Acknowledgements

In the first place we would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the honorable faculty for his guidance and support he showed in us over the semester.

We would also like to state gratitude to our supervisor, Md. Rakibul Hoque, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Information System, The University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, whose encouragement, constant guidance, invaluable suggestions, motivation in difficult times and support from the initial to the final level enabled us to develop an understanding of this study.

We would like to offer regards and blessings to all of those who supported us directly or indirectly in any prospect during the completion of this report.

The name without whom my thanksgiving is incomplete is the Almighty Allah, Who allowed us to reach here today.

Abstract

2

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The LG G Watch R (model W110) is an Android Wear-based smartwatch announced and released by LG and Google on October 25, 2014.[1] It is the second round-faced smartwatch after the Motorola Moto 360 but, unlike the 360, it is the first to feature a full circular display. An earlier variant of the LG's smart watch is the LG G Watch, which features a rectangular display.

The G Watch R has IP67 certification for dust and water resistance. It has a user-replaceable buckle-based strap. The watch consists of a 1.2 GHz Quad-Core Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 processor, 4GB internal storage and 512MB RAM. It is encased in a brushed aluminum and stainless steel body, which holds on the P-OLED display, this uses large polymers instead of small based polymers. The smartwatch has Bluetooth LE connectivity, a barometer for several uses including atmospheric pressure and altitude, an accelerometer, a gyroscope and a heart rate monitor. There is also an unofficial patch that enables Wi-Fi. It has a microphone but no speakers, so it is not possible to take calls on the smartwatch.

The G Watch R runs Android Wear and features a notification system based on Google Now technology, which enables it to receive spoken commands given by the user with Android 4.3 or higher devices.[2] With the Google Now software, it gives the user information and notifications without the need to ask for it.

3

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The present research study has been undertaken with the following objectives:

Privacy concerns arising from wearable technology like LG G Watch R. Security of wearable devices Cultural implications of wearable devices The impact of wearable technologies on risk for individuals and organizations Security issues in cloud computing

1.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Due to time constraint, it could not be possible to collect enough information from the secondary sources. The main limitation of the study is that we could not use primary data/information to analyze the study and find out the concrete results relating to opportunities and challenges of android wearable technologies.

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

This research study has been conducted and analyzed on the basis of secondary data and information. The sample period of these secondary data and information is 2014-2015 (January). These data and information were collected from different A-ranked journals, articles, published books, conference proceedings, newspapers, and magazines. This research paper focused on two things. First, it highlights the LG G Watch R. Later, it investigates and find out the opportunities and privacy of wearable technologies.

4

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Wearable technology, wearable fashionable technology, wearable devices, tech togs, or fashion electronics are clothing and accessories incorporating computer and advanced electronic technologies. The designs often incorporate practical functions and features, but may also have a purely critical or aesthetic agenda.[1] Wearable devices are a good example of the Internet of Things.

Wearable technology is related to both the field of ubiquitous computing and the history and development of wearable computers. With ubiquitous computing, wearable technology shares the vision of interweaving technology into the everyday life, of making technology pervasive and interaction friction less. Through the history and development of wearable computing, this vision has been both contrasted and affirmed through the multiple projects directed at either enhancing or extending functionality of clothing, and as contrast, most notably through Steve Mann's concept of surveillance. The history of wearable technology is influenced by both of these responses to the vision of ubiquitous computing. The calculator watch, introduced in the 1980s, was one original piece of widespread worn electronics. IlyaFridman designed a Bluetooth headset into a pair of earrings with a hidden microphone. The Spy TIE includes a color video camera and USB Heating Gloves keep hands warm when plugged in. Twitter users can wear a "Pocket Tweet" using a Java application and cutting out and applying a Twitter text bubble to a person's shirt, one example of Do-it-yourself wearable tech that was part of an art exhibit for the Wearable Technology AIR project in spring 2009. ZED-phones stitch headphones into beanies and headbands allowing riders, snowboarders, Drivers and Runners to stay connected, hands-free, always. Wearable technology has applications in monitoring and real-time feedback for athletes as well. The decreasing cost of processing power and other components is encouraging widespread adoption and availability.

According to Forbes, 71% of 16-to-24 year olds want wearable tech.[9] However, a study carried out in the UK in early 2015 among 1000 people reported that almost half (56%) said that wearable tech was "just a fad".[10]

World Bank’s economic growth projections, remittance flows are expected to register an average annual growth rate of over 8 percent during 2013-2016, to reach $540 billion in developing countries and over $700 billion worldwide by 2016.

Wearable Technology is on the rise in personal and business use. In healthcare, many examples exist to date. Google Glass is a much noted device, offering promising technology but to many, pricey and awkward in use. Smartwatches so far have not been deployed much, as limited functionality and clunky aesthetics may get in the way. Some other devices are already in use, others still on the horizon—that wearable could be useful in professional and patient settings. Medical Professionals such as Google Glass Surgeon have now organized themselves in WATCH-Society the Wearable Technology in Healthcare Society, in order to search for collaboration and valid use of wearable technology in healthcare. The Society is a not-for profit

5

organisation and open to all envisioning co-creation, collaboration and scrutinization in order to help healthcare from multiple professional viewpoints.

Figure 1: Different types of wearable technologies.

On April 16, 2013, Mountain View corporation, Google, allowed for those that pre-ordered its wearable glasses at the 2012 Google I/O conference to pick up the device. This day marked the official launch of Google Glass, a device that brings rich text and notifications as well as other information straight to your eyes. The device also had a 5 MP camera and recorded 720p. [15] Its various functions are activated via voice command. The company also launched the Google Glass companion app, MyGlass, the day before the official launch on April 15. [16] The New York Times's Google Glass App is the first third-party Glass App and it reads articles and news's summaries. It is also the first media app for Google Glass. However, in early 2015, Google stopped selling the beta "explorer edition" of Glass to the public, after criticism of its design and the $1,500 price tag.[17]

Smartwatches and activity trackers are two of the most popular types of wearable devices. Back in 2012, ABI Research forecast 1.2 million smart watches will be shipped in 2013 due to the high penetration of smartphones in many world markets, the wide availability and low cost of MEMS sensors, energy efficient connectivity technologies such as Bluetooth 4.0, and a flourishing app ecosystem.[18] On March 19, 2014, Motorola unveiled Moto 360 smart watch powered by Android Wear, a modified version of Android designed specifically for smart watches and other wearables.[19][20]

At CES 2014, wearable technology was a popular topic, and the event was coined the "The Wearables, Appliances, Cars, and Bendable TVs Show” by many industry influencers.[21] Several wearable products that were showcased include Smart watches, SmartBands, Smart Jewelry, glasses, and ear buds.

6

2.2 LG G WATCH R REVIEW

The LG G Watch R is the company’s second attempt at making an Android Wear smartwatch. Its first, the LG G Watch, was rubbish – it's hard to see how it couldn't improve on that. Like the Moto 360, this time it’s gone with a round watch face, while also adding a heart rate sensor, a slightly bigger battery and a sharper screen.

And the good news is this is the best Android Wear watch we’ve tried, even compared to Motorola’s popular effort. We still don't feel comfortable wholeheartedly recommending it due to Android Wear's nascent development and continuing challenge of battery life, but if you must own a smartwatch right now then the G Watch R is the one to own

LG G Watch R: Design

The first G Watch was as plain and boring a watch as you could get. That uninspiring rectangular face, rubber strap and thick black screen bezel made it feel more like a prototype than a watch you’d happily roll up your shirt sleeve to check the time on.

Fast-forward four months and the G Watch R is an entirely different prospect. This is a smartwatch that actually looks good. In fact, it's best looking one we've seen.

Unlike Motorola's smartwatch, the G Watch R's round display is actually a full circle – the Moto 360 had an unsightly flat bottom edge on the screen. There’s the thinnest black bezel surrounding the round display, but it’s barely noticeable especially when you opt for one of the darker watch faces.

7

The plastic dial around the display gives the G Watch R an attractive, sports chronograph look. It’s better suited to analogue watch faces as a result, though you still have the option of digital ones if you prefer. You get the same IP 67 certified water and dust resistance as its predecessor, so you can submerge it in water up to 1 meter for 30 minutes and we can confirm it passes the shower test.

At first glance it looks as chunky as the Moto 360 (11mm) and when you factor in the dial it’s a shade thicker at 11.1mm. But the G Watch R carries its chunkiness much better. The Moto 360 looks like a big watch pretending to be small; the G Watch R knows it's big and plays up to it in a similar manner to a Casio G-Shock. Clearly this makes it a distinctly male biased watch, but at least it picks a side.

LG has improved the strap since the first G Watch, too. It’s still the 22mm kind that can be replaced, but the new black, genuine leather compliments the more luxurious body. It’s feels a little stiff initially, but it’s not something that makes it uncomfortable or irritating to wear.

Unlike the G Watch, there’s a power button where you’d normally find the watch crown, so you don’t have to use that palm over the screen gesture to dim or turn off the display. The back houses the now compulsory heart rate sensor and the charging pins for the supplied dock.

8

LG G Watch R: Screen

The G Watch R sees LG move from the LCD display used on the G Watch to a new 0.5mm thin P-OLED display. This is the same screen technology used in the G Flex smartphone and while the company’s leaked roadmap sees the P-OLED (Plastic OLED) shaping the future of bendable devices, for the G Watch R it promises similar qualities to AMOLED displays. You can expect richer colors, a brighter display, better outdoor visibility and superior contrast ratio performance compared to LCD-based smartwatches.

The G Watch R delivers on all those fronts. It’s up there with the Samsung smartwatches for vibrancy, and it's much easier to use to use in direct sunlight than the G Watch. Icons and text don’t have that same fuzzy, blurry quality as was the case on the first LG Android Wear smartwatch. This is down to the improved 320x320 resolution, which surpasses the Moto 360 and matches the Gear Live’s AMOLED display resolution.

One of the most interesting display features is the new Power Save mode (PSM). When you are running the watch in ambient mode, which keeps the watch in an always-on state, it will still display the watch hands so you can tell the time without significantly sapping the power supply.

9

LG G Watch R: Features

Inside, the G Watch R uses the same components as the first LG Android Wear watch. There’s a 1.2GHZ Qualcomm Snapdragon 400 processor with 512MB of RAM and 4GB of storage. It's ample for the demands placed on a smartwatch. That 4GB of storage will come in handy when the latest Android Wear update lands and adds offline music playback, so you are not so reliant on carrying a phone.

There’s the same 9-axis sensor setup, with gyroscope, accelerometer, compass, barometer now joined by a heart rate monitor. There’s no GPS, which is disappointing but not a surprise. Sony’s Smartwatch 3 is the only Android Wear watch to include the feature, but it's bound to drain the battery too quickly to be useful.

That heart rate monitor works much like those on the Gear Live and the Moto 360. It's integrated with the Google Fit platform and in our time with it is really only suited to checking resting heart rate. Continually tracking heart rate data is more problematic and doesn't compare to a dedicated running watch like the TomTom Runner Cardio or a heart rate monitor chest strap can deliver. Readings are at least accurate compared to the Adidas MiCoach Smart Run fitness band we ran it against, but barking ‘show me my heart rate’ when you are out of breath is not great.

LG G Watch R: Android Wear

Along with battery life, Google’s operating system is one of the main stumbling blocks that make Android Wear smartwatches like the G Watch R difficult to recommend. It still runs on phones running Android 4.3 Jelly Bean or above, hooking up the watch to a handset using Bluetooth, but it's still very inconsistent and not as user-friendly as we'd like.

10

The user interface is the same as it is on the Motorola, Samsung Android Wear watches. The gestures you need can be counted on one hand, but the way in which you get around still feels clunky.

Google Voice Search and Google Now remain at the heart of its operation. The G Watch R's microphone generally does a good job picking up commands, but at times that swirling loading icon can hang around for longer than we'd like.

Google's intelligent assistant is where Android Wear's greatest potential lies, though it doesn't feel as polished as using it on an Android phone. Notifications can be relevant one day and then not so much the next. Email and text notifications are nice to have, although images pulled through for things like Gmail often look clumsy.

It still hasn’t entirely worked out our commute, though it knows all about the football scores we want to keep an eye on. When you tie it together with your calendar there is more value there but apart from that, Google Now doesn't seem up to the task.

The ability to navigate from your watch remains one of the most appealing features, especially if you are a runner or cyclist. Unfortunately, much like its predecessors, we had to get used to the G Watch R spending most of the time ‘calculating the route’ than actually pointing us in the right direction.

11

One of the nicest features of Android Wear on the G Watch R is actually the one element LG has control of and that’s the watch faces. We’ve been underwhelmed with what Motorola, Samsung and LG have come up with so far and thankfully you can now purchase and download more accommodating options from the Google Play store. But LG has done a much better job on the G Watch R, so you don't have to go hunting for new ones.

There’s over twenty to choose from and there's more analogues than digital ones, which is a good thing. There’s one dedicated to fitness where the smaller dials track steps, a World Clock face where you can set the smaller dials to other international time zones and there’s even one for hiking where you can calibrate the compass. It’s the little things that matter and we are glad LG has made more of an effort here.

12

LG G Watch R: Apps

Google has finally got around to making a dedicated section in the Google Play Store to find Android Wear apps. It’s still worth having a search around, though, and making use of the free Android Store app to discover more.

Google Voice search is still the quickest way to find and launch Android Wear apps on the G Watch R as they are still buried away in the operating system. Android Wear is crying out for standard Android home screens or app folders to make them easier to find for those who don’t want to bark, ‘open Endomondo’ every time you want to go for a run.

Downloading a range of apps covering cooking, checking in on social media sites and fitness, there weren’t many instances where we dipped into those Android Wear apps over the same ones on our phone. That’s the problem here. No one has really come up with an app that makes owning an Android Wear watch essential.

LG G Watch R: Battery Life

It’s at this point where it all comes tumbling down for Android Wear smartwatches and smartwatches in general barring the Pebble. The LG G Watch R is not alone in delivering the kind of battery life that makes them so frustrating to use.

In a bid to improve on the one and half days the G Watch manages, LG has bumped the capacity up to 410mAh battery and promises two days of battery life.

It can seek out two days, but we found it still averaged a day and a half. Even turning off the always-on display mode didn't significantly change things. Whether it’s one day or two days, that’s still not enough in our book. We’ve yet to meet anyone who thinks this is a satisfactory amount of time for a smartwatch to last.

At least LG has done something about the way you charge the G Watch R. There’s no wireless charging sadly, but instead there’s a simpler docking cradle where the five charging pins on the watch need to sit precisely in the dock. It’s a sleeker alternative to the clunky method offered with its predecessor, but it still doesn’t disguise the fact that this is still another proprietary charging dock you need to keep an eye on.

13

Verdict

The LG G Watch is comfortably top of the Android Wear pile, but there's still work to do to make the smart watch concept fly.

2.3 PRIVACY NORMS AND LEGAL STANDARDS

As technological innovation progresses, thorny ethical and legal questions will arise, including what people should be able to do with their own bodies. Emerging technology will also challenge existing health and safety regulations imposed by government agencies. Additionally, concerns about the collection and dissemination of data, which devices routinely do as part of their design, will become particularly sensitive. Questions about how to deal with data and privacy concerns are unanswered at this time, and so are the capabilities of regulators to deal with such questions without knowing the positive implications of new technology.

14

There are several approaches to regulating connected devices:

Industry best practices. In response to emerging questions relating to wearable technology and privacy, regulators have pushed device manufacturers to adopt industry-wide best practices, but these actions often run into definitional problems because the technology is so new.

Notice and choice. Regulators have also suggested that manufacturers notify consumers of the collection and use of data and make it easier for them to opt out of having their data used for various purposes.

Use-based restrictions. Restricting when and where devices can be used may be an appropriate method of regulation. For example, prohibiting use of Google Glass in restrooms or while operating a vehicle may be a potential avenue for regulation. Others want use-based restrictions limiting how data is used to make other determinations, especially when sensitive personal information is being collected.

Regulators should be cautious about implementing use-based restrictions, however. The preferences of regulators should not be substituted for the judgment and choice of consumers. Such “privacy paternalism” can make choice meaningless for consumers or remove it altogether, which limits freedom and innovation. Moreover, regulators should be mindful of First Amendment concerns when restricting use by consumers: some activities, such as photography or reporting based on data collection, may be protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech.

LG G Watch R meets all the standards and privacy issues which are related to the policy making of LG. It has an operating system of android which comes from google. So, LG and Google both are concern about privacy issues and made the device more secure and usable.

15

3.1 WEARABLE DEVICES: SECURITY RISK

Before healthcare entities consider accepting data from consumers' wearable devices, they need to take appropriate security measures, says Verizon security expert Suzanne Widup.

These devices, such as Fitbit and AppleWatch, and related apps, raise potential data privacy concerns for the users. But they also potentially pose the risk of serving as a launching pad for attacks directed at healthcare entities, Widup says in an interview with Information Security Media Group.

For instance, some of the devices have applications that could potentially contain vulnerabilities, which could then become the jumping off point for a cyber-attack, such as when data from the device is transmitted to a healthcare organization, she explains. "We are seeing attackers increasingly taking alternative means of getting in [to healthcare IT environments] because the direct methods are getting more secure and difficult to get through," she says.

"What we're seeing is that security is not being built into these devices - not just the wearables, but [also] anything that can be implanted" she warns. "So, until we see device manufacturers really getting on-board, putting security into their products from day one, we're going to see more and more issues with these things."

In fact, a new report by independent research firm AV-Test gave mixed reviews for security controls offered by nine fitness trackers.

Also, if a consumer transmits data from a wearable device to a healthcare entity, the organization also is potentially liable under HIPAA to safeguard protected health information that's contained in the data (see Report Spells Out Medical Device Risks).

So, before organizations begin to collect data from wearable devices, they need to take several steps to safeguard their systems, Widup advises. That includes putting into place authentication controls to verify the identities of individuals sending data from these gadgets; assessing how data will be secured during transmission, including considering whether the data should be encrypted; and keeping up with updates in the devices' firmware as new vulnerabilities are discovered.

In the interview, Widup also discusses:

How emerging Internet of Things wearable devices, such as consumer health and fitness wristbands, smart watches and smart eyeglasses - such as Google Glass - potentially could play a role in healthcare;

The patient privacy and security risks that could be posed by those devices; emerging cyber threats related to wearable devices as their use becomes more mainstream.

As a senior analyst at Verizon, Widup is a co-author of the company's Data Breach Investigations Research report. Prior to joining Verizon, Widup held security-related positions at

16

several other organizations, including Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Safeway and Oracle. She is also president and a founding member of the Digital Forensics Association.

3.2 SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF WEARABLE TECHNOLOGY

Strap On, Tune In, Drop Out

Technology typically takes the form of a tool which is used to help give us an upper hand in our fight for survival. We alter our environment to our advantage and in so doing we indirectly affect human psychology and social behavior. Wearable technology is unique in that this causal chain is reversed; we alter ourselves and the way we perceive our environment and as a result end up changing our environment. Our perception of the world is a result of interpreting our sensory input. Previous technologies, such as writing, have enabled us to receive as input information that we would not have otherwise received. Wearables will not only provide us with additional information, but as extensions of our body will alter our sensual perceptions in a more direct manner. This will have radical effects on the way we view ourselves and the ways we interact with one another, which will have untold consequences on all aspects of our social institutions.

We will analyze the effects of wearable technology on every aspect of the social order. The smallest social components are the individual, with internal features and external behaviors. Then the individual begins to interact with others and form communities. The community then has internal features, and external behaviors and interactions with other communities. We will typically not refer to a specific device, but will be referring to the most extreme type of wearable device, that which obstructs ones’ vision and hearing and both records and displays information. Google Glass is the closest marketable device to what we are envisioning.  

The Self - Internal

As a result of natural selection humans have acquired many cognitive capabilities for dealing with survival. Our brains do not want to work at full capacity all of the time, so they often will use heuristics in order to determine what is important and what is not. Our memories are not stand-alone objects in our brain, as in computers, but are fully integrated with our cognitive functioning. Wearable technology will enable us to extend our cognitive capacities, but at a cost.

If we view the brain as a computer, then it is natural to want to upgrade our memory by adding storage capacity. Wearables will enable us to do this by constantly recording everything, so that there is a verifiable copy of all of our actions. However, for the sake of psychological soundness, forgetting is often more important than remembering. Our memory enables us to naturally form a representation of ourselves and the world, even if the full picture is not accounted for. With the capability of verifying and re-living certain times of our lives, our ability to create a representation of the world will be hampered. If algorithms decide what is worthy of remembering and what is not, who’s to say that the algorithm can ever truly know what is best for me, an individual?

17

While it is the case that our brain’s automatic processes may not always seem to work in our best interest, these processes have evolved over millennia and are more likely to be of service than an algorithm developed in the past few years. Until we have a more complete understanding of subconscious processes, disrupting these processes may be disastrous.

This technology will not only alter our subconscious processes, but also our conscious ones. The algorithm will create a representation of me and try to predict things based on statistics. But this does not leave much room for myself, an autonomous agent, to take control. While the technology may not force you to behave a certain way, if you view it as working in your best interest then there will be at least a strong compulsion to follow it. Since these technologies will be developed by corporations with their own self interest, this is a dangerous path to go down. We may even become dependent on these products, so that without them we will no longer know how to make decisions for ourselves. And if the corporations do not affect our decision making process, our friends will. Since we will have the ability to connect with our friends who are not present, we will be more likely to contact them when making decisions. This will diminish the time we spend alone making individual decisions.

An integral aspect of our autonomy is our individuality. If we view ourselves as an individual then we can freely choose what we would like to do in any situation. Integral to seeing oneself as an individual is the capacity to have variability in this sense of individual identity. We may choose a course of action in the current moment because we would like to alter ourselves, often for the sake of improvement.

Wearable technology then poses a threat to our autonomy not only in the short term but also in the long term, since it will disrupt our natural sense of identity. The algorithms’ primary concern will be our comfort, and so will pamper us. The technology may go so far as to censor our senses, either through omission or through addition. We may no longer see or hear things that may not align with our current worldview or may disturb us. The individual that I am at any moment will not come into contact with conflict and so will not even see a need to alter it. The more comfortable the individual becomes in following the image that the algorithm has created for him; the easier it will be for the algorithm to predict what he will like, creating a feedback loop. The individual may not only lose the capacity to act autonomously, but may even lose his sense of being an individual. He will become a servant to the machine and not even know it.

Wearable technology may not only limit our sense of individuality, but may also give us a false sense of power and knowledge of our identity. The “quantified self” movement is comprised of individuals who view their body like machines which produce quantifiable data, and they use wearables to keep track of these data markers. While the movement is correlated with many other features of our society, such as the primacy of neoliberalism and self-responsibilization, it is most closely linked with the “imperative to control both the unpredictable nature of one’s body and the data that are generated about oneself” (Lupton 2013). Viewing the body as a machine may fool one into believing that knowing more pieces of information about the body provides one with a greater understanding of oneself. As psychological and social creatures, what is more important to understanding oneself is introspection and thoughtful dialogue with others. These are both activities which wearable tech is also likely to reduce.

An important feature of being an individual is also being aware of your surrounding environment. The more information you have about your environment, the better situated you are

18

and the more options you have at your disposal that are relevant to your current predicament. Wearable technology may provide the user with information relevant to the current environment but which the user wouldn’t otherwise recognize, diminishing the user’s holistic sense of the current environment. It may also provide information irrelevant to the current environment, distracting the user.

Using wearable technology does not only pose as a distraction from your current environment, but also may alter your capacity to notice your surroundings even when not in use. A study revealed that users of Google Glass had partial obstruction of their peripheral vision (Mendoza 2014). Since the peripheral vision was adapted in order to protect us from fast moving enemies, an obstruction of this poses a danger to the individual, especially today when we are often at a risk of being hit by an automobile.

The Self - External

The depths of what resides inside ourselves is shrouded in mystery. There is much about ourselves that we are not even aware of; how much more so when it comes to others! We behave in a certain way and cover our bodies with particular items that we believe helps others get a sense of who we are, and even to remind ourselves. Since wearable technology is worn on the body, it will not only affect our internal behavior but our external behavior and image as well.

Since our cameras will to some extent always be on, we will be more likely to behave in socialized ways. There is ample evidence that we change our behavior if we feel we are being watched. In one experiment participants were less likely to look at a ‘sexy calendar’ on the wall if they were wearing an eye tracking device, even if it is turned off (Nasiopoulos 2014). One researcher experimented with ‘lifelogging’ by recording his life for an extended period of time. He found that he behaved differently, by speaking as if to an audience, or by stopping to talk aloud to himself, even though no one else had access to the recordings (Carlson 2007). This will only be compounded as the number of video cameras watching us increases. If there is the ability for anything we say to be recorded and shared with others, we will be more likely to self-censor.

Another threat is not a result of being watched, but what we are watching. Screens will be placed right in front of our eyes, so it is likely that people will spend more time entertaining themselves. This will diminish our individuality because the shows that we watch socialize us to behave in certain ways, and also because we will have less time to introspect. But the threat of watching too much entertainment is not only on our behavior but also on our cognitive capabilities. A study done at UCLA found that children who spend time in front of screens end up worse at reading other people’s emotions (Dickerson 2014). However, wearable technology also has the potential to help children develop certain skills. Klopfer used wearables in the classroom to engage the students in participatory simulations of scientific concepts. He found that this helped them develop their scientific thinking. However, there was not much difference between the unique wearable device they created and a program on the Palm (Klopfer 2004).

Since wearables are worn on the body, they are closely linked with our personal expression. For this reason, tech companies have traditionally had a difficult time getting users to adopt their products (Maney 2013). Companies such as Google and Apple have hired various experts from

19

the fashion world to help them with these products. The wearables and smart clothing poses the potential to enable a user to express themselves and their own personal fashion in a manner unprecedented. However, since the technology would clearly not be developed by them, the user may be wary of using these devices, for fear of seeming less ‘authentic’ and ‘original’.

Wearable technology also enables athletes to train more efficiently. Different devices or technologically enhanced clothes enable the athlete to track large amounts of data about the body. This can be used by the athlete or the coach to give specialized advice on how the athlete may better enhance their performance. This may seem abhorrent to some who do not want humans to be treated like machines for the sake of others’ entertainment.

The Self Meets the Community

Mammals are unique in that from the moment they are born they are dependent on others. While some of this dependency wears off, it still colors our experience of the world. Humans have evolved many methods of interacting with one another, and many complex yet often unspoken social norms govern the lives of individuals. While these norms vary across societies, there are still certain fundamental features which are common. The goal of socialization is to foster bonds between individuals, because a collection of individuals have a greater chance of survival than a lone individual.

Past technologies such as writing and telegraphy have enabled us to maintain bonds with those who are not in our immediate vicinity. Digital technologies have astronomically compounded these capacities. We are now able to maintain a connection with everyone we meet at any time. Wearable technologies will further enhance our abilities to connect with those who are around us as well as those who are far away. But these seeming improvements of our current condition may end up being detrimental to how others perceive us and our abilities to communicate. A sign of people’s unwillingness to adopt these technologies is the common refrain ‘glasshole’ leveled against Google Glass users. It is telling that Google released a list of Do’s and Dont’s to help its users adjust to the new device.

When engaged in a conversation with an individual or a group there are certain expectations at play. One is expected to evince a certain level of engagement, to listen as well as to speak, and to recognize the fluid dynamics of the interplay which makes room for mistakes and differences of opinion. Wearable tech would compromise the users’ ability to partake in a conversation of this nature. Others may feel uncomfortable being open and honest if they feel what they say and do may be being recorded. They also may not trust the users’ level of commitment to the conversation because the user may be distracted by notifications and other information on the device.

Additionally, since the user may look up information that they do not know, others may not be certain of what the user knows and thinks as opposed to what the user is able to access instantaneously. If all of the participants are using wearable technology, then the style of conversation would change. When large amounts of data are at your disposal then a conversation becomes a battle of data points instead of a complex exchange of ideas.

20

An interesting device developed to overcome some of the limitations of the physical restraints of socializing is the Light Perfume (Yongsoon 2013). This device takes advantage of the fact that humans who mimic each other in conversation feel more trusting of one another. It is worn on the wrist and flashes lights and emits perfumes which are synchronized with your interlocutor. The person you are communicating with may even be overseas, but this device would make you feel closer. While this device may help people connect with others, it may also bring a false sense of connection, which is ultimately worse for the person.

Wearable technology would not only affect the way we interact with those we know, but also those we do not know. We would be less likely to ask a stranger for help, when instead we could ask our device and not have the same feelings of shame. Since we would have the ability to be connected to our friends, we would be less likely to initiate a conversation with someone new. Since the friends we currently have are often very much aligned with our current thinking, we will be less likely to come in contact and befriend people who are sufficiently different from us to make us question who we are and who we want to be. On the other hand, this technology may increase our interaction with strangers because algorithms will be able to inform us of common interests. This would enable us to meet more like-minded people, so again our individual-of-the-moment will not be challenged.

An additional fundamental feature of our individuality is our capacity to behave differently in different environments. Since wearable technology will increase the connectedness of place and time, we will lose our sense of distinct environments. For example, while we typically have a ‘work life’ and a ‘home life’, these distinctions may become blurred (Hamblen 2002). Especially as our economy moves away from physical labor and towards knowledge, we will no longer be bound to a particular location. This may seem liberating, but it also means that you will never be able to escape your boss.

The Community - Internal

In order to solidify the bonds of connection between one another humans create communities. A community is a group of individuals who have a common goal and perform various activities to remind themselves of this fact. In the past our common goal tended to be survival, and our community was limited to those who were within a certain proximity. Due to physical limitations our communities were on average around 150 people. As a result of our technologies, we often align ourselves within communities on the basis of ideology rather than necessity, and so we are able to include many more in our community, and we have more sophisticated mechanisms of bonding. Wearable tech is no exception.

The largest artificial communities are organized around religion and sports. Religion is more focused on an individual’s unquantifiable character traits and the devotee is typically expected to perform certain actions during services of communion. Sports, on the other hand, are focused on an individual’s physical capabilities and little is expected from the fans that watch. Therefore, technology is more likely to be used in the service of sports; to enhance the abilities of athletes, as mentioned earlier, but also for community building.

21

Wearable technology will enable fans to feel more connected to the athletes as well as to one another. An ‘action cam’ on the athlete would provide fans with the athlete’s perspective enhancing the fan’s feeling of living vicariously through the athlete. Additionally, various indicators such as heart rate and muscle exertion would enable the fan to get a better sense of what is going on inside the athlete.

Wearable tech will also help foster bonds between the fans. Jerseys and fan paraphernalia would be technologically enhanced to be more effective in displaying attitudes and forming bonds. And new devices, such as the Light Perfume mentioned earlier, could be used to synchronize fans across a stadium or even those watching at home (Yongsoon 2013). This would create a strong sense of mutual belonging.  

Action-sports differ from other sports in that they are more niche, so the communities are smaller and typically only those involved in the sport are involved. Wearable action-cameras such as the GoPro will enable these communities to grow and to strengthen, and to perhaps attain a wider appeal to mass audiences. The GoPro is typically worn whilst performing adventurous activities. This enables the user to view their experience from a different perspective or to share their own perspective with others. These videos are posted online and may be used for entertainment, community-building, or as a means of learning; one can learn how to properly perform a difficult maneuver, or learn what not to do from recordings of others’ failures (Chalfen 2014). The GoPro may also lead one to behave differently. Perhaps knowing that your actions are being recorded will promote more dangerous maneuvers. Some devotees of sports complain that it has had an ‘instagram effect’ on action sports; people who would otherwise not partake in these dangerous activities do so in order to be able to show off to their friends.

There are many other communities that will also be affected by wearable tech. For example, gaming communities may have more opportunities to meet and interact in person rather than over the web. Wearable technology may be used to play live-action video games in the public space, getting gamers off of their couches and onto the streets. It may be also used to develop virtual environments to explore without a particular agenda involved, such as the hybronaut (Beloff 2010). A more serious community which it may affect is the family unit. As children have more tools for acquiring information at their disposal they lose their prototypical ‘childhood innocence’. The traditional adult-child relationship breaks down as children are more ‘knowing’ and less willing to recognize wisdom and authority (Jones 2003).

The Community - External

Communities do not only have to worry about maintaining a constituency, but also how they interact with other communities. A person may get their entire sense of purpose from their own community, so seeing others get purpose from their own different community may be seen as a threat. If the other person has a physical indicator of the community that they are in then it is easier to distinguish them. Distinguishing another person based on superficial attributes enables one to stereotype, and looking past outward appearances is a constant struggle.

 Wearable technology may enable us to more easily look past superficial differences. If when we see someone our devices tell us information about them, then we would have more information

22

at our disposal and would be less likely to stereotype based on simple appearances. However, this information that we are provided with may give us more reasons to not trust someone. Once one realizes that ethnicity is likely to indicate certain features of a person but does not indicate the quality of the person, one is more willing to communicate with other ethnicities. This is especially the case when one does not feel like the other ethnicity poses a threat to their community. However, it is often easier to discriminate against someone who is in a group that is different from yours. This is the case with opposing sports team where no one’s existence is in a real danger, but the game is set up for people to feel that way. While these group indicators are even more superficial than race, they may be used as a stronger means of segregation.

The wearable technology may not only help increase divisions between communities, but the devices themselves may be used as a means of discrimination. Wearable technology, especially in its first iterations, will likely cost a lot of money. Those who can and cannot afford them would be recognizable very easily. This would further divisions between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. Additionally, these technologies would increase tension between ‘technologists’ and ‘humanists’. Those who are willing to adopt this new technology, especially before all the kinks are worked out, tend to fall in the ‘technologist’ category. Those groups who do not particularly like technologists, such as most forms of humanists, find this type of action repulsive and a threat to their humanity. This is likely to cause various repercussions. Already there are instances of people being assaulted while wearing Google Glass, and various bars and cafes have established themselves as tech-free zones.

While wearable technology may create rifts between various communities, it may also help foster communication. A camera worn by a person from another culture may give insight into the daily routine of a human you may not otherwise come in contact with. This may become a source of entertainment, or a source of education. It may also help people who are facing oppression. Wearable technology on factory workers may enable their bosses to more efficiently track their actions, but may also provide them with a means of revealing poor working conditions or illegal activity (Baker 2014). Wearable technology may also be used by anthropologists to gather vast amounts of information about a foreign culture (Chalfen 2014). This would enable them to cull more information and more accurately represent this culture in their work.

Ethical Considerations   

Since wearable technology is likely to have an effect on so many aspects of our lives, there are many ethical considerations to take into account. Since wearables are unique from other technologies in that they more directly affect our senses and cognitive capabilities, it is important to consider the ethical implications of this. Also, since these technologies will have many effects on the way we interact with one another, on an individual as well as a communal basis, we must analyze these effects through an ethical framework.

Virtue Ethics

23

Virtue Ethics is an ethical system which focuses on the character traits of the individual. There are various formulations of virtue ethics, and what it means to be a virtuous individual is complex. Common virtues are wisdom, courage, and temperance. Wearable technology poses a threat to all of these virtues, and many more.

Wisdom is not attained swiftly. Wisdom is not the result of acquiring vast amounts of data or being able to perform certain cognitive functions faster than others. It is the result of thinking deeply for a long time on various predicaments, and holding various contradictory opinions in one’s head. Wearable technology provides the user with distractions which prevent introspection and contemplation, assists in making basic decisions, and provides data points in an out of context manner. These are all factors which contribute to a diminishing of one’s individuality and reduction of the possibility of attaining wisdom.

Courage is achieved when one is in a difficult situation and faces it head on. It necessitates being able to know one’s situation and environment, to accept it, and to decide to fight against it. Wearable technology poses a threat to courage because it reduces the user’s sense of awareness of his current predicament. It pampers the user and enables the user to retreat from uncomfortable situations into a world that is more organized and methodical, and thus more predictable. The world is unpredictable and other people add to this complexity, and trying to diminish this complexity for the sake of convenience or efficiency is an affront to our human struggle. We must accept our limitations with reverence, while trying to improve our lot with grace.

Temperance is moderation and self restraint. It necessitates not only having strong will power, but also putting yourself in an environment which is conducive for exercising this will power. The very nature of wearable technology is opposed to temperance. The technology beckons to be used, and the user is wary of having to go through hurdles to access it, so straps it to his body. Many of the features that the technology provides are not detrimental, but when used in excess can change the way the user perceives and interacts with the world. Other features feed into certain instincts and desires, such as the ability to view entertaining videos, and when used too frequently may limit the user’s control. There has already been an incident of a man checking himself in to a rehab center as a result of having an addiction to his Google Glass.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of one’s actions rather than the virtues of the person. The actions should have an optimal balance of good outcomes over bad outcomes.

Many of the negative outcomes which wearable technology may bring have been described previously. This includes: a reduction of individuality and autonomy, increase in socialized behavior and entertainment consumption, disruption of social etiquette, the breakdown of the traditional parent-child relationship, and an increase in tensions between technologists and humanists. Positive outcomes include: an increase in data about the body, increased capabilities of self expression, increased comfort when meeting a new person, increased bonds within various communities, and an increase in knowledge about foreign cultures.

24

The pros of wearable technology are based on an increase in quantity, whether it be group size or options in clothing. The cons, on the other hand, are a result of a potential diminishment of quality, such as the capacity for an individual to face a challenge or behave unpredictably, and one’s likelihood to respect others. Ultimately a reduction in quality is more detrimental than a reduction in quantity. Without quality, quantity is meaningless, but quality is agnostic to quantity; as long as there is something rather than nothing, there can be quality. And even if there is nothing, one can learn to appreciate the nothing. For this reason, the cons outweigh the pros, and excessive use of wearable tech would thus be deemed unethical.

Practical Solutions  

For many various reasons it is difficult to conceive of solutions to the problems that wearable technology poses. Firstly, the effects of wearables are not always direct but are speculative, and so it is difficult to blame wearables directly. Secondly, wearables are seen as the next step in the evolution of technology, and it is very difficult to slow the momentum of technology, especially these days. New devices are accepted by the masses with little restraint, and as long as there is a potential market there will be entrepreneurs developing these devices. Thirdly, wearables are seen as a personal decision, so limiting its use would be seen as limiting freedom. Fourthly, the devices are appealing and can easily market the various benefits of the devices without mentioning any of the drawbacks. Fifthly, since the devices are meant to be worn at all times, it is difficult to advocate for moderate usage.

Additionally, since the effects which we are discussing in this section are social effects, and social norms are constantly evolving, it is possible to conceive of many of the issues with these devices being worked out by society. Google’s list of Do’s and Dont’s for its Glass users is perhaps too prescriptive, but it suggests that even those developing these devices are considering the various social effects. The users, those who are opposed to the usage, and those who do not have a strong stance, will together work out the kinks of what type of behavior is acceptable and what is not. This will not take care of the effects on the individual users, but may help reduce the tension between those who use the devices and those who do not.

Nevertheless, there are some measures which can be taken to reduce the ill effects of these devices. Since children’s brains are still being developed and the wearables have been shown to disrupt certain cognitive capabilities, such as reading people’s emotions, perhaps parents and educators should limit children’s use of the devices. While this is challenging, and even today parents have a hard time limiting their children’s usage of technology, it is imperative for the children to grow up with a strong sense of connection with their natural environment. Once one is comfortable in the natural environment, one may use the tools of the artificial environment with the assurance that reality and artifice will not be confused.

Another step which may be taken to ensure that wearables are used properly is creating certain tech-free places and times. A certain day of the week, such as the Sabbath, may be designated as a time to tune in to reality and remove the wearables. Certain locations, such as temples, theaters, and government buildings, may also be designated as tech-free in order to maintain a certain reverence for them. Limiting the usage of these devices in these locations would provide some

25

perspective for people, so that when they do use them they are more aware of the consequences and effects on their mind and behavior

3.3 The Impact of Wearable Technologies on the Workplace

The business wardrobe is about to get a lot more interesting. A new, academic study by UK cloud company Rackspace evaluated how wearable technologies will fit into the workplace – and the results are chiefly positive. Findings suggest wearable technologies boost employee productivity by 8.5 percent. But that’s not all. In addition to cloud-enabled headgear, technology such as smart watches, wearable cameras and fitness monitors are being recognized for capabilities to enhance people’s lives.

3.4 Benefits of Wearable Technologies at Work

Wearable technologies are being portrayed as the biggest trend since tablet computing. Naturally, businesses and employees are interested in seeing how these devices will be used in the workplace and many are welcoming the technology with open arms.

Researchers of the study say the data generated from the devices will help organizations better understand how human behaviors impact productivity, performance, well-being and job satisfaction. Employees will be looking for new ways to optimize their hours and work environments in order to maximize work-life balance.

“Consider this: using just machine data gathered from the three wearable devices it's possible to develop rich behavioral and lifestyle profiles of individuals and/or employees,” writes Dr. Chris Bauer, director of the Human Cloud at Work research project in collaboration with Rackspace. “How might an employer use this information to make better company decisions?”

26

Dr. Bauer goes on to explain how the behavioral data gathered from these devices can empower each individual employee. The device can measure your sleeping patterns, what time of day you like to workout, and your concentration levels, among many other details. This data can be used to identify which days you are most productive at work, as well as the type of environments you work best in.

Imagine being able to schedule your week around your productivity peaks – setting presentations for Wednesday morning because it’s when your performance levels are at their best.. Your performance would  be assessed not by the hours you put in but by the work you put out. Employers could use this information in compensation evaluations; you’d never have to worry again about being underpaid–the proof would be in the numbers.

Not to mention, organizations could find recruitment opportunities based on this data, selecting employees who are most aligned to their company structure, culture and goals. Employees could use the information to choose a job that supports their lifestyle, health and well-being aspirations, as well as productivity and performance expectations.

Of course, this puts stress on the employer-employee relationship with issues of privacy and rights to personal data.

Despite the potential intrusion by an organization on its employers lives, when it comes to anticipating technological developments of the 21st century, the general public believes positive influences will outweigh the negative. 

Still, Dr. Bauer notes, handling this type of data will “entail responsibilities that will lie with self-regulating organizations who will need to work within a social contract to collect and use this type of data sensitively and appropriately.”

3.5 Cloud security for wearable technology

The integration of wearable technology is all but inevitable and many tech giants have recently made the move to wearable items. The implications and uses of wearable technology already influence different fields, from medicine, sports, education, gaming, and music. In time, all sectors will be influenced in a way or another because things will all be connected.

Turning data into experience

The data collected from wearable devices will be the game changer, since it provides actionable insight in real time.

For some it might be about how many steps they’re taking or how many calories they burned during the day. But from a technical perspective, intelligent and wearable devices track more than that and what is important is what can be done with this data. The large amount of data gathered from wearable devices will need to be turned into meaningful, usable information..

27

The giants in the industry (Apple and Google) have already developed mobile device software that can display data in ways that it’s easy for consumers and even for professionals to absorb. The future seems to be one where all information is uniting together in one place.

Securing wearable

Despite the possible proliferation of wearable technology, there are still obstacles in this industry. A recently studyhas revealed that from a total of 4.000 adults in the UK and US, 51% of respondents identified privacy as a barrier to adoption of wearable technology, while 62% said wearable should be regulated in some form.

Typically the wearables are connected to mobile devices and since most of them have access to the Internet, it is susceptible to be attacked the same as a PC, laptop or tablet. The wearable devices also could act as gateways to other devices, such as smart phones or data stored in the cloud.

Cyber security experts mention that is very little consumers can do to protect from these risks and that it is really up to the wearable technology manufacturers themselves to integrate security in their systems. Unless the network security of the corporation has invested in cloud security solutions, not much can be done by network administrators to detect any malicious activity. Besides, if the wearable device is Bluetooth-enabled, it may pair with other unprotected Bluetooth emitting devices and loose has the potential to leak sensitive data.

Still, any consumer should pay attention to privacy policies and be aware of how wearable devices store, manage or protect personal information and if their data is being sold to third-party providers or mobile advertising agencies. Simple precautions are setting stronger passwords or simply switching the default setting to private or turning off the device when is not in active use.

But, choosing the proper cloud security provider for the device you’re wearing is the next step to think about. Consumers should enter in this market with their eyes open and look to install security protection on the devices connected because the stalkers are becoming more aware of these security holes.

28

4.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Concerns about wearable technology can be dealt with using a combination of educational efforts, technological empowerment, social norms, public and watchdog pressure, industry best practices and self-regulation, transparency, and targeted enforcement of existing legal standards (especially tort law) as needed and appropriate. Regulators should also not underestimate the ability of individuals to adapt to these new technologies, just as they have with so many other technologies in the past. Policymakers should allow new technology to flourish and grow rather than impeding or stalling it by an overabundance of caution and concern leading to preemptive regulation.

4.2 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION

Despite some limitations, the present study provides some guidelines for future study which are as follows: First, The amount of data and information in this study is inadequate in comparison with whole data and information. A similar study can be conducted to know the real scenario of remittance income of Bangladesh on the data and information from 1976 to till date. Such study on extended data and information either may accept or reject the present findings. Second, this study is prepared by using only secondary data and information to know the remittance income of Bangladesh. Another study may be conducted by collecting sufficient primary data and information with the structured questionnaire to reveal the actual remittance income of Bangladesh and its opportunities and challenges. Third, this study has showed a few modern and innovative technologies to transfer remittance. Another study may be conducted to find out more newer and efficient technology and its effectiveness through statistical calculation Finally, this study is basically a theoretical research or mainly empirical. A more qualitative study can be conducted to find out more efficient result.

29

References

[1] Wearable_technology. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wearable_technology

[2] LG G-watch review. Retrieved from http://www.trustedreviews.com/lg-g-watch-r-review

[3] Kennedy, D., (2015, Jun 08). The future is smart: tech pioneer thinks wearables can offset privacy concerns. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/steve-mann/article24859767/

[4] Introduction of wearable technology. (2015, Jun 23). Retrieved from http://www.taylorwessing.com/globaldatahub/article_intro_wearable_technology

[5] www.lg.com/us/smart-watches/lg-W110-g-watch-r

[6] On the impact of wearable technologies on the workplace. (2014, May 06). Retrieved from http:// www.damagazine.ca/article/481796/the-impact-of-wearable-technologies-on-the-workplace

[8] www.academia.edu

30