A well regulated Internet, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear smart glasses, shall not be infringed.
(Sign the Pass the Glass Amendment Petition)
This amendment is being proposed in response to the persecution of our rights as individuals to bear mobile devices. The anti-Google Glass movement Stop The Cyborgs was founded in response and has already published a list of demands including that Google never allow face recognition apps and that the company creates a do not track system. West Virginia state representative Gary Howell, a Republican, has proposed a law to outlaw the devices for drivers in his state: “I would like to invite Google to provide a demonstration,” said Howell. Google has also been warned by Las Vegas casinos and a Seattle bar that their product is banned at their establishments. “We will not allow people to wear Glass while gambling or attending our shows,” warned one spokesman for Caesars Entertainment.
Inspiring the recent hardware witch hunt, of course, is the commercial introduction of Google Glass, evolutionary mobile technology showcased in their new video demonstrating the multitude of ways our life will be improved by its convenient wearability and interface.
The Argument Against Glass
While the United States constitution protects access to Internet tools, many are debating what happens when technology is used irresponsibly. The Boston bombing suspects used their laptops to access bomb-making information that aided them in acts of terror. Some say it’s time to put a stop to Internet threats compromising our national security. European Union leadership has long advocated for blocking Internet searches using dangerous words like bomb, kill, genocide or terrorism. In January, a Paris court ordered Twitter to identify and hold accountable users posting “hateful” tweets.
Constitutional Right to Bear Arms
There is an obvious parallel between the right to bear mobile devices (e.g., Google Glass) and the right to bear arms (e.g., 38 Special). Gallup polls indicate that while the gun debate simmers, a majority of Americans still support private gun ownership. They also believe the country has an active role in regulating how technology is deployed. Few of us would contend, for instance, that bazookas should fall under the Second Amendment protection laws for private ownership. Likewise, there are no viable movements to ban hunting with guns.
Philosophy Behind the Amendment
Alex Roland is a professor of history at Duke University known for speaking out about the need for society to accept responsibility for how technology shapes warfare. He reminds students that the accelerated pace of technological change in the modern world, however, has little to do with harmful conditions in the world. War is timeless and universal, he says, so there is no imperative for new technology to be used for ill means, by either government agencies or individuals. Roland believes that we, as responsible citizens, have it within our powers to shape technology into mechanisms for good.
An Amendment to Bear Mobile Devices
With these points in mind, we propose the amendment to the United States Constitution, necessary for the purpose of protecting our right to bear mobile computers. We’re sure congress will be forced to take up the issue and eventually ratify a version of our new amendment as it becomes increasingly obvious that our mobile computer devices have the ability to radically improve the way we live our lives. We anticipate both Democrats and Republicans will rally behind our rights to own and operate mobile devices.