Benkoil describes Augmented Reality as “layering digital information onto the physical world” (Young qtd. by Benkoil, ¶ 2). The most common applications of AR (augmented reality) today are on “smart” handheld devices like iPhones and Androids. However, there are a ton of other applications for AR out there today: journalists can use them for restaurant reviews or even to see where bailout dollars have been spent in the neighborhood. You can also look at real estate or historical data about a building and magazines are even using AR that functions in conjunction with computers.
I thought one of the most interesting potential applications of AR was the idea of “TV station[s] using AR to let viewers poke around in a scene or get more information about something they’re watching right in the frame” (Benkoil ¶ 9). This may not be one of the more practical use applications, but it would usher in a new era of entertainment. Combining television with augmented reality would place the viewer in the show, which blurs the line between reality and imagination. If you can interact physically with a world that is supposed to be untouchable and make-believe, can you really call something imaginary?
I thought one of the most practical applications of AR technology the article mentions is the U.S. Postal Service’s app. The post office has the customer hold up whatever they want to mail in front of a computer’s camera. The camera then shows them the size of the box required to ship it. Being able to tell what size of box quickly will reduce the amount of time each customer will take in the post office, causing less frustration certainly but also the potential for greater customer volume. Using this AR app could also potentially increase purchases, because people will wait to box their items until they arrive at the post office.
There are already a lot of AR applications out there today, with many more potential applications on the way. However, for all the beneficial applications of AR, there are the creepy invasions of privacy implications. While Benkoil thinks it may be awhile before the technology progresses that far, I’m not so sure. He states that “a lot of the apps are still glitchy, require downloads and don’t quite work all the time” (¶ 14). But he still doesn’t disagree that there are apps out there that can be used for invasion of privacy. Just because the applications don’t work very well certainly means they don’t exist. So we have a lot to look forward to in the future of AR, but how much do we need to watch out for?
I think that the privacy concerns surrounding AR technology are valid. However, I remain hopeful that there will be countermeasures in place to prevent privacy breaches from commonly occurring. There may be a way for a person to monitor just how much of their information is available to AR apps. Or, there may be a way for people to physically block these apps from scanning them.
ReplyDeleteFailing any technological means, I think that there will inevitably be new legislation in place that will make it easier for people to protect their own privacy.