AMC movie theater calls “federal agents” to arrest a Google Glass user

google-glass

A long time Gadgeteer reader contacted me today through Google Hangouts to tell me that he had a story that he thought I’d be interested in reading. He then forwarded me a long email with a story from a very good friend of his. It was such a surprising story that I asked if I could have permission to post it here on The Gadgeteer. I ended up communicating with the author of the story and have posted it here for everyone to read…

I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time. There were no stories to write about, until yesterday (1/18/2014).

I went to AMC (Easton Mall, Columbus, OH) to watch a movie with my wife (non- Google Glass user). It is the theater we go to every week, so it has probably been the third time I’ve been there wearing Google Glass, and the AMC employees (guy tearing tickets at the entrance, girl at the concession stand) have asked me about Glass in the past and I have told them how awesome Glass is with every occasion.

Because I don’t want Glass to distract me during the movie, I turn them off (but since my prescription lenses are on the frame, I still wear them). About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit), a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says “follow me outside immediately”. It was quite embarrassing and outside of the theater there were about 5-10 cops and mall cops. Since I didn’t catch his name in the dark of the theater, I asked to see his badge again and I asked what was the problem and I asked for my Glass back. The response was “you see all these cops you know we are legit, we are with the ‘federal service’ and you have been caught illegally taping the movie”.

I was surprised by this and as I was obviously just having a nice Saturday evening night out with my wife and not taping anything whether legally or illegally, I tried to explain that this is a misunderstanding. I tried to explain that he’s holding rather expensive hardware that costed me $1500 for Google Glass and over $600 for the prescription glasses. The response was that I was searched and more stuff was taken away from me (specifically my personal phone, my work phone – both of which were turned off, and my wallet). After an embarrassing 20-30 minutes outside the movie theater, me and my wife were conducted into two separate rooms in the “management” office of Easton Mall, where the guy with the badge introduced himself again and showed me a different ID. His partner introduced herself too and showed me a similar looking badge. I was by that time, too flustered to remember their names (as a matter of fact, now, over 30 hours later I am still shaking when recounting the facts).

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 (is it legal for authorities to threaten people like that?). 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. They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I’m making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don’t I just give up the guy up the chain, ’cause they are not interested in me. Over and over and over again.

I kept telling them that I wasn’t recording anything – my Glass was off, they insisted they saw it on. I told them there would be a light coming out the little screen if Glass was on, and I could show them that, but they insisted that I cannot touch my Glass for the fear “I will erase the evidence against me that was on Glass”. I didn’t have the intuition to tell them that Glass gets really warm if it records for more than a few minutes and my glasses were not warm. They wanted to know where I got Glass and how did I came by having it. I told them I applied about 1000 times to get in the explorer program, and eventually I was selected, and I got the Glass from Google. I offered to show them receipt and Google Glass website if they would allow me to access any computer with internet. Of course, that was not an option. Then they wanted to know what does Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie.

Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong.

I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room. A guy who claimed his name is Bob Hope (he gave me his business card) came in the room, and said he was with the Movie Association and they have problems with piracy at that specific theater and that specific movie. He gave me two free movie passes “so I can see the movie again”. 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? I would have probably sat five or six rows closer to the screen (as I didn’t have any other pair of prescription glasses with me) and none of this would have happened. All he said was AMC called him, and he called the FBI and “here are two more passes for my troubles”. I would have been fine with “I’m sorry this happened, please accept our apologies”. Four free passes just infuriated me.

Considering it was 11:27pm when this happened, and the movie started at 7.45, I guess 3 and a half hours of my time and the scare my wife went through (who didn’t know what was going on as nobody bothered to tell her) is worth about 30 bucks in the eyes of the Movie Association and the federal militia (sorry, I cannot think of other derogatory words). I think I should sue them for this, but I don’t have the time or the energy to deal with “who is my boss – they don’t want me, they want the big guy” again, so I just spilled the beans on this forum, for other to learn from my experience.

I guess until people get more familiar with Google Glass and understand what they are, one should not wear them to the movies. I wish they would have said something before I went to the movies, but 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. As for the federal agents and their level of comprehension… I guess if they deal with petty criminals every day, everybody starts looking like a petty criminal. 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.

Crazy huh? His story read like something out of the Jack Ryan movie that he and his wife had gone to see. Are there any other Google Glass users out there that have been treated badly just for your wearable tech? If not, are you reconsidering wearing a pair to the next movie you attend?

Update (01/21/14):

Wow, this article has completely blown up our web server due to the traffic. I just wanted to follow up with a few comments and info. First of all, I’m not a journalist, I’m a tech geek writer. Posting this article has given me a good learning lesson though, which I’ll use if I ever post a similar article in the future.

I have been criticized for not citing my sources and following up with the theater to verify that the story was true. I didn’t feel the need at the time because the person who gave me the story is a long time Gadgeteer reader and works in law enforcement. I felt 100% confident the story was not a hoax. I did however call the theater in question and tried to get in touch with someone there for a comment. My calls went unanswered.

After the article was posted. Rob Jackson of Phandroid posted his take on the article and asked me for the author’s contact info. With the author’s permission, I forwarded that info and Rob followed up with some questions and answers that he posted on his site. Take a look for more info on this story:

http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/

Update #2:

I just received info from the author with regards to the agents that questioned him:

For the sake of having all the facts right.
I have been trying to find out who the agents that “interviewed” me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the “federal agents”
talking to me were DHS.

Update #3:

The title of the article has been changed to reflect the recent update from the author that it was actually the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) who detained him and not the FBI as he originally thought.

Update #4:

The story has been confirmed. I just received this email from the author:

Julie, Rob.

I spoke with a reporter from Columbus Dispatch, who obtained a
statement from DHS and forwarded it to me. Here it is:

From: Walls, Khaalid H [mailto:Khaalid.H.Walls@ice.dhs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Allison Manning
Subject: ICE

H Ally,

Please attribute the below statement to me:

On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations
and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an
electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in
Columbus.  The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to
authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of
prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been
inactive. No further action was taken.

Khaalid Walls, ICE spokesman

Khaalid Walls
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
313-226-0726
313-215-7657(m)

Update #5

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/01/21/google-glass-at-easton-theater.html

Posted in: Android related, Articles

{ 210 comments… add one }

  • Trav January 21, 2014, 3:21 pm

    Er . . . I guess the response is: “No, we just don’t strap them to our faces or point them at the screen.” Still.

    101
  • Thorne Kontos January 21, 2014, 3:30 pm

    Does this story pass the smell test?
    >Last Saturday, our Glass-wearing protagonist and his wife went to a showing of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit at an AMC in Columbus, Ohio. About an hour into the movie, he says some federal agents…
    Two FBI field offices in Ohio, Cleveland, and Cincinnati…

    Drive time to Columbus? Cleveland 2:18 h, 141.89 mi, Cincinnati 1:43 h 105.74 mi

    So unless the FBI field agents just happened to be in the same theater, this story sounds completely bogus.

    However, DHS is right there in Columbus…

    Ohio

    Richard Baron
    Director
    Ohio Department of Public Safety
    1970 W. Broad Street
    Columbus, OH 43223
    Phone: 614/644-3286
    Fax: 614/752-2419
    http://www.homelandsecurity.ohio.gov

    YOU DIDN’T ASK THE OFFICERS TO PRESENT ID? LOL!

    102
  • Eric Arrr January 21, 2014, 3:37 pm

    Not sure if it’s any consolation, but this is a pretty clear-cut false arrest case. (Sure, the agents *said* he was not under arrest, but legally, when you flash a badge and haul somebody out of a movie theater, searched, etc, that’s arrest. And I have a feeling these were not real FBI agents; I suspect these were private security officers impersonating law enforcement, which, by the way, is a felony.)

    103
  • ESZ January 21, 2014, 3:43 pm

    you’re an idiot for even buying google-berg spydroid glass implant, way to go you slave

    104
  • BY January 21, 2014, 4:09 pm

    does FBI or home land security has office next the movie theater? if not. Did they come in helicopter? I think even helicopter will need take some time too.

    105
  • mo January 21, 2014, 4:28 pm

    I’ve never been to the states and by God from the sounds of the tolatarian state that is being run there I don’t want to go.

    Good luck America.

    106
  • Jeff Matson January 21, 2014, 4:31 pm

    I suspect an overall fear from law enforcement over Google Glass because they can now be recorded at any time. I believe there will be plenty of arrests made just to get rid of them soon. Because, of course, in their eyes they can record us all they want but the moment we record them, they feel incredible threatened.

    107
  • DLPrice January 21, 2014, 4:34 pm

    “He likely wants to remain anonymous because there have been a number of people who have been threatened with harm and actually assaulted because they were wearing Google Glass or other wearable computers over the past two years.”

    What a load of crap. This is not believable and even if it were, I highly doubt its the reason. This idiot wants to protect HIS privacy, but god forbid anyone else should want to protect theirs.

    Worried about violence related to using Google glasses? Don’t a be a rude, inconsiderate, privacy-trampling jackass wearing them and filming people in public without their permission. The ONLY reason someone would feel the need to wear them in public is to film people without their knowledge, and if you think about the reasons someone would want to do that, none of them are any good, unless you’re a private investigator.

    If you aren’t comfortable holding up your video camera or Smartphone to film something so everyone can see that you’re filming and remove themselves from the area if they’re uncomfortable–or better yet, ask permission as any person with the slightest common courtesy would do–then you have no business filming.

    To all of you using Google glasses in public, you’re rude and very creepy–it doesn’t take a genius to figure out 99% of what this will be used for is videotaping for your personal T&A collection, so you can not only stare creepily at women, but keep a record of it.

    108
  • Konig January 21, 2014, 4:36 pm

    The guy is a half-wit. The FBI was doing what they should have done, he walked in with a recording device, period! If someone walked in with a video camera you better believe they are an idiot and deserve to be, at minimum, questioned. Those things are for complete and utter tools anyways….

    109
  • Chris January 21, 2014, 4:38 pm

    Google Glasses are a cool toy… While I do not like the treatment this person received some forethought should be used when purchasing them for use.

    Here is something to consider… they are used to film everyone BUT you… by wearing them you have made the choice that everyone else is OK to be filmed in every circumstance but they are probably not.

    For instance… I would insist they get put away while at the urinal next to me… and I would be pretty adamant about it. I would do the same if you were texting with essentially a camera aimed at my junk.

    Cameras do not need to be everywhere… making a conscious decision to ONLY have prescription glasses with a camera on at all times is not a wise choice in my opinion.

    110
  • John January 21, 2014, 4:44 pm

    Ashley Manning just posted the story on the Dispatch web site.

    111
  • David Lightman January 21, 2014, 4:51 pm

    People, learn your rights!! There’s a 5th Amendment for a reason. The agents were bluffing. NEVER stay for a “voluntary” interview! You have nothing to gain. You ask, am I free to go? If they say yes, you get the hell out of there. If they say no, you say I invoke my right to remain silent, I want to talk to a lawyer. That will end the interview right then and there. They will either arrest you or let you go. If they were going to arrest you, they would probably arrest you anyway.

    Everyone take time to watch this youtube video from a law school lecture:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    112
  • bildanielson January 21, 2014, 5:29 pm

    @DLPrice

    Glass is awesome, and it’s uses are profound, immense, and incredibly diverse. To assume anyone and everyone who would wear it are, essentially, in the gutter with you is obtuse, narrow-minded, and lame.

    113
  • Anne Keckler January 21, 2014, 5:53 pm

    DLPrice, it is perfectly legal and ethical to film people in public without their permission. Furthermore, that is not the *only* reason someone might wear Google Glass.

    114
  • Douglas Boldt January 21, 2014, 6:09 pm

    DLPrice: Not everybody wears Google glass to record videos. Most of us use them to receive alerts of incoming SMS messages, phone calls, twitter mentions/DMs, and Facebook notifications.

    You’re flat wrong when you proclaimed that the only reason someone would wear Glass in public is to secretly record videos.

    115
  • DLZ January 21, 2014, 6:25 pm

    You have nothing to worry about DLPrice. Unless a Google glass wearer is making a documentary on enormous foreheads.

    116
  • Wylieguy January 21, 2014, 7:03 pm

    Technology; the inventor of conflict. Still cool though. Nice Story.

    -Wylieguy

    117
  • Douglas McFarland January 21, 2014, 7:05 pm

    A big suck it to all the chumps who whined about poor journalism and then proceeded to make even less informed proclamations with out knowing any facts at all.

    I was picked up by the police once hitchhiking when I was 16 (in Beaver, Utah) and accused of stealing an automobile. They took me and my friend to the station and interrogated us for about 5 hours. I only mention this in sympathy with home skillet who had the experience because it was so maddening and infuriating that I am very lucky that I was able to maintain composer at that young age and avoid being charged with something for loosing it. I really almost did it was ridiculous and consisted of being asked the same 5 or 10 questions over and over again for 5 hours. I didn’t know my rights then but the moral of the story is that you should never talk to the police without a lawyer when being interrogated. Ever. Seriously.

    118
  • Chris January 21, 2014, 7:12 pm

    We were two rows in front of you and the movie didn’t get much better after you left :)

    119
  • Harold O Truuth January 21, 2014, 7:19 pm
    120
  • Jenny January 21, 2014, 7:52 pm

    Seriously Julie? “arrest?” Nobody got arrested. Nobody went to jail. Stop sensationalizing the damn headline.

    This site is gonna fall back off the radar as soon as this 15 minutes is over. This site’s content blows.

    121
  • joe January 21, 2014, 7:55 pm

    here in mexico is worse my friend, we have to deal with criminal pólice and criminal civilians every day at any time, for expample, if i´m walking on the Street and there is a cop who is looking to make some extra bucks as usual, he could arrest me for doing nothing, and he could make up a story, any way judge believes more to his Word tan a civilian´s. good luck fellows.

    122
  • Rixk G January 21, 2014, 8:30 pm

    If the agents who detained and falsely arrested the guy were with the Dept. of Homeland Security, what authority or jurusdiction would they have to get involved in a financial matter in the first place?

    123
  • ChasL January 21, 2014, 8:35 pm

    Anyopne who can afford the $1500 Google Glass is not going to do Kramer-style pirating at a movie theater. 5 mp camera with mono sound? Come on…

    124
  • Corporate Police State January 21, 2014, 8:44 pm

    And why is the Department of Homeland Security investigating copyright crimes; especially like thugs with threats of harm? Never, never, never speak to any law enforcement without an attorney. Stare at them passively as they make threats. You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

    If the victim had not verbally engaged the DHS, they would have nothing to do but connect the USB…saving the victim 3 hours of pointless intimidation.

    125
  • Heather January 21, 2014, 9:24 pm

    Although the author said he did not have tome to pursue a suit against DHS or the theater,he should consider this. The only thing needed to be under rule of tyranny is for a good man to do nothing. Its paraphrased but point made. Every time we allow thing like this to happen we are giving our tacit consent. I’d like to see people rally behind this guy, get this on all alternative media, flood DHS with calls, get a total shit ball rolling.

    126
  • Reality Bites January 21, 2014, 9:38 pm

    I agree with Corporate Police. I would have been really quite, staring at them with a retarded look, maybe repeating can I talk to my lawyer. At least at that point you had some grounds for a wrongful arrest suit. I know you wanted it over asap, but in this case you have to fight for the freedom of not being harassed. The only real way to do that is to go through all the steps, sue the officer, dept, amc, mpaa etc until cnn, fox news all hear about it.

    They stole 4 hours of your life for their fancy — it really is the principal of the thing.

    FYI DHS handles all movie privacy now thats why they were there (its not longer FBI).

    127
  • tea isstronger January 21, 2014, 10:07 pm

    NO LAWYER WILL EVER SAY, ” I AM SO HAPPY MY CLIENT SPOKE TO THE POLICE.”

    Never, ever speak to the police or anyone who pretends to be the police. Ask Scooter Libby, Martha Steward or Jackie Joiner about speaking to the police about anything, they spoke to the police and were charged with what they said not the crime being investigated. Anything you say will be distorted to use against you. Nothing you ever say to benefit you will be used. There isn’t any law against wearing any kind of glasses or taking a recorder into the movies. Ever see a sign stating its illegal?

    128
  • enskati January 21, 2014, 10:14 pm

    I think his an idiot and deserved it. Why would you take a high-tech glasses to the theater anyway if you know their policy against piracy, no matter how ridicilous it is ? Why not just take a big-ass camera or a gun and act all suprised when people start flipping ? And the excuse that you had your lenses on them and couldn’t take the regular glasses, so what ? Im still not taking my gun everywhere just to show everyone i have a tiny shlong and need attention. Its not that hard to use your common sense.

    129
  • Don January 21, 2014, 10:32 pm

    The lecture above is a good one but long on why and short on how. Flex Your Rights does great work about how to handle a police encounter and this video is an excellent one.

    130
  • j January 21, 2014, 10:45 pm

    There should be a sign at the entrance to the theater. “If you are such a pathetic tool as to have Google Glass on your person, please put it away while you are here.”

    Management failed to have the foresight to post such a sign, so now a pathetic tool, who is not embarrassed to wear Google Glass in public, has a story to tell about his maltreatment. Could be the most interesting thing that ever happened in his life.

    131
  • Rock January 21, 2014, 10:58 pm

    @ Konig

    “The guy is a half-wit. The FBI was doing what they should have done, he walked in with a recording device, period! If someone walked in with a video camera you better believe they are an idiot and deserve to be, at minimum, questioned… ”

    You’re an idiot. If I walk into a building with a penis, should I be questioned for rape?

    132
  • A Patriot January 21, 2014, 11:08 pm

    This terrorist was briefly interrogated by Freedom Agents of the DHS and then released. Not a problem, Citizens! Film piracy is war – that’s why our tax dollars are focused on stamping it out!

    133
  • JamesG January 21, 2014, 11:32 pm

    I was going to say “Illegal Search and Seizure”, but since the author gave permission…

    134
  • skywise January 21, 2014, 11:42 pm

    On the technical side of things, wouldn’t google glass be the absolute worst way to record a movie? We’d get to see a bit of the movie, his wife, the cute blonde in the next row, the annoying guy playing Plants Vs Zombies.
    We’d enjoy listening, very close up, to him eating popcorn, coughing, muttering about how stupid this movie is.
    And, google glass has a 30 minute battery life while shooting video.

    135
  • Henry Allen January 22, 2014, 12:13 am

    So that’s why several theater employees , flashlights etc., constantly meandered thru the theater last night (while we were watching Capt Phillips). My GF was wearing ear (shooting range type) protectors because of the absurdly loud theatrics and previews!
    Parinoia! Hey, she even had on her regular glasses!

    136
  • Jackolantern January 22, 2014, 2:43 am

    Dude, it’s your fault to begin with. Why are you wearing a device capable of recording, into a cinema. Regardless of whether it is on or off, you will be prone to suspicion. Why do you choose to create such suspicion when you should have just worn either normal glasses or just take them off before entering the cinema.

    Unnecessary trouble created as a result of your ignorance. I am speechless.

    137
  • Jarrod January 22, 2014, 2:57 am

    Anybody who wears these things is a douche. You deserve what you get.

    138
  • EDpeak January 22, 2014, 4:28 am

    Anyone else notice this?

    “…and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using …”

    If you consider 3 and a half HOURS to be “brief”

    I suspect if our “public servants” in government were on the receiving end, they would NOT consider 3 and a half hours of interrogation done to them, to be, “hey man, it was just ‘briefly’ !”

    We are Citizens, not Subjects, to borrow from Thomas Jefferson. But I guess the risk of “lost profits” is more important than freedom denied to a citizen for three and a half HOURS while the feds refuse the repeated, repeated offers to plug the thing into a computer and prove there is nothing on it.

    139
  • Kyle January 22, 2014, 5:37 am

    Gotta say, I work in Easton Town Center and I didn’t get even a whiff of anything going on when I was working Saturday night. As a matter of fact, the Easton Security team was on top of things in the retail section of the mall, as we saw a lot of loss-prevention action being taken.

    The walk from the theaters to the Easton offices goes directly past our store and if my experience working at Easton has told me anything, it’s that the patrons of the mall will make as big a deal as they can if something like this were to go down.

    But, I’ve heard for over a year now that Easton’s AMC is one of the top pirated-movie recording locations in America (sadly), so it’s more than possible.

    I don’t know what to think, so I’ll take it with a grain of salt.

    140
  • Publius January 22, 2014, 6:59 am

    Why the heck did Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents get involved in this??? They do not represent the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA). Even if the guy was filming the movie, that is not a national security issue.

    Talk about LEO’s over-reaching their mandate…

    I hope the guy sues, not (just) for his own sake but to help everyone else who is affected by things like this.

    141
  • GeekTinker January 22, 2014, 7:35 am

    AMC theaters were bought out by a Chinese company last year. It’s no surprise to me that their policy is to bring in the feds for suspected piracy of a movie, despite how illogical it would be to do so with Google Glass. Any one who thinks this action was warranted by the theater, movie association, or DHS should start practicing the phrase, “I welcome our Chinese overlords” in Chinese until the are proficient enough to say it while groveling convincingly. At best, the theater should have stopped him at the time he entered their establishment while wearing the device. At worst, they could have sent a manager into the theater after he and his wife had sat down, to ask him about it quietly. Calling in the DHS and sending armed Federal agents into the theater to haul the man out for questioning was way over the line. Had I been another patron in that theater and had my movie interrupted in such a manner, I’d have been ticked about it and complaining to the manager, demanding a refund of my ticket costs.

    142
  • El Cop January 22, 2014, 7:42 am

    Being detained is not an arrest, being detained with probable cause is not an arrest. Mr. Anonymity is in a location known where pirating takes place. Mr. Anonymity had a pair of glasses capable of filming images in a known pirating location. Mr. Anonymity has forgotten everything.

    This is most likely a fictitious incident, it never happened and if it did happen, this site; along with others, have blown it way out of proportion adding it to the pile of digital detritus that has become the Internet.

    And so it goes…

    143
  • bigbob January 22, 2014, 7:49 am

    MPAA = Jackbooted Nazi’s

    144
  • Tim January 22, 2014, 8:02 am

    Wow, they actually wrote “the ‘man'” and not “person” in their report? That’s highly unusual. Of course, not many know what I am talking about.

    145
  • DLPrice January 22, 2014, 8:11 am

    “DLPrice, it is perfectly legal and ethical to film people in public without their permission. Furthermore, that is not the *only* reason someone might wear Google Glass.”

    Legal? Yes. Ethical? Absolutely not. The urinal example is a perfect illustration of how someone is bound to abuse this. Expect a whole crop of porn sites popping up of people secretly filming in bathrooms, fitting rooms and god knows where else and posting them online.

    Hey, how about filming in a hospital, which violates patient privacy rights? But by god, you techno nerds have the RIGHT to film anyone and anything no matter what, and will sue anyone who tries to deny you! That’s SO much more important than a guy being able to use a urinal without worrying about some perv filming him.

    Douglas Boldt: Seriously, you really need to have glasses to get notifications of your text messages/phone calls/twitter? It’s too much work to pull out a phone and look at it? You’re going to make others out in public uncomfortable and angry because you don’t want to have to pull out a phone and god forbid you not get a twitter notification within 10 seconds after it happens?

    The only thing these glasses do that can’t be done with your smartphone is secretly film people. So deal with the fact that if you’re wearing them a LOT of people are going to think (know) you are some kind of perv as well as a jackass.

    146
  • Joe Mattie January 22, 2014, 9:44 am

    That movie was leaked to the torrent sites a month before this happened. Way to go cops.

    147
  • Frank Frank Frank January 22, 2014, 10:07 am

    When the Google Glass becomes available to the general public you can be sure it will change the world. 1984 has finally come with a vengeance! Not only will information become available to the state as to what everyone is saying and doing but information will become available to the public as to what the police are doing. If a soldier or police officer so much as looks at a someone the wrong way he could get into deep trouble. No more police brutality. As for movies if everyone has these glasses and newer models become smaller and harder to tell from ordinary eyeglasses it will be impossible to stop people from recording the latest movie releases and uploading them to the internet. And forget television, people in the privacy of their own homes will be able to record tv shows without effort and put them on the internet also. Privacy will no longer exist in the rest rooms, is the man in the booth next to you wearing eyeglasses or Google Glass? Do you go to the gym or swimming pool? Either you will have to wear your shorts in the shower or be prepared for the whole world to see you as you really are.

    148
  • marianne January 22, 2014, 10:09 am

    Hello from Montreal, Canada

    What a complete idior this mans was for wearing these odd glasses. Obviously, he wanted to ”flash” with his super $1500 specs. He wanted to attract attention. He did that all right! But what about if his real intention was to ”promote” the google gadget? What other reason could there be – his lame excuses really don’t cut it. The theater was right to take immediate action to prevent copyright infringment.
    For those of you interested in the copyright protection act, please check latest judgment of Canadian Supreme Court on the case of CLAUDE ROBINSON.
    Just type claude robinson on your search engine.
    And to the Gadheter, just love your site. Thanks.
    Marianne

    149
  • Matt January 22, 2014, 10:29 am

    “This is most likely a fictitious incident…” said the person who failed to notice the official press release confirming that the incident really did occur.

    Apparently he claims to be some kind of a law enforcement officer. Well folks, there’s the problem, right there!

    The dude reaches his conclusions based on the interesting concept of ignoring all known facts. That’s probably reflected in his arrest record. If he really is a cop…

    150
  • PolarSphere January 22, 2014, 10:47 am

    Perfect example for the need to reform copyright ! If you are a EU citizen, you should hint on this in the copyright consultation of the EU.
    The EU is going to reform copyright soon and in this context the EU asks YOU: “How copyright should be changed ?” – tell the EU now by participating at the survey via http://copywrongs.eu/

    151
  • Mawm January 22, 2014, 10:53 am

    @DLPrice

    Nice Strawman argument. There are already laws against filming in restrooms and hospitals, so there is no way to conflate the concept of public spaces with these environments. But did you know there are things called spy-cameras? Anyone could be filming you without your knowledge at any time, even in the restroom.

    I suggest you stop leaving the house. That way, you won’t ever have to worry about “pervs” recording you without your permission. However, if you do venture out, just remember as you wend your way through public spaces that you don’t get to decide what pictures people get to take, and that is as it should be.

    P.S. Don’t you think it says something about you that the only purpose for Google Glass that you can think of is to record people for sexual gratification?

    152
  • James January 22, 2014, 10:58 am

    The main thing I take away from this story is this: law and business-policy have a ways to go before they catch up with tech.

    Until AMC says, “You may not wear Google Glass in the theater,” we can. I’d have zero problem with AMC posting, “No Google Glass or other recording hardware in the theater.” They’re a private business, and Glass is self-evidently obnoxious to what they do, like bringing a scanner into a Barnes and Noble.

    So they should say so, and then these misunderstandings won’t happen.

    153
  • WhatEver January 22, 2014, 11:30 am

    @DLPrice – You simply do not get it. There will certainly be issues.

    You obviously use a computer and the internet, because “techno nerds” made them both popular and affordable for you years ago. You are simply a follower or a late adapter and someone clearly afraid of something new. Pandora’s box was opened long ago and this is the future.

    Google Glass intruding on privacy? Really? Do you have a smart phone? I can’t tell you how many times I have been annoyed by a smart phone user filming or photographing something – including me. There are a lot less obvious ways to film someone. There are mini cams and have been for a long time. Those porn sites you speak of popped up over 10 years ago. Honestly, porn sites led the way in development of secure content on the internet. Those were “greedy capitalists” like the Movie Industry though.

    You seem to have this opinion that “techno nerds” feel they have a right to film anyone anywhere. Generally speaking I would say it is people like you the late adapters or young kids that feel that way. Techno Nerds are generally enthralled with the experience and seeing how useful the device can be. They are not pretentious – they are excited about technology.

    Hospitals and other areas that forbid it have signs indicating that. Guess what? They don’t confiscate your cell phone when you walk in the door do they? Still pretty easy today to film in them if you want to get technical.

    154
  • John January 22, 2014, 11:40 am

    DLPrice: You need to get over your self and you fears. In today’s society cameras are on almost every i-device and smart phone out their. Some one can “pretend to play a game of angry birds” and secretly be filming.

    Does that give you the right to villainize anyone and everyone that happens to use a device that is capable of recording or taking pictures?

    Let’s take some time to do actual research instead of spitting out venomous HATE everywhere. Glass Explorers need to be looking DIRECTLY at you, and you can see the reverse image in the eye prism glowing. In fact they would have to be staring you down, instead of innocuously pretending to manipulate a cell phone. Their is no zoom capability so they would have to use “sneaker zoom” and walk directly towards you while staring at you.

    I suspect this behavior would be very obvious to detect.

    To further assuage your fears I think that most tech savy Explorers use glass for it’s many other features and simply want a hands free way to access information, such as checking the weather, sports scores, RSS feeds about topics they are interested in, responding to text messages and navigation.

    There are many applications for Glass and other devices like it, but I do not think that they are designed very well for they way YOU insist they are used.

    Lets get the facts, and do some critical thinking here instead of spreading senseless animosity.

    155
  • bob January 22, 2014, 11:47 am

    So this guy is some kind of law-enforcement type, and he’s asking whether it’s legal for police to threaten arrest if a voluntary interview isn’t conducted? Yeah sure.

    As for all the folks arguing over whether it’s legal to film people without their consent, look into the legal notion of the “reasonable expectation of privacy,” legalities of using someone’s likeness without their consent (“model releases” and such), etc., and consider that your lawyer imitation is about as convincing as a female model wearing Glass.

    156
  • Wollombi January 22, 2014, 11:53 am

    I love how everyone is saying it’s his fault for having a device capable of recording with him at that theater. By that logic, everyone with a semi-modern cell phone should be under suspicion and subject to detention and questioning, every time they go to the movies. I’d wager that’s about 90 percent of the population in any given city in the United States.

    The fact that the screen lights up and draws attention when recording is just as valid with the Google Glass, as the module on the frame displays a red light when recording, also drawing attention.

    This guy may feel like he doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of a lawsuit, but I encourage him to reconsider. Not only will such a thing be standing for his rights, but also for the rights of every other American citizen that these federal clowns consider their subjects, rather than their employers. It is imperative that the line be drawn and clearly established, to curb this sort of behavior and prevent it from happening in the future.

    157
  • Merinas van der Lubbe January 22, 2014, 11:53 am

    Now let’s see… Mere *possession* of this silly toy, is now grounds
    for dragging you into an interrogation?

    And now DHS has responsibility for “Protecting” the copyright
    laws as well.

    Welcome to Obama’s Nazi America – Sieg Friggin Heil.

    158
  • RainyDayInterns January 22, 2014, 12:14 pm

    “Sir…please come with us.”
    “Why?”
    “We have determined that you have an eidetic memory and you were looking directly at the screen.”
    “But…that is because I’m watching the movie.”
    “Sir…no recording of any kind is allow. Do we have to get medieval on you?”

    159
  • Bill January 22, 2014, 12:46 pm

    Five minutes of googling the technology would have answered all there questions and confirmed it was a huge waste of time. The battery only last 45 minutes when recording HD. It won’t stablize the image enough to compensate for normal head movement during the movie as you look back and forth. The resolution is too low, and the audio quality sucks.

    To get away with it, one would have to hack the glass to disable the red light. If such a person is going to hack the light, then they will also be smart enough to have an app to automatically erase the film if they don’t manually rename the movie or such in a timely manner. So even if he was illegal filming, the only way they would get sufficent evidence for an arrest is if they had a data recovery experts analyze the flash memory, or if they got a confession.

    160
  • Bill January 22, 2014, 12:49 pm

    BTW. If I wanted to record a movie, I’d just go in with a shirt with a small hole in the front pocket and cell phone that did HD. But what would be the point? Most movies are available for illegal download even before I could possibly make a trip to the theature to watch it…

    161
  • Don January 22, 2014, 3:02 pm

    Did the agents watch the movie to (may have been brief) but watched parts of it – for free ? If so – without paying? that’s a crime to – 20 slashes across the back I say.

    162
  • steve January 22, 2014, 3:19 pm

    Question? Why are companies so against illegal filming of movies or illegally making knock offs, but it is ok for people who aren’t citizens to be in our country. These people who are in our country and are using the system for food stamps, medical and jobs are costing legal citizens money and jobs, yet these same companies want them here to work cheap while we pay the bills so the higher ups can make more money. I might be against the knock off industry if these same companies weren’t pushing to let everyone in for free.

    163
  • MichaelJ January 22, 2014, 3:23 pm

    Where this guy screwed up was when he heard, “…not under arrest, and that this is a “voluntary interview”, he didn’t say, “f**k you” and walk out.

    There’s nothing to sue for here, because he was repeatedly told the interrogation was voluntary. If he was too stupid to accept that at face value and walk out, then he got what he “volunteered” for.

    It’s a good lesson for everyone to learn. Cops lean on people who are ignorant of their rights. It’s usually effective to ask, “Am I being detained, or am I free to go?” Any detention that lasts more than about 15 minutes generally becomes an arrest. An arrest without probable cause is an actionable event, and you CAN sue for that… and should. Beyond identifying yourself (which is required in some states), you are free to say NOTHING. (The boobs in black HAVE ruled that you must actually say that you’re choosing to say nothing – just one of many examples of supreme idiocy on the supreme court.)

    Cop: “What were you doing in that theater?”
    You: “I am invoking my right to remain silent.”
    Cop: “We know you were recording the movie!”
    You: “…”
    Cop: “Things will go badly for you if you don’t cooperate!”
    You: “…”
    Cop: “Who were you recording the movie for?”
    You: “…”
    Cop: “How much were they paying you?”
    You: “Am I being detained? Or am I free to go?”
    Cop: “No, you’re not being detained.”
    You: “Fuck you, you piece of shit.” (and walk out)

    But you can’t sue for something you “volunteered” to do.

    The search would have been an illegal search – there was no probable cause – but again, it appears the numb-nuts consented to the search.

    Here’s something EVERYONE should remember: The pigs have the burden of PROVING THEIR CASE. If in fact you did nothing wrong, feel free to be as dismissive of their stupidity as you like. Insult them. Tell them they’re pigs. Gestapo. Dare them to arrest you. Go on the offensive. Make a scene! They’ve… got… nothing. And the more you tell them what shit-brained assholes they are, the more they realize they’ve got nothing and they’re playing with fire by screwing with you.

    Do NOT behave submissively. This is a signal to the pigs that you are under their control, that you have given up, that you even agree with them that you are guilty (because, if you’re not guilty, shouldn’t you be outraged at their intrusion on your life?) And anyone who has even been bullied knows that submissive behavior is red meat to a bully… and that’s what these scumbags are – bullies. I’m not saying you have to start out calling them worthless slime – but if they say you’re free to go, JUST WALK OUT. And make sure the movie theater refunds your money.

    In this particular case, if they wanted to see the contents of your phone, or Glass, or pockets, the appropriate response is, “First show me your warrant.” Yes, they can do a Terry pat-down to make sure you’re not armed – but they have no right to dig into your electronics unless they can articulate a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Conversely, as soon as you “go along” with the search, you’ve screwed yourself again!

    The guy who took the Glass might be liable under criminal laws for theft. But knowing how the various jurisdictions service each other (yeah, that was meant to sound dirty), a complaint would likely go nowhere.

    Finally, if you have not yet viewed the video, “Don’t talk to the police”, DO IT NOW!! I guarantee you that you will enjoy it and will learn more in 40 minutes about how to handle the cops than you think possible. (The speaker is highly entertaining – and he’s an expert on the subject.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Nearly 3.5 million people have watched it so far. That means we have about 305 million who probably don’t know WTF they’re doing.

    164
  • anon January 22, 2014, 4:13 pm

    re: DLPrice

    Everything you have said in this comment thread is a projection of your own fears and insecurities.

    And I think you should really do more research before you start chattering about things you obviously are ill informed about.

    All those porn sites you said would crop up? They already exist. And if you haven’t done some research about hidden/micro/security camera technology, perhaps you should. Because the technology you act like you fear is already here. Any loss prevention specialist could probably make you squirm by telling you what exists, in terms of covert recording technology.

    And anybody that would be looking to do what you suggest wouldn’t be doing it in such an obvious manner as using Google Glass to do it. That’s just silly.

    I know what the current level of spy cameras is, and your best bet is to assume you are being recorded everywhere. Google Glass is the least of your worries.

    165
  • Nora-Adrienne January 22, 2014, 4:48 pm

    I think it’s time to get a business card from my partner’s cousin. He’s back in private practice after years of sitting on the bench.

    He was an Associate Justice for the State Supreme’s and then a Justice for the Appellate Court here in NY.

    I’m sure he’d be more then happy to take care of any problems I might have if I’m ever rich enough to buy a pair of those google glasses. LOL

    166
  • Stan January 22, 2014, 5:06 pm

    Jenny…

    You need to go look up the legal definition of arrest. Going to jail is not required. Being told by law enforcement agents is not required. In fact, law enforcement agents sometime specifically deny someone has been arrested when, in fact, they legally have been.

    The legal line between detention (which requires only reasonable articulable suspicion) and arrest (which requires probable cause) is not a set in stone. However, if the police move you from one location to another, that generally makes it an arrest. Also, the time frame involved here would make it legally an arrest. There is very little question that he was, legally, arrested.

    There is very little chance the agents who arrested him will suffer any consequences for what they did, of course. That is what is wrong with America.

    167
  • axnyslie January 22, 2014, 6:34 pm

    The simple defense is who in their right mind would want to pirate Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit?

    This is an ongoing trend on blogs people acting persecuted over wearing Google Glass. Next time leave your toy gadget at home and act like an adult.

    168
  • eric oyen January 22, 2014, 7:20 pm

    I am a blind person and I use google glass in concert with a video to audio “seeing with sound” interface. These things are a godsend for a blind person. With these and the right app, I can see objects before I hit them. If you want more info, look up seeing with sound on google. As for the DHS, I think they may have overstepped their authority. We still have the right to be secure in our possessions, papers and the like under constitutional law. Frankly, I am surprised that he doesn’t file a suit on civil rights grounds.

    169
  • Old Poor Richard January 22, 2014, 7:39 pm

    Why is the Department of Homeland Security investigating alleged copyright violations? I can’t think of anything more outside the scope of their mission.

    Why does the government cooperate at all with those Hollywood buffoons? I’m fed up with my tax dollars being spent to to engage in this sort of unjustified thuggery in cases which should properly be tort actions against copyright violators brought at plaintiff expense, not taxpayer expense.

    170
  • DStaal January 22, 2014, 9:22 pm

    @MichaelJ, I would disagree on the ‘be rude to them’ – after all, they can arrest you and charge you for resisting arrest if they want. They don’t actually need a reason why they were arresting you in the first place to send you to jail.

    You can be polite and be non-submissive at the same time. There’s no need to anger the police unnecessarily. It doesn’t mean you go *along* with them, and I fully agree he should have tried to just walk out (and if he wasn’t allowed, to wait for a lawyer), but yelling at them and insulting them just makes the situation worse.

    171
  • Dave Watts January 22, 2014, 9:42 pm

    @DLPrice:

    “The only thing these glasses do that can’t be done with your smartphone is secretly film people.”

    Actually, no, these glasses can’t even do that. I have them, and wear them pretty regularly when I’m outside. I’ve never used them to take a video or picture of another person without their explicit permission. When taking a picture, or recording, the display lights up – so there’s nothing secret about it. If I wanted to secretly film people, I’d choose one of the many unobtrusive wearable cameras now on the market that cost a lot less money and actually do a better job.

    The photo/video functionality of Glass is one of the least interesting things about it. The reason I’m interested in Glass is the stuff it can show the wearer on its screen. For example, it can provide a GPS display that’s quite a bit different from using GPS on a smartphone. I use this quite a bit while cycling. It also integrates with Google Hangout, allowing me to do video calls and show other people what I’m looking at. This is incredibly useful for solving problems that don’t involve sitting in front of a computer.

    Finally, the Glass Explorer program is … expensive. It’s too expensive for people to buy on a whim to generate third-rate semi-pornography. The only way I could justify getting one myself was that I could develop applications for it.

    172
  • Chicomojado January 22, 2014, 10:03 pm

    I called the theater a few hours ago and they said they had never heard of any of this. The GM is going to give me a call back tomorrow so I can direct him to this article.

    173
  • one-of-them January 22, 2014, 10:21 pm

    BS.

    174
  • FeRDNYC January 22, 2014, 10:50 pm

    On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in Columbus.

    The Feds have a really nutty definition of “briefly questioned”; 3.5 hours!? But I suppose it’s all relative, when the other end of the spectrum is the “detainees” at Gitmo who they’ve been “questioning” for YEARS.

    I guess the fact that they were Customs agents explains DHS’ involvement. Also, why they wouldn’t have just asked him to remove his Google Glass when entering the theater. They WANTED him to have a recording of the movie in his possession. It was clear from the start of the conversation that they intended to use it as leverage, hoping he’d roll over on his (presumably) Chinese piracy ring masters.

    175
  • FeRDNYC January 22, 2014, 10:57 pm

    @Tim (January 22, 2014 at 8:02 am)

    Wow, they actually wrote “the ‘man’” and not “person” in their report? That’s highly unusual. Of course, not many know what I am talking about.

    Oh, I’d say not even you know what you’re talking about. But, hey, nice hat! Is that real tinfoil?

    176
  • Federale (@Federale86) January 22, 2014, 11:48 pm

    This is a violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 242, Violation of Rights Under Color of Law, a civil rights violation. The victim should contact the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General at:

    Call:
    1-800-323-8603 toll free
    Fax:
    202-254-4297
    U.S. Mail:
    DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 0305
    Attention: Office of Investigations – Hotline
    245 Murray Lane SW
    Washington, DC 20528-0305

    177
  • Ben January 23, 2014, 12:55 am

    I really do not see why people are so angry with the Glass. People with smartphones have HD cameras too, but people are not being hauled out of theaters, bars, and restaurants for having a cell phone with a camera on it. When you go into a public place you are constantly being recorded by security cameras. Any store you walk into has them, every bank and government building; basically when you walk out your front door you have no privacy. The other side of the coin is that security personnel and federal employees do not like to be recorded.

    The guy in the article had a horrible experience of overzealous security agents. There should be a recourse to things like this, but it seems that these kinds of things are becoming more commonplace.

    178
  • GTFO January 23, 2014, 3:52 am

    “I have told them how awesome Glass is with every occasion.”

    EVERY? EVERY OCCASION???? haha, how much are you getting paid, son?

    179
  • Andy January 23, 2014, 5:06 am

    Classic example of technology meeting a bunch of technophobes, they don’t understand it so it he is assumed to be a villan even though the glasses aren’t ideal for the alleged ‘crime’.

    But then geeks love their tech and showing it off to the rest of the world, and this guy should have been aware of the perceptions he could cause. I cant believe that he doesn’t own a second pair of regular glasses which he could have used at the cinema and as a geek you should assume that he is fairly intelligent so in my view, it’s entirely his own fault.

    For me reality is real enough without augenting it so I think that I would pass on these things even if offered to me for free.

    180
  • Heinrich Mueller January 23, 2014, 8:35 am

    How about a movie showing all those cops being sued to the point that they and their entire families are living on pieces of cardboard over a steam grate and the only google glass they see is the pieces of broken wine bottles in the gutter of the street. Now that would be a movie worth seeing.

    181
  • MichaelJ January 23, 2014, 8:54 am

    @DStaal, I would disagree on the ‘be rude to them’ – after all, they can arrest you and charge you for resisting arrest if they want.

    Sure. But they could do that right off the bat. Why don’t they? BECAUSE IT OPENS THEM UP TO FALSE ARREST CHARGES.

    Yes, they can haul you off to jail for no reason. But if they do, ca-CHING! You get to rack up tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for false arrest. The pigs in question may be disciplined or fired. You can certainly make your case in the press and on line that these BAD COPS are costing taxpayers money. Showing your utter contempt for their intimidation lets them know that YOU know the drill and if they want to screw with you, they WILL pay a price.

    Most cops are cowards. It’s sort of like predators in nature. If their prey suddenly behaves aggressively, they tend to understand there may be other factors at play and tend to back down. In this case, if they don’t, you get paid well for your time and trouble.

    >> You can be polite and be non-submissive at the same time.

    Indeed. But the fact that they’re screwing with you means they don’t deserve your civility.

    >> There’s no need to anger the police unnecessarily.

    Yes there is. It’s like slapping their hand when they reach for a cookie. Let them know that they are NOT doing their job, that by overreaching, they are behaving in a CRIMINAL manner, that they are lower than POND SCUM for intruding on your evening and you most sincerely hope they get bent. Give them PAIN. Let them take their anger home with them and beat their kids and wife.

    >> It doesn’t mean you go *along* with them, and I fully agree he should have tried to just walk out (and if he wasn’t allowed, to wait for a lawyer), but yelling at them and insulting them just makes the situation worse.

    You don’t have to yell. Yelling can be seen as aggression. But if you very calmly tell them that they are lower than snail slime, that they’re behaving like thugs and gangsters, that they don’t have a leg to stand on and are complete and utter fools – so much the better. Belittle them. Insult them. These are morons who think they’re in control of your life. Demonstrate to them that they are NOT in control, and that if they don’t get their act together, they are going to pay.

    I absolutely agree you should not lose control. A controlled description of their inadequacies and failures is effective. Raging is not. Specifically, in response to their every question, something like, “You are a dickless moron operating beyond your authority. In ___ minutes this “detention” will become an illegal arrest. You will be disciplined. I will be enriched. Are you smart enough to release me?”

    182
  • Richard January 23, 2014, 11:51 am

    Julie,

    Your friend could have recourse via 42 USC 1983, that gives the public recourse to sue individual law enforcement agents, as well as government agencies to remedy violation of the individual’s civil rights. Title 42 of United States Code (USC) Section 1983 pierces (overcomes) the government immunity concomitant with government jobs, including law enforcement jobs. In this case, the lawsuit would be grounded upon the legal theory of “abuse of discretion.”
    So sad that such abuses occur every minute in this country; yet, most people think that they have no recourse to government abuses. Remember: 42 USC 1983 !

    183
  • warlock January 23, 2014, 12:25 pm

    wow. Simply WOW.

    Cant wait to see the news about a cop shooting someone who wears google glass – just because the cop doesnt like being recorded. Based on assumption that he’s being recorded.

    Ahh well, assumptions are dangerous.

    184
  • ozymandias January 23, 2014, 12:53 pm

    These were prescription eyeglasses that were ripped off by the DHS agent. Fortunately, it sounds like his eyesight is not nearly as bad as mine. For me, this would have been the functional equivalent of shoving a hood over my head.

    185
  • Smackdaddy January 23, 2014, 4:33 pm

    So … That’s what it’s like to live in a free country these days. Awesome.

    186
  • Sean Meaney January 23, 2014, 6:29 pm

    Cant wait until Google glass are lasered into your retinas…

    187
  • nerdist January 23, 2014, 7:02 pm

    He is a fool for not suing only AMC, the theater, local police, and mall, but the DHL as well for violating his rights and kidnapping.

    188
  • Chuckgcs January 23, 2014, 10:00 pm

    I hope that you all do recognize that this is a publicity stunt brought to you by a co-operative effort between the motion picture entertainment mega-corporations (top 1% of wealth…) and their lap-dog politician currently occupying the White House. You don’t have to be a genius to know that this scenario would not ever occur in the real world. So, don’t be so gullible McFly, IT’S A SCRIPTED PERFORMANCE, right down to the part about …” contacted tech blog The Gadgeteer with his story over the weekend…” It is intended to frighten the ignorant techies by “demonstrating” the long and mighty arm of the law in instances of suspected copyright violation.

    189
  • Dard January 23, 2014, 10:13 pm

    This is what your tax money goes toward. Enjoy. And I would not be attending that line of theaters again.

    190
  • Bad Santa January 24, 2014, 2:38 am

    Breaker, breaker, here’s a broadcast to all zombies out there:

    If you have already chosen to be a complete idiot and have all sorts of gadgets bolted on your empty head, then bear the consequences.

    End of transmission.

    191
  • Kalle T January 24, 2014, 6:47 am

    i truly hope he sues all their asses into oblivion. Google should finance the thing. Where’s the “do no evil” ?

    192
  • Larz January 26, 2014, 1:10 pm

    What a tool this guy is. I love how everyone is all over the police. Hmm. He brings a recording device into a theater. Let me see, could that cause a problem? Oh wait, the theater is to just let that happen? All the Glass owners are aware of the issues with using them in places where camera’s are not welcome.. Is he going to wear it into a courtroom next? Men’s bathroom at an IRS office? WTF? He knew what he was doing. The movie clerk knew Glass can record. Why else would he have called the police? Seriously, if you can’t smell an attention getting move here, you need to check your nose…and brain. I would have been more happy if the police beat him a bit just for being a dumb ass.

    193
  • Larz January 26, 2014, 1:13 pm

    Nerdist says “He is a fool for not suing only AMC, the theater, local police, and mall, but the DHL as well for violating his rights and kidnapping.”

    Why would he sue DHL? Did his package get to the wrong address? Dude, you are brain dead in so many ways….

    194
  • Kurt V. January 28, 2014, 2:43 am

    Your smartphone is a recording device. By that logic, the tween who sits in front of me texting throughout the film should be yanked from her seat by Big Brother.

    And so it goes…

    195
  • Johnnie January 28, 2014, 1:13 pm

    Good to see our tax dollars at work protecting what could have been a jerkey parallaxed poor audio recording of a movie that will soon be at Redbox renting for a dollar.

    196
  • MB January 28, 2014, 3:54 pm

    Doesn’t really sound legit, but if it annoys the Glasshole enough, maybe he’ll stop wearing them in public. I’m all for it.

    197
  • Christopher Snowhill January 29, 2014, 9:26 pm

    But I like the idea of constantly recording everything in a perfect computer storage device. My own memory is failing so badly, I barely remember what I did last week, no better than I remember what my last house looked like. I want everybody to have one of these devices, and for everybody to be unconditionally sharing everything they record with them. And I want it streamed directly into my brain, so I can experience all the things at once. I also want to live forever, and retain a perfect memory. Is that so much to ask?

    198
  • Robert Johnson January 31, 2014, 8:38 am

    So that’s the treatment patrons can expect from AMC.
    Good to know.

    199
  • patrick February 6, 2014, 5:31 pm

    Recording anything (video, audio, movies, a day on the beach,….) without informing the individual(s) of the recording is illegal, regardless, and is ground for a civil or criminal lawsuit.

    200

Leave a Comment