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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Re:choice (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:24AM (#46022725)

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

  • "So LONG FOR..."? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dialecticus ( 1433989 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:41AM (#46022773)
    Which did he mean? "So MUCH for our constitutional freedoms", or "So long TO our constitutional freedoms"?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:06AM (#46022895)

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

  • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:22AM (#46022961) Homepage

    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:And? (Score:5, Informative)

    by FatLittleMonkey ( 1341387 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:23AM (#46022969)

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

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

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

  • Re:choice (Score:4, Informative)

    by FatLittleMonkey ( 1341387 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @07:27AM (#46022981)

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

  • Re:Two words ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:38AM (#46023367)

    1. Lawyer 2. Warrant

    Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.

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

    ...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 [wikipedia.org] if you don't mention something which you later rely on in court.

  • by Clint Jaysiyel ( 2872249 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:49AM (#46023437)
    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.
  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @08:58AM (#46023517) Homepage

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

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:24AM (#46023685) Homepage Journal

    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.)

  • by lagomorpha2 ( 1376475 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:04AM (#46024043)

    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.

  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:38AM (#46025291) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus,slashdot&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:39PM (#46026159) Homepage Journal

    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.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...