• atatata

    Bad. I hoped it would be left to people to decide what makes good or bad app. I did not expect Google to be a policeman of Glass’s AppStore.

  • http://eutorics.com/ Graeme Caldwell

    I don’t think a blanket ban is the right course of action. On the one hand, it would be appalling if a person could walk down the street and get identifying information for everyone they look at. There is value in real world anonymity (which is not the same as an expectation of privacy in public places) – think of how life would change if everyone knew who everyone else was all the time.

    On the other hand, it shouldn’t be impossible to do something with Google+ circles that limits the range of responses – you only get a facial recognition response if they’ve circled you (at a party or meeting or whatever). They could also make it voluntary and attached to a location – every body at a party sets a “facial recognition” permission for everyone else logged into the same event (Google+ events).

    It seems to me to be a PR call. They can sense the mob getting out their pitchforks and torches and want to head off some of the moral panic-stoking negative press from the tabloids around the privacy invading potential of glass (“OMG!! They’ll take pictures of my junk in the bathroom!! Glassholes are perverts!!)

  • http://extropolitca.blogspot.com Mirco Romanato

    The main problem, IMHO, is how faulty are these facial recognition systems.
    It would suck big time to walk down the street and be mis-identified with some child-molester or wrongly be included in some black list.
    Surely Google do not want invite litigation “at this time”.