Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Technology

AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer 1034

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the probable-russian-spy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:06AM (#46022657)

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

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

  • Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sosume (680416) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:10AM (#46022671) Journal

    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'?

  • Sue (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:13AM (#46022687)

    Seriously, just sue the theater.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:17AM (#46022701)

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:19AM (#46022709)
    They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.
  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jareth-0205 (525594) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:25AM (#46022729) Homepage

    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.

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:35AM (#46022757) Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:41AM (#46022771)

    They only got to see because he caved.

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

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

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

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

  • Re:choice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vilain (127070) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:43AM (#46022783)
    Yeah, first question would have been "Am I being detained?" followed by "I want to call my attorney and I don't consent to a search", all while recording audio at a minimum to his Google Drive. They have to stop questioning him until an attorney arrives or anything they get is inadmissible. Of course, "cooperating" with the FBI, while really stupid, won't necessarily stop the interview process. Why didn't he just invoke his rights and wait for an attorney. Yes, he did nothing wrong. But the FBI doesn't know that and would have held him anyway.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:46AM (#46022795)
    No, the lesson from this story is "don't live in the US".
  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 (722110) * on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:46AM (#46022799)

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

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

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

    Ever!

  • by zwei2stein (782480) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:52AM (#46022823) Homepage

    Oh come on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:00AM (#46022869)

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

  • by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:00AM (#46022873) Homepage

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

  • What use... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:05AM (#46022893)
    ...is a phone call if you cant speak?

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

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

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Splab (574204) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:07AM (#46022901)

    Actually that's incorrect.

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 (869701) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:15AM (#46022929)

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

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekmux (1040042) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:15AM (#46022935)

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

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

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

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

  • Re:choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by will_die (586523) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:21AM (#46022955) Homepage
    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.
  • by pantaril (1624521) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:22AM (#46022965)

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

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

  • by pantaril (1624521) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:30AM (#46022999)

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

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

  • Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sique (173459) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:31AM (#46023011) Homepage
    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.
  • by Seumas (6865) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:37AM (#46023033)

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

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

  • As a glass wearer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomGreenhaw (929233) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:39AM (#46023047)
    Guys like this are what gives glass a bad name. Its about what you would expect a theater to do if you pointed a camera at the screen the whole time. That said, you couldn't really record the whole movie, and even if you could, it would be jittery and not great resolution. Yet another case of misunderstood technology being foolishly abused.
  • Re:Sue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aighearach (97333) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:39AM (#46023049) Homepage

    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.

  • Sorry (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:40AM (#46023051)

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

    Done, I feel better now.

  • Land of the Free (Score:1, Insightful)

    by thatDBA (2626877) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:41AM (#46023055)
    This is just a reminder that you live in the "Land of the Free"
  • by allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:43AM (#46023061)

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

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:48AM (#46023093) Homepage

    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.

  • by geekmux (1040042) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:49AM (#46023099)

    Oh come on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by allaunjsiIverfox2 (3506701) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:51AM (#46023109)

    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.

  • by Rick Zeman (15628) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:53AM (#46023117)

    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.

    I think someone noticed. Hence the article.

  • by durrr (1316311) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:53AM (#46023119)

    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.

  • by Calinous (985536) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:01AM (#46023161)

    Tobacco is addictive. Alcohol can become addictive. Even computer games can become addictive. Where do you draw the line for drugs versus non drugs?

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:12AM (#46023209)

    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).

  • by gsslay (807818) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:17AM (#46023237)

    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.

  • by aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:22AM (#46023263)

    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?

  • by flyneye (84093) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:23AM (#46023273) Homepage

    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.

  • by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:26AM (#46023287)

    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.

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:29AM (#46023317)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:31AM (#46023327)

    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.

  • by hawkinspeter (831501) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:46AM (#46023413)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:50AM (#46023441)

    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:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the_B0fh (208483) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:50AM (#46023445) Homepage

    Just like if your gun isn't loaded, how wrong is it to point it at someone, right?

    Are you really a fucking idiot or do you just pretend to be one?

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:50AM (#46023453)

    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.

  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:57AM (#46023515)

    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...

  • Re:choice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by msauve (701917) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:14AM (#46023605)
    $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.
  • Re:Creepy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:18AM (#46023643) Homepage

    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?

  • by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:24AM (#46023687) Homepage

    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".

  • by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:26AM (#46023699) Homepage

    There was a report of a crime. The appropriate policing agency investigated and determined that no crime had taken place. There is no thuggery there. And yes. It is entirely unclear why somebody would be wearing Google glasses to a movie.

  • by lagomorpha2 (1376475) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:27AM (#46023715)

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

  • by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:28AM (#46023719) Homepage

    Because copyright law should be a civil matter.

    I don't think it should. But right now it isn't entirely a civil matter. Talk to congress if you want the law changed. That's not the FBI's job.

    It's up to the property owners to kick the guy out. Since it's private property, someone certainly can do it.

    I addressed this in the previous post. The "it" private property isn't owned by the owners of the movie.

  • by ray-auch (454705) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:30AM (#46023731)

    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.

  • by knarf (34928) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:38AM (#46023825) Homepage

    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.

  • by morgauxo (974071) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:56AM (#46023959)

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

  • by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:03AM (#46024023)

    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.

  • by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:12AM (#46024113)

    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.

  • by greggman (102198) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:14AM (#46024119) Homepage

    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:Creepy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:16AM (#46024147)

    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: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:23AM (#46024205)

    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.

  • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:36AM (#46024381)

    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.

  • by morgauxo (974071) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:46AM (#46024529)

    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... [livescience.com] 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?

  • by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:47AM (#46024551)
    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).
  • by kenh (9056) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:59AM (#46024713) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • Re:Creepy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guevera (2796207) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:10AM (#46024873)

    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MachineShedFred (621896) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:39AM (#46025305) Journal

    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.

  • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:50AM (#46025489)

    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.

  • by e3m4n (947977) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:25AM (#46025961)

    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.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:46AM (#46026257) Journal

    Dude lied while under oath. Full stop.

    According to the definitions agreed upon by everyone involved, his statement was entirely accurate. Full stop.

  • by litehacksaur111 (2895607) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:15PM (#46026663)
    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.
  • by LunaticTippy (872397) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:33PM (#46026899)
    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?

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...