???? 今天谷歌公司（Google）開放了“探索者項目”（Explorer Program），讓公眾有機會花1500美元購買谷歌眼鏡。盡管零售點寥寥無幾，但谷歌眼鏡俱樂部的勢力范圍不斷擴大已經(jīng)讓科技博客圈和硅谷興奮不已了——因為大家終于能用這個工具完完整整地記錄生存現(xiàn)狀、生活的每個時刻、以及我們碰到的所有面孔了。

????可是那些沒戴這種眼鏡的人該怎么辦呢？由于沒有法律或政治機制讓他們不用谷歌眼鏡，他們只能要么隨大流，自己也戴上一副，要么只能閉門不出：畢竟現(xiàn)在我們的全部生活都變成可以拿來記錄和分享的對象了。Facebook公司首席執(zhí)行官馬克?扎克伯格唯恐我們因為私生活全面曝光產(chǎn)生過度的焦慮情緒，因此他提醒大家，隱私早就不是什么“社會規(guī)范”了。它完全就是上世紀(jì)的老一套嘛，對不對？

????而歐洲和亞洲的一些國家的公眾近期則對隱私的范圍展開了激烈討論，結(jié)果立法機關(guān)為了解決這個問題特地采取了行動，甚至強制要求保留數(shù)碼設(shè)備拍攝時的快門聲，同時不允許使用臉部識別軟件。但在美國，就算是爆出了國安局（NSA）搜集隱私數(shù)據(jù)的丑聞，大家也沒有針對全國媒體所使用的技術(shù)和隱私問題展開廣泛的討論。

????我們研究美國消費者對技術(shù)的看法時，總能聽到同樣一句話：“可是誰會對我的照片有興趣呢？”這么些年來，我們聊過絕大多數(shù)人在談到隱私和安全問題時都顯得漠不關(guān)心。盡管多數(shù)人都承認(rèn)并不喜歡在自己沒同意的情況下被別人拍攝或錄音，但他們并不知道拿這種情況怎么辦——圍繞創(chuàng)新有一整套吹捧的說辭，同時技術(shù)對我們的私生活不斷進(jìn)行滲透——這已經(jīng)是既成事實了。

????根據(jù)谷歌首席執(zhí)行官埃里克?施密特的說法，如果我們的整個生活都被記錄下來并呈現(xiàn)給別人，也沒什么可擔(dān)心的，因為：“如果有些事你不想讓別人知道，也許從一開始你就不該干。”通過占據(jù)道德制高點，他把隱私算成了針對違法活動的保護機制。當(dāng)然，現(xiàn)實遠(yuǎn)比施密特眼中這樣單一平面的道德體系要復(fù)雜得多。我們每個人都處于有著不同道德規(guī)范的各種社交圈中：在某個圈子里行得通的事情到了另一個圈子就不一定行得通了。

????諷刺的是，社交圈存在交集的Google+卻完全是按照這個原則構(gòu)建的——我們都會做一些不希望自己的長輩、重要關(guān)系人、朋友或老板看到的事情。但谷歌眼鏡卻將徹底改變這一切，因為我們將無法控制自己的生活會以什么樣的方式被人記錄下來，放到網(wǎng)上共享。

????Google opens up its Explorer Program today, offering the general public an opportunity to purchase Glass for $1,500. Although spots are limited, the expansion of the Glass club has created tremendous excitement across tech blogs and Silicon Valley -- finally, the tools are readily available to record our complete existence, every moment of our lives on Earth, every face we encounter.

????And what about the people on the other side of the camera? As they have no legal or political mechanism for opting out of Glass, they can either jump on the bandwagon or stay home: Our entire lives are now fair game for recording and sharing. Lest we fret too much about the prospect of full disclosure, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg reminds us that privacy is no longer a "social norm." It's so last century, right?

????Other countries in Europe and Asia have recently had robust public debates about the limits of privacy, and, as a result, legislation has taken measures to address the concern, even mandating shutter-click sounds and disabling facial recognition software. Yet here in the United States, even after the NSA data-collection scandals, there have not been enough extensive ethical conversations about technology and privacy in the national media.

????When we study U.S. consumers' perceptions around technology, we hear the same thing over and over again: "But who would find my photos interesting?" Most people we've spoken with over the years express a sense of apathy regarding privacy and security concerns. While many of them admit that they don't like being photographed or recorded without consent, they simply don't know what to do about it -- the rhetoric of innovation and progress that accompanies tech's invasion into our private lives makes the whole thing feel like a fait accompli.

????According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, we need not be concerned if our entire lives are recorded and made visible to others, because: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." By taking a moral high ground, he reduces privacy to a protection mechanism for illegal or illicit activities. Reality, of course, is far more complex than Schmidt's vision of a flat monoculture of morals. Each of us occupies a variety of social worlds with different moral codes: What might be okay in one circle isn't necessarily okay in another.

????Ironically, Google+, with its overlapping social circles, is entirely structured around this principle -- we all do things that we don't want our grandmothers, significant others, friends, or bosses to see. But Glass changes all that because we no longer have control over how our lives are recorded and shared online.????