AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. by mosb1000 · 2014-01-20 22:06 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Just trying to avoid a potential safety issue. by tripleevenfall · 2014-01-20 22:39 · Score: 5, Funny

I think this is what you call getting Scroogled

Planned intimidation tactic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by zwei2stein · 2014-01-20 22:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by pantaril · 2014-01-20 23:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by geekmux · 2014-01-20 23:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Calinous · 2014-01-21 00:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tobacco is addictive. Alcohol can become addictive. Even computer games can become addictive. Where do you draw the line for drugs versus non drugs?
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-01-21 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

getting a BJ was nearly cause for impeachment.
Actually, I think it was the perjury about the BJ that was the proximate cause for impeachment.
Never mind that the instance violated workplace sexual harassment laws (yeah, when your boss suggests a BJ, it's a bit more of a problem than if some random guy in a bar does the same).

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by ifiwereasculptor · 2014-01-21 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I am not afraid of cops getting free pass on some assaults.
I'm very sorry to hear that and to see it moderated +5 Insightful. I hope you change your viewpoint on this topic and I also hope nothing too drastic has to occur for you to realize how terrible what you just said is.

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.
Yes, that sucks, too. But government servants, especially those that have our sanction to act violently, must be watched as closely as you describe.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by hawkinspeter · 2014-01-21 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd lose sleep if tobacco and/or alcohol were banned. Imagine how much organised crime would benefit from banning those two - It'd be like prohibition all over again.

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by ClintJaysiyel · 2014-01-21 00:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Police ABSOLUTELY ARE NOT "used" to it. Please follow the PhotographyIsNotACrime blog for a year or so and come back when your attitudes have been adjusted to reality.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by TheGratefulNet · 2014-01-21 00:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

don't argue with those who have clearly closed minds and no room for seeing others' POVs.
people like him won't change their minds. don't even waste any time on them; they are a lost cause. the next generation may be a bit more open minded, but people like him are why we still have draconian laws on our books and why we jail people for plant usage.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by sosume · 2014-01-21 00:56 · Score: 2

How about I decide what I do with my own body, and you decide what you do with your body mmkay? If I want to funk myself up with drugs, that's my choice. If I have to steal to pay for the habit, well lock me up for stealing.
If you decide that I should not be able to decide what I do to my own body, well I guess that goes both ways and would set a nice precedent for criminalizing various acts ranging from impregnation to breathing in the wrong air. Please stop trying to decide what's good for others, it's not appreciated.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by ray-auch · 2014-01-21 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh come on.
This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue.
He could not put the "recording device" down because it is also his glasses, which he needed to see the screen from his seat.
This is going to happen more and more - wearable tech which augments is going to merge with prosthetic tech which enables / replaces. In future people who are currently blind may see via retinal implants coupled to electronic glasses with cameras (which may or may not record - how would you know ?).
What are you going to say to such people in your environment "in which it is a big issue" ? What do you suggest - deny the disabled prothetics for fear of the cyberman ?

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras
Newsflash - most of your life is already recorded by hundreds/thousands of (organic) walking cameras and always has been. Recording is imperfect and reading out the data is a bit tricky currently (organic interface...) - but we'll probably fix that soon (find that scary?). You can currently avoid these cameras though - just avoid any other people. More scary to me is the possibility of billions of flying crawling insect sized cameras so small they can essentially never be avoided - but each to their own.

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 fear that far less - in pretty much any area, as create and capture tech improves so does faking-it tech. By the time they have thousands of hours of footage of every part of everyone's life, it will also be trivial to get a few images of you and insert "you" into any video scenario they want. Most peoples' lives are way to boring to spend the time reviewing all that footage - far more likely they'll just turn up with some very convincing footage of you doing interesting things with children and/or animals and/or recreational chemicals. Who cares if it's real ? In fact, with sufficient investment, they could pretty much do that now. The future will just make it cheaper and easier. No google glasses required.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by BobMcD · 2014-01-21 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dude lied while under oath. Full stop.
He did not have to answer the questions at all, due to the Fifth at a minimum, and to the irrelevance you mention. He could at least have deferred to his attorney. Instead he elected, of his own free will, to lie. This is a crime.
Labeling such as 'bullshit politics' puts you in the same camp as Nixon claiming that the President is above the law. Personally I feel that those in authority should be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lesser one.
If I had my druthers, they would be under oath whenever in public, period.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by shaitand · 2014-01-21 03:40 · Score: 2

The "sole purpose" thing is nothing more than a red herring. It makes no difference what a things purpose it. It only matters what it does. Playing video games and engaging in any activity you find rewarding, fun, satisfying, or gain a sense of accomplishment from alters your brain chemistry in pretty much the same way as addictive recreational drugs. There's really not much difference between a substance that triggers your brains reward pathways and an activity which does so.

Do a little powder cocaine with your eyes wide open about what is happening. Cocaine doesn't really provide any euphoria, just a feeling similar to a cup of coffee, but it does provide a model for distilled addiction. The addictive properties are strong, so blatant you'd have to be particularly obtuse to not recognize them, and fortunately mostly subside as quickly as they come on. There's a constant feeling of needing/wanting something, no different than the feeling you get when you need a cup of coffee in the morning, something sweet, a snack, a drink, something to do, or even an unspecified impulse where you aren't sure what the answer is. The answer if you've recently used cocaine is pretty much always cocaine and the only euphoria is the same feeling of satisfaction that comes with finding the answer in any of those other situations. Just like anything else that provides that feeling of satisfaction the more you find that answer the more you solidify the neural pathways associated with it.

Now having observed that, realizing what is happening and recognizing the sensation and behavior for a couple rounds, drop the powder (this is easier if you know what is happening and can recognize your brain trying to justify getting more). Cocaine will gradually be the answer less and less in your mind first being replaced by the most deeply entrenched things. These are your strongest addictions in more or less the order they appear, generally it starts with sleep, water, food, love, sex. Your brain justifies (quite easily as you are addicted to these for good reason) saying you haven't had these things in a long time. But note the need/want feeling is nearly identical to your urge for cocaine and the satisfaction of stuffing your face and/or finding that cozy bed is also nearly identical to the feeling of satisfaction when you found the more cocaine that was the answer. As the pieces of your life come back on the radar you will recognize that every one of them is the same.

Everything in life is nothing more than your brain triggering want feelings for things it has associated with reward pathways and triggering highly addictive neurotransmitters to trigger a feeling of satisfaction in response. Overdo it (where it is anything that makes you feel satisfied) at too great a frequency and your brain will become less sensitive to the stimuli in the same way you develop tolerance for a drug or your body adapts to attempts at diet manipulation or you become desensitized to violence with frequent exposure. But every so often you feel like you want something, your brain cycles through the potential paths to reward, the more highly rewarding and/or frequently rewarding the more you'll feel like you want it.

It gets confusing about there, because if you've logically concluded you don't want the thing when your brain requests it, you reinforce negative connections to the idea and your brain will request it less often and the urge will fade over time (but the more rewarding the thing is when/if you do finally have it and the more likely your brain is to "refresh" those neglected but existing reward links). If you decide against it but wish you didn't have to, your brain will do what I call a "shouldn't but I wanna" association and you'll find yourself making justifications for rewarding yourself with the thing, the easiest go to justifications being "it's been a long time", "look how good I've been, I can reward myself with this something something moderation", and "the bad thing is because of circumstance x, if I do y that changes the circ
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by Art+Challenor · 2014-01-21 04:12 · Score: 2

They don't really need the footage. Everyone is guilty of something. Selective procecution is the name of the game:

Prosecutors claim Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio was guilty of insider trading, and that his prosecution had nothing to do with his refusal to allow spying on his customers without the permission of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But to this day, Nacchio insists that his prosecution was retaliation for refusing to break the law on the NSA's behalf.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by Theaetetus · 2014-01-21 04:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Dude lied while under oath. Full stop.
He did not have to answer the questions at all, due to the Fifth at a minimum, and to the irrelevance you mention. He could at least have deferred to his attorney. Instead he elected, of his own free will, to lie. This is a crime.
That would be true, if that's what he did. He did not, however, lie. Full stop. Rather, he answered the question he was asked, taking advantage of some ambiguity in the question, while knowing that that wasn't the information he was being asked for. Specifically, he was asked if he'd ever had sex with Lewinsky, and when asked for clarification, the prosecutor defined "sex" as "intercourse", so he said no. That's completely true, but it's also intentionally misleading. That's why he was never charged or sanctioned with perjury by the court. Instead, he was sanctioned for willfully violating the discovery procedure.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by Hatta · 2014-01-21 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dude lied while under oath. Full stop.
According to the definitions agreed upon by everyone involved, his statement was entirely accurate. Full stop.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by shaitand · 2014-01-21 05:08 · Score: 2

"If that bloated pretentious undergraduate essay style waffle was an attempt at justifying drugs it failed."

Way to play kill the messenger. Unfortunately, attacking the source of an argument rather than it's content is a logical fallacy. Your argument is like a table and your premise are it's legs. My argument showed that each of the legs of yours were faulty or didn't support your table. In order to make a VALID argument, you'd have to successfully refute my argument. A fallacy is fine for falsely persuading people to agree with your invalid argument but serves no purpose if your objective is to reach a valid conclusion.

"Get back to me when someone picks a fight in the street or stabs someone for money or increases someone else's chance of lung cancer after they've had a few glasses of water or played a game of CoD."

Here you've artfully managed to combine at least three logical fallacies. You are using a plea to emotion to try to stir emotional sentiment with mention of violent crime and causing physical harm to others. You've built a strawman to beat down because you've mentioned easily demonstrable cases of negative things associated with some of the specific examples of addiction cited earlier (thus creating a resemblence to the topic of debate) but establishing those cases nor my providing counter examples adds or subtracts support for your assertion that "activit[ies], not a chemical you're ingesting whose sole purpose is to alter your brain chemistry - [they are] entirely different things." with regard to addiction. Also, you are asserting that nobody picks fights in the street, stabs someone for money, or increases someone's chance of [developing] lung cancer after drinking water or playing a game of CoD. This is called begging the question because the phrasing of your query assumes that you are correct.

Your strawman, while bearing plenty of resemblance to the topic is easy to demonstrate because you've provided no premise to support it. So I can trivially build it back up and demonstrate that doing so lends no support to my own argument nor does it detract from yours thus proving it was nothing but a strawman and does support either of our conclusions. Humans will die of dehydration in 72hrs or less without drinking water, therefore all of them have drank water at some point. Therefore every human that has picked a fight in the street, stabbed someone for money, or increased someone's chance of developing lung cancer did so after drinking water. If we assume that your strawman was intended to imply that water and video games aren't sources of people inflicting harm on others and disregard the qualifiers of specific types of harm, we have your red herring. Wars have been fought over water and the harm inflicted in them easily dwarfs any claimed drug related crime statistics. Mass school shootings, murders, and theft related to video games and possession of game items and funds are all examples of people inflicting harm on others after playing games and the murders and theft over in-game property.

People inflict harm both intentionally and through disregard in order to support their addictions. The level of harm is related to their perception of the harm being caused, the strength of their addiction, their desperation for a fix, and the difficulty of acquiring a fix. Name any example of someone causing harm to support/engage in addiction behavior and one or more of those factors can explain it without need to introduce any requirement that the addiction be to a chemical you are ingesting for the sole purpose of altering brain chemistry.
Re:Planned intimidation tactic by litehacksaur111 · 2014-01-21 05:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

No what make this bullshit politics is that Newt Gingrich was essentially doing the same thing yet presiding over the impeachment hearings. I mean seriously, why the hell do you care if someone is getting a BJ. Claiming that this is somehow as bad as Nixon trying to cover up the fact that he negotiated an extension of the Vietnam war to win an election is just stupid.

Creepy by sosume · 2014-01-20 22:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by AK+Marc · 2014-01-20 22:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Creepy by jareth-0205 · 2014-01-20 22:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by nospam007 · 2014-01-20 22:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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 by Splab · 2014-01-20 23:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by gnasher719 · 2014-01-20 23:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by geekmux · 2014-01-20 23:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by mrbester · 2014-01-20 23:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:Creepy by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-20 23:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

He was using a video recording device (i.e. wearing it with the camera pointed at the screen) in a cinema.
What does this have to do with the FBI!? Are you idiots seriously saying the FBI should get involved with this trivial garbage? This is why copyright law needs to be scrapped.
If they don't like it, kick him out.
Re:Creepy by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-01-21 00:25 · Score: 2

there can be search warrants,
And if there had been search warrants issued, I'd probably be saying the FBI did their jobs and nothing more.
Alas, that doesn't seem to be the case here....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Creepy by Rich0 · 2014-01-21 00:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

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".
That's only true if you accept that it is OK to ban pointing a recording device at a movie screen and not actually recording anything. I wouldn't be surprised if the law actually bans the possession of a recording device in a theater, which is something EVERYBODY breaks. Heck, there is a policy at my workplace that says that no employee may possess a camera that isn't registered with security. Back in the early 2000s (after everybody already had cell phone cameras) they even posted a sign by the gates stating that cell phone cameras are banned and should be turned into security. Even the corporate-issued cell phones were in violation of the policy. Yet, it remained policy all the same.
People with the power to make laws enjoy making laws that make no sense. They're always overly broad in their scope, that way they can use discretionary enforcement. The company clearly doesn't want to fire all of its employees, but if they even suspect that an employee is taking photos of documents or whatever they can just search them on the way out the door and sure enough they'll have a reason to fire them.
In this case Glass was also the guy's prescription glasses. Does he need to carry two sets of glasses now?
And who would use Glass to pirate a movie in the first place? I doubt the video quality is all that great, and it is attached to a head that is constantly bobbing around. Plus they are worn in plain sight. Anybody who wants to pirate a movie will just bring in a concealed camera and mount it to a stable surface, or more likely still just collaborate with the theater owner. The whole idea of distributing a movie to thousands of theaters and then trying to keep it off of the internet is crazy to begin with - all it takes is one recording, and if they happen to get 2 they can even strip out the watermarking by comparing frames.
Re:Creepy by gstoddart · 2014-01-21 01:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why would police ever arrive? That's the part that really doesn't make sense. Just why are police wasting their time with copyright nonsense?
Because they've bribed the lawmakers. Because Copyright is now policed under ICE, which is owned by DHS, which means the feds are the ones who investigate this.
Essentially, the copyright lobby has bought and paid for the laws which then cause federal law enforcement to be responsible to investigate copyright violations.
America is now almost an oligarchy, and the interests of those companies are now the interests of the state.
Fun, isn't it?

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Creepy by ceoyoyo · 2014-01-21 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Using the GPs shower example, if you're covered in blood and refuse a search you'll be held until a search warrant can be obtained. If the FBI did anything wrong here it was holding him for so long without searching him, since he voluntarily submitted.
Re:Creepy by marcosdumay · 2014-01-21 02:47 · Score: 2

Because a major part of the US's GDP depends on copyright and patents.
That's what happens when you benefit one industry at the expense of all the others.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Creepy by guevera · 2014-01-21 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim?
Actually, yes, from more experience than I'd like. However, this part isn't hard. You only have five things you EVER say to a pig.
1) No (if a pig asks to come inside, if her or she may search something)
2) Get off my property unless you have a warrant.
3) Why? (If a pig starts to search/enter over your objections, it's important to try and nail down their excuse in the moment)
4) Am I under arrest?
5) I want to speak with my lawyer.
Resist the urge to add pointless obscentity or insult. The pig is just doing its job. Rembember that the pig isn't so much an evil person as part of an evil system. Killing the pig is pointless unless it helps weaken the system. If the pig makes things personal, resist insult -- be polite, get the pigs name off the incident report, and then handle things later. Not hard to find out where a pig lives if you try.

Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every mo
So what. Every tactic involves the pig either manipulating your natural friendliness and standards of social behavoir to get you to talk or trying to intimidate you into talking. Just remember that the pig is not your friend and you should not treat a pig as if they were a regular member of society to which you have an obligation to behave courteously and with respect. And rember that no matter what a pig says, no matter what the situation, no matter how bad things look, there is never ANY benefit to talking to a pig until after you speak with your attorney.
You think you're innocent and everything will get cleared up easily if only you can explain things? So what. Your attorney can do it better. And your attorney probably won't get scared and talk his way into a felony beef. Better to risk spending a couple of days locked up than to talk to a pig and risk spending years or decades.

Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.
You'd think, right? The Supreme Court disagrees though. Look up Salinas v Texas.
Re:Creepy by Gryle · 2014-01-21 03:27 · Score: 2

In an ideal world, law justice and morality would all be equivalent, but until that time I'd much rather law enforcement carry out their duties using the law as their guide, rather than their own personal moral codes.* Historically, that's the sort of mindset that leads to the J Edgar Hoovers and Ministry of Truth-types. Maybe if the citizenry gets angry enough we'll finally do something about it.

*Yes, I know we have a ridiculously byzatine code of laws by which nearly everyone is guilty of something (Three Felonies A Day, etc) but we're speaking in the semi-abstract here.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Creepy by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-21 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that .380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Creepy by jareth-0205 · 2014-01-21 04:47 · Score: 2

The only way it doesn't work, is if you are actually stupid enough to keep talking.
They don't have to charge you! They can take you into custody without charging you for 48 hours! (72 in some states). I don't know how you can not think that's a problem. You want to play hardball, they can also do that.
Also, I'd like to see how well your police system works if everybody genuinely followed that advice. It would be impossible.
Re:Creepy by Solandri · 2014-01-21 09:29 · Score: 2

He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere.

I have both prescription glasses and prescription sunglasses. It is very easy to forget the other when I'm wearing one. When I go into restaurants and such at lunch, I often have to walk back out to my car to get my regular glasses after I notice how dark it is inside the restaurant.

Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that .380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.
Apparently you've "forgotten" that every smartphone has a video camera, and everyone brings those into the theater with them.

choice by Threni · 2014-01-20 22:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

> 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 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:24 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by vilain · 2014-01-20 22:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by will_die · 2014-01-20 23:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by FatLittleMonkey · 2014-01-20 23:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:choice by Aighearach · 2014-01-20 23:37 · Score: 2

Being detained is considered a form of arrest by the Courts.
Re:choice by msauve · 2014-01-21 01:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

$1000 minimum, and even more time wasted, to get a lawyer to come down so he could be questioned vs. letting them look at the pictures and video to confirm he wasn't recording in the theater.

Sometimes, pragmatism wins over principle.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

Sue by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously, just sue the theater.

Re:Sue by Aighearach · 2014-01-20 23:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

If this story is true.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.. by DarkOx · 2014-01-20 22:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Just maybe ... by AGMW · 2014-01-20 22:20 · Score: 2

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]

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk

Re:Creepy - Informative ? The opposite actually by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 ...

"So LONG FOR..."? by Dialecticus · 2014-01-20 22:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 22:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by mwvdlee · 2014-01-20 23:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

What use... by wbr1 · 2014-01-20 23:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

...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.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:What use... by Kinthelt · 2014-01-21 03:02 · Score: 2

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.
That's the theoretically noble thing to do. In reality he felt he had nothing to hide and laid it all out for them to see. Perhaps he figured it would be less of a nuisance than obtaining a lawyer and getting yelled at by the wife for wasting more money on that Google Glass thing.
Unfortunately, the cops are on the clock. They're getting paid to waste time. So trying to "save some time" really doesn't work.

--
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Re:Just have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-20 23:06 · Score: 5, Informative

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:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Carewolf · 2014-01-20 23:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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! by pantaril · 2014-01-20 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:And? by FatLittleMonkey · 2014-01-20 23:23 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Re:And? by Sique · 2014-01-20 23:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Re:Two words ... by m00sh · 2014-01-20 23:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

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...

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.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Seumas · 2014-01-20 23:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

As a glass wearer by TomGreenhaw · 2014-01-20 23:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

--
Greed is the root of all evil.

Re:Just have to ask... by Aighearach · 2014-01-20 23:42 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-20 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Cops are scum by Lumpy · 2014-01-20 23:45 · Score: 2

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Oh, the humanity! by Lumpy · 2014-01-20 23:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by durrr · 2014-01-20 23:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

In other countries some functionary will come up to you and say "put that away please".
Then they would politely ask you to leave, and then sternly ask you to leave. Then a security guard would forcibly haul you off the property.

Only in the US is are you getting law enforcement jumping to the opportunity to bust a guy a with a recording device in a movie theater. I bet they had the black helicopters and swat teams ready too.

Re:Creepy - Informative ? The opposite actually by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Send in a FOI request regarding the cost of this operation perhaps...

That really should be charged to the theatre or movie company, IMO.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by gsslay · 2014-01-21 00:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately we are quickly approaching the position, if not there already, where you can point a camera everywhere and no-one will ever know. If you can see it, you can record it.

Want to ensure no-one records something? Then don't let them see it.

I fully support the film industry's right to be paid for their work, but they have to face up to the inevitable. In the near future they will not be able to prevent cinema goers recording films. Their only options are to make the recording so degraded in some way, that no one will pay to see it, or make the experience of seeing it in a cinema so much better that people will not chose to watch a recording.

Re:Creepy - Informative ? The opposite actually by reboot246 · 2014-01-21 00:21 · Score: 2

In the case of jaywalking, they just beat the shit out of you. http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/cops-beat-elderly-man-after-he-jaywalked/

Get rid of copyright by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2014-01-21 00:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Throw away copyright laws ... at least as far as individual consumers are concerned. This is the future. Pretty soon we'd have recording gadgets so small and much more inconspicuous that only a TSA-style patdown/scanning will reveal them. So why bother imposing draconian copyright laws unless they're against those ripoff "artists" who try to sell other people's works for profit?

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by flyneye · 2014-01-21 00:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

THE BIG LESSON that should be learned here is;
When asked, provide your name, address and identification.
When asked anything further, your response should be Eat shit, porky, I dont see my lawyer anywhere, how bout you cunts go down to the gym and pump each other, till he gets here.

When dealing with those who believe they have unfettered power over you, it is good to show a strong understanding of your rights. If they persist, offer to donate some DNA to their wives, so their families wont be so inbred. Just wait for your lawyer and SAY NOTHING. They may hold you for a couple days, but eventually you will see your lawyer. When you get out, THEN call the press and post the shit out of it.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by umghhh · 2014-01-21 00:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I feel your sentiment too but you know it is not working this way, do you not? I mean whatever that is at the beginning - mass but mostly failed attempts to fight the IP crime (funny how that has a different meaning in my and their worlds) or just exercises in using certain laws, it all may change into silent mode in which most will not be bothered but some chosen ones will be, because law allows it. I know it from old good times under communist regime. The laws guaranteed us all the freedoms people in the West (allegedly) had. Law enforcement could chose to follow them or to interpret the laws in their own different way. In their interpretation for instance any expression of criticism against ruling party was a violation of some law. There is a good case for laws that are broad and vaguely defined so that authorties can use them to subdue people at will as everybody is a criminal. They do not have to do it but they can because it is easier this way and so comes a police state. It is not inevitable but likely. It does not have to be an evil NK style police state but for people put on register of pedophiles as in operation Ore it did not make such a big difference. They authorities got more sophisticated these days but this does not mean it is better for us citizens, especially for those that try to correct evil actions of said government. In Europe we are not that far yet but we are also going this direction.

Re:Just have to ask... by HetMes · 2014-01-21 00:28 · Score: 2

He *chooses* to integrate a camera with his glasses. There's a number of things I can imagine integrating with my glasses that would make wearing them problematic where simple glasses would be just fine. And how about he wore them in the swimming pool changing rooms during your sister's daughter's birthday party...?

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Sockatume · 2014-01-21 00:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not just law enforcement, but the F-B-fucking-I. What the heck is going on in the US that one guy seemingly recording a movie requires a prompt response from the most important crime-fighting agency in the country?

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

And when a "video camera" is in the form of prescription glasses, it tends to make this lesson...not one.

If you're a Glass owner, you know there are places where the device will be unwelcome or barred. You'd best have a non-videorecording set of prescription lenses, for basically the same reason you have prescription sunglasses. There are responsible Glass owners and irresponsible jerks. There are responsible dog owners and irresponsible jerks. Responsible car owners and irresponsible jerks. We have rules for discouraging people from being irresponsible jerks. The rules have not caught up with Glass, yet, so it's a lot easier to be narcissistic and irresponsible.

A collision of stupid by EdgePenguin · 2014-01-21 00:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Assuming the story is true...

1. The cinema guy is stupid for calling the FBI and escalating the situation way out of hand.

2. The MPAA/FBI are stupid for actually putting time and resources into fighting cam-rips. Absolutely no threat to the industry, as anybody who has tried to watch one knows. Letting pirates have their cam-rips just makes authentic cinemagoing look better.

3. The Glasshole was stupid for sitting in a cinema quite openly pointing a camera at the screen. Glass users appear to have their empathy surgically removed by Google, and are entirely oblivious to any kind of reaction anybody might have to a ubiquitous filming device. Repeating "but it isn't on" as a mantra does nothing to help. Having a face camera redefines your relations with other people and your environment, in an almost entirely negative way. You want to become a surveillance drone? Fine, deal with the social consequences.

I'm normally on the side of the little guy, and against big media throwing its weight around. Glassholes are sufficiently selfish and idiotic for me to momentarily switch sides. I've already written about what a crappy society such people would create: http://edgepenguin.com/content...

Re:Two words ... by Chrisq · 2014-01-21 00:38 · Score: 3, Informative

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...

...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.

Yes, I agree. This is also exactly why legal professionals have but ONE recommendation for anyone being questioned by law enforcement, regardless of the accusation or situation: STFU.

Readers in the UK should bear in mind that our legal system is different. If you STFU it may harm your defence if you don't mention something which you later rely on in court.

Just remember not to lend it to anyone else by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2014-01-21 00:41 · Score: 2

Because if you did and then the FBI downloaded everything(with your permission like the guy in the story) you might have some stuff to explain.

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.

not 'law enforcement' by Cardoor · 2014-01-21 00:45 · Score: 2

remember when the fbi dropped law enforcement as a primary mission a week or so ago? http://thecable.foreignpolicy.... so now they are enforcing copyright law? oh - silly me.. not about enforcement. about being the muscle for their corporate bosses.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Vanderhoth · 2014-01-21 00:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually this will be a real problem when they start having prescription Google Glass. People will ware them because they have to in order to see. If they take them off before going into a theater they won't be able to see the movie. I know the simple solution for them will be to just not go see movies, but it was a pretty similar scenario five to ten years ago with cell phones.

I remember once, after paying for a tickets, my wife and I got the the theater doors (big multiplex theater) and there was a guy with a bin and bags sitting at the door making everyone put their phones in little plastic bags, write their names on them and toss them in the bin. My wife and I stopped going to the theaters for a couple years after that. We were rather insulted they made us pay nearly $50 (no refunds) before making us give up our brand new phones without telling us a head of time and we weren't going to leave our phones at home just because the theater didn't want us to have them. Just as I suspected would happen there was a bin of phones stolen because the guy that was suppose to be watching them ran off for a pee brake. The theater tried to give everyone a free movie as compensation, but was ultimately responsible for replacing everyone's phones, I'm betting some that weren't even stolen, which ended up costing them several thousand.

And that was before people used their phones for anything serious like banking. I can only imagine the shit storm there'd be if peoples bank accounts started getting hacked after the theater lost them, but I'm off topic at this point.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by drinkmoreyuengling · 2014-01-21 00:48 · Score: 2

For starters, they'll always notice that you are 'that guy' wearing Google Glass. In case you haven't noticed, you people don't exactly blend in.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-21 00:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't you find it just a bit unbelieveable that the FBI is called in to investigate what is merely a matter of policy for a movie theater? What's next, bringing in the marines to root out and execute a homeless man sleeping on private property?

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-21 00:55 · Score: 2

How is it pathetic.

Because copyright law should be a civil matter. Or rather, it shouldn't exist at all, but at the very least, it should be a civil matter.

Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime.

Looks like we might have ourselves a government stooge.

There is nothing pathetic about it.

You don't find anything pathetic about the FBI getting involved in a case where someone was (allegedly) recording a movie screen? Really? Your sense of priorities is warped beyond belief. I think even most people who support copyright law aren't standing with you here.

For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".

It's up to the property owners to kick the guy out. Since it's private property, someone certainly can do it. Getting worthless government thugs involved is exactly the sort of thing that's wrong with this country.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by iapetus · 2014-01-21 00:56 · Score: 2

I assume you leave your mobile phone at home when you go to the movies, then?

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Dunbal · 2014-01-21 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is nothing pathetic about it.

The pathetic thing that you're missing, Mr "I Am Happy Living In A Police State", is that no "crime", federal or otherwise, was committed. I can't wait for the day when I can get you pulled over by a bunch of thugs for the entire afternoon complete with 3rd degree and cavity search just because I dunno, I just don't like the look of you and don't think you should be wearing what you are. I mean, you COULD be a terrorist...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by iapetus · 2014-01-21 00:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Read the article; it was prescription Google Glass, and he didn't have a standard pair of glasses with him.

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by jbolden · 2014-01-21 01:01 · Score: 2

Then he gets arrested on reasonable suspicion rather than questioned. The laptop may happen after his arraignment. Which creates an incentive for the FBI to find other illegal stuff. Moreover a federal arrest in and of itself is a rather big deal.

So no, your approach doesn't work.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by kenh · 2014-01-21 01:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Copying a movie is a federal crime, not a 'theater policy'.

Are these prescription Google Glasses? If not, he should have put his google glasses in his shirt pocket, and if they were prescription glasses he should consider getting a pair of non-google glass prescription glasses - there are many places where cameras are not allowed (movie theaters, locker rooms, some government facilities, etc.)

--
Ken

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by jbolden · 2014-01-21 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

The FBI's prime directive is to protect the citizenry from corporeal harm, not protect the corporations from perceived financial harm.

The FBI's prime directive is to, "to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States".

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-21 01:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-21 01:32 · Score: 2

That's not the FBI's job.

It's the job of citizens to ignore and challenge these laws. To start with, the FBI should never have been called.

The "it" private property isn't owned by the owners of the movie.

That is irrelevant. If the owners of the movie theater don't like cameras in there at all, they can kick him out.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Prof.Phreak · 2014-01-21 01:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

No it isn't. http://news.slashdot.org/story...

--

"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by knarf · 2014-01-21 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Even more generic lesson: don't go to that cinema, ever again. Or any other cinema for that matter, there are better things to do with your time. Better things to do with your money as well.

--
--frank[at]unternet.org

Re:And? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2014-01-21 01:40 · Score: 2

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.

This sounds great. And maybe for some people it is. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? Then by all means, this is for you. I'm pretty sure that Joe Average Citizen does not have his own personal lawyer available at a quick call. So what happens then? Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer. Suppose they just give you a phone and say "OK, find a lawyer to call"? Who do you call when you've never had to do that before? Yes, this sounds great, but the odds of some average guy getting Saul Goodman (Breaking Bad reference, for those who don't know) to magically fall out of the sky to defend him seem pretty remote to me.

the popcorn kids don't have much training and $500 by Joe_Dragon · 2014-01-21 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

the popcorn kids don't have much training and the $500 bonus is a lot when you work at min wage.

http://rt.com/usa/mpaa-camera-...

Re: by davide+marney · 2014-01-21 01:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to the article, he was told it was a voluntary interrogation. At that point, he should have just taken down the names of all the officers and movie theater staff and left.

AMC is a terrible movie theater franchise. I carry my laptop in a backpack and get asked all the time to open my bag before going into an AMC theater. I always refuse, and they always bluster and threaten, but they still let me in. I don't mind having my bag searched as long as everybody's bag is being searched. I do mind being singled out for special handling. Other movie theater chains don't do this at all.

AMC, I hope you get a ton of well-deserved bad press from this latest episode.

--
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hol by morgauxo · 2014-01-21 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, it does. Protect a few rich guys bonuses while allowing normal individuals to be financially broken by thieves.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Kjella · 2014-01-21 02:03 · Score: 2

How would a cinema enforce a life-time, chain-wide ban? Just keep bugging them and don't forget to lawyer up.

The second time you "bug them" they charge you with criminal trespass? At that point it doesn't matter what you're doing, you're breaking the law just by being there. Even if you're not bugging them, if a security guard recognizes you when you're out with family or friends and have left your Google Glass at home they still have the right to have the cops arrest you.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Hollywood accounting is infamous - so not much tax by dbIII · 2014-01-21 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

potentially millions in lost tax revenues on the lost movie revenues

HA!
Check out "Forest Gump" on Wikipedia to get why your argument is so ridiculous. No profit no tax.

Lobbying allows plenty of representation without much taxation by getting a blind eye turned to vast amounts of fraud. You are paying for the FBI to to this, not Hollywood since their money is going to the people that are not supposed to take bribes but can take "lobby" money.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hol by lagomorpha2 · 2014-01-21 02:04 · Score: 4, Informative

And you are comparing the total theoretical cost of all piracy everywhere to the actual damage of a single burglary. Compare millions of dollars in theoretical lost revenue to the damage of every burglary everywhere and you have a more accurate comparison.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by greggman · 2014-01-21 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you're going to tell blind people who have cameras for eyes they have to turn them off?

Maybe it's time to face the future instead of being stuck in the past. People are going to have digital eyes instead of biological eyes. First those with bad site, then soldiers, then the public. They're also going to have digital memory instead of biological memory. You have no more right to tell me how to use my digital eyes and digital memory then you do for my biological eyes and biological memory. That fact that there is a distinction today is irrelevant and will have to change in the near future.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Vanderhoth · 2014-01-21 02:18 · Score: 2

Just Google "movie theaters confiscating cell phones" and read all about it. It was a pretty common thing to do around and before 2009, apparently it's still a common thing to do for special screenings. From 2009 http://gizmodo.com/5314778/no-... http://boingboing.net/2009/07/... And these were from just 2012 http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards... http://www.avvo.com/legal-answ...

Re: by Grishnakh · 2014-01-21 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?

"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"

It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-21 02:29 · Score: 2

Or, use the following two statements to end the interview before it goes on for 5 hours:

1. "Am I being charged with a crime?"
2. "I am not going to talk to you without a lawyer present."

If the answer to #1 is no, get up and walk away. If they don't let you leave, they'd better charge you with something or it's false imprisonment. If the answer is yes, then they had better Mirandize you immediately, and you follow up with #2. And then you shut your mouth and don't say a word until a lawyer from the public defender's office arrives.

Any police officer / federal agent worth carrying a badge will try to convince you to talk anyway, saying that it's just a misunderstanding and that they're really on your side; you can help clear things up by just answering a few questions. It's all bullshit - they're paid to trick you into incriminating yourself without an attorney present. In no way, is anyone in an official interview with any law enforcement (except for YOUR lawyer), on your side. Do not talk. Do not allow them to search your person or property without a proper warrant. And, even with a warrant, make sure the lawyer is present.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Ozymandias_KoK · 2014-01-21 02:35 · Score: 2

I know, crazy, right? It's not like the FBI is responsible for investigating copyright infringement or anything. Oh, wait. It is. While the situation was completely ridiculous, it did get to the correct party.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by realityimpaired · 2014-01-21 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.

He still wore a wearable video camera into a movie theatre. What the hell did he think would happen?

It boggles the mind that people are being apologists for what he did. I agree that it probably didn't need involvement of the FBI, but how anybody could be so incredibly naive as to think that wearing a video camera into a movie theatre would be a good idea is just incredible.

A few points.. by kenh · 2014-01-21 02:39 · Score: 2

He wasn't "denied" legal representation - according to his own narrative, he never asked for it.

The FBI was involved because copying a movie in a theater, like making a copy of a copyright-protected DVD or video tape is a federal crime.

Why didn't the AMC theater usher, manager, mall cop or "federal agent" turn on his pair of Google Glasses and prove he had done no wrong? Because none of them had probably ever seen a pair of google glasses before, wasn't sure how to access them, and by attempting to do so they would most likely corrupt any evidence they might find, hence they waited for someone that knew what they were doing. As someone who paid $1,500 for his google glasses and another $600 for the prescription lenses, I would have thought he would have appreciated that they didn't risk breaking his $2,100 pair of glasses by "figuring it out" on the managers PC.

Why didn't he attempt to leave - remaining there without representation implied consent (based on my several thousand hours of watching lawyers on TV shows) - they told him he wasn't under arrest and yes, they can lie to a suspect (again, based on thousands of hours of watching lawyers on TV shows). The police are not responsible for providing a suspect with legal counsel - they are responsible for providing access to legal counsel, something this fellow didn't ask for based on his own narrative.

He really shouldn't have warn a camera into a place of business where there are signs saying the use of cameras is against the law - by bringing his (google glass) camera into the theater, he became responsible for proving that he wasn't using the camera during the movie..

--
Ken

Don't be a luddite!!! by morgauxo · 2014-01-21 02:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why am I reading the term 'Glass Hole' so many times on a site that calls itself 'news for nerds'?

Of course people are going to wear Google Glass in a movie theater, while driving, etc.... It's not a desktop computer that stays at home it's a wearable device. Isn't the whole point of a wearable device that it becomes like 'a part of you'? Google Glass is just a small stepping stone anyway. Our kids and/or grandchildren aren't going to be wearing these things they are going to have implants that CAN'T be taken off. Personally I can't wait! It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that this is our feature. We are human, that is how humans work! http://www.livescience.com/966... I'm sure I have seen this here, don't you people even read the articles linked to from this site? It's funny how so many people here came out in support of Kevin Warwick and yet Glass users get called GlassHoles. I guess everything is great until someone tries to take it mainstream?

What's to be afraid of anyway? The death of the movie industry? Please... how many people who would have paid for a movie ticket (a true theatre experience) or even bought a DVD/BluRay disc are going to settle for a crappy cell cam bootleg instead? If anything the bootleg is free advertising, that's about it. I thought at least on this site we were supposed to know this already!

Worried about privacy? Why? Nobody is suggesting we allow people to come into our homes and record our private lives without an invitation! So what if someone snaps your picture in a public place and puts it online? Big deal, people have always had eyes, brains and mouths. If you do something stupid people will see it, people will remember it and people will talk. Nothing has really changed and nothing ever will. Besides... there are cameras just about EVERYWHERE now! If they aren't in people's hands or on their faces they are mounted on the wall, on a pole, etc.... Get over it, it's 2014 and that's just how it is!

Don't like people talking/texting in your presence? First of all... get over yourself! Just because you have a pet peeve doesn't mean everyone else should have to alter their behavior and certainly doesn't mean rules/laws should be passed! Nothing is new here anyway. Have you never seen two people walking down the sidewalk/isle of a store/ etc... having a conversation that you are NOT a part of? That is the exact same thing as someone on a phone, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Just go about your lives and everyone else will go about their's. This is a great thing we will be seeing with more wearable tech and what comes after. It will be less conspicuous. Busy bodies can stuff it, maybe go pay some attention to their own pathetic lives for once.

Of course there may seem to be special cases. I can understand someone taking exception to someone holding up a line because it is their turn and they won't stop talking on the phone or something like that. Again, that is no special and unique problem, it is no different than if someone held up a line because they wouldn't stop a conversation they were having with someone else in that line. Business owners should be asking people to step aside and let the line move or maybe just asking them to leave. If that doesn't happen it is a fault of our 'customer is always right', 'gotta make every customer happy' society, It's not a fault of the technology.

And I don't even have Google Glass... Anybody want to buy/give me a pair?

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-21 02:47 · Score: 2

Federal law is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies.

Why do people think the FBI is some mystical über-crime fighting force? They police federal property, federal lands, and breaches of federal law. They are the primary investigative agency for the United States Department of Justice. It's not a large stretch to think that they would be the primary investigative agency for federal laws, no matter how misguided the law may be.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Vanderhoth · 2014-01-21 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

No one told him there was an issue and he'd been doing it for months. I would have at least expected a manager to ask him politely at first. What makes his glasses any different from a regular cell phone? Aside from the fact that he also requires them to see and they're actually on his face instead of in his hand.

You guys need to get over the word "apologists", frankly it makes you sound like your parroting some right and/or left wing extremest political view. I've mostly gotten in the habit of as soon as I read that word I shutdown and ignore everything else as been completely off base and out side of normal reality. Actually I just had a good laugh because after typing all that I read your user name (reality impaired).

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-21 02:50 · Score: 2

The cinema chain should've just kicked the guy out. Normal people not only need to fight unjust laws like this, but ignore them and make them unenforceable; that speeds up the process of change.

Re: by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2014-01-21 02:50 · Score: 2

If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?

"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"

It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.

The choice isn't between AMC and a competitor, in many markets, but often between AMC and not going to the movies. This is the ugliness of the monopoly, at work. Sure, you can live without going to the movies, but it is, for the most part, a fun thing to do.

--
Who did what now?

MOD parent up! by Kinthelt · 2014-01-21 02:54 · Score: 2

Never *EVER* consent to searches. The police cannot search you or your property without reasonable cause. But if you give them the freedom to search, then they can charge you for *anything* they find, even if it wasn't what they were looking for.

--

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Re:Why? by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-21 02:55 · Score: 2

No, it is not a crime to "display" a firearm in public, outside of (urban) California, New York, Florida, South Carolina, Washington DC, the City and County of Denver, Illinois, and Texas(?). Open carry is allowed in 45 states in one way or another.

If you actually point the gun at someone, then it is a felony called "brandishing" or "assault by pointing."

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by allaunjsiIverfox2 · 2014-01-21 02:56 · Score: 2

Google Glass has multiple functions, and they had no proof he was recording anything. This whole situation is ridiculous.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by kenh · 2014-01-21 02:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

He never asked for a lawyer, he wasn't denied a lawyer.

He was told he wasn't under arrest, he chose to stay.

Everything that happened to him was a result of a conscious decision he made - he chose to wear his google glasses, he chose to walk out with the federal agent, he chose to answer questions, and he chose not to secure legal counsel...

--
Ken

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-01-21 03:02 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by kenh · 2014-01-21 03:07 · Score: 2

The FBI got there too fast - they were waiting for the call, supporting the claim that there is a problem with someone recording movies at that particular theater.

Several FBI Agents don't simply show up because the local theater manager calls up and asks them to come over... Not on a Saturday night.

--
Ken

Re: by davide+marney · 2014-01-21 03:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

AMC is a de facto monopoly where I live, so I have little choice in the matter. There is still one independent movie theater operator, next to the local university, and that provides some relief.

But, you know, you do have a point. Why SHOULD I pay $12.00 for a ticket + $8.00 for $0.25 worth of popcorn, when the entertainment experience lasts only a couple of hours? I go to the movies about 2-3 times a week, which is $2,080 per year on the low side. That is a lot of money to be sure. I do love the movies, but I don't have to necessarily fund these guys.

Food for thought, food for thought.

--
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday

Federalism 101 by westlake · 2014-01-21 03:29 · Score: 2

It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.

It says more about the geek's abysmal understanding of the American federal system.

Burglaries are prosecuted under state law.

Economic and property crimes with an interstate or foreign dimension or with other federal constitutional dimensions are prosecuted under federal law.

The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for ''unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions'' if the violation had been ''willful and for profit.''

Criminal Copyright Law in the United States

No Electronic Theft Act

Re:And? by MachineShedFred · 2014-01-21 03:31 · Score: 2

Confessions are something a jury understands immediately, and don't argue with.

Forensic evidence is often dismissed because it requires a basic understanding of science, and technical concepts like a chain of custody. You have to remember that a jury is made up of 12 people that weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.

It's been said that a good man is hard to find. Well, just try to find 12 of them in the same jurisdiction. This is why you see so many plea bargains - prosecutors know that even the most solid case based on a mountain of evidence can fall apart in a courtroom when a halfway competent defense attorney begins to poke at it.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Medical device exception by davidwr · 2014-01-21 03:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The future social contract will probably evolve into something like this:

"When you go to a restaurant, leave your animals at home. Bona fide medically necessary animals like guide dogs are exempt."

"When you go to a movie or the changing rooms at the local swimming pool, turn off your cameras or at least don't point them at the screen during a movie. Bona fide medical technology used for bona fide medical reasons* is exempt."

*If you are blind man using a camera to see and you turn on the recording feature in the movie theater so you can upload it to the Internet later, that's not a bona fide medical reason.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by kilfarsnar · 2014-01-21 03:41 · Score: 2

When dealing with those who believe they have unfettered power over you, it is good to show a strong understanding of your rights. If they persist, offer to donate some DNA to their wives, so their families wont be so inbred. Just wait for your lawyer and SAY NOTHING. They may hold you for a couple days, but eventually you will see your lawyer. When you get out, THEN call the press and post the shit out of it.

I have a lawyer?

--
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Anubis+IV · 2014-01-21 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not really. They're basically just federal-level police, and copying movies is a federal crime. People act as if the FBI is some big, specialist organization that only deals with major issues, but the fact is that most of what they do is mundane stuff like this. Once you realize that, it doesn't seem that out of place for them to have gotten involved, though I will admit that it's still a bit on the excessive side, since this sort of thing should have been easily handled in a talk with a theater manager.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by jedidiah · 2014-01-21 03:57 · Score: 2

Being held without access to counsel is just plain wrong.

The rest of the story is pretty irrelevant.

He should have given them the middle finger and told them he wanted his lawyer. He was far too accommodating.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hol by KingMotley · 2014-01-21 04:05 · Score: 2

I'm sorry, were you complaining about the "rich guys" from the movie studio, or the "rich guys" who wear google glasses? Or are you suggesting that the "rich guys" that pay for 53%+ of the federal taxes shouldn't be able to use any of the federal services?

I see, so your argument is that the "poor" people who either contribute nothing to the federal coffers, or only take federal hand outs are the ones who should be able to be protected via our federal laws. Interesting concept.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hol by e3m4n · 2014-01-21 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

while I agree on principle to what you are writing, I completely disagree that this requires the sort of response being afforded to some assholes in hollywood.

If I owned a product and someone else started copying and selling it, the most protection I am afforded is a Civil lawsuit to prove I am damaged and then financial compensation is awarded against the defendant.

Yet the exact same crime done to big studios suddenly comes with a jail sentence and violation of about half a dozen civil rights. I would say that would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, since by way of financial discrimination, my rights are treated differently than those major studios; except that the 14th amendment only seems to tell individual states what they could do. No one had any idea of a federal police state (FBI) in 1868. So they appear to operate outside the law.

Re:Better with Home Theater by AJH16 · 2014-01-21 04:27 · Score: 2

Hmm, on the flip side, if I bring a date over to watch a movie, the wife is much more likely to notice in the living room.

--
AJ Henderson

Re:And? by Theaetetus · 2014-01-21 04:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer.

It should be noted that this commonly held belief is actually false. Public defenders are paid hourly by the state or federal government, and thus have an incentive to do as much as possible for you. Unless you're very wealthy, private criminal defense attorneys tend to be paid a set retainer up front (e.g. "$5000 to get you to trial, and we'll talk then about the next retainer if you want to go through trial") and thus have an incentive to do as little as possible, since the less time they spend on you, the more profit they make. If you can't drop $50k on your defense, then you're much better off with the public defender.

Re:And? by Meyaht · 2014-01-21 04:59 · Score: 2

Call the local Bar association and they will recommend a lawyer who specializes in your current situation.

--
I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.

call me stupid but... by JustNiz · 2014-01-21 05:08 · Score: 2

Google glass is a lot like bluetooth earpieces: It makes you look like a complete dick but at least a tradeoff exists where you possibly might get useful information. ...I just don't get why anyone would continue to wear one when its turned off for an extended period, e.g. at the movies?

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hol by LunaticTippy · 2014-01-21 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK, I'll play. I pirate a movie. They lost $1 that I would have given redbox, of which they get maybe $.50

Why are damages for this infraction set at many thousands of dollars?

--
Man, you really need that seminar!

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by Kelbear · 2014-01-21 05:48 · Score: 2

Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.

1) It makes other people uncomfortable, but more importantly:
2) It makes the wearer of Google Glass uncomfortable to be making other people uncomfortable (unless they're an inconsiderate asshole).

This severely restricts the practical uses of Google Glass to only situations where public recording devices are commonly accepted, such as school sporting events, family gatherings, and the like. It's not usable in the many situations where a smartphone is acceptable. This makes Google Glass a very tough sell to the wider public. So to that end:

Sell it with a lens cover. Make the cap a different color than the rest of the frame (preferably an accenting color for fashion, or just plain black.), so that it's obvious that there's no recording going on.

The result is that walking around with an uncapped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smartphone camera held in front of you at face level. Walking around with a capped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smart phone camera aimed downwards. It's giving a clear signal to others that you're not trying to record them in secrets.

I'm sure some will point out that there are stupid people who don't understand what a lens cap is and that it means they're not being recorded. To that I would say: There are always stupid people, regardless of the situation. But this solution is a cheap and easy fix to address the majority of scenarios. Hope someone at Google picks up on this early enough. (I guess Griffin might do it if Google doesn't. I bet they can't wait to sell you a ton of inane accessories for it).

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by KernelMuncher · 2014-01-21 05:55 · Score: 2

Absolutely agree here. After 15 minutes he should have said "enough of this harassment, arrest me now or let me go". Know your rights.

Total Horse Shit Lies by Meyaht · 2014-01-21 06:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its one hour and forty minutes to get from FBI local in Cincinnati (closest location) to the Easton mall. He says that he was approached, with law enforcement in place outside waiting, and hour into the movie. He conveniently forgets the names of the agents (who ALWAYS give you their card). I don't believe him. Furthermore, nobody at the Easton mall gives 2 shits about their job, let alone AMC theaters employees.

--
I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.

Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole by tlambert · 2014-01-21 06:50 · Score: 2

Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.

Not really; it's not a recording device, if it's not on. It's a bunch of components, and they don't become a recording device until you run appropriate software to turn them into one by connecting the input to a compressors, and the compressor to mass storage.

Even then, the things are good for at most 45 minutes of The Blair With Project quality video, without software reframing and software steadycam, which reduces the overall pixel resolution of the resulting recording.

This is why most piracy which occurs at theaters is done by theater employees using HDCP enabled hardware with an LVDS emulator in place of the flat panel, attached to one of the projectionist display outputs.

Re: by MugenEJ8 · 2014-01-21 07:52 · Score: 2

I was wondering why the hell he thinks he needs to drag a laptop to a movie theater....

A motorcycle is my only transportation... are you seriously suggesting I leave my bag attached to my bike? Because if I left my tablet/notebook in it, I would guarantee it wouldn't be there when I got back. His rant isn't actually outrageous, you're just trying to make it seem that way...

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by russotto · 2014-01-21 10:40 · Score: 2

Yes, that's standard police procedure as far as I know all over the world. Try interviews (this was not an interrogation) before conducting an expensive investigation.

From the article: "They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much Iâ(TM)m making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why donâ(TM)t I just give up the guy up the chain, â(TM)cause they are not interested in me. Over and over and over again."

That's an interrogation.

Re:Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole! by Vellmont · 2014-01-21 17:12 · Score: 2

You know what else is a federal crime? Marijuana posession. Any amount. It's punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine of $1000. So if I smell my neighbor smoking pot, should I call the FBI since it's against federal law? What do you think they'd do? Frankly I think they'd do jack squat because it's a minor offense and not worth the time of the FBI.

So no, I don't believe merely violating federal law justifes the FBI coming out on a monents notice to interrogate some guy in a movie theatre. Laws always have been, and always will be selectively enforced. So we're fully justified in questioning the wisdom of the FBI in devoting resources to this.

--
AccountKiller

Slashdot Mirror

AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

144 of 1,034 comments (clear)