The boundaries or human knowledge are easy to see if you're educated, and vague otherwise. The algorithm for identifying the boundary is therefore: 1) learn everything everyone knows about the subject. This takes about 7 - 14 years. 2) If after 1), you don't know the answer and you know or suspect that everyone else doesn't know the answer, then it's on the other side.

It's not rocket science, lots of people go through 1) and 2).

Wrong. Many CCTVs are related, and record data for a limited amount of time. There's a world of difference between a CCTV pointed at a carpark, and some glasshole slaking people around town. The most important difference is that an evil company named Google doesn't get to sift through the CCTV footage.

You're way off about the reason people object. Disliking being recorded is not the main problem, it's what can be done with the images, and where they might end up and who might see them. Nobody gives a fuck if a security guard sees you walking down a carpark, but if that picture is seen by people you know, or prospective employers, or any number of other uses that might harm you later, then tha's evil. And that is exactly what Google/Doubleclick (remember them?) wants to do.

When is using a graphical interface (especially X or the OS/X desktop) not using UNIX?

Quite often. The UNIX philosophy effectively requires programs to not make a distinction between human users, and scripts or robots. When a UNIX program produces output, it can be accepted directly as input to some other program with very little (awk)wardness (pun intended). When a UNIX program requires input, all of the requirements can be specified formally, using the command line or the standard input. Thus is makes no difference if a human operates the program, or a bash(1) script, or an expect(1) session.

By contrast, GUI interfaces are ONLY intended for humans using a particular combination of screen and pointer technology (think Desktop vs Tablet as the latest example of this), have no way to specify inputs in a script friendly way, and do not produce output that any other program can use, only a human being. Yes these limitations of GUI programs can be remedied in various ways by introducing command line paraphernalia, but this usually ends up in a haphazard implementation which is almost, but not quite, in sync with a limited subset of the GUI interface's capabilities, causing uncertainty as to which interface is the most capable.

Why? This is nonsense. People who are unmotivated to begin with won't be good programmers, because programming involves lots of reading of boring reference manuals, lots of attention to detail, and mind-numbing repeats of the same running program, over and over, to drill down exactly where it's not doing exactly what's required.

Being a mental masochist is not sufficient for being a good programmer, but it is certainly necessary. Anyone who isn't even willing to master a semi-boring CS class doesn't pass muster.

Whoa! They could call it Just In Time(TM) Spying.

That's not research, that's development. Research is extending the boundaries of human knowledge.

Duh. Of course you first take their glasses off from behind, and smash them on the ground. Give people a modicum of credit, not everybody is a moron.

You'd rather have the wild west than the tamed east coast? Fancy yourself a gunslinger rather than a little old lady? Meh, too many analogies.

It all depends where you are in the economic food chain. Regulation makes sense for people who don't have the individual power, or the time, or the expertise, to defend themselves. That's the majority of people, including me, and probably including yourself. There's always a handful of people who have the money and the connections to control or intimidate everyone who tries to fuck with them. Those people thrive in an anarchic free for all.

It's not your call if "the internet" remembers you. And that's the problem.

Beat me to it. The internet will "remember" you so long as the information about you is perceived to have value.

Which basically means as long as you live, and probably half way through your childrens' lives. And that is exactly the problem in the first place. Other people and companies having hoards of information about you is bad, as it given them power over you. For as long as you live.

Meh, 1984 came out 65 years ago, did you skip it? In case you haven't read it, they had two way TVs on practically every wall to both spy on people, and send propaganda messages at random times. Orwell didn't live in and Americanized world full of commercial ads, but in fact ads are a form of propaganda, just not political.

Meh, there are plenty of countermeasures we can develop.

On the "nice" side, all legally sold cameras should have a certified DRM system coupled with a well engineered peer to peer wifi protocol that will ask all devices within a radius of 50m if any pictures are allowed to be taken. Then everybody can wear a tiny ring on their finger which broadcasts a yes/no response. If you want to get fancy, if the ring is GPS enabled and records the time and place of any mandatory query, and if "legal" photographs must have a time and date embedded, it becomes easy to check after the fact if a particular picture was "legally" taken: do a search on the records for anyone who was within a 50m radius of the photograph's time and place, and verify if all the recorded responses were affirmative.

On the "dark" side, all such cameras need some way to connect to the internet. That means they are vulnerable to viruses. We simply develop sophisticated viruses that attack cameras and wipe them, or just futz with the settings so they are randomly out of focus etc. The nice thing about viruses is that everyone can carry them on their smart phones, and there's plausible deniability. What? Your camera got fucked with when you came close to me? I'm sorry, I didn't know about them virus thingamajigs. I don't do tech. It will be a never ending measure/countermeasure race, but I'm sure we can find dedicated hackers who are willing to take on this burden.

It all comes down to the following question: are the spyware industry giants like Google willing to self limit their technology in a foolproof way? (I don't know if that's possible, even for them) If not, the tech community can sabotage it for them, free of charge. It'll be fun, like open source.

Anybody who wears nearly impossible to detect spyglasses and gets found out has their nose punched in. That is just the price to be paid. Same with glass-holes, don't play the game if you can't take the blame.

These same questions plague Battlefield 4

And not to mention, Battlestar Galactica too. A lot of the needless drama on that show could have been avoided if they had just licensed their testing framework from the Cylons.

Not just government. The glasses can be hacked, and then you'll have an *army* of people around the world who spy for others without knowing it. Think botnet with s/bot/camera/. Russian/Chinese/American organized hacker groups selling your whereabouts to the debt collection agencies, who'll track you down to intimidate you, while you're eating at some restaurant or drinking at a party. NSA hackers turned Mafia goons, they'll use the glasses network to break the witness protection schemes, datamine new blackmail opportunities in realtime, etc.

Knowing where everybody is at any given moment in time offers so many opportunities for manipulation, it's a totally new chessgame.