>> Tech site CNET has speculated that it might be a floating data center, while the local CBS TV affiliate points to a floating store for Google's wearable Glass computer. <<
A giant floating store to sell Glass, that is made out of metal shipping containers? CBS has gone off the deep-end.
>>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project
An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<<
EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.
> On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff.
WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector?
To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
> Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it."
>>This document describes systems and methods that may be employed to provide data center (e.g., computing, telecommunications, or other similar services) support in an area quickly and flexibly. In general, computing centers are located on a ship or ships, which are then anchored in a water body from which energy from natural motion of the water may be captured, and turned into electricity and/or pumping power for cooling pumps to carry heat away from computers in the data center.<<
ATTENTION TINFOIL-HAT WEARING HN READERS: You may now start worrying that these barges are in fact floating versions of the NSA's Utah data center, built to accompany the USS Jimmy Carter as it roams around tapping undersea cables [1]
The sub has very limited data storage capacity, these floating 'privacy destroyers' do not.
So I've been thinking about this and I am getting a bit upset that a corporate entity can stop a government policing and enforcement entity and make them sign a NDA. Coast Guard has the right to board any nautical vessel for inspection, no?
Can you imagine the police hearing screams and cries for help from inside a building and the corporate owners of the building stop them and say, well you cannot come in unless you sign this NDA first.
Coast Guard has the right to board any nautical vessel for inspection, no?
Is it actually a nautical vessel, or just a floating anchored data center? If the latter, it may still be a vessel technically but there won't be much "nautical" about it.
I would imagine the "unreasonable search & seizure" protection would protect people until the ship was actually moving. Maybe even until there is good reason to search it.
coming up in 2014:
Google shipping. With data mined from youtube and the google crawler our new service can generate slash / shipping storys for any couple you want! (For legal /copyright reasons all shipping is done in international waters).
[+] [-] lylebarrere|12 years ago|reply
A giant floating store to sell Glass, that is made out of metal shipping containers? CBS has gone off the deep-end.
[+] [-] deletes|12 years ago|reply
>>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project
An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<<
EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.
[+] [-] markdown|12 years ago|reply
It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.
[+] [-] e12e|12 years ago|reply
WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector?
To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
[+] [-] ZoFreX|12 years ago|reply
> Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it."
Which is it? :/
[+] [-] mcv|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johansch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deletes|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
Google could just troll everyone by floating the barges away and nothing comes of this.
[+] [-] adamnemecek|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopybuns|12 years ago|reply
Google: put up or shut up. This is stupid.
[+] [-] danshapiro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tombrossman|12 years ago|reply
The sub has very limited data storage capacity, these floating 'privacy destroyers' do not.
[1]http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx5/6/21038/975021/975021.html
[+] [-] naaaaak|12 years ago|reply
Summary: We know nothing and can't say.
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
Can you imagine the police hearing screams and cries for help from inside a building and the corporate owners of the building stop them and say, well you cannot come in unless you sign this NDA first.
[+] [-] gngeal|12 years ago|reply
Is it actually a nautical vessel, or just a floating anchored data center? If the latter, it may still be a vessel technically but there won't be much "nautical" about it.
[+] [-] waps|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robmcm|12 years ago|reply
(And host monkey knife fighting)
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noptic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fit2rule|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jachwe|12 years ago|reply