko says:

        If I wanted to spy on someone, I would NOT wear a camera in my face (not even spy cam sun glasses)… I can place my cellphone on a table, press record and film everyone, without noticing or put it in my jacket pocket.

        I would communicate my concerns and don’t get angry or invent some scripts to be a noglasshole.

        • Kemp says:

          Again, there’s a difference which is what I believe makes people uncomfortable. Even with your suggestion, cellphones still have two basic scenarios of “I know you’re recording me and I react to that” or “I don’t know you’re recording me and thus can’t have any feeling about it”. Glass creates a third scenario of “I have no idea if you’re recording or not, but it sort of feels like you might be, but I might be overreacting”. That uncertainty is what I believe sets people on edge about Glass. Not knowing someone is doing something (cellphones) is different to being consciously aware that you don’t know (Glass).

        • untrustworthy says:

          Because you “wouldn’t”, doesn’t mean that others will. And “glass” is designed to be inconspicuous. And doing what you describe with a cellphone (on a table would be pointing up at the ceiling anyways) is an incredibly hostile act and warrently others to be very very angry at you.

          • davedarko says:

            @untrustworthy – “pointing up at the ceiling” – really? Where’s your imagination to lean it against something m( but nevermind that, I don’t like to judge people of what they could do, but what they actually do. If someone really has to film me he won’t need a google glass. That’s my point.

          • Tom B. says:

            The fact that you believe that somebody wearing a gadget on their face makes them “incredibly hostile” just makes me believe you’re actually possibly dangerous and should be incarcerated in a mental institution. Some asshole like you is going to go around assaulting and probably accidentally killing people because they’re afraid Google might know where they buy coffee, and yet you think gadget owners are evil. We desperately need socialized mental health care.

        • AP² says:

          The problem is, you may not be spying on people, but by using Glass, you’re normalizing the concept of constant surveillance. As devices like that become acceptable, and people start recording and uploading (let’s face it, that’s what companies will push for) their daily lives, a person will be constantly filmed by _someone_.

          • untrustworthy says:

            ^^^This.

          • arachnidster says:

            I hate to break it to you, but if you live in any first world city, you are already being constantly filmed. And not by someone standing in front of you who you can politely ask not to record you.

            It sounds like you’re advocating that people should be prohibited from doing this because you don’t like the wider societal implications. Do you really think that’s reasonable – or achievable?

          • untrustworthy says:

            arachnidster, this brings that survielence into bars, clubs, etc. Basically it extends it into private properties that you used to be able to escape the monitoring.

            And yes, people should be prohibited from doing this. You don’t have a right to inflict consequences of your actions (owning and using a ‘glass’ type device) onto others.

          • arachnidster says:

            Most bars and clubs will already have their own internal CCTV surveillance. There’s no special laws required here, either: on someone else’s property, you need the property owner’s permission, or the permission of the person you’re recording, in order to legally record them in most jurisdictions.

            Under what broader principle would you prohibit people from using Google Glass? What right of yours are they infringing that they’re not infringing with other common technology? Is it just “I know it when I see it” – and if so, do you really want lawmakers legislating based on what makes them feel uncomfortable?

          • untrustworthy says:

            arachnidster, bar or club owners typically don’t upload their CCTV recordings to facebook, vine, etc.

          • arachnidster says:

            Nor do surveillance cameras in public. Why are you more concerned about your photo appearing on a social networking site than unknown and untrackable uses by CCTV owners?

          • untrustworthy says:
  12. Martin says:

    On the one hand we are fighting for net neutrality. On the other hand people get kicked out of networks because of the MAC-range they are in. Strange times, indeed.

  13. Bruce Tanner says:

    Does Google use a separate MAC prefix for Glass or will this also be disabling users of Google Nexus tablets etc?

    • parry, thrust says:

      Google does not manufacture the nexus line. Depending on which one it would either be an OUI for HTC, Samsung, or LG. Google owns five blocks, one for Google Fiber Inc. That one is likely just for weak identification and authorization purposes on their own network. It is rather common for people to use whatever MAC they like on their own networks for their own purposes (usually for protocol details like tie-breakers) but to purchase a block is odd. Might be a CYA thing. So the answer to your question is no…probably.

      Also, though this battle has already been lost, there are no MAC prefixes. The first half of a MAC address is the OUI, the organizational identifier, the last half is discretionary but is expected to be filled with unique device identifiers. Something that is the first half of an object is not a prefix, it is mandatory.

  14. blackcoffee says:

    if it is baced of the mac prefix then this would only work on google glass onec the device is out of range it should reconect, this could be a good thing for cinimas for anti piracy or for a defece thing in rest rooms or other places where privesy would be a issue

  15. daedulus says:

    Better starting spoofing mac addresses then

  16. opless says:

    Solution: don’t use wifi for glass, use bluetooth instead (which frankly is probably better for battery life) – in fact I thought at first that glass only used bluetooth …

  17. Kira Slith says:

    You could build one of these in a device smaller than a RasPi in a case (including weeks worth of battery power) using a VoCore. But this is highly illegal to do in any way outside of property you don’t own (apartments and rented homes don’t count!) in the vast majority of states as this is legally considered a “Jamming Technology” by the US Government. You have been warned Mr./Mrs. Julian.

    (Plus, why is this a thing being posted on HaD? I thought we where trying to stay away from hot button topics.)

    • kiraslith says:

      correction:
      It is highly illegal to use *Outside of land you own.

      • kaidenshi says:

        No, Kira is right. A person who owns an apartment complex or rental house can’t use a device like this to block their tenants or anyone else on the property from accessing a network. Take for example cases where a scummy landlord cuts off the water supply because the tenant is late on their rent. The landlord would face fines (or even jail time in some jurisdictions) for such an act. Likewise, kicking the tenant off of their wireless network, especially if the tenant is the owner of the network, would be illegal.

        • BNBN says:

          No, kira is wrong because she accidentally used a (semi) double negative (illegal outside property you dont own) when she meant to say “illegal outside property you own”. This is what kiraslith was correcting

  18. fartface says:

    Next up on HackADay, other fun vandalizing tricks, how to key a car, how to egg a house, and how to steal old lady’s purses!

  19. Dakota James says:

    Why is GoogleGlass different than obnoxious people who whip out their phones every thirty seconds to take selfies or random shots of the world around them with no concern about other peoples right to not be in their pictures? That answer would be Nothing!

  20. ejonesss says:

    couldnt you just change the google glass mac? or write a script to ignore the de-authentication command thereby to disconnect you have to get out of range and cause timeout.

    i know mac can be changed because some do it allow compatibility with older cable modems

  21. Jakub Mareda says:

    While I can’t agree with the aggressive attitude of google haters here in comments (the show more insults than discussion) I have my own reason to be, if not anything else, than very careful when dealing with google.
    How google treats privacy can be often surprising – though it might be often error rather than intent. And how people treat privacy is often appaling – the idea of me being on someone’s facebook video is quite unpleasant to me.

    Also I don’t like people who play with their phones (or other devices) when in company (eg. pub). I’m quite sure that with google glass one is very tempted to do that all the time.

    I recently have obtained an Android device. I lived under the impression that Android is some sort of mobile linux. But it appears that it is just slowly turning into Google’s iOS. All google’s application that have been pre-installed can’t be removed.
    This might sound unrelevant but corporations like Apple are not my friends.

    My phone has also already asked me several times whether I want to “allow sending information about my position to google for better search results”. I would have to allow this to use Google maps (but I happen to have offline navigation).

    • Thomas Shaddack says:

      Get root. Any apps then can be removed. Get a ssh server on the phone, then you can login remotely (without the USB cable annoyance) and you can inspect what is running on the device.

  22. Garr says:

    Opless has a good point; why would you connect Glass directly to a public network when you can just bluetooth tether it via your phone? why would you connect ANYTHING to a unsecured network without a layer of protection!?

    As for privacy concerns, Glass would make a fairly crap surveillance device; you can only get about 30 mins of video recording before the battery is drained. but as it is who cares? If you’re out in public you have no expectation of privacy, or right not to be recorded (in someone’s home that’s a different matter, though). Right now i’m recorded almost every step of my day by government or privately owned cameras.

    I can’t help but think that privacy is less an issue than etiquette; where it is and isn’t appropriate to take photos and such. in gym locker room it’s not really on but just out on the street is fine.
    I don’t understand why some people seem to have an expectation of privacy in public places.

  23. ejonesss says:

    https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en

    Storage

    12 GB of usable memory, synced with Google cloud storage. 16 GB Flash total.

    the device has memory to store the pictures.

    Connectivity

    Wi-Fi – 802.11b/g
    Bluetooth

    bluetooth could be used to save to external device .

    so if the script is to prevent use of device as a peeping tom or like the devices that perverts install in locker rooms then the script has failed big time because i think the camera shouldnt need to be online to take pictures.

    i say this because my vision of anti peeping tom via cell phone camera is to design the phone to only let the camera work if the phone has gotten a connection to the tower and has active account.

    so simple install a cell jammer in the locker room so the phone while still able to show good signal cant connect to the tower to get the authentication signal to enable the camera.

    simple no signal no camera

    • untrustworthy says:

      Problem there is that it will store images or video on the local device while it has no signal, and then when it connects again sync with google cloud storage.

      • ejonesss says:

        not if google gets their act together and disables the camera when no connection.

        it is like the offline mode in email if you click the get mail button you will be asked to go online.

        if you try to cancel the connection to the internet (disconnect the modem in the dialup days) then it would say something like unable to connect.

        • slavoj says:

          Why on earth would anyone sell a camera that only worked when you had wifi access? Imagine you were trying to take pictures of your family in front of the Eiffel Tower, or Niagara falls or basically anywhere where normal people take pictures of things.

    • kaidenshi says:

      “my vision of anti peeping tom via cell phone camera is to design the phone to only let the camera work if the phone has gotten a connection to the tower and has active account.”

      What would this solve? Absolutely nothing. As others have pointed out, cellphone cameras aren’t an issue, because it’s painfully obvious when someone is using them. “Peeping Toms” don’t use cellphones (or Glass) because it would be too easy to get caught. They use standalone hidden cameras with local storage or a wireless (not wifi, bluetooth, or cellular; think analog TV) uplink. Your so-called solution wouldn’t prevent any of that, and would only serve to disrupt legitimate cellphone camera users.

      As for the Google Glass issue itself, I’m inclined to believe that while Glass users aren’t all recording our every moves everywhere they go, they still give the perception that they might be. It makes for uncomfortable situations whenever someone wearing the device is out in public. I don’t go so far as to call every Glass user a “Glasshole”, but whether they want to or not they are causing disruption everywhere they wear it.

      If the day comes where Glass and similar devices can fit inside the frame of a normal pair of glasses without any distinguishing features, then we truly won’t know whether every private citizen with glasses on is recording us. And that’s a scary concept; it’s bad enough that we’ve accepted the cameras at every street corner, but when Google and other private companies like them have access to video feeds 24/7 without restraint, there will be no such thing as privacy anymore.

      • ejonesss says:

        not necessarily while cell phone cameras do click it is possible to modify the camera by disconnecting the piezo element or speaker and the flash and then sneak up on someone.

        • Kemp says:

          Is that a regional thing? Here (the UK) if I put my phone on silent mode then the camera doesn’t make any noise. I remember hearing that it was legally required that they make noise in Japan, but I never looked into fact-checking that so I can’t confirm the accuracy.

        • kaidenshi says:

          I wasn’t talking about the fake shutter sound, I was talking about the difficulty in using a large device like a cellphone without attracting attention in general. Once again, your “solution” does nothing to stop a dedicated spy from taking photos and videos with small cameras made for that purpose. Instead it serves only to greatly inconvenience everyone with a cellphone, period. You’re simply looking at it completely wrong.

  24. v00 says:

    Shills. Shills everywhere!

    In all seriousness, I’m sure that most users of glass aren’t assholes, and will respect the request of others not to use it. This script is a nice way of dealing with those who aren’t so nice though.

    • qwerty says:

      That device doesn’t need to be operated by an asshole to become dangerous: all it requires is a good soul in good faith who uploads an image to his openly available space (think Google Plus or Facebook) then tags your name, when and where photo was taken. From now any government can harvest that information, copy it in their servers, crunch it into useful data (face recognition + geo location + movement analysis + links with other people, etc) at will and never delete it even if the good soul does that.

      • Quin says:

        Which can occur by any person using a camera, not just cell phones or glass but even someone like me with a SLR.

        If you want no internet presence at all, nothing with your name or picture or location, then you are going to have to live in a world where every person you meet knows and respects that. This your choice, so make it public and take responsibility, don’t hide behind namecalling and wifi jamming ‘privacy devices.’ Own up to your paranoid, and accept that any one of your friends could accidentally ruin your perfect world by just taking a picture.

        A friend of mine was trying to figure out how to keep their kids name and photos offline. There was the adamant belief that anyone posting anything should run it by them. I wondered, aloud, about them attending a neighbor’s kid’s birthday party. Should the parents take a photo of their own kid, perfectly understandable, they might upload it for grandparents to see. What if your kid is in the background? You’ve just lots the perfect world you wanted. So, what do you do? Go around making demands that everyone around you confine their actions to your belief and make sure you are next in their pictures; or do you just avoid human contact? Are you certain that all of your friends, and their friends, and anyone you run into will play along? And what if you happen by a news worthy event, and an AP photographer catches you in the background; are you going to lose your cool and demand their film/photo? Or will you avoid going out in the world to avoid a situation like this?

        You are, unfortunately, about a decade or two late in complaining about the prevalence of cameras. Maybe you weren’t among the ones calling those who complained “tin-foil hat nutters” but always on camera society already happened. Your complaint is too late, and your choice now is to be a shut-in or to deal with things rationally. And rationally doesn’t include insulting google glass wearers.

        • qwerty says:

          I wasn’t insulting anyone, you probably mistook me for someone else. Our points are very close and I’m all for leaving freedom to anyone to take pictures and post them online in good faith; what concerns me is what is being done behind the curtain (cataloging, association etc) without our knowledge and consent.
          Just imagine this scenario: you are being tagged as present on location A at 10:00, then on location B at 11:00 and someone is being killed in location C at 10:30 which is just in the middle of A and B. Nobody told your name to the police, but they will knock at your door because someone you could even ignore the existence of marked your position on a map. Frankly, this scares me although I’m all for letting people share photos.
          Heck… I’m just back from a customer shop I helped to configure his video surveillance system.

  25. andrewjhull says:

    I suspect some people are just waking up tp the fact that we are under constant surveillance. Google glass (and its many inspired clones), is just a small part of the problem. If you live in a major city pretty much any where in the world, you are being watched by CCTV, at numerous point in your day. If you are “connected”, your phone and email conversations are being poured over by the NSA, and half a dozen other spook organisations. The only difference with “Glass” is that it is personal surveillance equipment (big it up in any other way if you want, its primary purpose is to record and “augment” the world around you). It is one small step on the road to “everyone everywhere”, which seems to be the holy grail of the spook world. Knocking a few mac addresses off a WAP here or there is going to make no difference to the problem (and spoofing the mac to avoid glasshole.sh would be trivial).

    • untrustworthy says:

      All good points. Add into this ubiquitous advertising and marketing being pointed at you using this data aimed at manipulating you to buy stuff.

  26. untrustworthy says:
  27. Quik Top Computing says:

    No mention of gargoyles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

  28. Mike says:

    Why do I feel the builder wears a tinfoil hat and sits in a dark room afraid of the world?

  29. barry99705 says:

    It’s more fun to run it against these OUIs.

    00-03-93
    00-0A-27
    00-0A-95
    00-0D-93
    00-14-51
    00-16-CB
    00-17-F2
    00-19-E3
    00-1B-63
    00-1D-4F
    00-1E-52
    00-30-65
    00-50-E4
    00-A0-40
    08-00-07
    00-10-FA

  30. dutado says:

    Well, that escalated quickly.

    • Max Siegieda says:

      I hear that, came here with the view that “Glass is pretty cool, I could control my music, see notifications, get directions etc.”, then suddenly bam vitriol all over the place. I’d understand it if it were NSA Glass but it’s Google Glass, from the company that yes reads all my emails but does it so they can remind me that I bought tickets to the theatre, generally pretty helpful bunch imo.

  31. chris0x00 says:

    Cyborg? I believe the correct term is gargoyle. C’mon people read your Snow Crash.

  32. iondream says:

    Man. I just want to wear a cool computer on my face. Why can’t we have anything nice?

  33. Me says:

    What an asshole. If he is running this on other people’s networks without permission than I’m pretty sure that IS ilegal. There must be some sort of ‘causing interference’ law that breaks. I hope he gets caught doing this and gets a really big fine. Unless he only runs this on his own network.. that’s his property to do with as he pleases. If it’s his business with customer wifi though.. like a restaurant or something I would certainly consider NOT eating/shopping/etc.. there.

    I really want something like Glass (but cheaper). Funny all the glass haters focussing on the camera. The camera isn’t even a significant part of why I want it! I just want that heads up display alerting me for things that I care about (no Facebook pokes and similar crap please). It’s actually for kind of a pro-privacy thing, heads up alerts could be silent, the people around me don’t have to know about them. Watching videos and viewing webpages (can you do that on Glass) would be kind of nice when I am stuck in a boring place.

    Again… I really hope people who do crap like this get the book thrown at them.

  34. William McGree says:

    Why just one hardcoded MAC address? That seems a really crappy way to code given that the comment states the mac may change? You are really limiting your ability to be a DataDick ™.

    GGMAC=’F8:8F:CA:24′ # May change as new editions of Google Glass are released

    Why not point to a file of MAC prefixes, say named BLACKLIST, and then have the conditional just greping that file and doing the LetsBeADataDick packet drop.

    Come on folks, if you are going to be a luddite at least learn a little about code:)-

  35. William McGree says:

    Also, recording everyones movements has been around LONG LONG before the Glass. Where was all this outrage and packet dropping with laptops, tablets, phones, quadcopters, robots, drones?
    It seems a little odd that all this gets the massive luddite treatment only when Google comes out with an overpriced dev platfrom that another company’s iFanbois did not have a market place response for….and thus… all this serious “privacy” chest beating where before here was very very little.
    Was there a Hackaday article with code to stop school kids from being spied on via their laptops?
    Were there shell scripts to disable quadcopters hoovering over head taking pics of crowds?
    What is really the impetus of this cry for action that is aimed only at one very specific device?
    Yep.. welcome to the FUD wars…and congrats to all those who feel justified in dropping packets on devices you have fanboi issues with…by using faulty logic and flimsy tech you have helped increase world suck.

    • Quin says:

      The outrage was there, it was just derided as the “paranoid ramblings of tin-foil hat wearing nutters”. I’ve been wondering about the ability of the three letter agencies to snoop in on photos and the net as a whole for a long time, but the usual response was to insult me (same as glass wearers now) and to assume paranoia instead of logical speculation based on the way the internet is wired (see http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/nation/na-black-wire7 or “mae east tyson’s corner incident” in a search engine).

      All this anger is misplaced, because it seems that the glass wearers are easier targets than the big agencies that seem out of reach. “Glassholes” are “tools of those big groups” while the cellphone in your pocket is already tracking your location and who you are socializing with.

  36. Micah says:

    If I’m out and about, my Glass uses a BT connection to my phone for data over the cellular network. I suspect that most other Glass wearers will have the same setup since that’s the easiest. Soooo…this script will have absolutely no effect on us.

  37. William McGree says:

    PS
    Actual solutions to privacy issues and not fanboi attacks … https://www.resetthenet.org/

  38. joe says:

    Why not just make IR blasting clothing like a hat or even dare i say, glasses, to blind any camera pointed at your face? it’s been covered here before, albeit unsatisfactory, you need freaking bright, near ir leds.

  39. mike says:

    I wonder how many of this tool’s supporters are also pro net neutrality? Some depressingly large percent, I’m sure. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.

    Building a tool like this is a-okay. Running it on a network you own is fine too. But running it on a network you don’t own? Nope. There’s nothing good or okay about sending deauths to clients you don’t own on a network you don’t own.

    In a world where you can be found guilty and sentenced to jail for scraping urls sequentually, do you really want to open yourself up to criminal charges and civil lawsuits just to deny a Glass user wifi?

    It would be all for naught, too. Google Glass is essentially useless without an accompanying Android phone. If you ever did happen across a Glass device on wifi, what are the chances they wouldn’t tether to their Android phone if you de-authed them?

    Risk/Reward=10+

    • S says:

      Scaremongering isn’t a argument. Demeaning, mental health or drug abuse attacks neither.

      • mike says:

        Is that truly your best response? Your entire reply boils down to a complaint about my tone. I’m fine with that. But let’s be clear, you haven’t addressed anything about how being pro net neutrality necessitates disapproving the solution featured here (or experience cognitive dissonance). Nor the peril operating it on public networks could bring you (as the article claims is its purpose: “This way, the user can carry it around with them as a sort of portable defense mechanism.”). Nor have you addressed the utility of the tool, as it will do nothing to disrupt a Glass Android Phone connection.

        Like I said, I’m fine with your non-reply. But its just that.

    • vosnul says:

      Arguably the best thing you can do to support net-neutrality is to fence off any and all Google sites and products..

  40. Atakan Onol says:

    Everybody does realize that there are button cameras and what not that are completely hidden that are dirt cheap. Im sure if we go through instagram or facebook or snapchats we’d have millions of “illegal” photographs. Its kinda like absolute speed limits, even though it says 45 mph, a cop is not going to pull you over for going 46 mph. If you happen to unintentionally be caught in a photograph, then so be it. However if someone is intentionally stalking and taking your pictures than that is obviously a crime.

  41. Thomas Shaddack says:

    The wifi chipsets usually allow changing the MAC. Spoofing one is therefore a matter of talking with the kernel to tell the chip what to do. Voila, no deauth.

    I am thinking about something else. MACs can be used for tracking people’s movements through the hotspots. What about something that changes the chip’s MAC to a random ID when changing a network? (Perhaps with reverting to some constant one for known-good networks where we want to e.g. get the same IP address assigned, where we WANT to be recognized?)

    And why all the hate? No one mentioned the concept of sousveillance. We are already recorded at every step. When authorities do something wrong, the records that are under their control usually mysteriously vanish. The automatic face recognition itself can be a godsend for those who are poor in remembering/recognizing faces, it can and hopefully will count as a form of prosthetics.

  42. Adam says:

    I don’t understand the bashing of google glasses in public people have always been recorded in mass amounts, and in private its a matter of who do you hang out with determine if you get photos on the internet not the hardware the people use. Obviously underage kids that go to drinking parties most of the time try to know everyone at that party so they won’t take a picture and put it on their facebook of 50 people drinking underage. Its a test to society of how smart you are.

  43. GoogleSucksAppleSucks says:

    All you would have to do with a router is simply block those MAC address blocks. Done. Now you just have to convince places like Starbucks they should block them. But those are the types of people that would invade your privacy with Google Glass…soo….

    Recording in public space does not mean you can record police, and they will let you know it by body-slamming you, too. Invasion of privacy is allowed for private citizens, not for those sucking on the tax payers tit.

  44. Patrick Cline says:

    Am I the only one who harbors serious concern that this “hack” is literally day one script kiddy work?

    While use on your own private network may (and it isn’t a guarantee) be legal, mobilizing it absolutely suggests illegal intent, at least under the realm of US law.

    What is even more disconcerting is the article is written to glorify it, it isn’t even being presented as a report of one individual project, artistic license was taken (see the entirety of the last paragraph) which seems to encourage this activity. Is there some level of satire or sarcasm that I am missing?

    Maybe if there was a hack here, which there isn’t (this is using “off the shelf” scripts as intended, by the description only trivial “glue” was added), it could be worthwhile.

    Maybe if there was a practical or educational benefit to “bending” the law in this case, which there isn’t, it could be worthwhile.

    Maybe if this was simply entertaining, and not vandalism, which it unquestionably is, it could be worthwhile.

    Frankly I am totally off-put by this article, this is the kind of thing that destroys a perfectly good site by degrees. I would rather see a discussion on what glass does and doesn’t do, or the ethics of it’s use. Even better than that would be a article on common networking tools, and how they work. I don’t read sites with advice on how to be the bigger jerk, and I suspect from some of these responses I am not alone in that fact.

    H-a-D take note, this is poison.

  45. I don’t see the big deal. You can go out and buy “spy” recording devices that can discretely capture audio, still image, and video. They can be hidden in a room or worn by someone and… you’ll never know. So while you’re babbling your fool head off, someone is recording it all. The Google glasses on the other hand are quite obvious as they are ugly, geeky (not in a good way), and everyone assumes (or should) that every waking moment is being recorded because the Google Glass user just can’t help themselves.

    My point is that being in the proximity of someone wearing Google Glass is functionally the same as being in a room with a sign reading, “this room has recording devices.” If I saw such a sign, I’m certainly not going to blab all my juicy secrets, freely offer my opinions of coworkers, discuss my plans for world domination, etc. My privacy isn’t being violated any more than if instead of a Google Glass wearer using the latest technology, I was in a room with my zero-tech family’s gossip queen. In either case, if I decide to be candid or spew secrets, it’s because I made an evaluation of the risk.

    • PrivacyGuy31 says:

      Yeah….ish. I’ll agree that it’s wearing a big sign, and even being very pro-privacy, everyone is simply assuming that all Glass users are recording everything, 100% of the time. Google could mitigate this issue by using an LED to demonstrate the device is recording, and prevent recording (on a hardware level) if the LED isn’t functioning. This, though, is highly illegal. Also, some have said that it’s illegal to record people on private property. That’s not true. It’s illegal ONLY when you have the expectation of privacy, which requires the privacy minded individual to demonstrate that in a productive way. In other words, if you are in your home, but you have your door, windows (and curtains) open, you have no expectation of privacy, because YOU aren’t demonstrating that you have one. In public spaces (which, yes, includes private property like restaurants, etc.) you have NO expectation of privacy (except in rare jurisdictions). Audio recording, however is a very tricky business though. In most jurisdictions you have to be a part of a conversation (or even have permission from the other party) to record audio, even in a public space.

    • Duwogg says:

      I agree with JapanIsShinto…. There are only 1001 better ways to be a pervert and SECRETLY record you picking your nose or being a boring ass human on a bus. PINHOLE CAMS (tiny pin-hole lens that can be disguised as ANYTHING), BUTTON CAMS (that look just like a shirt button) HAT CAMS (cams that look like a trucker cap) ETC ETC ETC, WHYYYY in gods name if im going to to be invading your privacy would i want you to know I’m doing it so you could modify your normal behavior that might be far more interesting to my big brother ways? Why don’t you live life as I do in the year 2014, like EVERYONE IS WATCHING AND RECORDING ME while I’m in public… This isn’t 1901 folks, spying and spy cams have been around for like freaking ever. CCTV isn’t a new invetion, IT IS EVERYWHERE. PERIOD. You can not go anywhere without being recorded and being beamed off to the cloud. And whats more, GOOGLE ALPR. Yes, the cops are recording you and your car EVERYWHERE you go!!! TIN FOIL HATS FOR EVERYONE!!! Soooooo, why the F*CK do you care if someone is using google glass, which is like the most obvious thing in the world!!!??? You need help if you are worried about that thing over everything else that is ALREADY PURPOSELY RECORDING YOU… Seriously. But I wouldn’t use glass, while its a neat novelty, I don’t see it as powerful enough to be useful, its kind of kludgy, heavy, UGLY, etc. In a few years though…

  46. Damntech says:

    Cyborgs are quite old now. HUDs attached to backpack computers. People monitoring their health. Dynamic pacemakers. Diabetics with CGMS and insulin pumps. Nothing new here. It has been a slowly evolving process and for some the benefits of placing an automated mechnical computerized device in line with their daily personal processes has worked. Maybe augmented reality devices will help some, can’t really judge what one does with ones self. As for this particular ddos it is good that it is brought forward, its a very simple concept that very few look out for.

  47. justice099 says:

    Let’e frame the debate with some examples. Let’s say you called in sick at work, but a google glass user recorded you strolling down the beach with your wife. The google glass user is a friend of your boss. It gets posted to facebook. He sees it and you get fired.

    Or let’s say you filed an insurance claim claiming that you were injured, but someone with a google glass records you and tags you and shows you helping a friend move a couch.

    Each every single one of you glassholes would be standing in line to sue the glass wearer.

    I truly hate people with situational ethics (hence my username). They want to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to anyone else. But they don’t want everyone else to be able to do whatever they want regardless of them. This is why they call you a glasshole.

    • justice099 says:

      Let’s say you get denied a job and you find out that it is because some glasshole at the bar had recorded you acting like an immoral jackass and it auto tagged your name and your employer searched your social media records.

      Let’s say you are cheating on your wife and some glasshole recorded you taking your mistress to the movies. Your wife divorces you and uses the video as proof of your infidelity and you lose absolutely everything.

      Every single one of you glassholes would sue the shit out of the google glass user claiming you did not give consent.

      When it actually affects YOU, you will cry.

      • Thomas Shaddack says:

        The same is already happening en-masse with Facebook and smartphones; and still, there are no large-scale protests. (Perhaps a bit more of an awareness.) A different form factor of the camera does not make any principial difference.

        You cannot keep an affair secret forever. Usually it is yourself who blows it up by a careless mistake, e.g. leaving SMS messages on the phone for the wife to see. Or leaving the computer logged on so she can see your private messages on said Facebook. Or a friend tells a friend tells a friend; these networks were here way before even the Internet itself. So what you can do is going for an amicable divorce ahead and lose only half instead of everything. Of course it is not your fault for marrying a nagging hag and later inevitably screwing up the OPSEC so someone else has to take the blame.

        Not everybody is so lawyer-happy as you. Which is good for the world.

        • arachnidster says:

          I think you’ve mistaken justice099’s position; he’s defending Google Glass. Key here was:

          “Every single one of you glassholes would sue the shit out of the google glass user claiming you did not give consent.”

    • ylexot says:

      So, basically, you are mad because someone might catch you behaving badly and/or illegally? LMAO!

      • justice099 says:

        Great… I just wasting my time arguing with an idiot. Thanks.

        • dex drako says:

          then maybe you shouldn’t pick examples that aren’t complete amoral and/or illegal as the main point to your post. LMAO!

          what did you expect to get as an reply?

          your whole post reads as I’m a A$$hole who doesn’t like being called on it so everyone else has to be. news flash not everyone is Amoral and if they do something wrong they’re fine with paying the consequences of those actions.

          • justice099 says:

            yuk yuk…. gurrr

          • justice099 says:

            See, I have a right to be an immoral jackass. YOU do not have a right to interfere with with my rights.

            This is the age-old argument: “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” That was why I picked those examples, because I knew some jackass was going to say it (thank you for being that jackass, btw.)

            The conundrum is that without context, your recorded actions could be interpreted in all sorts of ways. Maybe you were not doing anything wrong. Maybe you were just escorting a female business client to a movie. Maybe the camera missed the part where you put on a proper back brace to help your friend move.

            I guarantee someone out there will misinterpret YOUR actions just as well even if you are being the complete angel that you we all know you are. Because sometimes we LOOK guilty even if we are not. Who made you the fricking judge. My life is not YOUR reality TV show.

            But then, since you obviously have nothing to worry about, how about posting your address so we can all come and set up cameras in your house, keyloggers on your computer, and monitor your internet traffic. I mean, you have nothing to hide, right?

          • justice099 says:

            And again, you will be the first to whine and complain when YOU are affected by this.

          • dex drako says:

            @ justice
            honestly you could have used better examples anyway like hiding being gay from your family or dating someone your friends hate.

            but sorry to burst you bubble but no I have never nor will ever wine or complain if I got caught doing something wrong. you need to stop project your view onto others because I’m mature enough to take responsibility for my actions. I’ll do, take or kill anyone or anything I like but after wards Ill walk right into the police and take any punishment is given to me with my head held high.

            so if I’m saying anything it’s don’t do things your embarrassed other people can find out about.

            in the end you do have the right to be an immoral jackass but everyone else has just as much right to call you on being one and doing so does not interfering with your rights.

    • William McGree says:

      Let’s say you get denied a job and you find out that it is because some iPhone at the bar had recorded you acting like an immoral jackass and it auto tagged your name and your employer searched your social media records.

      Let’s say you are cheating on your wife and some MotoX recorded you taking your mistress to the movies. Your wife divorces you and uses the video as proof of your infidelity and you lose absolutely everything.

      Every single one of you phone users would sue the shit out of the phone makers claiming you did not give consent.

      When it actually affects YOU, you will cry.

  48. Slim W. says:

    What the hell is the matter with you people? What, exactly, is the difference between a cellphone with a camera, and Google Glass?

    Also, do any of you understand that creating a device that causes interference is illegal in the U.S.?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_47_CFR_Part_15

    If and when I catch people jamming Google Glass (or any other legal tech), be assured that I will happily turn you in to the FCC.

    • It doesn’t cause interference, though. It simply doesn’t allow a Glass to connect to the Internet.

      • Slim W. says:

        That is the definition of interference.

        • No. Just… no, it’s not.

          This is completely compliant with Part 15. There’s no other way of looking at it. Preventing devices with a certain MAC prefix from connecting is not interference.

          • chiefcrash says:

            From the FCC:

            Harmful interference: § 15.3 (m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or ***seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this Chapter.***

            It’s pretty obviously interference

      • static says:

        ” This will send spoofed disassociate packets to the client (in this case the Google Glass device), hopefully forcing them to disconnect from the access point. The script runs continuously, ensuring that once the device reconnects to the network it will get booted off once again.”

        To be able to do the above RF has to transmitted. Yes it’s interference, specifically the intentional malicious interference of a legal radio transmission. In that could impact the earnings of a major corporation, the FCC may be compelled to investigate complaints by GG users their devices aren’t operating as expected, now this method has become common knowledge.

          • static says:

            Brian; While I’m an old geek, old enough to be be father of many I read via hackaday if not a grandfather to some, I readily admit I never seen it all, including this video. While understand what’s being said, but respectfully it’s worthless as either as comment at any level. In the event you aren’t interested in playing computer armchair FCC regulation attorney just simply say so.

        • justice099 says:

          Well, hell… every router ever made is illegal then. At least every one that I have used has settings to block access by MAC address and several other filters.

          So if I simply filter out your google glass from my network, am I breaking the law?

          Oh, but it is MY network, so that’s different! But, regardless, I am obstructing your access through the MAC layer (hint: not RF.)

          Can you see now how this FAA rule does not apply?

          Maybe we’ll start seeing public wifi hotspots blocking google glass out of public outcry. lol. Well, crap. Then what will the glassholes do?

          Rest assured. There will be laws specifically toward things like this. There are already plenty of laws that could be argued in court. All we need is some clarification to the existing laws so there is no ridiculous arguments around it like the glassholes are trying to do in here.

          • ylexot says:

            In case you missed it, most Glass users will be connected via BT to their phone. I doubt anyone with Glass will connect it to public WiFi. BTW, I thought you were done with this discussion.

          • justice099 says:

            No. Just done with you.

          • chiefcrash says:

            Blocking devices on your own device by setting a MAC filter on the device obviously doesn’t count as interference. You could even make an argument that using this deauth attack against devices connecting to YOUR network isn’t interference (though the FCC might not agree).

            If you want to ask/pressure/legally coerce hotspot owners into blocking access to Glass users, that’s certainly your right. It’s also the right of those hotspot owners to ignore you or tell you to pound sand.

            But that’s not what this device is for, is it? It’s for kicking off Glass users from *any* network, not just ones you own. And preventing a device you don’t own from connecting to a network you don’t own is obviously illegal from a couple of angles (as it should be). And using an RF transmission to accomplish that meets the definition of harmful interference according to the FCC.

            (Also, are you confusing the FAA with the FCC?)

            Nice try though.

          • justice099 says:

            I have learned two things from this thread: glassholes are some of the dumbest people I have ever met and you can’t argue with stupid.

            And yes, I meant FCC. I work with the FAA all day long, simple mistake.

          • chiefcrash says:

            Right. Because only a dumb glasshole would argue that using the MAC filtering inside a router you own is the same thing as using an RF device to disrupt communication between two devices you DON’T own…

            Only a dumb glasshole would make ridiculous claims like “Private property is 99.9% of all property”, even though even a cursory search would reveal that to be false, seeing as the federal government owns/manages/controls roughly a third of the land in the country…

            And so on. But no sense in arguing stupid, eh?

          • justice099 says:

            Yep. No sense in arguing with you.

        • Thomas Shaddack says:

          If you will run it all the time, you are likely to get noticed and caught.

          Highly intermittent operation will inconvenience the desired targets, but will still be intermittent enough to be blamed on usual network flakiness, and you will likely get away with it.

          As it goes with all kinds of jamming. (And transmitting in general. To find a signal source you first have to suspect it is there, and then it has to be on for long enough times to locate it. A single pulse is enough for a Tamara-style passive radar, longer term operation is required for classical manual DFing. For more see how the TSCM “bug sweeping” is done.)

          Electronic warfare is a beautiful field.

          • Thomas Shaddack says:

            …and jammers of all kinds are an important technology to have. Not only for tactical use, but – and mainly this – for testing our own wireless designs in simulated adverse conditions.

  49. vosnul says:

    Excellent work and a proper protest against Glass, Google and all that tripe.

    As a tech-geek without a mobile phone, because I refuse to use those annoying milk-cows, I have noticed that several generations around me have grown numb to the real world, depending on their small screen to provide information. The 120 degree field of view for a lot of people has been substituted with a 5 degree one. This has some real world consequences. It really detaches people from reality. I notice that people have more and more trouble interacting with the world around them, even when not looking at their swipe tiles. Failure of noticing things in their periphery, navigating oddly and haphazardly or just completely loose interest in anything around them. It’s sickly.

    Google glass should be shunned because this luxury tech will only make this detachment worst. It does not enhance reality, it obscures it with stuff that does not matter.

    • Thomas Shaddack says:

      You can say the same about books. Same narrow field of vision, same obscuring of the real world with something else. The only difference is that the book display is fixed instead of interactive beyond flipping pages. The rest of your comments applies as well.

      Glass is a baby step in the right direction. A completely see-through display with object (and gesture) recognition, good enough for putting virtual objects in your hands, is the right way to go. With multimodal interfacing (the same thing achievable by a commandline command, a voice command, menu navigation, gesture shortcut…). Possibly with a glass-style obstructing display at the top of the field of vision, taking couple degrees vertically, and see-through rest. The top for messages and maps, the bottom for the field-of-view annotations.

      Reality often sucks enough that even the weakest detachment is preferable to fully experiencing it. Is it the fault of the reality, or of the detachments? Various handheld distractions, from books and newspapers to toys to portable gaming platforms, were always pretty popular.

      • vosnul says:

        Of course a book does not compare to a phone in any regard, although handheld gaming devices probably do.
        It has to do with how, where and what for an item is used. Both are completely different cognitive processes. You do not interact with reality while reading a book and a book often broadens your perception. A phone or glass pulls focus on limited information and puts it in the foreground. It’s all a matter of what, when, where, how and what for you use stuff for.

        Glass isn’t the way to go. It will be half a generation before we have people who look up at the sky, don’t notice the striking cloud formations and conclude that it will probably rain because they have a raining cloud icon flashing in their top right gaze.
        We don’t need more of that, we need less.

        If your reality is of such a sucky nature, but you are able to put of Google Glass.. then the fault is simply all yours. A distraction isn’t a distraction anymore when it’s permanent. Then it becomes a hindrance.

        • Thomas Shaddack says:

          I don’t see a significant difference between a book (and ebook reader) and a phone. I use both routinely including when out and on feet, and unless the thing on the phone is a game requiring realtime responses, I did not notice any significant differences in their effects to me. (And yes, I managed to walk into a lamppost when reading a book. A dead-tree one, so the fancy electronics distraction argument does not apply.) Getting lost in a book is easy, and an added function that tells me that this is the stop to leave the bus/tram/train is quite helpful.

          A phone can serve either as a lousy book reader (the display underperforms at bright sunlight which sucks, e-ink OTOH underperforms at low light which also sucks), or as a device for realtime or near-realtime communication or for quick retrieval of data. (Let’s neglect the gaming console uses for now.) For the latter, the user interface rather sucks and the display right in the field of vision is a significant improvement, not only because holding the phone does not block one of only two available hands (too bad the med/tech is not good enough for grafting on two more). Too bad that the contemporary systems are still in their infancy with suboptimal optics and high price.

          A comm/navg system that tells me I still have 90 seconds until the tram arrival (assuming data feed about the vehicle positions, already available in some cities) so I do not (or do) have to run to get to the stop on time to not miss it (or when I have to dash and run like a hell to catch the last one of the day) can save a lot of stress. A data feed from a dense network of weather sensors over the city (to be deployed, but cheap sensor nodes on e.g. cell towers could provide a lot of information about urban weather micropatterns) can provide up-to-minute near-time forecast about said rain; a glance at the sky gives you only a very limited information, especially as the weather often tends to change rather suddenly.

          Our senses are rather limited in what data they are serving us about the world. Augmentation with electronics and adding the data we cannot see certainly cannot make it any worse. Having to take a display in hand, wake the thing and glance at it is more hindrance than having the data conveniently already prepared for looking at. (A direct brain-computer interface, feeding data without having them visually mediated, would be much better but we don’t have these yet.)

          Also, I did not understand the fault comment in your last paragraph. Can you please clarify?

          • vosnul says:

            Just because you could arguably use a book while traversing a crowded marketplace, or riding a bike like you could with a phone, does not make them similar. On average, I think you would agree, that people finding distraction in the streets are more often skimming through 9gag and twitter than P.J. Wodehouse.
            Different substrates, different media, mostly different uses, different methods of consuming. They are completely different things, in every way imaginable.
            The way books work on the mind are measurably different than the way social media, or augmented reality works on the mind. It can not be more different.

            You can augment our “limited” sensory perception all you want, but this will not result in more perception, just a shift. These “limited” faculties of our have evolved with a very fitting processor unit that is quite optimized for all it’s inputs. Adding to that will only diminish perception somewhere else. You see this trend the other way around when hearing or sight is lost.

            Then you could argue that you’d rather have your substitute sensory perception, but really this is the problem in the first place.. People DO prefer their electronic faculties over their own and this simply does not make for better people.

            Arguing that such technology would hide the painful reality from people also is a double edges sword. Firstly, reality itself would not greatly improve if we chose, en masse, to distract ourselfs from it and secondly in the end, it’s still reality that has any meaningful influence, not being able to deal with that in real terms isn’t the way forward.

            Perhaps I should have said it this way. For people who truly have such a miserable existence, these options would not even be available. It also is a bit of a first-world complaint and actually not unlike arguing for the benefits of heroin.

          • arachnidster says:

            How fortunate we are that you are here to tell us all we’re living our lives the wrong way.

          • vosnul says:

            “How fortunate we are that you are here to tell us all we’re living our lives the wrong way.”
            The invention of debating what is right and wrong, good or bad and coming to some conclusion or agreement has been around for quite some time now.
            Is this concept of arguments and opinions new to you?

          • Thomas Shaddack says:

            A text-based medium is similar to a text-based medium, regardless if it is the newest tweet or a Shakespeare. There are formatting issues, as different approach is needed for PDFs with large high-res images vs paragraphs of text without images vs tweet/sms style oneliners, but it all is text.

            Just a shift… you can take a look at the cloudy sky all the time you want, and you won’t see that it is raining couple miles away and it is heading your way. Especially not in cities where only small angular segments of the sky are typically visible. If you are near an airport, you are already in luck as they get fairly accurate machine-readable forecasts.

            You cannot make the reality better. You cannot wish the train to come earlier, the rain to stop earlier, the tram to go faster, the crowd to be less noisy, the visual industrial waste known as ads less obtrusive. You can avoid having to deal with it anyway by shifting attention to something else. And, even better, with good enough data feeds you can know in advance how long the given thing will take and can adjust properly (leave a little later or spend the time reading, hide from the rain for the 7.5 minutes until the tram arrives and slowly walk to the station just in time for it, tell the electronics to wake you from a nap when the tram is about to arrive, listen to music that makes the noise of the crowd irrelevant and less exhausting to be around, or get something else and less annoying to look at; or even, as some experimenters with AR or mediated-reality already did, overlay the billboards and logos with something else).

            And yes, it is a first-world complaint. But guess what? We both live in the first world, so we are entitled to first-world complaints. Because what? Because they are relevant to us. What was ever wrong with that?

            …and there are fast developments on the field of immersive VR; Oculus Rift is only an early vanguard, systems with real feeling of “presence” are already escaping the labs and there are talks about 4k VR displays. The predictable moaning from the sidelines will be fun to hear, I am looking forward to the squeals! Hope they will be at least half as amusing as those about first-person shooters, D&D, or even the rock’n’roll.

          • vosnul says:

            “A text-based medium is similar to a text-based medium, regardless if it is the newest tweet or a Shakespeare.”

            It simply isn’t

          • Thomas Shaddack says:

            “It simply isn’t”

            Pray tell, why, oh why?

          • vosnul says:

            Because different media with different uses are processed on a neurological level in various ways. Text isn’t just text. It does really matter in what context and with what attributes you “consume” it.

            It like saying, speech is speech, whether or not it is directed at you. This also is provably not so. You process speech directed at you fundamentally different than say half a phone conversation.

            The way you process what information, in relation to what via which medium will take various cognitive pathways.

            Likewise, if you “augment” peripheral vision with information that is alien to that form of perception, then you can be assured that it will not be processed as just peripheral vision 2.0.

            Why not try to avoid lampposts while utilizing mobile technology to quickly skim over some of the myriad of FMRI studies conducted on these matters..

          • Thomas Shaddack says:

            “…some of the myriad of FMRI studies…”

            Links please? Or, at least, keywords please?

    • William McGree says:

      Excellent work and a proper protest against Laptops, Wifi and all that tripe.

      As a tech-geek without a laptop, because I refuse to use those annoying milk-cows, I have noticed that several generations around me have grown numb to the real world, depending on their small screen to provide information. The 120 degree field of view for a lot of people has been substituted with a 15 degree one. This has some real world consequences. It really detaches people from reality. I notice that people have more and more trouble interacting with the world around them, even when not looking at their swipe tiles. Failure of noticing things in their periphery, navigating oddly and haphazardly or just completely loose interest in anything around them. It’s sickly.

      Laptops should be shunned because this luxury tech will only make this detachment worst. It does not enhance reality, it obscures it with stuff that does not matter.

      • vosnul says:

        For a small part, you have a point. Screens, laptops and such have altered social interaction, especially on the work-floor. But those are not devices that you constantly engage with while moving through crowds, traffic or parties.
        Those devices conflict must more with social behavior.
        It just the question, where do you draw the line? I think drawing it just before permanent augmented reality is a pretty good idea.

        • Thomas Shaddack says:

          I, for one, want the permanent augmented reality. I heard similar arguments when cellphones were new, then when smartphones were new, and in both cases they ended up as a mainstream technology with only a few moaners on the sidelines.

          With just a little bit of luck this development will repeat with AR as well.

          • vosnul says:

            Similar arguments were made, and various effects on the social behavior in people have been noted.
            There being only a few “moaners” is probably due to the fact that the rest are basically addicts.
            With a little luck, I can recluse myself from this future reality shunning introverted hellish society. Probably I won’t even have to leave the city, without augmentation I’ll be as good as invisible.. Perhaps there is a plus side to anti-social gimmickry!

  50. Hirudinea says:

    Change the MAC addresses to those used on iPads, I just happen to think iPad users are assholes.

    • Blufires says:

      The complaints from governments and individuals all boil down to this:
      *Glass has a camera
      *Glass costs $1600
      *Glass’ screen can be distracting
      *Glass makes you look like a cock

      The solution is a bone conduction Bluetooth headset hidden behind each of your ears with the same voice recognition software as Glass, but with a text-to-speech engine to read you data rather than display it.
      *No camera
      *No distracting screen
      *Would cost <$100
      *Would not make you look like a cock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s