Google GOOG -0.94% announced that it won’t let developers build facial recognition apps for Google Glass. While this move may appease consumers and government officials concerned with privacy violation, it has also squelched an opportunity for app developers. Is Google’s decision a smart business move?
As Forbes contributor, Erika Morphy, wrote in a recent post, Google announced on May 31 that it would not approve facial recognition “Glassware” — apps for Glass — “without having strong privacy protections in place.”
I question whether Google made a wise business decision here because facial recognition apps could make Glass extremely useful. For example, in February, I suggested that a secret service agent might use Glass to protect the president by watching crowds and identifying people who have been flagged as potential terrorists.
Of course, this raises privacy concerns. Moreover, as I wrote in May, Glass creates other potential violations of community standards. These include taking photos or videos of people without their knowledge and making roads more dangerous for people who are in traffic with Glass wearers.
On May 16, eight members of Congress – including Joe Barton, co-chairman of the Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus — sent a letter to Google CEO, Larry Page, raising questions about Glass’s privacy concerns and giving Google until June 14 to respond.
Google’s decision to ban facial recognition apps — pending the creation of strong privacy protections — appears to be a pre-emptive response to this letter. As ZDNet pointed out, Google may also be reacting to a new Glass API by Lambda Labs that let developers “build facial recognition apps for [Glass].”
But this announcement is not sitting well with app developers who voiced their frustration at missing out on a business opportunity by blaming the public for being concerned about privacy protection – considering such concerns anachronistic, anti-progress and even hypocritical.
The International Business Times quoted software developer, Lucas Dummit, as pitying Google because by appeasing ”the paranoid,” Google is going to create an opportunity for competitors with ”a similar device and more open policy.”
IBT quotes Nathaniel Chattoo who mocked the public’s privacy concerns, saying, “Glass will not steal your identity because it can see you. Go back to your caves and let the rest of us live in the future.”
And IBT highlighted the thoughts of Google+ user Molly Bloom, who argued that users were foolish to be concerned about the privacy of information about themselves that they have already shared with “Facebook and other social networks.”
By blocking facial recognition apps pending the development of strong privacy protection, Google raises questions in my mind. For example, what would such strong privacy protections look like? Would every person who could be seen by a Glass wearer be required to give permission — through verbal or other acknowledgment — before the user could turn on her facial recognition app?
Absent such strict privacy protection, it is difficult to imagine how any facial recognition app would be able to satisfy Google’s privacy requirement.
But perhaps Google is simply conceding a market opportunity that is much smaller than most people think. After all, the quality of facial recognition software is not terrific. If it were, officials in Boston would have been able to identify the Tsarnaev brothers from the CCTV video after the April bombing without having to show it to the general public.
However, if Google is serious about requiring strong privacy protection before allowing Glass facial recognition apps, why not apply the same idea to all Glass apps? For example, should Google ban apps like Winky that let Glass users snap photos by blinking their eyes?
After all, this app does not require everyone whose picture a Glass wearer could take to grant permission before he blinks his eye.
Perhaps Dummit is right — in an effort to assuage privacy concerns, deep-pocketed Google may be pioneering a big new market that a start up — unencumbered by a Congressional committee — ends up commercializing.
(VIA. Forbes)
SoshiTech - Soshitech.com 