Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Glass Banned At Google Shareholder Meeting

timothy posted about a year ago | from the on-further-consideration dept.

Google 151

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?"

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Violence (3, Insightful)

buy59 (2930821) | about a year ago | (#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:Violence (2, Informative)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#43945795)

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 (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | about a year ago | (#43945911)

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 (1)

clemdoc (624639) | about a year ago | (#43946175)

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.

Re:Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946207)

It speaks about constant recording and Glass seem to be mentioned there based on common misunderstanding that it records all the time - it's not.

Re:Violence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946411)

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43947005)

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 (-1, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#43945951)

I'm pretty damn certain you can record everyone and everything in public

Only if you're tired of living.

Re: Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946405)

If I recall correctly if the person is the main focus of the picture or video you have to get their concent, but if its just an overall photo/video and they are the central point or whatever you'd like to call it then you're fine

Re:Violence (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#43946765)

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 (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year ago | (#43946777)

"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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43947031)

I'm pretty damn certain you can record everyone and everything in public

This is not true. It's all dependent upon the public's expectation of privacy. Zoom lenses and IR cameras have been repeatedly found to be a violation of privacy even in public (this is obviously highly dependent upon circumstances). High definition photography/video has been scrutinized as well, though I am not aware of a simple case that has decided the issue.

I believe it's likely that Google Glass users will effectually prosecuted in court for invasions of privacy even in public places.

Re:Violence (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about a year ago | (#43947051)

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

Re:Violence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945813)

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

Re:Violence (2)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#43946281)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946925)

1. "Ok Glass, start recording" -Voice commands give you plenty of opportunity to stop talking about your drug dealing & identity theft dealings before the red light starts blinking.
2. Nobody cares about you. Every day you walk past people on their cell phones with their cameras pointed right at you. The only difference with Google Glass is the horizon is parallel to the bottom of the frame instead of at a weird angle. Guess what: none of them are recording your inane activities.
3. Discrete conversations will start by Google Glass removed from users faces as a gesture signaling to others "lets talk discretely".

If your complaint is that the facial recognition can pinpoint your physical location, I hope you don't carry a cell phone or you've crossed in to full retard. Border crossings and airports already do this so if your anxiety stems from a desired ability to skip bail then you're fucked anyway. Pro-tip, cell phone cameras don't work for shit when it's dark out. The border crossings and airports less of a case, but you sleep walked right past that implementation stage of the pantopticon because you didn't want to get pepper sprayed, which ironically is the $6 solution to dipshits that think assaulting people wearing small yet conspicuous cameras is SO MUCH WORSE than the button cameras, book cameras, hat cameras, or tie cameras that have existed for over 10 years. Surprisingly, they are less expensive than the MSRP for glass and yet I haven't seen any videos of your pasty ass changing in to a swimsuit at the beach on the internet.

I know this knife will cut deeply but seriously: you are boring.
-Nobody cares what you're doing
-Nobody wants to see you naked
-If you started a blog it would probably have fewer readers than you have facebook friends.
-If you published the login credentials to your email: of the 10 people who log in to see if the credentials are legit, fewer than 4 would read any emails, fewer than 3 would leave the first page of your inbox, and 1 would change your password as a courtesy to you.

If my estimates on the email password are off-base, maybe your predisposition towards violence have alienated all the decent people who have ever met you leaving only the dumb and frustrated dregs of society as people you can relate to.

It's not too late for you! You can still be an interesting person. Step 1: stop acting like such a closed-minded douchey luddite.

Signed,
The Internet

Re:Violence (1)

sabri (584428) | about a year ago | (#43947117)

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 (0)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43947283)

(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 sentence, for assault charges, the end.

Re:Violence (1)

durrr (1316311) | about a year ago | (#43945817)

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

Re: Violence (2)

doomday (948793) | about a year ago | (#43945821)

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

Re: Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946407)

Until you start running afoul of stalkers laws. Pedos and stalkers will LOVE Google Glass.

Re: Violence (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year ago | (#43946485)

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 (2)

tjhart85 (1840452) | about a year ago | (#43947115)

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 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#43946739)

How exactly does the First Amendment protect that?

Re:Violence (3, Interesting)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43945869)

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 (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#43946351)

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 (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year ago | (#43946645)

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 (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#43947011)

put a mandatory and visible recording indicator on the device

How under the sun is that enforceable?

Re:Violence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945953)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945965)

And a percentage of those cases of violence to be followed by a divorce and/or arrests.

Re:Violence (5, Funny)

Flozzin (626330) | about a year ago | (#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

Re:Violence (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#43946561)

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

Re:Violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946195)

I'm quite certain that we will see widespread violence towards users of Googl(e)(ing) (Gl)asses.

There, fixed it for you.

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

Likely only the mentally ill and/or those who get paid for it.

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.

Even if it isn't illegal, it doesn't make it right.

Wonder if this will aid the Paparazzi and/or their publishers? Or will it cost them their jobs? How much will it aid and/or harm other stalkers? Wonder when facial recognition will become good enough that somene can get the name, address, phone number, etc of anyone they view wiih these or similar via online servers? Popular fiction has predicted similar devices for police use after all.

Re:Violence (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43947009)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43947157)

I hope so.

I want to see people's Google Glasses ripped off their face and the glasses destroyed, in such commonplace incidents, that Google will have no choice but to discontinue the glasses.

I want to see this Soviet Russian style monitoring of everyone by way of Google Glasses uploading everything the user sees and records using glasses to come to an expedient ending.

Re:Violence (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43947253)

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.

Stupid write up (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about a year ago | (#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

Stupid private space. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945839)

Well there's the more important difference between a public and a private setting.

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945915)

I assume it has something to do with archaic SEC regulations.

Citation needed.

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945933)

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945969)

Are you Randall Meeks [mashable.com] ?

Re:Stupid write up (4, Insightful)

cgimusic (2788705) | about a year ago | (#43945941)

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

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946217)

Indeed. This article is trollbait. That frequent practice of shareholder meetings banning recording devices should extend to companies that manufacture recording devices shouldn't surprise anyone. Sony video cameras are also banned at the concerts of artists on the Sony Music Entertainment label. So what?

Re:Stupid write up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945985)

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

Re:Stupid write up (5, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946093)

When was the last time a major acquisition was first announced during an annual shareholders' meeting?

*crickets*

Incredibly Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946103)

Indeed. All big corporations control recording of their shareholder meetings. Otherwise the SEC would be involved. But they're called "private sector" for a reason. There is nothing that says they have to share all business plans and discussions with the public. Just those their board considers appropriate.

Re:Stupid write up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946305)

Gee, I wonder why Tesla [flickr.com] doesn't seem to be too concerned with these imporant and necessary SEC regulations, that about a dozen people pro-Google here have referred to and nobody has a link for.

Re:Stupid write up (2)

devent (1627873) | about a year ago | (#43946401)

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 (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43947351)

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 (0)

Matt Seitz (2909075) | about a year ago | (#43946415)

You're right. But it seems ironic that a company would ban one of its own products. It also highlights a few challenges as cameras become even more ubiquitous and integrated with other devices. Will everyone be willing to leave their devices home or at the door? Will the rules even be enforceable? It seems like the live performances I've attended lately have given up on the "no cameras" rule.

Re:Stupid write up (4, Insightful)

AdamWill (604569) | about a year ago | (#43946537)

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

Re:Stupid write up (0)

gnupun (752725) | about a year ago | (#43946841)

All photography and recording is disallowed. So, no shit glass is banned.

Are you implying it is legal for a bunch of strangers in public areas to record other strangers without necessity or permission? (hint: recorders are breaking 4th amendment)

Re:Stupid write up (2)

Ultra64 (318705) | about a year ago | (#43947101)

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 (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43947367)

(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.

Also not included: (5, Insightful)

sbrown7792 (2027476) | about a year ago | (#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.

Re:Also not included: (1)

homey of my owney (975234) | about a year ago | (#43946071)

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

Re:Also not included: (1)

freezin fat guy (713417) | about a year ago | (#43946379)

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

Re:Also not included: (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43946493)

Exactly. The article is a troll.

Cameras, recording devices, and other electronic (4, Funny)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#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

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945931)

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.

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43946339)

Also, they'll need bigger doors.

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year ago | (#43947239)

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

Re:Cameras, recording devices, and other electroni (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43947379)

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

Slow news day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945853)

What's the big deal here? Obviously they want whatever is discussed in that meeting to remain confidential, at least for some time. It wouldn't do to have some guy uploading material on important issues from his Glass/Mobile/Camera/Recorder to the world at large before the meeting is even over. Why should Glass be an exception?

Re:Slow news day? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945939)

What's the big deal here? Obviously they want whatever is discussed in that meeting to remain confidential, at least for some time. It wouldn't do to have some guy uploading material on important issues from his Glass/Mobile/Camera/Recorder to the world at large before the meeting is even over. Why should Glass be an exception?

So privacy has value after all. Who would have thought that !
Google do no evil my ass. They should be completely naked, no privacy at all from the boss down to last peon in the googleplex. Let's see how that goes. It should be appreciated since we live in an era where we don't need privacy right ? Right ?

Re:Slow news day? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#43946011)

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? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946015)

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.

Re:Slow news day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946161)

I don't know, who? Eric Schmidt said something like that, but it was about not doing questionable things online because services you use can get subpoenaed and so on.

So, who said that?

Re:Slow news day? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year ago | (#43946567)

its a public meeting is it not

Schmidt's Hypocrisy (1, Troll)

danaris (525051) | about a year ago | (#43945935)

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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43945973)

Enjoying yourself there, Apple fanboy? Is there really a need to "sign" your terrible Slashdot posts?

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946119)

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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (2)

casings (257363) | about a year ago | (#43946087)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946121)

You're an idiot.

1) That quote was taken out of context, it's specifically from when he's talking about how Google tries to keep data private but is subject to legal information requests from governments.

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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946237)

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 [thedomesticdiva.org] about the arcane 'SEC rules and regulations'.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946139)

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."

Do you know what the word "maybe" means, dumbass?

Also, do you understand why quoting excerpts removed from context can be dishonest or misleading? Here's the whole quote, in reply to the query "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?":

I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

He suggests that wanting something kept secret may indicate you shouldn't be doing it (with the implication that in some cases it doesn't, and one may easily imagines a shareholder meeting to be exactly the kind of thing he had in mind), and moreover that if you do need such privacy, DON'T USE GOOGLE (or other search engines), because they do keep logs (note that not all search engines do, but the mainstream ones all do) and are generally obligated by the ostensibly security-related laws of their respective countries to disclose data from those logs upon receiving an appropriate request. So there's a deception or false generalization there, in that he ignores privacy-valuing, non-logging search engines like ixquick, and there's a dubious assumption that if privacy is potentially violated w/r/t "terrorism", it doesn't matter what, if any, additional violations in the name of commerce may also occur. But the point he's making is that if you need real privacy (which he thinks most people don't), you've got to watch your own ass, because unlike a real "trusted friend", no search engine is gonna lie to the cops for you -- and that point is absolutely valid

And I'd rather have someone like Schmidt OPENLY ARTICULATING a position on the importance of privacy that I seriously disagree with, than someone claiming to respect privacy while doing the same thing.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#43946387)

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.

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43946455)

"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 (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43946585)

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

Re:Schmidt's Hypocrisy (0)

metlin (258108) | about a year ago | (#43947245)

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 of company X shares and profit at the time of the purchase etc. Plus, pretty much all of what's being discussed would be of interest to competitors, and Google would be acting against the best interests of their shareholders if they did not take steps to prevent this information from leaking out.

But go on with your tinfoil hat and your sheer idiocy. How about you learn how corporations work before trolling us?

mo3 Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946021)

paper towels, to use the GNAA to get 1nv0lved in BSD's codebase

You can't make this stuff up. (0)

crossmr (957846) | about a year ago | (#43946145)

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.

Re:You can't make this stuff up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946275)

A very important and sensitive meeting? More important than Berkshire Hathaway's [fool.com] ?

Timmah (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43946469)

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

Re:Timmah (1)

crossmr (957846) | about a year ago | (#43946545)

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

Ironic... (1)

carys689 (1637065) | about a year ago | (#43946197)

... and funny.

Re:Ironic... Well isn't that nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946299)

That's no more ironic than the guy who was afraid to fly, bought a ticket, and as the plane came crashing down thought, well isn't that nice. Or the guy who won the lottery and died the next day. Or rain on your wedding day. Or like having ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife. Or a free ride when you already paid. Now isn't that ironic? No, it is not. It is moronic, thank you, and no, I am not thinking of you when I fuck her.

Oh, now privacy is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946199)

Eric Schmidt said privacy is dead and nobody should be offended at people using Google Glass to record their lives.

So why must we make an exception for Google shareholder meetings?

Re:Oh, now privacy is important? (1)

gnupun (752725) | about a year ago | (#43946631)

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)

What was it that Mr Brin was saying about Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946221)

Something about it being obsolete and you'd only want it if you had something to hide? Something like that?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2009/08/google_cofounder_sergey_brin_s.html

Oh my how things change...

Google loves to ban things (1)

xiando (770382) | about a year ago | (#43946391)

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 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.

YUO FAIl IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946431)

exploited THat. A said. 'Screaming Which don't use the

Media using the masses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946541)

They have banned any recording device at the meetings. End of story for us. But for the media it means they wont be able to take pictures, etc, etc.. so they create sensationalist news to get people on their side. DONT CARE!

Why is this news? (1)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#43946611)

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

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946735)

Some of their competitors aren't as uptight. [gettyimages.com] It is interesting that Google, with "so what if you lose a little privacy in exchange for all this great new stuff" attitude, is still old school on this, as others have pointed out here.

Do as we say, not as we do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43946955)

For god's sake, do any of you sheeple still buy the propaganda pushed by Slashdot's owners? Google is the IT development arm of the NSA, and also exists to create and promote new methods of intelligence gathering. Just because the NSA (via Google) gets to spy on you does NOT mean you get to use their technology to spy on them.

Of course Google Glass will be banned ANYWHERE where you could get to turn the tables on your masters. Here's the big clue for the idiots still too thick to get it. All across America, Team Obama increases the number of cameras pointing at ordinary people during every part of their lives. At the same time, Team Obama becomes ever more vicious and deadly in its attacks against citizens that DARE to turn their cameras on anyone working for Team Obama. Obama's uniformed goons are free to beat and arrest anyone who dares to film them without fear of ANY repercussions (sorry, you idiots, but just because you eventually avoid a criminal conviction for filming Obama's goons does NOT mitigate the fact that they can beat, arrest and attempt to prosecute you for simply filming them).

Google's NSA links are not secret. But Betas are trained at school and through the mass media that such abuse is "all for your own good". I mean, for god's sake, betas actually boast about how clever they are for watching Bill Maher over Fox News. Here's a clue for you clueless chumps out there. When you are non too bright, always choose to watch propaganda that is OBVIOUSLY biased. That way, you are constantly analysing and rejecting propaganda messages. NEVER, EVER watch propaganda shows that you feel are on your side. Depravities like Maher exist to make you accept the unacceptable. They are filthy monsters in the mould of Goebbels, and take pride in how easily they manipulate their viewers.

The heads of Google are as evil as any wicked person you can find in Human History, but this time round have the ability to do far more long term harm to humanity. Anything Schmidt promotes you can assume is something to fear. If you find it hard to understand the currents of your own time, simply research the histories of times past. Know that as it was then, it is now. At no period in Human History will you discover rulers who cared in any way for the sheep dumb enough to empower them, and pay for their extravagant lifestyles. When you choose to live on your knees, no powerful person will ever respect you.

And as for Google Glass, it has only one purpose- intelligence gathering in places where the state has traditionally been excluded. It is a project with the same goals as the Xbox One. You sheeple are the people that empower your masters, so you sheeple are ALWAYS the ultimate target for intelligence gathering. No leaders must arise from amongst you to threaten your masters, so potential threats must be identified as early as possible to be either co-opted or destroyed. Your will must be monitored so that it can either be bent or cheaply sated to keep you happily empowering the monsters that rule over you.

The sad thing is that you idiots think putting up with this situation is OK, because life always works this way. By doing so, you ignore the significance of the previous two World Wars, and the rapidly approaching third. If the system you support did not tend towards global warfare using the most sophisticated weaponry available, your passive acceptance of the growing police state would have some excuse. However, you see Team Obama's growing program of terror wars across our planet, and hear in clear terms how the ultimate goal is war with China and Russia. You know if Team Obama believes that torture, rape, and mass murder are the best way to project American power across the globe, every future American politician who will make it to temporary 'Dictator-in-Chief" will share an opinion at least this evil and depraved.

America's most powerful religious leaders believe 'The Apocalypse' is a 'good' thing. So many of the psychopaths that rule you (including the heads of Google) actually welcome the idea of WW3 (for various reasons- the Google people think there are far too many of you sheeple on this planet, and have said so openly on many occasions). It is time to wake up. The good embraced by most ordinary people CAN defeat the evil embraced by all those with the desire to have power over others. Stop giving evil people your support. Use Google products if you must, but ALWAYS remember Google's true agenda, and never give Google your moral support. Passive mental resistance means that you take a major step in refusing to empower those with evil intentions. Your mantra should be "what you do to us is NOT for our good".

Google Glass: good for thee, but not for me. (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year ago | (#43947013)

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. (1)

nomad63 (686331) | about a year ago | (#43947071)

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 (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about a year ago | (#43947193)

...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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?