The following was written as an assignment for The Hyperlinked Library MOOC in the form of a report to the director of a library on Google Glass. It is appearing here for the first time.
This is a preliminary report on a technology that has not
yet been released to the public. It is
based on internet reports and opinions.
I don’t expect any final decisions to be made at this point, but we
should be thinking about the issues raised by this new form of computer
technology.
Google Glass is a wearable computer
in the form of eyeglasses. It can be
integrated with prescription lenses. It
contains a computer chip, a camera, a battery, a motion sensor and WIFI. It can be voice activated, but it also has a
touchpad that is worn on an arm for silent activation. It will allow Glass wearers to take photos or
record videos hands free, and upload them automatically to Google’s cloud applications.
(Houghton, 2013).
The miniature screen is a cube located in the upper right hand corner
of the device, and there is a microphone behind the user’s ear. (Arapaho
Libraries, 2013). Perceptually it will
seem like the screen is eight feet away. Severely nearsighted people won’t be
able to see it clearly without integration with their prescription lenses.
There is a red light that is visible when something is being recorded. Glass shuts off every 30 seconds and needs
to be re-activated. If users record
frequently, the battery will need to be re-charged within 90 minutes. Google
states that with normal use the charge should last an entire day (Liedtke,
2013). It currently doesn’t include
GPS. Wearers will need to tether it to
an Android smart phone for access to the
advertised Google Maps functionality that will allow them to get directions (Houghton
,2013).
There are 8,000 beta users
currently testing Glass. (Stephens, 2013) They or their employers are paying
$1500 to test this device. After it’s
scheduled for release in April of 2014, it will probably cost approximately
$500.(Epstein, 2013) There are a number of librarians and library systems who
are demonstrating the beta version of Google Glass to their
users.
There are numerous potential uses.
Most prominently mentioned is the ability of physicians to receive
information (e.g. the patient’s vital signs) while continuing to perform
surgery (Doyle, 2013). Although I have seen no one point this out, if a surgeon
were distracted during surgery by the Glass information feed, his surgical
instrument could slip and harm the patient.
So this may not be a good use for Glass.
Of particular interest to libraries are educational uses involving interactivity and virtual field trips as well as information feed to students (Kwikboost, 2013)and the likely ability that Glass may have in the future to simultaneously translate to and from any language. Google Glass beta tester, librarian Arian Kruppa reports that Glass currently can’t understand any language other than English(Tween Tribune, 2013). The widely reported speculation that Glass will be able to translate is based on the existence of Google Translate. This means that a translation application for Glass could be developed by Google.(Titlow, 2013)
An
important negative attribute of Glass is its radioactivity. Google has reported the radiation of Glass to
the FCC. The FCC has ruled it safe. Yet since it’s worn constantly on the head,
Glass may increase the incidence of brain tumors (Wang, 2013).
Another
serious issue is the danger of a data breach.
If Google’s cloud is hacked, which has happened in the past, users’
identity information will be completely compromised. In response to criticism, Google has
prohibited facial recognition applications from the Glass equivalent of Google
Play. (Houghton, 2013). This would
prevent Glass from identifying persons in Glass videos, accessing their
identity records and imperiling their data in the event a breach.
Reference
librarians may be impacted by Glass wearers intruding on reference interviews
conducted at the public reference desk ,and violating their confidentiality by
videotaping them and uploading them to You Tube. One solution could be to conduct all
reference interviews in a private space by default.
Violation
of privacy is a widely expressed concern about Glass. Although Google removed an application that
would allow photos to be taken silently by blinking, Denver Post reporter Michael Liedtke states that while he was wearing Glass, he
was able to record a video of a Google
representative discussing privacy as it applies to Glass without his
knowledge by pressing a small button on the right frame without speaking a
command aloud.(Liedtke, 2013) The arm touchpad would also allow silent
commands. So it will be possible to
photograph or record individuals without their knowledge or consent.
A
relevant study involving the possible impact of the prevalent presence of Glass
wearers on society is a 2008 study called
“The eye of the camera: Effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior” by Rompay, Vonk and Fransen which showed that there is tendency to act in
people pleasing ways in the presence of security cameras (Rompay et al, 2009). Glass could have a chilling effect on speech
which would be contrary to democratic values.
A study
dealing with the concern that Glass will make users more distracted deals with
the surprising finding that only 2% of
the population can multi-task successfully.
Scientist David Strayer called them “supertaskers” and discovered that their brains are
organized differently from the other 98% of us. (Sundem, 2012) A Harvard
Business Review blog article by Peter Bregman states that multi-tasking reduces productivity
by 40% because switching between tasks causes a loss of time. Bregman cites a study by Ophir, Nass and
Wagner in The Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences that heavy multi-taskers are more distractable than
light multi-taskers because those who multi-task more lose their ability to
focus on any task. (Ophir et al, 2009).
So it would seem that Glass may aggravate trends that were initiated due
to the common use of smart phones. If
Glass becomes as popular as portable technologies it is likely that the average
attention span of technology users will continue to decline.
The
privacy issue can possibly be dealt with by having Glass wearers sign
agreements that they will not photograph or videotape library users or staff
without consent which will be kept on file.
If they violate this agreement, they can be suspended or banned
permanently from the library depending on the severity of their offense. A simpler solution might be to tell Glass
users to remove their devices, and ban Glass from the library as we have done
with cell phones. The Technology Committee will need to discuss
how best to deal with Glass wearers in our population.
As the Director, you will have the final
decision about the role that Google Glass should play at our institution. This is a powerful technology that may have
great benefits, but will also have great risks.
Since Glass is still in beta phase, the best recommendation may be to
wait and see what the impact of Glass will actually be instead of relying on
internet speculation. The Technology
Committee will consult with other libraries that have Glass wearers on staff to
find out what their experience has been with this device. The
version of Glass that is finally released may have significant differences from
the device that is currently being tested.
Let us weigh the benefits and drawbacks of Glass,
References
Arapaho Libraries
(2013) Arapaho libraries website.
Retrieved from:http://arapahoelibraries.org/googleglass
on November 23, 2013.
Bregman,
P.(2010). How and why to stop multi-tasking. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from: http://blogs.hbr.org/2010/05/how-and-why-to-stop-multitaski/ on November 23, 2013.
Doyle, M. (2013).
How Google Glass is now being used in surgery. Forbes. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ptc/2013/11/05/how-google-glass-is-now-being-used-during-surgery/
on November 24, 2013.
Epstein, Su
(2013). A Google Glass future. Public
Libraries Online. Retrieved from: http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2013/11/a-google-glass-future/
on November 23, 2014.
Houghton, S. (2013).
Google Glass: Release date, news and features. Tech radar.AV. Retrieved from:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/video/google-glass-what-you-need-to-know-1078114 on November 23, 2013.
Kwikboost (2013).
Google Glass in the classroom: A transformational trend? Retrieved from:http://www.kwikboost.com/google-glass-in-the-classroom/ on November 24, 2013.
Liedtke,M. (2013)
Google Glass: Spectacle-like, but impresses. Denver Post. Retrieved from:
http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_23825644/google-glass-spectacle-like-but-impresses-review on November 23, 2013
Ophir,E. et al
(2009). Cognitive control in media multi-taskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.09036206.
Rompay, T. et al
(2009). The eye of the camera: effects of security cameras on pro-social
behavior. Environment and Behavior,
41(1), 60-74. doi: 10.1177/0013916507309996.
Stephens, M.
(2013) News: Jen Waller, Miami Ohio librarian and Google Glass. Tame the web. Retrieved from: http://tametheweb.com/2013/10/06/news-jen-waller-miami-ohio-librarian-and-google-glass/
on November 23, 2013.
Sundem, G. (2012). This is your brain on
multi-tasking. Psychology Today.
Retrieved from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-trust/201202/is-your-brain-multitasking on November 23, 2013.
Titlow, J.
(2013). 10 compelling ways people plan
to use Google Glass. Read Write.com. Retrieved from: http://readwrite.com/2013/03/07/10-compelling-ways-people-plan-to-use-google-glass#awesm=~oo9AUTXa3yPp1e
on November 23, 2013.
Tween Tribune
(2013). Are Google glasses worth $1500? Retrieved from: http://tweentribune.com/tween78/are-google-glasses-worth-1500 on November 23, 2013.
Wang, R. (2013)
Wireless radiation from Google Glass: Is there a risk? Pong. Retrieved from: https://www.pongcase.com/blog/wireless-radiation-google-glass-risk on November 23, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment