Shared publicly  - 
All I am saying is: Give Glass a chance.

Apologies to John Lennon, but here are my questions of the day. 

How would things have turned out differently if George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin were both wearing Google Glass and recording their confrontation? 

Zimmerman says Martin was acting suspicious and, when confronted, threatening. 

Martin can't give his side of the story. 

What if both parties were recording everything on video? Would either of them have behaved differently knowing a recording was being made? 

And if the confrontation ended the same, would the court case have turned out differently with a separate recording of each perspective?

Surveillance by police and government can be abusive. But aren't there major benefits to individual citizens being able to record their own experiences while in public? 

UPDATE: I wrote a column some time ago that relates to this concept:
Jonathan Langdale's profile photoJames Mason's profile photoMike Elgan's profile photoAmy Jacovson's profile photo
Why not just put CCTVs all over so there is no question of editing ...
That's the problem. We will never get Trayvon's side of the story. Never. 
+Aqeel Khan Because then authorities can control whether to reveal or not reveal. I'm suggesting that things might be different if people recording their own personal experiences on video. 
Zimmerman would have erased/smashed Martin's Glasses, then erased his own and claimed he wasn't filming at the time.
I think Glass wouldn't have worked so well in a fight, so the most critical part probably wouldn't have been recorded. It has to be smaller and more durable for everyday use than the delicate Google Glass currently is.
+Aqeel Khan Empowerment. CCTV puts the monitoring in the hands of others.
Self-directed surveillance is more little brother than big brother.
+Mike Elgan I think it's pretty nailed down that if a public citizen uploads it, the government has it. 

Not that I'm in any way anti-glass; I can't wait to get my hands on one! I just don't think it would solve the problem here, and I think it's naive to think that the government wouldn't have access to the videos.
Let's assume it was being uploaded live -- no ability to erase. 
I believe it might not been applicable, since it was mitigated to the legal letter of the law. The question would be at what exact time would Zimmerman have the right to be a victim versus a threatening figure to a little boy. The glasses would be used to determine when he could shot but not if he should shot an unarmed person, whom he uncivilly followed; however not unlawfully followed as the block neighborhood Captain. 
Alright then, being nighttime in low light, you would have seen blurry dark video with nothing discernible happening. Maybe some audio, but nothing that witnesses and phone recordings didn't hear anyway.
JoPa Mi
I'm all for this as a use to protect citizens, not for abuse by authorities. They are already using technology against us, it's time the tables turned.
And also: no one's glasses stay on their face when they're fighting for real. If Zimmerman was really punched in the face (and didn't whack himself to make it look like he was attacked, which I suspect is what actually happened), the Glasses would not have survived that incident.
This is a major plot point in Robert J. Sawyer's trilogy.  On a parallel world, Neanderthals are the dominant species; they all have arm-bands that  constantly record their surroundings in high def audio/video, immediately streamed to a central location.  When a crime is alleged, the recording is used to establish the facts -- guilt or innocence.
It would likely embolden the person recording and, if they knew they were being recorded, make the person being recorded think twice.
Having his beating on tape didn't change the outcome back when Rodney King was beat down. 
If it's not tempered with, then yes.
Some of you are saying this wouldn't have happened or that wouldn't have happened. This is a thought experiment. Let's assume people could see the video clearly, nobody tampered with it and you had two recordings. 

This isn't about anything other than how a recording changes 1) human behavior and 2) court outcomes. 
If the authorities can require a citizen to turn over all video from glass, then each citizen with glass is another government surveillance camera.
+Mark Dowding On the contrary, the video changed everything. Without the video there would have been no riots. The police may have made up another story about King's injuries. Rodney King is a perfect example of how videos change everything. 
+Mike Elgan Well, let's set up a hypothetical situation where Zimmerman would have been found guilty if someone had recorded the situation.  Assuming that Glass isn't going to be handed out to people for free, this would cause a disparity between the poor and everyone else. That is to say: Treyvon probably wouldn't have had Glass, and if Zimmerman were in the wrong, he could always "forget to record it".

You're flirting with the "put video cameras in everyone's home" concept, which undoubtedly would reduce crime, but at an unacceptable cost. 

Sure, if we could record public interactions unobtrusively, we wouldn't have to rely on much on 'he said/she said' situations. Well, people who could afford that protection wouldn't have to.
"...But nothing that witnesses and phone recordings didn't hear anyway."

+Jem Matzan Not true. You would have caught the actual confrontation and fight on video. Even if you couldn't see that well, you would have the full account of what happened (from an unbiased source: technology). People can spin a story any way that it suits their personal beliefs, but a camera/microphone combination will tell it like it is. 
There will always be questions and believability of any situation. If you had a recording someone would think you altered it. 
My parents have a sign at their farm stand that says "The real test of a person's integrity is what they do when no one's looking."  They have this sign because people steal from them on a daily basis.

+Mike Elgan is posing a scenario that addresses the core problem quite nicely, even though it's just a hypothetical.  If they both had glass, they would both have acted completely differently.  They would have each known that others would witness their behavior.
+Kenny Jones In this thought experiment there are two recordings -- one submitted the defense and the other by the prosecution. 
I can't wait. I would love to have little minion flying cameras around me with customized gesture control.
Imagine if you were in a confrontation and the minions knew this and flew up out of range but still could record. What if there were protocols that it would also make 911 calls on your behalf or upload the second it hit open Wi-Fi. What if it could hide if you were to die until a later date where it then wakes up and uploads the evidence you your YouTube.
I want that. My own personal bodyguard.
Like Zimmerman said when told by police that they had a recording - he said "Thank god".   Turns out they were bluffing but I think that speaks volumes.

While I think constant video capture of people has large privacy concerns I think you are correct it would change how people behave - quite possibly for the better.   The sad part is that it shouldn't take that to make people behave properly.
+Aaron Wells It's called authentication. Then before it is still allowed as evidence it must prove to be more probative than prejudicial
you cant record what someone is thinking or why they are doing what they are doing. Cant record feelings. you cant record nothing in a fight, just a blurr. the only real usable thing might be sound, sometimes video once it can get a somewhat clear picture.
+Ivan Raszl if he had smashed it then that's an admission of guilt right there and forensics would show that. It could also show if it was recoding at the time even if the file was "erased". Nothing is ever truly deleted
The 'little' boy' was a 5'11'' 17 year-old. Let's not forget the facts when considering this.

I think Mike's making an extremely good point. With ubiquitous personal recording this might have turned out very differently. It's not unimaginable  - look at the dashboard cameras in Russia.
+Mike Shirley No, I'm not talking about "Big Brother." I'm talking about people recording their own experiences. 
Glass is still in its infancy and public perception has to change for wide enough acceptance for the masses to adopt the new tech, granted. I do think u have a point. There was a movie once, I think it was called strange days where someone wearing a recording device captured their own murder. From that perspective yes, I believe things could have been differenent, but to the victor goes the spoils, the earlier comment touched on it, Zimmerman could have destroyed martins copy or altered his own so anything literally would have been possible. Now the lone eyewitness wearing it, that would have changed things.
Compelling question. There seem to be a lot of ifs in the answers tho. I agree that surveillance isn't so bad when it's accessible to those who are being recorded and it's expressly stated that they're being recorded.
Video evidence is good but isn't there still interpretation needed? 
If Martin was wearing a glass, he wouldn't exactly be a poor Black kid, and he would already have a much better shot at getting justice in this country.
This verdict proved that Zimmerman was not guilty and Trayvon Martin guilty, which is quite outrageous. 
I lived in Oakland as a teenager. If I'd had Google Glass it would have been broken, stolen and/or I would have been under constant pressure (was anyway). I was in many situations where there were no adults and if there had been we would have figured a way to get away from them. I'd love to have Glass and I'm sure it would be useful in some potentially legal situations - but c'mon - there's always a way around it. It's as potentially troublesome as not. What's new?
+Mike Elgan I think you make a very good point. People would check themselves and keep their actions above board if they knew they were being recorded.

We don't know exactly what happened that night. Eyewitness accounts, 911 recordings, etc. only tell part of the story. Even then they can be called into question because everything is subject to interpretation.

But video recording from 1st-person perspective is pretty solid evidence.

I liken it to the police car dash cams. How many police officers' careers have been saved by those recordings when a citizen makes a false claim against an officer? The same protection can be provided to an individual. It's a tool for getting to the truth, especially when one party is not around to testify.
That is why so many cars in Russia have Dashboard cameras.To protect individuals from corrupt cops, and other citizens.
well first of all, you are perpetuating an unreal image.  Martin was not a little child.  He was 17 and over 150 pounds considered by most an average size adult.  Secondly,   Also, by admission of his peers, he was not as innocent as the media wants to present him.  but hey, lets forget facts, just go with how you feel instead.

There are several witnesses to other crimes where recorded video and lie person testimony is thrown out or ruled inadmissible for some of the most inane and political reasons.  Who is to say Google Glass video would ever be accepted as admissible for a variety of reasons.
What a creepy looking cracker...
T.L b
He's still a child murder who needs to fucked by the millions of child molesters in Jail..if anyone of us would have proceeded after the police told us to stand down ...what do you think our crime or punishment  would be????
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It certainly depends of what people do with that recorded data. You can see that (in a positive way) if abuse if recorded or in a negative if bullying is recorded.
From my point of view there is no way back.
Google Glass and other devices are already reality.
What I miss are sepcific regulations / laws that deal with what should and what shouldn't be allowed.
The first cars also had no limits.
People had to learn it the hard way (dying in a car accident).
a very articulate post -- thanks for sharing this.
Dissolve all boundaries and let us all move forward.
Russia already has a public trend what all cars are equipped with personal recording equipment to deal with insurance fraud (people throwing themselves in front of cars). This is on some ways the next evolution... Honestly a good idea in my opinion. The big one, however, is the internet itself. it's too anonymous and easy to forge. 90% of the verbal abuse is because people know they can't be touched.
I agree. Every second of every day should be recorded front to back to avoid things like this. A world under complete 100% surveillance would make everything better.  </sarcasm> 
+Shane Peden That's one way to look at it. The other way is this: Should people have the right to use electronics to improve the memory of their own experiences? 
+Ryan Ellerbe Because I didn't want to slant opinion with a leading picture. Each picture shows the people in a neutral light, don't you think? 
+Mike Elgan So we all wear glass, just like we "all" have cell phones. It's our "glass" just like it's our "cell phone". Yet 24 hours a day our location is available to any agency that wants it. I know where you were at such and such a time, I therefore sequester all video from those glasses that were near the location. What's the difference in having the camera on near by pole or on the moving one I (the state) indirectly owns. (Answers: Maybe a few hours, nothing more.)

Another point, you have "glass" it's part of your eye-ware (real-glasses) as many are hoping to do. You are arrested, you will now be separated from your eye-ware as you have no right to record anything inside the police environment. Try taking out your cell-phone for few snaps or just voice recording after your are arrested.

I understand the thought experiment, but fail to see the difference based on who "owns the camera" (let alone the content). To paraphrase a famous thinker ... "everything is relative depending on the point-of-view" ...
Isn't that the picture of the kid when he was much younger?  I don't know, people have used so many different pictures of Trayvon that I don't know what to think people are trying to do when they are so selective of that photo.  Zimmerman pictures, however, are almost all current or the mugshot.  

How about if we had Google Glass recordings of the people making all of these articles regarding this case?  To find out what their motives are as well will begin true dialog, and not a manufactured one. 
Here's a choice quote from the column I just added to this post. Do you agree or disagree with this quote?: 

"I support those who fight for our right to privacy. But I think they're fighting only half the battle. In addition to the right to keep private what should be private, we also need to fight for our right to make public what should be public."
+Anthony Dooley That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid with these photos. I deliberately used photos that showed each person in a neutral, rather than potentially menacing or criminal context. 
+ron gibbs Who owns the camera is everything. We're entering a world in which only the police, the government and the "authorities" "own the camera."
It's only 10sec recording isn't it? Would that be enough time to capture the shooting?
Mike, I can agree to that - let's say by 80% as it is a bit vague and certainly can't be applied to every topic.
We've had our share of public surveillance (that's the nice term for it) gone wrong here, so that is definitely one lesson learned for me personally.
I love technology and appreciate the advantages I receive but better openness and transparency around NSA and the facilities they are building with hundreds of petaflop capabilities far extending what is needed for recording emails suggests video is next on their list. It is a slippery slope to a police state - we need balance with social rights before we run too far ahead. 
+Mike Elgan there is a photo of Martin, allegedly from the week before his death, of him and his family that is on the web. In that he looks far older and far less like a child, but it does not portray him in a negative way.
Can we put those who get the purpose of this post on one side, and those griping about the photos, the cost of Glass, et cetera on the other side?
Go ahead and get on your side. Then we can proceed with the hypothetical situation.
My answer? Almost all people behave differently when confronted with the possibility of being observed. I feel the confrontation and outcome would have been different. If a confrontation had even occurred, its nature would have changed as well. Finally, any trial would be speedy, because (nearly) perfect data would allow us more reliable testimony than the often conflicting data from witnesses.

But, had the confrontation happened the exact same way with perfect data, Zimmerman would still not be convicted of second degree murder in the state of Florida, and that's that.

Oh, and if someone must mention that Martin was 5'11, please include that he was also a rather slender 158 pounds. Do also mention that Zimmerman is 5'7" and was about 15 pounds heavier than Martin at the time. I am not denying that Zimmerman was assaulted in a confrontation, but it wasn't "David-with-a-gun vs. Teenager Goliath".

+Richard Erickson Whose race-baiting, whose sensationalizing, and whose pandering are you referring to? Is this one of those right wing vs. left wing things, because if so, both "sides" laid it all on pretty thick.
If the actions of both were being recorded, then Zimmerman's suspicions could possibly have been confirmed. Then, if he still felt the need to confront Martin, the other live recording could show an armed man confronting Martin and whatever actions took place on Zimmerman's behalf to incite an altercation.
+Mike Elgan Who owns the camera isn't nearly as important as who owns the data it records.  In Canada, we;ve already seen cell phone video change a police incident with the Robert Dzienkanski incident in Vancouver airport, but we also saw police assert ownership of that video, despite it being recorded on equipment that was privately owned.  The courts had to force the police to make the video public, and I'm just not sure the US courts would make the same decision, given recent decisions about citizen photography in the US.  I think the thrust of +ron gibbs point is that Google and Glass are part of the world which insists that we no longer own our private data, such as location data, which is stored and used by others.

We already have the capability you suggest ... many of us carry a movie camera in our pocket at all times on our smartphone.  But those "always on"devices, and Glass is an even more extreme example, also link us into the global surveillance state by their very existence, and while they may protect us in situations like Zimmerman/Martin or Dzienkanski, they can also be used against us.
Glass' camera doesn't work well in low-light situations. 

Just saying. 
It would not made a difference because both parties thought they were right. Everything would of happened as before. On neighboorhood watch would of still been chasing a suspicious subject and been fine recording his perceived heroism to "save" the neighboorhood. And the kid would of still been ok recording the mysterious man that was chasing him for who knows what reason. Frankly most people forget they are constantly being recorded by cameras everwhere. Glass is a bit different cause you put it on yourself whereas cameras on building, we dont have a choice over. So that said. Not everyone pulls out their cell phone unless they are given an opportunity to think of its usefullnes. Most cellphone recordings happen when people register in their mind that an even is happening. When you are being chased. Most people run instead of stopping to get a recording device to stop and take a pic. Would they of used glass, only a time machine could resolve that. Glass doesnt record unless you activate it. Not many people record their trip to the store to get skittles and ice cream. So who knows. 
+Mike Elgan I actually would disagree with your rationale because you would be setting a dangerous precedence. " If it's not on tape then it didn't happen."  If a guy stalks someone and confronts them and the person defends himself because he doesn't know who this individual is and a scuffle occurs and the guy who is the stalker gets killed, then you would be letting the person he confronted go because he has a right to defend himself.   So, this whole argument about glass or surveillance makes no sense.  Whatever happened to common sense?  This law is ridiculous because now the person dead has the burden of proof!  Instead of trying to put cameras everywhere to spy on everyone (bad enough that the Govt taps into our voice and date communications, now you want to give them a back door to streaming video) just CHANGE THE STUPID LAW!  
+Mike Elgan  My point Mike, is that they already do, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. (... it's not who owns the camera ... it's who owns or controls the access to the content.)

A stand alone camera (video or still) is a capture device without external output. there is no "record" of capture as it's not connected to the WEB or phone system live. Glass like a cell phone is a "broadcasting" device and effectively public all the time it is turned on.

A photograph is no longer proof within a court (photoshop etc.), how long do you really believe it will be before the same tools are there for video, and easily accessible. Ask Alex next time you are on TWIT.
Mike, to come back to your quote of 'but about how tragedies like this might be avoided'.
From my point of view it's a problem of the society.
It starts with the people in charge of a Government and trickles down to the parents, that raise a child.
The childs...
...just do what they have learned from their role models.

Sometimes I think evreything has to be regulated and fear is ever present in the U.S.
(People that have a lot of Angst are just like sheep, looking up to the great Wolf that protects them).
People, quit getting hung up on lighting conditions and Big Brother, for Pete's sake.

<Looks around, realizes how few actually get the point of this post, and decides to leave>
I think everyone would act diffrently when they know someone's actions are being documented somehow. So yes the outcome would have been diffrent in many diffrent levels. By maybe having this G Glass around I would think it would have been a diffrent out come.
I think they would both have smashed google glasses.  I mean they could have just as easily recorded the event from their cameras.
+Bob Goad I disagree with both your points. Assuming a hangout-on-air or live-uploading scenario, the confrontation leading to said smashing would have been evidence in its own right. And, no, recording from a phone is not as easy as recording from Glass, especially during a confrontation. 
How would it have turned out different if it was Trayvon that had the gun? He would have went to prison and stayed there.
The picture of Martin is of him at 11 years old. Misleading. I wish I could post a current pic in this comment. 
In most cases wouldn't the haphazard videos end up being tossed out as evidence? There's a reason law enforcement has to jump through the hoops to get subpoenas to record and wiretap now - so 'evidence' can be admitted (let's put aside the NSA argument and the questions of it's legality for now). The Zimmerman case is already wrought with people acting out law enforcement without training and where they shouldn't be. Wouldn't this just be adding to that dangerous precedent? After all, Zimmerman wouldn't be a case and Trayvon might still be alive if trained law enforcement were employed and untrained population weren't trying to act out their own version of law enforcement. The willy-nilly use of video recording without proper evidence safeguards could easily steer us down roads that we as a society dont want to go.
Mike, why wouldn't a recent photo of Martin be "neutral?" Couldn't you find a photo of Zimmerman at 12 years of age also, to go into your graphic?

But yes, I think Google Glass would be good for prevention of such tragic outcomes. It will come down in price. Perhaps many neighborhood watch groups will invest in them.
+kennedy myril Right we won't.. cause Trayvon attacked an innocent man who just tried to identify a suspicious character in his community that has been robbed 8 times previously by people wearing hoodies and tried to smash his head in. It had nothing to with race or civil rights issue.. We have evidence for that.. he wasn't profiling anyone.. he was being asked by the dispatcher to identify whether the "suspect" was black, white or hispanic. It wasn't Zimmerman who said "this little black ni**er is trying to get away".. He said these punks (meaning thieves and robbers who rob the community) always get away.. That's why he got out of the car to see where Trayvon ran (aside from the fact that he was asked by the dispatcher if he saw where the "suspect" went).. There was no race involved here and why judge ordered specifically that this case is not to be tried about race. 

Yet, Al Sharptons and other disgusting "civil rights" vultures along with Trayvon Martin's parents and their lawyer made this about race beacause:

A) They knew race is always a bullseye for winning cases
B) The pay day is coming

In this whole incident It doesn't matter at all that

1) Trayvon was 17
2) Trayvon was unarmed (Zimmerman didn't have his gun out either) and didn't pull the gun out until his head was about to be smashed in
3. Trayvon was black

None of this matters..

What matters and what anti-Zimmerman lynch mob should be evaluating and discussing is why was Trayvon so aggressive, why was he clearly fallen under the influence of recent black culture that glorifies gangs, easy money, criminal behavior and basically makes someone look cool if they are criminal.. 

Because judging from Trayvon's behavior and facts we know he was troubled young man. He was selling drugs, he was caught with stolen jewelry, he beat up bus driver and got into conflicts..

People saying this is irrelevant to the case are running away from facts and reality.. Trayvon would be still alive if he simply

1. Didn't circle around that creepy white ass cracka to teach him a lesson for 4 minutes and instead went home that was 300 feet away.

2. Didn't try to pummel and smash his head in.

People like to completely dismiss the fact that he was severly beating up Zimmerman while Zimmerman was screaming for help..

Your reasoning is that Zimmerman really wasn't hurt "that" bad.. 

Let me start pummeling your head in and I'll ask you as to whether or not you will think "Hey I'm not really getting that hurt"..

It's completely absurd.
+Mike Elgan True, your assuming all things being perfect and the 2 people are thinking clearly or atleast one would have a live recording.  No disrespecting either Zimmerman or Martin but they both seemed like they were not thinking very clearly (If you believe the evidence).  I won't go into the fact that glass is expensive and the lighting was crappy because that is obvious.  Trust me I have been jumped before and the last thing I would have thought is "Glass Record".
I just posted a photo that purports to be of Martin around the time at which he was killed. Just FYI I am not 100% certain.
I have to admit that this is a pretty strong argument.  However, the only way I will agree is if you assume that Trayvon Martin was allowed to wear his Glass at school throughout the day and record his teacher, and if the teacher was able to do the same.

I think we're romanticizing this because this ability has existed for some time and it's not been adopted except for the massive initial growth of the iPhone coming from the iPod.  I don't think the issue is that the glasses are the best solution and it's the hurdle we've been looking to get over.  Whatever is holding this back from being realized is a larger more fundamental issue.  And for that reason I think Glass is over-hyped and mostly for show.  It's another status symbol, a more visible smartphone.

And as much as you think this will help in most cases, it could actually be a bad thing that can create a lot of doubt for guilty defendants (it can also be the source of conflict).  It's not necessarily going to be revealing, it could also be a cloud.

The neither the 911 tapes , nor the DNA evidence, nor even the Hannity interview that caught Zimmerman in a lie helped Martin deal with all the bias and hate that remains stacked up against young black youths.

If you admitted Martin's Glass use, you'd also have video leaked of him smoking weed and acting like a typical teenager.  Other unrelated things in his life would be used against him.  Our environment determines our choices.  Getting video of his life, of both of their lives, would only reveal this even more.

Zimmerman needs help, he is a broken individual.  Prison isn't the answer, but letting him go free isn't either.
We use a video system in our Patrol cars that is constantly recording to a digital buffer of aprox 2 minutes. If nothing happens to activate a recording the buffer in overwritten. If however the Officer activates his lights or siren the buffer becomes the first two minutes of the recording so you have a record of what triggered the event before the officer would have triggered a recording. 
The times we catch police or incidents that make it to the tapes seem to be exceptional circumstances.  It has to be the case their knowledge of these cameras changes their behavior.  And they know the mechanics of the devices such that they're most used as additional evidence of traffic violations and resisting arrests.

It would be better to put cameras at the afts of every vehicle that did the same buffering.  The most interesting videos are when the police don't know that they're being recorded by the citizen.

This general idea seems to be a significant factor with Glass.  Whether a person is recording video or not, other people will change their behavior as if they might be recorded at any moment.  This is fundamentally different than being around other people and having some expectation that whatever you might do or say won't likely be caught on video, depending how many people might have their smartphones out, or of those that do, how many of those want to be seen as actively taking a video.  With glass, you could be recording a video and simply lie if asked.  Alternatively, you could be assumed to have taken a video when you actually didn't.

As it's used more, I suspect there will be a range of viral videos posted which will cause people to change how they behave when in public and when they have a reasonable expectation that someone might be recording in a way that they simply can't tell.

There are currently a lot of people that confuse public for private.  When they more fully realize that public really means public, then they're going to respond accordingly and no longer expect some level of privacy while in public.  This will ultimately change public behavior.  I suspect it will be for the worse as people are even less themselves they they already are.  You're going to have watch what you say to people because it might be captured in a buffer.  This will probably be a good thing for women who are typically accosted by rude males, and these types of changes will have some profound ripple affects.  This is not necessarily the result of Glass, but more so the loss of privacy in general as our children and their children get used to having everything about their lives in a database.
+Mike Elgan I think you have a point.  I am not only scared of vigilantes, I am scared of cops.  I thought of an app that records with cameras in the car if you are pulled over, due to all the shootings of people in their cars by cops.  I drive around with my chihuahuas and I'm afraid that some cop is going to shoot my dogs.
+James O'Brien Half the shows I watch on TV and movies I watch, I always think: Why didn't they just set up a camera in the hallway, or why didn't they just record the thing they saw that nobody will believe them about?
This only works when the cameras are not visible.  If the subject knows there is a camera, their behavior changes.  Knowing that everything you do is likely being recorded digitally will mean changes in behavior and/or the use of anonymity, devices that disrupt the recording, etc.

Glass is pretty visible.  It's going to cause changes in interaction between people, whether one or both have the device or not.
Problem with visible cameras is that cops will confiscate or disable them.
This is a huge deal right now and people are actively testing police, going so far as to force police to stick to a strict following of the letter of the law.  The police obviously either don't want to be recorded or want to know when they are being recorded.

It's turning the tables and showing that law enforcement frequently breaks it's own law when they ask to roll windows down or show ID without cause, simple minor infractions, etc.

What is most interesting to me how frustrated police seem to be when they're forced to follow the law in terms of doing their job.

Obama thinks we're a nation of laws, which is ironic coming from a President that is actively subverting the Constitution and appeal process in the name of state secrets to protect the government's formerly secret global & domestic surveillance, which is the very same issue.
It makes sense that a recorded interaction would increase the chance people would behave differently. Yet, police react violently often to the very act of recording them. I imagine there will be many Glass related assaults in the future.

But, the record would tell us that Mr. Martin broke Mr Zimmerman's nose, threw him to the ground, and beat him until Zimmerman shot him. Or, it would show that he shot the victim without suffering physical assault, then broke his own nose and scratched his head on the sidewalk to cover up a hate crime.

A record is a good thing, and we will have fewer conflicts without video as this tech shrinks and gets cheaper.

Keep in mind taking such a record is a felonious act in some states.
Like Minority Report in real time. It could work and Google can be our new police department, judge and jury.
Irrespective of recording on any device, human behavior is not, in most cases predictable, particularly in a situation that is unforeseeable. Crime is a reality and no method if deterrent, as of yet, is plenary.

The universally known information, trace and DNA evidence, that can solidify guilt (or innocence) does not preclude crime. It will only cease when human failure does.

I think Google Glass would have been useful if there had been an eye witness wearing a pair. I'm not sure how much room for interpretation there would be from a POV.

Whenever I think of technology used to prevent crime I think of Minority Report. Scary.
+Jason Nunnelley Hypothetically assume for a second that Zimmerman broke his own nose.  I realize you probably don't believe this, but assume for a section that he did in another parallel universe.

Now duplicate this alternative universe into a new one where Martin has Glass on, leaving you with two alternative universes.  If the hypothetical alternate self-inflicted nose-breaking Zimmerman knew that Martin had Glass on and he wanted to make it look like Martin broke his nose, would he have broken his own nose knowing that it wouldn't have been captured in Martin's buffer?

Would Zimmerman have destroyed the device?

Do the same thing with two new universes assuming that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose and that Zimmerman had Glass on.  Would Martin have broke his nose?  Would Zimmerman even wear Glass while carrying his gun into that situation if he thought that he might be caught using his gun in a situation that wasn't really warranted?  Would Zimmerman have used the device even though 911 told him to stay in his vehicle?

And didn't Zimmerman have a smartphone?  Why didn't he shoot any video? Was it too dark?

In essence the neighbors seeing that Zimmerman pulled Martin down on top of him was his Glass buffer, and him not giving the police the address, asking to be called was another indication that Zimmerman wanted to have a form of evidence to support his stand your ground defense should he have the opportunity to use his gun in what he could say was self defense. Zimmerman wanted to use his gun, this is obvious.  He didn't want police showing up unexpected.
+Scott Dickson 
Also have to wonder if Trayvon would have attacked Zimmerman if he knew that he was armed. Did that ever come out in the trial that he was aware of it beforehand?

+Jahmal McNair

Just because someone is smaller doesn't mean they can't harm or even kill you. A fight can be lethal even if it's by accident.

You can be killed by a single punch to the head.. A 17-year-old killed a 46-year-old that way.

Ricardo Portillo Update: Teen charged with homicide by assault in referee death, official says

+Mike Elgan 
Yeah I've thought of this too and I think it would alter people's behavior but not necessarily all in good ways. It could have helped the case depending on how it got recorded. They could have recorded each other with their phones as well if they had phones capable of recording video. People do that already.

It's interesting how people think Glass is no different than cell phones in that regard but then treat Glass as different than them like in this scenario.

I don't think I like the idea of everyone wearing Glass and recording. I can envision an app where people who participated in it could connect online and be like a citizen monitoring network with their feed being recorded and even live streamed online where anyone could hook into people and see what they are currently seeing. Do people really want to live like that though?

I can see it causing problems like people being more fake and it's only when Glass isn't on people are more genuine or maybe that it would increase eating disorders in women and men and other psychological issues with appearance knowing they could be permanently recorded in whatever state they happen to be in.

Personally I think privacy laws need to be upgraded now that being out in public is not the same as it used to be.
Tracy T
+Mike Elgan You are right in your thought experiment. We will have proof of the truth. A person does act differently when the/she know they're being recorded. However, will the glasses be powerful enough to control a person's anger. I state this because anger takes over a person and everything goes out the door. Anger, self control and the mind goes into play. But this is just a thought in the experiment. 
I'm not discussing or arguing the case, only that the facts would be known if EITHER individuals had recorded the interaction. And continuous cheap video collection is coming.

That said, even seeing the evidence people who argue one side or the other would continue to hold strong personal positions.

I doubt a video would change many minds. It may offer better evidence for trial and prosecution. 
It just occurred to me that the court system would be quickly overrun with new cases if everyone walked around wearing Google Glass. Think of Wall Street or the Sunset Strip.
I think George lied about reaching for his phone to call the police.  I think George reached for his gun before reaching for his phone.  I think George knew that he triggered the conflict and that knowing the stand your ground defense worked for Martin as much as it did for him, George then knew only too well that Martin was justified in defending himself.

George knew his error immediately.   George lied several times, but most significantly about not knowing of the stand your ground defense in the Hannity interview about 20 seconds before his "it was God's plan" statement.  He made this statement because he knew he had just lied to Hannity about knowing about the stand your ground laws, and so he felt that throwing in that he was a theist would help him.  It's also a personal justification for the error, that it wasn't free will that caused him to make the bad decisions, it was God who preordained it, thus making George not as guilty as he knew he was.  This ignores the obvious contradiction between free will and a deterministic "God's plan," two wholly incompatible concepts.  If it was "God's plan," why did he hate the black kids in the community so much?  Did God make them that way or did they have free will to which George assigned blame for the previous thefts?

Since George triggered the event by the unwarranted drawing of his gun, George probably felt the need to manufacture injuries.  The most obvious was to break his own nose.  When faced with killing a kid without good reason, I suspect that even a wimp like George mustered the willpower to hit himself and to roll his head around on the concrete.  This is the most likely scenario to explain the lack of bruising on Martin's hands, save for one scratch, and the lack Zimmerman DNA or blood on Martin's clothes or hands.  The idea that there would be DNA under his fingernails and not on his hands is pretty ridiculous, and the ME would have easily known this.

The ME testimony was pretty convincing, but only to people that are more familiar and accepting of science.  If you put your faith in God, hearing George say "God's plan" would make a theist juror overlook his lie about the stand your ground law, and would make them sympathize with George as if to say this was just an accident.

It's my guess that the difference between being an atheist or theist is the largest factor in the Zimmerman verdict.
For starters, Zimmerman's face would have been even more messed up if he was wearing any sort of glasses. I'm guessing Glass wouldn't survive multiple punches to the face either.
But assuming we did get video from both or even just one then it would be one of the most graphic video we've ever seen in on the news if it was shown at all.
However, having video evidence would have drastically cleared up what happened  and who started the attack. The case would probably be much more obvious and less controversial.
+Tony Sandoval Whether he was a 12 year old in a cub scout uniform or a 500 pound grizzly bear it doesn't change the merits of the case. Should you be able to stalk and kill a kid because you don't like the way he looks? That's all that matters.

As for the Glass angle +Mike Elgan I have to point out that he wasn't deterred by the dispatcher telling him to back off. He knew that was on tape on some level even if he didn't fully consider the ramifications. I think that points to a cynical mental calculation of the worth authorities would place on the life of this black kid versus the weight they'd give the word of a 'brave and noble' neighborhood watchman. (please perceive the irony in "brave and noble")

I think he pegged the reaction of cops at the front end and sadly, the jury at the back end. This is particularly heartbreaking to me because it brings to mind a conversation I had with a "comrade" I had in the military, years ago. He was from a farming town in Pennsylvania and he commented how he'd love to show me where he came from but that I'd probably not survive the experience. He said the 'simple country folks' (read that racists) of his community wouldn't take kindly to a proud, articulate, Californian black fella like myself walking 'all tall with yer shoulders back' like that. My response was along the lines that I serve the Constitution of the Unites States, not the Constitution of California and as a defender of all 50 states have to right to walk down any street in any of those states. How naive, hm?

I thank the people of Florida for confirming what a waste of time my 21 years of active service was because this jury has shown that my service does not mean I can walk any street without being prepared for any racist scumbag who can spin a good story.
Ah right, the infallible jury theory.  I suppose Casey Anthony is innocent too. 

Also, it's possible that Martin was a thug.  Even if you assume this, it doesn't justify shooting him.  It's possible that Martin was a mischievous teenager, just like many male teenagers, both black and white, that do things they shouldn't being doing.  But that doesn't mean that assuming he might have been a thug type automatically forces the assumption that Zimmerman wasn't secretly wanting a chance to pull out his gun and make a citizen's arrest (or even premeditated murder using a stand your ground defense).  Both assumptions can be true.
+Brian Koch That's a good point.  Because if he wasn't really a 17 year old (which he was), I assume you're implying that it the makes it okay if he was involved with weed?

It's ironic that if you assume Martin wasn't just bullshitting his friends, making himself seem cooler than perhaps he really was, and was actually a drug dealing gun carrying thug, he might have been able to defend himself against George.  Although, I suspect that the Martin would not have been given the same verdict if George was the one who was shot through the heart first.
do we really need to go so far till include the latest tech gadget to understand what is going on here.
+Jonathan Langdale Good point but it seems the demonization is a typical tactic of right wingers who believe only European lineages have value. I've yet to hear one of these right wingers say that if he had been a teenaged, white pot smoker they'd support his being stalked and shot by a nutty vigilante.
The point is, he's more white than the victim, so he is inocent.

Compare that case with the black women who only give warn shoots and hurts mibody, she faces 20 years.
First, people who commit crimes don't film themselves doing so. Second, if they did they would be stupid. Third, why even think "this looks like a job for.... Google Glass" when it is about racism, failing courts, etc etc?

This looks like a job for...

this isn't one of your best posts.
What if we had everything recorded? Zimmerman would be in jail. Period. Where he should have been sent in the 1st place. He is a coward, a bully and a criminal. 
Being found, "not guilty," for killing Trayvon, sends the message that it's okay, for people, who are not law officers, to act like they are.  Even when it leads to lethal force.
The core point of this, is that Zimmerman, took it upon himself, to engage Martin, as if he was an officer of the law.  And then respond with lethal force, when Martin refused to recognize that authority.
Had Zimmerman did as the police told him over the phone, to not engage Martin, then the rest would not have happened.
Zimmerman didn't intend to kill Martin, but he did intend for Martin to submit to his self appointed authority.
And when Martin refused the physical force began.
Zimmerman drew his gun and shot Martin, because Martin refused to acknowledge Zimmerman, as a police officer.  And then, a teenage boy got the better of Zimmerman, in the physical altercation.
Why?  Because Zimmerman, no matter how hard he wished, was not a law officer.  He wasn't trained to deal with someone in a physical altercation.  He had no reason to pursue and engage Martin.
Neighborhood watch, was never a replacement for law enforcement.  It's a volunteer network, where common citizens, observe and report what they see.  But at no time, are they ever told to engage a suspect, for any reason.
Zimmerman completely overstepped the line here, and a boy died for it.
And before you break out the race card, I'm white.
And I say, Zimmerman was a wanna-be policeman, who shot someone, when they refused to respect him as such.
+James O'Brien It won't matter.  Take my smartphone or my Glass.  The data is almost immediately uploaded to the cloud.  With IFTTT or other apps/services and your data is copied and beyond the reach of all but Federal authority to destroy/suppress.
+Fridolin Heyer she made the mistake of leaving the house and coming back brandishing and then firing the gun. That's why the jury took 12 seconds to convict her. She could have just as easily driven away. 
+Celeste Sanders Damn it. I had a gnawing feeling... I apologize and will go back and look at that to double check. Thanks for the heads up. T the rest of you I apologize. 
What if Martin didnt try to be little gangsta?What if Zimmerman was realy in fear for his life?If someone was banging my head on concret I would shot him too,its called survival instinct.
+Predrag Visekruna What a load...
If Zimmerman hadn't attempted to confront Martin, as he was told by the police, then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
Zimmerman is not now, nor was he then, a police officer.
He had no authority to confront martin at any time.
Teddy A
I wish we had more CCTV like in London 
Sorry +Mike Elgan, but I don't want to live in a surveillance society... :-)
+A. KADALKA Our choice is that we can live in 1) a society in which only police, government and authorities surveile; or 2) a society in which people also have the right to protect themselves with surveilance. 

Which of these do you choose? 
+Mike Elgan Good question:
1) Some policemen to help me arrest someone.
2) Surveillance in MY own ground, just in case but not in the streets.

In NYC policemen walk in many places so they could ask for papers...
Sometimes they catch people that are in the black list of the FBI
Neither of them were cool enough for glass
Zimmerman was a "wanna-be cop."
And when Martin refused to acknowledge him as such, it snowballed into Martins death.
Maybe Zimmerman was a racial profiler, or maybe he was out to confront whomever he spotted.  Martin was the unlucky target of Zimmermans' ego.
He was a member of a neighborhood watch program.  A volunteer.  
As such, he was never led by the program, or condoned by law enforcement, to confront anyone at anytime.
As it was reported, George was told by police, "before,"  confronting Trayvon, to not do so.
Watch, observe, report.  That was the limitations Zimmerman worked in.  Anything beyond that was his own delusions.
But I suppose the federal case will bring all this to light.
What would jesus do? In today's world!
There's a thin line to tread, between having so much surveillance that we have no privacy, and having so little that such problems happen. Perhaps there is no ideal balance.
+Leslie Hawk He would turn the other cheek (on the left side of the face, because Glass is on the right). 
+Jake Hennett agreed but for right now, the powers that be have all the surveillance on their side. And in addition to the actual confrontation, in +Mike Elgan 's thought experiment, we would have also been privy to their mood before the confrontation. Was Trayvon acting suspiciously or was he just a kid with some candy talking to his girlfriend? Was Mark just a concerned citizen or an idiot looking for trouble? 10 minutes of recording might have made a difference. 
+James Lanning being found "not guilty" means that the justice system works and that evidence, facts and witnesses proved Zimmerman was innocent.. which he absolutely was.

What would have been a travesty is for Zimmerman to be convicted for defending his own life against a violent teen and for him to be put in jail for trying to help a community. It would have punished a good man for trying to help his community by calling cops and trying to identify suspicious people.

Nothing Zimmerman did that night was illegal.. including owning a gun.. but IT IS illegal for someone to break your nose for no reason and to try to split your head open.

Teach your kids that if you think someone is following you to call cops or go home and not play a thug and go teach that person a lesson by trying to smash his head in and your kid will be alive.
+Mike Elgan This post just simply makes no sense, no one would want to or even have the coherence to say "OK glass, take a video and then waste a much needed hand to press the touchpad for three seconds to record past 10 seconds. Ive seen a lot of #transhumanists that are into glass/AR/WC, and if you are in fact interested in advanced and novel technologies that are controversial due to their powerful applications, watch this video from Nick Bostrom:
Cure a violent society and laws which actually anyone to shoot anyone when it is a one to one encounter by surveilance.

Sir, this sounds both medieval and paranoid to me. And if you do so. Please let good old Europe alone, I hope to find better ways dealing with such.
+Frank Nestel Actually violence in general and youth violence in particular are going down every year in the US. I don't know about a cure, but it's getting better. 
Getting better, or people are just interacting less in person...
+Mike Elgan IMHO, It's going down not because of the video, it's because of some laws that let them to be freed more easily and give some chances to people who are fragile.
Let's not forget the UC Davis police that tear-gassed protesters even though they saw dozens of students recording them... Sometimes a recording is not enough to persuade people to behave civilly.
+James Mason Teargas is what police use when they don't want to injure people. Without cameras, they might have just started clubbing people. 
I generally agree, but clubbing is too exceptional.  By in large cameras help you maintain your rights.  More than clubbing, it seems clear that a lot of law enforcement don't really enforce the law without actually breaking some part of it.

This can be as simple as a traffic stop, asking for ID, rolling your window down, getting out of you car, etc. without actual cause and simply because they want to mess with you, or because you've tried to stick to the letter of the law. 

In some cases, strictly following the law around a police officer can be the reason why they target you.  In these cases, LE actually wants you to permit the bending of the law to help them out.  It's a slippery slope.

It seems like a lot of LE want to be private detectives. It's like any opportunity to question someone gives the lowbees an opportunity to think they're in an interrogation room.  And then if the person answers questions in a way they perceive to be dodgy, then they're going to abuse the law to try to flush out someone that "could be" hiding something.  There should be a distinction between trying to uncover a law breaker and simply observing one that gives them probable cause.

I would structure undercover tests in the field by another agency to test & identify which officers can make this distinction, and those that cannot.  Sort of like what they do when going after Johns that solicit prostitutes.  Then I would give them a simple three strikes rule that never resets.  This would also be a good way to deal with the over-targeting of minorities.

In a way, this is the essence of the problem with George.  He wanted to be a detective, although he observed nothing to warrant it. He didn't just roll his window down and ask the kid what he was doing.
+Mike Elgan - Teargas is what police use when they want to force people to submit without injuring then severely. The use of teargas on a bunch of seated students, who posed no threat to anyone, was an unwarranted and uncivilized use of force... and the cameras didn't stop it.
+James Mason Yes, it was. But what I'm suggesting is that perhaps teargas is what they used BECAUSE they knew their were cameras, as opposed to billy clubs, anti-riot guns, etc. 
why not just surender to the defeat of meth
Add a comment...