Issue 60 - University of Surrey's Student Union

10 OPINION & ANALYSIS The Stag | 29 th May 2013 opinion@thestagsurrey.co.uk
The new normal
Google Glasses, are
we seeing too much?
Melissa Bolivar
Have you heard of the new
Google glasses? They pretty
technologically advanced and
you will feel like James Bond
when you’re wearing them, they
recognise voice commands, has a
built in camera and users will be
able to scroll around on the glasses’
tiny screen using small head
motions. The camera monitors
the world in front of the user as
they go, you’ll also be able to use
Google Maps to get directions and
the ability to translate the words
being spoken to you into your own
language on the display. Obviously
you’ll need a WiFi connection
or a hefty data plan if you’re in
another country, but it’s certainly
a neat trick if it works, messages
can be received, viewed on the
display, and answered using the
microphone and Google’s voiceto-text
functionality. It’s basically
the niftiest gadget that’s been
invented so far and you don’t look
like a terminator wearing them!
However, there are obviously
privacy issues at stake with the
camera feature: Police could
begin wearing them and innocent
civilian’s could be recorded and
heard casually everyday. Of course
if you’re not doing anything
wrong you have nothing to worry
about but shouldn’t we have the
choice who gets to film us and
who doesn’t? A definate invasion
of privacy and an abuse of our
freedom as this feature could
be abused. Furthermore, Jay
Freeman, a Santa Barbara-based
programmer who specialises in
cracking smartphone security for
both iPhone and Android devices,
discovered that Glass has a “root”
capability which can be enabled by
attaching it to a desktop computer
and running some commands.
That would then give a hacker the
ability to take control of the Glass’s
output – meaning a hacker could
monitor everything the owner was
doing from a smartphone in their
pocket.
“Once the attacker has root
on your Glass, they have much
more power than if they had
access to your phone or even your
computer: they have control over a
camera and a microphone that are
attached to your head,” explains
Freeman in a blogpost. “A bugged
Glass doesn’t just watch your every
move: it watches everything you
are looking at (intentionally or
furtively) and hears everything
you do. The only thing it doesn’t
know are your thoughts.”
He points out that “it knows all
your passwords, for example, as it
can watch you type them. It even
manages to monitor your usage
of otherwise safe, old-fashioned
technology: it watches you enter
door codes, it takes pictures of your
keys, and it records what you write
using a pen and paper. Nothing
is safe once your Glass has been
hacked.” Even if the device shows
a red light to show others when its
video camera is on, a user probably
wouldn’t notice it – because the
light would be facing away from
them.
So although this gadget
looks like it could solve all your
problems, the ones it could create
could damage your life. Allowing
something to store every aspect
of your life, especially where you
live and work could have severe
implications.
Bea Marques
Media is such a powerful
tool that we sometimes
underestimate or forget about.
What we watch on TV sets
some our societal norms and
makes things seem more or less
favourable.
Something which I recently
found interesting is a new
American show aired on
Channel Four, The New Normal.
Simply put the show is about a
homosexual couple who want
to have a child and have to find
a surrogate. Quickly finding the
ideal candidate, they welcome
the surrogate into the family
and her nine-year old daughter.
One of the interesting twists
within the series is the surrogate
grandmother who is a right-wing
racist and homophobic, whose
opinions can be found challenging
and rude. Through the approach
of having a sweet and innocent
surrogate whose characteristics
are strongly contrasted with
the grandmother’s, the show
successfully brings to light
several issues that gay couples
face in their daily life and how
homosexuality is by far an
accepted aspect of life.
I do not believe that 10 years
ago this show would have been
aired nor would it would be
successful enough to reach the
United Kingdom. Although it was
rejected to be broadcasted by KSL-
TV (associated with NBC) it still
won the People’s Choice Award for
best new TV comedy. What does
this say about the public?
The new normal
KSL-TV rejected the show
because it was not suitable to be
aired on prime family television
time, highlighting how some
parts of society still struggle to
accept homosexuality. I am not
one to make a judgement against
homosexuality, personally I
believe that each individual
knows what they like and what
feels right for them. However, I
have never really had an opinion
about gay parents adopting a
child. Although this show is not
unique in bringing to light some
of the issues gay parents face
when adopting, with Desperate
Housewives among others
having touched on the issue,
it does fruitfully demonstrate
contrasting opinions.
One of the strongest
arguments against homosexual
couples adopting a child is
that the child will not have the
appropriate role models: a father
and mother figure, which may
cause confusion for them. But in
a society with increasingly more
single-parents the argument is
thinning. Moreover, in many
cases having a mother and
father does not necessarily lead
to a structured individual. Each
generation is becoming more
and more insecure and distant
from their parents, so what is the
problem with same-sex parents?
The role of this show has been
pivotal in my understanding of
gay parents adopting a child. Not
personally knowing many gay
couples, the issue of them being
able to adopt children has been
distant. However, having started
to watch this new TV comedy
I have begun to formulate
an opinion on the issue and
understand it more. I experienced
first-hand the role of media in
formulating opinions.