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...
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 …
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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?
@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.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
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"
"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.
"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?
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
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.
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...!!!." :-)
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.
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.
;)
Most of the objectors don't probably realise how Glass works. To take a picture you have to tilt your head and say: "OK Glass take a picture" there is a short delay and the picture is then taken. Any more interaction (changing settings, etc) involves using a mini touch pad on the side of the head-piece.
It will only take 10 seconds of video and similarly you have to verbally instruct it.
So the idea of someone sneakily taking pictures of children in a toilet is a bit far of the mark when you have someone wearing very obvious hardware on their face, staring at them for some time, having to give a voice command which is a bit of a give-away. Plus the camera has a light on it when it is on.....
...and even if you could circumvent the activation prompts (remote bluetooth trigger in the pocket, kill the 'camera active' light etc) you'd still have to be staring right at them.
Sure to be interesting when said kiddy-filmer comes out of the restroom to find Little Jonny pointing at him saying 'Daddy, it was him, he was the funny man looking RIGHT AT HIM while I was having a wizz'.
Closely followed by a loss of teeth police interaction.
It's not hard to envisage. Think of the children? Try just thinking, for a start.
Steven R