×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

How I Lost My Google Glass (and Regained Some Faith In Humanity)

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the like-a-phone-for-your-face dept.

Google 124

Nerval's Lobster writes "The winter weather made my hands numb. I was distracted, rushed, running late to a meeting. Put those two things together, and it's a recipe for disaster,' Boonsri Dickinson writes in her account of how she lost her Google Glass unit. 'The cab had already gone two blocks before I realized my Google Glass was no longer in my hand. I asked the driver to swing back around to where he picked me up; I retraced my steps along the snowy street to my apartment, looking for my $1,500 device. No luck. Total panic.' The device featured photos, video, email, and other data that, in the wrong hands, could seriously upend her life. Fortunately, the person who found the Glass unit was a.) more interested in returning the device than wrecking her existence, and b.) engaged in quite a bit of digital detective work to track her down (with some help from Google). 'The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy, and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search,' she concluded. But the saga also reset some of her faith in humanity."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

BuzzDot...I mean SlashFeed, I mean UpNerds (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228461)

I see dice is hiring the same 'writers' that work at those new bastions of internet journalism.

This article has not restored my faith in Slashdot

Re:BuzzDot...I mean SlashFeed, I mean UpNerds (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 9 months ago | (#46228979)

"The device featured photos, video, email, and other data that, in the wrong hands, could seriously upend her life."

IOW Selfie Porn.

Re:BuzzDot...I mean SlashFeed, I mean UpNerds (3, Interesting)

shadowrat (1069614) | about 9 months ago | (#46231849)

yeah. she writes as though she has the impression that the guy was so altruistic returning her glass. Really, he probably saw it belonged to some cute chick and probably thought he might get some action for helping her.

Re:BuzzDot...I mean SlashFeed, I mean UpNerds (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 9 months ago | (#46232449)

This article has not restored my faith in Slashdot

It's beta than eva!

Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228467)

a -1 Glasshole opportunity lost.

Re:Too bad... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228989)

honestly. when I saw the headline "how i lost my google glass and regained some faith in humanity" I assumed it was about a person who lost his/her google glass and came to his/her senses about how awful it is to wear those everywhere.

Re:Too bad... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#46229081)

honestly. when I saw the headline "how i lost my google glass and regained some faith in humanity" I assumed it was about a person who lost his/her google glass and came to his/her senses about how awful it is to wear those everywhere.

I thought so too.

but it was more like a story of "omg I lost my phone and got it back" - which would have been amazing tbh(chances of getting a google glass back are far higher than an iphone, because it's so exotic still).

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230463)

Me too...I was disappointed to read the summary and then go back to the headline and realize that, yes, they had included the words 'faith in'. It would be a much better story without those two words.

Re: Too bad... (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 9 months ago | (#46231633)

I thought the same, disappointed to read story is no different from someone losing their phone. Faith in slashdot diminishing

Glasshole concered about invasion of Privacy? (0, Troll)

josephtd (817237) | about 9 months ago | (#46228517)

What's the next article theme? NSA concerned foreign governments may be spying on Americans?

Re:Glasshole concered about invasion of Privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228587)

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the israelis are ahead of, in the middle of, and behind the atrocious privacy violations we read about in the press, attributed to the NSA?
I protest, they (israeli government) "may or may not" have been hoarding WMD for the last 40 friggin years! heck they even say you can "clearly see in great detail" the DIMONA NUCLEAR PLANT from the side of the public road (no stopping, nothing to see here) with your field-glasses.

Re:Glasshole concered about invasion of Privacy? (0)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 9 months ago | (#46229323)

Actually I'd be worried about any government that wasn't spying on all the others.

Re:Glasshole concered about invasion of Privacy? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 9 months ago | (#46230415)

Then you must live in a state of bliss.

Re:Glasshole concered about invasion of Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230223)

Hey, Glasshole,
glued to a screen once fifty feet away,
now inching its way into your intimate space,
one day you'll line up around the retail base,
a Trojan app thrust behind your guileless face.

You trade it for pixels, electronic beads,
now civilization owns every one of your needs,
foreclosed your imagination and turned into a gamer,
trapped your mind in an operant conditioning chamber,
stand by, you've been marked for permanent relocation,
take your meds, you're off to the synaptic reservation.

Just ask yourself (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 9 months ago | (#46228521)

Would you bring somebody else's camera into your own house?

Re:Just ask yourself (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228765)

I don't take peoples phones off them when they enter. Do you?

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228879)

Do they take their phone out and capture video while there?

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 9 months ago | (#46229287)

If they pull it out and start taking video without permission, they leave quickly.

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229649)

I just don't get this concern.

If this is someone you know - why are your friends such an assholes to photo what they shouldn't, or why are you such an asshole to kick your friends out when they don't photo anything of importance?

If this is someone you don't know - why the hell would they want to photo your shitty apartments? (only plausible version I heard is "But what if they want to rob me!" - but it doesn't hold water, unless you also blindfold them so they won't see your valuables)

Seriously, most of Glass threads are pure paranoia, starting with assumption that it takes video of everyone nonstop, that it puts everything online for whole world to see and that you're somehow incredibly fascinating for people to want to shoot videos of you all the time for no good reason.

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#46228849)

You do it all the time. your cellphone's camera is not yours.
Nither is your laptops.

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46229001)

true but it's not pointed at you all the time. don't you get it? if a person came to my home and was pointing his cell phone at me all the time and refused to stop I would escort him to the door.

Re:Just ask yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230227)

That's because you're emulating celebrities (the aristocracy). You've been socially trained that it's cool to react angrily to cameras.
This social barrier is what holds us back from recording police 24/7.

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 9 months ago | (#46230573)

And you're supporting the Orwellian idea that we should want cameras pointed at us 24/7, and never have a negative reaction to it.

Re:Just ask yourself (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 9 months ago | (#46231337)

I have no issue with recording the police nor having the police record all they do. They are in a special position to infringe on other's people's rights and are confrontational in doing so. Having that recorded protects them as well as those they interact with. Now recording regular people 24/7? Yes, I'm 100% against that occurring against the subject's wishes.

To be on topic - the funniest quote was the glass owner's worries about invasion of privacy. Maybe she'll think twice about wearing it all the time now.

Privacy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228525)

...The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy...

Funny how your only worried about your privacy here...

Re:Privacy? (1, Informative)

Jhon (241832) | about 9 months ago | (#46228561)

What she sees is her privacy. If she sees you, that's not your privacy.

You may consider your anonymity at stake, but not your privacy.

Re:Privacy? (4, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | about 9 months ago | (#46228581)

She saw me naked and tied to the bed, you insensitive clod.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228917)

And then I'm sure she abruptly left the room cursing the incompetent hotel desk staff.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229487)

I presume you don't like playing "hotelroom-roulette" very much.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229749)

Not in any hotel that StripedCow is staying.

Re:Privacy? (2)

zazzel (98233) | about 9 months ago | (#46230295)

If she sees me and she (or the thief) shares it online, it *is* an invasion of my privacy. And that's why I am opposed to Google Glass. If I sit in a restaurant, that is a private venue, not a public place. So turn off your f*cking Google Glass, or I will. There is a fundamental difference between seeing me somewhere, and saving imagery of seeing me somewhere.

You might find that if you used GG here in Germany, you might find yourself confronted with a lawsuit.

Re:Privacy? (1)

swv3752 (187722) | about 9 months ago | (#46231643)

No, it is not. Unless the restaurant is closed for a private gathering it is a public place.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46232187)

No, it is not a public place, it is a place that allows access to the public. Its is also a place that can deny access to members of the public if it so chooses. Two very different things.

Re:Privacy? (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 9 months ago | (#46231791)

"If she sees me and she (or the thief) shares it online, it *is* an invasion of my privacy. "

It is not intrinsically an invasion of your privacy. If it were in a place where you can ASSUME privacy (such as a restroom), then yes. But if it's an open, public place it is NOT an invasion of your PRIVACY.

In the US, we are allowed to videotape or photograph anything or anyone in public space. Private properties may prohibit it -- and if it "leaked" out due to a theft of photos or device you STILL wouldn't have had your "privacy" violated -- the owner of the private property would have.

"You might find that if you used GG here in Germany, you might find yourself confronted with a lawsuit."

The event didn't happen in Germany. It happened in the US. US law applies. This really isn't complicated.

Re:Privacy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228637)

This tastes like an advert, but maybe it's just a way of currying favour with Google. Anyway, I've also found expensive stuff lying on the ground, including significant sums of money, and I've always found the owner (if contactable) or reported to the police. Maybe it's because I'm not in the US, but here this just seems like the right thing to do. It's actually been profitable, too, since some things aren't claimed, so end up being legally mine.

This person is worried about their privacy YET access to their life's data to one company. They're worried about their privacy YET filming everyone around them. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. But most humans, no matter how much logic they're capable of, are excellent at putting logic aside when it suits their drives (this would have to be so: there is not even a reason to live beyond, "I feel like it.")

Re:Privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228857)

Mod up. I have no points.

Re:Privacy? (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 9 months ago | (#46228913)

Exactly. This is the part that made me laugh out loud:

and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search

Yet you trust them in the first place to the point where you actually use Glass? Priceless.

Re:Privacy? (3, Informative)

chronoglass (1353185) | about 9 months ago | (#46229369)

it's also showing a serious misunderstanding of how glass works.. it gets connected via bluetooth (for data) or wifi (for data). the images/searches/whatever go to google first.. then get dropped back to your phone via the magic of "the cloud".

they are already cached forever in google search, and available online.. blocked only by your privacy settings on g+

I suppose if you only ever used it as a bad go pro, you could in theory get away with not having the uploading "feature" there and just pull everything via USB.. but you'd have to disable bluetooth and wifi.. which means, again, all it is... is a bad camera.

I am an explorer, and have been wearing the thing for 3 months now. While an interesting self study, I haven't found a huge amount of usefulness out of it yet. Maybe it will run /. beta?

Re:Privacy? (4, Insightful)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 9 months ago | (#46229557)

"Maybe it's because I'm not in the US, but here this just seems like the right thing to do. It's actually been profitable, too, since some things aren't claimed, so end up being legally mine."

Oh come on. Its not like everyone in the US are a bunch of selfish, thieving jerks. There are people who are low-life jerks and there are people who are good people. I have had my phone returned to me, twice. The first time it was a goy in brooklyn who honestly looked like a gangbanger thug. He didn't ask for a dime and refused the 20 bucks i was giving him as a thankyou. The second time I dropped it in a cab in Atlantic City. I called my phone, he picked up and arranged to ship it back to me. A few days later the phone came in a padded envelope and he didn't ask for any money. I mailed back 40 bucks and a note telling him to treat himself to a nice lunch or whatever.

Of course there are crappy people all over, shockingly, outside of the US as well. I used to go to a bar where the bartender kept every thing he found someone had left behind. He was a piece of shit so that goes hand in hand with being a lousy thief.

Re:Privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230087)

Of course not everyone in the US is an ass, but culture does promote particular sorts of behaviour.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231539)

Oh come on. Its not like everyone in the US are a bunch of selfish, thieving jerks.

I dunno... your country seems to have divided itself into two major camps. Both camps seem to think the other are selfish thieving jerks.

There are a few out liners who take the third option (who keep telling themselves that they are the majority, yet they have yet to make a dent in the elections, maybe because at the same time they keep convincing themselves voting 3rd party doesn't work), but even amongst those, they think the Two Party drones are sheep being played, which isn't that much better than being selfish thieving jerks

Re:Privacy? (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 9 months ago | (#46231637)

You forgot about the large group of pedants.

There are a few out liners who take the third option...

The proper term is outliers.

And don't take US national elections as a measuring stick to the types of people that Americans are. There are many Americans that don't even vote.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231661)

Oh come on. Its not like everyone in the US are a bunch of selfish, thieving jerks.

Oh yes you are... http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4778829&cid=46218027 [slashdot.org]

The bad news is that the US has morally declined to the level of the rest of the world.

Re:Privacy? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46229633)

Her credit card information, e-mail, address, and various other bits are probably on glass. If you walked by her, your face is on glass, that's it. Apples and oranges. Very tiny oranges. I know it's fun to hate on google and glass, but lets keep criticisms fair and not get distracted from bigger privacy concerns such as the NSA or law enforcement cams everywhere.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230057)

should have emphasized 'YOUR' privacy ---- you stuck up, naive, bimbo..

[important to note, I am NOT attacking the commenter/poster, but the dumb bimbo in the article]

I would have done the same, trying to find the person and then gave it back without nosing thru the contents or her life, but after reading her idiotic rant, I would have known where to found her later on, then stole it from her, posting her "shockingly private" info on the internet. I say "shockingly private" with sarcasm because it seems she has a boring dull life, therefore probably nothing on her Google Glass for her to worry about.

Me Too! (5, Funny)

Akratist (1080775) | about 9 months ago | (#46228559)

I misplaced my cell phone the other day. It also upended my existence. Then, I found it and restored faith in myself. In other news, some bears crapped in the woods.

Humanity (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 months ago | (#46229793)

We often get too jaded from the news about the worst of humanity. Sure they are more then their fare share of bad people. However most people if given the opportunity will do the right thing, or at least something neutral.

Now if you found a pair of Google Glasses, would the first thing on your mind would be messing with the guys personal information, I mean he just lost an expensive device, messing with him will just add insult to injury. Secondly Google loves to track. How long do you think it will take for Google/Police to track you down, especially for a relatively rare device, which is expensive (aka Grand Theft).
If you did mess with the guy, how much more trouble would you be.

In short it is easier and safer to do the right thing than to be malicious.

Now if it was a Wallet with $1,500 in unmarked bills... That may be a different case, and would take a person with a strong/practiced morality to resist it.

Re:Humanity (2)

Akratist (1080775) | about 9 months ago | (#46230293)

You actually do make some good points, and I've found that the majority of people really aren't douches. My issue with the original post/story was that it seemed like this piece probably belonged somewhere else besides Slashdot. After all, most readers here live/breathe/eat tech on an insider level, to where we have a tech life, as opposed to a tech "lifestyle." We generally engineer the hardware and software that other people write about and use. The psychological dependence on tech, in that losing an item would be such a traumatic experience, is not something many of us necessarily identify with. Most people here are cognizant enough about the issues of security and trust that it really comes sense nature to use not to leave our data in a vulnerable state. At the most, we're reduced to the physical loss of the item, as opposed to feeling like we're losing control of our lifestyle because of it. Truthfully, I can see the same sort of connection with the anger over Beta -- Slashdot represents a very niche and unique perspective (again, people whose life, not lifestyle, is tech) and trying to alter that brings a great deal of discomfort because of what someone is trying to imply about us.

Bears polluting the woods? (2)

Dareth (47614) | about 9 months ago | (#46229955)

No, we must get a grant to study reusable cloth diapers for wild bears. They might resist at first, but with sufficient resources and some principles from attachment parenting, we could find a method to get this to work. Then all we would need is a grant to study the proper brand/supplier of these reusable diapers only to give the contract no bid to a company that dumps them in an illegal landfill in the woods.

Hopefully a lesson learned (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 9 months ago | (#46228603)

If you have data that may incriminate, embarrass or cause financial loss, then the proper place for said data is probably not on a device which is easily lost. If one of the primary purposes of an easily lost device is to collect and store data that may incriminate, embarrass or cause financial loss, than that device probably shouldn't exist.

Re:Hopefully a lesson learned (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 9 months ago | (#46228715)

You would think that a device you're supposed to wear as a pair of spectacles would be less loseable than a phone. If they're so inconvenient that you wind up carrying them around by hand instead of head and lose them, what's the point exactly?

Re:Hopefully a lesson learned (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 9 months ago | (#46228723)

...Devices such as smartphones, laptops, memory sticks and portable HDDs, to name a few. Also wallets.

The only thing you can learn from this... (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 9 months ago | (#46228615)

is that as soon as you lose a device, not only are you $200-$2000 out of pocket, but your life could easily be ruined by a nefarious passer-by who happened to find your lost gadget. No technology is private, stop deluding yourself.

Google Glass != privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228665)

>The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy

With Goolge in charge you can bet that this invasion of her privacy is nothing but possible.

A huge "Fuck you!" to the lucky owner of this devi (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228685)

You enjoy the benefits of commercialising other people's activities, without any consideration for their privacy, but as soon as your own is in danger you take a very different stance... You deserved to have every bit of info on the device made public.

Re:A huge "Fuck you!" to the lucky owner of this d (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229093)

the piece is by Boonsri Dickinson. her profile is here, along with a pic. it even shows her wearing her stupid glass.
http://slashdot.org/topic/auth... [slashdot.org]

Her bio includes "a leader in the DIY filmmaking movement", which means that she records people on the street with her glass and posts it online.

there are all sorts of channels for sharing your feedback on her piece directly. twitter would be the most fun, @boonsri #glasshole.

Google Glass or not (3, Informative)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 9 months ago | (#46228689)

"The device featured photos, video, email, and other data that, in the wrong hands, could seriously upend her life." She's carrying data around on a mobile device that could seriously upend her life? I don't even store that kind of data on my home laptop in the clear. It never ceases to amaze me that people store sensitive information unencrypted on small mobile device. One word: TrueCrypt.

Suppose you never wore them in the first place. (2)

jmd (14060) | about 9 months ago | (#46228707)

Then there would be no worry about your oh so precious life ending up online.

Talk about Knockout game.. (4, Interesting)

duckgod (2664193) | about 9 months ago | (#46228793)

Got an invite to purchase Google Glass last week. I was excited and had almost made the purchase before my coworker made the observation that if I wear them anywhere in downtown Rochester NY there is a good chance I will be mugged. I guess the moral of the story is until they make it not obvious that I am wearing $1500 on my head that this is probably an impractical accessory for anyone living where crime is at all prevalent.

Re:Talk about Knockout game.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46228963)

Only if people recognize it as a $1500 device.

One of our company offices got robbed recently. The thieves stole every Apple device they could find (ca. $3000 worth), but left all the more expensive non-Apple hardware (among them a dozen easily transportable Thinkpads, each more expensive than the single four years old Macbook Pro they got).

Re:Talk about Knockout game.. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 9 months ago | (#46229325)

It is a well known device and distinctive looking. It does not look like glasses.

Re:Talk about Knockout game.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229553)

What matters is how quickly they can move them on, not how much a professional would be willing to pay for the hardware.

Re: Talk about Knockout game.. (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 9 months ago | (#46229839)

Typically, professional thieves care about what they can unload the devices for and how easily/quickly they can, not the sticker price. That means Craigslist/EBay demand, for someone in the chain.

Glass is definitely a high target item being that it has been on the news, is in high demand, and is small/concealable.

Re: Talk about Knockout game.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231247)

There is also a very small supply, so if you're trying to offload a pair for $300 it's kind of obvious how you acquired them.

Re:Talk about Knockout game.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230003)

The thieves stole every Apple device they could find (ca. $3000 worth), but left all the more expensive non-Apple hardware (among them a dozen easily transportable Thinkpads, each more expensive than the single four years old Macbook Pro they got).

You need to think in their terms:

They stole every Apple device and got $200 cash that day, but left all the much less fenceable non-Apple hardware. Thinkpads? Ain't nobody got time for that.

This is News? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#46228825)

"Stupid Git Loses Thing, Good Samaritan Returns It" isn't really what I'd call front-page headline material... if it is, society is far more fucked than I previously believed.

OH, the 'thing' was Google Glass? Well, that changes everything, doesn't it?

Side note: If the person who found them "engaged in quite a bit of digital detective work to track [the stupid git] down," What gives her the impression they didn't clone everything on the device before handing it back over?

Re:This is News? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 9 months ago | (#46228943)

The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe, because regular people look up to them and worship them and wouldn't dream of depriving them of their glass.

Re:This is News? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#46229101)

The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe,

So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.

Re:This is News? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 9 months ago | (#46230267)

The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe,

So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.

More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?

And indeed it'd probably best for the rest of us if some of these people losing their Google Glass would indeed end up having all their embarrassing recordings on YouTube and other public Google services. Let them burn their hands. Let them be the perfect example of what can possibly go wrong with those things. Sure I do feel for the person who gets burnt - a little that is - it's also part of the risk of being a guinea pig.

Re:This is News? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#46231377)

The "news" is that glassholes' data is safe,

So she thinks. But there's no guarantee that the finder didn't plug it into his laptop and download a copy of all her data before beginning his search for the rightful owner.

More than likely the finder did just that - at least it's what I'd do for the simple reason that browsing media on my hard disk is so much faster than browsing it over a slow USB link from a slow SD-card or similar media. The real question would be, did he delete the data afterwards?

For me it depends on the data. I do electronic cleaning for a local pawn shop chain, and although most of the time I don't find anything worth saving, occasionally I find stuff on old laptops and cameras is worth keeping, like when I found a treasure trove of Iraq combat videos on a broken laptop someone just gave to the store. Other times, I've found evidence of serious criminal activity, and had to save the data so I could turn it over to law enforcement.

As an aside, if you're going to pawn your laptop, then for the love of Torvalds, wipe that sucker first! That is, unless you want some asshole like me rifling through the naked pictures your hot-ass girlfriend sent while you were overseas, or turning you over the cops if you happen to be a pedo.

Re: This is News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46232421)

Most people tend to have a friend or foe mentality. Once they've bought into the idea that you're their "friend", they're going to suppress the idea that you might also do something harmful to them. That's why they'll be so indignant if you do betray their trust. A person who gets a reputation for being completely selfish - helping others only when they gain from doing so, and harming them just as quickly if that would benefit them - will pretty quickly find themselves being shunned by everyone. Humans are herd animals, and a lone wolf is dangerous even when he's a temporary ally.

Re:This is News? (0)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#46229105)

it's also a DICE article, so it's double plus one news.

"spoiled hipster learns unselfish people here" (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 9 months ago | (#46229067)

Have to get out of your wealthy tech cocoon and see the real world.

Re:"spoiled hipster learns unselfish people here" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#46229331)

Have to get out of your wealthy tech cocoon and see the real world.

Come again? Not sure what point you're trying to make here...

Re:This is News? (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 9 months ago | (#46229311)

He had some Bitcoin stored on his glass. That's the real story.

Re:This is News? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#46229425)

He had some Bitcoin stored on his glass. That's the real story.

Wasn't mentioned in TFA, although if that were the case I would consider it a cautionary tale against keeping important and unique data on easily lost/stolen devices.

Strong passwords and encryption ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 9 months ago | (#46229171)

... are probably more reliable than humanity, as a general rule.

Irony (3, Funny)

GT66 (2574287) | about 9 months ago | (#46229229)

"'The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy, and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search,' she concluded. "

So she has a device that can essentially record, upload, index and publicize the activity of others without their consent and she's worried about her privacy. Oh, sweet irony, how have thee forsaken the narcissist hipster Glassholes?

Re:Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230149)

If you are in public where she can see you, then you have no privacy to be violated (unless Google Glass has xray vision).

Re:Irony (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 9 months ago | (#46230349)

A typical Google Glass wearer will not know more than they would have known without those glasses. It is not the act of recording, instead it's dispatch of such recordings to third parties that's the (possible) invasion of privacy.

If you don't want someone to know something about you, don't tell them, no matter whether they're wearing a pair of spectacles with built-in video camera or not.

As someone who recently found and returned a lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229269)

I want to share my thoughts on subject.

I found a planner of some person with a lot of data, but only name and photo of him and his wife were true. There was fake phone number and fake address. I had to trace down his name, arrange it by photos, find his relatives, search for their contact, then finally found one working phone, called and returned it back taking no money.

So this is a sum up of what I found:
- if you are carrying stuff around, be prepared to loose it.
- if thats about information, the best you can do is to expect loose any day. That means - do not take all your data with you, ideally the device should just be a hub. If its not, make backups of data (cloud, offline, no matter) and store information on the device with good encryption. Should the device be lost, change your passwords.

- if this is a physical thing with some value (or its an additional physical layer of some price around information), think what has more value to you - exposing your basic contact info and possibly returning the device, or not exposing it and not getting it back. Hence the preference for cheap gadgets. However, if the device is of some value to you, do update some contacts on it - chances are good guy finds it and brings it to you or (better) police department. Just write some "if you found this thing, please call ... for reward" note, you dont have to mention your name or even your address. Think that if its a good guy, he just needs to know how to contact you - nothing else. And if it will be a bad guy, he should not know nothing else but some disposable contact (that should never the less be kept polished if it happens).

Take care.

No Find My Google Glass? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 9 months ago | (#46229297)

It seems like this would be something she'd be able to track down from the internet using her Google account, but I wasn't able to find anything doing a quick search. After all, even Apple provides one for the iPhone [apple.com] .

Re:No Find My Google Glass? (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 9 months ago | (#46229441)

Which can be disabled without having to unlock the phone...

Re:No Find My Google Glass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46230331)

Only if you don't have a pass code set. And it's fixed in the 7.1 betas.

Re:No Find My Google Glass? (1)

Triv (181010) | about 9 months ago | (#46230309)

Glass doesn't have an internet connection or GPS chip of its own. I would assume it disappeared from the 'net as soon as she and her phone moved out of bluetooth range.

Then don't use glass (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 9 months ago | (#46229329)

Maaaaaaaaaybe you shouldn't create not-so-public-friendly media of any kind of a portable device...or any computer anywhere ever. It's like the rule of don't put it on the internet if you don't want everyone in the world to see it. Don't store personal photos and data and logins and videos and files on a portable, steal-able, lose-able device. That's just stupid.

I somehow manage to get through every day without constantly taking pictures, checking feeds and updates, etc with a device strapped to my head. Maybe everyone else can pull it off too.

Re:Then don't use glass (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#46230039)

Kind of takes away most of the utility of modern smartphones, though. Not everybody is an asshole like all the posters on /. - some of return things that aren't ours.

and I lost some faith in slash. (1)

archer003 (3534931) | about 9 months ago | (#46229379)

"possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy", self porn or worse? What a lousy piece of report is this? I sort of lost my faith on /. ;)

So valuable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46229427)

Google Glass. The only new gadget no one wants to steal.

The white elephant in the room (1)

quietwalker (969769) | about 9 months ago | (#46229435)

It was repeated several times in the article; she was worried about 'media' on the device being posted to the internet. That it would be a 'voyeuristic invasion of privacy.'

You all realize what's being said here right? I don't think I'm speculating too much here; she took naughty photos and/or video with her glass. That's why she was so worried. Not the cost, nor her email (which she changed the password on after the fact), nor much of anything really, aside from the 'media on the device'. This wasn't her worrying about someone being critical of her lunch choices or the amount of mayonnaise she uses. She recorded some pants-off time and didn't want to be embarrassed.

At some point, society needs to get a little more aware of their own situation. Anything you record in digital media may very well be persisted indefinitely, and seen by others. This could be due to theft or cell phone hacking or an upset significant other. This goes for tweets, for emails, for forum postings, for photos, for video. If it's electronic media, now a days, you can bet the/a government has access to it if they want it at the very least.

There's a really easy way to avoid this though; learn to never record something you don't want other people seeing. It's not that hard. Alternatively, make your peace with it if you choose to do so anyway.

Re: The white elephant in the room (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231837)

Uh, except for the little comment she made: "luckily, I didnâ(TM)t record or snap any embarrassing media".

Lassie Come Home! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 9 months ago | (#46229477)

Lassie: Woof!
Peggy: Timmy fell down the well!?
Lassie: Woof! Growl!
Peggy: Timmy lost his Google glasses?!?
Lassie: Woof! Woof!
Peggy: Timmy found his Google glasses!?
Lassie runs off crapping on the carpet as he heads towards the door.
Peggy: Oh, Lassie wanted to go outside.

But no concern for your end? (1)

koan (80826) | about 9 months ago | (#46229611)

The device holds more than enough data to make me nervous about the possible voyeuristic invasion of my privacy,

Sort of absurd you didn't consider that you might lose them or have them stolen.
That said how about the invasion of "relative" privacy for everyone around you with your Glass and soon to be available (or already available) facial recognition apps?

dumb bitch (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about 9 months ago | (#46229647)

>> and the fear of the thought that the media connected to my Glass would possibly end up online, somewhere, cached forever in a Google search, ...and of course it doesn't even occur to the dumb bitch that Google themselves would already be doing pretty much exactly that too.

Why Is This A Problem? (1)

assertation (1255714) | about 9 months ago | (#46229719)

I would think Google Glasses could transmit their location.

Wouldn't it be a matter of calling Google who could then tell you where the glasses are?

Re: Why Is This A Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231903)

They don't have GPS, and they don't have built-in internet. A remote wipe, if requested, will only occur when they're connected to a wi-fi network.

Wrong headline (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 9 months ago | (#46229903)

The actual story is "Person loses wallet, nice person gives it back PLUS ON THE INTERNETZ LOL"

Why is this a story anywhere, let alone on /fb. ?

Re:Wrong headline (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#46230067)

The story here is that every slashdot reader would have (a) looked for porn on the device (b) downloaded any personal information and then put it up on the internet just to be an asshole and point out how "insecure" the device is and then (c) sold it on ebay.

As it was, a real human found her device and got it back to her. The sad part - everyone posting here pretty much confirms that they would have done the above three instead of being a good human and giving it back.

Re: Wrong headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231973)

Why do you assume it can't be both ways? I would have looked at the pictures/videos on the device hoping to find something naughty, downloaded any personal information I could find, and then tried to track down the owner and return the device.

I trust myself not to abuse anything embarrassing or private that I might find; you don't need to, because you'll never know. Well, you'll know that I must've gleaned at least enough information to figure out who you were and return the device, but I won't be an asshole about what I found.

A spell caster saved my relationship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46231093)

Thanks to dr.marnish@yahoo.com for his wonderful work, My girlfriend left a week before our vacation to be with another man. I was desperate to get her back when I found dr.marnish. I tried 5 other people to do a spell to get her back and nothing worked. I was still alone. Then I found dr.marnish by accident. I don’t know how I found him, I don’t remember. But, when I first saw the good testimonies about his wonderful work and after reading the Testimonies, I decided I had to try and give it one last shot. After my spells, I got a text from my lover. And we started going back and forth by text, she asked to meet the next day. So we did, and that night we ended up sleeping together, and about a few days after we got back together. anyone who needs help, should email dr.marnish. He is the best.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?