Not really, facial recognition is in their other products. So they have a policy right now that bars it, but there's no particular reason to think they won't change their mind later without external forces stopping them.

A version that was limited to contacts in your address book would probably be acceptable to people, without unduly compromising privacy.

But, even that sets a bad precedence as it lets people off the hook for not bothering to learn people's names.I know some people have a blindness to faces, but the more technology is used as a proxy for actual ability, the more of a problem it's going to be.
I agree here totally. They have a history of looking for ways of getting as much personal information as possible. I don't see any reason why they would exclude GG from this in the long term. I'd expect them to wait until people are used to the technology of the glasses being around before they change that policy.

I kinda understand where your coming from. Most of us are already cyborg not yet on a physiological but on a psychological level. We developed a dependency on the information processing devices we use in our everyday life.

In the essence one could say we entrust certain portions of our everyday life to those devices - they became something like our 2nd brain. An accident rendering the devices and the stored information inoperable can be compared with losing a limb - affecting our capabilities or even rendering us incapable of doing certain tasks.

We call those Ivy League educations over here. :)

This thread reminds me of "Ghost in the Shell".

Secretive organizations don't need Googles consumer tech to get this. Sure it's nicer this way, but this tech isn't that hard to implement. Public sources of information tying people's pictures to their details are common too. So sure Google would make this more readily accessible to everyone, but I'm not sure that's actually worse than it being available only to organizations with enough money.

In spy movies they don't.

Cyborgs have existed since the early 19th century or even before. Depends on how you define one.

This is an interesting piece by Poe in this context: [url=http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/POE/used_up.html]http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/POE/used_up.html[/url]

I suppose you might have to discard the frankenstein-esque nature of organic tissue like limbs being replaced voluntarily. It is far better to use nanotechnology to protect organic tissue. Even if this technology is unlikely to reach use before 2030.

There are also ethical and population implications to consider before the grotesque becomes a reality..

When it would be right to live forever, which is basically never.

i read an article about a hand prosthesis prototype wired to nerves that actually allowed the participant in the project to feel what shape of an object is he holding in the hand without looking at it.
So i root for body replacement science all the way because it actually helps people and i hope to see that one day they'll make a fully functional eye replacement for blind people.

Indeed. They now even have legs that works on brain signals just like the real thing. Artificial skin has also been created and they are in the process of creating bionic alternatives to various organs....you even have lab created eyes now.