A point that he doesn't explore too much is how a journalist would feel about "viewers pok[ing] around in a scene or get[ting] more information about something they’re watching right in the frame". So the reporter speaking in the foreground can potentially lose what attention he/she is already getting from the viewing audience? News stations do have to move with technology, of course, but I can't see that sitting well with a reporter, even if he/she doesn't say anything. Could that lead, down the road, to the reporter having a bad attitude, or a "nobody is listening, anyway" approach to the news? On the other hand, such a thing might well weed out the journalists who are in it merely for getting attention.
Another displeasing statement is Lewnes' "Augmented Reality could become the direct mail of the 21st Century, by tying a physical mailing to a Web experience when someone holds a page up to her computer’s camera." For people who enjoy direct mail, perhaps that would be fine. But for me, receiving a direct mailing every time I looked at a product online or explored the online features of a magazine would go straight through creepy to the border of insulting-- I'd like to look at things in peace, thank you, without an advertiser cyber-snooping. Of course, we're already so far beyond this point that it hardly seems that it matters, but getting something mailed to my home is just another layer in the your-business-is-our-business world of advertising. Unless it was something I was already committed to buying, that kind of linkup between computer and physical mailbox would probably convince me not to buy a product.
In short, Benkoil's final statement of "let’s see how far the technology goes... then see what objections are raised to how the technology is being used" worries me. He's asking that we wait until the proverbial horse is out of the barn to close the door. I have a better idea-- how about I be given the option now to protect my privacy as technology develops and have a voice in how businesses or news agencies use information, instead of having to fight later to get my privacy back?
I like your point about investing in the notion of protecting our privacy up front instead of having to back track later on down the road. There should be well-defined rules that are associated with AR. If not, we may find ourselves in a place where we hold no personal information private. That would be a scary place, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteYou raised the point that journalists and reporters might not find this application as useful as they thought. For one thing, I would like the comfort of knowing that NYT's journalists and my CNN anchors are getting their information through reliable sources, and that they thoroughly researched their topic. What I do not want happening are reporters getting all of their information from an AR app that I could use, and also obtain the same information that they got from it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the privacy concerns that you raise concerning AR. I just wonder how exactly we could protect our privacy. If we were to explore the legal route I'm not sure that the legislature would be able to keep up with rapidly evolving technology. It leaves me wondering if the only way we would be able to protect ourselves would really be to wait and see. A position I don't quite like being in.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see the need for protecting people right to privacy, it seems that we are traveling down a path where possibly no one can hide anymore. Unless politics can keep up with the ever changing policies that new technology brings up, from social networking to file sharing, then there is no stopping this train when it is full motion.
ReplyDeleteI also see the need for strong privacy safeguards to prevent AR abuse. I think it would be outrageous if someone could see how much rent an individual pays, or where they've been in the past few days. I hope that companies that use AR apps will police themselves, but I have a strong feeling that eventually legislation will be necessary.
ReplyDeleteThere is not much on privacy in the Constitution, so I think there will definitely be debates as to what information can be considered private. Surely some would argue that the amount of rent someone pays should be public information, while others disagree. There's not much legal precedent to review, so it will definitely be an interesting but necessary debate in the near future.
CNN would LOVE to use this technology. Have you seen them playing with their board?
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, though, I think if when they were playing with their board, they could have a layer over their video footage saying what kind of building that is that we're looking at that's been blown up (or maybe choose a happier story). The viewer using AR while watching the news could be cool, I think, though as you pointed out, it could distract from the programming. But if Anderson Cooper was using the technology for me, well, that would be really neat.
As for privacy, I think some of the other commenters did a very good job of pointing out that we just really don't know right now where privacy legislation could go in the US. An example I've been dealing with at work is the idea that DNA is one's private property. People have been calling in saying that passing this law would hurt newborn screening and research. In the same way, withholding where you live or what your phone number is (where you are, how much rent you pay, and on and on) would hurt the ability of everyone to have access to this information, even if their intentions are very good. I think in the end we'll have to find some sort of trade off -- You're willing to give up this much info and nothing more, or we're willing to say that this could be private but that this is essentially public info.
On a positive note, if the spread of AR technology does in fact give journalists and advertisers and ordinary people instant, on-site access to information about others they probably shouldn't have, it will probably spark a national conversation on privacy rights that will make people more conscious of how this information gets passed around. I for one am pretty careless about whom -- or what -- I share my contact info with, and I never think about all the bots that are spying on me every time I use Google or post a link to my Facebook. People like me could use a wake-up call... but I agree with you, it's annoying that conversations like these have to so far behind the problems they seek to address.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathaniel that we have already dug ourselves into a hole that we can't escape when it comes to our lack of privacy these days. It seems like the horse is already out of the barn, as you say, because so much of our information is already out there. It seems kind of futile to resist at this point, because even if you could remove yourself from the equation, the prevalence AR will have in the future will most likely make it a necessity to participate.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we have begun to see the line being crossed! The information regarding GPS coordinates from Apple's iPhone presents a serious security dilemma. It is imperative that people take this type of thing seriously. I often feel as though people dismiss this kind of stuff as not having any real consequences for them personally. Sort of a mentality, in this particular example, that they don't go anywhere they wouldn't want someone to hear about in the first place. We should expect companies to take advantage of our privacy, it is a social obligation to be concerned about these infringements. While I realize that not everyone is impartial toward these issues, my experience has proven that a large number of people are.
ReplyDelete