Tutorial Targets Review

• ·         Charles Arthur( Gurdian) VS apple watch

this have been completed I have also looked at additional articles from the metro in regards to the first case of “Google glass addiction”

• ·         Rory Cellan jones (BBC)- glorious failure

I have looked at this articles as well as other that look at what had made Google glass not be as successful as anticipated.

For one thing, he warned men that Google Glass will do nothing for their sex appeal.

“When you look at the appeal of Google Glass … would you wear it on a date? Probably not. And, if you did, you probably wouldn’t get a second date,"

• ·         privacy issues - research NSA , wiki leaks

National security has been something that I have spoken about as well as terrorism. NSA still needs to be done

Dave Meinert, who runs the 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, said those wearing the spectacles will have to remove them if they want to come in.

He has put up a sign on the wall which reads: ‘Respect our customers’ privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours.’

The move comes after it emerged people wearing Google Glass could be banned from American cinemas, casinos and even parks because owners don’t want filming there.

The glasses, which cost $1,500 a pair (£980), are currently on limited release to 2,000 customers but will be more widely available later this year.

A camera next to the wearer’s eye, which can take photos or record video without a red light or a shutter sound to tell others that it is working, has caused concerns for privacy.

Casinos said the futuristic eyewear could help cheaters to win unfairly and cinemas said they could be used to illegally record films and sell pirate copies.

Lap dance clubs said that they would treat those wearing the Internet-connected specs the same as anyone caught filming a stripper with a cameraphone - and would kick them out.

• ·         How does this effect society? e.g. the impact of the internet

what is moral panic ?

An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/

Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.

First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!

“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.

TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.

This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.

Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)

But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.

Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.

Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.

For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.

But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.

the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.

• space
• time
• social relations 

however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.

http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo 

"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.

Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.

It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.

While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.

Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."

Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet 

Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.

In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.

The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates

Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.

• ·         always being online

This again links to national security as well as privacy concerns

• ·         What impact will this have on society? e.g. privacy

Again this links to moral panic and interlinks with people not understanding

• ·         Economic- power of tech companies , value , revenue/profit

Still needs to be done

• ·         political-privacy, everyday interactions , need for legislation - examples privacy

this have also been covered

• ·         moral panic- research - link to new tech examples

 what is moral panic ?

An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/

Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.

First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!

“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.

TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.

This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.

Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)

But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.

Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.

Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.

For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.

But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.

the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.

• space
• time
• social relations 

however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.

http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo 

"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.

Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.

It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.

While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.

Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."

Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet 

Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.

In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.

The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates

Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.

• ·         audience theories- Uses and gratifications and internet addiction

• ·         Film - enemy of the state

primary text-enemy of the state

http://www.slashgear.com/minority-report-reality-london-police-test-precrime-software-30353166/

Accenture's policing and public safety business, "was to provide MPS with an unprecedented level of insight and intelligence to help them continue to reduce gang-related crimes in the city."

With analytics information in hand, the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was able to assess the likelihood of known individuals re-offending.

Minority report is an example of how that even in 1998 the amount of power that government agencies such as FBI already had and how technology such as CCTV and hacking was used in order to attempt to cover up a murder.

Minority reinforces the fact that information we have can be dangerous not only for citizens but also for the large corporations.

Within minority report it shows how Ex-FBI agent is able to use his knowledge and experience in order to protect himself and was able to live under the “radar”. This therefore suggests that it is possible to be able to live under the radar away from government agencies.

I’Robot is an example of how technology can become so powerful and then we the human lay our protection on technology that is able to take advantage of what it is asked to do thus protecting the “creator”

I’robot shows that it is important to ensure that technology does not become something that everybody and everything is relied on. Through the film I am able to see that technology becomes the centre and that it is due to technology having too much power and control that created chaos.

• ·         check the guardian news on Google glass

what is moral panic ?

An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/

Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.

First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!

“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.

TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.

This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.

Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)

But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.

Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.

Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.

For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.

But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.

the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.

• space
• time
• social relations 

however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.

http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo 

"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.

Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.

It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.

While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.

Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."

Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet 

Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.

In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.

The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates

Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.

• ·         Academic- tech effects on society.

      Media imperialism- the reason i believe this connects is because Google is using technology such as Google glass for surveillance amongst society. it allows sensitive information that would not be able to be found with previous types of research method in order to find information that would can be used by third party companies. it also can also be used against society my people and be used to suppress people. although media imperialism is aimed at weaker countries it can be argued that Google is a puppet used by larger organisation such as FBI in order to find information about society which i believe to be the equivalent of weaker countries.

Notes & Quotes

primary text-minority report 

http://www.slashgear.com/minority-report-reality-london-police-test-precrime-software-30353166/

Accenture's policing and public safety business, "was to provide MPS with an unprecedented level of insight and intelligence to help them continue to reduce gang-related crimes in the city."

With analytics information in hand, the London Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was able to assess the likelihood of known individuals re-offending.

Minority report is an example of how that even in 1998 the amount of power that government agencies such as FBI already had and how technology such as CCTV and hacking was used in order to attempt to cover up a murder.

Minority reinforces the fact that information we have can be dangerous not only for citizens but also for the large corporations.

Within minority report it shows how Ex-FBI agent is able to use his knowledge and experience in order to protect himself and was able to live under the “radar”. This therefore suggests that it is possible to be able to live under the radar away from government agencies.

I’Robot is an example of how technology can become so powerful and then we the human lay our protection on technology that is able to take advantage of what it is asked to do thus protecting the “creator”

I’robot shows that it is important to ensure that technology does not become something that everybody and everything is relied on. Through the film I am able to see that technology becomes the centre and that it is due to technology having too much power and control that created chaos.

http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/167230-privacy-and-google-glass/fulltext

he second perspective I'll use for thinking about Google Glass and privacy is that of expectations.

One of my favorite papers about expectations is by Leysia Palen, an HCI researcher at University of Colorado, Boulder. In 2000, Palen presented a paper at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work conference looking at the behaviors and practices of new mobile phone users (PDF). One finding was that these new users were not particularly good at predicting what their own attitudes and behaviors would be a month after getting their first mobile phone. For example, before they got their mobile phone, many participants reported being annoyed at people who used their mobile phones while driving or for casual chat in public places like restaurants and movies. However, just a few weeks later, many of the participants were exhibiting those same behaviors. Another interesting finding was that participants who had more exposure to mobile phones through friends or colleagues were better at predicting how they would be using phones.

Many other technologies have faced similar changes in expectations over time. Warren and Brandeis' famous definition of privacy as "the right to be let alone" came about in part because new cameras in the late 19th century made it possible to take photographs in just several seconds, invading "the sacred precincts of private and domestic life." Kodak cameras fared no better on the privacy front in its early days:

The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."

Similarly, in the book America Calling, sociologist Claude Fischer documented the social history of the telephone. In one of my favorite passages, Fischer observed that at first, many people actually objected to having landline phones in their homes, because it

"permitted intrusion... by solicitors, purveyors of inferior music, eavesdropping operators, and even wire-transmitted germs."

http://www.businessinsider.com/hp-exec-google-glass-not-sexy-2014-10



http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-30/news/55595454_1_google-glass-the-glass-patient

• SAP has a built an app called 'We Care' for the hospital, which connects the Google Glass with the hospital information system, and all data recorded on the Google Glass can be automatically be stored in the system. Doctors can also pull out various reports about the patient by just tapping on the Glass and instead of scribbling notes in a piece of paper, they can just talk to the Glass, which will type in all the notes for them.

• This remarkable app has the potential to bring patient care to new heights," said Mukesh Jain, CIO at the 345-bed, multi-specialty hospital. "SAP has blended perfectly with We Care solution smooth clinical workflow and the smartphone hands-free format of smart glasses for the potential use of any physician anywhere." Reliance is looking at applying Google Glass in emergency care to start with. When the patient is brought in, the trauma doctor who would be attending to the patient first would have a Google Glass and would be able to look up the patient's past records and also collaborate with other departments as when the patient is brought in.

• Usually in the healthcare environment, it is only the patient who is stationary—everything else is mobile," said Andy David, Health care Director, SAP APJ. "With the help of the Google Glass, doctors can attend to multiple patients, engage with them and see almost twice as many patients during the rounds. Doctors can take accurate notes on the Google Glass itself.

• The data is stored automatically and can be accessed when required." The We Care application, which was designed completely in India by SAP India Labs, could soon turn into a product that will be available to any hospital worldwide. The Reliance hospital is so far the first one to implement it globally.

• these are all examples of how Google Glasss Specifically has helped doctors along with software that has allowed the new technology to be used in everyday life from surgery to seeing what symptoms correspond to which illness. this is an example of also how Google Glass is using sensitive data in regards people. 
  
  

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-glass-could-save-kfc-millions-2014-10

When wearing Google Glass, employees would see a series of on-screen prompts giving them step-by-step directions for tasks like making a sandwich, shutting down a fryer, or closing a store for the night. this is another exmaple of how google glass has been used as a form of training in the fast food environment, it it ultimatley cheaper as videos can be created and played back while making the food. by doing so it means that head offices are able to send up to date information but it also means that a step to step guide on how to make the food product which leads to consistency

the video talks about the fact that TV,s Ipad's and laptop use facial recognition and therefore is a concern if products are hacked.

databases are being created without knowledge for example Facebook, to help with tagging. is it enough of a reason for you to give up your privacy?

supermarkets planning to buy the rights to this so then they know who enters a store for marketing and other reasons.

googles glass has been seen as intrusive, and that pictures and videos being taken at any time is danger by users but also by google. 

http://glass-apps.org/drivesafe4glass-google-glass-app

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2480521/Woman-gets-ticketed-San-Diego-wearing-Google-Glasses-driving.html

in 2013 during the early release of google glass for developer the first “crime” had taken place, a women was pulled over by police when the women was fined for using the glass. the passenger was initially pulled over due to speeding but however after being pull over the women was fined for using the google glass. the women from San Diego was fined for the glass once the police had seen it, the law states that drivers are prohibited from having a television receiver and video monitor.

However developers are no creating applications in order to enhance the driving experience by improving road safety. The app “DriveSafe4Glass” was the first apps that was trialled on the glass and was considered the “stepping stone” in to road safety. This is due to the app being able to track eye movement and ensure that the driver does not fall asleep. Google has integrated google maps in to the glass by allowing users to be able to see maps on the go, however there are arguments that this is a distraction and then it can lead to accidents. Other information has shown this to be beneficial as it can allow for turn by turn directions show speed limits and be able to show exits more clearly other devices.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2825131/Check-times-cut-Virgin-Atlantic-extend-trial-Google-Glass-scan-passports-provide-flight-information.html

virgin Atlantic trailed  google glass in February at Heathrow Airport, which has shown to be a great success. Staff also used smartwatches to greet passengers and give information on flights and any delays that may have encountered. Edinburgh Airport became the first to issue its staff with smart glasses, this had shown to be very successful and beneficial as queues reduced and therefore meant that customers were more satisfied.

David Bulman, chief information officer, said: 'We are going to start with Google Glass, but we are trialling a number of different glasses.

'We're trialling apps that allow staff to take a picture of your passport, which then works with our systems to find your booking and other information.

'We have done trials with printers that sit on people's belts, so that we can print off boarding passes.'

This is an example of how google glass has helped during immigration in order to reduce queues not only during check in but also at immigration. It also helped in order to translate languages for customers and ensure that all needs were met, it was also tried as a form of training to provide virtual reality in order to train staff which would be more cost effective.

https://ctovision.com/2014/01/google-glass-national-security-missions/

google glass and national security- a video was posted by Bob Gourley who talks about the concerns that he feels that google glass had created,  coded messages could become dangerous as it means that it can allow for encrypted messages to be sent which would be a national security concern. Another issues is in regards to facial recognition as this can lead to identity theft as well as being able to find information about people for example social networking information of a person can e found. It can also allow for virtual blueprint which could lead to terrorism concerns, as this could show vulnerabilities of building and entrances that are not known to the public. 



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2331231/Google-Glass-eye-wear-potentially-dangerous-stop-users-seeing-utterly-obvious.html

Google's Glass 'eye wear' could be potentially dangerous, leading professors have warned. 

The revolutionary 'wearable computer' could disrupt crucial cognitive capacity and distract wearers to the point where they miss things which are 'utterly obvious', they say. 

Daniel J. Simons, is a professor of psychology and advertising at the University of Illinois and Christopher F. Chabris, is a professor of psychology at Union College. 

Google Glass is a wearable computer with a head mounted display. It can connect with the internet via voice command and display information on the glass 'screens'.

In a piece for the New York Times, the two experts examine the dangers the real-time digital distraction could pose. 

They write: '...most agree that a smartphone-linked display and camera placed in the corner of your vision is intriguing and potentially revolutionary — and like us, they want to try it. 

'But Glass may inadvertently disrupt a crucial cognitive capacity, with potentially dangerous consequences.'

Earlier this year Sergey Brin, one of Google’s founders, said safety had actually been a motivation for the new product. 

He said: 'We questioned whether you should be walking around looking down at a smartphone.' 

He said designers wanted to make something that freed both the hands and the eyes. 

But the professors say when the mind is engaged, wearers could fail to see something that would 'otherwise be utterly obvious.'

They write: 'Google Glass may allow users to do amazing things, but it does not abolish the limits on the human ability to pay attention.'

Google is already facing a growing backlash over its ‘Glass’ eyewear, with cafe owners in the US banning the technology from their premises.

Dave Meinert, who runs the 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, said those wearing the spectacles will have to remove them if they want to come in.

He has put up a sign on the wall which reads: ‘Respect our customers’ privacy as we’d expect them to respect yours.’

The move comes after it emerged people wearing Google Glass could be banned from American cinemas, casinos and even parks because owners don’t want filming there.

The glasses, which cost $1,500 a pair (£980), are currently on limited release to 2,000 customers but will be more widely available later this year.

A camera next to the wearer’s eye, which can take photos or record video without a red light or a shutter sound to tell others that it is working, has caused concerns for privacy.

Casinos said the futuristic eyewear could help cheaters to win unfairly and cinemas said they could be used to illegally record films and sell pirate copies.

Lap dance clubs said that they would treat those wearing the Internet-connected specs the same as anyone caught filming a stripper with a cameraphone - and would kick them out.



what is moral panic ?

An instance of public anxiety or alarm in response to a problem regarded as threatening the moral standards of society(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral-panic)

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/st_opinion/

Genevieve Bell believes she’s cracked this puzzle. Bell, director of interaction and experience research at Intel, has long studied how everyday people incorporate new tech into their lives. In a 2011 interview with The Wall Street Journal‘s Tech Europe blog, she outlined an interesting argument: To provoke moral panic, a technology must satisfy three rules.

First, it has to change our relationship to time. Then it has to change our relationship to space. And, crucially, it has to change our relationship to one another. Individually, each of these transformations can be unsettling, but if you hit all three? Panic!

“How many times have we heard, ‘It’s the end of the American small town,’ ‘It’s the end of the American family,’ and ‘Oh, the young people of today’?” Bell asks.

TO PROVOKE MORAL PANIC, A TECHNOLOGY MUST SATISFY THREE RULES.

This cycle is very old. Indeed, it probably began almost 2,500 years ago, when the written word was on its way to unmooring knowledge from space and time and letting new combinations of people “speak” to one another. This satisfied all three rules—and it panicked Socrates, who warned that writing would destroy human memory and destroy the art of argument.

Socrates hadn’t seen anything yet, because the past 100 years or so have been a nearly nonstop spree of innovation and panic. Consider the telephone, which suddenly enabled us to talk across great spaces and at nearly any time to almost anyone. In a precursor to today’s social-media scares, pundits predicted it would kill face-to-face socializing. Mark Twain mocked the presumed triviality and disjointedness of telephonic conversation between women. (Oh, and about women: As Bell notes, you can reliably spot a moral panic when critics start muttering about the impact on ladies and delicate youth.)

But technologies that didn’t change all three things went mostly unprotested. The fax machine? It changed space and time, sure, but not social relations—so not many people lost their marbles over it, as Bell notes. I think the same explains the reaction to Square today.

Now, this is not to say the panics are always misguided. Centralized social networking really does create privacy problems; cyberpredation does occur, if rarely. But the bigger problem with panic-mongers is their insistence that each technological past was a golden age of civility and contemplation, when it was no such thing. And hilariously, many now rhapsodize nostalgically over tools that themselves were once demonized—as with modern complaints that the interwebs are killing that emotionally vibrant interaction, the telephone call.

Now, here’s the useful part: We can use Bell’s laws to deduce which new tools will provoke hand-wringing.

For example, I suspect geolocation, social book-reading, and the “Internet of things”—personal objects that talk to us and each other online—will all provoke widespread flip-outs. They all tinker with our sense of time, space, and one another. Indeed, they can even start to make me hyperventilate a little bit, as I ponder how governments and corporations will abuse them.

But I calm myself knowing that, like the Cassandras of the past, I’m wrong to panic.

the articles talks about how technology has no effect on the audience that use them but rather is based upon 3 rules that effect a people and therefore create moral panic.

• space
• time
• social relations 

however although these are three factors that contribute in order to create a techno panic a minimum of two are applied before techno panic can occur. for example Google glass applies to both space and time as well as social relations the reason for this is because it allows data as well as information to be sent over a distance as well well in a short time time but social relations is one of the biggest issues with people using emotions more and more people can read emotions effectively as they once could. application have been developed in order to understand emotions of an individual this can help those who are disabled but also help people on a general basis however its arguable that the app was created due to people not being able to read emotions.

http://www.zdnet.com/photos-top-10-technology-induced-moral-panics-3040154616/#photo 

"As part of a series of articles exploring the effect of IT on society, silicon.com examined humanity's fear of technology. In the last of the series, Natasha Lomas traces the history of technology-inspired moral panics.

Technology brings many things to our lives - superfast computations, downloadable apps, the perfect slice of toast.

It is, however, a change agent - and change makes a lot of people uneasy. Emerging technologies may be bursting with benefits but all too often they're overshadowed by neophobia: the fear of something new.

While modern technology - be it video games, social networking or even the internet itself - generates screeds of hand-wringing headlines accusing it of corrupting society each year, such fears are by no means new.

Almost from its very first instances, technology has inspired moral panics. Here, we take a look back at the history of technophobia."

Moral panic is something that has occurred with many significant point in history for example with the alphabet 

Greek philosopher Socrates saw the advent of the written word as a massive threat to society - he feared it would undermine the oral culture of the time. Writing, Socrates argued, would "introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it", degrading humans' capacity to remember. He also feared writing would give students the appearance of wisdom without the actuality of intellect.

In Socrates' view, true knowledge could only be obtained through discourse - actual verbal dialogue between speakers - thus writing's mute marks were dumb in both senses, incapable of teaching humanity anything.

The internet is another example that has revolutionised the way the world now operates

Today's popular concerns include the amorphous fear that the internet somehow rots your brain. The internet is apparently destroying our ability to contemplate the deep and serious issues of the day. As a result of exposure to so much data, we're now mental channel-hoppers, only capable of laughing at cat videos and writing inane comments on YouTube.

Other fears attached to the web are that having access to so many distractions at every digital twist and turn is ruining our ability to concentrate, making us a distracted generation too, possessed of the mental longevity of goldfish.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080711/0218421649.shtml

"Recently I wrote about a dreadful article in USA Today hyping up the "oh-no-think-of-the-children problem" of predators using console games to seek out kids. This followed similarly bogus news articles hyping up the threats of predators on social networks. Yet, all the "panic" raised by those articles has politicians practically shoving each other aside to introduce legislation against those social networks, or just various Attorneys General threatening those social networks without any evidence that there's a significant problem, other than a few totally hyped up news articles. "

Media imperialism- the reason i believe this connects is because Google is using technology such as Google glass for surveillance amongst society. it allows sensitive information that would not be able to be found with previous types of research method in order to find information that would can be used by third party companies. it also can also be used against society my people and be used to suppress people. although media imperialism is aimed at weaker countries it can be argued that Google is a puppet used by larger organisation such as FBI in order to find information about society which i believe to be the equivalent of weaker countries.

Ownership and control- this connects to my topic because it can be seen that although Google are providing a product, it can be argued that the product is controlled by Google and although paid for by the customer the product and its functionality is controlled and regulated by Google. For instance Google glass can be accessed and controlled by Google, suggesting that Google has the control of audiences and technology.

Media Magazine issue 43

Media imperialism- the reason i believe this connects is because Google is using technology such as Google glass for surveillance amongst society. it allows sensitive information that would not be able to be found with previous types of research method in order to find information that would can be used by third party companies. it also can also be used against society my people and be used to suppress people. although media imperialism is aimed at weaker countries it can be argued that Google is a puppet used by larger organisation such as FBI in order to find information about society which i believe to be the equivalent of weaker countries.

Institution (I) 

The video is produced by a consumer of the product, from the time of the video it is evident that that the creator/ user is a developer. The reason of this is because it was uploaded on to your YouTube by the account “nikky shah” this therefore suggests that this is an independent review/ overview of Google Glass therefore it is arguable that it is a non-bias video and is there for the public to be informative.

Genre (G)

The genre of the video is an example of a mixture of genres such as a short documentary and but also an example of a vlog. The reason for this is because it shows an in-depth view of the features of Google however it is applied to real life scenarios.

Representation (R)

In the video google glass is being represented as a tool that Is used in someone daily life showing how Google Glass can enhance daily routines therefore representing Google in a positive way, the video uses a female in the video which suggests this could be done to attract a male audience. the video shows a some what true representation of event tats may take place however due it being a video it may not operate as easily as shown nor as effectively

Audience (A)
the audience for this would be people who are 24 and above the reason for this is due to the cost but also it a type of product that would be aimed at people who may have a large disposable income in high job roles. the target audience is aimed at anyone and everyone the videos have a different person every time which suggests that google is saying the it is for everyone. the narrative of the story is linear it starts from the morning and ending at night. the females used in the video may have been used in order to target more males but also a female may have been used as a form personal idenity with women wanting to be like the person in the video

Ideology & Values (I)
the aim of the video is to inform audiences about the new technology and what it can do for them. it allows the audience to be able to relate by showing how the product can be used in Everyday life. a range of events are shown suggesting that Google are trying to target a range of customers but also those with a busy lifestyle.

Narrative (N)

the narrative is a linear narrative as it goes in order from the time the women wakes up to when the women goes sleep.

Media Language (M)

what techniques are being used to make meaning in the text?

semiotics: non-verbal codes, denotation/connotaton

cinematography, camerawork: composition, framing, BCU, CU, MS, LS, pan, tilt, tracking shot, zoom,

mise-en-scene: clothing, props, gestures, facial expressions, sets, setting

lighting: key light, back light, filler light; underlighting, top lighting, back lighting; low-key/high-key lighting

sound: diegetic/non-diegetic; sound bridge; parallel/contrapuntal sound, voiceover narration

editing: continuity editing, jump cut, dissolve, wipe, fade in/out, cross-cutting, paralleling, cutaways, montage

canned laughter, subliminal shots

Institution (I)

the institution is google the video was uploaded by google before the developer glasses were gien out which suggests that these were some of the first videos that were created in order to show people what is coming but also to give developers a idea of what they may be able to do. 

Genre (G)

The genre of the video is an example of a mixture of genres such as a short documentary and but also an example of a vlog. The reason for this is because it shows an in-depth view of the features of Google however it is applied to real life scenarios.

Representation (R)

in the video the a range of people of all ages are colours are shown doing different activities this suggests that Google are showing a fair and realistic representation of society. 

the audience for this would be people who are 24 and above the reason for this is due to the cost but also it a type of product that would be aimed at people who may have a large disposable income in high job roles. the target audience is aimed at anyone and everyone the videos have a different person every time which suggests that google is saying the it is for everyone. the narrative of the story is linear it starts from the morning and ending at night. the females used in the video may have been used in order to target more males but also a female may have been used as a form personal idenity with women wanting to be like the person in the video

Ideology & Values (I)

the aim of the video is to inform audiences about the new technology and what it can do for them. it allows the audience to be able to relate by showing how the product can be used in Everyday life. a range of events are shown suggesting that Google are trying to target a range of customers but also those with a busy lifestyle.

Narrative (N)

the narrative is a multi-strand narrative as it is based on several stories rather then focused on one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-google-glass-is-creepy/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60d578f8-9358-11e3-b07c-00144feab7de.html#axzz3NnSIwmHX