Cheating Wearables: Who Will be Banning Wearable Technology? Schools? Courts?

Wearable Today Episode #77 Show Notes

  • Show Notes and Links Here
  • Think Wearable Tech is a new idea? Then you should visit the Computer History Museum in Mountain View and check out their new exhibit titled “On You: A Story of Wearable Computing.” Taken mostly from the personal collection of Thad Starner, the exhibit has over 20 years of history from the research and consumer fields. You’ll have to act quickly though, the exhibit will be moving on after September 20th.
  • Lux Research is reporting that Samsung is leading the wearable market, at least in patent submissions. With 4% of all wearable patents, they are beating Qualcomm at 3%, and Apple at 2.2%. These may sound like small numbers, but with 41,301 patents filed in the wearable tech category, this is hundreds of patents for all the major players. Some other interesting stats: 10% of the patents deal with health monitoring, and 11% are in consumer communication applications.
  • Google has a new product going through FCC approval, and some are theorizing it’s a new version of Google Glass. With an FCC ID of A4R-GG1, the device is being kept very confidential, with most of the details about how it works being hidden. One interesting note, the FCC label is only shown in software on the device, and a screenshot is provided in the public documentation. If you take a look at the image, it looks an awful lot like the interface for Google Glass, and with a moniker of GG1, many are hopeful that this will be the consumer version that has been rumored for several months.
  • GoPro Unveiled the new HERO4 Session, a camera half the size of the GoPro HERO and in a black enclosure. The camera features a one-button on option and the smaller size means more places you can set the camera. It can do up to 1080p 60fps and costs $399
  • Check out the Top 10 Infographic on Wearable Today. We highlight what is breaking through in 2015 from watches to bike helmets,earphones, and more.
  • Doppel is a “Human Response to Rhythm”. Through a tacticle beat, it will help you stay focused when you need to, and wind down to keep calm. You can even adjust as you go. You can get this at £70 ($109).
  • Tinder’s new Watch app does a little more than find the next date. It includes a heart-rate monitor to try and match via your reaction. If your rate increases at a photo, it will mark as a match. The app is coming soon to not only Apple Watch but also Android Wear
  • Great deals on wearable technology
  • Universities are starting to look at when students can wear these devices. If you are going for a CPA, Law, Medical, or other high-end degree test, you might want to leave your wearable at home. Yet, some will still try to use wearables to cheat. Even as these devices get invisible, how do we make sure someone doesn’t use it as an advantage? Is it still cheating?  After all, we wouldn’t want our doctors or lawyers talk into their watches half-way through a proceedure and say “Siri, look up…”
  • Law Podcaster Gordon Firemark said:
  • A lot of courts ban the use of cameras. And for a while, smart phones were a problem, because the security staff at the court viewed them as prohibited equipment. I believe, however, that those restrictions are mostly a thing of the past. Mainly because mobile devices have become so ubiquitous.
  • I have not heard of any prohibitions on wearables like the Apple watch, but individual judges often have their own rules for their court rooms. I know that the use of tablet computers in the courtroom has become very popular.  I can’t see why the watch would be treated differently. Unless, of course, the device is being used in such a way as to create a distraction for the jury or court room personnel. Obviously, alarms and distracting visual displays on the device could present a problem and should be turned off.
  • The term “wearables” is an interesting one, because as I see it, it includes devices like Google glass. I think lots of judges would object to the use of Google glass in the court room. Either by the parties and their representatives, or by members of the viewing public.
  • There are quite a few instances where cameras are banned from the interior of the court room when proceedings are underway. This, mainly to avoid prejudice to the parties, or unnecessarily influencing the potential juror pool.
  • There is also the sense that having cameras in the court room creates a bit of a “circus” atmosphere.

You may also like...