
AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user - sounds
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user
======
shittyanalogy
This isn't really a story about the woes of being a google glass user, it's a
story about how people don't know their rights and how to apply them.

This man is lucky that he didn't end up accidentally giving the authorities
some tiny piece of information to make his life worse. You should absolutely
never talk to the authorities even if you think you have nothing to hide and
especially when they're actively trying to pin something on you. It is
perfectly legal for them to threaten you with harsher legal penalties, and it
is perfectly legal for you to say I need to speak with a lawyer before I make
any decisions or say anything. This account is a CLEAR illustration of how
they ONLY want you to confess to something and once they don't think they can
they no longer care about you in the tiniest bit. It's not about justice, it's
about catching people.

Also, don't wear a goddamn camera on your head to the movies. The man must
certainly own a pair of regular prescription glasses and was being extremely
naive.

~~~
zobzu
Note that the authorities did tell him they were going to cause him more
problems if he didn't cooperate.

So, that makes the choice of telling them nothing pretty hard.

~~~
llamataboot
No, this is what they rely on. It is the basic "If you have nothing to hide,
why are you hiding" line of questioning. It's especially used to search cars
at traffic stops.

Correct:

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" (repeat until one gets an answer)

If free to go - leave If not free to go - don't say another word

Don't consent to a search. Don't try to be nice. Don't believe any bullshit
you are told:

"Look, we're trying to be nice here, if you don't want to be nice, we can take
you down to the station."

"You know what happens if we have to call to wake up a judge at this hour to
get a search warrant?"

"Ok, then we'll just wait here until the dogs come"

or the almost always used -

"Am I being arrested?" "Do you want to be?"

\--

It's all bullshit and used to get verbal consent to searches and verbal
answers to questions. You may feel like an asshole, especially if you really
do have "nothing to hide". The cops will do their best to make you feel scared
of what they will do if you don't cooperate. You may have a ton of privilege
(perhaps you are a cis-gendered white man) and you feel that cashing it in and
talking man-to-man in a nice way with the cops will get you on your way
quicker. And it may. But one time, it may not, and you'll wish you hadn't
talked. And of the larger overarching issue of living a police state with
nominal checks and balances on what the cops can and can't do, it behooves us
all to limit their power to their legal minimum as much as possible.

~~~
x0054
The only thing I would add to this is don't be a dick, you don't want them to
have an excuse to arrest you. Ask in a nice and polite voice "Am I under
arrest?" If the verbal answer from the police is anything but a short and
clear "Yes," tell the cop "I understand your answer to mean that No, I am not
under arrest. I am terminating this conversation and I am going to leave now."
This doesn't apply to traffic stops for speeding or something like that, in
those cases being nice will get you far. But if you are suspected of a real
crime, for god sakes, keep your mouth shot, and if you are not under arrest,
leave ASAP.

~~~
llamataboot
Sorry, but it absolutely does also apply during traffic stops. Many a routine
traffic stop for a broken taillight or some such other nonsense has turned
into something else as soon as someone said "sure, no problem" when the cops
asked, "You mind if I just take a quick look around?"

~~~
x0054
You are right. What I meant is don't be a dick to cops if they are pulling you
over for speeding. If they ask you how fast you were going, don't start
reciting the 5th amendment. If they ask you if they can look in your trunk,
just say no, you have nothing to hide, but unless they have a warrant or
probable cause, they can not look.

I say that because I had a friend who got arrested at one of those sobriety
checkpoints. They stopped him and asked him if he has been drinking. He said
no, and he hasn't. But then to prove his point he started yelling that he
demands that they test him because they wasted his time, so now he wants them
to breathalyze him. They arrested him on a suspicion of being high on drugs
instead. He wasn't, but I still had to bail him out of prison in the middle of
the night. The charges were dropped, of course.

The lesson is, be firm but polite and respectful. Know you rights, and
exercise them, but don't be a dick about it.

~~~
mikeash
Seems to me that it's the same in all cases, whether it's a traffic stop or
you're being questioned in connection to a murder: be firm but polite. Don't
give out any info you're not required to, but don't be an asshole. Clearly
there will be _some_ differences (i.e. you should insist on a lawyer if you're
being questioned about a murder, but should not do this during a traffic stop)
but my point is that we should not consider a polite insistence on your rights
and polite refusal to give out information beyond what's required to be _in
and of itself_ being a dick.

------
x0054
Here is what you need to do if you are ever in this situation:

1\. Ask "Am I under arrest?" 2\. If the answer is anything other than "Yes"
ask "Can I leave now?" 3\. If the answer is anything other than "No," get up
and leave! Don't ask for permission, don't say another word. Just leave. If
anyone tries to stop you, say "Unless I am under arrest, I am going to leave
NOW. If you prevent me from leaving than I am assuming I am under arrest. If
so, please read me my miranda rights right now."

If they read you your rights, ask for a lawyer. Specifically say "I want to
speak to a lawyer and I chose to remain silent and not answer any questions
until I speak to a lawyer." If the cop tells you that your lawyer is on
his/her way and then continues to talk to you, you should say "I see you
continue to talk to me, I am going to assume that you are trying to elicit
statements from me after I invoked my rights. I am going to relay this
information to my lawyer."

If you are innocent, you have NOTHING to gain from talking to a cop. If you
are guilty, you WILL hurt your case every time.

UPDATE: Spelling

~~~
grecy
I don't have "a lawyer" on call - won't they provide me with a shitty one?

~~~
x0054
Most public defenders (I only worked with San Diego and LA once) are pretty
good, though overworked. Public defender positions in San Diego especially are
very competitive, and you often get top notch lawyers. Federal Defender
positions are VERY competitive, and you often get top graduates from
prestigious law schools. This may not be true everywhere, I only practiced law
in South California.

In any case, even a shitty attorney knows how to say "my client has no
comments." But, a far more important question to ask is "Am I under arrest?"
If the answer is anything other then "Yes," be nice, say goodbye, and walk
away. Most people do not realize that they have this right. In most cases cops
do not have the evidence sufficient to arrest you, but they will make you
think you are under arrest, so they can fish out some "probable cause" out of
you. You don't have the right to an attorney unless you are under arrest. This
is why they will often also tell you that they are "just talking" because as
long as they are "just talking" they do not have to provide you with a lawyer.

You will NEVER get a straight answer to the question "Am I under arrest?" Just
listen to what they say, unless the very first word from their mouth is "YES",
assume the answer is NO. They will say things like "we are just talking" or
"you could be if you do not cooperate", or "we want to hear your side of the
story before we decide to arrest you." All those answers translate to "we
don't have the evidence to arrest you, but we would like to talk to you until
you slip up, and we find an excuse to arrest you."

------
freshhawk
Am I the only one who's pretty convinced by that story that they were not FBI?
It seemed like the fellow who went through this has his doubts as well.

I feel doubly bad for him, that's a horrible experience and also that he was
so intimidated that he just sat through all that, didn't get any badge numbers
or names or even what organization these people were with, "would have been
fine with “I’m sorry this happened, please accept our apologies”" and closing
it with: "Again, I wish they would have listened when I told them how to
verify I did nothing illegal, or at least apologize afterwards, but hey… this
is the free country everybody praises. Somewhere else might be even worse."

Everyone isn't going to be one of those "know and exercise your rights" people
in the face of authority, but the opposite is very depressing.

~~~
nikcub
They certainly weren't, there is no way you can call and have a federal agent
show up to a movie theatre in the space of a couple of minutes.

They are almost certainly former federal or other agents who now work for
private security firms that contract to AMC / MPAA.

It wouldn't take much detective work to figure out which firm it is and who
the people are.

It sounds like they broke the 'impersonating a federal officer' law, but a lot
of private detectives do that in the USA and nobody ever does anything about
it.

~~~
e40
Let's assume you're right. If he had asked "Am I under arrest?" what would
they have said?

~~~
MichaelGG
Probably something like "Not yet, we're trying to keep this easy. You really
don't want to spend the night in jail, have to post bail tomorrow and ruin
your plans. But hey, that's an option if that's what you want."

------
cletus
The lesson here is "Don't talk to the police". This has been posted here many
times:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

This should be required viewing especially given the quasi-police state the US
is turning into and, more importantly, the arbitrariness of prosecutorial
discretion.

As soon as they say it's a "voluntary interview", leave. The only thing you
should say is "am I free to go?". If you are, go. If not, ask for a lawyer.

Watch the video for why. You can get yourself in trouble and you are basically
strictly better off saying nothing.

~~~
tn13
I live that video a lot but then do you really have a choice ? For example on
those numerous occasions when TSA takes you to a separate room and starts
questioning do you really have any right to call a lawyer ?

~~~
grifpete
I believe that in airports your rights are significantly different from your
rights in the US.

~~~
yardie
No, your rights still apply everywhere. Unfortunately you don't have a right
to board an aircraft so that is the only thing they can use against you.

------
ben336
Am I the only one who is a bit skeptical of this? Seems incredibly hard to
believe, with no hard sources. (Email from Friend of a Friend of a gadget
blogger is not where I want to be getting my credible news of law enforcement
overreaching)

~~~
ggreer
Agreed. Not only is the source extremely questionable, but the details in the
story seem odd.

Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone
who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put
their hands up to block. Anyway, police would just order the person to hand
over the glasses.

Federal agents conducting a (probably unrecorded) private interview for
_hours_ in a mall? They'd have to arrest him before that.

Someone named Bob Hope from "the Movie Association"? Parents don't name their
children after celebrities, and Bob Hope has been famous for three-quarters of
a century.

And getting a non-apology and some lame movie passes after being wrongly
detained for hours? This makes no sense.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _Grabbing expensive hardware off someone 's face? Grabbing glasses off
> someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back
> and put their hands up to block._

A crazy street dude once snatched my glasses off my face on a street corner. I
had been firmly ignoring his ranting and personal space invasion, so I wasn't
prepared to take action. It's not that improbable if the victim isn't
expecting it and doesn't have excellent reflexes.

I told him very loudly to give them back, and he suddenly noticed that I had
about 8 inches and 150 pounds on him and handed them back without a word.

~~~
ggreer
So what you're saying is... he got your glasses because you weren't paying
attention to him? :)

You could be right. Maybe he had poor reflexes or was startled by the badge or
something. No single detail damns the story, but enough rub me the wrong way
to make me suspicious.

------
asperous
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B)

In case anyone is wondering, that's the us federal law. Most States have
individual laws that change the punishment.

~~~
diydsp
wow, thanks!

Theatre owners can detain any suspected filmers, and can't be held liable for
criminal or civil action arising out of it!

~~~
rosser
I wonder who paid for that law...

~~~
sounds
Logical response from theater-goers:

_Never_ go to the theater.

~~~
14113
Just pirate your films instead!

Oh wait...

------
ww520
What is the proper procedure to interact with law enforcement personnel?

\- Get their identity? Their business cards? Copy down their name, ID,
position, and contact info?

\- Get their organization info? Local cop? FBI? Homeland Security officers?
Contact info?

\- Get their supervisor info?

\- Check their jurisdiction? Their rights to detain you or interrogate you?
Call the police to check?

\- Ask for which laws are broken?

\- Are you being detained? Are you free to go?

\- Not consenting to search.

\- Anything else?

I think this guy got tricked into thinking those people are FBI. "Bob Hope" is
a dead giveaway BS. Impersonating FBI is a serious crime. This is same as the
Apple case of recovering the iphone prototype, where the Apple people
pretended to be cops when they invited the police along in the home intrusion.

------
mgkimsal
I've seen bootlegged movies from camcorders in theaters. Those are bad enough.
The thought of something recorded from some guy's headmounted camera, with
thousands of tiny movements, breathing, twitching, slouching, eating and more
makes me wonder who on earth would even think a recording made that way would
be _valuable_.

~~~
diydsp
It's all about the _cloud_, my friend: with superresolution techniques, each
glass user can contribute pixel blocks that get re-synthesized into the
original.

~~~
krapp
It would probably take less effort to just break into the theater and steal
the film.

~~~
pmorici
Theaters are pretty much all digital now and the actual files are encrypted so
I doubt breaking and entering alone would get you very far.

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital-
techno...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital-technology-
is-reinventing-cinema/2)

~~~
MichaelGG
The files are encrypted, but obviously the hardware to decrypt them is right
there. Now I understand those DRM systems have advanced intrusion detection
and whatnot, but still it'd be quite a good start to make off with all their
hardware.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The hardware is useless, you need a key from the studio.

~~~
MichaelGG
But at some point during the day, the key has to be loaded somewhere in order
to decrypt and play.

Although it might be only in protected memory and must be requested online
during playback. Maybe even uses multiple keys during playback.

------
brandonhsiao
Something I keep noticing in all these stories is how the FBI seems to act
during these "interrogations." They're like the big bully who runs into the
room, barely stops to think, makes a few empty, irrational threats, then
leaves the room feeling stupid but refusing to admit it.

It's nothing logical, but it's pretty frustrating that you can't just let them
how dumb they are, simply because they have the bigger bureaucratic dicks in
the room.

~~~
flyt
Hey, slurs like "retarded" are offensive and you should reconsider your use of
them.

edit: Thank you for editing your comment.

~~~
gnerd
Out of interest, could you enlighten me as to why the word "retard" is a slur
but "dumb" isn't?

Putting colloquial use aside, both are valid words that describe conditions,
so if one is a slur, isn't the other? Where is the line?

~~~
3pt14159
Dumb isn't used to denote what its original meaning is (a person unable to
speak - we would use the word "mute" today). Dumb just means stupid, as if one
is culpable for their own stupidity.

Retard in its noun form literally means a mentally handicapped person. So by
using it to offend a non-mentally handicapped person (albeit, a stupid one),
you are concurrently levelling an offence against the mentally handicapped _in
general_ and since the mentally handicapped are not deemed culpable for their
situation, this is deemed socially unacceptable.

~~~
codezero
It literally means delayed in time, we use it in physics a lot, in the context
of people and development it applies to those whose education (or cognitive
ability) is delayed in time.

~~~
Crito
I think the word is typically pronounced slightly differently (more
correctly?) when used that way. This clip from _The Hangover_ uses the slight
differences in pronounciation for comedic effect:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoendYt_ZJ0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoendYt_ZJ0)
(skip to 0:45, video contains mildly offensive humor).

Obviously the obsolete medical usage, now offensive usage, is just the regular
word meaning delayed, but I think that somehow that specialized usage strayed
from the generic usage over time.

~~~
codezero
Nope, never pronounced it different but clearly context is important :)

------
gst
Meanwhile everyone who obtained the movie illegally could watch it at home
without being harassed by anyone. At times where less and less people actually
go to movie theaters, harassing the people who do so, doesn't look like the
best strategy.

------
alan_cx
Hmmm. On one hand, its OTT, but on the other hand, people walking about with
an attached camera that may well be always recording is going to cause real
problems.

These things are potentially a gross invasion of privacy. They might be very
cool tech for the wearer, but frankly Im not prepared to have my privacy
potentially compromised so that some one else can have some cool augmented
reality. I don't understand how on one hand the NSA is all evil, but some
geezer walking round with a camera that could be recording any of us without
our knowledge or permission, with the potential to publish these videos on the
internet for an entire world to see, is somehow perfectly fine. These things
remind me of the hacked up kit pervert voyeurs use to film women in
compromising positions. I couldn't care less about people potentially pirating
films in cinemas, but if these people start film me going about my personal
business, Im telling you, there will be trouble. Thing is, if I see some one
possible filming me with one of these things, the law is no use. The person
filming me is anonymous and can easily go, leaving me and a lawyer no one to
prosecute. I have no choice, I have to grab the guy and his kit. I then want
this guy forced to give up all his personal information so that I can be sure
he has not uploaded the video somewhere. All of which, as we know is at least
technically problematic. Wont be long until people wearing these things will
become targets just for wearing them. Only takes 1 or 2 Fox News
sensationalist, exaggerated stories, and wearers will become seen as threats.
The stories dont even need to be true, just true enough, feasible enough.

I think people are displaying a hypocritical double standard here. Its Ok for
the cool kids to invade our privacy, but not the NSA? These cool kids can
actually cause normal people more humiliation and damage than the NSA. AFAIK,
the NSA has not released a video of a private citizen walking in to a glass
door in to the public for humiliating laughs. People wearing these things can,
and will. Yes, this has been possible for years, but these google things will
make it mainstream and vastly increase the potential for this.

Trust me, there is a whole lot of trouble waiting to burst out.

Im not suggesting banning these things, they clearly have huge value. What Im
saying is that society needs to have a serious debate about use and there
lines are drawn. What is criminal and what is reasonable.

~~~
NoPiece
The anti-google glass argument bears a striking resemblance to the anti-camera
phone argument back in the 90's. The complaints were pretty much the same,
"cameraphones" started to be banned in certain places, and there were even the
local news stories to the effect of "Bathrooms will never be safe again - that
phone could be a camera!" People got used to it, acceptable norms were
established, and they became very much ubiquitous, and uncontroversial.

~~~
GFischer
Not uncontroversial. There regularly are problems with invasion of privacy,
for example a few months ago there was trouble with an Argentinean blog with
photos of girls in public transportation (can't find a link right now, but it
was on TV, etc..).

~~~
probably_wrong
Here's a link to news report regarding that case:
[http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-
style/thecity/chica...](http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life-
style/thecity/chicas-bondi-the-modern-flaneur/).

Here's also an opinion piece, which gives a little more detail, including a
translation of the tagline (namely, "without posing and without permission"):
[http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street-
haras...](http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street-harassment/)

~~~
GFischer
Thanks, that was the case I had in mind, and I hadn't read the opinion pieces
:)

------
ChristianMarks
I have done my bit to put the MPAA and RIAA out of business: I don't watch
movies, and I don't listen to music. Google Glass does seem--at least
anecdotally--to elicit aggressive behavior. Prudence suggests waiting until
the Borg has assimilated the _homo sapien_ malcontents before wearing one.

~~~
pit
> I don't listen to music.

As someone who loves and makes music, I find this _really_ interesting. Do you
play an instrument? Listen to unsigned bands? Don't get me wrong: silence is
nice, too. But I don't think I will ever have a life without music.

~~~
steventruong
I use to be huge into listening to music in the 90s. Gradually at the turn of
the century, I practically stopped and almost never listen to music these
days.

I can't speak for others but for me it was a couple of things... When working,
I zone out quite a bit to the point that it's like not hearing music anyway so
what's the point. If anything music can be distracting. Unfortunately unlike
others, I prefer absence of sound aside from stuff like keyboard typing when
I'm working.

Outside of work related stuff, I gradually faded out listening to music
altogether in the car or while running as well. I generally prefer instead to
ride in silence thinking (zoning out again) or if I listen to stuff, stand up
comedy somehow became a thing to replace music

Edit: It is worth noting most of my music exposure these days if at all (and
if you can call it that) is coming across stuff on YouTube or while watching a
movie and music enhances the film lol. It did a major 180 in my life.

~~~
ChristianMarks
I have tinnitus and don't derive much pleasure from listening to music,
generally--especially not RIAA music. I can do without movies. There is more
than enough to read, program and calculate.

~~~
nmodu
And he lives in the town from Footloose.

~~~
ChristianMarks
Meanie!

------
choarham
It's easiest to engage with this at the google glass / privacy / media rights
gone amok level, but it is most important to face it directly: We are headed
towards a very real police state.

~~~
prawn
Quite the use of police resources too, going so far out of their way to take
on someone who might've been (but wasn't) making a copy (but not stealing an
original) of something digital.

------
lolwutf
Please, people: DO NOT ALLOW THE AUTHORITIES FREE ACCESS TO YOUR DEVICES TO
PROVE INNOCENCE!

Conceding to law enforcement this way only motivates them to promote policy
that allows for further rights violations.

See:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA)

------
rdl
This is a pretty suspicious story, but if true:

I would have called 911 and gotten "real" police there, and ask for charges
for false imprisonment, battery, assault. These were pretty clearly not real
police. If they were representing themselves as police officers ("federal
service" is pretty questionable), that's something local police would take
very seriously, too.

Lucky they didn't encounter one of the presumably-reasonably-large cross
section of tech people who are also libertarians and likely to be armed.

~~~
tdfx
I did not find any point in his story where the author having a concealed
weapon on his person would have improved his situation.

~~~
rdl
Absolutely (a hidden law degree or a second hidden camera, perhaps), but being
in a dark room and someone reading for your head and grabbing stuff off of it
is a fairly serious threat; it would be easily misinterpreted.

------
sergiotapia
What the fuck USA? These gestapo goons are running amuck harassing innocent
citizens.

~~~
alan_cx
Really? This is new to you? Really? I mean..... really?

You noticed the NSA thing where the USA harasses the ENTIRE WORLD on line,
right? Did you miss that?

Really?

------
rwallace
I stopped going to the cinema some years ago when they started putting threats
on screen before the movie. I realized "hey, I'm literally paying people to
threaten me; is that a logical, wise or sane thing to do? No. So stop doing
it."

So it seems those threats are by no means idle. Think about it if you're
considering going to the cinema: it's not like our society doesn't provide a
zillion other forms of entertainment where you won't be financing thugs.

~~~
erichocean
_" hey, I'm literally paying people to threaten me; is that a logical, wise or
sane thing to do? No. So stop doing it."_

Did you also stop paying taxes?

/jk

------
darkstar999
Wow. What a gross misuse of a federal agency. I can't believe my tax dollars
pay for this. What kind of reach does the movie industry have to make this
happen?

------
10feet
> I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them,
> I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but
> personal photos with my wife and my dog on it. I also insisted they look at
> my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first.

The problem is, even if these are very technical people, they not experts in
all technology, and there are 100s of ways of hiding this stuff. They can
never be 100% sure that you weren't recording it, maybe someone else nearby
had the hdd that everything was being sent to. So as much as you might like to
try to prove your innocence, it is impossible to do so.

Even in court they will have expert witnesses try to explain to the layman
what is going on, what is possible.

He was lucky they took this as evidence.

> I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why
> didn’t they ask me not to wear them in the theater?

They weren't there at the beginning of the film.

Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the
solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time.

~~~
MichaelGG
>He was lucky they took this as evidence.

Versus what? Just saying "but there might be some super duper spy tech we're
not aware of"? How would that be incriminating? I can buy cameras that fit
into normal looking glasses and wouldn't be detected. Let's detain anyone not
bald or wearing a scarf, as they might be hiding something.

>Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the
solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time.

How is that a solution? A solution is to stay at a home theatre and watch your
own copies. Or only go to high-end theatres where they won't have this kind of
treatment. (Which really is the only worthwhile way to go out to see a movie.)

------
foobarian
Do people still record movies in movie theaters? I'm getting 90s flashbacks
here.

~~~
altero
They do. But in Russia or China with tripod and proper camera. This was just
bullshit.

------
patio11
I'd like to have my property back so that I could leave, please. If you have
any questions I will be happy to answer them in the prescence of my attorney.
Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery. Have a nice day,
gentlemen.

~~~
tptacek
_Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery_

Not a helpful addition. Don't further provoke a cop who has been violent with
you. Another common piece of advice is not to ask about supervisors or for
badge numbers if you already have a way to identify them.

~~~
patio11
Probably good advice -- I was mostly mentioning that I'd file the complaint
afterwards rather than meaning "TELL the guy I'll be filing a complaint
afterwards."

------
MatthewWilkes
$600 prescription glasses? WTF? Just get a $30 pair and wear those rather than
having a camera taped to the side of your head. This isn't surprising in the
slightest.

~~~
jrockway
$30 glasses suck. They hurt your face and don't have anti-reflective coatings.
He may also have prisms, progressive bifocals, and so on, which don't cost
$30.

------
MRSallee
You couldn't pay me to watch an entire movie recorded off-screen on some
dude's Glass.

------
vorg
> it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two
> times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won’t be any
> incident either

> About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit)

The cinema could've been under obligation to more strictly enforce anti-IP-
theft measures for that particular movie. It was released on the same day in
many countries of the world so opening weekend attendance was important for
their revenues. I saw it in mainland China before it opened in the US.

I don't think any extra IP protection measures will help revenues for that
particular movie, though. It was the only time I've ever been the only person
in a cinema hall in China watching a movie.

------
philip1209
Why is there no mention of having a prescription medical device taken without
consequence? I wonder if, had anything gone south, being deprived of a medical
device during questioning could have been used to get evidence thrown out.

~~~
amckinlay
Don't think glasses are medical.

------
jrockway
With only 701 copies of the movie on Usenet, they're sure doing a great job!

------
grifpete
Every single person should watch this immediately.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

It is a brilliant talk about your rights.

------
CompuHacker
What does an inactive Glass look like under infrared light? It probably
glinted a ton on some recording device, someone noticed, he was detained. And
they did say, word for word: "You were caught recording the movie".

Advice: Don't point what's basically a cheap webcam at a theater screen for
the duration of a movie and not expect to get yelled at.

The legal side of this that everyone is discussing is the result of a failure
on the technical side which hasn't even been figured out yet.

------
vinceguidry
I have a buddy that works HR at a theatre. The studios take bootlegging VERY
seriously, and have spent millions updating their manufacturing processes so
they can watermark every copy of every film so they can figure out which
theatres bootleggers are operating out of. When they do a bust, they bring out
all the big guns they can so as to make a huge spectacle so as to deter anyone
else from even trying. That's why the FBI.

------
dmourati
Seriously doubt this was really the FBI. They are better educated than this
and more professional. Also, very unlikely to respond in the force described.

~~~
scdoshi
I'm curious, are you stating this based on your experience, or you just think
it's unlikely?

~~~
dmourati
I've met FBI agents in person in a professional context if that's what you
mean. I obviously don't have any first hand knowledge of this scenario but the
connection to the FBI seemed rather tenuous in the story.

~~~
dmourati
Confirmed, not FBI: [http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for-
wear...](http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for-wearing-
google-glass-at-the-movies-admits-i-was-an-ignorant-idiot-2014-1)

------
vacri
I love the blog format. Article about a somewhat distressing abuse of power by
authorities, followed by "Other articles that you will enjoy"...

------
thejosh
You were wearing a camera on your head.

Guess what would happen..........

~~~
PhasmaFelis
He was asking for it, look how he was dressed.

~~~
thejosh
If I come into a building wearing a full ski mask, would you expect not to get
shot?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Of course I would expect not to get shot. Is this a trick question?

------
tnash
Having been to that particular theatre many times (AMC Easton), there are
usually Columbus Police around, especially on the weekends. They also have a
fair amount of security there (Once they helped me get into my car after I
locked myself out). That's who I would guess would be there. Sometimes there
are even Columbus Police hanging out at the entrance of the theatre by the
escalators.

------
nathanh
At what point does Google Glass become an accessibility device? At some point,
people with a hearing impairment will be able to read subtitles on Glass. Then
it will be practically impossible to ban.

~~~
Jach
No, they can still ban it. If you want subtitles, you'll use a pre-approved
device. [http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits-
almost-6000...](http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits-
almost-6000-theaters-with-sony-glasses/)

------
Cthulhu_
tl;dr: * Dude brings a camera to a movie theater, which is illegal and tbh a
dumb move * Exaggerated response from some legal body excessively funded /
lobbied by the movie industry

------
lettergram
Why the FBI and not the local police? I understand that piracy goes through
the FBI, but the if you catch someone "in the act" I am sure the police can
handle it.

~~~
patmcc
Hopefully the local police were called, and told whoever called them to buzz
off and let them deal with more important things.

------
grecy
...and the top comment in the "fast Korean internet" thread is about how much
Freedom(TM) Americans have.

This doesn't sound like a story about someone with much freedom.

------
puppetmaster3
It appears that UT is not educated on law, and you have to be. “Can I leave or
am I under arrest” and “I don’t answer questions w/o a lawyer representing
me”.

------
jasonlingx
What did he expect to happen? He was pointing a video camera at the screen
while the movie was playing!

------
bkm
Have they ever heard of the expression 'the customer is always right'? Well,
there he was.. the customer.

~~~
ceejayoz
That expression is a moronic one and very few companies have ever made it
their policy.

------
hipaulshi
without even reading the story, you just don't wear a video camera to movies.

------
trentmb
el oh el at the wannabe tough guys in this thread...

------
notdrunkatall
Which is more ridiculous: that AMC actually called the FBI, or that the FBI
actually respond in this way?

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

~~~
jasonlotito
Well, we don't know it was the FBI. The story doesn't say anything other than
'federal service', and even uses the quotes. So, I imagine someone
masquerading as FBI, or trying to pull off that impression. Granted, it could
just be the FBI being dicks.

~~~
diydsp
My bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry.

In the past, I have seen stories about lens detectors in theatres which work
by beaming IR into the audience. I have also seen stories about watermarks in
films to encode location.

If it's true there have been filmers caught there, they may have conceivably
been on location that evening ready to pounce. They probably have travel to
regional theatres and wait for hours for the lens detectors to go off.

My bet is the contractors have some belief the crime is a federal case, having
watched a DVD intro, so they feel justified to claim they are "with" the
federal services.

edit: see this link to the related federal law:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540)

Anyone who is friends with cops knows how jealous mall cops and security
guards are of the real thing. I'm sure the same applies for contracted IP
enforcers.

Hence their excitement, power-tripping and the local cops- to actually perform
the arrest as the private security firm has no authority to do so.

Mods should change title from "arrested by FBI" to harrassed by cops and
strangers.

~~~
ben1040
>My bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry.

Over on the private forums for Glass owners, the person reporting this story
mentioned the company name of the person from the "Movie Association." Some
folks looked him up and apparently he has his own private investigation firm.

Sounds to me that the MPAA must hire PIs to represent itself in various
cities, and they must like to go all Jack Bauer if they think they've got
something.

------
streetnigga
Yea... Does it have a camera on it? Don't wear it into a theater or other area
where filming is prohibited.

~~~
mkaito
Well, it's a rim. If you wear eye glasses, you have your regular "I need these
to see things" lenses mounted into your fancy-ass $1500 rim. You'd need them
to see the damn movie, even if you weren't recording.

~~~
ohazi
So if you're going to go through the trouble and expense of getting
prescription lenses mounted onto this thing, then _maybe_ it's also worth your
while to get a second pair?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

We've seen people get into trouble with stuff like this before [0]. This is a
new, socially unproven device meant for developers. As an early adopter, you
should expect to run into occasional resistance until the general public and
law enforcement become more familiar with devices like this.

Expecting everybody to automatically be on the same page as you regarding what
is and isn't reasonable with this device is pretty naive. You are the public
image of this technology. Behave appropriately.

[0] [http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-
mcdon...](http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds-
for.html)

~~~
discardorama
> You know, to avoid situations like this?

So if an innocent guy gets strip-searched, your advice would be to tell him
not to wear clothes?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

~~~
jonesetc
That's not at all what was said, don't blow it out of proportion.

Think of it this way. I carry a pocket knife at all times. When I know I'm
going to get on a plane and go through security, I leave it at home. Obviously
this is not exactly the same because no one is getting shanked by google
glass, but the point remains. If you know you're going to a movie where they
really don't like you filming, don't point a camera at the screen. Even if
it's off.

------
whatevsbro
> _if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me (is it legal for
> authorities to threaten people like that?)_

Oh that's a bit like: "if I choose not to pay taxes, bad things will happen to
me", isn't it? I wonder if it's "legal" for authorities to threaten people
like that.

~~~
MichaelGG
Not cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes. He could just remain silent
and request a lawyer.

LE can and will lie to you, and make invalid threats in order to get people to
confess or just slip up so they can pin something on them. There's no
incentive for LE to behave ethically or nicely; they don't get penalized for
lying.

~~~
whatevsbro
> Not cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes

Right. I was just highlighting the similarity between those two things: if you
disobey "authorities", something bad will happen to you. Here it's good to
notice that extortion is illegal unless it's called "taxation", in which case,
_attempting to avoid extortion_ is illegal.

