Feeds

Google 'disappoints' US congressman over Glass privacy controls

'You have displeased us, Mr. Page' says Barton

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Google's response to privacy concerns expressed by US legislators over its Glass headmounted hardware is "disappointing," according to Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). The Chocolate Factory needs to give consumers more privacy choices, he says.

"There were questions that were not adequately answered and some not answered at all," Barton said. "Google Glass has the potential to change the way people communicate and interact. When new technology like this is introduced that could change societal norms, I believe it is important that people’s rights be protected and vital that privacy is built into the device."

In May, congressional leaders wrote to Google expressing concerns over the privacy implications of Glass, suggesting that there should be controls in place to make sure images and video aren't taken without consent, and that facial recognition technology isn't overbearing.

In its response, Google said that Glass wasn't using facial recognition technology and no such apps are being approved at this time. Taking a photo or video requires a spoken command, the company said, which (as with mobile phones) makes it easy to tell when someone is recording.

All files recorded by Glass are deletable by users, Google said, and the company keeps a tight lock on APIs for apps that might be deemed to cross the privacy line. It is also banning resale of the headsets to ensure that private information isn't transferred, and the headsets can be remotely wiped if lost or stolen.

On Monday, Google also updated the firmware of the device to improve the voice and search controls, and to allow web-page manipulation via finger controls. These additions are in keeping with the privacy stipulations Google laid out in its letter.

Rep. Barton doesn't say what exactly he is unhappy about in Google's response, but it's clear he would like more answers. Then again, given he thinks the Bible offers proof of non-manmade climate change, scientific analysis may be a little beyond him.

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
The Fourth Amendment... and it IS better
Don't wait for that big iPad, order a NEXUS 9 instead, industry little bird says
Google said to debut next big slab, Android L ahead of Apple event
Microsoft to enter the STRUGGLE of the HUMAN WRIST
It's not just a thumb war, it's total digit war
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Netscape Navigator - the browser that started it all - turns 20
It was 20 years ago today, Marc Andreeesen taught the band to play
A drone of one's own: Reg buyers' guide for UAV fanciers
Hardware: Check. Software: Huh? Licence: Licence...?
The Apple launch AS IT HAPPENED: Totally SERIOUS coverage, not for haters
Fandroids, Windows Phone fringe-oids – you wouldn't understand
Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
The, er, Beats go on after noise-cancelling spat
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.