1.

Abstract
This study examines the role of Google Glass in relation to a possible contribution to network
surveillance. Our privacy has become increasingly limited throughout the past decades due to the
rapid rise of technology and social media. From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwells Nineteen
Eighty-Four, society is full of warnings in regards to technology and surveillances collaboration. This
paper will investigate the possible newest link in this collaboration, Google Glass, as well as provide
a current status on network surveillance and the subsequent effects. To answer whether Glass is
here to improve our everyday life or simply to improve Googles database, selected theories are
applied to analyze and interpret Glass possibilities and potentials in regards to network surveillance.
Distrust towards Glass is determined and Google CEO Vice Presidents arguments pave the way for
discussion. His viewpoint is compared to the hypothetical scenario in Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four,
it is then discussed whether the possible outcome of Glass will move us closer to the ideas
presented in Orwells dystopian novel. Through the use of before mentioned theories and analysis, it
is concluded that Glass has a feasible viability to contribute to network surveillance.

Page 1 of 60

Table of Contents
2. Introduction
2.1 Techniques of project work
2.2 Problem Statement
2.3 Methodology
2.4 Methods
2.4.1 Hypothetical-deductive method
2.4.2 Semiotics
2.5 Theoretical Framework
2.6 Delimitation
2.7 Communication in mediated life
2.8 The Surveillance State of America
2.8.1 The Presidents Surveillance Program/The Program
2.8.2 Shared and tracked Information
2.8.3 The Convergence of NSA Spying with the Digital Era

3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
9
11
12

3. Case
3.1 What is Google Glass?

15
15

4. Theory
4.1 The Filter Bubble
4.2 Little brothers society
4.3 The theories of ethics
4.4. Foucaults Discipline and Punishment
4.4.1 Foucault and Jeremy Benthams Panopticon

17
17
20
21
22
23

5. Analysis
5.1 Application of Foucault on the United States
5.1.1 Googles Panopticon
5.2 The interest collar
5.3 Social Semiotics on Glass
5.4 Ethical theory of Glass
5.4.1 Mann versus McDonalds
5.4.2 Glass with Class

24
25
28
30
34
36
36
40

6. Discussion
6.1 The product of surveillance
6.1.2 Sousveillance?
6.1.3 The next step
6.2 Privacy - an anomaly
6.3 The 1984 scenario

41
41
44
45
46
48

7. List of References
7.1 Books
7.2 Webpages
7.3 Articles
7.4 Movies

51
51
51
53
56

8. Appendix
8.1 Appendix 1
8.2 Appendix 2
8.3 Appendix 3

57
57
57
58

Page 2 of 60

2. Introduction
2.1 Techniques of project work
During our introduction to the progression course, Techniques of Project Work, we were instructed
in how to create a proper problem-formulation, how to use the RUB-library, how to use the search
engines to find research materials, and the necessary tools for executing them.
Within the seminar we gained some great advice in how to handle internal conflicts within the group,
and additionally some comprehension on how to deal with these conflicts when unknown factors
could interfere with the overall focus of our work.
Like any project group that spends most of their days together in front of their computer screens, we
sometimes felt frustrated and annoyed with each other. It was here that it became helpful to apply
the knowledge acquired from the lecture we had on October 11th. We were told to remember one of
our first group sessions, where we found out how important it is to discuss and determine the
strength and weaknesses within the group at an early state, and furthermore, how it is possible to
apply them to bring forth the most productive features of the individual group members; and assign
them a suitable role according to their abilities.
Additionally, problem-oriented project work aims to investigate something the group did not already
know. In turn we discovered a lack of knowledge in regards to the project and decided to gather
empirical data so that we could get started with our project. At the core of our project we had to
formulate our project statement. It was formed by the combined diverse knowledge we had
accumulated individually, and used to agree upon the direction we wanted the project to take. As
described in Problem-Oriented Project Work a work book (p. 18) there is a certain methodology
that works with the problem-formulation phase, which is the search for methods, theory, and data
where texts and articles are disposed and discovered for their relevance, and by doing so, the
project can move forward.
During the midterm seminar we received a lot of helpful advice, and at an opportune timing, where
our friendship-group and their supervisor helped us realize the necessary changes we had to make
to our former problem-formulation; and that we needed to narrow the focus of our project. At the
given time we were in a severe case of writer's block due to chewing of a bite too big to swallow

Page 3 of 60

and the seminar gave us the needed perspective, to easily move forward with a renewed and
focused outlook on things.
In our final course, we were given the tools to best prepare for our oral examination and which
things to keep in mind when striving to get a high grade. This course was much needed since all of
us were quite unsure of how the oral group examinations are done at RUC. Furthermore, it was also
very helpful to know what a supervisor values during the examination, since we only have a set
amount of time to show what we have learned. All in all the Techniques of Project Work was a welltaught course with a lot of useful information to guide us, to make it easier for us, as a group, to
progress comfortably in the desired direction.

2.2 Problem Statement

In order to solve the task at hand, we have decided to formulate a problem statement to address
what we believe is a relevant subject in modern society.
What are the possible effects between Google Glass
and network surveillance in our everyday life?
- What is Google Glass and what are the applicable theories?
- What is the current situation of network surveillance and how does it manifest in modern
society?
- What is the possible outcome of Google Glass (i.e. mediated life) in the future?

2.3 Methodology
Due to the technological aspect of our project, we started by mainly researching how Google Glass
works and how we are surveilled every day without being aware or cautious about it. After acquiring
books, articles, and videos demonstrating the Google Glass and from these gather an
understanding of how the technology works, we started looking at reactions to Google Glass. How
was the reception of Google Glass? This product is not yet available to the public, still it has caused
outrage and is already banned from several places.

Page 4 of 60

We looked into the problems and solutions that comes with having a life online, and we took a
philosophical approach to it. We have an analysis based on cases, combined to the theories we
found relevant. Since we have not been able to test the Google Glasses ourselves, we had to rely
on articles from people who have had the opportunity to try the device. For this reason we have
maintained a critical view in the analysis on the origin of our sources. Furthermore we have had to
deal with a lot of speculations, which fits well with our philosophical angle.

2.4 Methods
The following chapter will deal with a few select methods, which we found very relevant to this
project when looking at the problem definition. We have decided to incorporate a method for each of
the dimension, in order to answer the questions in the problem statement. This is due to the vast
amount of information we have found on the subject.

2.4.1 Hypothetical-deductive method

In our project we will use the hypothetical-deductive method. The hypothetical-deductive method is a
scientific method, where a hypothesis is made and verified to see if the claimed hypothesis is true.
This method is based on a hypothesis or theory, from where concrete predictions have been made
through deduction. For this method to be scientifically true, claims from the theory must be
deductively falsified.1
Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher of science, established this method.2 He claimed that for a
scientific theory to work, it must be formulated to contradict by different observations. The better the
theory, the easier it will be to disprove it.3
The course of the method can be divided into four stages:
1: Through observation we find a problem: What/why? Collect data and look for explanations.
2: A hypothesis is made from theoretic knowledge including assumptions of a problem: If nothing
new is known, state an explanation.
3: Deduction made from an assumption (consequences, explanations): If we have the assumption
that step two is true, what are the consequences?

1
2
3

http://videnskabsteori.wikispaces.com/Hypotetisk-deduktiv+metode
Watkins, J. Obituary of Karl Popper, 19021994.Proceedings of the British Academy, 94, pp. 645684

William W. Bartley: Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality, In Mario Bunge: The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy (The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), section IX.

Page 5 of 60

4: Empirical verification: Confirmation of the assumption put the theory to a test. Look for any
evidence that can conflict with the predictions in order to disprove it (Godfrey-Smith, 2003: 236).
Karl Popper was an enthusiast of Einsteins relativity theory, because Einstein had very precise
theories. He believed that to make a good scientific theory, it must be critically verified; if a theory
were not critically falsified he would not consider it a scientific theory. By using this method, a theory
can never be 100% verified, the method can only be falsified. Einstein highlighted the way of the
theory when he said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment
can prove me wrong." (Calaprice, 2005: 291)
This project works with the hypothesis that Glass has a connection to direct and indirect surveillance,
much like many social networks and via our use of smartphones. With the new Glass it is said that
Google can monitor everything the user sees and does with the glasses. We see this very likely to
be true, since we through our research can see how much online surveillance is going on nowadays.
Because Glass is very new and not yet available for the public, we are not able to test it ourselves,
our answers will therefore be based on articles and the knowledge of people who have tested it, and
the likeliness of our hypothesis.

2.4.2 Semiotics
Since we are working with a Text and Sign dimension in our project, we will be using semiotics.
We will incorporate Saussure and his way of working with signs, saying that it consists of a signifier
and a signified. The signifier is the signs image, as we perceive it. It is the basic physical existence
of the sign. The signified is then the mental concept to which the signifier refers. This mental
concept can be different for different cultures, but is common for people from the same culture as
they share the same language and thereby understanding. The relation between these two things
has the term signification, and the signifier plus the signified does via signification turn out as the
external reality or meaning (John, 1982: 47-56). Social semiotic is relevant to our project, as we will
focus on how the human signifying habit is shaped and influenced by the cultural surrounding and
social circumstances.
Exploring the human habits, this method also tries to make meaning out of the human behaviour
given a certain social condition.
This method allows us to investigate the impact of surveillance and especially Glass to society, and
how the symbols that comes with it, are decoded in a social context. The method delivers an

Page 6 of 60

analytic view on how surveillance and Glass may be changing the way society, and we as
individuals, function in a future virtual world.

2.5 Theoretical Framework

The chosen theories are all in relation to the project and consists of a variety of technological
aspects, where we look into the functionality of devices, as well as how surveillance have moved
from a visible camera, such as CCTV-cameras, to hidden cameras and tools, as part of the mobile
development of phones and laptops, which the users carry with them everywhere. The project also
has a very important philosophical and ethical aspect, questioning if companies such as Google
should be allowed to follow every move the user makes online and collect all personal data.
The study uses theories formed by the theorists Foucault, Cooper, Chalkley, Pariser and Jeremy
Bentham who developed the theories side by side with the technological advancement. By the use
of the before mentioned theories we will reveal and compare the thoughts concerning the
technology and signs at that given time, to the present situation, where people are still dealing with
some similar worries about the technological revolution. We will also discuss whether or not it is a
good or bad thing how the worlds technology has developed and continues to do so.
We combine the theories to reach a better understanding of network surveillance and why we as
human beings have such a fascination of technology and the newest devices.

2.6 Delimitation
Although the project has many objectives, it sets its focus on surveillance as a consequence of the
mediated technology. In context we have chosen to deal with Google Glass as our main case and
involve it as much as possible in our project as it is a valid example of how we all contribute to the
surveillance society. Google Glass is relevant because it is one of the newest and amongst the most
innovative products of mediated society, and it contains endless possibilities as well as risks. Google
Glass has, however, not yet been released to the majority of the public.
Our project will mainly concern the United States, where the culture is very affected by mediated life
and engaged with a variety of surveillance capabilities, however, our focus will be on network
surveillance.

Page 7 of 60

2.7 Communication in mediated life

What is interesting about communication is the way its form is constantly changing and evolving.
Lately we have seen a technological revolution, a fast evolving evolution of communication
technology that has influenced the way of communication remarkably (Hamelink, 2000: 23-29). There
is a lot of positive thoughts and fascination about the technology and mediated evolvement. In the
past decade we have seen a vastly growing constant development in new communication
technologies. It is becoming more strange than normal not to have a smartphone.
According to renowned neuro-psychiatrist Dr. Gary Small,4 the daily exposure of technology has
caused the brain to evolve and change. Due to the current technical revolution, our brains are
evolving at a speed never seen before. Even though we are unaware of the changes occurring in
our brains, these altercations can become permanent if repeated (Small et al., 2008: 1). If the brain is
evolved towards focusing on new technology and the skills that comes with it, it will drift away from
fundamental social skills such as reading subtle gestures, facial expression, and social contact
(Small et al., 2008: 2-3). The accusation goes on how modern communication makes people spend

more time looking each other up online, instead of physical quality time. Our primary focus will be
what the mediated technology has done to the way we communicate with each other, this
phenomenon is also known as CMC (Computer-Mediated-Communication).
CMC has been exploding over the last few years; take an obvious example like Facebook, which
grew from having one million active users in 2004,5 where it started as an American college social
network, to being spread worldwide used by all age-groups, with the newest results showing 1.19
billion active users in October 2013.6 This is a clear example on how the world has gradually
accepted the change of how we communicate and the evolution of communication. We cannot stay
focused anymore when we are physically socializing with friends and family. We keep checking our
phones and updating our social network sites, to see if anyone has virtually poked7 us. But it is
hard to define whether or not this makes us more social or asocial. People are now expected to
answer to chats and texts right when they are received, update their Facebook and re-tweet
something of minor importance, which does not necessarily make us rude or asocial if we are
maintaining our online social profile while spending time with our friends. Maybe we are not present

4
5
6
7

http://www.drgarysmall.com/gary-and-gigi/
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/08/19/mapping-facebooks-growth-over-time/
http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/#.UqDIuo3l3Ks

To Poke: When poking on Facebook it is to say Hey, you! What is going on?, but some people have wrong understanding that poke
at Facebook is symbol of disturbing. More details:
7
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398027696875053.103987.220435901300901&type=3

Page 8 of 60

in the current situation and socializing with the one person we are physically next to, but we are
present on so many sites and socializing with thousands of people. It is becoming more of a
common agreement that it is okay to not really be present while we are uploading our life to World
Wide Web for everyone to see.
We post self-chosen information about ourselves online. It can be anything from photos of loved
ones, relationship status or even photos of what we eat. CMC has really brought this noteworthy
phenomenon to our attention. It is on one hand a one-way communication to document how our life
is going and on the other hand a public communication starter. Say if someone is in the same
situation as yourself and can relate to it with a much appreciated like. Though the receiver is not
chosen or specified from the sender (i.e. the person leaking it), the information is self-chosen, and
the sender is aware that the leaked updates are public.
But what are the consequences of this vast development? We forget to think about them and what
effects they might have. What are we actually agreeing to when we click agree to terms? And how
much privacy does our private setting really ensure you?

2.8 The Surveillance State of America

2.8.1 The Presidents Surveillance Program/The Program
Defending Our Nation. Securing The Future. Those are the first six words to appear when
looking at the US National Security Agencys homepage.8 They are central to the purpose of the
organization, and written in large font on every single page of their website. Defending and
securing the future of the United States is perhaps the most important thing a US government
agency can do. But it is worth noticing, that this is a very broadly defined mission. If the NSA is
securing and defending the future of the USA, is it not fair to say that by limiting the powers of the
NSA America becomes less safe? By objecting to the practices of the NSA, is one actively
attacking the future of America? That is what their broadly defined mission statement implies.
Rather than take the NSA at their word, it is worth considering their actions over the recent past.
There is no doubt that the NSA wants the United States to be a safe place. As it states on NSA &
CSSs Core Values Brochure, NSAs main goal is to secure the future and to keep the United
States of America protected by

http://www.nsa.gov/

Page 9 of 60

Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and

disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and
counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions.9
It sounds impressive, but what does it mean? How do they go about collecting and analysing
information? And from whom do they collect this information? Are there any limits to their reach?
The Presidents Surveillance Program ("The Program") was an NSA program released by
President George W. Bush shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001. President Bush
made it possible with the program to conduct a wide range of surveillance activities inside the
United States, activities that had not been possible before. Since 2005 various whistleblowers
and major newspapers have exposed a remarkable amount of information gathered as a result
from the program, such as call-detail records collected from major telecommunications
companies in the US. These records were collected without a warrant or judicial oversight, but
through The Program and The Patriot Act, tens of millions of Americans were spied on.10 As US
Senator Patrick Leahy, who opposed the program, asked congress:
Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al-Qaida? These are
tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything. 11
According to a research by USA Today, the call-detail records included customers' names,
street addresses, and other personal information and detailed records of calls they made across town or across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
(Cauley, 2006) An anonymous source told USA Today that the agency's ambition was "to create a

database of every call ever made" (Cauley, 2006). All of this was done without a warrant or any
judicial supervision.
A few weeks later, former AT&T technician Mark Klein revealed to the New York Times that those
same telecommunications companies also had agreed to install complex communication
surveillance equipment in secret locations at strategic telecommunication facilities around the
country. The order came from the NSA. (Margoff, 2006) This technology enabled the NSA to gain
autonomous and free access to large streams of local and international communication to be

http://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/CoreValues.pdf

10
11

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/nsa-spying-scandal-2006-or-2013-20130606

Page 10 of 60

more specific, the NSA was now able to collect at least 1.7 billion emails a day due to this
surveillance equipment, according to The Washington Post. Again, all of this was done without a
warrant in violation of federal law and the Constitution (Priest, 2010).
The Program was first criticised by the New York Times in 2005. President Bush then admitted to
a small aspect of the program; he concluded that the NSA, without warrants, monitored the
communications of 500-1000 people in the US with suspected connections to Al Qaeda. He
called this the Terrorist Surveillance Program (Priest, 2010). But what about those people not
connected to terror why collect and keep billions of emails from innocent, non-suspicious
citizens? To prevent a potential threat? And what happens with the collected data?

2.8.2 Shared and tracked Information

Since 2005, the use of social media and technological devices has expanded vastly. For most of
us, not a day goes by without CMC from our smartphone or computer. What happens when we
use the Internet is this: data is travelling from our device through telecommunication companies'
wires and fiber optics networks, and finally to our intended recipient. To capture these
communications, the government has installed devices known as fiber-optic splitters in many of
the main telecommunication connection points in the US. The fiber-optic splitters make an exact
copy of the data passing through them: then, one stream is directed to the government, the
NSA/CSS, while the other stream is directed to the intended recipients (Margoff, 2006). Once NSA
has the data, they have the right to retain the records for up to six years that is if no potential
threat or crime is present in the information gathered (Greenwald, 2013). The reason why all data is
found relevant is explained by Gus Hunt, the chief technological officer of Central Intelligence
Agency:
The value of any piece of information is only known when you can connect it with something
else which arrives at a future point in time. ... Since you cannot connect dots you do not have,
it drives us into this mode of: We fundamentally try to collect everything and hang on to it
forever. (Sledge, 2013)
Sledges quote becomes highly chilling when considered juxtaposed alongside George Orwells
famous line from 1984, He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present
controls the past. (Orwell, 1949: 17) With so much data to pick and choose from, the NSA has a
remarkable amount of power of the past. Either by design or accident, they could use their
compiled data to incriminate the innocent. The amount of power granted to any organization is
Page 11 of 60

astounding, and the lack of government oversight is highly disturbing. One would expect Big
Brother was wrought from a similar beginning.
It is, however, not just the Government and the NSA that ends up with our information. It is no
secret that the NSA shares their collected data with the FBI, CIA, and the DEA. Major companies
also play a vital part when it comes to collecting and using data - with more than 950 million users,
Facebook obviously has great opportunity to track and store data on millions of people around the
world. (Schneier, 2013) As Bruce Schneier, technologist and author, said:
The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we
like it or not, we are being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on
other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users.
Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track
who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period.
(Schneier, 2013)

The electronic footprints we leave are rapidly increasing as the technological development
expands, making it easy for anyone interested to track down our every move. Movements that
can be cross-indexed, correlated, and used for secondary purposes; information about us has
value. Not only to the police, but to corporations as well. The Justice Department uses details
from Google searches to look for patterns that could help determine child pornographers and
potential criminals. Google uses that same information to deliver context-sensitive advertising
messages (Schneier, 2013). The majority of us have gladly given out personal information in
exchange for social media and specific services. What we object to is the surreptitious collection
of personal information, and the secondary use of information once it is collected: the buying and
selling of our information behind our back.

2.8.3 The Convergence of NSA Spying with the Digital Era

Most of the fury and national discussion that the NSA leaks of 2006 caused faded away as the
news cycle rolled on. The economy crashed, Barack Obama was elected twice and thousands of
new fads, from twerking to tweeting arrived. So when the Guardian began publishing the
information leaked by former NSA consultant, Edward Snowden, in June 2013, it shocked, not
only the nation, but the entire world. It became clear that NSA programs like PRISM, Xkeyscore
and Tempora were collecting the data of not just US citizens, but also leaders around the world,

Page 12 of 60

latest from the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel12. Why had the invasions of privacy committed
by the NSA scaled up so dramatically, despite all the protest in 2006?
The answer to this question requires a consideration of the changes in the technological
landscape that occurred in the 21st century, best represented by the search engine Google.
Google requires that we agree to terms and conditions that allow Google to use our search
information. Over the years Google has changed its terms and conditions to allow the government
access to users search results. Prior to September 11th, users were completely anonymous
under terms and conditions. Googles privacy policy in December 2000 stated:
Google may also choose to use cookies to store user preferences. A cookie can tell us,
This is the same computer that visited Google two days ago, but it cannot tell us, This
person is Joe Smith or even, This person lived in the United States (10:43 in Terms and
Conditions May Apply, 2013).

So in other words, Google states that we remain totally anonymous.

The patriot act expanded the ability of the federal government to do surveillance in a lot of
little ways. You dont need a judge's approval for instance to find out what websites
someone visited or what search terms they typed into Google Declan McCullagh (9:47 in
Terms and Conditions May Apply, 2013)

Only one year later, in December 2001, Googles privacy policy had changed to:
Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and
patterns of how people search. Google will not disclose its cookies to third parties except as
required by a valid legal process such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court
order. (11:06 in Terms and Conditions May Apply, 2013)
This piece of text, from Googles own website, state that when necessary, we are not anonymous.
In December 2001 Google would not deliver user information such as cookies, identification or
user preferences to a third party without a valid legal process such as a court order or search
warrant. It is necessary to keep in mind that Google has economic motives for tracking users.

12

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/angela-merkel-nsa-spying-allies-not-on

Page 13 of 60

Googles business model is dependent upon using user information to target advertising, rather
than having users pay for the service. People exchange their level of privacy for the free service.
Other companies picked up on this trend, which has made Twitter, Facebook, etc. which are such
valuable companies. All of these companies also have similar terms and conditions policy, with
far too much legal fine print to read in a reasonable amount of time.
What is so interesting about this story is not really that they changed their privacy policy but that
they claim, on their website, that their privacy policy from 2000 is the one from 2001. A non-profit
internet website called Wayback Machine takes snapshots of what websites used to look like and
save the photos in its own archive. It has been taking photos since the 1990s. On Googles own
official webpage they list their history of Privacy Policy. They list every single Privacy Policy that
Google has ever had since the start of Google. But what Google shows as their original Privacy
Policy does not match the one from Wayback Machine. Instead it shows the one from December
2001; the one that says, that when necessary we will not remain anonymous.
In January of 2012, Google changed their privacy policy once again, so that all user information
could be combined into one personal profile. Detailed histories of every user can be accessed in
the database for the purpose of market research or background checks (18:04 Terms and
Conditions May Apply 2013). The current terms and conditions, when compared to those before

9/11, are quite remarkable.

What is disturbing about the massive amounts of data that Google collects, is not alone that they
share it with advertisers, because that is what consenting consumers agree to when they use
Googles services. This is the way Google pays its bills and allows them to create better services.
What is so disturbing is the ease by which governments around the world can use the information
acquired by Google. Google CEO Eric Schmidt says, the question of your, if you will, information
being retained by Google is not at this point a Google decision, its really a political or public policy
decision enforced by different governments in different ways. (10:04, Terms and Conditions May
Apply, 2013)

This metadata or Big Data as it has come to be known, in reference to Orwells Big Brother in
1984, is what the NSA claims is necessary for protecting the future of the USA. General Keith
Alexander told Congress, on December 11th, 2013, Threats are growing and explained that
metadata collection is like a traditional library index card system. Metadata is our way of knowing
where those books are in the libraryand where the bad books are (McCarthy, 2013).

Page 14 of 60

It is certainly true, that the NSA is tasked with a very difficult mission. In the post 9/11 world,
Americas enemies are not entire nations, but cells of terrorists. The terrorists hide and plot
against America, so a level of surveillance is necessary. But where is that level of surveillance
that is permissible? It is an endless debate, most likely without a right answer. The intersection of
security and freedom is not a simple matter, and perhaps what is most important is that people
and governments keep the surveillance state in check.

3. Case
3.1 What is Google Glass?
The next section will present our main case: Google Glass. Throughout the project we will refer to
Google Glass simply as Glass.
Glass is amongst the newest device within communication technology. It is a platform that enables
the user to experience augmented reality; the concept of images overlaying and emerging in what
the user sees in their reality. In its basic form Glass is a computer that one can wear on ones head.
Within the product exists a see-through screen in the top right corner of the eye where data
manifests. The product enables one to be always on, always available with the power to stream
live video from the users point of view, advanced voice recognition software, and access to the
worldwide web on the spot. Because the device is hands-free, the Glass functions, as mentioned,
via voice recognition. A command is started by simply saying: OK Glass.. then the given command,
e.g. take a picture to take a picture, record a video, browse the Internet, even speak the message
you want to send. Glass can also translate any sign; for example if travelling in China, a street sign
can be directly translated to English right in front of you. 13 Not all commands are able to be
controlled by voice. Glass therefore has a touchpad to give additional control. This touchpad is
placed in the right side of the frame next to where the camera is. This is also where the Glasses can
be turned on and off with a tap on the pad.
With Glass, the user is integrated to a higher level of connectivity. It is essentially a smartphone in
another packaging. Though having many of the identical parts of a smartphone, Glass depends on
an actual app 14 in order to have all the functions working. Apps are essential for Glass, as it

13
14

http://www.google.com/glass/start/

a self-contained program or piece of software designed to fulfill a particular purpose; an application, especially as downloaded by a user
to a mobile device.

Page 15 of 60

depends on developers to help Google invent new apps to use with Glass. The development of new
apps create an opportunity to widen the usage of Glass and thereby extent the possible outcome of
creativity.
Glass also gives the user an ability to interact in a new social and cultural way. This ability to be
connected wherever we find ourselves to be is considered a tech-revolution. The new technology
gives the user another dimension to his or hers own reality and impacts on the way we live our life.
Google as a company is a major player in the tech-revolution and offers many services of their own
to Glass, including: maps, calendar, Gmail, Google+ and Google Places, all of which enables us to
simplify our lifestyle in a organized and convenient way that most people find appealing. When
combining all of Googles services, they offer the online user a neat and ergonomic package to
include in one's lifestyle with Glass.
Google has already released two versions of Glass to be tested by selected people; version 1, the
first version, and version 2, called Glass Explorer Edition. The differences between the two are
very little. The newer version only has a slightly updated hardware, which does not make any
remarkable change performance wise for the device. These changes will at best be a ten percent
increase in the overall performance, which is shown with slightly smoother animations. The most
noticeable difference is the mono ear bud that has been included in the product and how specific
prescription lenses can be applied.15
By purchasing Glass, the Explorer Edition, Google stated the following in their Terms of Sale:
You must be 18 years or older, a resident of the United States, and authorized by Google as
part of the Glass Explorer program in order to purchase or use Glass Explorer Edition. Unless
otherwise authorized by Google, you may only purchase one Device, and you may not resell,
rent, or lease your Device to any other person. If you resell, rent, or lease your Device to any
other person without Googles authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the
Device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the Device will be entitled to any
refund, product support, or product warranty. 16
Google is hereby the first company to claim ownership of a product even after it has been sold.

15
16

http://www.itproportal.com/2013/11/05/google-glass-2-whats-new-compared-to-the-original-model
http://www.google.com/glass/terms/

Page 16 of 60

Glass is a phenomenon of simplicity and it is slowly entering our daily lives. It is a technology based
on existing technology, which most of us is already carrying around. The big difference is that this
product is situated in something as old fashioned as a pair of glasses, which has been designed to
be new and hip. The aim of the product is to introduce a new way of gaining access to the content
you want: faster, quicker, trouble less, all in a slick design.

4. Theory
4.1 The Filter Bubble
The human lifestyle has changed radically over the past decades. This change is conjointly related
to the exponential growth in the numerous mediated technologies and the online connectivity we find
ourselves with today. There is no doubt that being online is a vital part of living in the 21th century.
In December 2009, the world saw the beginning of something new. The search result from Google
started to customize to each user a new era had begun for personalization (Pariser, 2011: 1). When
it comes to consuming information, this was a revolution (Pariser, 2011: 3). It can shape which new
things we learn, how we learn, it could even affect how democracy works. By collecting as much
data as possible, our online experience can be tailored. Our personal information are tracked by
data companies and the result/consequence of this will be that each of us will live more and more in
our own unique universe of information - a personal bubble. Eli Pariser calls this the The filter
bubble. He says that from this personalization, most of the news we will receive is known, pleasant,
and something familiar but it will not be possible to know what is hidden from us. Our interest from
the past will decide what we are exposed to in the future, and learning from unpredicted encounters
will be minimized (Pariser, 2011, 1st edition: 1st page).
According to Pariser, search results are customized and personalized for everyone, this means we
are tracked and the Internet can get all your information and learn everything about you.
The filter bubble basically alters the way we come across ideas and information (Pariser, 2011: 2).
Pariser tells that we from the filter bubble are introduced to three new dynamics:
1. You are alone in it - The bubble does not reach out and let you be familiarized with new
things outside of a comfort zone. Since it is personalized, it becomes a universe, where you
are the center it revolves around, thus becoming more and more distant from other people
and new things.

Page 17 of 60

2. The filter is invisible - the user is unaware of the filter. There is no warning or sign of
getting into this bubble. Each time a user is online, the filter bubble gets bigger and the user
is increasingly being trapped in their own little universe. The Internet becomes like a bottle,
with the filter being the bottle head. The further you go, meaning the more you are captured
by the Internet, the more narrow and recognizable the world online becomes and you are
thereby learning less from the world.
3. You do not choose to enter the bubble - the bubble consumes you when you do not
realize it. You are not actively choosing the filter. When turning on the TV to hear the news,
or reading a newspaper, you make the decision to hear and see, what you want. You choose
your filter, you are actively getting new information. With personalized filters, you are not
entirely able to choose what you want to see. Instead of you making a choice to learn about
something, they are coming to you, and they are becoming harder and harder to avoid
(Pariser, 2011: 9-10).

Pariser also tells about some positive things that come with the filter bubble. The bubble keeps our
interests organized. A user is never bored, never annoyed it has an appealing prospect, it makes a
return to a Ptolemaic universe17 in which we are the centre and the world and everything else
revolves around us. But as often, everything comes with a cost, and if it is made more personal we
are at risk of losing some of the qualities and traits which are the reasons the Internet was so
appealing to begin with (Pariser, 2011: 12). As Pariser says:
In the filter bubble there is less room for the chance encounters that bring insight, and
learning serendipity is at risk. We get a lot of bonding but very little bridging.
(Pariser, 2011: 17)

The first idea of personalization came from Nicholas Negroponte. He talked about it in the midnineties, but at the time people were not ready for personalization (Pariser, 2011: 21). In order for
companies to personalize, they needed a lot of data from the users. As a result Google came up
with an innovative strategy in 2004. By providing other services, which would require users to login,
such as Gmail, the users themselves would provide Google with a huge sum of data (Pariser, 2011:

17

The astronomical system of Ptolemy, in which the earth is at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, planets, and stars revolving
about it in circular orbits.

Page 18 of 60

33). Pariser further explains how important personalized data is for companies, e.g. how up to 60%

of Netflixs18 rentals are based on the personalized data of their users (Pariser, 2011: 8).
In recent years, big companies like Google and Facebook has been collecting more and more
information about their users. The recent decade have shown a vast development in companies
willing to pay for information concerning their demography in order to improve business-marketing
(Lace, 2005: 99). With these data comes an opportunity to know a customer on another level.

From the users point of view, the personalized data exists because it makes it easy for them to
move around in the online universe. It specializes for one's particular needs and in the process
makes it easy to interact. To have the ability to get to the needed content as fast as possible is a key
factor for the online user, which the companies takes advantage of.
Pariser explains how it is of most importance for big companies to know how to choose the right
content for their consumers. The three-step process of creating a personalized filter for the user
(Pariser, 2011: 112) works because the users identity shapes the media. However, Pariser argues

that the media also shapes the identity. So by shaping our media through our identity, our identity is
also being shaped by the media we experience. This is a self-empowering concept, which seems to
have no ending. Pariser talks about the consequences of these services and how they can in fact
create a good fit between the individual and his media by changing him. In other words; to choose
our own destiny is not an option here. Pariser believes that the destiny is already chosen for us
(Pariser, 2011: 112).

The Filter Bubble makes the individuals online choices easier by reflecting their own personality
upon the relevant material that they wants to see, but the consequence is that they do not get a
chance to decide what that material should be. It is already decided for them. As Pariser describes:
Personalized filtering can even affect your ability to choose your own destiny. In Of Sirens
and Amish Children, a much- cited tract, information law theorist Yochai Benkler describes
how more-diverse information sources make us freer. Auton-omy, Benkler points out, is a
tricky concept: To be free, you have to be able not only to do what you want, but to know
whats possible to do. (Pariser, 2011: 112)
Since Google are able to follow every step a user makes with Glass, it will make it easy for a user to
get a filter bubble via the glasses too. Glass is an extension of our mobile phone and through
personalization, Google can use all the information they receive from Glass to create a bigger filter

18

Netflix: Online movie rental company

Page 19 of 60

since the they, just like a phone, will likely be used most of the time. Nowadays people are
practically addicted to laptops. We could escape the filter by not being on our computer all the time,
but now since all smartphones have network access, they are practically small laptops we always
carry around with us wherever we are. The same goes for Glass, but with the glasses it is barely
even necessary to do anything else but talk to them and therefore makes it easier to be consumed
by the filter. Glass is not just thought of as an extension of the smartphone, but as an extension of
our individual identities. With Glass we are moving even closer to a society where we watch each
other.

4.2 Little brothers society

Tony Chalkley develops on this thought as he also has an interesting theory of how we via social
media actually contribute to surveillance. This concerns the massive sharing of information about
each other and ourselves. We constantly upload statuses, pictures, videos, we check-in to let people
know where we are and who we are with - this makes it easy for anybody to watch over us, all of our
leaked information can easily be used by third parties. Still most of us do it more and more, and it
makes it worth considering how much we are actually watched by a Big Brother - or, if we are in fact
living in a society with omnopticon, which is the concept of everybody watching everybody.
Chalkley relates to this as a society of Little Brothers and Sisters instead of the traditional Big
Brother; the point being that we are all little brothers and sisters sharing personal information about
ourselves and each other with each other. Mostly we share it via the Internet where it is accessible
for almost everybody. Of course some places like Facebook gives us the choice of privatizing our
profiles, but as soon as it is uploaded on Facebook, it is situated in an Internet database and
therefore not private anymore. As just mentioned, many people nowadays choose to share pictures,
feelings (via status updates), environment (via check-ins), interests (via follows or likes), one can
argue that we try to show ourselves the way we wish to be seen. Most of us share with each other,
and watch each other; in other words it could be said that we are all spying on each other. It is,
however, important to remember that we only have access to spy on the things that people have
allowed to be public, and it is therefore more reasonable to call it watching than spying (Chalkley et al,
2012: 207-210).

In the last theory by Tony Chalkley, that is strongly connected to the Little Brother theory, it is also
questioned why we accept so much surveillance in our society. Here he argues that first of all, it
makes us feel safe. Even though we might be watched, there is a security in the fact that the bad

Page 20 of 60

guys who are also observed, can therefore be stopped by the watching authorities. Taking up the
Little Brother theory, it might be more a question of acceptance than security. Secondly we accept
surveillance because of what he refers to as the normalization of surveillance. We have become so
used to surveillance, that it has now become a part of our everyday life. We cannot even imagine
our lives without our smartphones and the daily use of Internet. Most people are exceedingly
dependent on the Internet; we might be surveilled on a daily basis, but we cannot stop using the
Internet, because we need it for important research, work, practical information, as well as the
argumentally less necessary things such as socializing and entertaining (Chalkley et al, 2012: 213).

4.3 The theories of ethics

The following chapters will provide different theories on the effect of online surveillance and the
ethics to be included when discussing privacy. The definition of ethics is therefore relevant when
putting a philosophical and ethical angle to the subject. Defining whether something is ethical all
comes down to the difference between morality and law. It is essential to define whether ethics are
about right or wrong, or about choosing between good and right.
The theory of good over right is called teleological; it evaluates actions by the consequences of them.
The two British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed a theory called
Utilitarianism. The theory is that the moral doctrine we should act in order to produce the greatest
happiness for everyone affected by an action (Spinello, 1995: 19-20). When using utilitarian
analyzation, the focus is on the benefits and costs to all the individuals involved. The goal is, as
mentioned before, the greatest happiness, but what is essential to remember is that it has to be for
the greatest amount of people. Utility is another term for describing this type of good; it is the
foundation of morality. The consequences are again what matters the most, even if there has to be
done wrongs in order to achieve the goal - The goal being as much happiness as possible for
everyone affected.
When analyzing by the utilitarian theory we compare benefits vs. costs to see what weighs the
most. If there will be a larger amount of benefits, it is from the utilitarian point of view, defined as
worth the costs. Happiness is the goal and main-interest in utilitarianism, but there is the
unavoidable struggle with how to define happiness. This definition-dilemma of happiness also
makes it hard to define when it is greater benefits than costs. According to utilitarianism, happiness
is the main benefit, and it supposedly excuses whatever costs, as long as the achieved happiness is
greater than the costs. But if we cannot measure how great the benefit is (benefit being the

Page 21 of 60

happiness for the largest amount of people), it is hard to tell if the benefit is greater than the costs;
thus the theory is a hypothetical one that cannot always be applied with a direct outcome.
Deontological framework is the opposite theory of teleological and obviously utilitarianism. Here it
is about always choosing right over good, cause thereby the right is chosen over any wrong-doing at
all; it is simply a duty-based theory. Immanuel Kants (1724 1804) moral philosophy is a great
example of deontological theory. It is completely opposed to utilitarianism; what he wants is the law
of moral to be rational, just like all other laws of physics are. There will never be doubt about what is
a moral decision, if you have first decided that you believe in the deontological definition of morality.
It is easier to tell right from wrong than to tell what is actually good as just mentioned; defining
happiness and good is a serious struggle on the utilitaristic field. What can be a flaw in Kants
deontological theory, is how sometimes the duty is truly more hurtful than for example a so called
white-lie. Take an extreme example where you have to lie to someone in order to save them from a
cold blooded murder. Here there is no doubt that most people would find it more ethically right to tell
a lie, than to let an innocent victim get murdered.
William David Ross (1877 1971) therefore came up with a more flexible extension of Kants dutybased theory, where he includes prima facie duties. These are basically duties that are superseded
by higher obligation. In other words he makes space for exceptions to the normally preferable duties
(Spinello, 1995: 14-32).

4.4. Foucaults Discipline and Punishment

One of todays most influential contemporary sociological theorist, Michel Foucault, was born in
France 1926, during the German occupation of the country. There is no doubt that the occupation
and World War II had a great influence on the mindset of young Foucault. His fascination of power
relations and human sciences are fundamental themes presented in both his philosophical,
psychological and historical work most acknowledged is his Surveiller et Punir (in English;
Discipline and Punishment), known as Foucault's tome regarding disciplinary society, punishment,
and most importantly in this case; surveillance.19
Discipline and Punishment is a book written in 1975, and divided into four parts, each explaining
Foucault's theories and thoughts. As earlier mentioned, power is the core - Foucault's concept of

19

We will be using a translated version of Surveiller et Punir, Discipline and Punishment by Alan Sheridan. Important to
note that some understanding may have gone lost in the translation.

Page 22 of 60

power was at the time considered radical and complex, as it; ... instead of a simple relationship
between the oppressed and the oppressor, power involves a much more multifaceted chain of
relations weaved throughout society (Sheridan, 1977: 196) According to Foucault, power is not
exclusive between two parts, but works on a higher level where a great part of society is included
due to the consequences of power relations. Foucault additionally argues that power therefore
shapes the behaviours and actions of all individuals. This is explained in part one, along with a
notion on how knowledge and power goes hand in hand; one cannot exert power without knowledge,
while at the same time knowledge always provokes power. Foucault termed this concept
"power/knowledge (Sheridan, 1977).

4.4.1 Foucault and Jeremy Benthams Panopticon

Moving on to part three of Discipline and Punishment, Foucault discusses the English philosopher
and social theorist Jeremy Benthams term Panopticon. The Panopticon is an institutional building
with a watchtower at the centre, designed to observe others without them knowing whether they are
being watched or not as oppose to omnopticon - where everybody is watching everybody. The name
Panopticon is a clear reference to the Greek mythology Panoptes; a giant with a hundred eyes.20
In Foucaults example, the panopticon represents the way in which discipline and power works in
modern society. The paragraph starts with a portrayal of methods used against the plague in the
seventeenth century: separating of institutions, constant inspection and continuing registration
methods that all suggest some sort of careful, comprehensive surveillance of citizens to prevent a
plague from spreading. As Foucault describes; "there is an exceptional situation [during which
surveillance is deployed]: against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized (Sheridan, 1977: 200)
the surveillance is in this case temporary due to the peculiar situation, and the watcher is in control.
The Panopticon emerged from the need of surveillance, leaving a permanent instrument for
observatory techniques. According to Foucault, the Panoptic model introduced a new way of
thinking in modern society: the government and several institutions began to implement the practice
of keeping observations. In Principle and Punishment, Foucault paints a picture of Benthams
perfect prison, a prison that in some way resembles George Orwells novel 1984. The Panopticon
would be located in the center of the prison, making it possible for the watcher to observe the

20

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who/panopticon_folder

Page 23 of 60

prisoners every move, without the prisoners knowing. Bentham saw this reform as a perfect society;
to maintain authorization in a democratic and capitalist society, the public needs to believe that any
person could be surveilled at any time. As described by Foucault;
"In order to be exercised, this power had to be given the instrument of permanent, exhaustive,
omnipresent surveillance, capable of making all visible, as long as it could itself remain
invisible (Sheridan, 1977: 201).
Benthams hope was that, with time, people would adopt to this kind of structuralism and as a result
internalize the panoptic tower and eventually police themselves:
"He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the
constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself
the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his
own subjection" (Sheridan, 1977: 202-203).
This change in power relations provoked Foucault as he claimed privacy to be a basic human right.
His main point is how the surveillance constructs inequality and gives a huge power advantage to
the watcher, whereas the watched is becoming a victim. He compares the prison surveillance and
how it gives the guards an almost unlimited power over the convicts to how the government is
watching the citizens, and will thereby always be updated on information that benefits them in
keeping their supreme control and power (Chalkley et al, 2012: 203-204).
One can argue that this form of control has been aided in our own society by new technological
advancements that allow the government and big corporations to track any movement and behavior.

5. Analysis
The purpose of the analytic section is to provide an understanding for the problem statement: What
are the possible effects between communication technology and the surveillance state? We will
apply the above-mentioned theories to selected cases in order to give a satisfactory perspective on
the mediated life and technology that comes with it.

Page 24 of 60

5.1 Application of Foucault on the United States

The system of espionage being thus established, the country will swarm with informers, spies,
delators, and all the odious reptile tribe that breed in the sunshine of despotic power. The
hours of the most unsuspected confidence, the intimacies of friendship or the recesses of
domestic retirement, will afford no security. The companion whom you must trust, the friend in
whom you must confide, are tempted to betray your imprudence; to misrepresent your words;
to convey them, distorted by calumny, to the secret tribunal where suspicion is the only
evidence that is heard. (Rep. Edward Livingston, Annals, 5th U.S. Congress, 1798)21
Judging from the citation above by Rep. Edward Livingston, numerous Americans have seen
surveillance and hidden observation as an insult to their key beliefs. When comparing this view with
the warrantless wiretaps used during the George W. Bush presidency, the shift experienced within
American society is rather clear.
Foucault's panoptic society and the concept of passive bodies through the use of surveillance is,
however, the main focus in this chapter. To briefly summarize, Foucault stated that a society of
passive bodies would emerge thanks to constant surveillance. This could be relevant to consider
when looking at the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV). Today, CCTV can be found in almost
every place imaginable; businesses, institutions, public spheres etc. The purpose of mounting these
cameras varies from supposedly preventing criminality to catching traffic law violators at
intersections. Examples of CCTV are also present within the household, as many homeowners have
chosen to install cameras to add security to their property. Even if CCTV were not as widespread as
it is today, we still think it would be meaningful to study CCTV to show how technology has
progressed to a far-fetched quantity since the death of Foucault. Foucault did not have the chance
to consider surveillance with these new advances and what this meant for the panoptic model. This
unavoidable exclusion is especially obvious today when considering the commonness of CCTV
cameras. It is estimated that there is one surveillance camera for every 96 people in the United
States.22
So, how closely does American society mirror the panoptic model with CCTV in the picture? An
article to help address this question, "How Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance Organizes the

21
22

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=socanth_honproj

http://www.networkcameranews.com/united-states-and-britain-lead-the-world-with-the-highest-number-of-surveillance-cameras-percapital/

Page 25 of 60

Social: An Institutional Ethnography,"23 by Kevin Walby, a professor in sociology, enlightens the

usage of CCTV in the United States and Canada. Immediate validation of some of Foucault's theory
is in the fact that there has been a great increase in the use of CCTV, verifying Foucault's idea that
surveillance will continue to increase. This increasing tendency is largely due to technology. The
ones watching the cameras do not have to be in the same area, or even the same country, where
the watching is taking place. Walby writes, "It is now common for banks and other commercial
entities to outsource their video monitoring to settings situated thousands of kilometers away. This
again strengthens Foucault's vision of a society with intense surveillance. One feature of the
Panopticon that Foucault emphasises is the prison's function of individualization. Each prisoner is
supposed to receive detailed attention so that the persons needs are met. If Foucault's beliefs are
correct, then this movement should have increased to American society at large.
Another professor, Graham Sewell, argues how this individualization of the panoptic model
definitively exists in the United States. He writes, "By scrutinizing our every activity, surveillance
places us in categories-for example, criminals, consumers, patients, or workers - that are easily
understood by our peers and ourselves alike. This argument displays itself in racial outlining which
rises great suspicion on minorities. For example, "suspicious names" (the majority being Muslim
names) are mentioned on a "No Fly List" in the United States. These people are particularly watched
at the airport (Shawki, 2009). The phenomenon of surveillance-labeling is expressed through
several patterns in the United States. An obvious example is security at any regular shopping mall or
boutique. Security officers openly admit that they do not treat everyone as being equally likely to
commit a crime. Walby interviewed several security officers who all admitted that they customized
their way of surveillance by only observing certain types of people. Walby describes that the security
guards he interviewed "... do not target suspicion equally towards all shoppers; rather, their informal
watching rules direct intensified surveillance at racialized minorities, single mothers, persons
receiving income assistance, and other socially constructed categories. The security guards operate
off categories that give certain people special attention (Walby, 2005). The Panopticon model here
gains validity as people are treated in a heterogeneous manner. The United States has not entered
an age where everyone is treated with the same respect. Managers can also track their employees
every movement with several kinds of Management Information Systems. A maldistribution within
power relations occurs.
A professor in marketing and philosophy, Graham Sewell, argues that the "vision of elite groups
exercising control using management information systems also bears a striking resemblance to the
principles of panoptic surveillance.

23

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4146130?uid=3737880&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21103117010797

Page 26 of 60

He continues:
It bears a striking resemblance because managers have such complete control over their
subordinates. Virtually all of their activities can be checked to make sure they are performing
their duties correctly. (Sewell, 2006)
Is it important to emphasize that of course, not every single move of the employees are monitored,
but the possibility alone could have a great influence on the employees behaviour. Hypothetically,
and according to Foucault, these people would have adopted the fear of potential negative
consequences due to the fact that they know they are being observed. Therefore, there is no actual
need for surveillance since they act as if they are always being watched. A direct connection to the
arguments made in Discipline and Punishment.
So far, several arguments presented in Foucaults theory concerning surveillance have been
validated. But modern American society does not completely comply with Foucault's hypothesis. The
problem is not in any specific detail, but is more found in an all-encompassing theme. In Discipline
and Punishment, Foucault predicts that essentially all of society will function like the Panopticon.
This is, to say the least, a bold claim. We can of course not reject the idea that society as Foucault
describes it is yet to come, and that the Panopticon is indeed our future. But so far, at this point one
cannot possibly argue that the United States has become the new Panopticon.
Foucault's book argues that prisoners in a Panopticon are constantly aware that someone may be
watching them. This awareness triggers them to modify their behaviour, ultimately becoming dead,
passive bodies. However, CCTV is an obvious example on how Foucault's theory fails. Walby
claims that these CCTV cameras have become so common and discreet that Americans no longer
register that someone might be watching them. He explains:
The prevalence of discrete and mundane surveillance practices does not create the automatic
functioning of power that Foucault had envisioned. For instance, CCTV cameras are not
noticed by the people who fall under the optical gaze. The presence of cameras does not
directly alter people's behaviour. (Walby, 2005)
American citizens do not change their behaviour in response to the cameras, an explanation could
be that technology has become so refined and such a big part of the culture that Americans have, to

Page 27 of 60

an extent, forgotten about CCTV. For CCTV to function as it would in a panoptic society, it would
have to be much more obvious, and exert much more power over individuals.
Another reason why Foucault's concepts of surveillance are inconsistent in today's world comes
from another reflection by Walby. In the Panopticon, the guards simply cast a stare on the inmates.
The inmates, on the other hand, must adjust their behaviour to avoid punishment. Yet in a society in
which CCTV is discreet and Americans do not constantly think about its presence, it is actually those
that do the gazing who alter their own actions. Walby elaborates:
"... it is the CCTV operators' watching behaviour which is normalized along institutional lines by
being behind the camera at Suburban Mall, not the shoppers' behaviour by being pored over
by the all-seeing eye. (Walby, 2005)
This is a twist to the Panopticon model. It is supposed to be the shoppers, not the guards, who
change. Yet it is the guards who change regarding their view on specific people as they see them
with greater suspicion than before they began their employment. The application of the Panopticon
to American society has therefore not been completely efficient since it is actually those that are
observing that have been influenced so much by surveillance that they change their approaches and
behaviours. This is a strong contrast to Foucault's visualization - a complete reverse in power
relations.

5.1.1 Googles Panopticon

As mentioned above, Foucaults interpretation of the Panopticon and the following effects was not
entirely applicable when looking at CCTV. But what if Kevin Walbys concern became a reality? That
these cameras recording our every move were no longer subtle and discreet, but more in-your-face?
On-your-face?
Glass is expected to launch in early 2014, and is marketed as making augmented reality a part of
our lifestyle. Imagine your brain being augmented by Google, Google CEO and co-founder Larry
Page said in a 2004 interview (Rhrict, 2013). By now, this may no longer be just an imagination.
Many great things can be said about Glass this new kind of technology brings endless
opportunities, such as doctors who films a medical operation for education purposes, walking
directions on the spot etc. But everything comes with a prize besides the $1,500, which the
glasses costs (Rhrict, 2013), Glass also gather real-time information about our every move, every
conversation, every text message. What we see, what we hear, where we go and what we do, being
it at home, at work or in public, Google will know, and possibly use to their benefit. As mentioned
Page 28 of 60

before, publicists and corporations have been data mining as long as it was an option, and we as
consumers already give most of the information through the use of CMC, apps, GPS devices etc.
Glass does not essentially do anything new, but by wearing Glass, we are basically offering our
personal data on a silver platter. As a consequence, we are not only inviting companies not to
forget the government to view our thoughts, patterns, and consumer habits. When using Glass, we
are unavoidably inviting everyone into our private lives even further, literally placing them directly in
front of our faces 24/7. Knowing this, Foucaults vision of a passive bodies-society may not sound
so far away. We would all be monitoring each other, ultimately doing fieldwork for Google.
This has raised numerous alarming questions concerning privacy. The Australian privacy
commissioner and 36 other data protection authorities has written an open letter to CEO Larry Page,
raising a concern towards Glass privacy settings. (Essers, 2013)
Jennifer Stoddart, Canada's privacy commissioner, signed the letter. One of their main worries in the
letter is that people can use Glass to film and record others;
"We are writing to you as data protection authorities to raise questions from a privacy
perspective about the development of Google Glass. () Fears of ubiquitous surveillance of
individuals by other individuals, whether through such recordings or through other applications
currently being developed, have been raised. Questions about Google's collection of such data
and what it means in terms of Google's revamped privacy policy have also started to appear.
() The details of how Google Glass operates, how it could be used and how Google might
use the data the technology collects have so far largely come from media reports that contain
a great deal of speculation (Essers, 2013)
In addition, the authorities strongly urged Page to "engage in a real dialogue with data protection
authorities about Glass." The letter also questioned Google on how the gathered information is
shared with third parties (see Appendix 3), if Google had done a privacy risk assessment, and if they
would share the outcomes. Googles vice president of public policy and government relations, Susan
Molinari, replied on behalf of Google on June 7th. Several questions raised in the Congresss letter
were not answered in Google's response, including a request for examples on what Google would
do in order to secure the privacy of non-Glass users.
"Use of Google Glass will be governed by the terms of the Google Privacy Policy. No changes
to the Google Privacy Policy are planned for Glass," the letter states. In response to the
Congresss question: "What proactive steps is Google taking to protect the privacy of non-

Page 29 of 60

users when Google Glass is in use?" Google responded, "We have built some social signals
into the way Glass is used. These signals help people understand what users are doing, and
give Glass users means for employing etiquette in any given situation." (Essers, 2013)
Google's response letter generally highlights the device's positive features and evaluates the
existing regulations as sufficient. Congressman Joe Barton later commented:
"I am disappointed in the responses we received from Google. There were questions that
were not adequately answered and some not answered at all. Glass has the potential to
change the way people communicate and interact. When new technology like this is
introduced that could change societal norms, I believe it is important that peoples rights be
protected and vital that privacy is built into the device..." (Essers, 2013)
Google has tried to convince Barton by demonstrating Glass to him in person, but with no greater
impact.

5.2 The interest collar

I fear the day technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation
of idiots. - Albert Einstein (1879-1955).
Glass is not only a new way of surveilling, it is also a way of being more inclosed in ones own world.
It could seem that Albert Einsteins fear (the quote above) is coming true, as we, especially the
younger generation, seem to be more interested in being social online than in real life.
In Parisers theory, The Filter Bubble, it is argued how we are in fact being decentralized into
individual bubbles. These bubbles are functioning as a collar-tag that lets everybody know what
your specific interests are. It is a personal ID, which is unique to the person behind it. As Pariser
describes in his book:
The future of the web is about personaliza-tion . . . now the web is about me. It is about
weaving the web together in a way that is smart and personalized for the user.
(Pariser, 2011: 8)

Page 30 of 60

It has become a major factor to personalize through the web in the mediated society. Glass is the
ultimate product of this evolution. This next step in the evolution of technology has the potential to
become the direct channel in which the online users activities is summoned. Glass will be the
frontier for many companies that wants to advertise and get their consumers attention through
Google, which of all big internet companies, is well known for making their bread and butter through
vast amount of advertisement. Thus there is no doubt that Google will take advantage of their new
products abilities and incorporate ads within the products interface. It is logical to think that Google
will merge the personalized data into Glass, as they have done with all of their other products. As it
is described in the Filter Bubble theory: You are getting a free ser-vice, and the cost is information
about you. (Pariser, 2011: 6). The fact that Google is most likely to deliver ads through Glass is also
emphasized in the user agreements of the product, where it is clearly stated that some features
require the user to have a Google account.24
Pariser believes the personalization of the user data is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It
can often happen that we get a friend invitation from a program on Facebook that is not relevant for
us. Regardless we are still going to get the invitation because the user data that we provided by
being online, has generated an demographic stamp on our person; a stamp that tells the program
that we should get this invitation (Pariser, 2011: 187-188). Likewise it is also plausible that a Glass
user will keep getting ads about computers if that is what they are searching for when online. The
user do not have a saying whether or not they will be getting ads about computers. The automatic
software algorithmics has already decided this because it has analyzed the personalized data and
found the user relevant enough to receive ads about computers. Pariser describes these automated
programs as advertars (Pariser 2011: 190). The advertar has only been created for the greater
purpose of commercial use. The advertar is a direct product of the personalized data, and a lot of
companies are making a huge effort in trying to de-anonymizing the Web (Pariser, 2011: 111).
Whatever the individual does online will be reflected in Glass.
When we look at their website, Glass is presented as a new and smart technical object which makes
life more enriching and ergonomic for the user. The process of gaining access to information has
never been easier than now. When we wear Glass, we wear our information. The process of
physically going to a computer, to retrieve the information, is over. Now the user only has to ask the
Glass for the information and it is given. It seems that Glass could very well function as an extension
of the human body. It gives us a new way of interacting online, as well as on the social levels.

24

Google Glass terms: http://www.google.com/glass/terms/

Page 31 of 60

The new possibilities Glass represents is revolutionary for the modern age, but are we free? Is it
possible to use this technology without losing one's identity? This is a very important question in
Parisers Filter Bubble theory. Are we in fact taking over the identity that is given to us by the
Internet, and just neglecting the original blueprints of our personality?
Does Glass hold the potential to arrange a new identity for its users? When having to maintain a
working Google account in order for Glass to properly function, then there is no doubt about the fact
that the content and ads presented on the users computer will also be presented on Glass on the
background of the users personal data. It is, however, clear that Pariser wants more transparency
with companies holding vast amounts of personal data. The big online companies functions as
relevance-seeking machines, which is fuelled with vulnerable personal data (Pariser 2011: 229). They
must begin to realize that they have a much more important role in the society, other than what they
initially intended. It may be that Googles motto is Dont be evil, but what if they unintendedly
happened to be? As Pariser explains:
I once explained to a Google search engineer that while I did not think the company was
currently evil, it seemed to have at its fingertips everything it needed to do evil if it wished. He
smiled broadly. Right, he said. We are not evil. We try really hard not to be evil. But if we
wanted to, man, could we ever! (Pariser, 2011: 147)
Pariser is definitely trying to send a message to his readers; it may be that the individual find their
online life easier with the help of the personalization of his data. Though however easy it may seem,
there is no guarantee that their personal data will not be used in a bad consensus. If Google wants
too, they can do whatever they want with the individuals data, and they cannot do anything about it.
If an individual is using Google, that person has agreed to their terms and conditions, and if Google
wants to use this personal data, they will have the right to do so, without the person having any say
to it.
The Internet has changed radically from being a free source of information flow, with a decent
amount of anonymity for its users, to becoming a possible surveillance and marketing tool for big
organisations. This is a general concern for Pariser. He mentions that although he likes the
shortcuts from Google, he cannot ignore the fact that this new era of personalization is completely
invisible to the general user. Thus it becomes harder to know what information the Internet has on

Page 32 of 60

us as individuals, as well as how and where it applies that personal information. How are we able to
trust those companies that has access to all this information?:
While the Internet has the potential to decentralize knowledge and control, in practice it is
concentrating control over what we see and what opportunities we are offered in the hands of
fewer people than ever before. (Pariser, 2011: 218)
As Pariser says:
The Internet may know who we are, but we do not know who it thinks we are or how it is using
that information. Technology designed to give us more control over our lives is actually taking
control away. (Pariser 2011: 218-219)
To cast some more light on the consequences of the personalization of data we have chosen to deal
with a story about a pregnant teenage daughter. She had an account at Target25 where she was
searching for, and buying, specific articles that women are most likely to buy whilst pregnant. What
she did not know, however, was that by each search she did online, she was actually revealing
information about herself being pregnant. As a consequence of her online behaviour, she began to
receive baby-related commercials from Target in the shape of coupons and online ads. Eventually
her dad got angry and called Target to ask why they sent all this baby-related material to his
daughter, when she is still a kid, attending high school. Meanwhile he then discovered that his
daughter was actually pregnant, and he had to apologize to the Target employee a few days later.
So Target actually predicted the daughters pregnancy before her father found out about it. They
were able to do it because they used exactly the same system as Google. Demanded the users to
have an account at their company, and then looked at what they were searching for when they were
online. In this case the pregnant daughter were looking at certain products related to pregnant
women. If a woman bought more of these products, then surely there was a great chance that she
would be pregnant, and the system would automatically kick in (Hill 2012).
The case of the pregnant daughter is an excellent example of the positive and negative sides of
personalized data. It is nice that she can get all the relevant products that she would need as
pregnant, but on the other hand she is also receiving a mark that says she is in that category. Her
search results has been collected and transformed into a personal data pattern, which Target uses.
One might say that Target has targeted her. When looking at Targets logo it looks remarkable as an

25

American supermarket

Page 33 of 60

actual Target (See appendix 1). Speaking in a symbolic manner we could say that all the online
companies, including Target, has an aim on their users - a target. All individuals risks being targeted,
but we are rarely conscious about it; therefore not very cautious about it. Whatever ones activities
online are, these activities set us as a target for the major Internet companies. This way we make
ourselves targets by searching and leaking personal data, simply by being ourselves online.

5.3 Social Semiotics on Glass

Taking a look at a scenario from 2012, where an American tourist, Professor Steve Mann was in
France, vacationing with his family. Dr. Mann is the inventor and wearer of the sight-enhancing
Eyetap Digital Eyeglass (Mann, 2012), which helps his vision. Glass were a completely new
invention at the time, and are still not available in Europe, but since Mann was an American tourist,
the perpetrators might have thought he was wearing Glass, simply based on what they have heard
or read about the Glass. Dr. Manns Eyetap is attached to his skull and is only removable with the
use of special tools, and on top of that, it looks quite similar to Glass.
The appearance of an Eyetap is very resembling to Glass (see Appendix 2).
It is very likely that the perpetrators were not even mistaken it for Glass, but for the idea of Glass,
being glasses that can film, and where the user is practically spying on everyone around him
wherever he is going with these glasses. The biggest difference in the looks of Glass and Eyetap is
the that the camera attached on Glass is hardly visibly, while on Dr. Manns Eyetap the camera is
very noticeably and more likely to get the surroundings apprehensive. Glass really contains so much
more than a camera, it is like having a tiny computer attached to your glasses, but it is quite
plausible that the perpetrators only thought as far as: camera, surveillance, lack of privacy, get
that man out of here! A camera is a symbol of spying, surveillance, and makes some people act
certain ways, from their associations. A pair of glasses is usually a symbol for intelligence, and this
is probably also thought of by Google, when they designed their new device. Glasses generally
gives an association to someone smart, which is exactly what Google are aiming for.
Dr. Mann initially received some suspicious question from an employee who wanted to know what
those glasses were about, but Mann happened to have his medical papers with him, stating that
these glasses were simply digital eyeglasses, which made the employee calm down. Then again
when Dr. Mann was eating his food, not just one, but altogether three perpetrators verbally insulted
him, tore up his medical papers, and ended up physically assaulting him, pushing him out of the
restaurant, and, consequently, damaged his Eyetap glasses.26

26

http://eyetap.blogspot.dk/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html

Page 34 of 60

This case is interesting on many levels, but using social semiotics we can actually try to see it from
the perpetrators points of view. Why would they insult a man because of the glasses he is wearing?
It must have been an honest mistake that they thought he was spying on them with his Eyetap
camera, but why would they assume that? Why did it offend them so much? And why did they not
believe Manns medical papers that proved he was just wearing Eyetap? This all might have to do
with the modern society that we live in, where surveillance has become a factor that people
apparently worry about. Especially when it is not just on a workplace, where it is somehow more
reasonable to have cameras installed to spy on the assistants as well as the customers, but to be
surveilled when eating at McDonalds, that is an invasion of privacy.
According to Saussures semiotic theory a sign (sign being everything that communicates - it can be
a picture, a word etc.) is consuming a signifier, which is the physical existence of the sign, and a
signified, which is the mental concept; the way people read the sign based on their personal
background. The collaboration between the signifier and the signified is called signification, and its
turnout, is then the external meaning (Fiske, 1982: 42-49). Applying Saussures theory on this case, it
shows how the society that we live in, with increasing technological devices and surveillance all over,
have caused these perpetrators to be completely certain about Dr. Manns glasses to be some sort
of spying ware, possibly Glass. Though this case took place in France, and our main focus in this
project is the United States of America, it has to be demarcated that the technological revolution has
had a huge impact on all of the world, and especially the western part of the world; meaning Europe
and North America. Manns incident at McDonalds illustrates how these perpetrators felt so
threatened by those digital glasses that they got aggressive, when really it was all because of their
prejudices. If we, as Saussure proposed with his signification, see, read, and experience the world
around us based on our background knowledge and previous experiences, this would be a plausible
explanation for why the perpetrators reacted so strongly to Dr. Manns Eyetap.
This leaves us speculating about what consequences can be once people start wearing Glass
wherever they go. Is there going to be a group of anti-Glass people who assault all the Glass users,
or is it going to be forbidden to wear them in most restaurants, shops, workplaces, clubs etc.? Will
there be signs on the doors saying: No Glass Allowed, just like there is a No Smoking sign? Would
it not ethically be right to keep some sort of privacy? Though we live in a society where most people
are leaking all kinds of information about themselves, it is at least up for ourselves to choose what
we share. If Glass does not get controlled at all, we will have no idea of when we are, not just being
watched, but actually filmed, who is filming and more importantly; what they are going to do with it.

Page 35 of 60

In order to avoid loose speculations, we will after a brief optimize of ethics, apply the different ethical
theories to put a more philosophical angle on this case.

5.4 Ethical theory of Glass

In the following section of the analysis part of this project, we will be applying the before
mentioned teleological utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham and William D. Rosss extension of
the deontological pluralism theory from Immanuel Kant to give a better understanding of the
ethical aspects that come into play when they are applied to Glass.
When looking at the ethical rights and wrongs of using Google Glass in public, it is imperative
that one keeps in mind that the laws, which are established in any given society, such as the 4th
Amendment,27 cannot be assumed to be morally acceptable. Additionally, the individual person
and corporations also have different moral obligations in this sense, where the individual is
responsible for their own actions, and the corporation will take the longevity, name, and image of
that corporation into account of their actions (Spinello, 1995: 17).
With the rapid growth in introduction to more and more devices that both gathers and gives us
digital information on the go, there is a lack of agreed ethical ways, which have not yet had time
to manifest, of using these devices in our everyday life. Is it wrong to sit and text our friends on
our new smartphone while having a conversation with our parents? Is it okay to update our
Instagram gallery when we are dining at a restaurant with our friends? In order to find out what is
deemed right or wrong when using Glass in public, more specifically the ability to record video
without anyone but the user knowing, we will be applying the teleological utilitarianism theory that
strives for the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Spinello 1995: 19). To begin with and
in turn to use William D. Rosss extension of the deontological pluralism theory from Immanuel
Kant, which is firmly opposed to utilitarianism (Spinello 1995: 24), and emphasizes that we
should Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Spinello, 1995: 28), we will now
apply it on the above case; Dr. Manns incident at McDonalds.

5.4.1 Mann versus McDonalds

It is important to remain objective in the judgment between what is right and wrong when applying
the utilitarian ethical theory. In this case there are two involved parties, first the McDonalds
franchise and employees, and second Mann and his family. It is vital that we first state the

27

(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourth+Amendment)

Page 36 of 60

benefits and the costs for which party is causing the greatest deal of benefit, and the least
amount of cost with the actions, before the theory can conclude anything.
To begin with, we take a look at the McDonalds fast food franchise and its employees, in which
they have a professional obligation to act in the best interest of the company they are employed
in (Spinello, 1995: 17). One could argue that the reason for the action taken towards Dr. Mann is
because of the digital age, which in its current state, have not developed social norms for using
new devices such as smartphones and Glass. In the act of Manns device being touched, or
attempted to be forcibly removed, the device will take pictures as a means of self defense as
quoted from Manns blog by damaging the Eye Glass, Perpetrator 1 photographed himself
and others within McDonalds. 28 With the self-defense mechanism from Manns Eyetap, it
provided him in this case with the benefit of proof, which was only possible from the actions
taken towards Manns device. Additionally, a place that deals with perishable food and sanitary
standards to uphold, are in the constant risk of having random checkups on the hygienic aspects
of that location, have the reason to be concerned about being monitored or recorded since they,
as a franchise, do not know for what purpose that action is being executed towards them. The
cost in this case, is the thought of Mann filming and reporting possible below-standard evidence
to the necessary health authorities, damaging the reputation of McDonalds. Furthermore, the
physical force used against Mann, has most likely startled his wife, children, and the additional
guests in the McDonalds at the given time, when this episode took place. On the other hand, the
benefit gained from the action taken by the McDonalds staff towards Mann, have been a
preemptive strike against a could-have-been greater amount of costs which would have affected
McDonalds reputation. In turn this could have caused a substantial measure of cost towards the
name of the chain, and in turn, all of the staff of McDonalds as a whole. An important view to take
on this, is the one of the bystanders that might have felt violated from the misinterpreted device,
which is in fact only there to provide good for Mann on a healthy level. The rest of the guests
present on the location might not even have paid any attention to the gadget, had the episode not
escalated. The employees that took action towards Mann are in charge of their own choice, and
as Bentham says There are no rules to shoulder you responsibility (Spinello 1995:17), meaning
that despite acting as agents of McDonalds, they each acted by their own conscious choice.
Having looked at McDonalds side of this episode, we take our look at Mann and how cost and
benefit is measured from his point of view in the case.

28

http://eyetap.blogspot.dk/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html

Page 37 of 60

First of all, the cost that Mann experienced is not just that of his own assault, his family
witnessing the act, or the bystanders in the McDonalds having to see the episode unfold in front
of their eyes while enjoying their meal, but the assault of a person wearing a gadget to help
improve his sight, and overall wellbeing as a human being. Additionally, one might argue that this
strike upon a renowned individual like Mann, can be seen as a direct attack on anyone wearing
life enhancing gadgets such as pacemakers, insulin pumps etc. Furthermore, the post he made
on his blog after this episode have spread the incident, beyond the confines of the people that
were on location when the episode occurred, to the Internet, reposted by various blogs, and is
still being discussed (Mann, 2012). In turn, this has caused an ethical cost towards the McDonalds
franchises name. Mann states on his blog that as this technology becomes mainstream,
McDonalds might need to get used to it. (Mann, 2012). This puts McDonalds further in a spotlight
in which they do not want to be; causing additional cost for the franchise.
Self-empowerment is a vital thing to state in this matter29 since with the use of Manns online
presence as a Professor, and an individual with proof of what happened to him in this incident,
the tables on the regular company-versus-civilian have turned, and in turn have caused
McDonalds a regrettable amount of cost.
Given these arguments for both sides in this case, it is time we take a look at the side that causes
the greatest happiness for the greatest number. (Spinello, 1995: 19), and the amount of people
that could have been caused most cost, meaning the largest loss of benefit. To do so, we have
to take two alternatives, and look at which one of them that will provide the largest amount of
benefit.
Alternative one: the French McDonalds safeguards its name and longevity by disposing of
possible implications of hidden check-ups on the state of the restaurant, by kicking Mann out of
the restaurant. Bystanders might be shocked, Mann will blog and fight towards what he finds to
be a unruly treatment, but in turn the cost of having hidden documentation of bad standards
could hurt everyone employed in the McDonalds franchise.
Alternative two: Mann represents a section of people that need devices to have a better life; the
pain he experiences is in the name of everyone that is in need of such gadgets, and also as a
McDonalds guests, although present guests might have felt that their private life was
compromised by the misinterpreted Eyetap device of Mann. The benefit Mann could cause in this
sense is that of everyone wearing such gadgets, as it is a direct assault upon these cyborgs.
Having put these two alternatives up against each other, the verdict is that the greatest amount of
people that receive benefit in the McDonalds versus Mann incident is the one that favours

29

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf

Page 38 of 60

McDonalds and its employees. This is due to the action being looked upon as it unfolded, but if
utilitarianism looked at the following cost towards McDonalds, then one could argue that the more
beneficial side would have been deemed to be Mann.
Furthermore, issues arise when objective theories need to be applied to a case where one side
have to aim to be professional and save its reputation, and the other is a regular individual, which
acts on self-serving and moral reasoning. One might says that the treatment of Mann is unfair,
undemocratic, and that the world will be fueled with another source of cost, but taking a look at
the bigger picture one could say that what might have worked out for the larger amount of people
at the very moment of the episode, is now taking its toll in the aftermath on the online platform,
where other people living with gadgets and people that feel that it goes against their ethical
opinions. This has spawned a whole new wave of cost from the actions taken against a single
individual and his family. To sum it up, one could argue that the possibility of acting on behalf of
sparing people cost, is overwhelming and most likely not possible if you belong to a corporation
or a niche.
To broaden the ethical theory spectrum of the analysis we will now apply the oppositional
adaption of Kants deontological theory, from Ross, to the Mann versus McDonalds case.
Firstly, Ross theory is rooted in the belief that each and every one of us should live by the prima
facie (moral imperatives), which should be applicable under normal circumstances, in regards to
the prima facie hierarchy of obligation (Spinello, 1995: 27).
The seven basic moral duties in the Mann case are binding when evaluating which party carries
the greatest balance of prima facie rightness, and prima facie wrongness.
The moral duties which Mann qualify under is that of fidelity, in which Mann stays true to his
permission from the Doctor use of his device, and that of the seventh, noninjury, in which he is a
direct victim of. The McDonalds employees break these two basic moral duties, and since they
do not abide by a higher prima facie obligation such as gratitude, in relation to appreciate
gratitude when Mann uses his funds at their restaurant, or the direct opposition of reparation, in
which the damage done towards Mann and his device have not yet been done right by.
Additionally, to further prove that Mann carries the greater prima facie rightness, one can also
ask both of these questions: Is my action universally acceptable even to those who are directly
affected by it? (Spinello, 1995: 28), and Would others accept what I have done if it were to
become public knowledge? (Spinello, 1995: 29). In regards to these two questions, one can
conclude that since McDonalds does not want to have their customer experience to include

Page 39 of 60

assault, and in addition to that, it is not in McDonalds best interest to have this episode out in
public due to the prima facie duties being broken.
In summary, Bentham values McDonalds as being right due to the action taken towards Mann
causes the greatest benefit to them, and Ross deems Mann the one in possession of the greater
amount of prima facie rightness. Both of these ethical theories provide us with a view on how
right and wrong can be portrayed when using different theories.

5.4.2 Glass with Class

Let us now turn our heads to a hypothetical episode in which a Glass wearer walks down a street full
of non Glass wearing individuals, with Glass equipped, the constant possibility of using the device to
both record video and take pictures in public without anyone knowing - unless they know that it can
be seen when the Glass wearer is recording, by watching the reversed display on the tiny seethrough display.30 In regards to utilitarianism, which is the theory we will be applying to this example,
one could say that the two parties in this scenario is that of the Glass wearing individual, and
everyone that comes into the sight of the person that wears them. The glass user can use the
device to go about in their daily life and record video material for their own collection, be it to
immortalize family memories, test out the limits to what he can record without anyone noticing,31 or
to acquire evidence in case they get into a conflict within their life. The individual bystanders, who
are recorded by the Glass wearer, are unsuspecting due to the sleek design of the device and
therefore would otherwise act under a different consensus if it were more obvious that the device
was recording. The gap between what is private and public is thin in this sense, due to the
unsuspecting individuals that are simply acting out their daily routines, whereas the Glass wearer is
a possible constant observer, and recorder, that can upload and stream what they sees to the
Internet and other platforms. In turn they are making the private lives public for the entire world to
see. With that being said, to objectively evaluate the greater benefit, over the greater cost in this
scenario with the use of the utilitarian theory, one must first look at the benefits of a life, where some
individuals will wear Glass. Firstly, the ease of recording video material for one self to commemorate
important moments in the Glass wearers life is a selfish benefit of easily using already existing video
recording technology, but what if the recording is of a person committing a crime, be it theft, murder,
or kidnapping, then does the hidden device suddenly becomes a game changer in helping targets of
the before mentioned crimes? In India, a doctor have even gone to the point of giving a first person

30
31

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/04/29/google-glass-how-they-worked-for-me.html?page=all
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1987

Page 40 of 60

view of how he performs his surgeries both to help his students, but also with the belief that helping
in advanced surgical procedures with the use of Glass is not impossible to see in a not so distant
future.32
Taking a look at the individuals not wearing Glass, their cost lies in the loss of privacy, risk of
obtaining valuable information such as credit card pin-codes or identity theft, and additionally, the
risk of appearing on the online mediums without wanting to. On the other hand, the benefits of the
non-Glass wearers could be the ability to watch news, incidents, and recordings from Glass wearers
that might not be shown on television, thus giving a more realistic view of the world by looking
through the eyes of the people, instead of watching what is being introduced to them only through
official channels. Individuals gain access to more sources of information, and due to the hierarchy of
benefits in regards to being good in an intellectual sense, one can argue that the loss of privacy,
over the ability to provide evidence for people doing wrong, reporting information to the world, is
seen as being a higher benefit than the cost for the regular man.
To summarize, the larger amount of individuals lose a sense of their privacy, but gain the fresh
stream of information and use of the devices ability from the Glass wearers; this is alternative
number one. The Glass wearers misuse Glass to their own benefit, and the individuals in turn feel
abused by the Glass wearers, and feel uneasy about the lack of knowledge of being surveyed. The
Glass users, albeit few, do not use the device for good, but instead use it as a hidden eye to obtain
information about their fellow man; this is alternative number two. With the emphasis on intellectual
benefit being favored over sensual benefit, the verdict is that alternative one is the utilitarian ethical
right since it brings the greater benefit, at the lowest cost, despite the larger section of the population
not owning the Glass product.
Having looked upon these two examples involving the core idea of how Glass video recording might
be looked upon with an ethical theoretical point of view, we now dive into the final part of our thesis.

6. Discussion
6.1 The product of surveillance
In the next section we are going to use the before mentioned Filter Bubble theory in aspect to
Glass, whilst discussing the view on mediated technology (i.e. Glass) and life, with the help of two
articles. The first article is written by Michael Rosenblum who is testing Glass. The second article is
written by Jaron Lanier who talks about the trade-off between mediated technology and freedom.

32

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/09/20/google-glass-could-help-doctors-in-rural-india/

Page 41 of 60

Michael Rosenblum is a tv-producer who has a blog on the Huffington Posts webpage. He had the
honour of testing a pair of Glass in January 2013. Even after testing it for just two days, it really
stands out how fascinated and amazed he is by the product, and how difficult it is to leave once you
have tried it out. As he says: Resistance is futile (Rosenblum, 2013).
The fascination and advancement of technology has always been a major factor for humans. We
have strived for the opportunity to get better, stronger and smarter - this goes for technology as well.
We invent technology because it - amongst many things - offers the benefit of enabling an easier
lifestyle. Through many centuries the technology has evolved into what we find ourselves with today;
smartphones, computers, tablets and so on. It has become no less than a revolution that we are
now able to be mobile and online at any given moment.
The potential for humanity to benefit from this revelation is huge, and no prior technology
parallels it. Data are entering our thought stream so intimately that the way we engage with the
physical world is being significantly enhanced. Every facet of the society we know today will
transform as a growing population plugs into the always-on lifestyle. (Chen, 2011: 47)
We have adapted our lives around the stream of data that being online has to offer. We welcome
this data without looking back because of the fact that it benefits us, but are we actually becoming
more dependent on modern technology? The positive standpoint tells us that it simplifies our
everyday life. It helps us on the professional field of studying, researching, as well as private and
practical matters like banking, shopping, finding cooking recipes, stream or download movies, music
etc., whilst also having the communication capabilities of the future. It has become so much easier
to get in touch with people since the mobile phone was invented, and with smartphones, we can
access the Internet wherever we go. The always-available, always-online phenomenon is, however,
something that raises negative concerns as well, when looking at our dependency on the technology
and everybody else. Being familiarized with the online connectivity in the mediated society holds the
downside of impatientness. We want people to reply right back to us instantaneously, but it is not
always the case that it goes that way. Additionally we also experience a loss whenever our devices
are broken or for some reason not with us.
Rosenblum believes Glass is a big step in the technological advancement and he is generally
positive about the imminent changes. On the other hand, Lanier believes that we cannot really set
aside the fact that we have been too passive on guarding our digital privacy (Lanier, 2013).

Page 42 of 60

The mediated life is very affected by the increasing internationalization and addiction to the
technologies. We are beginning to see an evolution of peoples mobility, where the fact of not always
having our smartphones close to us, is an impossible scenario. He further explains how the
concepts of Apps are decentralizing the power to the individual in favour to big companies. When
using e.g. an iPad we can only control it by the built-in - as well as add-on - apps. We cannot,
however, enter data in the apps, as one would be able to do with a computer, the data is entered by
someone else (Lanier, 2013: 5th paragraph).
Our addiction of being mobile is a fact of the 21th century, where our lifestyle is built around
mobility. But is the mobility taking over? We cannot go anywhere without leaving a digital trace.
Whether we are working on a computer, smartphone, or tablet, all will leave some sort of digital
trace that will let others know our personal activity. What if we have become a product of
surveillance?
Our devotion to the mediated technology has led to the fact that, even though we know the negative
consequences of mediated technology (i.e. surveillance), we are still using it because the negative
sides are offset by the positive sides. What Lanier is pointing out is that maybe we have been too
unconscious about the reality of taking use of mediated technology. As Lanier mentions:
I wish I could separate the two big trends of the year in computing the cool gadgets and
the revelations of digital spying but I cannot. (Lanier, 2013)
Have we been sleeping during the mediated-technology hurricane, and just do not care whether or
not we are under surveillance? It would be pleasant to believe that the network surveillance is for the
greater good of the public, that we can have a society with less crime and terror, and truly benefit
from the collected data, which also makes decisions easier when e.g. shopping online, but we do
not really know where our personal data ends up. We tend to trust certain authorities to deal with the
data in a secure way, but we cannot really be sure whether or not the data is in safe hands, however,
many people trust that it is. One thing is certain; the individual is the greatest source to collect data
from, and we as individuals collect data without even knowing it. We all have a little fruit basket in
the shape of a smartphone, computer, tablet and so on, which automatically stores data of
everyone's whereabouts. It seems that we are giving away our freedom and privacy, one small piece
at a time. But does privacy even matter anymore?
With the rise of social networking websites and smartphone apps, people are willingly giving
away all sorts of personal information everywhere they go. (Chen, 2011: 187)

Page 43 of 60

We see a valid argument from both Rosenblum and Lanier. On one hand, there is a lot of positive
effects coming with mediated technology (i.e. Glass), but on the other hand it comes at a cost,
Rosenblum says, while quoting the movie Inherit The Wind:
Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man
who sits behind a counter and says, "All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy
and the charm of distance. (Rosenblum, 2013)
In order to achieve progress there must be a sacrifice. If we want to take advantages of the online
connectivity and mediated technology, we must accept the consequences and enter the filter
bubble. Rosenblum is however still positive regardless of the consequence of laying down our
guards towards privacy. He believes that we will see a fundamental change in the way we live our
lives with the arrival of Glass (Rosenblum, 2013).

6.1.2 Sousveillance?
In todays mediated society a new concept has seen the light; Sousveillance. Sousveillance is the
concept of person-to-person surveillance, which can also be referred to as omnopticon, where
people survey each other without the interference of any authority (Mann et al., 2003: 332-334). This is
very similar to Chalkleys Little Brother theory where we are all watching each other.
It seems doubtful that people would agree to spy on others on purpose, but with todays CMC,
people are becoming more and more fixated on knowing who other people are, as well as letting
other people know who we are. By creating profiles we stage ourselves and thus becoming more
accessible to others. Staging ourselves is interesting because we are putting ourselves out there,
and in turn letting everybody know private things about us. Besides what we ourselves choose to
share, people have a tendency to forget about the various online privacy policies policies, which
may not have gotten as much attention as it should have. So what happens, when we put ourselves
online? Who could essentially be watching when we act and communicate through CMC?
The tools we stage ourselves with (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Google) are often associated with the
personalized data. As the Filter Bubble theory mentions, the personalized data has a major impact
on the user interface and how specific content are presented separately from person to person. This
might, in a near future, be applied to Glass as well. The new platform unquestionably presents a
possibility to widen the reach of surveillance capabilities, as we can now take all our content from

Page 44 of 60

being online at Google, and access it on a head-mounted device, all of which represent mobile
technologies as more integrated with the human body than ever before. Hereby the personal filter
bubble is complete. Once we integrate with Glass, the final frontier is removed and we will have
direct access to our data instantaneously. A major difference we see in Glass are the fact that a
camera is situated in the head-mount, so when wearing Glass the camera is always pointed at the
users direction of view. Of course this has been done for ergonomic reasons as well as logical. It
makes perfect sense that the camera should be placed right next to the users eye. The problem,
however, is who would be able to say whether or not the Glass user is filming the surroundings? If
someone took an actual video camera and pointed it at us, we would know that we were being
filmed, we would know this because we interpret the sign of a person facing a camera towards us,
as if the person is filming us. With Glass we do not necessarily see the camera; we see a pair of
glasses. Nonetheless, within the glasses is a camera, and the camera is always pointing at us, we
just do not notice it - making it easier for the camera to potentially be used as a tool for collecting
personal information.

6.1.3 The next step

Personalized data is interesting when looking at Glass because it is a product that holds the
possibility to really take advantage of the data and personalize with the user on another level than
today. Perhaps we will reach a society in the future that is closer to the society presented in the
movie Minority Report. In the Minority Report-society, one cannot leave their house without being
surveilled and confronted with commercials that are built around personalized data. For instance the
protagonist goes to a clothing shop and gets instantly recognized by the automated welcomer, which
scans his eyes and finds out that he has been shopping there before. The protagonist is then
welcomed and asked how it is going with that shirt he bought last time he was in the shop (Spielberg,
2002). A similar concept actually exists in the UK, where facial recognition software is used to

recover stolen vehicles, by letting CCTV-cameras scan the vehicles number plates over freeways.
This has been proven very effective, and helped officers to get to the stolen vehicles immediately.33
What if that concept could apply to Glass as well? It is a possibility, since there is a camera in the
head-mount. When having ones smartphone surveilled, what can stop companies or governments
from surveilling Glass as well, and taking use of the camera that is built into them? Though this is
just a thought, it can very easily be achieved.

33

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/An_Introduction_to_ANPR

Page 45 of 60

When looking at the fast growing popularity of e.g. iPhones we see that an increasing amount of
people are buying the product, even though it is more costly than comparable models (Curwen et. al
2010: 115-126). People buy the iPhone because it is more than a smartphone - it is a symbol of

status. Apple found the way to merge design and technology, which initially people did not need,
and made them believe that they needed it. Comparing Glass to the iPhone we find very similar
concepts: it is designed in a neat and smart way, it is easy to operate, and it allows access to all the
content one would need. Glass is, however, additionally also more integrated with the user than the
iPhone.
We believe people will find Glass at least as attractive, and addicting, as the iPhone - if not even
more. When the final Glass product launches and the popularity increase, the possibility of a future
surveillance scenario will increase too - a scenario that may even resemble the one in George
Orwells 1984.

6.2 Privacy - an anomaly

With this in mind; is privacy dead? Has technology really taken away our privacy - or did we even
have any to begin with? According to Google's vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint
Cerf, "Privacy may actually be an anomaly (Ferenstein, 2013). Vint Cerf was the co-creator of the
conventions that later became TCP/IP, the standard for what we today know as the Internet. He is
therefore acknowledged as one of the fathers of the Internet. He implies that privacy is a relatively
new development that may not be sustainable; a few decades ago, privacy was not as precious as
considered in todays society. Privacy is something which has emerged out of the urban boom
coming from the industrial revolution, he explains. "It is the industrial revolution and the growth of
urban concentrations that led to a sense of anonymity (Ferenstein, 2013).
Privacy as an inherent part of society, a common human right that now has been taken away by
technology, would therefore not be the case in fact, according to Cerf, technology actually created
the sense of privacy in the first place. The anonymity behind the computer screen gives the user a
sense of privacy, a feeling that may not be completely sincere. Cerf also warned that this was a
harsh simplification of the matter "I don't want you to go away thinking I am that shallow about it"
but overall, he believes "it will be increasingly difficult for us to achieve privacy" (Ferenstein, 2013).
Looking back at history, one could discuss that Cerf has a point when looking at the term privacy.
The concept of solitude was in the post-Roman era limited to the ministry, who dedicated their lives
to private worship. Intercourse, birth, death, just about every aspect of the life cycle plays out with
some sort of audience, architectural historian Bernard Herman explained in his book Architecture
Page 46 of 60

and Material Life in the Early American City. As a professor in early American housing, Herman
discovered that the average home was about 1610 ft. Numerous families would be living together
under the same rooftop. In addition most houses had few or no internal walls up until the 19th
century (Ferenstein, 2013). The origin of the Bed Chamber did not become accepted and
widespread amongst the wealthy European until around the 1600s, and even then, those who could
afford a bed still chose to sleep with houseguests and servants on bigger mattresses (Ronnes, 2006).
Bathrooms were public as well; proof indicates that citizens would chitchat while relieving
themselves in open multi-toilet rooms. Finding privacy inside the home would seem difficult. The rich
people who had the option to build houses with internal walls still preferred to have their private lives
on display. This suggests that grand exhibitions of ones wealth in the form of an open house were
simply a status symbol (Angela, 2009: 236). One exception to this rule may apply: excavations of
ancient Greek houses uncover buildings with divided areas and windows that made it rather
impossible to look inside. But mainly, privacy did not properly exist in ancient cities (Burke, 2000).
Perhaps the real concern is with information privacy? This is a fairly new term as well. The right to
privacy was not invented until 1890 by future Chief of Justice, Louis Brandeis. The Supreme Court
however refused to recognize the right to privacy until the 1967 case, usually referred to as Katz V.
The activist, Katz, used a public telephone booth to spread what was considered risky information
from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami in violation of federal law. After wide-ranging observations,
the FBI placed a listening device in the telephone booth and recorded all of Katzs telephone
conversations. This material was later used as evidence against Katz at his trial. Back then, the
Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution would not allow any organization to participate
in unlawful searches and captures of American citizens. The case got a lot of attention in 1967 causing US citizens to become more aware of NSAs methods.34
Regardless of the law, Cerfs point was that transparency is something we are going to have to live
through. Im not saying that we shouldnt be interested in privacy, but I am suggesting to you that
it is an accident, in some respect, of the urban revolution, he concludes (Ferenstein, 2013). Cerfs
remarks have gotten great attention due to the increased discussion of Googles use of ad targeting
and the Glass project. Cerfs comments should be seen as a reply to the criticism that Google has
received from Governments all around the world (hence the open privacy letter from Privacy and
Data Protection Commissioners) in relation to Googles privacy policies. Many are especially
concerned about their privacy in regards to Glass. It is difficult to find technological solutions to

34

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fourth-amendment/wiretaps-cell-phonesurveillance/facts-case-summary.aspx

Page 47 of 60

privacy, especially with a product like Glass. Data scientists are increasingly getting more clever at
identifying individuals from anonymous datasets. Even if an individual chooses to keep information
private, it is getting easier to ID someones interests, gender and sexual orientation from the public
activity of their social media friends. "Our social behaviour is also quite damaging with regard to
privacy," Cerf says (Ferenstein, 2013). He paints a picture of how a person could be caught doing
something that they wanted to keep a secret by being tagged in the background of a stranger's
photo a photo they never expected to be caught in.
"The technology that we use today has far outraced our social intuition, our headlights. ...
[There is a] need to develop social conventions that are more respectful of peoples privacy.
We are going to have to live through situations where some people get embarrassed, some
people end up going to jail, some other people have other problems as a consequence of
some of these experiences."
More respectful privacy conventions will likely develop as we move forward, Cerf says, but for now,
"This is something we are going to have to live through. I do not think it is easy to dictate this"
(Ferenstein, 2013).

But is it safe to sit back and let things run its course? When looking at recent revelations from
various whistleblowers, have we not done that enough? Regardless of whether technology created
the sense of privacy or not, it certainly killed it. The consequences are already remarkable - and
Glass is yet to come.

6.3 The 1984 scenario

So sure, youve got the Bill-of-Rights-ensured right to privacy in the United States, but only
insofar as you accept that your government will collect metadata from every phone call you
make, scan your emails, monitor your social media ... Privacy is surveillance. The ultimate in
Orwellian double-think.35
American journalist Alyssa Rhricht describes the current surveillance situation quite well; we may
feel that laws protect our privacy, but in reality, they do not. Citizens have been under surveillance

35

http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2013/09/21/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength-privacy-is-surveillance/

Page 48 of 60

for decades, a practise that has only been intensified throughout the years. While Cerf believes that
the feeling of privacy is a product of the improved technology, several journalists, bloggers,
professors etc. argues otherwise.
With NSA engaged in warrantless wiretapping, maintaining a call database and also in data mining
(PRISM), one could wonder if Big Brother is still just a fictional character. The telescreens installed
in every home in Orwells 1984 is of course not the case in real life or is it? These telescreens
could easily be compared to every single self-acquired smartphone, laptop or Glass, giving out
information about our every move to the great Big Brother or, as it is the case with Glass; Google.
Google has an unofficial mantra; dont be evil this mantra has given opportunity to many puns
and wordplays amongst journalists, bloggers etc. at times when Google has not lived up to this
catchphrase (Wright, 2012). Several Google scandals have gotten much attention throughout time,
e.g. when they were caught collecting private data info using their Google StreetView cars, or when
they managed to avoid Apples privacy protections in Safari to serve ads to iOS users (Wright, 2012).
However, these examples will all faint compared to the scandal Glass can create if it as planned
becomes a consumer product. Glass will make us a product; to help empathize the importance of
this message, George Orwell provides a provoking thought:
It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or
within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an
unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself anything that carried with it the
suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide an improper expression on your face
was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime
(Orweillan, 1949: 30)

With the before mentioned theoretical analysis and opposing article statements, it is safe to argue
that with Glass we are one step closer to facecrime one step closer to Big Brother. There is no
doubt that Google has plenty of opportunity and material to monitor and, to some extent, manipulate
us with personalized advertisements (as explained in Parisers Filter Bubble), but they also have
the power to sell our data to any third party interested as they own the data you produce through
Glass. As previously mentioned, this basically means that a Glass user is doing fieldwork for Google.
Glass enables us to give Google what they need. From the moment we accept the terms and
conditions, we become an extension of Google even though we may feel like we own the Glass, in
reality, Glass owns us. We are unwillingly maybe even unknowingly an unsuspecting little
brother/sister in todays modern society. Of course, one can choose not to be a part of collecting
data by not buying Glass. This, however, does not mean that we are protected from ending up in

Page 49 of 60

Googles database. As long as we are near a person wearing Glass, we are at risk. Google may say
that face recognition will not be installed, but hackers already know how to make their way around
it.36 All this information on us is kept and up for sale by third parties behind our back it may seem
innocent, but this makes us guilty until proven otherwise. To quote Gus Hunt, the chief technological
officer of Central Intelligence Agency, once again:
The value of any piece of information is only known when you can connect it with something
else which arrives at a future point in time. ... Since you cannot connect dots you do not have,
it drives us into this mode of: We fundamentally try to collect everything and hang on to it
forever. (Sledge, 2013)
We are all suspects. It may be 2013, but it sure feels a lot like 1984.

36

http://neatocode.tumblr.com/post/50292349091/face-rec-on-glass

Page 50 of 60

7. List of References
7.1 Books
- Angela, Alberto, A Day in the Life Of Ancient Rome, 2009
- Calaprice, Alice, The New Quotable Einstein, 2005
- Chalkley, Tony, Brown, Adam, Cinque, Toija, Warren, Brad, Hobbs, Mitchell, Finn, Mark,
Communication, New Media and Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, 2012
- Curwen, Peter; Whalley, Jason, Mobile Telecommunications in a High-Speed World, 2010
- Dreyfus, Hubert L., On the Internet, Routledge, 2001
- Fiske, John, Introduction to Communication Studies, Routledge, 1982
- Hamelink, Cees J., The Ethics of Cyberspace, Sage Publications, 2000
- Joinson, Adam, McKenna, Katelyn, Postmes, Tom, Reips Ulf-Dietrich, Oxford Handbook of
Internet Psychology, Oxford, 2007
- Lace, Susanne, The Glass Consumer - Life in a surveillance society, 2005
- Pariser, Eli, The Filter Bubble, VIKING an imprint of Penguin Books, 2011
- Ronnes, Hanneke, Architecture and Elite Culture in the United Provinces, England and
Ireland, 2006
- Sheridan, Alan, Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage, 1977
- Small, Gary & Vorgan, Gigi, iBrain, HarperCollins, 2008
- Spinello, Richard A. Ethical Aspects of Information Technology, 1995

7.2 Webpages
CNN Politics (2005), Bush Says He Signed NSA Wiretap Order, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

Page 51 of 60

Constant, Mike: An Introduction to ANPR, last visit: 13-12-2013

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/i/An_Introduction_to_ANPR
Facebook (2012), Meaning of Poke, last visit: 13-12-2013
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398027696875053.103987.220435901300901&type=3
Facts and case summary: Katz V United States, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/fourthamendment/wiretaps-cell-phone-surveillance/facts-case-summary.aspx
Glass What It Does, How To Get One, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.google.com/glass/start/
Goodrich, Ryan (2013), Google Glass: What It Is and How It Works, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-glass,news-17711.html
Google, Glass Terms of Sale (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.google.com/glass/terms/
Google, Privacy Policy (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
https://www.google.dk/intl/en/policies/privacy/
Hypotetisk-deduktiv metode (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
http://videnskabsteori.wikispaces.com/Hypotetisk-deduktiv+metode
Mann, Steve (2012): Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass, last visit: 13-122013
http://eyetap.blogspot.dk/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-for.html
Nanek, Lance (2013): First Facial Recognition Hack for Google Glass, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://neatocode.tumblr.com/post/50292349091/face-rec-on-glass
Small, Gary (2013), Gary and Gigi, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.drgarysmall.com/gary-and-gigi/

Page 52 of 60

Smith, Justin (2008): Mapping Facebooks Growth Over Time, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/08/19/mapping-facebooks-growth-over-time/
Thoppil, Dhanya Ann (2013): Google Glass Could Help Rural Surgeons, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/09/20/google-glass-could-help-doctors-in-rural-india/
University College London Faculty of Laws, Benthams Panopticon (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who/panopticon_folder
US National Securicy Agency (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.nsa.gov/
US National Security Agency (2013), last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/CoreValues.pdf
Vasilogambros, Matt (2013), NSA Spying Scandal: 2006 or 2013?, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/nsa-spying-scandal-2006-or-2013-20130606
Walby, Kevin (2005): How Close-Circuit Television Surveillance Organizes the Social: An
Institutional Ethnography, last visit: 13-12-2013
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4146130?uid=3737880&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=
21103117010797

7.3 Articles
- Alyssa Rhrict, (2013): An Orweillan Looking Glass
http://thecrashculture.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/an-orwellian-looking-glass/
- Andrejevic, Mark (2002): The Work of Being Watched.
http://www.csun.edu/~pr4027/coms454/454Supp/workofbeingwatched-csmc.pdf
- Andrejevic, Mark (2002): The Work of Watching One Another.
http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/viewFile/3359/3322

Page 53 of 60

- Benedict, Michael (2013): Through a Google Glass, darkly - New technology sparks privacy,
ownership concerns.
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1987
- Bruce Schneier, (2013): The Internet is a Surveillance State
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/16/opinion/schneier-internet-surveillance/
- Dana Priest, (2010): A Hidden World, Growing Beyond Control
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyondcontrol/3/
- Essers, Loek (2013): Google Glass privacy concerns raised by international data protection
authorities
http://www.cso.com.au/article/465221/google_glass_privacy_concerns_raised_by_international_dat
a_protection_authorities/
- Glenn Greenwald, (2013): The top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
- Hill, Kashmir (2012): How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnantbefore-her-father-did/
- Holly, Russel (2013): Whats New Compared to the Original Model?
http://www.itproportal.com/2013/11/05/google-glass-2-whats-new-compared-to-the-original-model/
- John Markoff (2006): Documents Show Link Between AT&T and Agency in Eavesdropping Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/nationalspecial3/13nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
- Kevin Walby (2005): How Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance Organizes the Social: An
Institutional Ethnography
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4146130?uid=3737880&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=
21103117010797

Page 54 of 60

- Kopstein, Joshua (2013): Leaked documents reveal NSA can keep 'inadvertently acquired' data on
American citizens for years
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/20/4449738/leaked-documents-reveal-the-nsas-top-secret-rulesfor-warrantless-surveillance
- Mann, Steve et al. (2003): Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for
Data Collection in Surveillance Environments
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(3)/sousveillance.pdf
- Matt Sledge (2013): CIA's Gus Hunt On Big Data: We 'Try To Collect Everything And Hang On To
It Forever'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/cia-gus-hunt-big-data_n_2917842.html
- Lanier, Jaron (2013): Digital Passivity
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/28/opinion/digital-passivity.html?_r=1&
- Lesley Cauleuy (2005): NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
- Lynch, Shana (2013): Google Glass review: Stop worrying about secret recording.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/04/29/google-glass-how-they-worked-forme.html?page=all
- McCarthy, Tom (2013): NSA awards itself A+ for accountability as it happened.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chief-keith-alexander-senate-committee-liveupdates
- Rosenblum, Michael (2013): Goggle Glass
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rosenblum/google-glass_b_4367971.html
- Shawki, 2009, Surveillance and Foucault: Examining the Validity of Foucault's Notions Concerning
Surveillance through a Study of the United States and the United Kingdom
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=socanth_honproj

Page 55 of 60

- Smith, Craig (2013): How Many People Use 340 of the Top Social Media, Apps & Tools?
http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-socialmedia/#.UqDIuo3l3Ks

7.4 Movies
- Hoback, Cullen - Terms and Conditions May Apply (2013)
- Spielberg, Steven - Minority Report (2002)

Page 56 of 60

8. Appendix
8.1 Appendix 1

8.2 Appendix 2

Page 57 of 60

8.3 Appendix 3

Google glass Letter from Privacy and Data Protection Commissioners

18 June 2013

Mr. Larry Page

Chief Executive Officer Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View,
USA California 94043
Dear Mr. Page:
We are writing to you as data protection authorities to raise questions from a privacy perspective
about the development of Google Glass, a type of wearable computing in the form of glasses [1],
which is currently in beta testing and not yet available to the general public.
As you have undoubtedly noticed, Google Glass has been the subject of many articles that have
raised concerns about the obvious, and perhaps less obvious, privacy implications of a device that
can be worn by an individual and used to film and record audio of other people. Fears of ubiquitous
surveillance of individuals by other individuals, whether through such recordings or through other
applications currently being developed, have been raised. Questions about Googles collection of
such data and what it means in terms of Googles revamped privacy policy have also started to
appear.
As you may recall, data protection authorities have long emphasized the need for organizations to
build privacy into the development of products and services before they are launched. Many of us
have also encouraged organizations to consult in a meaningful way with our respective offices.
To date, what information we have about Google Glass, how it operates, how it could be used, and
how Google might make use of the data collected via Glass largely comes from media reports,
which contain a great deal of speculation, as well as Googles own publicizing of the device.
For example, our understanding is that during the beta testing of the product, Google has put in
place extensive guidelines for software developers to follow in building applications for Glass[2].
These limits appear to be largely related to advertising within Glass. If this is indeed the case, we
think this is a positive first step in identifying privacy issues, but it is only a first step and the only one
we are aware of.
We understand that other companies are developing similar products, but you are a leader in this
area, the first to test your product in the wild so to speak, and the first to confront the ethical issues

Page 58 of 60

that such a product entails. To date, however, most of the data protection authorities listed below
have not been approached by your company to discuss any of these issues in detail.
For our part, we would strongly urge Google to engage in a real dialogue with data protection
authorities about Glass.
The questions we would like to raise include:
How does Google Glass comply with data protection laws?
What are the privacy safeguards Google and application developers are putting in place?
What information does Google collect via Glass and what information is shared with third
parties, including application developers?
How does Google intend to use this information?
While we understand that Google has decided not to include facial recognition in Glass, how
does Google intend to address the specific issues around facial recognition in the future?
Is Google doing anything about the broader social and ethical issues raised by such a product,
for example, the surreptitious collection of information about other individuals?
Has Google undertaken any privacy risk assessment the outcomes of which it would be
willing to share?
Would Google be willing to demonstrate the device to our offices and allow any interested
data protection authorities to test it?
We are aware that these questions relate to issues that fall squarely within our purview as data
protection commissioners, as well as to other broader, ethical issues that arise from wearable
computing. Nevertheless, we feel it is important for us to raise all of these concerns. We would be
very interested in hearing about the privacy implications of this new product and the steps you are
taking to ensure that, as you move forward with Google Glass, individuals privacy rights are
respected around the world. We look forward to responses to these questions and to a meeting to
discuss the privacy issues raised by Google Glass.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Jacob Kohnstamm Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, on behalf of the members of the Article
29 Working Party
Timothy Pilgrim Privacy Commissioner of Australia
Marie Shroff Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand

Page 59 of 60

Alfonso Orate Laborde Secretary for Data Protection, Federal Institute for Access to Information
and Data Protection, Mexico
Rivki Dvash Head of the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority
Hanspeter Thr Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner
Jill Clayton Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta
Jean Chartier President, Commission daccs linformation du Qubec
Elizabeth Denham Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia
[1] Google Glass includes an embedded camera, microphone and GPS, with access to the Internet.
The Android Operating System powers Google Glass, and third-party applications are currently
being built for Glass. To access Glass, a user needs a Google account.

[2] https://developers.google.com/glass/overview

Page 60 of 60