sign in sign up
<<
Home , Goggles, Google Contact Lens, Smartglasses, Sousveillance, Steve Mann (inventor)

The Future of Smart

Forward-looking areas of research Prepared for Synoptik Foundation May 2014 Brian Due, PhD. Nextwork A/S

Contents

Smart&Glasses&and&Digitised&Vision&...... &3! 1.0&The&basis&of&the&project&...... &4! 1.1!Contents!of!the!project!...... !4! 2.0&The&historic&development&of&smart&glasses&...... &5! 3.0&The&technological&conditions&and&functionalities,&and&various&products&...... &8! 4.0&The&likely&scope&of&smart&glasses&within&the&next&3H5&years&...... &9! 5.0&Likely&applications&of&smart&glasses&...... &12! 5.1!Specific!work6related!applications!...... !12! 5.2!Specific!task6related!applications!...... !12! 5.3!Self6tracking!applications!...... !13! 6.0&The&six&different&areas&of&research&...... &14! 6.1!The!optician’s!perspective!...... !14! 6.2!The!eye!professional!and!cognitive!perspective!...... !15! 6.3!The!legal!perspective!...... !17! 6.4!The!technological!and!design6related!perspective!...... !19! 6.5!The!sociological!and!historical!perspective!...... !21! The!interactionist!and!psychological!perspective!...... !23! 7.0&The&project’s&methodology&and&literature&...... &27! 7.1!The!people!with!whom!I!have!been!in!contact!...... !27! 7.2!References!...... !27!

This report has been reviewed very positively by: Martin Sønderslev, PhD, partner of Socialsquare; Bjarne Tveskov, designer and CEO of Tveskov; and Lars Kai Hansen, Professor at the Technical University of Denmark. !

2 Smart!Glasses!and!Digitised!Vision!!

This project will explore the opportunities and challenges, which arise in connection with the dissemination of glasses with built-in technology, such as Glass, with mobile, photo, Internet, GPS and video technology. The aim is to outline a variety of themes: e.g. the importance for the optical industry, for the interaction between people and for further technological development. Illustration 1 shows the six designated study areas, which will be further outlined.

Illustration 1: The six designated study areas !

3 1.0!The!basis!of!the!project! The project’s identification of key areas of research is motivated and highlighted mainly by the fact that, at the end of 2014, Google will be launching . There are already other products on the market, but the hype about Glass suggests that, in the long run, we may be talking about a game changer. Therefore this project outlines different areas of research with the objective of crystallising specific opportunities on the social, interactional, technological, legal and commercial level. I will look closely at each area and explain how all the areas could be further investigated.

In the near future technological development is going to be closely connected to vision. This applies, not only to specific variants of smart glasses, but also, more generally, to the development of what is known as the Internet of Things. In short, this means that the internet will pervade everything, and that, for example smart glasses and , will be able to communicate with things. The overall question is how the optics industry (glasses, contact , health etc.) will cope with, and relate to this development.

This project and report was commissioned and funded by the Synoptik Foundation.

1.1!Contents!of!the!project!! We begin from the outside with an aerial view, by outlining the historical development towards the manufacture and commercialisation of smart glasses. We will then take a closer look on the technological conditions and the various products on the market. We will then outline the various applications, before proceeding to a more detailed examination of the six different fields. !

4 2.0!The!historic!development!of!smart!glasses!! A great part of the evolution of human civilisation has involved a technological evolution towards better, more efficient tools: from the first flint axe and the agricultural tools of the Middle Ages to today’s high-tech products. Ideally, the driving force lies in optimisation, improvement and efficiency. Early on human beings had a very close affinity to technology. Early examples of the fusion of man and machine include the first attempts to fly, the design of various kinds of prostheses, and extended installations such as attached weapons, armour and gear.

The media theoretician, Marshall McLuhan, claimed that all technology, broadly speaking, is an extension of mankind. However, it is only with the development of the computer that we really see technology merging with human beings. This has been predominantly in sci-fi writing, computer games and early films, such as Star Trek, RoboCop and Terminator. These films showed, not only the fusion of man and machine, but also the possibilities of accessing an extra digital layer of information on a human scale.

In addition to experiments in fiction, there have always been a handful of researchers and laymen with an interest in technology, who have experimented with attaching to their bodies. But it is only with smartphones and the wearables of tomorrow, that the permanently attached computer is becoming mainstream, practically useful and, in several ways transformative in terms of culture and behaviour. Below, the development of computers from stationary computers, via , to the computers, which you constantly have on your person, is illustrated. Over the last 20 years, this development has led to one revolutionary new product category on the market after another. In the future, this development will approach total integration, with intelligent clothes, intelligent contact lenses and incorporation of computers in the skin.

Illustration 2: Timeline for the development of the computer. Far right, you can see Google Glass, Google and Google Contact etc.

5

The special feature of optics technology is that it is based on a Heads-Up Display (HUD) and Head-Mounted Display (HMD) and, in particular, an Optical Head Mounted Display (OHMD) (see technical details in Section 3.0). In brief, this is glass/plastic at eye-level, through which you can see both an online, digital world and an offline, physical world: a so-called . In this context, one can discuss just how relevant the term “glasses” always is, if it is taken literally and exclusively to mean: “a vision-corrective instrument with two lenses and frames.” This will be discussed in Section 6.1. Right now, we would like to point out that the word “glasses” has become generally accepted; hence it will be used to describe wearables, which are positioned at eye level.

Unlike other wearables and body-integrated technologies, which require you to look down or away, with smart glasses you look straight out at the world, without having to rely on the use of your hands. This provides a completely different interaction situation and radically new applications. Latest developments in optics technology are heading towards smart contact lenses and implantation. Much points to the possibility that contact lenses will take on a vast field of applications, since they represent a less disruptive aesthetic and social element. Google have already made great strides in this field with their “smart ”. We will look more closely at this topic in Section 6.4.

The development of smart glasses has its own parallel technological history to the history of the computer. The best-known proponents are the American pioneers, Thad Starner and , professors at MIT, who, way back in the 1980s, started experimenting with glasses and attached computers. As computer processes have become faster and technology smaller, the possibility of more, actual wearables has become greater. In contrast to Steve Mann and Thad Starner’s earlier versions, Glass provides a completely different user experience. However, Google have recently appointed Thad Starner as Technical Manager of Google Glass.

Illustration 3: Steve Mann (left) and Thad Starner (centre), each wearing their early smart glasses (1970s-1980s). Next to them is , CEO of Google, with Google Glass in 2013.

But smart glasses are not just smart glasses. Just like a or a tablet, they do not only come in one type and model. There are of course a wide variety of functionalities, which differentiate one kind of glasses from another. But the

6 prerequisite for smart glasses is the same. An online and offline world are starting to converge, because people want technology, so that they simultaneously and in real time, will be present in the physical world, while being able to read and produce digital information from, and for a virtual digital world. This is largely due to the technological development of computer processes, which are becoming smaller and smaller.

The impact is already visible today, where young people publicise their lives on Facebook, and Instagram. Smart glasses, where you do not have to look down or away, but get information right in front of your eyes, allow you to publish exactly what you see when you see it. This will probably reinforce the convergence of online and offline. It is this phenomenon, which generates a vast range of opportunities and challenges. It will become simultaneously easier and quicker to assist and survey, to entertain and objectify and document everything, for better and for worse.

The basis of Google Glass is the development work, started in 1995 by Mark Spitzer. He founded the company MicroOptical (later MyVu), which was supported by the USA’s Department of Defence. In 1997 the first glasses with micro-optical properties where presented, and in 2003 we saw the first development and sale of the very first, actual intelligent glasses. In 2007, the glasses were commercialised in the computer games industry with reasonable success. The company did not survive the start of the financial crisis and went bankrupt in 2010. The patents were sold to Foxconn. In 2012, Mark Spitzer was hired by Google, who also acquired patents from Foxconn. MyVu glasses are in many ways similar to the new Google Glass. But there are also many other products on the market. We will take a closer look at technology and products in Section 3.0.

Illustration 4: Example of how Google Glasses are a future (HUD / HMD), technology, which can be used for reading the digital layer of the physical world: so- called “augmented reality”.

7 3.0!The!technological!conditions!and!functionalities,!and!various!products!! Smart glasses like Google Glass are, from the technical point of view, an Optical Head Mounted Display (OHMD). That means a device, which is mounted on the head with a display, which reflects projected images (e.g. a map) from a computing device, while you can simultaneously see through the display. This optical reflection is by far the most widely used technology. In technical terms, this means that an optical device can reflect computer-generated images (CGIs). The general term for this technology is waveguide- based. The advantage is that the computer-generated images are projected out in a space in front of the eyes of the user; as opposed to the other type of technology, known as curved mirror, where the user looks in a particular small field. It is irrelevant to take an in-depth look at the technical specifications here, but an important point to make is that the optical element in waveguide-based glasses needs to be designed with a thickness of 1 cm in order to create the proper reflection. This is the case with Google Glass. This leads to certain challenges in terms of design. Prospects for technological development are presented in in Section 6.4.

Smart glasses function very much in the same way as mobile phones and tablets, with the possibility of implementing various programmes (apps). Most products work with a combination of a few keys (touch) and voice commands. The characteristics are often:

• Camera and video functionality • Speedometer, thermometer, altimeter, barometer, compass • , clock, calendar • Mobile telephony, typically via for the telephone • GPS navigation • Music • , such as heart rate, pulse, and calories burned etc. • Connection to social media, e.g. Facebook • They can communicate via Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS

In short, the same functionalities as in a computer, but on a smaller scale and now just at eye level. Below you can see a selection of different products.

Illustration 5: Overview of a variety of smart glasses. Source: Smartglassesnews.org

8

It is not the intention here to review all the different glasses but merely to point out that there are differences in functionality and price. Most glasses cost about $500 Google Glass, which is currently only available in a beta developer version, costs $1500, but is expected to retail on the market for $600. Today most smart glasses are sold for military use (e.g. Golden-I); for special sporting situations, e.g. for skiing; or for use in computer games. In this context, it can be noted that Facebook have bought VR (25 March 2014), a headset (), which is presently used for computer games, but which Facebook believe to be the next big thing in the general field of smart glasses. So there is movement on many fronts in terms of vision-related technology. Whether or not a wider deployment is likely, will be discussed in the next section.

Illustration 6: Left: Google Glass consists of an aluminium frame, on which is mounted a mini computer with a camera, which can shoot video and photos, a microphone and speakers, and the optical device, which projects images (e.g. of maps). Right: the development of Google Glass over the last 2 years. 4.0!The!likely!scope!of!smart!glasses!within!the!next!3G5!years!!! Technological advances in computer science are the prerequisite for the emergence of smart glasses. However, as stated previously, this is not because smart glasses are a new phenomenon. As the previous section showed, there have been a number of very useful products on the market since 2000 and onwards, and Mann and Starner led the way. But there are many premises in the current development, which together lead to the supposition that maybe we will se a wide application of smart glasses.

Malcolm Gladwell describes this form of collective behaviour as something is in the air. The premise is that society, technology, culture and business ambitions merge in a common evolution, which leads to products becoming a natural part of the lives of ordinary people, and not just of a few nerds. There is a particular point on a seesaw, where it tips over to the other side. This tipping point is the right product at the right price, and the right marketing at the right time.

If one takes a look at Gartner’s authoritative hype cycle (2013), Wearable User Interfaces are at the top of the hype, but with a timeline of 10 years until they become widespread. According to the logic of the cycle, the hype around the products will hit a moment of disillusion before the products achieve a wide application.

9

Illustration 7: The Hype Cycle is developed annually by the analytics agency, Gartner. Wearables come out on the top and are thus deemed to be the most extreme hype.

However, most commentators believe that development will take less than 10 years. When Google Glass hits the market in late 2014, the most likely scenario is that a large amount of first movers will buy a pair of glasses immediately. Within the next 3-5 years there will probably be a solid and widely anchored market for the sale of smart glasses of some sort or another. BI Intelligence predict that 22 million of these glasses will be sold on the world market by 2018.

Illustration 8: Projection of sales of Google Glass. Source: Business Insider Intelligence

10

A survey by LoveMyVouchers (n=1132) concludes that today 68% would not feel comfortable using smart glasses, when talking to other people. Other studies from Glass Almanac shows that at present 12-15% of American consumers would be willing to buy a Google Glass, if it cost $300-500. The survey also shows that the target group consists mainly of young men between the ages of 18 and 34.

However, there is a strong tendency in technological development for the first version of a product to enjoy only sporadic success, and for the next version or a subsequent product, a so-called fast second, to achieve the actual success. This is one of the reasons why there is frequently a phase of disillusion, as illustrated in Gartner’s hype cycle (Illustration 7). But Google has managed to get around this development tendency by launching a beta model in both a 1st and 2nd version, before commercialisation on a broad market. It is therefore very likely that Google Glass, in some shape or form, will still be on the market in 3-5 years’ time. !

11 5.0!Likely!applications!of!smart!glasses! There are generally three types of initial applications for smart glasses: 1) specific job- related applications; 2) task-related and professional, contextual applications; and 3) lifestyle applications for so-called self-trackers. In time, the glasses will, in some form or another, become mainstream and widely used. But in the first couple of years we will probably witness special applications, which are outlined in more detail below.

5.1!Specific!workGrelated!applications! It has become apparent that there are vast ranges of directly useful and task-related functions, which make sense on an intuitive level, because Glass lets the user use, his hands. These include the projection of instruction manuals, road maps and various other similar resources at eye level, while workers are for example engaged in extinguishing fire, pursuing criminals, operating on patients etc. There is also one highly important function: Google Glass can enable others to see what you are seeing. So it is not just a question of accessing necessary information, an instructor, who sees what you see, can also guide you through a process.

Illustration 9: A receptionist, a fireman, a doctor and a policeman employ Google Glass for a trial period.

So there are evident applications, not only in relation to tackling tasks, but also, more specifically, in relation to personal health, in a more or less medical sense of the word. Google have already designed an app for Google Glasses, which can interpret facial expressions, thus determining a person’s emotional state: happy, irritated, sad etc. Meanwhile, they are in the process of developing apps, which can tell the person where he/she is, because it can recognise the environment of the neighbourhood, the inside of the house etc. This will be of use to people, who suffer from cognitive disorders: e.g. Asperger’s syndrome, Alzheimer’s or blindness. The potential in this area is significant.

5.2!Specific!taskGrelated!applications! We will probably also see a number of task-related applications, which resemble job-related applications, but take place in the private sphere. That means applications, which are involved in specific tasks, which could be accomplished more efficiently with the use of smart glasses: e.g. instructions for a DIY enthusiast building a home extension, or as a way of filming and documenting certain important life events such as a ride on a big-dipper, a first dive from the 5-metre diving board or video communication over long distances. Other obvious niche areas are sporting activities such as running and cycling.

There are a host of special areas, in which Google Glass will rapidly be deployed. Despite Google’s official opposition, the porno industry is also a very likely candidate. The fact is that even before the official launch of Google Glass, the industry has mastered the technology and the programme development. The first films have already been produced and various humorous versions are freely available on YouTube: e.g. “First-ever Google Glass Porn”.

12 5.3!SelfGtracking!applications! In addition to the direct applications, which tackle specific problems, smart glasses are also useful in terms of a wide lifestyle segment of people, who today are known as quantified self’ers (QS’ers). These people are characterised by their “need” to measure their behaviour. This is expressed in technology, which measures and correlates self- reported or self-measured data. Thus people get access to an instantaneous picture of their state.

There is already an enormous amount of technology and programmes on the market to measure sleep, motion, food and body signals, such as blood sugar, heartbeat, blood pressure etc. Combined with the social media, where you can share your status, smart glasses could play a special role, because they equip you to document even more lived life. This is also known as life logging. The previously mentioned “guru”, Steve Mann is an example of a life logger, who has measured, documented and “improved” his life in this way.

The group of people, who think about, document and share their lives, has increased at the same rate as technological development. There is no indication that the group will get smaller. The “need” to document and show how much exercise you have taken, how many fun experiences you have had, and how much good food you eat, is a tendency, which is just in its gestation period. So we can also assume that smart glasses will enforce and create the synergy effect, when it comes to further life logging.

Illustration 10: Everyday use: for finding your way and getting information about the speed on the ski slope, information about when a flight is landing, help with recipes, maps and speed for cycling, information about octopuses and road maps, photos of children playing and experiences of one’s first parachute jump. Each and every one of them documented with the use of Google Glass !

13 6.0!The!six!different!areas!of!research!! The aim of the project is to define certain special problem areas, which need closer investigation. Needless to say, there is much of great interest and relevance to examine in depth, since the technology is both so radical and, at the same time so new and unknown, that there are a large number of unanswered questions. To encapsulate the field we have designated six different areas. They are presented in detail below in no particular order:

Illustration 11: The six areas of research

6.1!The!optician’s!perspective!! One of the key questions is what product category smart glasses come under. Most people agree that this is an entirely new category, similar to when the iPad (tablet) came on the market. There was a great deal of criticism to start with, but the need and the field of application came gradually afterwards. From the opticians’ perspective, the definition of what smart glasses are is crucial, since in the long run it will determine the extent to which opticians will get involved with the product. In terms of product category, it will be essential to answer the question of what degree they are glasses with the same functional and aesthetic qualities as regular glasses, or just a computer device/wearable.

Opticians’ shops and are a bit slow to get involved in new developments. Safety glasses, cheap reading glasses and 3D glasses are just some of the areas of potential business expansion, which have never taken off. There is a general conservatism in the industry, which may also be linked to the fact that the main target group is over the age of 50. The most likely scenario is probably that the shops will look passively on, while the new technologies proliferate.

Google Glass, which is currently the most likely mainstream product, is already being sold to specially selected explores with compatible glasses. They are glasses with a more

14 normal aesthetic design and with the option of prescription lenses. So in principle it is not that Google Glass is outside the opticians’ realm. The main problem in this context is the lack of knowledge about the technology and balancing what the servicing of, and advice about Google Glass will involve. This raises a number of industry-specific issues, which are relevant and should be further investigated.

Key research questions

• How large will the market be for the sale of smart glasses in general and, more specifically, how big will the market be for Google Glass in the next 3-5 years? • Should there be an emphasis on training and skills development in the field of smart glasses, in terms of developing training courses with technological knowledge? • How do the various opticians’ shops and chains respond to smart glasses? • What related products would otherwise be relevant to look at, in terms of sales potential: e.g. smart contact lenses?

Methodological approach These, and similar questions can be further investigated by using, for example, focus groups of professionals such as shop owners and educators. Together with wider-ranging surveys. In this context it would be appropriate to work closely with opticians shops or the opticians’ association to chart the field of products.

Illustration 12: Google Glass is already being sold today with compatible “real”, prescription glasses and . The display in this photo looks almost like a shop window in a normal opticians’ shop. But the big difference is the complex technology.

6.2!The!eye!professional!and!cognitive!perspective!! Smart glasses are a , but unlike all other wearables, the technology is fixed in front of the eye, and thus adapted to the eye’s properties. Apps are being developed which enable one to use the glasses to look at things in order to control them. This is possible, because the glasses can recognise eye movements and thus the viewing direction. So the potential for managing and controlling the outside world through the eye is vast. But a number of professional, optician-related questions arise.

Way back in the 1970s, Steve Mann, whom we have mentioned previously (see pp. 5-6), found that intense use of his prototype smart glasses led to disturbed vision. As a pioneer, Mann learned that when he (also) saw the world through the video lens, which was attached to the , it subsequently disturbed his normal vision. The camera’s position

15 in relation to the eye is crucial, and right now no one knows what the effects of prolonged use might be. Mann experienced dizziness and difficulty with concentration. He concluded that he actually experienced greater difficulty in obtaining normal mode when the change was small than when it was huge. In the case of Google Glass the change between normal vision and looking at the display is small.

For some time now, researchers in the field of virtual reality glasses have been investigating how normal vision and behaviour are affected by the prolonged use of eye- sensitive technology, and they have found that the brain and the eye quickly adapt, and therefore might be affected by prolonged use.

More generally, there is a risk of Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS), which results from staring for a long time at a point closely in front of you. If the eye is tense for a long time, the eye muscles get locked and cannot relax again for some time. The result is visual disorders, and long sight becomes weak. Google Glass hired Eli Peli, Professor of Ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, to help design the technology so that these and other possible eye problems might be avoided. But as things stand today, there are numerous unanswered, optical questions of a scientific nature related to prolonged use of smart glasses.

Another directly relevant problem is the asymmetrical technological design, in which only one eye is subject to digital impact. The eye does not see the display in front of the eye (even though the technology is nearby), but projected out in an open and enlarged field, with the use of optical technology (OHMD). The consequence is that one eye is focused on a specific point in front of the face, while the other eyes focus shifts between fixed points in the surrounding. This asymmetry can directly affect the eyes - in more medical terms and consequences known as Phoria.

However, asymmetry is not only about the different focus, which the muscles of the eye have to cope with, but also about the different content, which the brain must interpret and understand. This is known as binocular rivalry: the competition between the diverse visual impressions, which the brain has to process. It can potentially create forms of cognitive dissonance and discomfort of various kinds. More generally, it gives rise to issues of a more profoundly cognitive nature: e.g. how the use may change the structure of our plastic brain.

Here is an example: In his old age Nietzsche acquired a typewriter. The result was that his literary style and underwent a certain change. One of Nietzsche’s friends noticed that his already trenchant rhetoric had become even more trenchant. It had changed from a flowing style of rhetoric to a shorter, telegraphic, punch-line style. Nietzsche responded to his friend: “Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” In other words, the technology we are in contact with influences our behaviour and mental activity. How will smart glasses influence people’s mental activity?

Key research questions • How will prolonged use of smart glasses affect the eyes and the optic experience (strabismus, long/short sight etc.)?

16 • What kind of visual disorders and cognitive disorders or changes might result from the use of smart glasses? • What are the possible physiological side effects? • How might the eyes and the brain adjust to new routines of eye movement: e.g. looking up into the corner, where the display is positioned? • How does prolonged use of smart glasses affect the brain’s capacity to interpret impressions and generate consistency of impression?

Methodological approach It would be appropriate to have, on the one hand, a greater, ophthalmological literature survey and, on the other hand, a series of experimental setups to measure the movements of the eye and compare them with feedback from the user. The most important element would be a long-term examination of everyday use of the glasses in order to measure any changes. Brain scans of a variety of test subjects, who have used smart glasses for various lengths of time, would also be relevant.

6.3!The!legal!perspective!! People speak and write a lot about privacy issues. As digitisation increases, it also becomes easier for everyone to monitor each other. One of the main barriers against the sale and use of intelligent glasses is undoubtedly people’s discomfort with the idea of constantly being able to be filmed and uploaded on the Internet, possibly for commercial use or deployed by countries in their . With regard to this discomfort, there are several points.

Firstly, it is still quite unclear, in terms of the present legislation in both the USA and Europe, what their attitude is to smart glasses and the possibility of constant, video- filmed surveillance. In fact, this phenomenon has been given its own name: , which is not so much about being monitored from the top, but by like- minded people: person-to-person monitoring. This English/French term, Sousveillance is an alternative to Surveillance, and means “to look from below” rather than “to look from the top”. We are in a new era, in which everyone can monitor everyone.

Currently, Google have announced that they will not develop facial recognition programmes, but commentators believe it is only a matter of time before apps come on the market. Facebook has already progressed quite far with face recognition (the DeepFace programme), and Google Glass will also soon be able to identify people (and their relationships, geography, age etc.). This is a serious challenge to any kind of privacy.

The key regulatory issue is partly about whether and how it is legal to be filmed without being aware of it and accepting it, and partly about how data will subsequently be stored, and who has access to that data. Video and photos taken with Google Glass are tied to Google accounts, such as and Google+, and any data is uploaded to Google’s servers, so that Google has access to that data. Therefore, a number of critics suggest that Google’s greatest interest is not so much in selling “a pair of glasses” as in becoming the all-powerful IT infrastructure, in which Google owns data about every aspect of our lives. That would mean that they could potentially sell this so-called big data information in a commercial context and to states, which could begin to predict our needs and possibly

17 illegal behaviour. Google Glass is given expression by , which correlates an enormous variety of data in order to provide the user with information, before they even know they need it. Google Now can predict your behaviour: e.g. by reading your calendar and email and by correlating with news, time and geography, thus providing relevant information at head height, exactly when you need it. This makes Google the potential “operating system for our lives.” There still needs to be interpreted and developed detailed legislation for the new technologies.

Secondly, and on the other hand, smart glasses are not much different from smartphones, which have the same capability. For example, Google Glass has a display, which lights up, when the camera is running, so people around can see that filming is taking place. When the first, hand-held, analogue cameras came on the market, they where met with the same criticism. At that time people demanded that they should be banned, for example, on beaches. Today, there are already many other options for the same type of behaviour: e.g. cheap, anonymous small cameras you can hang around your neck and put on your clothes, so no one can see them.

Basically, the broad issue of surveillance and digital development is not something, which relates specifically to smart glasses, but generally to technological development and the vast quantity of digital footprints, we currently leave behind us. Soon, for example, we will also see small drones flying round with (surveillance) cameras.

But some much more basic legal questions have already arisen in the form of specific situations, where the glasses have been banned. This applies particularly to traffic, where the first fine for driving with Google Glass has already been issued to a woman in California. Meanwhile, in several American bars in Silicon Valley, Google Glass has been banned: e.g. at the 5 Point Café and Press Play Bar. It is not a purely legal matter, but shows a need amongst people to avoid potential sousveillance. Other places, where the glasses could be banned include casinos, cinemas, concerts and maybe workplaces and similar locations, where the possibility of cheating and deception becomes too large.

Key research questions • What special legal circumstances relate to vision? • What would be an appropriate, workable form of legislation in terms of smart glasses? • What are the relevant legislation and possible precedent in the area already? • How to ensure that data is not owned and shared by a single provider such as Google? • What areas of private life, the public system and institutional life are likely to get specific legislation vis à vis smart glasses: e.g. use in traffic? • What impact will the use of smart glasses have on democracy and the free will to move around unobserved?

Methodological approach Document analysis of relevant legal documents. Interviews with relevant scholars and judges with regard to the legal areas. Interviews with regulating authorities and about various scenarios, where they believe the glasses might be banned.

18 ! Illustration 13: One of the first fines for driving with Google Glass. Issued to Cecilia Abadie in California, October 2013.

6.4!The!technological!and!designGrelated!perspective!! Much of the technology development in the field of computer science today is about removing the computer from people’s immediate consciousness. We refer to pervasive computing or , which are about giving the computer a secluded, yet still all-pervading role in the lives of users. Whenever critics talk about sousveillance and privacy, proponents refer to empowerment of the individual. In this light, it is also clear that technology development is progressing in several parallel directions.

First, the technology and its functions must be sufficiently useful, operational and user- friendly, and have at least one so-called killer app, before users will make use of them. In the case of Google Glass it will probably be the digital layer (augmented reality) of road map and instruction manuals, which prove to be of most value to start with. But several commentators emphasise that the functionality and usability of Google Glass are still too minor for the consumer to experience that s/he is getting value for money. On the big plus side, smart glasses are easier to access than, for example, telephones. The use of technology is subject to a so-called 2-second rule: the use of a function decreases dramatically if it takes longer than 2 seconds to find and activate it. The glasses are in the process of breaking down this barrier. At least if you are wearing them. If you first have to find them, then they just function like a mobile and are not providing anything extra.

Like all other technologies, the glasses must solve a problem, which the user faces, in a more intelligent, cheaper, simpler or more convenient way. The killer app is not a technological “innovation”, but a behavioural innovation. For example, can the user navigate better in traffic? Is it easier to take pictures? See your calendar? Are there any financial, social or emotional benefits?

Secondly, the issue of aesthetics and design is absolutely vital. Glasses are jewellery for the face, and so they play a major role in creating a user’s specific visual appearance. In

19 terms of design and form factor, people claim that wearables should either be stylish and beautiful, giving off the right signals or, alternatively, completely invisible. Since Google Glass is by far from invisible, the former is the case. Like all other visible accessories and clothing, glasses are part of a person’s public image. The same goes for smart glasses, which are also (very) visible identity signifiers, which make a definite statement about the person wearing them.

Many of for instance Apple’s revolutionary products were successful because of this identity-signifying effect: users want to show off their latest iPod, iPad, iPhone and MacBook. This coolness factor is a key driving force in the development of technology. But, as things are now, smart glasses in general, and Google Glass in particular, are getting a lot of criticism along the way. The U.S. Google Glass tester, Robert Scoble has already become an exponent of the nerdy, maladroit image, with absurd photos of himself. Meanwhile, on Tumblr there is a whole new category known as “white men wearing Google Glass”, where you can see countless photos of “nerds” with Google Glasses. Many commentators compare it to walking around with a Bluetooth headset on: something only “maladroit” people do outside a work setting. In purely design terms, this has led to the so-called Bluedouche principle. That refers to the development of a smart product, which is not cool and lacks relevance to everyday life.

Google Glass has obviously identified the challenge and have just launched a series of fashionable designer glasses, which are compatible with Google Glass. They have, for example, signed cooperation agreements with sports fashion brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley. Maybe this will also release it from what some people have called The Trucker Principle, which refers to a certain mesh , which at one time everyone wore. When everyone wears the same thing, it is no longer unique and identity-creating. If, all of a sudden, everyone runs round with exactly the same design and colour of glasses, then this becomes a challenge to individuality. This is problematic in our era of individuality.

Bearing in mind the first two points, it is also possible that smart glasses will become a kind of transition phenomenon on the way towards less visible wearable computers (ubiquitous computing). In this regard, there are a number of products on the market and in development: smart contact lenses, smart hearing aids and smart clothes, which could ultimately have the same capabilities as smart glasses. But we are talking some time ahead. Meanwhile, Google Glass is already relevant in 2014.

However, the interesting issue is the combination of functionality, user-friendliness and fashionable design, which along with price represent the driving force in terms of development. There are indications that the development will focus strongly on specialised areas, where special medical needs can be handled in new ways: so-called welfare technologies. For example, this applies to the use of Google Glass in hospitals and to developments in the field of smart contact lenses, which Google are also launching, where the functionality is more specifically linked to tasks such as measuring blood sugar in the tear ducts, and then sending data wirelessly.

Key research questions • In order to possess great utility value, what capability does a smart glass need? What is its killer app?

20 • What is the most likely design scenario for smart glasses, and what will it mean for opticians/shops? • What will we be wearing in 5 years’ time? Glasses, contact lenses, clothes, skin implants? • Will technology replace or complement the telephone? • What will the most likely business model be for smart glasses?

Methodological approach Study of technological development requires special technological knowledge. It would be appropriate to interview a series of leading technology developers and trend spotters to gain more in-depth insight. It would also be relevant to conduct studies and observations of how the glasses are being used today in different contexts.

6.5!The!sociological!and!historical!perspective!! The very first glasses date from the end of the 13th century. Glasses as we know them today, with frames that go behind the ears, date from the late 18th century. Even though laser operations and contact lenses are readily available today, there are still many people, who wear glasses. Before prescription glasses became commonplace, there were an object of great attention and a certain nervousness about what they could do. For medieval man, the magnifying and reducing properties of glass was magic, just as today many outsiders regard digital possibilities as something magical. The question is: how will smart glasses be received in society and by people in general?

From a historically and sociologically perspective, the history of technology tends to repeat itself. Every time new products launch on the market, especially new product categories, they are greeted with amazement and criticism. Even Socrates lamented the invention of written language, because he imagined that written thoughts would stop people using their heads to remember things. When the wristwatch was invented, people were dismayed at this strict time controlling of life, which prevented the senses from working. When the tractor was invented, people were sad about the disappearance of the romantic farmer and his horse.

Today we talk about The Walkman Effect, because in its day the Walkman actually encountered a lot of criticism from the man in the street. On one hand, they thought that, in aesthetic terms, it was just plain silly to walk around with big headphones on one’s head. On the other hand, they considered it profoundly antisocial to wear them in public. The Walkman Effect comes is present in relation to smart glasses, because they represent a new, different and visible element on the head, which can control mental impressions. So it is not entirely surprising that the same issues crop up.

People, who have already used Google Glass for a while, report a series of remarkable experiences: they are stopped on the street, they are met with interest and people ask if they may have a go. On the other hand, they are also met with criticism and anger, and people ask them to take them off. The glasses create a lot of attention, and this has led to something, which has become known as the Glasshole Effect. Glassholes are those people, who do not follow this or that diffuse social etiquette for using the new smart glasses. They are often defined by filming and taking pictures of people and publishing them online. So the basic tenet is: “Get that camera out of my face.”

21

Mat Honan, a prominent Google Glass-wearer, describes all the difficulties, which he as a first-time user has encountered in social situations, concluding by saying that the glasses are “pretty great as long as you are not around other people.” Because he learned that people basically do not like him when he is wearing them, an issue, which is probably, linked to a general anxiety and ignorance about technology. These issues will probably change, when there are many more glasses on the market. Google themselves are doing their best to create awareness and have developed a social etiquette-based Do’s and Don’ts and a 10 Google Glass Myths.

Basically, new technologies and products are always put to use long before the establishment of any new rules of behaviour, norms and specific codes of social etiquette. Thus, the most urgent sociological question is whether, and how a new form of behaviour regulation and some common moral standards will be developed: in short, a new social etiquette for the use of smart glasses in general.

When the first smartphones hit the market, they were both a class marker and an identity marker. An iPhone is expensive and only the wealthy can afford it. So far, the same is true of Google Glass. They can be looked at as class markers, which differentiate between rich and poor. The worst dystopias draw a picture of Them versus Us: between , who are technologically connected (à la Schwarzenegger in Terminator), and “authentic”, “real” people. A is short for Cybernetic organism, which in popular terms refers to people, who improve their prowess with the use of connected technology. Science fiction examples of this phenomenon include RoboCop and Terminator, but the term is also used more prosaically and has acquired a new meaning with the advent of smart glasses. There is now an entire organisation working to stop cyborgs with Google Glasses: stopthecyborgs.org. So, in purely sociological terms, it becomes a question of how smart glasses can, and will be demystified in the course of time, and of what cultural practices will support this process.

Illustration 14: Left: Photos you can download and print as stickers and on t-shirts http://stopthecyborgs.org/. Right: an actual sign spotted at a café in San Francisco.

Key research questions • How will the use of the glass impact social interaction between people? • How will new behaviour-regulating standards arise, and how can they be created proactively at an early stage?

22 • How can a new morality with common standards be written and shaped in an smart glass era? • How can we avoid new forms of amoral behaviour such as Glass-bullying and the stigmatisation and emergence of Glassholes? • How can the glass be deployed by the government to disclose important information, to be of assistance in the health system and affect such areas as road safety or policing? • How can the glass be used/misused in marketing and cultural information: e.g. in museums, zoos, foreign holidays, city tours etc.?

Methodological approach Looked at in sociological terms, the most important methods are a combination of the quantitative and the qualitative: on one hand, surveys to identify people’s needs, thoughts, feelings, possible applications and perspectives in relation to smart glasses; on the other hand, more experimental setups in a focus group context, in which the glasses are tested and considered. A sociological-historical approach would also be interesting in terms of identifying and systematising how new technology has been opposed throughout history in order to pinpoint how, for example, Google Glass will be received.

The!interactionist!and!psychological!perspective!!! In psychological, philosophical and interactional terms, smart glasses also give rise to a number of issues. The glasses move even more the boundaries for interaction between people: boundaries, which are currently becoming more and more technologically mediated in general. For example, many young people today have no problem in listening to music with a single earplug in one ear, while they look at their phone and interact with friends. They are partly present in a constantly augmented reality, in which a digital layer of information from a mobile phone flows over the physical reality. As new technological products appear, so new sets of rules are constantly being debated.

The most realistic form of etiquette will probably be that you should remove your smart glasses, if you are not using them. We will probably see the development of a standard, which says this is good form, when people are still uncertain about the technology and social conventions. But there will always be people on the edge of this “etiquette” partly the type of people, who will also always use the Bluetooth headset (bluedouchers), and partly the type of people, who are always looking at their telephones, wherever they are. A lot of etiquette prescribes that this distance in terms of interaction is bad form, but lots of people do it anyway.

When you have the glasses on, you can make yourself relevant as an interactive participant, because you are looking up and seem involved, even though, in reality, you may actually be involved in some other, digital activity. Whereas you look down and away, when you use a telephone, thus making yourself irrelevant as a prospective speaker. On the other hand, you also look away, when you use the glasses, because you look up at a little, square display, so you are actually distant from the person, to whom you are talking. So the difference is more subtle: when using a mobile, you turn your head away completely; when using the glass, you only move your eye. In both cases, technology intrudes into interaction.

23 By turning away your face and gaze, you are generally indicating that you are not available for conversation at that particular moment. In this way, the phone has been used as a tool to guard against losing face: you are never alone and lonely and never devoid of interaction. Because you can always take out your mobile and check emails and other “important” matters. You are never totally “naked” in front of other people; you always have the opportunity to save face and insert distance into the interaction. The same kind of face-saving function will also probably be witnessed in the use of smart glasses.

Just how this will be dealt with in terms of interaction in social situations, time alone will tell. The major etiquette-related issues will result, partly from the development of technology in itself, and partly (and substantially) because of the fracture surfaces between the diverse etiquettes of various groups or segments: e.g. the norms of the younger generations in contrast to those of the older generations.

At the psychological level, it is also a question of how this kind of interaction may affect our ability to empathise. The ability to empathise and insight into subtle social rules and patterns are part of the human being’s core characteristics. Empathy is developed in concert with other people and the physical, intense feedback they provide. In simple terms, empathy is the capacity to notice and understand other people’s feelings. The brain is stimulated by new forms of interaction and the use of new technology and, thanks to its plastic properties, the brain can change. Some scholars claim that the prolonged use of technologies such as smart glasses, which may possibly create distance from other people, is in danger of reducing our social skills, because it stimulates the brain in new ways.

At the same time, reports claim that an increasing number of people, in their encounter with such technology as the Internet and the mobile phone, are generally experiencing what is known as continuous partial attention. The premise is that the brain has become used to rapid sources of information-reward. The result is that the brain adjusts to being in a constant state of stress – seeking new information/stimuli. This triggers adrenaline, which in the short term gives renewed energy, but in the long run can lead to depressive states, because the anatomical areas, which control the emotional state, are attacked by stress hormones. It is very likely that some of the same issues will be recreated and gain renewed vigour when, or if people in the future constantly walk around with smart glasses on.

There is also the question of what significance the minimising of people’s tactile experience of the world, which comes from the sense of touch and handling of material objects, will have, when, and if we no longer touch technology in the same way. Other major philosophical questions, which will arise in the near future are: what human beings’ limits will be like, in terms of adaptation to technology (e.g. the limits of the skin); and what type of antisocial human being will possibly evolve (so-called solipsism, the theory that your own existence is the only thing, which is real). Other philosophical viewpoints talk in terms of mirrors, windows and prisms. Are the glasses a mirror to the world or a window, through which you can look into the world of the user? In this context it might be appropriate to view the glasses in relation to religious-historical myths about psychic seers, who can look into the future and other places in their crystal balls. Maybe this says something about the human need to look in the glass to see more than just the present.

Key research questions

24 • What will the various etiquettes be for different segments and types, and where will the fracture surfaces between the etiquettes of different segments be evident? • What would a possible common etiquette be, and is such a code advisable? • How will smart glasses be used interactionally in terms of creating distance and/or saving face? • How will lack of eye contact affect interaction? • How will prolonged use of the glasses impact the brain and maybe even the capacity for empathy? • How will use of the glasses be understood in the broader, philosophical context of what it actually means to be human.

Methodological approach It would be appropriate to conduct major observational studies of how the glasses will actually be used in social contexts. Experimental setups, in which different situations are played out for the purpose of observing behaviour, would also be appropriate. Studies of micro-interaction would be appropriate for identifying gaze direction and significance in terms of interaction. It would also be appropriate to give more philosophically based consideration to how a morality and etiquette might evolve. ! !

25 ! Glossary As yet this is not a well-defined field with clear, straightforward terminology. But some key (English) expressions recur. The following expressions are generally used:

• Wearables: Overall term for all kinds of computer technology, which people have attached to themselves. Typical examples are armbands (e.g. Nike FuelBand), (smart watches, e.g. Samsung Gear) and glasses (Google Glass). • Smart glasses: Overall term for glasses with computer and internet technology. Refers to smartphones and smart watches. The word, smart glasses seems to be most prevalent in literature and the media, which is why it is used here. Google Glass is synonymous with smart glasses, but there are also many other smart glasses on the market. See the table in section 3.0. • Optical Head-Mounted Display (OHMD): The most widely used type of technology, in which, while you can see reality through a display (a kind of spectacle lens), you can also simultaneously get optically reflected images and information on that display. • Heads-Up-Display (HUD): This means that you can look at (through) a display while it is at eye level, so you do not have to look down or away. • Head-Mounted-Display (HMD): Technology, which is attached to the head. This also applies to VR glasses, which do not show reality, but just a computer simulation. • Virtual Reality (VR): A purely, digitally created world. Most familiar in the computer games industry. • Augmented Reality (AR): The physical world is increasingly being attached to a digital layer of information. For example, people and organisations are linked to descriptions of places. These are stored digitally and can be read digitally: e.g. with the use of smart glasses. • Context-awareness: The fact that glasses will be able to know, where they are (due to GPS) and what is happening at that very moment due to newsfeed/emails etc.). They can provide contextually relevant information. • Computer Generated Images (CGI): The images, which are projected out in front of your eyes, when you wear the glasses. • Internet of things: There is an ever-increasing internet presence in things. That means that one can communicate with objects: e.g. with the lighting or heating system in one’s home. This communication can be conducted via another computer and internet-connected technology: e.g. computer, telephone or smart glasses. • Ubiquitous and Pervasive computing: The expressions refer to the development, where there will be computers everywhere and in everything. This is also closely connected to the Internet of Things.

!

26 7.0!The!project’s!methodology!and!literature!! This project is the result of my own research experience, background knowledge about the area, interviews with experts and the study of literature both of an academic and a popular scientific nature. Here is a selection of contact persons and literature.

7.1!The!people!with!whom!I!have!been!in!contact!!

• Claus Dahl. Software developer and CEO of 1/0 • Timme Bisgaard Munk. Trendspotter and CEO of Kommunikationsforum A/S • Jesper Wille. Advisor and CEO of Jesper W. of Copenhagen • Andreas Sihm. Google specialist and CEO of Online View • Thomas Tim Jensen. Social Media Manager at Christian Westphal • Per Michal Larsen. President of the Danish Association of Opticians • Lars Kai Hansen. Professor, the Technical University of Denmark • Nikolaj Sonne. Journalist (Danish Broadcasting Corporation) on So Ein Ding • Anders Høeg Nissen. Journalist (Danish Broadcasting Corporation) on Harddisken • Bjarne Tveskov. Software designer, CEO of Tveskov • Martin Sønderslev, PhD. Partner of Socialsquare

7.2!References!! Ackerman, E (2013). Could Google Glass Hurt Your Eyes? A Harvard Vision Scientist And Project Glass Advisor Responds. Forbes.

Braaten, J. (2013). 15 Percent of Americans Willing to Pay $299 for Google Glass.

Clabur, T. (2014) 10 Google Glass Myths, Translated. InformationWeek.

Danova, T. (2013). Bi Intelligence Forecast: Google Glass Will Become A Mainstream Product And Sell Millions By 2016. Business Insider.

Epstein, Z. This 33-year-old report might convince you that Google Glass will go mainstream. BGR.

Faull, J. (2014). 68 % of people would be too embarrassed to wear Google Glass in public. The Drum.

Gartner (2013) Innovation Insight: Bring Innovation to Workplace Efficiency. Gartner.

Graham, T. and Sauter, T. (2013). Google Glass as a technique of self and the revitalisation of the monad. Tasa 2013 Conference. The Australian Sociological Association.

Hon, J. (2013). Considering privacy issues in the context of Google Glass. Communications of the ACM. Volume 56, issue 11

27 Ishimaru, S., Kunze, K. Koichi, K., Jens, A.W., Dengel, P. L., Bulling, A. (2014). In the of an Eye – Combining Head Motion and Eye. Blink Frequency for Activity Recognition with Google Glass. ACM

Klepic, J. (2013). People Aren’t Seeing the Legal Problems Ahead With Google Glass. Huffington Post

Mann, S. (2013). What I’ve learned from 35 years of wearing computerized . IEEE Spectrum

Mann, Steve (2013): Wearable Computing. In Soegaard, M. and Dam, R. F. (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. The Interaction Design Foundation.

Meister, G. and Han, B. (2013). Peering Into the Future: Google Glass and the Law. Socially Aware.

Miller, P. (2012). Project Glass and the epic history of wearable computers. How we’ve tried to become more than human. The Verge.

Parviz, B. A. (2014). Of Molecules, Medicine, and Google Glass. ASC Nano, 8 (3). American Chemical Society.

Pentland, A.P. (1998). Wearable Intelligence. Scientific American

Rolland, J.P, Holloway, R. L. and Fuchs, H. (1994). A comparison of optical and video see- through head-mounted displays. SPIE Vol. 2351 Telemanipulator and Technologies

Scoble, R. (2014). 10 Reasons Why Google Glass Is Doomed. Entrepreneur.

Starner, T. (2013). Project Glass: An Extension of the Self. Pervasive Computing.

Ulterino, M. and Bloom, E. (2013). Smart Glass. Electrochromic, Suspended Particle, and Thermochromic Technologies for Architectural and Transportation Applications: Global Market Analysis and Forecasts. Navitant Research.

Wasik, B. (2013). Why Wearable Tech Will Be as Big as the . Wired.

28