Google Glass Banned At Google Shareholder Meeting

larry bagina writes "You can't make this stuff up — 'Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic devices, such as smart phones, will not be permitted at the [2013 annual shareholder] meeting.' Maybe it runs afoul of their rules on sexually explicit material?"

Comments

Violence

[buy59]

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:Violence

[durrr]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you expect less violence against them since any attack could be recorded and uploaded to the cloud in real time?

Re:Violence

[durrr]

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

Re: Violence

[doomday]

In United States you are allowed to record other people out in the open due to your First Amendment rights.

Re:Violence

[smittyoneeach]

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 wish to retain a modicum of privacy correspond to the rich and the Luddites.

Re:Violence

[grumbel]

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.

Re:Violence

[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

[Flozzin]

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

Re:Violence

[clemdoc]

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 (text in German, Google translation here).
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.

Re:Violence

[Razgorov Prikazka]

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 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)

Must be hilarious IMHO.

Re:Violence

[Somebody Is Using My]

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 problem most people have with this technology, I think, is that currently they can be recorded without their knowledge*. Make the recording more obvious and society will create its own rules and means.

Ultimately though, I hope the technology evolves to the point where recording and uploading are not necessary because the devices can process the data themselves, without utilizing a service to do the background crunching for them.

* I tend to object more that those recordings are being uploaded to a centralized service - in this case, Google - which can be data-mined and profiled.

Re:Violence

[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: Violence

[backslashdot]

A discretely held phone is more useful for them than google glass since they would be noticeably staring with a phone you don't need to stare their direction while either holding it casually or a pretending to play a game or talk on the phone perpendicular to the action.

Re:Violence

[mjwalshe]

well in the UK photographers have been arrested for being to tall.

Re:Violence

[DarkOx]

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 mandatory record lights. I know others have posted phones are worse as you don't have to look at what you are recording but most of us are at least a little suspicious when we see someone awkwardly holding their phone outside their pocket or purse keeping it in a fixed orientation. When ordinarily worn externally fashion accessories start to have cameras its going to be way more problematic.

Re: Violence

[icebraining]

How exactly does the First Amendment protect that?

Re:Violence

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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 probably legal anyway, I don't think we need to split hairs about recording versus publishing.

Re:Violence

[Stan92057]

"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

Re:Violence

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

On a side note to the post/article: I can't wait for glass to hit the market and get cracked. Fuck Google's gimp restrictions on glassware. I want the hardware, not their vision for how it should be used.

Re:Violence

[poetmatt]

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.

Re:Violence

[smittyoneeach]

put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device

How under the sun is that enforceable?

Re:Violence

[Guru80]

Don't worry, I'm sure every user is as responsible as our government with the data they collect...ba-da-boom

Re: Violence

[tjhart85]

This is what I do not understand about peoples complaints. I can point a phone, discreetly, anywhere I want and no one would be the wiser. Just sit down at a table, maybe have a conversation with someone and hold your phone pointing anywhere you want and no one would suspect anything.

Somehow though, a device that requires both voice confirmation AND your face to be physically staring exactly at what you want it to record is seen as invasive.

Re:Violence

[sabri]

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".

Re:Violence

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Violence

[Somebody Is Using My]

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.

Re:Violence

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Violence

[tehlinux]

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

Re:Violence

[citizenr]

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

Re:Violence

[Luckyo]

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

Re:Violence

[Luckyo]

STORAGE (which you are referring to) is irrelevant. The legislation is aimed to protect privacy. All you need is ability to constantly RECORD information. Glass does this, even if it doesn't store said information.

For example, dashcams function in a way very similar to that of glass.

Re:Violence

[gl4ss]

STORAGE (which you are referring to) is irrelevant. The legislation is aimed to protect privacy. All you need is ability to constantly RECORD information. Glass does this, even if it doesn't store said information.

For example, dashcams function in a way very similar to that of glass.

google glass doesn't keep an always on buffer going on all the time. it records after you activate recording somehow. it is not like a dashcam in that sense. in that way it works like a smartphone or whatever camera.

btw, security cameras are illegal in austria?

Re:Violence

[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.

Re:Violence

[stephanruby]

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 cell phone/ and slip it backwards in their shirt pocket. Most cell phones don't notify others they're being recorded with a light. And most other cell phones can be turned on inconspicuously also (without fiddling with your glass frame, or telling your glass in a super loud voice "Ok Glass, take a picture" or "Ok Glass, video-record". Also with a cell phone, you can record something for 30 minutes to 60 minutes without completely draining your battery and without making your head catch on fire. For now, just think of Google Glass as a super expensive fashion accessory, that's turned off most of the time. I supp

Re:Violence

[dissy]

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, though I don't know why you would state such a thing.

PS. Misrepresenting reality is fun!

Re:Violence

[smittyoneeach]

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.

Re:Violence

[Luckyo]

Again, storage type is irrelevant from privacy's point of view. All that matters is ability to continuously record data from the camera and feed it anywhere. Even if you never store it locally and instead send it to google (which is what the glass is designed to do in the first place), it's still the same issue.

Re:Violence

[LongearedBat]

violence towards users of Google Glasses

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

Re:Violence

[rtfa-troll]

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 privacy becomes something only for the Rich. They can afford to live alone in large houses with walled gardens and private recreation facilities. You might have enough space to have your own house with your family. Most people end up with no possible place where they can expect privacy except in what the grandparent would call public.

Biggest irony: the US supreme court; an institution created by people who met "secretly" in "public" to plot about the overthrow of their British rulers would agree with the grandparent. That does not make it right. That just means that their enforcement of the US constitution is quite selective and that they should be seen by most Americans as a dubious or possibly criminal institution.

Re:Violence

[Tough Love]

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.

Re:Violence

[someone1234]

> 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.

Re:Violence

[gpoul]

google glass doesn't keep an always on buffer going on all the time. it records after you activate recording somehow. it is not like a dashcam in that sense. in that way it works like a smartphone or whatever camera.

btw, security cameras are illegal in austria?

No, security cameras are not illegal as long as you're only recording private property. As soon as you record on public property the recording needs to be registered with the data privacy commission and you need a reason for doing this. (e.g. perimeter cameras outside of bank buildings and such)

Re:Violence

[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.

Re:Violence

[Dthief]

nah, someone will probably upload a video to YouTube of you breaking the camera

Re:Violence

[WOOFYGOOFY]

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 right to some kind of privacy sensibly defined even in the public sphere the same way you believe there is no anti-gravity machine (and there isn't because gravity is a side effect of the space curvature) then you're either young and repeating empty jingoisms you're picked up online and never thought through OR or just incredibly stupid and insensible to the facts of history, even as they unfold before your face in your own lifetime.

Re: Violence

[threewing]

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.

Re:Violence

[Compaqt]

>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 (perhaps deliberate) shortcomings in Google Glass.

Stupid write up

[hsmith]

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

[cgimusic]

I agree. Android phones are also banned. This is just another attempt to jump on the Glass privacy bandwagon.

Re:Stupid write up

[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

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Stupid write up

[devent]

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.

Re:Stupid write up

[AdamWill]

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

Re:Stupid write up

[Ultra64]

Wrong. It is perfectly legal to take pictures and video in a public place.

You do not need anyone's permission.

Re:Stupid write up

[mysidia]

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 regarding the proceedings of that meeting, as the holders who actually attended the meeting?

Re:Stupid write up

[mysidia]

(hint: recorders are breaking 4th amendment)

No... only the government is beholden to the 4th amendment.

And recording someone in a public place, where you would be able to observe them anyway, is not a search or seizure.

It is retaining/creating records that would not be created otherwise, about behavior and actions in public, visible to the observer, who would be able to see those things anyways.

That is... adding a recording doesn't change the observations in public, it just means, that a record is kept of the observations.

Re:Stupid write up

[mysidia]

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

[SerpentMage]

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.

Re:Stupid write up

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Re:Stupid write up

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I'm starting to doubt all the stuff you've posted. The meeting is open to any Google shareholder, 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.

Re:Stupid write up

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Stupid write up

[tlhIngan]

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 applies to shareholder meetings as well.

2) Shareholder meetings are supposed to be public. Because Google is a public company - they're not allowed to do things that the owners and public doesn't know. Now, Google may themselves record the meeting (as they should so prospective shareholders can do their due diligence), but that shouldn't me an independent recorder can't be brought in to help verify against shenanigans in the official transcript.

Re:Stupid write up

[Ultra64]

Are you implying it is legal for a bunch of strangers in public areas to record...

He didn't say anything about a shareholder meeting.

Re:Stupid write up

[Sockatume]

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:

[sbrown7792]

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.

Re:Also not included:

[homey of my owney]

Bullshit news story submitted and published by slashdot... News at 11.

Re:Also not included:

[freezin fat guy]

Because Google keeps insisting that secrets and privacy are completely unnecessary for everyone else in the world.

Re:Also not included:

[jones_supa]

Exactly. The article is a troll.

Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic

[Andrio]

"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

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni

[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.

Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[danaris]

So apparently, according to Eric Schmidt himself, 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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[casings]

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.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't allow recording at their shareholder meetings, either.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Yup. You've got the Slashdot debating technique down pat.

2) No photography is allowed at ANY shareholders meetings. Look it up.

Look it up where?

I guess attendees at Wal-Mart's annual shareholders meeting didn't get the memo about the arcane 'SEC rules and regulations'.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[houghi]

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

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.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[wonkey_monkey]

"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?

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[ArsonSmith]

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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy

[gl4ss]

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!

Re:Slow news day?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Clearly you've never been to a shareholder's meeting.

Things are going great!
We're going to do even better next year!
Please rubberstamp everything management is doing!
Thanks for coming!

Re:Slow news day?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't want the meeting recorded, maybe they're doing something they shouldn't be?

Someone pointed that out awhile back, I forget who it was.

Ironic...

[carys689]

... and funny.

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni

[NatasRevol]

Also, they'll need bigger doors.

Google loves to ban things

[xiando]

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

"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 old poems is "adult or mature" content. Why Google Glass is banned from their shareholder meeting is anyone's guess, but it does make sense, google loves to censor and hates free speech. Just look at all the sites missing from their search index. If anyone can make a guess why old poems is "adult or mature" content then please help me out.

Timmah

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I move that slashdot change Timmah's name by fiat to Hodor.

Re:Timmah

[crossmr]

I think it's time to come clean and admit he is Kdawson.

Re:Slow news day?

[mjwalshe]

its a public meeting is it not

Why is this news?

[houbou]

As if they would allow any form of recording devices.. geez... slow non-news day?

Re:Oh, now privacy is important?

[gnupun]

Because they are above the law... they would like to rape your privacy but don't want you to do the same to them. People are too stupid to notice or complain that glass breaks many privacy laws (4th amendment)

Google Glass: good for thee, but not for me.

[runeghost]

Ubiquitous surveillance is fine, as long as the elite are exempt. Obviously, some animals are more equal than other animals.

Re:Google Glass: good for thee, but not for me.

[nomad63]

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 much sensationalism

[Guru80]

...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.

Re:So much sensationalism

[You're All Wrong]

I'm curious - do they permit shorthand-taking secretaries or typewriters?
Or people with good memories?

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni

[excelsior_gr]

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

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni

[mysidia]

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

Re:Slow news day?

[mcvos]

What's the big deal here? Obviously they want whatever is discussed in that meeting to remain confidential, at least for some time.

If they're saying things they don't want people to know about, then maybe they should consider not saying those things at all. That's what Eric Schmidt would say about that.

Google is one of the prime proponents of the idea that privacy is utterly dead, but for their own shareholder meeting it's suddenly relevant again? They need to make up their mind, because now they're undermining their own main argument.