FBI Drags Google Glass Wearer From Theater

They called the FBI into a movie theater for a pirate, really, the local police or a movie employee couldn't take care of it? This was obviously a setup for publicity by the MPAA or something.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
SO you wouldn't mind the guy next to you in the locker room at the gym wearing GG? Or how about the girl next to your daughter in the girl's bathroom?
Click to expand...

What I mind, and what's going to happen are two entirely different things. Neither of those scenarios involve the FBI raiding a theater. I think once google glass type products really become mainstream, there will be something broadcasting to units that the camera is turned off in public bathrooms and the such, but of course there are always ways around that. Expectation of privacy is pretty much out the window while you are in public, even now.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
SO you wouldn't mind the guy next to you in the locker room at the gym wearing GG? Or how about the girl next to your daughter in the girl's bathroom?
Click to expand...

I think society is slowly headed to the point where that is inevitable. You can try to resist it, or you can stop and realize that nakedness (as well as many other "private" matters) is really such a non-important thing in the grand scheme of things.


Originally Posted by Twisted Kidney

Wow go screw yourself, it's an HD camera. They asked him to stop pointing his camera at the screen and he shot some bull at them. Be prepared to leave your HD video camera outside the theatre or don't go. It's not unreasonable to ask him to leave.

Calling the police is unreasonable.

The fact the the FBI responded is beyond comprehension
Click to expand...
Sometimes I miss things while reading articles. Can you quote the part where it says they asked him to stop pointing his camera and he shot some bull at them?

Did they ask him to leave? Why did they let him in?
 
savagepagan said:
The guy was done wrong. But still, perhaps a warming to the morons walking around with their GG's all the time, you risk getting punched in the face if the wrong person thinks you are recording them or at least getting your GG snatched of your face and thrown on the ground and stomped on.
Click to expand...

Cool.. so by that logic someone honking their horn should expect me to break their window with a baseball bat right? I'm so sick and tired of people thinking violence or the destruction of property is their "god given right" or some shit.
 
savagepagan said:
Putting prescription lenses in GG? What kind on ass would wear these things 24/7?
Click to expand...

I find my contacts are very useful. Now, even though they are useful I take them out at night before going to sleep. There are other people out there that wear their contacts lenses 24x7, they don't even take them out to sleep (easier for them to just leave them in). I wouldn't call people that do that an 'ass' just because they do that and I don't. Why do I mention this? Because like contact lenses Google Glass is something useful (if you get absolutely nothing from it you wouldn't be spending money on it), just because you or I might not wear it EVERYWHERE doesn't mean those that do choose to wear it everywhere are wrong.

If you choose to not wear Google Glass, but somebody else chooses to wear it, do you have the right to say they shouldn't be allowed to because the way they use it MIGHT impact you? If you say yes, do you feel the same way about banning gun ownership? (Where somebody else's actions can harm you a lot more than Google Glass can)
 
Ualdayan said:
I find my contacts are very useful. Now, even though they are useful I take them out at night before going to sleep. There are other people out there that wear their contacts lenses 24x7, they don't even take them out to sleep (easier for them to just leave them in). I wouldn't call people that do that an 'ass' just because they do that and I don't. Why do I mention this? Because like contact lenses Google Glass is something useful (if you get absolutely nothing from it you wouldn't be spending money on it), just because you or I might not wear it EVERYWHERE doesn't mean those that do choose to wear it everywhere are wrong.

If you choose to not wear Google Glass, but somebody else chooses to wear it, do you have the right to say they shouldn't be allowed to because the way they use it MIGHT impact you? If you say yes, do you feel the same way about banning gun ownership? (Where somebody else's actions can harm you a lot more than Google Glass can)
Click to expand...

A theater has every right to boot someone who points a recording device at a screen in their establishment. The same can be said about restrooms, locker rooms, or anywhere else that isn't public property in the public eye.

Your attempt at spinning a gun debate into it was weak and irrelevant.
 
Are we really making comparrisons to gun ownership and Google Glass? For fucks sake
 
"“You see all these cops, you know we are legit,.."

wow, just the fact the he claims an FBI agent used the word 'Legit' makes me think them were really good drugs he took that day.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
A theater has every right to boot someone who points a recording device at a screen in their establishment. The same can be said about restrooms, locker rooms, or anywhere else that isn't public property in the public eye.

Your attempt at spinning a gun debate into it was weak and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Boot somebody? Yes, if they've told you ahead of time 'Google Glass is not allowed'. In this case not only did they not tell him they're not allowed (and continue to refuse to tell press who are calling them if they do or don't have a no Google Glass rule), but they called federal law enforcement in on this guy.

I don't think it was weak or irrelevant. It points out another situation in our society where group A thinks they should be able to carry something and not be punished for it unless they do something bad with what they carry, and group B that thinks that group A shouldn't be allowed to own something at all. Who's in the right? Group A for saying 'It shouldn't matter what I own, only how I use it' or Group B who feels uncomfortable with Group A having what they have.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
A theater has every right to boot someone who points a recording device at a screen in their establishment. The same can be said about restrooms, locker rooms, or anywhere else that isn't public property in the public eye.

Your attempt at spinning a gun debate into it was weak and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

A great point. Because his GG is using prescription lenses, means he will be wearing the damn things into the public bathrooms were he may get his lights punched out. LOL!
 
Ualdayan said:
I don't think it was weak or irrelevant. It points out another situation in our society where group A thinks they should be able to carry something and not be punished for it unless they do something bad with what they carry, and group B that thinks that group A shouldn't be allowed to own something at all. Who's in the right? Group A for saying 'It shouldn't matter what I own, only how I use it' or Group B who feels uncomfortable with Group A having what they have.
Click to expand...

You can't point Google Glass at someone and end their life with it.


Yet :eek:
 
The FBI for some guy at the movies with a camera? WTF is this? Sounds to me like the FBI needs some staff cuts.
 
I wonder if part of this isn't a misunderstanding of what Google Glass can do and can't do. You guys that are against Google Glass know Google Glass isn't a recording device like a camcorder is right? It's like a phone - it only records when it's specifically instructed to record and you're actually just as able to look at the little screen that's on the Google Glass and see if somebody is recording you just like you can look at their phone screen and see if it's in record mode (the little projected image is visible to anybody facing the person wearing Google Glass). It can't have record on nonstop - at best you're looking at under an hour battery life in record mode, so somebody can't just walk around recording constantly. (Weight limitations are even more stringent than space limitations)

It's not the best looker, but surely the term 'Glasshole' doesn't come around from everybody fixated on fashion does it?
 
Ualdayan said:
Boot somebody? Yes, if they've told you ahead of time 'Google Glass is not allowed'. In this case not only did they not tell him they're not allowed (and continue to refuse to tell press who are calling them if they do or don't have a no Google Glass rule), but they called federal law enforcement in on this guy.

I don't think it was weak or irrelevant. It points out another situation in our society where group A thinks they should be able to carry something and not be punished for it unless they do something bad with what they carry, and group B that thinks that group A shouldn't be allowed to own something at all. Who's in the right? Group A for saying 'It shouldn't matter what I own, only how I use it' or Group B who feels uncomfortable with Group A having what they have.
Click to expand...


Theaters have a long standing policy against recording devices. Next.

Obviously group A. Group B should mind their business.
 
savagepagan said:
A great point. Because his GG is using prescription lenses, means he will be wearing the damn things into the public bathrooms were he may get his lights punched out. LOL!
Click to expand...

Umm, honestly, I'd be freaked out if a guy came in and stared at me in the bathroom WITHOUT Google Glass even being there. I'd probably already be out of their right away. If a guy came in and said 'Google record a video' then proceeded to stare at me I'd get the heck out of there just as fast as the guy staring without Google Glass. (unlike a cell phone that somebody could surreptitiously use, Google Glass is way more obvious when somebody is using it to record since they have to stare and not move in order to get a good recording)
 
ChedWick said:
Theaters have a long standing policy against recording devices. Next.

Obviously group A. Group B should mind their business.
Click to expand...

Google Glass is no more a recording device than your cell phone is, and I don't see AMC trying to make it a federal case everytime you pull out your cell phone. We all know that rule is for people using camcorders, not multifunction devices that can do multiple things other than recording.
 
Ualdayan said:
Boot somebody? Yes, if they've told you ahead of time 'Google Glass is not allowed'. In this case not only did they not tell him they're not allowed (and continue to refuse to tell press who are calling them if they do or don't have a no Google Glass rule), but they called federal law enforcement in on this guy.

I don't think it was weak or irrelevant. It points out another situation in our society where group A thinks they should be able to carry something and not be punished for it unless they do something bad with what they carry, and group B that thinks that group A shouldn't be allowed to own something at all. Who's in the right? Group A for saying 'It shouldn't matter what I own, only how I use it' or Group B who feels uncomfortable with Group A having what they have.
Click to expand...

You can't have a cell phone out in your hand either. This isn't any different. It's a recording device pointed directly at the screen. As for calling the FBI (if the story is even true), that's way overboard.

It's irrelevant because it isn't an issue of ownership. Nobody is telling you you can't OWN a pair of GG. It's up to the person that owns the property whether or not either are allowed to be worn on said property.
 
Commander FAT said:
People need to exercise their fucking rights.

"“What followed was over an hour of the ‘feds’ telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a ‘voluntary interview’, but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me,” he explained."

If this is true the guy could have just walked out of there with his property provided he had the balls to tell the feds to go fuck themselves.

Look, it's easy.

"Am I being detained or am I free to go?". Just ask it over and over until you get a straight answer. If you're detained shut the fuck up and lawyer up. If you're free to go then just walk away.
Click to expand...
I doubt that is actually how it went down... Usually people will embellish what happened to them to get attention. Also, the FBI would not have told him "Bad things might happen." They would have just done them...
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You can't have a cell phone out in your hand either. This isn't any different. It's a recording device pointed directly at the screen. As for calling the FBI (if the story is even true), that's way overboard.

It's irrelevant because it isn't an issue of ownership. Nobody is telling you you can't OWN a pair of GG. It's up to the person that owns the property whether or not either are allowed to be worn on said property.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of somebody simply having a cell phone in their hand, turned off (like this guy's Google Glass was), and having federal law enforcement called in to haul them off for interrogation. Heck, I've never even heard of somebody getting kicked out at all for having a cell phone in their hand that was completely turned off.
 
Did you guys here about the retired cop that shot a man and his wife for sending text messages in the movie theater?
 
G1. Killer said:
I doubt that is actually how it went down... Usually people will embellish what happened to them to get attention. Also, the FBI would not have told him "Bad things might happen." They would have just done them...
Click to expand...

Here's what the movie theater has now publicly said to others: 'At AMC Easton 30 last weekend, a guest was questioned for possible movie theft after he was identified wearing a recording device during a film. The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft.'

So, turns out this guy wasn't lying, this really did happen to him.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
That's not how logic works.
Click to expand...

Doesn't take much to see how this can get out of hand if we go down that slippery slope, think about it for a minute: Anything that's legal can become out of bounds, just from fear of persecution and abuse of power.

Guilty before proven innocent means you can get in trouble with authorities out of any passing suspicion if it's not kept in check, eventually even on a whim when any guy with a badge can get away with abusive behavior.
 
Ualdayan said:
Here's what the movie theater has now publicly said to others: 'At AMC Easton 30 last weekend, a guest was questioned for possible movie theft after he was identified wearing a recording device during a film. The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft.'

So, turns out this guy wasn't lying, this really did happen to him.
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting what happened at the Theater I am doubting what happened when the FBI took him in or whatever they did....
 
Ualdayan said:
I've never heard of somebody simply having a cell phone in their hand, turned off (like this guy's Google Glass was), and having federal law enforcement called in to haul them off for interrogation. Heck, I've never even heard of somebody getting kicked out at all for having a cell phone in their hand that was completely turned off.
Click to expand...

The difference is that almost anyone can tell when a cell phone is turned off. Not so with these. There isn't any reason to wear GG in a theater. It's asking for trouble.

It doesn't matter what you've heard of. If the manager or owner of the business doesn't want you wearing it and thinks you are taking cam footage, he has every right to call law enforcement. It's not public property and he reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
 
Wierdo said:
Doesn't take much to see how this can get out of hand if we go down that slippery slope, think about it for a minute: Anything that's legal can become out of bounds, just from fear of persecution and abuse of power.

Guilty before proven innocent means you can get in trouble with authorities out of any passing suspicion if it's not kept in check, eventually even on a whim when any guy with a badge can get away with abusive behavior.
Click to expand...

It wasn't on public property. The alleged FBI overreacted and should be reprimanded, but the business owner was within his rights.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
The difference is that almost anyone can tell when a cell phone is turned off. Not so with these. There isn't any reason to wear GG in a theater. It's asking for trouble.

It doesn't matter what you've heard of. If the manager or owner of the business doesn't want you wearing it and thinks you are taking cam footage, he has every right to call law enforcement. It's not public property and he reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Click to expand...

You do have the right to ban somebody from having something on them. They didn't though. They never told him he couldn't wear Google Glass (which unlike a camcorder - Google glass is as innocuous as a cell phone), they didn't say a word to him as he walked in, they didn't say a word as he bought the ticket, they didn't say a word as he went to the room his movie was playing in, and they didn't say a word at all before calling in homeland security on him.

Do you wear glasses? How often do you remember 'Oh yeah, I'm wearing glasses'. With Google Glass turned off and them being prescription glasses he was probably giving as much thought to them being on him as the amount of times in the day you stop and think 'Yep, still wearing my glasses.'
 
Ualdayan said:
You do have the right to ban somebody from having something on them. They didn't though. They never told him he couldn't wear Google Glass (which unlike a camcorder - Google glass is as innocuous as a cell phone), they didn't say a word to him as he walked in, they didn't say a word as he bought the ticket, they didn't say a word as he went to the room his movie was playing in, and they didn't say a word at all before calling in homeland security on him.

Do you wear glasses? How often do you remember 'Oh yeah, I'm wearing glasses'. With Google Glass turned off and them being prescription glasses he was probably giving as much thought to them being on him as the amount of times in the day you stop and think 'Yep, still wearing my glasses.'
Click to expand...

You don't have to establish an anti google glass policy up front to be allowed to call the authorities.

This debate is becoming thin and toothless.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
It wasn't on public property. The alleged FBI overreacted and should be reprimanded, but the business owner was within his rights.
Click to expand...

Well I can agree on that point. They should've just told him it's against policy and show him where it's clearly posted, after that he can be kicked out, anything more is overreaction and abuse of law enforcement on behalf of the theater - and if the story is true then also abuse of authority by the law enforcement called into the scene, but perhaps they had their hands tied, they were there in the service of the MPAA.

Well, I guess this is not a surprise, whenever a new technology comes up that's disruptive to current social norms, things can be a mess until society knows how to set proper new norms and regulations to cope with it.
 
Ualdayan said:
You do have the right to ban somebody from having something on them. They didn't though. They never told him he couldn't wear Google Glass (which unlike a camcorder - Google glass is as innocuous as a cell phone), they didn't say a word to him as he walked in, they didn't say a word as he bought the ticket, they didn't say a word as he went to the room his movie was playing in, and they didn't say a word at all before calling in homeland security on him.

Do you wear glasses? How often do you remember 'Oh yeah, I'm wearing glasses'. With Google Glass turned off and them being prescription glasses he was probably giving as much thought to them being on him as the amount of times in the day you stop and think 'Yep, still wearing my glasses.'
Click to expand...

Theaters often let users walk in, pay for their tickets, THEN find a reason to throw them out. Regal is pretty bad about it in these parts, they don't check ages when you buy tickets, just when you try to get past the ushers.
Just wish they'd throw out the assholes always talking on cellphones or screaming instructions at the people in the movies. Really kills my desire to go out and see a movie.
 
The second you buy a movie ticket from a theater it usually enters you into a contract that states the theater may ask you to leave or call the authorities without your knowledge and will be escorted out without a refund. It is the responsibility of the consumer to look at an establishments policies.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
You don't have to establish an anti google glass policy up front to be allowed to call the authorities.

This debate is becoming thin and toothless.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You think it's perfectly fine to lead somebody on, 'Come on in, come on, you're completely welcome. Come in, sit down.' and then turning around and calling the police 'He's trespassing!' If the chain came out and said right away 'This isn't allowed! That's our policy!' that's COMPLETELY different than letting him in (the whole time he's wearing this thing), taking his money, and then deciding you have a problem with it later without warning him at all that you've changed your mind.
 
Ualdayan said:
Seriously? You think it's perfectly fine to lead somebody on, 'Come on in, come on, you're completely welcome. Come in, sit down.' and then turning around and calling the police 'He's trespassing!' If the chain came out and said right away 'This isn't allowed! That's our policy!' that's COMPLETELY different than letting him in (the whole time he's wearing this thing), taking his money, and then deciding you have a problem with it later without warning him at all that you've changed your mind.
Click to expand...

Yes it is completely fine.... Usually movie theaters even have giant signs that say no electronic devices beyond this point!
 
Ualdayan said:
Seriously? You think it's perfectly fine to lead somebody on, 'Come on in, come on, you're completely welcome. Come in, sit down.' and then turning around and calling the police 'He's trespassing!' If the chain came out and said right away 'This isn't allowed! That's our policy!' that's COMPLETELY different than letting him in (the whole time he's wearing this thing), taking his money, and then deciding you have a problem with it later without warning him at all that you've changed your mind.
Click to expand...

The guy taking the tickets probably doesn't know better. Plus you're making the assumption he was wearing them when he walked in.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
The guy taking the tickets probably doesn't know better. Plus you're making the assumption he was wearing them when he walked in.
Click to expand...

Their his prescription glasses - not only does he say he was wearing them the whole time, but it makes no sense at all that he would be walking around blind until he got into the theater and only then put them on. Unless you're trying to say he's lying, but then again everything else he said has started to be backed up with comments by the movie chain. Now the MPAA has even commented. Quote: "Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft."

If even the MPAA doesn't see how somebody could use Google Glass (what with it's limits on 15 minutes of recording, under an hour of battery life, and numerous other things that make it good for short clips but horrible for anything movie size in length) then clearly somebody at that theater went WAY overboard. Even more overboard than the MPAA themselves even think they should have.
 
Ualdayan said:
Their his prescription glasses - not only does he say he was wearing them the whole time, but it makes no sense at all that he would be walking around blind until he got into the theater and only then put them on. Unless you're trying to say he's lying, but then again everything else he said has started to be backed up with comments by the movie chain. Now the MPAA has even commented. Quote: "Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft."

If even the MPAA doesn't see how somebody could use Google Glass (what with it's limits on 15 minutes of recording, under an hour of battery life, and numerous other things that make it good for short clips but horrible for anything movie size in length) then clearly somebody at that theater went WAY overboard. Even more overboard than the MPAA themselves even think they should have.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense that someone would buy a pair of Google Glasses and put their prescription in them... The theater acted within its rights no matter what anyone says..
 
G1. Killer said:
It makes no sense that someone would buy a pair of Google Glasses and put their prescription in them... The theater acted within its rights no matter what anyone says..
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to others. If I had the money and still wore glasses (thank you LASIK), I could see myself buying it if/when it becomes commercially available and well priced.

At one point people didn't understand why anyone would need a cell phone either... times change...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top