I'm sure they have questions but are those questions based on facts?
Did you even read the letter? Almost every paragraph is footnoted. The questions are based on what has been published. If something stated in those publications was erroneous, this is an excellent opportunity for Google to set the record straight.
Hysteria is what it is.
A meaningless utterance, but I have noted during my time here you are always more than willing to stoke any flame within reach.
They are asking specific questions about specific claims that have been published about Google Glass, some of them by Google itself, and specific questions about Google as a service provider. They are asking these questions because the technology is new. They are asking Google because Google developed the technology. Who else should they ask?
The only hysteria I have observed is on the part of Google fanboys who are falling all over themselves in an effort to portray Google as embattled. People have questions and they want answers. It's really that simple.
Additionally from wikiP: "Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension and in which disagreement is difficult because the matter at its center is taboo." Manifestly not the case here.
Moreover, it's completely absurd to equate the use of Google Glass with unaided sight. My naked eye can't snap your picture and then use facial recognition to see what information about you I can root out on the interwebs.
Notwithstanding the reps' apparent befuddlement over the NYT app, I read this letter as entirely well-intentioned, asking on the whole legitimate questions. It seems to me the word "grandstanding" is an unfair characterization.
I didn't have time last week to respond to the linked article where you used "moral panic" to characterize reactions to Google Glass, but I think you are misusing the term. Here is what the well-sourced wikiP has to say:
Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:
Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative effect on society. Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us". Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised. Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group. Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.
By these criteria are we looking at moral panic? Let's see: Concern? Yes, but the concern is not irrational. Someone using Google Glass could take my picture without my knowledge or consent. The fact that they could do so by other means is irrelevant. Hostility? None at all that I can discern. Consensus? By no means. Disproportionality? Well gosh, I don't see the villagers storming Castle Googlestein with torches and pitchforks. They are writing letters and asking questions. Volatility? Remains to be seen, but it is to be hoped that Google addresses privacy concerns to people's satisfaction.
So much meme fodder one hardly knows where to start!
I AM WONDER WOMAN
AND WE WILL BE PARENTS TO A GREAT KID, ONE DAY TO.
YOU DON'T KNOW US!! WE WILL THRIVE!
WE WILL START A GENERATION OF TRUTHFULLNESS
my wife is a jewel in the desert. you are just trash.
WE ARE NOT FREAKING OUT.
WE DO NOT NEED THIS. YOU STUPID PEOPLE. AMERICA IS ABOUT RESSLING
It's a real shame people like Russell can't afford the legal expense to stand up to this kind of bullying. And it amuses me that the bully lists all those other victims as if they were a badge of legitimacy: "these companies recognized the rights of Mr. French". No, you creep; they recognized that standing up for their rights would take them directly to bankruptcy.