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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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.

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:

[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: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

[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!