Slashdot Mirror
AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer
An anonymous reader writes "A Google Glass user was interrogated without legal counsel for a couple of hours under suspicion that he may have been recording a film in the AMC movie theater. Although the matter could have been cleared in minutes, federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our constitutional freedoms."
Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do): "Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong." Update: 01/21 21:41 GMT by U L : The Columbus Dispatch confirmed the story with the Department of Homeland Security. The ICE and not the FBI detained the Glass wearer, and there happened to be an MPAA task force at the theater that night, who then escalated the incident.
He should have just explained that he wanted to read his texts without being shot.
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...
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'?
> 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.
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.
From TFS (The Fuc... Fine Summary) :
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 ...
No, the lesson from this story is "don't live in the US".
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").
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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?
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.
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.
It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.
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.
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.
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.