Will Google Glass actually harm our perception of the world rather than aid it?

I am as keen on tech gadgets as the next person but I can't help but wonder if the advent of virtual technology actually takes something away from our perception of the world, rather than adding to it.

There is a marked difference between 'looking' and ''seeing.  As a person who started my professional career as an art teacher I know that the secret to visual creativity is to train the mind to actually take in and process the visual stimuli that bombard us every day.

To do this one needs to focus on the subject at hand and exclude the other 'visual gunk' that surrounds it.  Only then can the creative juices start flowing and creative interpretation follow.  Let's face it, the world needs creative people who can dream.

So in our brave new world where a pair of high tech 'specs' provides us you a constant stream of third party data, are we muddying the creative process rather than aiding it.  Imagine how little Leonardo would have achieved if he had been constantly bombarded with virtual reality data? Very little I suspect.

Put bluntly, is too much virtual data for tech-delivered sources scrambling our cranial database?

Robert E. Franken in his book Human Motivation suggests that to be creative, one needs to be able to "view things in new ways or from a different perspective".  But I don't believe he had in mind a quite literal 'different perspective' delivered through technology. The 'uniqueness of alternatives' cannot be considered and interpreted creatively if they are constantly being prompted by pre-programmed data.

According to Hungarian psychology professor Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, creative individuals alternate between imagination and fantasy at one end, and a rooted sense of reality at the other.

I would suggest that the problem with tech gadgets such as Google Glass is that they only allow an individual focus on the latter.

While I wouldn't go as far as Brian Merchant in suggesting that "products like Glass may turn daily life into a neurotic consumerist hellscape", I wonder if people have fully thought through how the purchase of a virtual technology device might effect them?

Related articles

• If This Is What Using Google Glass Will Eventually Be Like, It's Going to Suck
• This Is Why Google Glass Is the Future
• Designing Virtual Reality Avatars Can Change Your Actual Perceptions of the Environment

As Strong As Your Weakest Link

As the old saying goes "You are only as strong as your weakest link".  Interestingly, in the recent rash of data disclosures from Edward Snowden and his predecessors, the weakest link could well turn out to be of America's own making.

Outsourcing key data activity to contractors rather than keeping it in-house means your online security is only as good as their employees are; in keeping mum about what they discover about your operations in the course of their daily duties.

Consider the fact, expounded by James Sensenbrenner in a recent editorial, that there are some 500,000 employees of private firms with access to the government's most sensitive secrets.  And this is just the States.  There are surely more in other countries contracted to undertake similar surveillance.

Some regard the actions of Manning, Assange and Snowden as heroic and others consider them heinous, but which ever side of the the ethical debate you sit on, the fact remains that confidential data was accessed and shared with those it wasn't intended for.

It is a sobering realisation (or maybe reconfirmation) that it is the low level IT guy who poses your greatest threat. These techs seem to be able to rummage through systems and make discoveries that evade all of the so-called safeguards that the governments throw at them.

Consider for a moment what you might have accessed online or sent to others via email in the past year.  I would suggest that many people who would feel less than comfortable in having a total disclosure of their online habits revealed to the world without their permission.

But is there anything you can do to mitigate the risk that others can and do spy on what you do?

Part of the answer could well have been given by NSA whistle-blower Snowden.  In reply to an online discussion set up by the Guardian newspaper he said that:

"Encryption (of email) works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it".

So there you go.  Even encrypting your email can only assure safe passage between systems and if the systems themselves have a weakness an IT tech on a mission can crack it or share it. Not the most comforting of thoughts and if the technician in question has a thumb-drive (as Snowden is reported to have by Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia), then your data could be shared and leaked well beyond the boundaries of your network.

Am I alone in thinking that these revelations could well have profound implications for the future of the Cloud? The 'contracting out' of data storage from your own servers to a third party based in another country could well have become a far more difficult decision for businesses to make.

And if you wish to mitigate some of the damage your email might cause you could always try using encryption yourself.  Here is one suggestion: GNU Privacy Guard for Windows which is free software.  Mind you I cannot guarantee that a low-level tech at the NSA hasn't already cracked it.

Related articles

• NSA Leaks Show Low-Level IT Worker as Secrecy's Weak Link - Bloomberg
• NSA-proof encryption exists. Why doesn't anyone use it?
• NSA leaker: No chance of fair trial
• Encrypting Your Email Works, Says NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden
• Establishment Assertions that Snowden is a Chinese Spy are "Predictable Smears" (+video)