Google Glass: Ushering in an Era With No Expectation of Privacy?

As technology progresses, an individual’s expectations of privacy are continuously diminished. The children of the digital age do not have as strong an expectation as that held by prior generations. A favorite punching bag of privacy enthusiasts, Google is set to unleash its new product, Google Glass, in the near future. Currently, only a few are expected to be available until a mass market model is developed for release sometime next year. In the eyes of some, this device represents a further step down the path into a world without privacy.

The impending release of these “augmented reality” glasses might threaten our current “reasonable expectations of privacy.” In the early months, or even years, following the release of these devices, their use will probably not be widespread. The technology required for them to function will create huge limitations – particularly in battery life and storage capacity. At least initially, Google Glass will be the only device of its kind on the market. While these conditions remain true, there will not be a huge change in societal expectations regarding privacy.

There are two concerns that arise with Google Glass – first, the potentially innocuous nature of the glasses; second, the relationship between these devices and Google itself.

This first is not necessarily a new issue; there are cameras everywhere. Hidden cameras, cell phone cameras, and high-definition video recording devices with zoom features that put binoculars to shame. Aren’t we already living in a world where we should expect all of our actions, at least outside the home, to be viewed?

The technology behind Google Glass will inevitably improve. The “Glass” glasses will become more unobtrusive. They will become cheaper. Their battery life will be longer and their storage space will expand. Eventually it may become difficult to tell the difference between a particularly clunky set of Ray-Bans and Google Glass. What happens to the individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy when he or she can no longer be certain whether he or she is being filmed at any given time?

The second issue arises because Google is an information broker, not merely a device manufacturer. The relationship between each Glass user and Google itself is a huge concern. Due to information asymmetry and power inequality, the user will likely not have much choice in the license agreement involved in using Glass and consequently in the upload and storage solutions provided.

As these devices become ubiquitous, will the United States follow the path set by the European Union? Should opting-out of data uploads be the default? Should the protections given to third-parties in EU countries be emulated here? Many individuals do not want their information or image to be tagged in countless photos taken by Glass users who were never even noticed.

Will Glass “metamorphosi[ze] us into human versions of those Street View vans” as suggested by CNN’s Andrew Keen? Andrew Keen, Why Life Through Google Glass Should Be For Our Eyes Only, 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-privacy-andrew-keen/index.html?hpt=hp_c1. Will individuals have the opportunity to be blurred from photos uploaded to Google+ by Glass users? If so, will they be required to opt-out to be blurred, or will we move to a system where an individual is required to opt-in, perhaps through privacy controls in a Google+ account?

More fundamentally, does Google Glass represent a significant technological departure from the already widespread use of camera enabled cell phones? If so, do these departures require further protection? If so, what kind?

As with any emerging technology, there are often more questions than answers.