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.
So, that makes the choice of telling them nothing pretty hard.
"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.
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.
Depending on the state, there's a requirement to ID (particularly in a motor vehicle, even as a non-driver). I generally am willing to comply with ID requests even when they're not mandatory, with a few exceptions (i.e. where it will prolong the interaction, like open carry in Oregon seems).
If a search happens anyway (either terry stop patdown or something more serious), the "I do not consent to search" should be repeated and very audible (ideally for any recording device), but don't physically resist.
OTOH, in NM, I'd probably not get out of my car even if demanded, but I'm currently boycotting the state.
Look, I understand these guys have a job to do, and they have a certain toolset they're allowed to use to do it. I don't begrudge them that. But damned if I'm going to let a sense of civic duty lead to my self-incrimination.
A friend of mine spent some time at the Public Defenders office. The number of times she saw people send themselves up for long stretches in prison, under circumstances in which the authorities would /never/ have gotten a conviction otherwise, led her to give me the same advice you see every single lawyer on television offer their clients: don't say anything!
The same is true for lawyers who tell you to never talk to the police. They only see the cases that get to a court, and don't see the cases that never make it that far.
I'm not saying that you should always talk to the police, but it very much depends on the situation. In that particular case I'd have probably talked with them and insisted that they look at the actual data on the glass, if the alternative is to spend the night in jail, waiting for someone to look at the evidence.
Why do you think it took them that long to connect a laptop to the Google Glass and see if any video was recorded. They probably suspected it was empty. They tried to brake the guy first, to find any reason to arrest him, so they can go to his house and search all of his computers. They asked him a ton of questions, and I can guarantee you, they were looking for any unrelated excuse to arrest him.
I talk to the police, even when it isn't in my personal interest, because I'm not a huge dickhead. I believe in a moral obligation to uphold the qualities that helped make my life livable in the first place.
You are guaranteed that some party is going to be a betrayer. A criminal and an innocent person aren't even playing the same game stakes-wise. In the prisoner's dilemma, both parties have to be guilty to begin with. More importantly, it requires knowledge of each party's existence by the other.
Edit: Sort of an aside (it seems you may be focused on the idea of talking for the purpose of snitching?), but I think Immortal Technique brought up a good point when he said that ordinary people (well, he said blacks and latinos) shouldn't snitch on each other until cops start doing it first. There are very obvious reasons why cops don't do it (along a scale from Adrian Schoolcraft to Frank Serpico) and maybe citizens are right not to do it either.
I didn't mean to say that "if everyone (including guilty people) is honest with the police then guilty people will be caught." That would have been naive. My point is that talking to the police is a prisoners dilemma when considered as a game played only between innocent people.
My point is that the police can't do their job without information, and almost all information given to the police is volunteered by innocent people. Far fewer crimes would be solved if everyone clammed up when the police knocked on their doors, and that'll inevitably lead to more crime.
The prisoner's dilemma is specific for a reason - nothing in its description is ambiguous. Please do not call this situation a prisoner's dilemma when it is not. The prisoner's dilemma implies a game with specific rules, and by applying that name to some other situation, you are changing the rules of the game and making it into something else entirely.
Information to help solve crimes can still be provided to police with a lawyer present, which is something that everyone should do when being questioned. Full stop. It's not about being moral or immoral, it's about basic self-preservation.
Say there's a street with two houses. In the event of a crime, people in the houses can volunteer information to the police. They don't know ahead of time whether their information is pertinent to the investigation or self-incriminating. Crime goes down by half if one house regularly snitches, and crime is eliminated if both do.
The expected cost of self-incrimination when volunteering information (with all probabilities worked out) is 3. The cost of unchecked crime in the neighbourhood is 4, applied to each house. The payoffs, then:
- If neither house snitches, payoffs are -4/-4.
- If one house snitches, payoffs are -2/-5 (against the snitch)
- If both houses snitch, payoffs are -3/-3.
This is classic prisoner's dilemma. I thought the general idea was clear enough in my initial post, but at this point the analogy I was making should be impossible to miss.
I don't disagree with your third paragraph. A lawyer will decrease your personal expected negative payoff without compromising the societal benefit of coming forward.
Right. So let's just remove the need for a warrant, and revoke the fifth amendment. You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, citizen.
From back when that "Stop Snitchin'" campaign had everyone all uptight.
And yes I have. IT is amazing!
My personal view is that rights are most greatly abridged in crises, and that the voluntary cooperation is less likely to beget oppression than is the unrest and crime prevented by cooperation. Moreover, I think a culture of forcibly requiring information is more likely to arise in a culture of reticence.
You're right that it's a difficult line to walk, though -- defending a cultural value of openness and strong rights to silence and privacy is a subtle point.
'Openness' amongst a community or society and openness with regard to the government are not one in the same.
I think we should encourage people to come forward of their own free will, both by making it safer to do so and by educating them on the benefits to society. In a sense I think this because I have faith in my local police, and see them as a part of the community, not as an "other."
Same as you, though, I don't believe believe in expanding their powers to compel people to come forward, because that obviously has scary negative consequences.
While I generally support unions, the police fraternity mindset is troubling. There are no good cops as long as the blue code of silence is the de facto mode of operation.
It is completely accurate for a lawyer to say it cannot help you _in court_ to talk to police. It cannot as a matter of law. The Miranda warning makes this pretty plain in that: "Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law." and many now read "may" as "can and will".
The police officer does not make the decision to charge you; that is done by a district attorney. The district attorney's job is to decide if they can get a conviction. It's also their job to get as many convictions as possible.
You may have read recently that 97% of federal drug convictions are plea bargains; the tl;dr being that people are forced to weigh a short sentence vs a brutally long one with a costly defense.
So a district attorney isn't making the decision solely on whether they can convict you in court but on if they can get you to plea as well. When the severity of the charge is high, say for example a mandatory minimum 15 year prison sentence (even for first offenders or even if you're only tangentially responsible for the crime (not exactly the same but Ryan Holle's story is a good read here)) if you're convicted, it is a lot easier for them to get you people to plea and they are more likely to proceed with charges.
When you interview with police, you have absolutely no idea what they plan to charge you with. They could charge you with things after speaking to you that have absolutely no relation to what they initially intend to question you about.
This is why you should never, ever, ever, ever take an interview with an investigating officer without a lawyer present. The safest and most paranoid extension of that is not to talk to police at all (like for reporting crimes, etc) and honestly I cannot fault anyone for that logic.
A) Somebody talked to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives.
B) Somebody talked to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily.
C) Somebody didn't talk to the police, the police gave them no trouble, and they went about their lives.
D) Somebody didn't talk to the police, they got themselves in trouble, and they went to prison unnecessarily.
You're saying that lawyers and prosecutors and such will see B but not A. This is true! However, when you consider all four cases, you must consider that these people will also see case D. And yet I have never once heard of anyone involved in the system who said, man, that guy really screwed himself by not talking to the police, if only he had just cooperated with them. Not once have I ever heard this. If it happened, they would see it, so the only conclusion I can draw is that it does not happen.
Edit: Hell, it's not even a joke anymore that cops routinely kill the physically and mentally ill.
and even things like http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/mentally-ill-man-froz...
If this isn't something that routinely happens, then it is not a significant danger to the life or liberty of the average citizen to request counsel while being interrogated.
Basically I was just asking for you to say what you just did.
If someone makes an argument that asking for legal counsel has a reasonable chance of leading to being killed or imprisoned for life, I would expect them to backup that assertion with some evidence upon request.
Stories about people being killed by police in other contexts don't provide any evidence to support the initial assertion.
They said "for less" in their statement and you acknowledge that it happens, so it doesn't attack their argument to ask for that, it just attacks how they worded it.
"citation needed" is just about the most useless thing to contribute to a discussion and based on the other comment I'm not the only one that feels this way. This isn't reddit.
I though the same thing, until I actually needed the citation myself on a topic I cared about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7043314
So at least "citation needed" is legitimate sometimes. (I totally agree that most of the time, it seems merely argumentative, not knowledge-seeking which is what is the good thing its being concealed behind).
Oh, new term : "Cite Troll" Which Im defining as someone who doesnt like something written, so knee jerks in to demaing citations.
But yeah. http://www.alternet.org/16-year-old-jailed-rikers-3-years-wi...
And one case most of us are familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_Brown
Everyone says this, but how certain are you that it's the best plan in every circumstance?
Can requesting for a lawyer reduce the amount of time you're detained? The guy was held for about 3.5 hours. If he required access to a lawyer, how long would they have detained him?
And then how much would the lawyer charge? Are you sure it would have been worth it?
There's nothing wrong with being polite, but insistent on having a lawyer with you when you speak to the police. Tell them that you will be happy to talk with your lawyer present.
If the police are questioning you then there's an excellent chance that what they are really trying to do is to build a case. The more you talk, the more things can be used to make you appear guilty in court - even if they don't seem significant to you. That is why you don't talk to the police - even if it means sitting in jail for a day.
There are plenty of interviews online where police officers, lawyers, and judges alike can't come up with even a single example of where someone was able to talk their way out of charges. The popular "Don't talk to the police" video is just one of them. Hell, Salinas v. Texas makes it abundantly clear that you can screw yourself right into jail even when you do remain silent but make the mistake of appearing uncomfortable during questioning.
In short, there are just too many opportunities for even an intelligent, innocent person to stumble straight into jail.
My opinion -- people who are smart often think that they know more than police. They may, possibly, but they definitely don't have the training necessary to predict how their statements (even if innocent) can be twisted to imply whatever the prosecutor wants.
Without saying too much here, let's just say I wish I'd seen this video in, say, 2002 (well before it was made).
(The Bill of Rights is a specific set of rights enumerated to _limit_ the government, it is _not_ an enumeration of rights granted to a person. The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are powers extended from the people to the government at the people's pleasure.)
Having said that, I said "ostensibly." I mean that US Code and jurisprudence are convoluted. Immigrants or tourists are especially at risk: deportation, or worse, a one way ticket to Guatanamo. This is absolutely in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the US Government is currently trying to lie and deny and bluff its way around those founding documents.
In my opinion, the attack on immigrants/tourists/foreigners (hi, NSA) is an attempt to gain prima facie precedents that will then be extended to regular citizens. Case in point: wiretaps, drones, and US citizens held indefinitely without a trial. I am a US Citizen but I defend your rights because it's only a matter of time before it will come back to me.
Regardless of what a cop threatens (or promises as the case may be), they are legally bound to arrest you if they believe a crime has been committed, and are not empowered to make deals with you. You will never talk yourself out of an arrest, but you can talk yourself into one. Therefore you should never talk to the police under any circumstances.
In this case, the guy actually cost himself time by talking to them. Had he refused, since a mere suspicion was not enough to book him, they would have had nothing to do other than connect the Glass and find out that there were no movies on it.
The problem is that cops routinely do things they aren't legally bound to do.
The sad reality is that "looking guilty" by not talking is usually a lot better than genuinely trying to cooperate and saying something that can be used against you in court.
"I would be happy to cooperate fully in the presence of my legal counsel."
You know exactly what your lawyer is going to do? He's going to walk into $LOCATION, announce "I am the attorney for John Smith. Take me to him immediately.", greet you, then say "My client refuses to answer any further questions. Is he under arrest? If not, he is leaving. Here's my card if you have any further questions about this matter."
And that will, most likely, be your entire engagement with this attorney. If you need one in the near future, you can hire one after a more informed search, and have your existing attorney brief him on the procedural history -- to whit, that you were briefly detained and that he did exactly what every other attorney in the phone book would have done under those circumstances.
P.S. In the United States, if you're under arrest, you are entitled to a public defender. Heck, you can even say "I won't speak to you except under advise of counsel. I don't have a lawyer at present, so until I find one, I'll accept the services of a public defender." If they refuse a public defender, you're not under arrest, and if you're not under arrest, you should probably leave.
Just ask for a lawyer. Don't worry about having to sit there in awkward silence for hours if it comes to that. There's no law that says if you can't find a lawyer in X amount of time after asking, you don't get one. You don't have to schedule a time for a lawyer to come in to get you.
Once you ask for a lawyer (which should effectively terminate the questioning, or at least it should), one of three things may happen:
(1) you will be arrested and charged. You gave them no new evidence to use against you, so you're in the best possible position.
(2) you will be "detained" for some amount of time while they go about sketchy, quasi-legal moves to gather more evidence against you (applying for search warrants for saliva/blood sample, your vehicle, home, etc. and they want to keep an eye on you until these are approved and executed). Depending on how their fishing expedition goes, either #1 or #3 will follow.
(3) they will release you.
Regardless of what happens, DO NOT TALK TO THEM.
The one thing that no one ever mentions is that the police usually don't follow the rules, and the courts usually don't penalize them for it. The only way to protect yourself is to shut up. Don't even make small talk. It's a chess game and there's no move you can make where you don't lose. Do and say nothing.
Is that actually how it works in the US? A judge in Canada recently lamented this as a "misconception brought on by watching too many Hollywood movies", and pointed out that (at least in Canada) you can make as many phone calls as you need in order to get a lawyer.
You're not obligated to talk without a lawyer. The police won't give you what you need to find a lawyer? Fine, just don't talk. If they're stupid enough to say, "you wasted your one phone call, no lawyer for you" then just sit there.
The legal system is run by humans and doesn't generally have silly gotchas like these. There's no such thing as, "you couldn't find a lawyer in ten minutes with one phone call, so you don't get to have one, gotcha!"
Because it can't hurt to try, can it?. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiYpsQhZsI for a bunch of highly fascinating examples of cops outright lying and people not falling for it. Not entirely the same situation, but this line from the article sure "smells" similar:
> I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room.
If you did nothing wrong, then you absolutely no reason to talk or say anything except "am I under arrest and am I free to go?"
See for example https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racia... .
What you listed here might make you feel better at the moment, but it doesn't express that you want to exercise your rights. If you don't express that you want to use those rights then the police can keep on doing what they want.
Do not claim you are innocent. You don't know all of the things they are investigating, and lying to an officer is illegal. The rest of what you said is easily interpreted as bluster.
According to your suggested phrasing above, if your lawyer does not investigate and then prosecute any apparent law-breaking, then you have just lied to a police officer. That can be an expensive phrase to follow up on.
If you are arrested, and convicted wrongly (which we know does happen), then your assertion of innocence is, to the courts, another lie.
According to the Supreme Court, you must say that you are going to remain silent in order to exercise that constitutional right. Your suggested phrasing shows that the citizen saying that is ignorant of the law, and is more likely that the "rent-a-cops" will use intimidation and other forms of persuasion to extract information in hopes of making an arrest.
You don't care, since you don't recognize the laws as being just. But it is bad manners to suggest your course of action to anyone who is not aware of what their legal rights are under this unjust regime. A martyr without reason is just another arrest statistic.
Where's the lie? In my case - it would be true. I'd investigate every single one of these rent-a-cops, and any laws they broke - they'd be prosecuted for it.
Look - I agree, don't talk to cops. But these are rent-a-cops we're talking about (private cops on the private property of the movie theatre). I see no reason why civil society should just bend over and take it, just because 'the law will get you because it is harder than you'. Such conditions bely the fact that you are living in a tyrannical state, yo ..
You then said "I'd investigate ...", when you earlier asserted that you would have your lawyer do it.
A lawyer's time costs money. Especially if, as was the case here, it doesn't seem like there was anything illegal. According to the account the Google Glass wearer was informed that he was not being detained. According the the account, the Google Glass wearer not only consented to a search but insisted upon a search. (There's also good odds that they training in ways to apply psychological pressure without breaking the law.)
Nothing here is illegal, and you would have no case, so it's not like your lawyer would even have the possibility of taking it on contingency.
But you are right. Assuming they were all "rent-a-cops" then there's no law against lying to them, and you could make whatever threats you want about lawyers, true or false. According to the report, it wasn't clear if they were or were not police officers.
Which is why knowing one's rights is important.
There's tyranny of oppression. There's also tyranny of ignorance.
Your 1 and only word is always 'lawyer'. Nothing else.
Possessing the potential doesn't break the law. Otherwise, the theater male management should be charged with rape since they are well equipped with the potential to rape.
Do you mean that you know the law of the relevant jurisdictions and can confidently interpret it, or do you just mean that it shouldn't be illegal?
There are plenty of crimes that exist on the books as preventative measures against serious wrongs being done. Sometimes it's worth prohibiting harmless but easily enforced activities if they're corellated the right way with harmful ones.
If you have done something wrong where someone got hurt - don't talk to them. Otherwise, it depends:
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.
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."
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.
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.
He says it was about an hour into the movie. Given the cozy relationship the MPAA has with the government, is it really that far fetched? If they really thought he was part of the scene? Not saying you're wrong, but is it that simple?
If that's the case, then they were most likely trying to avoid falling afoul of 18 U.S. CODE § 912, but I don't think that'd work out to well for them in any case. In United States v. Lepowitch, the Court held that it only requires "that the defendants have, by artifice and deceit, sought to cause the deceived person to follow some course he would not have pursued but for the deceitful conduct."
from Repo Man http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/
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.
The investigators work to make a confession before they even attempt to look at evidence; evidence that is already in their possession. Whether that means collecting/interpreting evidence is harder or if it means that investigators don't consider evidence to be important is an exercise I'll leave to the reader.
Make these people do their jobs so that when they actually do have to collect evidence to "catch a bad guy", they know how to. They clearly aren't used to doing so because if they did they'd know that evidence can make getting a confession easier or at least let them know they're wasting their time.
Lawyer up. Immediately.
I'd have said, "The TSA aren't police", full stop, but at some point, the Federal Air Marshals were folded into the TSA umbrella, and they most definitely are police.
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.
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.
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.
I'm aware of the “many details” bias so I'm just saying, either this story is true, or somebody is very good at inventing fictional stories about problems with Google Glass. I don't really see the point of the second option, so I'm sticking with the former.
In case anyone is wondering, that's the us federal law. Most States have individual laws that change the punishment.
Theatre owners can detain any suspected filmers, and can't be held liable for criminal or civil action arising out of it!
_Never_ go to the theater.
But in this day and age a good thrashing on twitter and facebook usually ensues.
2. This law doesn't just permit theaters to detain you until the cops arrive; they're permitted to detain you for the sole purpose of questioning you. I think it's extraordinarily problematic for private security forces to be given the power to do that. Such a detention could go on indefinitely, leaving it up to a lawsuit to hash out whether it was "reasonable" or not. If they're just detaining you until the cops arrive, at least the length of detention is upper-bounded by the response time of the cops, and there's no opportunity for shady or coercive questioning techniques.
- 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.
Although it might be only in protected memory and must be requested online during playback. Maybe even uses multiple keys during playback.
That there are high quality rips for most movies doesn't mean this doesn't also happen.
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.
Their motivations have nothing to do with "appearing smart or logical (to suspects)" or even (with my cynical-hat on) finding out "the truth" or "enabling justice". They're employees using the most effective/efficient techniques they know to achieve their workplace performance indicators – either just enough to keep their managers off their backs, or trying to aggressively exceed those performance indicators for career-climbing purposes. Either way – every single thing they're attempting to achieve is likely to be something you'll end up unhappy about if they successfully achieve it. How much career boost do you suppose their report of "Investigated complaint, discovered misunderstanding. No action taken, apology delivered on behalf of the Bureau" gives them, compared to "During a voluntary interview suspect confessed to three unrelated misdemeanors, two crimes, and one probable felony. Referred crimes to local police, who arrested and charged suspect. No copyright infringement found, case now out of our jurisdiction. Local police will advise outcome of criminal charges through usual channels."
edit: Thank you for editing your comment.
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?
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.
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.
What I can't make up my mind about is whether or to what extent we should approve or disapprove of the use of these words.
It's extremely strange. It is socially acceptable to criticize and make fun of the intelligence of someone with an IQ of 71, but not an IQ of 69. I can't explain it. But that's how it is.
I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your comment to reflect this.
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.
"The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. "
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...
If you don't want to be filmed by private individuals in public, then don't go out in public. Why is that no reasonable? There's already laws to protect privacy when you're not in public, or when the recorder is harassing you.
The issue, if any, isn't "some geezer walking round with a camera", it's that if all these videos get uploaded to a central system, anyone with access gets a lot of power.
That's the same issue people have with state or large-org level recording. In mass, the recordings pose a major privacy issue. On an individual level, there's no real issue at all. Imagine everyone wore life recorders. A single person is unlikely to have privacy compromised by any one or two set of records. But everyone is likely to be completely compromised by all the records.
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.
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.
No try to stop eating food and taking drugs. There goes the food industry and big pharma too!
And agribusiness needs a lot of shakeup too.
With the crap Holywood and the Labels are churning out lately they won't be missed if they implode ...
Conceding to law enforcement this way only motivates them to promote policy that allows for further rights violations.
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.
You noticed the NSA thing where the USA harasses the ENTIRE WORLD on line, right? Did you miss that?
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.
Did you also stop paying taxes?
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.
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.)
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.
> 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.
It is a brilliant talk about your rights.
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.
Guess what would happen..........
This doesn't sound like a story about someone with much freedom.
I am old. :(