Google Glass: Your Reaction to a Soldier Wearing it?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:06:41 -0400

You are at the Post Exchange around 1100hrs and spotted a Soldier wearing Google Glass on top of a prescription glass frame. The Soldier comes near you and looks at you strangely. As you continue to think, the Soldier informs you that they are recording you and that "what you say will go on YouTube, FaceBook, and sent to the Army Times" and informs you that "if you just walk away, nothing will happen". You out-rank the Soldier by 2 ranks levels.

What would you do in this situation? (Keep in mind that you are not a military police officer)

NOTE: Google Glass uses a cell-phone hotspot to communicate to the net, so technically.. the videos could be uploaded within 1 minute of the conversation.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 3:09 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:09:33 -0400

Please tell me this is not a real thing that happened to you, sir, and rather just a hypothetical situation designed to foster a discussion.

If it did happen to you, however, I'll be sure to pick up an Army Times next month.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 3:10 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:10:59 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member. I would recommend the CO immediately ban Google Glass as a Security and Privacy Risk. I would also consult IG/CID/JAG to initiate an inquiry into the purposes of the soldier's rather bizarre behavior . . . to determine whether or not he may be psychologically unbalanced . . . and whether his bizarre behavior amounts to a threat, harassment, and/or intimidation of a more senior female officer. Warmest Regards, Sandy

p.s. You may recall the Furby recording toy was banned as a threat to National Security

http://disinfo.com/2011/06/was-a-furby-threat-to-national-security/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/254094.stm

n.b. Wearing Non-Prescription Google Glass would appear to be contrary to AR 670-1.

Was A Furby Threat to National Security? - disinformation

A blast from the past. CNN reported back in 1999... Can the cute, popular toy Furby be a threat to national security? The government thinks so, and has banned it from National Security Agency premises in Maryland. Furby is embedded with a computer chip that allows it to record words. Because of that ability, NSA officials were worried "that people would take them home and they'd start talking classified," one Capitol Hill source told The...

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Aug 27 at 2014 3:40 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:40:38 -0400

I'm at a loss for words. This Buck Rogers crap is real? In 20 years they are going to announce that it caused brain cancer. I'm understanding why grandma never touched a computer in her life. I still think, as a society, we peaked at PONG. Stop the planet......Mark wants off.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 3:48 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:48:07 -0400

"Holy crap! Your google glass just jumped off your face and landed under my foot! Sorry, your device's life insurance policy doesn't cover suicide."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 3:48 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 03:48:08 -0400

I think it shouldnt be allowed just because the possibility of an OPSEC issue most likely happening.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Aug 27 at 2014 4:58 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:58:53 -0400

As stated already, the google glasses represent an actual security risk, Information, operations, personal and so on.
Furthermore, some may claim the "Freedom of Information Act" as a justification since you are, while wearing a uniform, a government agent.
But there is the issue of privacy, his choice to record you, against your will, represents an invasion of your privacy by simply looking at you. Now the "GoPro" cameras that are becoming more popular for a number of reasons, including Law Enforcement accountability, may be setting a similar precedent that needs to be dealt with regarding a military wide policy on the devices.

Now, one consideration that you may look at for both devices is that there are always places on military facilities that are classified as "No Camera Zones" and some military bases in their entirety are considered such... Catch him in one of those areas with his camera, tackle him, secure him, hold him for the MPs and inform his CoC of his involvement in espionage against the United States by compromising the security of a military installation and have him held for court martial while the IT tech with CID dissects his life. In the event that none of the filmed events justify a charge of treason, still consider outprocessing him as a risk to security.

After all, better safe than sorry....

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 6:52 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:52:12 -0400

Sir,

you should probably have the SM review his finical situation too...if someone has $1800 to drop on google glasses either they are really good at saving money....or they probably need counseling on how to save/spend it.

So even if it’s not in a restricted area or if the AR 670 is not clear on the situation, there are other ways for you to handle the situation

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 27 at 2014 7:33 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:33:17 -0400

Illegal wiretap, unconsented audio/video recording, extortion, what else can we lump on to this misuse of a bad idea.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 27 at 2014 8:51 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:51:44 -0400

My solution

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Aug 27 at 2014 8:55 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:55:58 -0400

Without knowing what the regulations says about such things (and I assume they say nothing), I will not offer my opinion on the "legality" of the soldier wearing the glasses. However, as far as the soldier threatening me by saying "just walk away and nothing will happen", I would demand his ID card, detain him, and call for the Military Police, or, possibly, simply get his info and report the incident to his chain of command. That comment constitutes insubordination and disrespect and no military leader, regardless of rank should simply walk away and ignore it.

In the situation you described, you did nothing to elicit that response from the soldier. His utterance of those words, in my opinion, were uncalled for and, as I stated, disrespectful.

Also, one does not have to be a "Military Police officer" to correct military personnel, regardless of where they are or what units they belong to. All military leaders are required to correct indiscipline, uniform violations, and other infractions... not only Military Police.

I confronted a soldier in the PX in Korea once and a Command Sergeant Major (CSM), who was standing nearby, told the young soldier that he had better listen-up because I was his "worst nightmare" in that I was not only an MP, but also a Colonel... :-)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 10:45 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:45:43 -0400

As their speech could constitute a threat or ultimatum that was unprovoked; is there truly any problem with my potential actions after the fact?

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Aug 27 at 2014 10:57 AM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:57:12 -0400

If they are in uniform it would be an eccentric item which would not be allowed under Marine Regulations. Now if they are using it to harass you and threaten to undermine your authority by stating that if you walk away nothing will happen constitutes a threat to me so I'd probably proceed to defend myself and quite possibly break them.

Response by SPC Zachary Jordan made Aug 27 at 2014 1:20 PM

SPC Zachary Jordan — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:20:11 -0400

Sir, I think this largely depends on if either service member was in uniform. The uniform regulations have fairly strict restrictions on wearable technology on uniforms other than the IPFU - the SM wearing Glass may have been violating uniform regs. If the SM being recorded was in uniform, there may be some concerns with that, as others have mentioned.

Otherwise, if these were two service members, in civilian clothes, unless there's a policy already in place about video recording on post, this is no different than any other video taken in a public place - bases have restricted access to prevent armed threats, not citizens (or service members) from doing normal things.

It's possible the SM with Glass was trying to cover his legal bases (though he sounds threatening) - some states have requirements on notification of certain types of recording, usually including sound and sometimes video, so such a warning means the SM being recorded would have no expectation otherwise.

Response by MSgt Roger Lalik made Aug 27 at 2014 1:38 PM

MSgt Roger Lalik — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:38:30 -0400

If it was on a Marine Base and your fiction characters were Marines. I know what would happen.... hmmmm...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2014 3:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:02:54 -0400

There are a number of things that he is violating. Google Glasses are not authorized in uniform per 671-1 and I'm pretty sure, but don't quote me you can not just walk around base video taping whatever you like and whomever you like. so with that being said I would ask him to remove them, and if he failed to do so I would ask for his and unit 1SG

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 27 at 2014 3:46 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:46:49 -0400

3 Issues (in ascending seriousness):

1) you have a soldier who is being insubordinate to a senior SM. Further, they even threathened you.

2) you have what is likely a violation of AR 670-1

3) you have potentially a security/force protection breach

As a leader I would handle the first two like any other minor breach of discipline: immediate correction and if they still have a case of the ass, bring it to their chain of command.

#3 though is troubling because this person could be scoping the instillation out for an attack. Definately need to contact Provost Marshall about this.

Response by SFC(P) Tobias M. made Aug 27 at 2014 4:32 PM

SFC(P) Tobias M. — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:32:12 -0400

This would be an OPSEC violation. AR 670-1 would also show that this type of glasses are not authorized. I would not touch the SM but would inform him/her that they are not authorized while in uniform and need to remove them. I would also ask for their ID card and then call security for the post that I am on. Someone stated that it would be a form of disrespect and I agree with them 100% if someone that I out ranked by even one rank said that to me I would not stand for it. I feel that the Military needs to go and put a ban on this type of device. What is going to be next if we do not stop this now?

Response by 1SG Joseph Kelly made Aug 27 at 2014 6:20 PM

1SG Joseph Kelly — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:20:58 -0400

AR 670-punch in the face

Response by SGT Greg Gold made Aug 27 at 2014 10:05 PM

SGT Greg Gold — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 22:05:02 -0400

My first question is what is the DOD\DA policy on recording audio\video on active duty? There has to be something on the books dealing with unclassified areas of a base\federal reservation.

The second thing is all the base commander has to do is say UNAUTHORIZED! End of discussion.

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Aug 28 at 2014 11:40 AM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:40:37 -0400

The scenario doesn't make sense. Why would the soldier just walk up and then tell you that? Even if the scenario happens you as a ranking soldier should tell the person you do not consent to a recording. After that ask who the soldier's chain of command is and report the soldier to them.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2014 11:56 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:56:18 -0400

As a Leader, I would and do view Google Glass as "trendy" eye wear/ apparel and thus would suggest it's removal as a violation of AR 670-1.

It does also pose a security risk to the installation. Google glass could be used to take photos or video of access points and security, or sensitive materials common to the work place.

If you don't think the "Trendy" eye wear/apparel deal doesn't cover it, OPSEC policy should.
Either way, Google Glass is a NO-GO at this station

Response by SGT Allison Churchill made Aug 28 at 2014 12:13 PM

SGT Allison Churchill — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:13:33 -0400

I don't think it conforms to uniform regulations. That's pretty much all you need to say.

Personally, I think they're creepy as hell. It's bad enough people can take photos of strangers by pretending to text.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2014 2:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:58:45 -0400

Are we in uniform? Because if we are I would tell him to remove them because they are not within regs

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2014 3:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 15:10:25 -0400

I'm pretty sure this isn't allowed in uniform according to AR 670-1. Make the on the spot correction. If he is still adamant about being difficult, demand his information and call the MP's. With his strange demeanor, there may be more to him than meets the eye.

Response by Maj Matt Hylton made Aug 28 at 2014 9:30 PM

Maj Matt Hylton — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:30:04 -0400

"Sounds like a threat to me. Also sounds like disrespect to a higher ranking officer. Lets go talk to your supervisor/CO, or if you like, we can go straight to JAG."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2014 10:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:28:51 -0400

? Why is this Soldier being so confrontational?

I don't see anything particularly wrong with wearing a google glass when you are not accessing sensitive information, but the attitude is a problem.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Aug 29 at 2014 2:41 AM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 02:41:21 -0400

My response to the soldier, in my most emphatic and shrilly voice, "Oh my gosh! You're that guy from 'To Catch a Predator'!"

Then I'd grab my cell phone and record him...probably follow him around for about 7 minutes yelling out "hey this guy is from 'To Catch a Predator'!"

haha :)

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Aug 29 at 2014 12:36 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:36:31 -0400

I'd say "on camera" those are awesome. To bad they don't make a rear-facing camera too. Maybe in the next version. Have a great day Soldier....then choke him out from behind.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Aug 29 at 2014 2:40 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:40:41 -0400

I would pull out my phone, begin recording, and then say "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you, could you repeat that?" If he didn't walk away himself then I would bring up, calmly, all his violations (AR 670-1, disrespect, opsec). Get his info and inform his chain of command and the MPs.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Aug 29 at 2014 2:43 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:43:51 -0400

I can assume everyone is stating the Goolgle glasses should not be worn while in a military uniform or even in civilian attire in or near secured areas such as an arms room, or areas clearly marked with a sign that states "NO CAMERAS ALLOWED". What would someone do if you saw an individual wearing civilian attire in the PX in the Power Zone looking at TVs and wearing Google glasses? As an MP I will tell you that anyone can asked him questions but you must identify yourself whether or not you're in uniform or not if your goal is to identify him or her as a service member. If you ask for his or her ID and they refuse, then walk away, you can NOT detain them by force just because they refuse to identify themselves to a non law enforcement (LE) person. They can decide to walk away before the MPs get there. If you detain by force without probably cause you can be charged with possibly assault, false imprisonment and maybe even kidnapping. If I was the responding MP, I would identify all parties involved, instruct the individual to take off his Google glasses while I processed the situation, and decide if there was an offense committed.

Response by SFC Stephen Tryon made Aug 29 at 2014 4:18 PM

SFC Stephen Tryon — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:18:43 -0400

AR 190-53, 1-4.d. Non-consensual recording of wire and oral conversations is prohibited ... Additionally there is a DA Pam about video and still photography on military bases and the legality of doing such without individuals consent.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 5:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:48:40 -0400

If I'm wearing a nametag, I guess I can't break his Google glasses before I stick them up his @$$.

The OP doesn't say he's in uniform, so I guess we are assuming he is in uniform and it's probably in violation of AR 670-1 - these are no different than Bluetooth headsets or other "electronic devices" that are prohibited.

Then there is the insubordination/disrespect that Col. Burleson mentioned.

Then I'm thinking that there is something, somewhere, that is violated by a soldier walking around shooting real-time video and uploading it onto the internet, on a military post, but I can't cite a reg.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 6:14 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:14:30 -0400

Where in this hypothetical does it state that the soldier is in uniform? I guess one could argue that you wouldn't know if he's a soldier otherwise. I feel this is a loaded question. The statement made by the fictional soldier is completely irrelevant and has seemed to bruise the ego of some people on this thread. I assume a lot of people would react negatively if someone spoke to them like that, and if you have any sort of power over that person, part of your reaction would be based on emotion. I would let the MPs handle it. As far as this being an OPSEC issue, if Google Glass is unauthorized at the PX/BX because of its transmissive and recording capabilities, then smart phones and iPods should also be unauthorized. So by that rationale, a dependant taking a selfie in front of a Taco Bell or somebody taking pictures of TVs to compare prices should be treated the same way. If he's in uniform, then no doubt he needs to be lit up on the spot. There's no regulation in any of the branches that would allow for that.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 8:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:37:00 -0400

We have managed to serve perfectly fine without Google Glass for all these years. I think AR 670-1 would cover designer glasses anyway. And besides, they look stupid.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 8:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:51:50 -0400

Inform said solder that he was in violation of AR 670-1, Order him to remove them.

Go ahead and post the video online, that just creates an evidence trail that can support his UCMJ.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2014 9:26 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:26:10 -0400

I would respectfully and politely inform that soldier that I am his superior in rank and not tolerate being talked to in such a disrespectful manner. I would also inform him that according to AR 670-1 Para 3-10 he is in violation of with those glasses. I would get his name, rank, Unit, and first line supervisor and report his behavior to them.

Response by SSgt James Stanley made Aug 29 at 2014 9:32 PM

SSgt James Stanley — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 21:32:19 -0400

If the individual approached me in that manner told me that, I'm afraid he would not be wearing those glasses one second later!

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Aug 30 at 2014 12:09 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:09:10 -0400

I couldn't afford it anyway.

Response by GySgt Kevin Brunetti made Aug 30 at 2014 1:06 AM

GySgt Kevin Brunetti — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:06:32 -0400

First off leaving uniform and insubordination regulations aside, how are we to know just what is being uploaded? Is the soldier mapping the area for an attack later? Now?

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2014 9:14 AM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:14:34 -0400

This soldier is completely out of line. However, the Army might want to think about issuing these to record training and combat events. The footage could then be analyzed for a more accurate AAR.

As for all the people making comments in regards to secure areas, that's stating the obvious. But also, there are a lot of fields where soldiers, never even see the inside of a secure area in their entire career.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2014 11:28 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:28:25 -0400

Violation of AR 670-1 regarding faddish sunglasses
Verbally threatening another soldier, one that outranks him
Filming on a Army instilation for commercial use (he stated he is publishing it online: citizen journalism is a recognised form of journalism) without coordination with garrison PAO

Keep your cool and give him a lawful order in a level, calm manner. Simply tell him to stop and take them off IAW Army regulations and policy. Failure to do so is punishable under the UCMJ. If he acts a fool, detain him for the MP's. Hopefully he IS auto uploading the video and is providing public proof of the incident (filming his own guilt).

Lastly, dont forget that 670-1 is now a putative regulation...

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 30 at 2014 12:49 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:49:58 -0400

I think we should be the biggest salesman of this product since it is an outgrowth of Military Technology being adapted for civilian use.

Response by SGT Charles Tittl made Aug 30 at 2014 4:56 PM

SGT Charles Tittl — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:56:45 -0400

Ask him if he has permission from the base commander and the provost marshal to be doing what he's doing, grab him by his ear and take him to the mp's.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Aug 30 at 2014 5:04 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:04:17 -0400

I would flat out ask them What it is they are doing that they need me to "walk away" from? Here I was already minding my own damn business while shopping, and suddenly others need me to "go away" ? What are they STEALING?

If you have the nuts to Act Honorably, you need not fear a Camera.

Of course some might turn away...I wouldn't want to be cast by anyone as an accessory to whatever crimes they are committing, by just walking away.

Then you have that whole debacle about military BX/PX/AAFES pricing, and the military debating about nixxing all of that out, and/or opening up more of that business to Veterans no longer wearing the uniform...Perhaps if they'd settle all of that, the prices wouldnt be so high that the "Lance Corporal Underground" needs to steal. And yet, if they are stealing...then you get into why are these people wearing the uniform in the first place?

See how one can of worms impacts many others here? =)

And then of course....if you just have to bust out a can of Whoop Ass ... well Im not saying you should, or shouldn't do that....but if you do...its far less likely any of that will make it to a public website =) Sure their's always someone who wants to take this and make it into some kinda of Military Hazing BS story, but there are also some who just wouldn't want the public embarrassment of you whoopin that ass.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Aug 30 at 2014 9:23 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:23:02 -0400

"Go away before you are embarrassed by the video you post."

Response by TSgt Travis Fritz made Aug 30 at 2014 10:53 PM

TSgt Travis Fritz — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:53:34 -0400

I would ask him to "tag" me in his post when he uploads it......As I help him up from the ground...He had a case of the "tripsys", or he was suffering from "fall downs", after he has been helped off the ground.....being the caring NCO that I always was I would then hand him back his now inoperative Google glasses with a caring...but thoughtful voice....."these must have broke during your fall.....maybe pay attention to your surroundings and tragedies like this won't happen....now go to the BX/PX, get a new pair of glasses, and go back to recording your cats new tricks, playing videos games, that magic card game, making your hand fall asleep for a as you call a "dirty stranger" or some other thing that you consider art, or what you call art....or.....you can keep falling down, and buying new google glasses...have a great day....oh...and watch your step".....Anyways....When has it ever been wrong to correct a Jr. Ranking individual for doing something that is either disrespectful, or perceived as disrespectful. ...This may be the problem with our current NCOs. ...don't be afraid to correct anyone.....be it senior in rank or Jr in rank, use tact, and stand for what's right....even if the exchange is recorded the person that is correcting the other is right there for all to see.....This was always my number 1 weakness while serving...it wasn't a bad one...but it surely was useful.....I was always able to "make a decision"....I may not have been always right....but I made a choice. I think what the this scenario is try to see is how we would react, or what decision would we make in a moments notice. Put the regulations aside, this is a human thing, a decision to act or not to act....Our first thought is always violence. ...because that's how we are wired, thanks to our training....what the antagonist wants us to do in the eye of the camera is to react, react violent, or to start screaming out regulations, or call for the police.....I on the other hand would just respond with "I don't do interviews, I don't sign autographs, I'm just a guy that served my country, an ordinary, plain guy with a family I love, and a country I would die for, thank you for the attention. ....but I'm already on camera 22 hours out of the day anyways.....The eye in the sky tells no lie....thanks anyways". Then I would walk away....is that yellow?.....was that not the reaction he expected?......no....it was the right decision. If you all are afraid to be recorded...well you should stay in your house....because they are all around us. I work at a hospital on a base, I counted the number of cameras I am on while going to work....I counted 18 cameras on my commute (5 mins from base) and then 5 more watching me walk.....don't be afraid of Google glass guy....you always being watched. Hope everyone has a great weekend, thanks for the interesting post.

Response by SPC Ryan Dostie-Osenko made Aug 30 at 2014 11:44 PM

SPC Ryan Dostie-Osenko — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:44:47 -0400

Maybe the military had changed since I've been in, but I can't imagine a soldier having the balls to threaten anyone two ranks above. That shouldn't stand! How insanely disrespectful! Drop him into the forward leaning rest position and inform his chain of command. This isn't the civilian world and that sort of behavior is not allowed. If he can't deal with that, then his rear end needs to be kicked out.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2014 12:49 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:49:32 -0400

if he is in uniform this is simple: its not authorised.

AR 670–1. Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia

Response by MAJ Joseph Parker made Aug 31 at 2014 1:24 AM

MAJ Joseph Parker — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 01:24:59 -0400

A Commissioned Officer need only tell the soldier in a calm, level, professional, and authoritative manner that the soldier is violating several articles of the UCMJ and acting with disrespect, indiscipline, and bringing discredit upon himself, his unit, and the service (it's all going on the tape, remember). Then order the soldier to give his/her unit and commander's name, and to stand fast until his unit commander arrives. Any failure to comply on the part of the soldier just racks up more charges and specifications. The officer should tell the soldier's commander that he will personally and immediately refer the charges through the base's general courts-martial authority, that the soldier appears to be a security risk since he is trying to coerce and extort commissioned officers during a time of war.

The incredibly stupid thing about this whole scenario is that the soldier is filming himself/herself repeatedly violating the UCMJ and then publishing it on the internet. When are the ranks going to learn this is so DUMB?

I'm somewhat amused by many of the NCO solutions to this scenario. As a Commissioned Officer I could not possibly condone it; and if present would definitely have to focus my attention on the fishing lures or other outdoor equipment until the NCO's had finished their counseling of the individual soldier.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2014 9:42 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:42:52 -0400

Let me see, how do we attack this?
Wearing unauthorized eye pro?
Video recording on a military installation?
Recording a person without their consent?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2014 11:23 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:23:47 -0400

Considering that recording on a military installation is prohibited, with the exception of a few areas in regards to places like museums, graduations, etc I would stop them and inform them that they needed to stop recording and call the Military Police. More than likely they are going to send out Investigators to talk to the individual and possibly CID considering this person is recording locations around post.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 1 at 2014 12:10 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 00:10:15 -0400

I might have to use my PT belt in a violent manner to assert my retirementness.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Sep 1 at 2014 12:36 AM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 00:36:35 -0400

Knock the glasses off his face, stomp on them, and turn him into his chain of command. The soldier was being an ass to begin with.

Personally, I think they should be outlawed on military installations, but then again, if someone wanted to do some video damage, cell phones could be used in a more discrete manner to get an unwanted privacy violation.

I am sure there are some legal issues regardless if the soldier uses google glasses or a cell phone, if they post it on a public website then IMHO, it is a violation of privacy.

Response by SSG John Bacon made Sep 1 at 2014 2:11 AM

SSG John Bacon — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 02:11:42 -0400

I do believe that would violate 670-1 specifically the section covering approved eyewear. Corrective or Protective. They would have to re-write the regulation to include wearable electronic devices. If you can't wear a Bluetooth headset outside of your vehicle in uniform then google glass is defiantly out.

Response by SGT Nate Lowe made Sep 1 at 2014 3:00 PM

SGT Nate Lowe — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:00:24 -0400

I think the point is about how to handle Google glass, not an insubordinate soldier as that is pretty simple to answer. Why you would seize on that tiny part of the conversation when the OP clearly wants opinions about use of Google Glass and how to handle soldiers that wear it when you out rank them. So imagine that there was no disrespect given and the soldier didn't say anything to you but you see him wearing it on authorized prescription glasses....what do you do?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2014 10:40 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:40:58 -0400

Get his/her information. It sounds disrespectful, even threatening. I would just ask in the most polite way possible to get their ID card, name or other information. That is obnoxious AT BEST.

Response by CPO Jay Kirk made Sep 1 at 2014 11:20 PM

CPO Jay Kirk — Mon, 01 Sep 2014 23:20:51 -0400

I would probably tell him something like "I had those on last night at your mom's house, and you're right, you can post it online very quickly. I already have 11000 hits.". Then I'd contact the base JAG and find out how to get those banned for the good order and discipline of the entire base.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 12:48 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:48:40 -0400

After the Soldier woke up from me having he/she choke them-self with my hand, I would inform he/she to read AR 670-1 and to come find me once they knew the correct answer to why those Google Glasses could not be worn in uniform.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 10:50 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:50:48 -0400

These will eventually be issued to Soldiers. Wearing them will be enforced just like PT belts. We should not be afraid of technology. The technology is already available. There are cameras in pens. Disrespect though can never be tolerated.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 12:47 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:47:58 -0400

Not within regs if in uniform and should not be allowed on the base because of the potential for accidentally recording something classified. Especially should not be allowed in work buildings or areas. If you do allow them on base. Only in gyms or recreational areas

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 1:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:37:45 -0400

To put it under a different perspective while not a civilian version, but a for work version I see a great use for this! When climbing towers to perform maintenance it enables hands free photography of the condition of the tower but it also documents the maintenance action for records purposes. I can see a great many uses for maintenance folks T.O's on a heads up hands free display!

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Sep 2 at 2014 2:50 PM

CWO2 Shelby DuBois — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:50:51 -0400

For over 200 years we have fought an died for your right to be a jerk. I'm sure your parent is proud.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 3:07 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:07:52 -0400

Let's see. AR 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) Chapter 3, Para 10a(1) states: "Conservative civilian prescription eyeglasses are authorized for wear with all uniforms". Google Glass can be considered "trendy" and, therefore, not conservative.

Further, in the same chapter, Para 10a(3) Eyeglasses or sunglasses that are trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized for wear. Soldiers may not wear lenses with extreme or trendy colors, which include, but are not limited to, red, yellow, blue, purple, bright green, or orange. Lens colors must be traditional gray, brown, or
dark green shades. Personnel will not wear lenses or frames that are so large or so small that they detract from the appearance of the uniform. Personnel will not attach chains or ribbons to eyeglasses. Eyeglass restraints (to include bands) are authorized when required for safety purposes. Personnel will not hang eyeglasses or eyeglass cases on the uniform and may not let glasses hang from eyeglass restraints down the front of the uniform. Glasses may not be worn on top of the head at any time".

Hmmm... so let me get this straight. Glasses or sunglasses with, "trendy or have lenses or frames with conspicuous initials, designs, or other adornments are not authorized...". This Soldier is in violation of AR 670-1.

Further, because of the nature of these devices, they can be used to inconspicuously record troop or government civilian movement on post and record that information for use at a later time. It seems this could also be considered an act of terrorism.

I would get the Soldier's ID and detain him under violation of AR 670-1, contact the MP's and let them contact the Soldier's command after they conduct their investigation.

Further, I would report this violation to my security officer and have them follow up with the provost marshal's office and other offices as necessary. I would take any and all direction concerning this potentially egregious offense as given by my command and the appropriate offices of authority.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 2 at 2014 3:15 PM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:15:41 -0400

I Googled this to see what it even is (pun intended).

I think my initial reaction would be disbelief that the guy paid $1800 for the thing.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 2 at 2014 4:27 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:27:27 -0400

Is having our kids attack him from the knees down an option? Technology is getting too creepy for me.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 2 at 2014 4:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:48:39 -0400

Given the Soldier would be enlisted, the level of respect is definitely not there. Spoken clearly, I would put the Soldier at parade rest, and then pull out a notepad from pocket (always carry a notepad) and my phone to record the conversation. Starting from his first line supervisor, to his first sergeant, I would begin to list those in his chain of command that would like to know who is recording the base and trying to intimidate NCOs. And, keeping a level tone, because it is being recorded, I would ask the Soldier the purpose of broadcasting such details of a base to the world and how doing such acts fights terrorism? I mean, since he is recording it after all, it might as well be linked to some helpful power point classes... And, then lastly, I would ask him to remove them.

Listen, Google glass could be helpful in teaching all kinds of tactical situations, but like any other tool, it needs to be discussed and common sense regulations should be enforced.

Response by PO2 Jared Thomas made Sep 3 at 2014 11:17 AM

PO2 Jared Thomas — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:17:51 -0400

This is ridiculous. Should there be any question to what the response really should be? Google glass is not authorized in uniform. The prescription glasses are authorized (of course) but the device is not, plain an simple.

I would ask this person to remove the google glass immediately because it is not authorized, and if he refused, I would simply remind him that refusing would be disobeying a lawful order.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2014 10:19 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 22:19:21 -0400

My eye started twitching just from thinking about what I would say to this soldier...

Response by PO2 Christopher Fudge made Sep 4 at 2014 1:10 PM

PO2 Christopher Fudge — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:10:21 -0400

The soldier whom was wearing the Google Glass was obviously incorrect, and needs to be reminded of the correct articles for wear of their uniform. The disrespect shown to a fellow service member, whether superior or inferior is something that is immaterial to the article, we should be showing respect UP and DOWN the chain.

Somewhere along the line not only has training, but command structure, and camaraderie left this service member and needs to be reins tolled, so before we go casting stones, remember that all of us have most likely disobeyed some regulation at one time or another be it willingly or not.

Response by SFC Kevin (Ishmeil) Barnett (Retired) made Sep 5 at 2014 3:28 PM

SFC Kevin (Ishmeil) Barnett (Retired) — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:28:23 -0400

Wow, I only could imagine what I would do as a former Drill Sergeant. I also know we have a different mind set than back in the 80's so I probably would do the following:

1. PVT/SPC/SGT/SSG, lock it up
2. Read the AR 670-1 (whatever the reg says)
3. Have him/her take it off
a) If he doesn't MPs will be on their way (MPs would love that)
b) Chain of Command will also be involved

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Sep 18 at 2014 8:23 PM

SFC Vernon McNabb — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:23:35 -0400

Put the Soldier at parade rest and walk away. Tell him he can record you as you walk away, and that he is not to move from that spot.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Sep 18 at 2014 11:44 PM

SSG Mike Angelo — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:44:21 -0400

The military has always been slow with emerging technology. In the 70s, photo grey prescription glasses were perceived as "sunglasses"...so I had to remove my glasses and put on my military issue glasses while in formation.

Emerging technology such as Google glass may be perceived in the same manner. Is it military issue? No? then this uniform infraction can be challenged and the service member can be front and center to maintain discipline within the ranks. I don't know if unit bulletin boards exist anymore, since alot of communication is online. Hmmm.

How much of the duty day is face to face and how much is virtual and online? Definitely not my era or generation of expertise.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 8:00 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:00:07 -0400

Sir, unfortunately this is such an overt way to do something like this. With today's technology everything you say and do can be recorded via third person on any smart phone. So at any given moment you could be recorded by audio or video. The scariest part is that this could happen on your personal phone without your knowledge. Now back to the glasses, if the SM is in uniform then thery are in violation of 670-1. Also, I personally would get ahold of CI because the locations being recorded could have unintentional value to the enemy.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2014 2:37 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:37:11 -0400

There actually are state a federal rules that cover some of these situations involving privacy and law. Recording conversations in a federal building, and photographing in certain areas may be a security violation under old laws and new HLS. Can quote sources later.

Response by SFC Jorge Gonzalez jr made Nov 16 at 2014 10:54 PM

SFC Jorge Gonzalez jr — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:54:19 -0500

I would tell the soldier to remove them the are not IAW with AR 670-1

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 26 at 2018 10:25 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:25:18 -0500

We would be visiting his commander real quick- that is an implied threat on his part and a promise on mine