Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Glass Banned At Google Shareholder Meeting

Comments Filter:
  • Violence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buy59 (2930821) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @09:55AM (#43945773)
    I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Google Glasses. People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time. This is also illegal in many countries (in the EU). Just because you're out in the open doesn't make it allowed to film other people.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by durrr (1316311)

      It's not recording all the time. And regarding the supposed illegality: I'm pretty damn certain you can record everyone and everything in public, though you may face limitations when distributing it unless you have the consent of those involved.

      • Re:Violence (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:17AM (#43945911) Homepage

        I don't think it's the filming that's illegal, but just the publishing. So Google Glass should be fine as long as people don't upload it to Youtube afterwards.

        • by clemdoc (624639)
          At least in Austria, and it may well be similar in many EU countries, even the (permanent) filming, e.g. via dashboard camera, is illegal [argedaten.at] (text in German, Google translation here [google.com]).
          There are exceptions for, say, helmet cameras the recordings of which serve as a souvenir of some sporting activity, but in general, permanent recording is illegal at least in Austria.
          I don't know about other countries of the European Union but I wouldn't be surprised if it were similar.
          • by citizenr (871508)

            Good thing dashcams dont record constantly - they stop every 1-5 minutes.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          You would need to get a release from whomever you are recording. Publishing public stuff is already protected.
          But people have the right to their own images under certain circumstances.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          NEGATIVE. You have no expectation of privacy in public. You can distribute it however you wish. Next time you see a news camera running after you walk by it (and are filmed) try telling them they have to reshoot because you didn't see them....

          THEY ARE USING VIDEO WITH YOU ON IT FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.

          Guess what? Unless they are using your image or likeness in order to further their commercial interests, you have no grounds for a lawsuit.

          Get over yourselves you hippie anti-surveillance state goons. If you

          • by Anonymous Coward

            NEGATIVE. You have no expectation of privacy in public.

            Stop repeating this nonsense. Even in public, you have some privacy. Someone can't go around flipping up women's skirts, for instance; people expect that that won't happen. That's just one example.

            • NEGATIVE. You have no expectation of privacy in public.

              Stop repeating this nonsense. Even in public, you have some privacy. Someone can't go around flipping up women's skirts, for instance; people expect that that won't happen. That's just one example.

              Well said.

              This "no expectation of privacy in public" is one of the most evil privacy memes going around. Traditionally people have had little expectation of privacy in private since they lived close together with their families and neighbours where everything could be overheard. They would go out into the country / forest and be alone and talk; have political gatherings etc. There was always a risk of spies but the "expectation" was "privacy".

              Now, we all live closer together. The expectation of priv

          • > If you don't want to be recorded, don't go outside, because that's THE ONLY WAY it's not going to happen.

            Breaking the camera is also working.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            NEGATIVE. You have no expectation of privacy in public. You can distribute it however you wish.

            That is a highly regional rule.

            Just because your nation doesn't respect peoples privacy at ALL times doesn't mean that there aren't nations that does.

          • You talk like laws never change. Get over your "written on a stone tablet for all time" mentality.

            Technology changes and increases the capabilities of individuals. In response, and because of public outrage, the law then changes to forbid (or permit) more things involving that new technology. In the process high falutin concepts like "privacy" undergo an more or less rapid evolutionary change in their shared and accepted meaning.

            If you really don't know that, if you really believe that there is no rig

        • Not only are you publishing it but you're potentially profiting from it if you have ads run before your video. I'm not entirely sure Google has thought it through completely.
      • While it may not be recording all the time, it makes it too convenient to record at any time at a moments notice. I don't mind people recording outside in the public or in a mall since I equate it to people who use a camcorder while on vacation for the express purpose of recording their own experiences.

        Where I do think it crosses the line is when people use it to specifically record me or my conversations. I consider this eavesdropping no matter my location. Since my remedy for such a situation isn't proba

      • by Stan92057 (737634)
        "It's not recording all the time." Says who? You? Comon now, Do you expect people to beleave that? I sure as heck dont Its like guns dont kill people do Google glasses dont record people do.lol
      • by Guru80 (1579277)
        Don't worry, I'm sure every user is as responsible as our government with the data they collect...ba-da-boom
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Would you expect less violence against them since any attack could be recorded and uploaded to the cloud in real time?
      • It is not recording all the time. So either one could take the chance, or to more safe, attack from behind.
        In case you are really against human-2-human violence, you could just rip them off from the side and crush it with your manly 'size 12'.
        I just can't wait to see the video's on Youtube of the smug glassholes that all end with a good ol' fashion punch on the nose. Like those weird Russian dashcam video's.

        (some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me!
        Its my right to do so, this is the street you know!
        I said
        • by sabri (584428)

          some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me!
          Its my right to do so, this is the street you know!
          I said STOP FILMING ME GLASSHOLE ! ! ! (guy is now approaching)
          But.. but... its my right, its on the street...
          And on the streets you need to be streetsmart jackass (Fist comes in real fast from the lower left corner... then black)

          Yes, and since I have clear evidence of this guy assaulting me, half of his paycheck will go to me for the rest of his life. "Hit me baby one more time".

        • by mysidia (191772)

          (some rather big guy) Hey! Stop filming me! Its my right to do so, this is the street you know! I said STOP FILMING ME GLASSHOLE ! ! ! (guy is now approaching)

          Guy pulls out a can of mace, tazer, and a cell phone, dials 911. Order big guy to stay put, while the cops arrive.

          Presses charges against guy for assault, turns over footage to the cops of the guy approaching with obvious attempts to threaten and intimidate.

          Big guy goes to jail for 2 years, after confessing and getting a lightened sentenc

    • by durrr (1316311)

      And by the way, I don't see much violence against the NSA.

    • In United States you are allowed to record other people out in the open due to your First Amendment rights.
      • How exactly does the First Amendment protect that?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      There will be nothing of the sort. This is just the current version.
      When it's refined and mounted into a pair of Silhouettes, what are you going to do? Broad-spectrum jamming?
      I'll venture, as a trial balloon, that we need to move toward ultra-public spaces where Glassy technology is OK, and places where the tech is not acceptable, and anyone violating that restraint earns a big party foul (i.e. non-criminal punishment).
      And then you've moved the problem to a sort of digital apartheid, where those that wis
      • If worries about recording are the issue; the solution is simple: put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device. Some companies require a similar feature on cell-phone cameras (e.g., they must make a loud "click" sound when a picture is taken). Put a bright red diode on the side of the Glasses that indicate when it is in "record" mode, so that everyone around knows that they are on-camera. They can then either modify their behavior, leave, or note their objections with the user directly.

        The

        • by DarkOx (621550)

          I don't see that as providing much comfort to anyone who is really concerned about the privacy implications. It actually might make them worse. A tiny dot of appropriately tinted ladies nail polish over the indicator lamp and it would be all but impossible to see the lamp unless its aggravatingly bright in the first place and similarly all but impossible to tell the device has been modified without close inspection.

          So you'd have a situation where lots of people would have a false sense of security about m

        • put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device

          How under the sun is that enforceable?

          • The same way it is enforceable with cell-phone cameras in Japan; pass a law that any device sold or manufactured in the US include a "recording" light.

            There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light. Whether the actual /recording/ is illegal can be dealt with separately (I expect it will be dealt with in a case-by-case basis). But the majority of users won't bother and will use the machine in unaltered condition.

            • There will, of course, always be a minority of users who disable or hide the light.

              Precisely. And, 'unexpectedly', those are the same people that are going to engage in the most sensational violations.
              This is the paradox of locks: they keep honest people honest, and do frack-all for the scofflaws you want to manage.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Just like all the violence against camera phones? Cameras are already everywhere. It's only natural for them to become even more pervasive. Many people have dash cams that record all the time for their own evidence and protection, inevitably they will be used on a person for this reason with devices like google glass, albiet more subtle I suspect.

    • Re:Violence (Score:5, Funny)

      by Flozzin (626330) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:46AM (#43946069)
      I'm sure too, cause I get punched in the face all the time when I am taking pictures in the park....You also see tourists bloodied and beaten in the gutters all across new york. /s
    • by poetmatt (793785)

      This is entirely ridiculous.

      Let me know how it goes when you protest police recording you.

      I can understand people may be uncomfortable being recorded, but that's literally all it is. There is no right or wrong to recording, it's entirely subjective and that's the problem - people take that personal viewpoint and think "everything should be this way". Which ends up ridiculous.

      • In many ways, Google is run by a bunch of luddites. Google also hates remote working and thinks that each project has to be run by a single team in a single office. Obviously, Larry never noticed that the Linux kernel is developed in 10,000 different offices simultaneously and is bigger than the sum total of everything Google ever did.

    • by mysidia (191772)

      People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time.

      Google glass is not always recording.

      It can take pictures, and short 20 second clips, which requires pushing a physical button on the device.

      It is not always recording. BUT... you don't know at any particular moment if it is recording or not.

      So there is a possibility, but not a certainty that you might appear in a recording, if you enter view of the camera of someone wearing Google glass.

    • by tehlinux (896034)

      If anybody tried to talk to me while wearing those, I'd stick my cellphone camera right in their face the whole time.

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      Considering they were basically outed as likely government spies (willing or unwilling) recently, yeah.

    • I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Google Glasses.

      I doubt it.

      The only reason people are afraid of Google Glass is because they haven't tried it yet (the current generation at least). The default video recording duration is only 10 seconds, plus it lights up when it's recording. That 10 seconds can be extended, but its battery is severely limited and the entire frame heats up when you record something with it for too long (hence the super short default duration).

      If anyone wants to do covert surveillance, they'll have better luck using just about any other c

      • by Compaqt (1758360)

        >default video recording duration is only 10 seconds, plus it lights up when it's recording.

        These are minor details. These are not an inherent part of Google Glass.

        If you think they are, let me ask you: If Google Glass were to record for 20 seconds, would you consider it a fundamentally different technology? Of course not, so why are you talking about 10 seconds?

        It's 10 seconds today, 10 minutes the next day, and 10 hours the year after that.

        The discussion is about total recording, not about the current

    • by dissy (172727)

      I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Google Glasses. People really don't like the idea of being recorded all the time. This is also illegal in many countries (in the EU). Just because you're out in the open doesn't make it allowed to film other people.

      I agree, I believe I will commit widespread violence against you personally, because I don't like the idea of you recording me all the time, kicking puppies, and murdering children's goldfish.
      You have also committed crimes in many countries, as animal and human abuse is illegal, not to mention the things you do with the pipe cleaners.

      Just because nothing either of us have said is true doesn't mean you are allowed to do those things.

      And apparently makes it perfectly OK for me to commit violence against you,

    • violence towards users of Google Glasses

      Aww... surely they wouldn't hit people wearing glasses, would they?

    • Your always allowed to film or photograph or record others in public in European countries. Only when you publish something someone might not like you can be prosecuted.
  • Stupid write up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hsmith (818216) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:02AM (#43945825)
    All photography and recording is disallowed. So, no shit glass is banned. I assume it has something to do with archaic SEC regulations. But, lets not let that stop writing stupid articles
    • Re:Stupid write up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgimusic (2788705) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:22AM (#43945941)
      I agree. Android phones are also banned. This is just another attempt to jump on the Glass privacy bandwagon.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Please stop raining on our cloud-based click-bait. How else are we going to feed our need for hyperbole?

    • Re:Stupid write up (Score:5, Informative)

      by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:46AM (#43946067)

      There is nothing archaic about the regulations. The employee and stockholder meetings often have newsworthy information which the attendees are prohibited, by contract or by regulation, from announcing before an actual company purchase occurs or before the planned announcement. A few minutes of advance notice about a company like Google purchasing another company, or about a critical staff member resigning, can allow very profitable stock sales and purchases.

      Of course, I'm normally on call for several critical corporate functions. So unless they want to take the risk of any major problem leaving them offline, I need my contact tools. But I'm discreet enough to have a simple pager for such situations, because I've encountered other security situations where transmitters are forbidden but they've permitted me a receiver for professional use.

      • by devent (1627873)

        I don't know about SEC regulations, but it's just a Shareholder meeting. Google is a publicly traded company all you need to do is to buy one share and you are a shareholder.

        • Have you ever tried to buy one _voting_ share? Those tend to be far more expensive, and far m ore tightly held than non-voting stock. That's why being "paid in shares" is so rarely paid in voting shares, except for senior management.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Now I'm starting to doubt all the stuff you've posted. The meeting is open to any Google shareholder [google.com], as long as they bother to register in advance that they're coming. It IS effectively open to the general public, as long as they hold at least one share of stock. Nothing unusual there.

        • by gl4ss (559668)

          I don't know about SEC regulations, but it's just a Shareholder meeting. Google is a publicly traded company all you need to do is to buy one share and you are a shareholder.

          well.. aren't the sec rules about how they would need to inform everyone about their doings.

          I don't need to be a nokia shareholder to read their quarterly reports. because they're a fucking public company and I could buy their shares and should be informed of what I get if I chose to buy those shares. If I was kept in the dark that the company is actually in the gutter that would be fraud.

      • by mysidia (191772)

        The employee and stockholder meetings often have newsworthy information which the attendees are prohibited, by contract or by regulation, from announcing before an actual company purchase occurs or before the planned announcement.

        Do you really think they would announce something to the shareholders that attend the meeting, before the planned announcement?

        Don't the shareholders that didn't attend the meeting, but sent an agent or proxy on their behalf instead... have an equal right to the information r

      • by mysidia (191772)

        Actually; I suspect one of the issues, is the company has to be sure that they know exactly who will be bringing recording equipment in, and the company needs to make certain that they get a copy of every recording made, so that they can preserve that recording, as required under the law: to preserve all the recordings meeting proceedings.

        The company has to keep the minutes, and proceedings, and provide that the records can be inspected by shareholders and others.

    • Re:Stupid write up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AdamWill (604569) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @12:13PM (#43946537) Homepage

      Yeah, and the principle is absurd. Can you fly a plane into Boeing's AGM?

    • No this is hypocritical. The idea is that you can wear Google glass everywhere. Even in a shower! So what Google is saying, "you can use glass everywhere, EXCEPT..." That is hypocritical. Let me put it in another context. Let's say that I am wearing prescription glasses is Google really expecting me to always carry two glasses? The idea of prescription glasses is to allow me to have one pair and that is it. Maybe at home have a second pair, but most people don't do that.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      All photography and recording is disallowed. So, no shit glass is banned. I assume it has something to do with archaic SEC regulations. But, lets not let that stop writing stupid articles

      Two problems:

      1) So prohibiting cameras is the way to prevent use of Google Glass? Expect to see "No photography or recording equipment allowed on premises" signs pop up everywhere - in stores, private-but-publicly-accessible spaces (e.g., shopping malls), etc. I'm sure the end result is no one will give a crap, and this app

    • by Sockatume (732728)

      I don't think you understand the irony value. Google's defended things like its Real Name accounts requirement and Glass's camera by suggesting that people shouldn't have secrets if they've got nothing to hide, and while the secrecy of their shareholder meetings has always been ironic in that light, the conflict has never been instantiated in a piece of actual, Google-manufactured hardware before.

  • Also not included: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sbrown7792 (2027476) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:04AM (#43945833)
    Anything with a camera... who would have thought Glass would be any different? I'm confused as to why anyone would be surprised about this.
  • by Andrio (2580551) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @10:05AM (#43945837)
    "Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic devices, such as smart phones, will not be permitted at the [2013 annual shareholder] meeting..."

    Banned! Apple iPhone Prohibited at Shareholder Meeting
    Banned! Nintendo DS Prohibited at Shareholder Meeting
    Banned! Gameboy Camera Prohibited at Shareholder Meeting
    Banned! $25 dollar prepaid phones Prohibited at Shareholder Meeting
    Banned! Hubble Space Telescope Prohibited at Shareholder Meeting
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I am sure if you came in with the hubble space telescope, they would be impressed enough to let you keep it. It sucks for making pictures at distances that small anyway.

    • Awww... I can't take my Hubble telescope with me? What a bummer...

    • by mysidia (191772)

      While we're at it... why don't they ban pacemakers at the meeting :)

  • So apparently, according to Eric Schmidt himself [eff.org], they're planning on doing things at the shareholder meeting that they shouldn't be doing:

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

    Naturally, the rules apply to what everyone else should be telling Google, not what Google should be telling everyone else. Because, as we all know, Google isn't evil! So we should just trust them, as if they were a "trusted friend."

    Yep. Sounds like the kind of behaviour I expect from my "trusted friends," all right.

    Dan Aris

    • by casings (257363)

      It's a shareholders meeting, not some secretive conference like bilderberg. To join in on the fun, you simply need to be a shareholder.

      But don't let me stop you from speculating out of your ass.

    • by houghi (78078)

      This logic can be seen everywhere:
      http://lolpack.com/post/18088 [lolpack.com]

      This is not against Obama or Dems. This is against politicians, parents and generally people in power. Don't do something, while the person who are doing it are guilty of that themselves.

      It is called: Do as I say, not as I do.

      It is so abundant that it is most likely human nature.

    • "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

      What's your stance on pooping?

      • by ArsonSmith (13997)

        I'm pretty sure everyone knows I poop. I hide it more for the sake of others than myself.

    • by metlin (258108)

      Are you an idiot? This has less to do with what Google wants than what's mandated by SEC and is simply the norm to protect confidential information from being leaked.

      Things that happen at a shareholder meeting could involve confidential information and votes on future moves, acquisitions, and other market strategies that someone could leverage and make a boat load of money. If I knew that Google was interested in buying company X, then Microsoft could pre-empt the bid, or someone else could buy a whole lot

      • by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday June 08, 2013 @06:02PM (#43948231) Homepage Journal

        there isn't a sec regulation on it..

        what the fuck are all these people on? that it would be illegal for a publicly traded company that is required by sec regulations to keep public informed of it's doings to let recording devices into the shareholder meeting and people couldn't walk away from there to phone when they want? what the fuck you really think sec regulates them to keep prison rules for the duration of the shareholder meeting?

        maybe it would be by law if the shareholder meeting took place in the jury stand!

  • It's little shock that when you see such asinine text in a summary that timothy's name is attached to it.

    I'm not really sure what we couldn't expect to make up here? That a very important and sensitive meeting doesn't allow recording equipment, even the companies own recording equipment?
    Wow.. what a plot twist. No one saw that coming, not even Kreskin.

    Seriously timothy, give your head a shake, and if that doesn't work, let someone else shake it for you. I'm sure you could find a few takers.

  • ... and funny.
  • I got a e-mail warning about this page today: http://immortalpoetry.com/Category:19th_century_poetry [immortalpoetry.com]

    "Google ads may not be displayed on adult or mature content. This includes displaying ads on pages that provide links for or drive traffic to adult or mature sites."

    Google typically claims "adult or mature content" if you write about NATOs false-flag terrorist operations or other sensitive subjects, I'm used to that. But in this case I'm having a very hard time figuring out why google thinks a list of o
  • As if they would allow any form of recording devices.. geez... slow non-news day?
  • Ubiquitous surveillance is fine, as long as the elite are exempt. Obviously, some animals are more equal than other animals.
    • by nomad63 (686331)
      The question is, once this thing becomes ubiquitous and can be built in to the glasses that one wear day in and day out, how is the "No glasses" policy going to be enforced ? And if the idea is not to build this electronics into our daily lives, what is the point of developing the ugly glasses ? Do they think the main street USA man or woman will wear them ?
  • ...so little content. How does something that has NOTHING to do with Google Glass actually accepted? This just in, No corporation allows recording of shareholder meetings without explicit authorization. That is really how silly this whole post is.

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Working...