Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

Unknown Lamer posted about 6 months ago | from the probable-russian-spy dept.

Privacy 1034

An anonymous reader writes "A Google Glass user was interrogated without legal counsel for a couple of hours under suspicion that he may have been recording a film in the AMC movie theater. Although the matter could have been cleared in minutes, federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our constitutional freedoms." Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do): "Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong." Update: 01/21 21:41 GMT by U L : The Columbus Dispatch confirmed the story with the Department of Homeland Security. The ICE and not the FBI detained the Glass wearer, and there happened to be an MPAA task force at the theater that night, who then escalated the incident.

cancel ×

1034 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022643)

Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole!

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022795)

No, the lesson from this story is "don't live in the US".

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46022873)

More generic lesson; don't point a video camera at the screen in a movie theater.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (5, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | about 6 months ago | (#46022961)

More generic lesson; don't point a video camera at the screen in a movie theater.

Exacly! If you for some reason like to walk around wearing a video camera all the time, you should consider taking it off before going places video cameras are not allowed (Don't wear it when helping your daugther change in the girls change room before swimming either!).

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023067)

Cue men, penises, rape, "have the tool"...

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 6 months ago | (#46023033)

Why? Because some overzealous pimple-faced minimum-wage snot might call the fucking FBI over it?

No, keep wearing them. And let the idiots keep involving the fucking FBI every time, until they give up with the bullshit nonsense.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (5, Insightful)

allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) | about 6 months ago | (#46023061)

It's absolutely pathetic if the FBI actually gets involved in cases like this. Oh, no... someone might be copying data or recording a movie screen! This looks like a job for the FBI! Certainly not a case where the property owners should just kick the guy out, no... the FBI!

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023073)

Yeah!
Don't forget to bring a rifle for the movie, it's got a prescrption scope so it's okay.
And if you don't like clothes then walk around naked in the theatre too.
That'll show them!(that you need to be arrested)

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023101)

The FBI are apparently being bought off... There is no reason for this to happen, if the morons in the FBI simple could have walked outside and had a look, and the guy insisted they look as he had nothing to hide.

How many people are sneaking into movies with some sort of hidden device? A man walks in with a obvious device attached to his head, and knows better then to record a movie, and you have a couple of moron agents that decide to waste there time, over nothing.

I've dealt with these assholes, over poppies growing in my yard, the garden variety not the obvious illegal ones. And over making liquor, and possibly growing pot. It doesn't help when I mouth off to them if there going to trash my place over some non existent "lab", or "distribution" then I am going to be an asshole myself.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! (5, Insightful)

pantaril (1624521) | about 6 months ago | (#46022965)

Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole!

No, the lesson from this story is that copyright is unsustainable with our emerging technologies which will enable us to record everything without anyone noticing.

Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. (5, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 6 months ago | (#46022651)

He should have just explained that he wanted to read his texts without being shot.

Re:Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. (5, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 6 months ago | (#46022767)

I think this is what you call getting Scroogled

Re:Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022827)

I think this is what you call getting Scroogled

Ironically, I wonder how many people will Google the term "Scroogled"...

Re:Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022941)

> I think this is what you call getting Scroogled ...or Microshafted, depending upon your technology du-jour...

Planned intimidation tactic (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022657)

Law enforcement and Government in general doesn't like when random citizens record things. It makes it harder to railroad people in courts afterwards if there is actual footage of an incident.

So anyone using Google Glass can expect to be bullied and harassed whenever it can be done with a "reasonable cause". And yes, law enforcement is not happy that just wearing something like that isn't grounds for it. But hey, do it in the movies and those Hollywood-lobbied antipiracy laws give them perfect justification...

Re:Planned intimidation tactic (3, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | about 6 months ago | (#46022823)

Oh come on.

This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue. And tries to use novelty of said device to his advantage.

Police, etc... they are used to being recorded on cellphones or dash cams or security cameras or by eyewitnesses. This is nothing new for them. They do dislike it - but everyone does.

There is another side of coin: The more footage of every person there is, the more opportunities you have to find something incriminating or blackmail worthy. I am not afraid of cops getting free pass on some assaults.

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras, analyzed for weaknesses and exploited. Anytime you run afoul of little pointless law, anytime you do something that can easily be taken out of context to villify you, any secret you might want to keep secret.

That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.

I am not afraid of cop dropping "resisted" or "was unccoperative" on me, I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.

Re:Planned intimidation tactic (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 6 months ago | (#46022949)

There's only so far they can go with that. Eventually people will just figure out that everyone's shit stinks and move on with their lives.

Re:Planned intimidation tactic (2, Insightful)

pantaril (1624521) | about 6 months ago | (#46022999)

That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.

You are shooting the messanger. The progress in our technologies will bring the lack of privacy you describe regardless of google or any other group.
Our only option is to deal with it. First step would be to abolish stupid laws which force us to do many things in secret like criminalisation of drug consumption and production.

Re:Planned intimidation tactic (5, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46023099)

Oh come on.

This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue. And tries to use novelty of said device to his advantage.

Police, etc... they are used to being recorded on cellphones or dash cams or security cameras or by eyewitnesses. This is nothing new for them. They do dislike it - but everyone does.

There is another side of coin: The more footage of every person there is, the more opportunities you have to find something incriminating or blackmail worthy. I am not afraid of cops getting free pass on some assaults.

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras, analyzed for weaknesses and exploited. Anytime you run afoul of little pointless law, anytime you do something that can easily be taken out of context to villify you, any secret you might want to keep secret.

That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.

I am not afraid of cop dropping "resisted" or "was unccoperative" on me, I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.

I don't see how your example of blaming specifically Google/Glass for this problem has anything to do with the current cache of thousands of walking cameras under government control. The nightmare of surveillance is already upon us. If Google Glass were pulled as a product tomorrow, the absence of "glassholes" will not guarantee an absence of abuse. The dossier man you fear can still come regardless.

Ironically, the person wearing Glass in a movie theater is being watched by several cameras at that time. Like I said, the abuse mechanisms are already in place, and you don't control any of them.

Re:Planned intimidation tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022927)

Chalk up another one for the Corporatocracy - Big Business and Big Government working harmoniously to insert Big Things into the Little Guy.

Tricky situation... (1, Troll)

bayankaran (446245) | about 6 months ago | (#46022663)

No one likes glassholes, FBI or AMC. And to top it, this glasshole goes to watch 'Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit'!
May be its punishment for choosing to watch that picture.

Re:Tricky situation... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 6 months ago | (#46023043)

And still - that shouldn't be a reason for unreasonable searches.

And? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022667)

It is their right to investigate. You asked for it by pointing a camera at the screen through a movie. Most people don't aim their phones at the screen like that so that argument is DOA.
I hate the term "glass hole" but this kinda makes me want to use it myself instead of just quoting it.

Re:And? (1)

Calydor (739835) | about 6 months ago | (#46022719)

So why not actually investigate by looking at the contents of the memory rather than detaining him for hours for questioning?

Re:And? (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | about 6 months ago | (#46022875)

I'm guessing they were hoping for a confession which makes for a much stronger case than just evidense.

Re:And? (5, Informative)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 6 months ago | (#46022969)

Which is why you need the two magic phrases: "Am I free to go?", "I want a lawyer".

Seriously, hours of a moron trying to "verbal" a confession out of someone when he had the whole and entire evidence in his possession. This is a perfect example, you are never helping yourself by cooperating with this crap.

Am I free to go? [No.] I want a lawyer.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about 6 months ago | (#46023011)

That's something I never understood in the U.S. justice system. It relies too much on testimony and confession and not so much on evidence. Humans err. Humans err the whole time. Wishful thinking, prejudices, wanting to have seen something that wasn't objectively to be seen, coerced testimonies and confessions cast so much doubt on them. But their words are taken as pure gold in court. Attorneys General refuse to withdraw their accusations, courts refuse to overturn convictions in light of new evidence just because there exists a confession or even just a testimony about the existance of a confession, whatever dubious the circumstances where during which it allegedly came about.

Re:And? (1)

allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) | about 6 months ago | (#46023083)

It is their right to investigate. You asked for it by pointing a camera at the screen through a movie.

Yeah, this is almost as bad as running a lemonade stand without permission from the government. How horrible it is that someone might be recording a movie screen! Call the FBI!

Glasshole vs Evil government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022669)

I am confused who should I be upset with? I hate the government, but when they screw a glasshole I can't see how there can be any losers.

Creepy (5, Insightful)

sosume (680416) | about 6 months ago | (#46022671)

This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?

Re:Creepy (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 6 months ago | (#46022709)

They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.

Re:Creepy (5, Insightful)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 6 months ago | (#46022729)

Your empathy with someone wrongly harassed and detained is impressive. Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim? They know what they are doing, you know, they're not idiots. Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every move?

Try to be annoyed at the right people, this stuff matters. Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.

Re:Creepy (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#46022799)

"Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim? They know what they are doing, you know, they're not idiots. Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every move?"

Yes. There are only 3 easy rules to follow and they always work.

1. Don't talk to the police.
2. Don't talk to the police.
3. Don't talk to the police.

Ever!

Re:Creepy (4, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | about 6 months ago | (#46022901)

Actually that's incorrect.

What you need to do is say: "Lawyer".

Every time they ask you a question, respond with lawyer - you will have a really strong case against them if one isn't provided.

Re:Creepy (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022869)

He was using a video recording device (i.e. wearing it with the camera pointed at the screen) in a cinema. All cinemas I've been to forbid that kind of thing for obvious reasons. I don't think he was "wrongly harassed and detained". He could have manipulated the device in a way which makes it very difficult to see if anything has been recorded. The device could present a whitewashed view of the flash memory. He should have been detained long enough for a judge to sign a search warrant and then his Google Glasses should have been confiscated for a forensic analysis. Upon finding nothing (let's assume he actually did not record anything), the FBI should have returned the glasses and warned him not to use them where cameras are forbidden..

Re:Creepy - Informative ? The opposite actually (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022771)

They only got to see because he caved.

From TFS (The Fuc... Fine Summary) :

Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do)

Funny that the saying goes that "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", but when push-comes-to-shove and you obey that rule you get ignored. Almost as if they have too much fun with their "interrogation" and do not want to have it stopped short ...

And pardon me, hours of interrogation for an allegation of having recorded something ? I shrudder to think of how many days of interrogation I can look forward to for having been seen jaywalking ...

Re:Creepy (5, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | about 6 months ago | (#46022935)

They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.

Presumably after paying a vendor $15 to sit in a dark room for two hours, one would assume he would "point" his face at the very thing he paid for. Gee, can't wait for your argument here when Glass comes in prescription form. I suppose all those with bad eyesight will be assumed criminals.

And standing your ground with your Rights is going to cost you at least $3000 in legal and courtroom fees, along with time off from work. If someone is truly innocent and they know this, and don't mind sharing their personal information to prove their innocence, then the person is not a "glasshole". It was wrong for what the Feds did. The problem with their brash arrogance is they know the average citizen can't afford to defend their Rights in court, so they abuse their own rights and manipulate citizens.

Those who argue what he should or should not have done should remember what YOU would do in that situation, facing thousands in legal costs simply to stand your ground. Unless they fire up kickstarters to start funding those defense costs, the average citizen WILL cave. And LE and government WILL target the poor. They know what happens when they target the rich. Sad, but very true.

Re:Creepy (5, Interesting)

mrbester (200927) | about 6 months ago | (#46023095)

Best part being his Glass *was* prescription. So not only is he guilty of pointing his face at a screen, he also is guilty of wanting to be able to discern what he is looking at. Presumably that costs more than the standard $15 he paid...

Re:Creepy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022861)

Imagine twenty years ago you come into a theater, point a video camera at the screen. When police arrives you say "I'm not filming!". And then start complaining about them inspecting your private videos.

We can expect more glassholes like this, or that in a car saying later "It was off" in court, obviously lying, but policemen didn't check, so there is no proof. The way to fight it is to inspect everything, within the law of course. Disrespect to others privacy should result in disrespect to glassholes.

Re:Creepy (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46022929)

This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?

You are quite ignorant about what is going on there. While being under suspicion of having committed a crime, you can be investigated, there can be search warrants, and so on, all while you are "presumed innocent". Then you may go to court. And there the judge tells the jury "the fact that this man is here in court and accused of a crime, and the fact that these policemen spent many hours looking for evidence, doesn't mean he is guilty. You start looking at him as 'presumed innocent'. Then the prosecution will show evidence against him, and the defence will show evidence for him, and then you decide based on the evidence and nothing else".

The situation that happened was one where someone who was actually guilty and not investigated immediately would easily be able to destroy all evidence against them. You will be denied the basic human right of taking a shower if you are found near a body who was stabbed, with blood on your hands, and quite rightfully so.

Re:Creepy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023053)

This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?

Fortunately, this story is 100% made up.

#1: The FBI doesn't ask you questions they don't already know the answer to.

#2: Law enforcement doesn't conduct laptop forensics in the field.

#3: The FBI doesn't investigate crimes unless it involves damages above $3000.

This is just some blogger trying to attract clicks on his website.

choice (5, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | about 6 months ago | (#46022673)

> federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our
> constitutional freedoms."

Didn't he have the choice of just getting up and leaving? Was he under arrest? If he's not been arrested, how's he lost a freedom. And if he has, challenge it in court. Sounds like he's missed a trick here.

Re:choice (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022725)

If you RTFA he mentions that it was a "volentary interview" but if he did not cooperate "bad things" would happebnn to him.

Re:choice (1)

polar red (215081) | about 6 months ago | (#46022739)

isn't that extortion ?

Re:choice (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 6 months ago | (#46022967)

You call it extortion, they call it standard operating procedure.

Re:choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023087)

You call it extortion, they call it standard operating procedure.

Those two are not mutually exclusive you know ... :-)

Re:choice (3, Informative)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 6 months ago | (#46022981)

Police in the US (and hence the FBI) have been allowed, by repeated court rulings, to lie to and trick suspects during an interrogation.

Re:choice (0)

waspleg (316038) | about 6 months ago | (#46022727)

It's called being Detained. We can "detain" you indefinitely without saying you're under arrest. You can't leave. So it's arrest without rights. Ask a Gitmo inmate.

Re:choice (4, Insightful)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#46022955)

No they cannot, in the USA you can only be detained long enough to do a resonable investigation or write you up.
Also please learn the basics about the people and Gitmo vs some one in the USA.

Re:choice (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46023039)

Being detained is considered a form of arrest by the Courts.

Re:choice (4, Insightful)

vilain (127070) | about 6 months ago | (#46022783)

Yeah, first question would have been "Am I being detained?" followed by "I want to call my attorney and I don't consent to a search", all while recording audio at a minimum to his Google Drive. They have to stop questioning him until an attorney arrives or anything they get is inadmissible. Of course, "cooperating" with the FBI, while really stupid, won't necessarily stop the interview process. Why didn't he just invoke his rights and wait for an attorney. Yes, he did nothing wrong. But the FBI doesn't know that and would have held him anyway.

Re:choice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022857)

TFA said they took the glass from him and would not return it nor give him access to a computer with an internet connection, he metions that they searched his phones so presumeably they would not have let him dick around with them before he handed them over.

Put your toy away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022685)

What the hell is wrong with this guy - and that wingnut who was wearing Glass while driving?

If he is so afraid that he is going to miss a tweet then he should stay home in his mother's basement.

Just maybe ... (2)

AGMW (594303) | about 6 months ago | (#46022713)

It's just possible that the glass was providing viewing notes for the film, to allow him to better understand the subtle nuances, to immerse himself in the cleverly constructed character back-stories ... [what? 'Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit'? ... oh]

Re:Put your toy away (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 6 months ago | (#46022723)

As the article states the Glass had prescription lenses;

I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time.

Switching glasses can be annoying

Sue (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022687)

Seriously, just sue the theater.

Re:Sue (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46022859)

For what, exactly?

Re:Sue (3, Insightful)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46023049)

Violating his civil rights by falsely reporting his medical equipment as being something criminal, when they had no evidence of a crime, and could have cleared with a simple conversation. They had every right to ask him to leave, but not to make a false report.

Was this detected by anti-piracy hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022693)

Something like http://www.pirateeye.com ?

If this story is true.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022701)

If this all really happened (really we just have a friend of a friend posting on some site) then it's a good example of why "I have nothing to hide, so what am I worried about?" type of argument is so stupid. Guy is completely innocent of any wrong doing, and they grill him for hours, and he's still shaking a day after. If you've ever been in a situation where you're being accused of wrongdoing, you know how infuriating/scary it can be, especially when you're completely innocent. Really, he should have said either charge me or I'm leaving, but how many of us would want a federal case against us, even if it would eventually get dismissed? What recourse would he have after the fact, to dissuade this sort of behavior from the police in the future? Instead, he tried to clear himself immediately, and they still grilled him for hours.

Of course, people will just say you shouldn't bring a camera into a movie theater. Nevermind we're all guilty of this - it's likely your phone has a camera as well. This one just happens to be up on his face.

Re:If this story is true.. (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | about 6 months ago | (#46022757)

One core aspect of the problem here is the Hollywood lobby has managed to turn a civil matter copyright infirgment into a criminal one and also got the public footing the bill for most of the investigative work.

These people are vipers.

Re:If this story is true.. (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 6 months ago | (#46022845)

One core aspect of the problem here is the Hollywood lobby has managed to turn a civil matter copyright infirgment into a criminal one and also got the public footing the bill for most of the investigative work.

These people are vipers.

I wonder if someone is in charge of federal agencies like the FBI.

I wonder if the Hollywood lobby supported and promoted him to no end.

I love all these Slashdot stories full of vague anger at ... somebody or other ... since we can't be angry at the One Who Must Not Be Named.

Re:If this story is true.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022921)

William Clinton?

He is the one who started all this draconian copyright law bullshit.

Re:If this story is true.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022937)

One core aspect of the problem here is the Hollywood lobby has managed to turn a civil matter copyright infirgment into a criminal one and also got the public footing the bill for most of the investigative work.

These people are vipers.

Which is why it deserves to be crushed by the Information Technology industry - at least then we may get more interesting movies.

Re:If this story is true.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023027)

One core aspect of the problem here is the Hollywood lobby has managed to turn a civil matter copyright infirgment into a criminal one and also got the public footing the bill for most of the investigative work.

These people are vipers.

If that's the case (and I never thought I would hear myself saying this), then Google should work with the accused and offer up their own legal team to sue the living shit out of the theater for the time lost, embarrassment, emotional stress, etc. to simply make a point against those who wish to turn their users into criminals for doing nothing more than using their product (or in this case, just wearing it).

Sorry, I don't like the product for many of these reasons, but I hate abuses of power even more.

Land of the free, gentlefolks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022703)

It's a Brave New 1984.

The Land of the Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022711)

Another heart warming tale of the US government looking out for its people.
 
No wait, I meant to say, the US government finds another oriface to fuck. I would suggesst voting in more competent people to run the place but we all know why that doesn't work.

Sue them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022717)

This is one of those situations that just proves that technology just moves too fast and what really should have happened was that AMC should have had the user put a piece of plastic over the camera part of the Glass device and tell them if they see it powered on while the movie is on they will be escorted from the premises.

They can detect camera devices in theaters you know. Everyone has a damn smartphone. Hell the most recent thing I've seen in the theatre (that only had two showings) the staff threatened the audience exactly as I described above before the movie started.

Re:Sue them (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 6 months ago | (#46022907)

This is one of those situations that just proves that technology just moves too fast and what really should have happened was that AMC should have had the user put a piece of plastic over the camera part of the Glass device and tell them if they see it powered on while the movie is on they will be escorted from the premises.

That would have been slightly less dumb and an action you probably could agree on.

An *informed* and sensible descision would have come to the conclusion that he cant be a movie pirate because:
a) no one wants to see some shaky screener. I refused to watch those even back then when it was cool to collect movies from eDonkey. No movie ever was worth getting a headache from watching it just to save those few bucks.
b) anyone who wants to record the movie would have at least TRIED to hide the camera. at the moment, GoogleGlass is the most expensive and most obvious way to make everyone notice the camera. (hmmm, perhaps the theater staff fell for a decoy and the guy with the ACTUAL camera was sitting besides the Glass-Guy...)
c) (it would have taken a Google serach for that, but I'm talking about informed descisions:) Video recording drains the Glass battery after a few minutes.

To sum it up: That device is simply not suitable to record a movie in a theater. For the reasons listed above.

On the other hand, suitable or not, AMC could simply ban the use and/or wearing of Glass-like devices. (there are more to come)

This story is fucking stupid. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022737)

Dice. #shutthefuckup

And I'm talking about the owners of slashdot.

#robmalda aka Commander Fucking Taco, can you shut these fucking idiots up please?

kthxby!

Battery life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022759)

My recollection was that the battery life on those things while recording was crap anyway (like 20-30 min. tops [digitaltrends.com] )... everyone's afraid of flying cars, and no one is realizing you need fusion reactors to make it look anything like the movies....

"So LONG FOR..."? (3, Informative)

Dialecticus (1433989) | about 6 months ago | (#46022773)

Which did he mean? "So MUCH for our constitutional freedoms", or "So long TO our constitutional freedoms"?

I wonder how this will go down in the UK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022817)

You know, when the gov't-- I mean, Big Brother forces us to wear these by law, so they can keep track of us in our day to day lives and make sure we're not plotting to overthrow them.

Just have to ask... (-1, Troll)

HetMes (1074585) | about 6 months ago | (#46022837)

What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age. I think you desperately hoped this would happen, probably tried a few other theaters that wouldn't bite first. And finally, you found one that did, giving you a nice story to cry about on all the digital forums. Congratulations, dude, you got your 15 minutes.

Re:Just have to ask... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022895)

If you'd read the article you'd know he had perscription lenses put in them, that's why he wore them to see a film (the emphasis is on "see").

Re:Just have to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022977)

It is not like he cant get non-recording glasses with prescription. he was an ass any way you put it.They were not right to interrogate him, but that does not make what he did any better.

Re:Just have to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022985)

What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age...

Yeah Google, just what in the fuck were you thinking making a product like Google Glass in this time and age...

Yeah GoPro, just what in the fuck were you thinking making a product like chest-mounted HD cameras in this time and age...

Yeah Remington, just what in the fuck were you thinking making a product like a gun in this time and age...

I hope you see your fallacy in blaming the damn product here, regardless of his true intent as someone wearing prescription Glass(es).

Re:Just have to ask... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022987)

congrats.

you have become a mindless slave of your government/corporation masters and now think it is somehow wrong to do something that is perfectly OK and (still) legal.

And than you even have the audacity to talk other people down that stand up to such wrongness.

What a miserable example of a slashdot accountholder.

Re:Just have to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023013)

Perhaps rectal exams are entertaining.

Re:Just have to ask... (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46023057)

What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age.

Yeah, freedom is so last millennium.

Yet another glasshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022839)

Why do we care that an asshole took a camera in a theatre, pointed it at the screen for awhile, and then played along with law enforcement so he'd have a story for the internet? Seriously, fuck these guys and their google glasses, society won't change for them, and it shouldn't. HE WAS ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A STORY, they all are.

And why the fuck would anyone be surprised that they looked through the contents of all the guys recording devices, to reiterate he was pointing a recording device at the screen. That's probable cause. If he needs glasses, he should wear glasses, not a high tech recording device that will cause irritation and make him appear to be committing crimes.

Re:Yet another glasshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022851)

This isn't even a real glasshole story, this is some secondhand fiction off a blog.

Guilty... (1)

guygo (894298) | about 6 months ago | (#46022843)

until proven innocent, right?

Re:Guilty... (1)

buck-yar (164658) | about 6 months ago | (#46022979)

I hope you are trolling because this is standard interrogation technique used to put any one of the many thugs behind bars. You may think its no big deal to record a movie, but the law says differently. Up to a $250,000 fine, 5 years in prison and a felony. That means no voting for the rest of your life, and you can't own or buy guns.

What use... (4, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 6 months ago | (#46022893)

...is a phone call if you cant speak?

Once you are in there they control your reality. If you try to wrest that control from them they will make you pay in some form. In my long experience (including family killed by police - unwarranted, and personally prison time), many to most cops are bullies, or grow to be so in the culture they work in. The ones that are not tend to get weeded out or self select out.

This guy should have never spoken to them. Period. Arrest me, give me a lawyer or let me walk out the door. No other words should have escaped his lips.

When you are innocent that is hard to fathom, especially without experience of this type of treatment, but unfortunately it is true. If yo notice, the cops involved slowly went through obviously non-related materials. What if he had his kids bath time photos/videos on there? An over zealous cop could have charges him with child porn charges. Oh, uploaded them to G+, that's distribution there sonny.

I know some of those still caught in the fear and slow panic the government and media feed them will attack and say that would never happen. To them, all I can say is wait till it happens to you.

Made Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022923)

This wreaks of being made up. Notice how far it is from the primary source and the lack of names. The theater called the FBI and they had people sent out to a theater in Ohio in an hour?. A guy with business cards calling himself Bob Hope? Who even goes to the movies every week? No one! There aren't enough good movies.

This was made up by some crazy libertarian wanting to spread paranoia about the government.

Re:Made Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023037)

Or to try to get it accepted to bring more technology into a private establishment against the owners wishes. it backfires because most of us can see that the situation could have been avoided by the guy simply acting in a socialy acceptable way instead of going "me me me". the presciption glasses part is a red herring - to get sympathy. if he can afford google glass he can afford a pair of normal glasses for use when requested not to wear the GG.

Two words ... (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 6 months ago | (#46022925)

1. Lawyer
2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them.
http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu... [popehat.com]

Re:Two words ... (4, Interesting)

m00sh (2538182) | about 6 months ago | (#46023025)

1. Lawyer 2. Warrant

Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them. http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu... [popehat.com]

I faced a similar situation.

They are highly trained. They know how to push buttons, muddy matters to confuse you to get you to do what they want you to do. They will keep fishing until they find something that bothers you.

It is not easy as just saying lawyer and warrant.

I would suggest practicing the scenario. Just thinking you can say lawyer and warrant etc is completely different than when you are in the situation.

For example, technically the police cannot search your car or belongings. However, they can search for weapons or they can search if there is some suspicion etc etc. There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

Oh, the humanity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022939)

Somebody almost thought about 'illegally' filming a film!
Do film studios seriously think that people are going to stop going to the cinema, if they can watch a crappy, shaking, terrible audio version of a film, recorded in a cinema?

Re:Oh, the humanity! (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46023093)

What is funny is NONE of the illegal versions of films are done in local theaters general seating. NONE. They are done by the staff in the booth or more typically the screeners are recoded at the Studio it's self.

Only the utter crap wanna-be releases are camcorder in a theater.

But the MPAA wants us to feel like dirty criminals when we go to the theater instead of cleaning their own house like they need to.

Arrest him! (1)

dkf (304284) | about 6 months ago | (#46022945)

Sounds like the guy needs to be arrested for wasting police time. How dare he be obviously not guilty of the thing he was accused of?!

If he *had* been recording... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46022991)

...he would have wiped the recording the moment he felt they were on to him. And then protest innocence, offer to let them search his devices, and so on.
I cannot even tell whether he's guilty or not, how's a security guard supposed to know? Just put the thing in your pocket when you enter the theatre.

Stubborn does, Stubborn gets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023007)

He deserved to be detained and grilled. He elected to be be self-righteous and exercised his rights even though there were questionable flags. In return, the authorities made it as difficult as possible for him staying within their rights. I'm a conservative and I understand my freedoms but there is a bold line between freedom and being an a-hole.

You should not have let them view your photos (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 6 months ago | (#46023015)

You should not have let them view your photos without a warrant. They had no right to do that. I realize it is easy for me to talk tough when I was not in the situation, but allowing cops to do this kind of thing is what allows freedoms to be degraded.

Testing the limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023017)

I am moderating - some of the fine comments made here - but I think this needs to be said.

Right now Google and the Glastronaughts are testing the limits of societies ability to adapt laws to itself in a very visible way. My observations in these matters are that the governments of the day usually find some pretty fucked way to clamp the brakes on these things in a most undesirable way that leaves people wishing they hadn't.

Unfortunately most people are so apethetic the exercises in testing legal limits become the only way to enact such a change. Google, in that way, is also conducting a social experiment in seeing how they can be part of shaping our world in a profound way. I can only hope that the good will in which they are doing this is not seen as niavety in the years to come.

As Technologists we have a role to play in such things as the sleeping giant of Information Technology is only now begining to wake up and assume its place in society. The first of those who were born with the web are only just reaching their 20's, their notions and understanding of the importance of human rights, legalities and privacy are still a long way from being matured.

And soon there will be billions of these glass devices.

As a glass wearer (4, Insightful)

TomGreenhaw (929233) | about 6 months ago | (#46023047)

Guys like this are what gives glass a bad name. Its about what you would expect a theater to do if you pointed a camera at the screen the whole time. That said, you couldn't really record the whole movie, and even if you could, it would be jittery and not great resolution. Yet another case of misunderstood technology being foolishly abused.

Sorry (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46023051)

OK, I know this is trolling, and I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing news like this, and I have to say it: You have the most fucked up legal system since Iran.

Done, I feel better now.

Land of the Free (1, Insightful)

thatDBA (2626877) | about 6 months ago | (#46023055)

This is just a reminder that you live in the "Land of the Free"

Cops are scum (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#46023069)

They are complete scum, they love the power trip they have and they enjoy feeling that they are in control over people.

These FBI assholes faces need to be published on the internet so that people can know that they are scumbags and to be avoided at all costs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>