Feeds

back to article Google accused of hypocrisy over Glass ban at shareholder shindig

Google's directors were accused of hypocrisy over a regulation banning attendees at its annual shareholder's meeting in California from wearing Google Glass hardware at the event. "Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic devices, such as smart phones, will not be permitted at the meeting. Photography is prohibited at …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Hang on here...

...so it's hypocritical for a company to make a product without endorsing its use in any and all corporate situations? I'd hate to think what this guy expects condom manufacturers to permit at their shareholder meetings...

16
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Hang on here...

Smith and Wesson share holder meetings could be hilarious.

5
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Hang on here...

Im fairly sure all Church & Dwight Company shareholders are permitted to wear Trojan(tm) condoms throughout their meetings, provided they keep adorn bits properly in their trousers.

Why exactly they would want to is a bit lost on my, but I don't judge.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Hang on here...

You get a thumbs up because you made me laugh, but I still think that there is something ironic about the situation and Google are trying to argue both sides of the fence in different situations.

No doubt these are the sorts of philosophical questions we need to ask ourselves in the future. For example, it is certainly within reason to expect various hearing implants and similar technology for vision impaired people may gain the ability to record or live stream to a cloud of some sort. We may even get to a point where we can store and retrieve our memories from some hard disk-like system as if it were our brain to help sufferers of dementia or similar diseases.

1
0
Gold badge

Re: Hang on here...

Condoms + "Thumbs up"

I saw what you did there...

0
0
JDX
Gold badge

Hypocritical?

Or setting a good example to the world not to tolerate people videoing them just because the technology exists?

6
5
Anonymous Coward

Guys an idiot

""Google Glass is a voyeur's dream come true," Simpson said, citing the need to protect children."

So err, what the? Protecting children from what exactly? I mean huh? I mean he could have found a dozen sensible reasons (even if I think most of those are a bit left of field) at least they're valid to varying degrees of people not actually giving a crap about you or what you do and just being interested in some AR overlays.

8
2
Bronze badge

I assume he means protecting the children from being seen - in which case - he will be trying to get eyeballs banned soon. It's funny when you think about it - you can always tell that someone has no real argument - when they cling to the current buzzwords of the day - currently that is "think of the children" and "think of the environment"

I say bravo to Google for setting a clear example as to how easy it will be for the rest of the world to simply say - no recording devices here thanks. I mean presumably Google have not previously allowed recording devices into their shareholder meetings - despite the fact - shock horror - they produce Android - a mobile phone operating system that allows said phone to take pictures. Why anyone would expect that just because they bring the world Glass they would suddenly change the rules about recording devices..... If they had said - you can bring smart phones and recording devices EXCEPT Glass - they guy might have had a point - but.... "think of the children! won't someone think of the poor children"

6
2

So your not in the least bit concerned that a sex criminal might wear google glasses to record kids in a bathroom without them knowing it and then have the ability to store it, share it or do whatever else they like with it?

There are going to be major privacy issues with these things in the near future I would put money on it because you have no clue if you are being recorded or not. Someone holding up a cell phone, tablet or other recording device is obvious this is not.

4
16
Anonymous Coward

no not really, if they are really a child loving voyeur sex criminal they'll already own a hidden camera. The argument is a nonsense and to obsess on it is an idiocy

12
2
Anonymous Coward

also a pair of google glasses will be far more expensive than a hidden camera, you can even get camera's hidden in glasses already, or shoes, or lapel, or well, anywhere you like really at varying price points.

Also hidden cameras are already about so why would all these child loving voyeur sex criminals be waiting to buy google glasses that are pretty obvious over cheaper easier to hide alternatives.

10
0
Silver badge
Meh

Better not get the kids

To sit in front of Kinect then, eh?

9
0
Silver badge

So your not in the least bit concerned that a sex criminal might wear google glasses to record kids in a bathroom without them knowing it and then have the ability to store it, share it or do whatever else they like with it?

.....No. Because that is ridiculous. If you're going to record secret video of anything, why would you use something strapped to your face?

11
0
Silver badge
Flame

@ The_Regulator

Mass-media-brainwashed fuckwits like you are why we have no freedoms left.

It would be poetic justice to see you falsely accused of paedophilia yourself sometime soon, because bastards like you more than anyone else deserve to take your own medicine.

8
3
Silver badge
Gimp

Bring out the gimp.

0
0
Silver badge

If the kids don't know about it then... how, exactly, are they being hurt? For that matter the recorder could plaster the image over half the internet - the resulting parental panic and subsequent invasion of bathrooms by worried mothers terrified to take their eyes off their precious babies for ten seconds would do a hundred times more psychological harm than the photos would.

It's creepy as hell, yes. But 'creepy' should not be sufficient reason to panic and start banning things. We just happen to live in a time gripped by an irrational fear and loathing of the pedophiles widely assumed to be hiding under every rock.

6
3

@Steven Roper so I'm a fuck wit for pointing out a valid concern with glass and I should do what with your comments other than consider them vulgar and offensive?

As a parent of a 3 year old yes this is a concern and as I said one which I suspect will come up in the future.

Grow up and try to make a point people want to read instead of throwing around names and other bs.

0
7

Lol, wow if they don't know about it then its no big deal right? That's how your comment reads....

Try that argument with parents you know and see how they react then try again

0
8

Right now this is valid but what if glass goes mainstream and lots of people are wearing them just like people own cell phones...at that point is it still obvious?

0
8

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Try that argument with parents you know and see how they react then try again

I abhor violence, but your chances of not discovering how sharp edges hurt in certain passages are close to zero if I catch you, naturally enacted out of sight of the kids.

"No darling, uncle Will always walks like that when he leaves a house in a hurry"

0
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

"So your not in the least bit concerned that a sex criminal might wear google glasses to record kids in a bathroom without them knowing it and then have the ability to store it, share it or do whatever else they like with it?"

The argument against someone otherwise innocent and "looking" at child porn is that the child must have been abused in the first place and if there was no market of people "just looking", than that child would nor have been abused. That's fair enough, and might even be plausible, although I suspect most of the people "making" the image would still do it anyway.

I'm not sure who has been abused in your secret filming in a toilet scenario. The worst case is that someone who knows the kid sees it. If it gets made public that a child has been "abused" in this way, I'd be questioning the motives of whoever recognised the child and made it public. If the child never knows it happened, was that child abused?

4
0

Ohhh your an internet thug/ E-Gangster, come find me and see what you get when you arrive pussy ac poster.

0
7
Anonymous Coward

What if they pirated the child porn? If the RIAA and MPAA has taught me anything it's that he must have cost the producers a fortune and they'll surely go out of business. He's a hero! Hmmm....

2
0
Silver badge

Try that argument with parents you know and see how they react then try again

Most breeders become insanely illogical when it comes to their precious little booboo.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"Most breeders become insanely illogical when it comes to their precious little booboo."

I'll be the first to admit that if anyone harms my child, I will utterly destroy him - probably far beyond any reasonable measure.

But I'm not crazy enough to think that's a sound basis for public policy. That's why we have courts and a justice system in the first place - victims and families of victims are absolutely awful people to have administering penalties.

0
0

If you re-read my comment I said nothing about banning them. I merely said that I suspected it will come up as an issue.

Most likely I will have drowned in a sea of down votes by then so doubt I will be here to say I told you so.

0
0
WTF?

Is that a real quote?

"When you go to the bathroom you don't collapse in terror that someone might be wearing Glass into the bathroom,"

I've lived for a while and back in the day a kodak instamatic user in the bogs would be asking for trouble! Shareholder meeting - not so much.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Is that a real quote?

Question is though, who goes to the toilet and watches other people wee? I normally go in approach an available urinal then stare at the wall until the deed is completed...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Is that a real quote?

I can safely say I've never seen anyone using a camera in a public restroom. I wonder what kind of bathrooms this guy hangs out in that such a statement would even be in his thought process.

8
0
Anonymous Coward

who goes to the toilet and watches other people wee?

Erm, George Michael...?

Just sayin'...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: who goes to the toilet and watches other people wee?

He's actually world's only person officially certified to be in need of an oleographic display. Sorry to burn that visualisation into your memory..

0
0
Bronze badge
Joke

So you're saying ...

"It might be more polite to stow one's Glass before making a trip to the toilet."

Man who live in house of Google Glass should stow before visiting throne.

5
0

The difference between Google Glass and a camera phone is... you have to hold the phone up to take a picture, and everyone knows it. Google Glass lets you take photos incognito.

4
3

Except you could just be pressing capture buttons on the side of a phone while it's next to your ear, and no one would be the wiser. Privacy invasion isn't new to Glass.

4
2
Silver badge

The difference between Google Glass and a camera phone

is the small hole in someone's pocket where the camera lens is. Only dickheads wave cameras about when they don't want to be seen filming.

Google Glass has a lot of problems but being incognito is not one of them.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: The difference between Google Glass and a camera phone

God some people are so stupid. It's not even that if you want to take stealth photos you hide your phone, you use a fucking hidden camera

http://www.amazon.com/2-4-Ghz-Wireless-Surveillance-System/dp/B000RZUUWG/ref=zg_bs_12909791_11

Amazon has a whole category, the concern is a nonsense IF SOMEONE CARES TO DO SO THEY CAN and you will not be able to see.

To snoop on someone do I pay several hundred pounds on an expensive piece of technology or a couple of dozen pounds on a HIDDEN CAMERA.

Fuck

2
0
Silver badge

Re: The difference between Google Glass and a camera phone

Ebay, 'hidden camera.' 3,270 results. Including pencams, watchcams and button-hole lapel cams. Any of those would be ideal for sneaking into a toilet and pointing unnoticed.

2
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Incognito? WTF!

There is nothing remotely incognito about Google Glass. An accurate comparison to wearing one in the restroom would be attending a PETA rally riding a horse drawn carriage and wearing a meat suit.

3
0
Thumb Up

Re: Incognito? WTF!

I would totally do that.

3
0
Silver badge

hypocrisy hippo-crispy

You can buy camera pens anywhere from Amazon to Wally World so walking into the bog or board meeting covertly recording isn't exactly rocket surgery. Sure, you'll likely get odd angles and less than perfectly framed shots but it puts the GOOGs Glass a bit more into perspective.

3
0

Re: hypocrisy hippo-crispy

The more likely scenario when visiting a bathroom with Glass on is you accidentally record your own todger...

Then 3 months later - "Aunt Mabel, come and look at my video of my trip to Skegness....here's the seafront.... ah, oh, b*gger where's the stop button...!!!." :-)

5
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: hypocrisy hippo-crispy

We can only hope someone writes a virus that takes the sound of a flush as a command to post the last 5 minutes of video as a Facebook status update.

2
0
Silver badge

"Page responded that the company was committed to allowing users to control their own content as one of its core values."

Except for when said content has been requisitioned by the NSA.

5
0
Thumb Down

He didn't really answer the question that he was asked:-

"Simpson also asked, in a rather rambling manner, if there would be any way to delete videos taken with Glass from Google's servers. Page responded that the company was committed to allowing users to control their own content as one of its core values."

He didn't mention the delete word - something that Web 2.0 doesn't believe in.

Phil.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

profit not privacy

Google just wanted to make sure there wouldn't be any uploads to youtube they didn't get the full ad revenue from

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Kinda solves the IT riddle

Of why there is a lack of women in the IT field. Males are naturally superior in security. We do not look or talk in public restrooms unless something is on fire and a flaming structural support beam is about to fall. Women take friends...

There will be no Glass in Men's restrooms.

P.S. I cannot think of the children unless I save my own ass first.

P.P.S. Anon due at the advice of the solicitors at Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe.

;)

1
0

Sounds like most of you guys live in Utopia.

But on the subject of children; try, as a single man, taking a camera to a playground and start taking photos of other peoples children. You can post your experiences on Monday.

1
2

Then try wearing google glass and recording the same trip, I wonder which one that parents would be upset about first or more. I would put money on the photos

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Also, make sure to go rather bald, do a greasy comb over, and grow a mustache.

Having your eyes a bit too close together is also good.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.