Funny thing that, it's mostly people without the google glass that are acting like the last 7 letters of your post.

This has nothing to do with google glass, other than a headline whore trying to hype his article.
Any video capture device, like every smartphone, security camera, and other form of video camera on the planet can be used for this.

No, that would wreck the entire engineering of getting rid of the windows in the first place.
Besides, there are display systems with a reliability that is more than adequate, and it's probably redundant in some fashion just to be sure.

Hey, maybe they have a couple of Oculus Rifts stored in the glove compartment just in case the big screen goes wonky, or they want to play a quick game of Battlefield before leaving international airspace. :p

It's already known, and has been for decades now, there are lazy irresponsible & incompetent judges that keep pre-signed blank warrants in their desk for the cops to grab without bugging them.

Since the dog can't smell memory, it must have been trained to smell something about the electronic components. That's bound to trigger a LOT of false positives in the modern world.

This might be a fun thing to do. Get a lot of old flash drives, sd cards, and the like, the old super cheap ones of course, and stick them everywhere. Under the carpet, taped to the bottom of the drawers, in the hem of the curtain, etc. After 30 or 40 of them, somebody is going to get sick of playing that game, and it might be the dog, If you're really mean, store a picture of a treasure map on each one, and maybe some lists of random hexadecimal numbers.

It'll drive them nuts. To really get the point across when they ask, just tell them the truth, that it's a joke, there's absolutely nothing of value stored on them, and yes, you want them back and undamaged. :P

Sorry to hear you have such a fragile ego.
Too bad you would rather do some rather unhealthy mental things than apply a little skepticism towards some unsubstantiated and extraordinary claims.
Do you always have these psychological breaks when someone questions the hype-engine?
I guess the various summer guaranteed blockbuster movies tend to be a great source of unanticipated despair for you.

It boils down to this. Somebody with relatively little experience and training in a particular field has just claim he can outdo the activities of numerous others in the field, including full blown corporations, by an industry shocking factor of 10, and yet has shown no substantiated proof of this amazing deed, and yet some people want to lambaste the skeptics for demanding proof before cowtowing to the new supposed paradigm of 3d printing.
This is a case where his age is an obvious and extremely blatant indication of his unavoidably limited experience and training, which doesn't preclude him from having done exactly what he claims, but without the necessary proof to back it up, it's just more hype and not substantiation. Had this been a 34 year old landscaper that had been messing with tech for the last 8 years, and got into experimenting with 3d printing in the last 3, would you still be hailing these wild claims as the word of god and attacking those that want proof, or would you have instead be heckling the upstart that dared to claim he's better than everyone else in that field?

Somebody is being pretty arrogant and foolish, and it's not the skeptics.

Now it is possible the kid has found something that everyone else missed, it happens all the time in innovation, but don't put money on it until there's proof since most of those types of claims are at best huge exaggerations, and sometimes even outright lies.

Can, Should, and Will Only Due So With A Valid Court Order are very different things.

Sure they can, but how do you think every user of Google products will think if any company out there can say, "oops, didn't mean to send that, google, go fix my screw up and delete that from peoples inboxs."?

Should they do it? Maybe, but again, at this point we only have Goldman Sachs word that they 'should'. Maybe their entire story was fabricated and it was proof sent out by a whistleblower. Maybe it wasn't sent by a whistleblower, but it is proof of illegal activity that should be turned over to the appropriate legal or regulatory agency. We only have the companies word for it, and do companies ever lie about stuff like that?

So Google is going with "Will only due so with a valid court order" on this. Good choice. You won't piss off the customers because a court made you do it, and you won't get yourself in legal trouble because a court made you do it. Yep, this is the right choice if they have any functioning brain cells at all.

There's also a fourth option of just plain refuse. Claim the mail system is sacrosanct and it won't be messed with. Of course there are two big problems with this. First is almost nobody will believe you. Second is you are then looking at a big as legal battle you probably won't win because you are not the federal government. That's why I didn't list this one in the beginning, though I did mention it at the end to avoid having a million responses pointing this one out.

That's my say, disagree or whatever ;)

Good point. What if it's proof of illegal activity. The account holder should forward it to the police, several different news outlets, and wikileaks just in case. ;P

And then do it again using something other than Gmail just in case they put up a filter to prevent that.

As far as I'm concerned, Goldman Sachs totally screwed up by sending confidential information to a member of the public in the first place. Their error is not sufficient reason for Google to panic or violate the trust of their entire user base just to fix someone elses stupidity.

I hate the sound of those whistles

Don't forget to cremate the remains, and mix the ashes with concrete and use it to make blocks that are then dumped into several different deep ocean trenches.

"Life is imperfect."
Yet extraordinarily tenacious and perverse.

I hadn't thought of that yet, but it would totally put a damper on that kind of b.s., even more so if they confiscated the car and phone. (Evidence and all that.)
Though to be honest, I'm morally opposed to confiscation with no intent to return to the proper owners after evidentiary needs are met.

If you have a parking space for renting there, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. Same if they decided to rent your bedroom to a tourist as a B&B. Your rental agreement provided you with your place (I'm guessing an apartment) and a parking spot. The landlord is not able to then legally rent out to someone else what you are already renting.
ianal, but damn, there are some things that are pretty bloody obvious and well documented to even the public.

It's probably a screw up.
I'm betting they intended to black out everything except a couple of random articles, both definite and indefinite (like the, an, a), but the magic marker ran dry and while that person was looking for a new one in the office supply cabinet, the messenger came by and picked it up with the other requested, but already censored to uselessness documents.

And the stuff that does get through pisses us off enough we often swear to never use that product.