Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Google forbids resale or lending of Glass

<< < (2/4) > >>

40hz:
Did they find a way around the First Sale clause? "You can sell your hardware but we'll turn off the service and service isn't sold etc etc"?
-TaoPhoenix (April 22, 2013, 02:14 PM)
--- End quote ---

This isn't the consumer release so I don't think the "first sale" rule applies here. This is an advance test/dev release. Since the product isn't being sold as a regular consumer product at this point, I think they're probably well within their rights to put restrictions on the device.

Besides, it all depends on what you agreed to. If you voluntarily waived some legal right as a condition of getting one you're SOL. (At least in the US you are.) 8)

40hz:
This is about Google's always-on spectacles, right?  Which allow users to video anything and upload it, regardless of privacy concerns?

A writer in a UK magazine suggested that users should be termed "glassholes..."
-rjbull (April 22, 2013, 02:21 PM)
--- End quote ---

Privacy aside, it has it's good uses. Police have an uncanny record for dashboard camera failures and not having a 'videoing' officer around whenever some illegal or overzealous enforcement activity occurs. Look at the Occupy Wall Street cases where independent observers and news reporters have numerous videos of police officers acting in an illegal manner (and obviously videoing the event) where the police have later claimed (in court) that there were no police videos being recorded at the time of the incidents.

Now imagine a live upload from somebody who has been illegally stopped and is being harassed by the police...That POV footage would sure clear up any questions about what was done or said in a courtroom. Especially if the video were being uploaded in realtime so that taking the glasses away from the victim suspect wouldn't matter.

Wonder how long it's going to take US police agencies to demand a mechanism be inserted that allows the police to shut Google's glasses down in areas where there is an ongoing "police action." Purely for the usual "officer safety and security" concerns, mind you.

It will also be interesting to see if Google goes along with such a demand voluntarily. :huh:

Stoic Joker:
It will also be interesting to see if Google goes along with such a demand voluntarily
-40hz (April 22, 2013, 02:31 PM)
--- End quote ---

Define "voluntarily"... You mean the "Official" story ... Or what actually happened when the cameras got turned off (ehm) "spontaneously malfunctioned". ;)

SeraphimLabs:
Wonder how long it's going to take US police agencies to demand a mechanism be inserted that allows the police to shut Google's glasses down in areas where there is an ongoing "police action." Purely for the usual "officer safety and security" concerns, mind you.
-40hz (April 22, 2013, 02:31 PM)
--- End quote ---

Would not be difficult to do either. All it would take is an RFID-type device embedded in the hardware such that upon recieving an easily transmitted signal the recording functions of the device would be disabled. Or even just use effectively a magic packet similar to those transmitted for wake on lan that when recieved by a consumer device has the same effects.

To make sure it gets done, they simply make it so that the device cannot receive a UL or FCC approval to be distributed in American stores unless said feature is included in a way that cannot be disabled by a savvy end user.

And then of course the enforcement layer to go with all this, is you equate the punishment for having a device that doesn't support these controls or has them bypassed to be as severe a crime as owning an AR-16 rifle. Excluding of course research prototypes and museum display models with appropriate permits.

Now for testing types I can see where Google would name their terms like this. The devices are probably protected anyway under a NDA, selling one even after the testing period would be a breach of nondisclosure.

But to do this on a production model? I think Google might be setting themselves up for a marketplace flop, or at least some very interesting court cases.

TaoPhoenix:
I'm gonna go sideways and say this is a classic case where the chinese knockoffs might come into play here. I have thought of stuff off and on like "Set Theory". So the set of "Glasses that See and Record and Upload and more" is a new emerging consumer category. Google has Name Brand so they keep inserting themselves into the media. But what is really going on here is a concept I have quietly followed for some 8 years - "Video Glasses". So let Google play games with their servers.

I saw at a trade show a few weeks ago a pair of Video Recording Glasses. While not quite perfectly intentionally, I have worn Heavy Glasses for years now - so if people see me in new ones, they would say "oh hai, new glasses, kewl kthx bye".

So all they have to do is record data and send it to a local unit such as a smartphone, running an app to post it to a private web server. It's a Category. All that's been missing for a few years is a bit of incremental tech, but it's coming. Anyone can record you anywhere, ever. I chose "Glasses" because yes I grew up with Matrix and Johnny Mnemonic, and also that form factor gives the Tech Industry one more generation - that you can hide some stuff into a heavy pair of glasses that's currently hard to do elsewhere, such as Contacts etc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page