You absolutely nailed it. I think it has to do with human psychology. Anything similar to spectacle is easily connected to being watched (literally) while even the amount of (useful) data collected by an always on microphone could relativity high. Maybe for a privacy advocate, the only possible way to bring awareness as equivalent as is to make people understand and believe that it sits and is always listening during day and night (unlike the glass which is on only when worn)
No, he didn't. How do you justify carrying a smartphone with an always listening microphone into shared public spaces (many listen for wake words now), but get hung up on having a microphone in your private residence?
Google has a horrific track record on privacy, but Amazon knows who their customers are, and would never do anything to violate their trust. With Amazon, you're the customer, with Google, you're the product.
> "How do you justify carrying a smartphone with an always listening microphone into shared public spaces (many listen for wake words now), but get hung up on having a microphone in your private residence?"
I've preordered this phone, which mitigates against this type of surveillance by the use of switches for turning off hardware devices like the camera and the microphone (and by making the software stack as open source as it can be):
I also currently use one of the few smartphones without a front facing camera, which only cuts out one form of surveillance but does help.
So whilst I'm putting up with a temporary invasion of privacy for now whilst I wait for the Purism 5 to be released, I'm not passively accepting surveillance from one device whilst criticising another.
