14 ms·
AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user
- darkstar999 13y agoWow. What a gross misuse of a federal agency. I can't believe my tax dollars pay for this. What kind of reach does the movie industry have to make this happen?
- ben336 13y agoAm I the only one who is a bit skeptical of this? Seems incredibly hard to believe, with no hard sources. (Email from Friend of a Friend of a gadget blogger is not where I want to be getting my credible news of law enforcement overreaching)
- brokentone 13y agoYour average Ohio gadget lover who likely doesn't actually want himself ID'd in the news, nor does he know who to reach out to in the mainstream media. Seems believable, but not yet credible, due to the lack of verification.
- danabramov 13y agoWhat exactly do you find hard to believe? Is there something in the story that seems unlikely to happen? In my opinion, although of course I can't verify the source, the story itself sounds very plausible, due to details like him being separated from his wife in a room, the prescription glasses bit, four movie passes and the no-goodbyes bits. 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.
- ggreer 13y agoAgreed. Not only is the source extremely questionable, but the details in the story seem odd. Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put their hands up to block. Anyway, police would just order the person to hand over the glasses. Federal agents conducting a (probably unrecorded) private interview for hours in a mall? They'd have to arrest him before that. Someone named Bob Hope from "the Movie Association"? Parents don't name their children after celebrities, and Bob Hope has been famous for three-quarters of a century. And getting a non-apology and some lame movie passes after being wrongly detained for hours? This makes no sense.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago> Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put their hands up to block. A crazy street dude once snatched my glasses off my face on a street corner. I had been firmly ignoring his ranting and personal space invasion, so I wasn't prepared to take action. It's not that improbable if the victim isn't expecting it and doesn't have excellent reflexes. I told him very loudly to give them back, and he suddenly noticed that I had about 8 inches and 150 pounds on him and handed them back without a word.
- ggreer 13y agoSo what you're saying is... he got your glasses because you weren't paying attention to him? :) You could be right. Maybe he had poor reflexes or was startled by the badge or something. No single detail damns the story, but enough rub me the wrong way to make me suspicious.
- warmfuzzykitten 13y agoNo, the police don't have to arrest you to question you for hours. They have a time limit where they have to let you go or charge you, but a) it varies by state and b) it ranges from 48 to 72 hours.
- ggreer 13y agoYou're mixing up a stop with an arrest. If the police have reasonable suspicion, they can detain you only as long as necessary to investigate that suspicion. Usually that means minutes, not hours. If they have probable cause, they can actually arrest you, search all your belongings, search your person, and hold you for days before charging you or letting you go. The story claims he was only detained, not arrested.
- warmfuzzykitten 13y agoActually, I'm not. Police can detain you for questioning for 48-72 hours, depending on jurisdiction. After that time, they must either arrest you or set you free. Things are much worse for people classified as "material witnesses". One such person was held in prison for 16 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness
- midas007 13y agoIs this a creative fiction short-story?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- yeukhon 13y agoNow someone claims to be the person in the story. Now sure how much truthfulness going on... http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/comment-page-1/#comment-327367 http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-...
- MatthewWilkes 13y ago$600 prescription glasses? WTF? Just get a $30 pair and wear those rather than having a camera taped to the side of your head. This isn't surprising in the slightest.
- ChristianMarks 13y agoI have done my bit to put the MPAA and RIAA out of business: I don't watch movies, and I don't listen to music. Google Glass does seem--at least anecdotally--to elicit aggressive behavior. Prudence suggests waiting until the Borg has assimilated the homo sapien malcontents before wearing one.
- coldtea 13y ago>I have done my bit to put the MPAA and RIAA out of business: I don't watch movies, and I don't listen to music. No try to stop eating food and taking drugs. There goes the food industry and big pharma too!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- venomsnake 13y agoThere is good evidence that a lot of drugs are overprescribed - see the latest statin controversy. 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 ...
- pit 13y ago> I don't listen to music. As someone who loves and makes music, I find this _really_ interesting. Do you play an instrument? Listen to unsigned bands? Don't get me wrong: silence is nice, too. But I don't think I will ever have a life without music.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- steventruong 13y agoI use to be huge into listening to music in the 90s. Gradually at the turn of the century, I practically stopped and almost never listen to music these days. I can't speak for others but for me it was a couple of things... When working, I zone out quite a bit to the point that it's like not hearing music anyway so what's the point. If anything music can be distracting. Unfortunately unlike others, I prefer absence of sound aside from stuff like keyboard typing when I'm working. Outside of work related stuff, I gradually faded out listening to music altogether in the car or while running as well. I generally prefer instead to ride in silence thinking (zoning out again) or if I listen to stuff, stand up comedy somehow became a thing to replace music Edit: It is worth noting most of my music exposure these days if at all (and if you can call it that) is coming across stuff on YouTube or while watching a movie and music enhances the film lol. It did a major 180 in my life.
- streetnigga 13y agoYea... Does it have a camera on it? Don't wear it into a theater or other area where filming is prohibited.
- shurcooL 13y agoDoes your phone have a camera on it? What if you decide to take out your phone and check an email, would you want what happened to the guy happen to you? "Don't take out your phone out of your pocket in a theater or other area where filming is prohibited."
- streetnigga 13y agoPlease don't light a bright back-lit screen in a theater for something like email. The focus break ruins the experience people pay the ticket price for. Emergencies only.
- shurcooL 13y agoI agree and I don't. It was just a counter-example.
- res0nat0r 13y agoChecking your email on your phone is OK (even though it is a dick move since you annoy others in the theater), but holding your phone up to the screen to record all 180 minutes of The Wolf of Wall Street is in fact not ok. IE: Wearing a device on your face that is pointed to the movie screen that can possibly record the entire flick is not the same as your phone being out of your pocket for 20 seconds to read your latest text message.
- Malician 13y agoIt seems pretty evident that some people are going to be wearing computers on their faces, and all of these computers come with cameras. Bootlegs are always available (in terrible quality), anyway.
- bkm 13y agoHave they ever heard of the expression 'the customer is always right'? Well, there he was.. the customer.
- brubaker 13y ago'the customer is always right' While not judging this particular situation with the following: No the customer is not always right, sometimes the customer needs to be told to fuck off/fired. In fact people that use that phrase tend to be the perfect assholes of the world that need to be put in their place instead of placating and encouraging the behavior.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThat expression is a moronic one and very few companies have ever made it their policy.
- promptcritical 13y agoI got that reference! I am old. :(
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thejosh 13y agoYou were wearing a camera on your head. Guess what would happen..........
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoHe was asking for it, look how he was dressed.
- thejosh 13y agoIf I come into a building wearing a full ski mask, would you expect not to get shot?
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoOf course I would expect not to get shot. Is this a trick question?
- malka 13y agoYeah, think about all these sluts that get raped. clearly their fault for wearing provocative outfit. (just in case : sarcasm)
- choarham 13y agoIt's easiest to engage with this at the google glass / privacy / media rights gone amok level, but it is most important to face it directly: We are headed towards a very real police state.
- prawn 13y agoQuite the use of police resources too, going so far out of their way to take on someone who might've been (but wasn't) making a copy (but not stealing an original) of something digital.
- foobarian 13y agoDo people still record movies in movie theaters? I'm getting 90s flashbacks here.
- 8ig8 13y agoI immediately thought of Seinfeld. The Bootleg. http://youtube.com/watch?v=i45IsSYF-PI http://youtube.com/watch?v=i45IsSYF-PI
- altero 13y agoThey do. But in Russia or China with tripod and proper camera. This was just bullshit.
- ssully 13y agoYup! Just last week I helped a friend clean up his computer after he tried to watch such a bootleg and downloaded some questionable software in the process.
- sergiotapia 13y agoWhat the fuck USA? These gestapo goons are running amuck harassing innocent citizens.
- alan_cx 13y agoReally? This is new to you? Really? I mean..... really? You noticed the NSA thing where the USA harasses the ENTIRE WORLD on line, right? Did you miss that? Really?
- brandonhsiao 13y agoSomething I keep noticing in all these stories is how the FBI seems to act during these "interrogations." They're like the big bully who runs into the room, barely stops to think, makes a few empty, irrational threats, then leaves the room feeling stupid but refusing to admit it. It's nothing logical, but it's pretty frustrating that you can't just let them how dumb they are, simply because they have the bigger bureaucratic dicks in the room.
- flyt 13y agoHey, slurs like "retarded" are offensive and you should reconsider your use of them. edit: Thank you for editing your comment.
- brandonhsiao 13y agoSorry, wasn't thinking. I changed it.
- gnerd 13y agoOut of interest, could you enlighten me as to why the word "retard" is a slur but "dumb" isn't? Putting colloquial use aside, both are valid words that describe conditions, so if one is a slur, isn't the other? Where is the line?
- pbreit 13y agoIn the US, "intellectual disabilities" used to be more commonly called "mentally retarded" and referring to someone as "retarded" or "a retard" became (or was always) offensive.
- 3pt14159 13y agoDumb isn't used to denote what its original meaning is (a person unable to speak - we would use the word "mute" today). Dumb just means stupid, as if one is culpable for their own stupidity. Retard in its noun form literally means a mentally handicapped person. So by using it to offend a non-mentally handicapped person (albeit, a stupid one), you are concurrently levelling an offence against the mentally handicapped in general and since the mentally handicapped are not deemed culpable for their situation, this is deemed socially unacceptable.
- notdrunkatall 13y agoWhich is more ridiculous: that AMC actually called the FBI, or that the FBI actually respond in this way? What the fuck is wrong with this country?
- jasonlotito 13y agoWell, we don't know it was the FBI. The story doesn't say anything other than 'federal service', and even uses the quotes. So, I imagine someone masquerading as FBI, or trying to pull off that impression. Granted, it could just be the FBI being dicks.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- diydsp 13y agoMy bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry. In the past, I have seen stories about lens detectors in theatres which work by beaming IR into the audience. I have also seen stories about watermarks in films to encode location. If it's true there have been filmers caught there, they may have conceivably been on location that evening ready to pounce. They probably have travel to regional theatres and wait for hours for the lens detectors to go off. My bet is the contractors have some belief the crime is a federal case, having watched a DVD intro, so they feel justified to claim they are "with" the federal services. edit: see this link to the related federal law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540 Anyone who is friends with cops knows how jealous mall cops and security guards are of the real thing. I'm sure the same applies for contracted IP enforcers. Hence their excitement, power-tripping and the local cops- to actually perform the arrest as the private security firm has no authority to do so. Mods should change title from "arrested by FBI" to harrassed by cops and strangers.
- ben1040 13y ago>My bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry. Over on the private forums for Glass owners, the person reporting this story mentioned the company name of the person from the "Movie Association." Some folks looked him up and apparently he has his own private investigation firm. Sounds to me that the MPAA must hire PIs to represent itself in various cities, and they must like to go all Jack Bauer if they think they've got something.
- MRSallee 13y agoYou couldn't pay me to watch an entire movie recorded off-screen on some dude's Glass.
- lettergram 13y agoWhy the FBI and not the local police? I understand that piracy goes through the FBI, but the if you catch someone "in the act" I am sure the police can handle it.
- patmcc 13y agoHopefully the local police were called, and told whoever called them to buzz off and let them deal with more important things.
- freshhawk 13y agoAm I the only one who's pretty convinced by that story that they were not FBI? It seemed like the fellow who went through this has his doubts as well. I feel doubly bad for him, that's a horrible experience and also that he was so intimidated that he just sat through all that, didn't get any badge numbers or names or even what organization these people were with, "would have been fine with “I’m sorry this happened, please accept our apologies”" and closing it with: "Again, I wish they would have listened when I told them how to verify I did nothing illegal, or at least apologize afterwards, but hey… this is the free country everybody praises. Somewhere else might be even worse." Everyone isn't going to be one of those "know and exercise your rights" people in the face of authority, but the opposite is very depressing.
- jasonlotito 13y agoHe makes that clear when he quotes 'federal service'. So, someone is masquerading around as FBI, using local police to harass innocent movie goers at the behest of AMC.
- rabz 13y agoFrom what I recall post-9/11, the FBI do not carry badges, but written identification, like a large social security card.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dmourati 13y agoYea, most certainly not FBI.
- nikcub 13y agoThey certainly weren't, there is no way you can call and have a federal agent show up to a movie theatre in the space of a couple of minutes. They are almost certainly former federal or other agents who now work for private security firms that contract to AMC / MPAA. It wouldn't take much detective work to figure out which firm it is and who the people are. It sounds like they broke the 'impersonating a federal officer' law, but a lot of private detectives do that in the USA and nobody ever does anything about it.
- grecy 13y ago...and the top comment in the "fast Korean internet" thread is about how much Freedom(TM) Americans have. This doesn't sound like a story about someone with much freedom.
- shittyanalogy 13y agoThis isn't really a story about the woes of being a google glass user, it's a story about how people don't know their rights and how to apply them. This man is lucky that he didn't end up accidentally giving the authorities some tiny piece of information to make his life worse. You should absolutely never talk to the authorities even if you think you have nothing to hide and especially when they're actively trying to pin something on you. It is perfectly legal for them to threaten you with harsher legal penalties, and it is perfectly legal for you to say I need to speak with a lawyer before I make any decisions or say anything. This account is a CLEAR illustration of how they ONLY want you to confess to something and once they don't think they can they no longer care about you in the tiniest bit. It's not about justice, it's about catching people. Also, don't wear a goddamn camera on your head to the movies. The man must certainly own a pair of regular prescription glasses and was being extremely naive.
- MatthewWilkes 13y agoPlease, sir, go through my private photos. I've got nothing to hide!
- puppetmaster3 13y agoShame that he did that.
- zobzu 13y agoNote that the authorities did tell him they were going to cause him more problems if he didn't cooperate. So, that makes the choice of telling them nothing pretty hard.
- llamataboot 13y agoNo, this is what they rely on. It is the basic "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding" line of questioning. It's especially used to search cars at traffic stops. Correct: "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" (repeat until one gets an answer) If free to go - leave If not free to go - don't say another word Don't consent to a search. Don't try to be nice. Don't believe any bullshit you are told: "Look, we're trying to be nice here, if you don't want to be nice, we can take you down to the station." "You know what happens if we have to call to wake up a judge at this hour to get a search warrant?" "Ok, then we'll just wait here until the dogs come" or the almost always used - "Am I being arrested?" "Do you want to be?" -- It's all bullshit and used to get verbal consent to searches and verbal answers to questions. You may feel like an asshole, especially if you really do have "nothing to hide". The cops will do their best to make you feel scared of what they will do if you don't cooperate. You may have a ton of privilege (perhaps you are a cis-gendered white man) and you feel that cashing it in and talking man-to-man in a nice way with the cops will get you on your way quicker. And it may. But one time, it may not, and you'll wish you hadn't talked. And of the larger overarching issue of living a police state with nominal checks and balances on what the cops can and can't do, it behooves us all to limit their power to their legal minimum as much as possible.
- cletus 13y agoThe lesson here is "Don't talk to the police". This has been posted here many times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc This should be required viewing especially given the quasi-police state the US is turning into and, more importantly, the arbitrariness of prosecutorial discretion. As soon as they say it's a "voluntary interview", leave. The only thing you should say is "am I free to go?". If you are, go. If not, ask for a lawyer. Watch the video for why. You can get yourself in trouble and you are basically strictly better off saying nothing.
- tn13 13y agoI live that video a lot but then do you really have a choice ? For example on those numerous occasions when TSA takes you to a separate room and starts questioning do you really have any right to call a lawyer ?
- icelancer 13y agoYes, absolutely. Perhaps ESPECIALLY so.
- rosser 13y agoThe TSA screeners you interact with at the airport aren't police. 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.
- grifpete 13y agoI believe that in airports your rights are significantly different from your rights in the US.
- yardie 13y agoNo, your rights still apply everywhere. Unfortunately you don't have a right to board an aircraft so that is the only thing they can use against you.
- 13y ago
- vorg 13y ago> it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won’t be any incident either > About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) The cinema could've been under obligation to more strictly enforce anti-IP-theft measures for that particular movie. It was released on the same day in many countries of the world so opening weekend attendance was important for their revenues. I saw it in mainland China before it opened in the US. I don't think any extra IP protection measures will help revenues for that particular movie, though. It was the only time I've ever been the only person in a cinema hall in China watching a movie.
- mgkimsal 13y agoI've seen bootlegged movies from camcorders in theaters. Those are bad enough. The thought of something recorded from some guy's headmounted camera, with thousands of tiny movements, breathing, twitching, slouching, eating and more makes me wonder who on earth would even think a recording made that way would be valuable.
- diydsp 13y agoIt's all about the _cloud_, my friend: with superresolution techniques, each glass user can contribute pixel blocks that get re-synthesized into the original.
- eruditely 13y agoThis comment is such a mark of the times.
- krapp 13y agoIt would probably take less effort to just break into the theater and steal the film.
- pmorici 13y agoTheaters are pretty much all digital now and the actual files are encrypted so I doubt breaking and entering alone would get you very far. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital-technology-is-reinventing-cinema/2 http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital-techno...
- MichaelGG 13y agoThe files are encrypted, but obviously the hardware to decrypt them is right there. Now I understand those DRM systems have advanced intrusion detection and whatnot, but still it'd be quite a good start to make off with all their hardware.
- 13y ago
- vacri 13y agoI love the blog format. Article about a somewhat distressing abuse of power by authorities, followed by "Other articles that you will enjoy"...
- philip1209 13y agoWhy is there no mention of having a prescription medical device taken without consequence? I wonder if, had anything gone south, being deprived of a medical device during questioning could have been used to get evidence thrown out.
- amckinlay 13y agoDon't think glasses are medical.
- asperous 13y agohttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B In case anyone is wondering, that's the us federal law. Most States have individual laws that change the punishment.
- diydsp 13y agowow, thanks! Theatre owners can detain any suspected filmers, and can't be held liable for criminal or civil action arising out of it!
- rosser 13y agoI wonder who paid for that law...
- yardie 13y agoIt doesn't look much different than the protections a retail store currently have. They can detain you until the police arrive and they are not liable for criminal or civil liabilities either (doesn't stop people from trying to sue). But in this day and age a good thrashing on twitter and facebook usually ensues.
- agwa 13y ago
- jrockway 13y agoWith only 701 copies of the movie on Usenet, they're sure doing a great job!
- vinceguidry 13y agoI have a buddy that works HR at a theatre. The studios take bootlegging VERY seriously, and have spent millions updating their manufacturing processes so they can watermark every copy of every film so they can figure out which theatres bootleggers are operating out of. When they do a bust, they bring out all the big guns they can so as to make a huge spectacle so as to deter anyone else from even trying. That's why the FBI.
- dmourati 13y agoSeriously doubt this was really the FBI. They are better educated than this and more professional. Also, very unlikely to respond in the force described.
- scdoshi 13y agoI'm curious, are you stating this based on your experience, or you just think it's unlikely?
- dmourati 13y agoI've met FBI agents in person in a professional context if that's what you mean. I obviously don't have any first hand knowledge of this scenario but the connection to the FBI seemed rather tenuous in the story.
- dmourati 13y agoConfirmed, not FBI: http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for-wearing-google-glass-at-the-movies-admits-i-was-an-ignorant-idiot-2014-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for-wear...
- puppetmaster3 13y agoIt appears that UT is not educated on law, and you have to be. “Can I leave or am I under arrest” and “I don’t answer questions w/o a lawyer representing me”.
- hipaulshi 13y agowithout even reading the story, you just don't wear a video camera to movies.
- nathanh 13y agoAt what point does Google Glass become an accessibility device? At some point, people with a hearing impairment will be able to read subtitles on Glass. Then it will be practically impossible to ban.
- Jach 13y agoNo, they can still ban it. If you want subtitles, you'll use a pre-approved device. http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits-almost-6000-theaters-with-sony-glasses/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits-almost-6000...
- anotherbadlogin 13y agoThe alleged behavior of "authorities" is objectionable in the extreme, but wearing a video camera to the theater is goddamned stupid.
- jasonlingx 13y agoWhat did he expect to happen? He was pointing a video camera at the screen while the movie was playing!
- ww520 13y agoWhat is the proper procedure to interact with law enforcement personnel? - Get their identity? Their business cards? Copy down their name, ID, position, and contact info? - Get their organization info? Local cop? FBI? Homeland Security officers? Contact info? - Get their supervisor info? - Check their jurisdiction? Their rights to detain you or interrogate you? Call the police to check? - Ask for which laws are broken? - Are you being detained? Are you free to go? - Not consenting to search. - Anything else? I think this guy got tricked into thinking those people are FBI. "Bob Hope" is a dead giveaway BS. Impersonating FBI is a serious crime. This is same as the Apple case of recovering the iphone prototype, where the Apple people pretended to be cops when they invited the police along in the home intrusion.
- gst 13y agoMeanwhile everyone who obtained the movie illegally could watch it at home without being harassed by anyone. At times where less and less people actually go to movie theaters, harassing the people who do so, doesn't look like the best strategy.
- 10feet 13y ago> I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them, I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but personal photos with my wife and my dog on it. I also insisted they look at my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first. The problem is, even if these are very technical people, they not experts in all technology, and there are 100s of ways of hiding this stuff. They can never be 100% sure that you weren't recording it, maybe someone else nearby had the hdd that everything was being sent to. So as much as you might like to try to prove your innocence, it is impossible to do so. Even in court they will have expert witnesses try to explain to the layman what is going on, what is possible. He was lucky they took this as evidence. > I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why didn’t they ask me not to wear them in the theater? They weren't there at the beginning of the film. Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time.
- MichaelGG 13y ago>He was lucky they took this as evidence. Versus what? Just saying "but there might be some super duper spy tech we're not aware of"? How would that be incriminating? I can buy cameras that fit into normal looking glasses and wouldn't be detected. Let's detain anyone not bald or wearing a scarf, as they might be hiding something. >Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time. How is that a solution? A solution is to stay at a home theatre and watch your own copies. Or only go to high-end theatres where they won't have this kind of treatment. (Which really is the only worthwhile way to go out to see a movie.)
- rdl 13y agoThis is a pretty suspicious story, but if true: I would have called 911 and gotten "real" police there, and ask for charges for false imprisonment, battery, assault. These were pretty clearly not real police. If they were representing themselves as police officers ("federal service" is pretty questionable), that's something local police would take very seriously, too. Lucky they didn't encounter one of the presumably-reasonably-large cross section of tech people who are also libertarians and likely to be armed.
- tdfx 13y agoI did not find any point in his story where the author having a concealed weapon on his person would have improved his situation.
- rdl 13y agoAbsolutely (a hidden law degree or a second hidden camera, perhaps), but being in a dark room and someone reading for your head and grabbing stuff off of it is a fairly serious threat; it would be easily misinterpreted.
- grifpete 13y agoEvery single person should watch this immediately. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc It is a brilliant talk about your rights.
- lolwutf 13y agoPlease, people: DO NOT ALLOW THE AUTHORITIES FREE ACCESS TO YOUR DEVICES TO PROVE INNOCENCE! Conceding to law enforcement this way only motivates them to promote policy that allows for further rights violations. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA
- whatevsbro 13y ago> if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me (is it legal for authorities to threaten people like that?) Oh that's a bit like: "if I choose not to pay taxes, bad things will happen to me", isn't it? I wonder if it's "legal" for authorities to threaten people like that.
- MichaelGG 13y agoNot cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes. He could just remain silent and request a lawyer. LE can and will lie to you, and make invalid threats in order to get people to confess or just slip up so they can pin something on them. There's no incentive for LE to behave ethically or nicely; they don't get penalized for lying.
- whatevsbro 13y ago> Not cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes Right. I was just highlighting the similarity between those two things: if you disobey "authorities", something bad will happen to you. Here it's good to notice that extortion is illegal unless it's called "taxation", in which case, attempting to avoid extortion is illegal.
- tnash 13y agoHaving been to that particular theatre many times (AMC Easton), there are usually Columbus Police around, especially on the weekends. They also have a fair amount of security there (Once they helped me get into my car after I locked myself out). That's who I would guess would be there. Sometimes there are even Columbus Police hanging out at the entrance of the theatre by the escalators.
- x0054 13y agoHere is what you need to do if you are ever in this situation: 1. Ask "Am I under arrest?" 2. If the answer is anything other than "Yes" ask "Can I leave now?" 3. If the answer is anything other than "No," get up and leave! Don't ask for permission, don't say another word. Just leave. If anyone tries to stop you, say "Unless I am under arrest, I am going to leave NOW. If you prevent me from leaving than I am assuming I am under arrest. If so, please read me my miranda rights right now." If they read you your rights, ask for a lawyer. Specifically say "I want to speak to a lawyer and I chose to remain silent and not answer any questions until I speak to a lawyer." If the cop tells you that your lawyer is on his/her way and then continues to talk to you, you should say "I see you continue to talk to me, I am going to assume that you are trying to elicit statements from me after I invoked my rights. I am going to relay this information to my lawyer." If you are innocent, you have NOTHING to gain from talking to a cop. If you are guilty, you WILL hurt your case every time. UPDATE: Spelling
- lelandbatey 13y agoIt's quite true. My father is a lawyer, and the first thing I remember learning, even before "don't talk to strangers" was "never talk to police". After that it was "get everything in writing" and "act as if everyone is carrying a tape recorder", but that's neither here nor there.
- grecy 13y agoI don't have "a lawyer" on call - won't they provide me with a shitty one?
- x0054 13y agoMost public defenders (I only worked with San Diego and LA once) are pretty good, though overworked. Public defender positions in San Diego especially are very competitive, and you often get top notch lawyers. Federal Defender positions are VERY competitive, and you often get top graduates from prestigious law schools. This may not be true everywhere, I only practiced law in South California. In any case, even a shitty attorney knows how to say "my client has no comments." But, a far more important question to ask is "Am I under arrest?" If the answer is anything other then "Yes," be nice, say goodbye, and walk away. Most people do not realize that they have this right. In most cases cops do not have the evidence sufficient to arrest you, but they will make you think you are under arrest, so they can fish out some "probable cause" out of you. You don't have the right to an attorney unless you are under arrest. This is why they will often also tell you that they are "just talking" because as long as they are "just talking" they do not have to provide you with a lawyer. You will NEVER get a straight answer to the question "Am I under arrest?" Just listen to what they say, unless the very first word from their mouth is "YES", assume the answer is NO. They will say things like "we are just talking" or "you could be if you do not cooperate", or "we want to hear your side of the story before we decide to arrest you." All those answers translate to "we don't have the evidence to arrest you, but we would like to talk to you until you slip up, and we find an excuse to arrest you."
- patio11 13y agoI'd like to have my property back so that I could leave, please. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them in the prescence of my attorney. Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery. Have a nice day, gentlemen.
- tptacek 13y agoAlso, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery Not a helpful addition. Don't further provoke a cop who has been violent with you. Another common piece of advice is not to ask about supervisors or for badge numbers if you already have a way to identify them.
- patio11 13y agoProbably good advice -- I was mostly mentioning that I'd file the complaint afterwards rather than meaning "TELL the guy I'll be filing a complaint afterwards."
- alan_cx 13y agoHmmm. On one hand, its OTT, but on the other hand, people walking about with an attached camera that may well be always recording is going to cause real problems. These things are potentially a gross invasion of privacy. They might be very cool tech for the wearer, but frankly Im not prepared to have my privacy potentially compromised so that some one else can have some cool augmented reality. I don't understand how on one hand the NSA is all evil, but some geezer walking round with a camera that could be recording any of us without our knowledge or permission, with the potential to publish these videos on the internet for an entire world to see, is somehow perfectly fine. These things remind me of the hacked up kit pervert voyeurs use to film women in compromising positions. I couldn't care less about people potentially pirating films in cinemas, but if these people start film me going about my personal business, Im telling you, there will be trouble. Thing is, if I see some one possible filming me with one of these things, the law is no use. The person filming me is anonymous and can easily go, leaving me and a lawyer no one to prosecute. I have no choice, I have to grab the guy and his kit. I then want this guy forced to give up all his personal information so that I can be sure he has not uploaded the video somewhere. All of which, as we know is at least technically problematic. Wont be long until people wearing these things will become targets just for wearing them. Only takes 1 or 2 Fox News sensationalist, exaggerated stories, and wearers will become seen as threats. The stories dont even need to be true, just true enough, feasible enough. I think people are displaying a hypocritical double standard here. Its Ok for the cool kids to invade our privacy, but not the NSA? These cool kids can actually cause normal people more humiliation and damage than the NSA. AFAIK, the NSA has not released a video of a private citizen walking in to a glass door in to the public for humiliating laughs. People wearing these things can, and will. Yes, this has been possible for years, but these google things will make it mainstream and vastly increase the potential for this. Trust me, there is a whole lot of trouble waiting to burst out. Im not suggesting banning these things, they clearly have huge value. What Im saying is that society needs to have a serious debate about use and there lines are drawn. What is criminal and what is reasonable.
- MichaelGG 13y agoPerhaps it's because there's a major difference than tapping into private communication lines, and recording what your eyes are already seeing? 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.
- trentmb 13y agoel oh el at the wannabe tough guys in this thread...
- Cthulhu_ 13y agotl;dr: * Dude brings a camera to a movie theater, which is illegal and tbh a dumb move * Exaggerated response from some legal body excessively funded / lobbied by the movie industry
- rwallace 13y agoI stopped going to the cinema some years ago when they started putting threats on screen before the movie. I realized "hey, I'm literally paying people to threaten me; is that a logical, wise or sane thing to do? No. So stop doing it." So it seems those threats are by no means idle. Think about it if you're considering going to the cinema: it's not like our society doesn't provide a zillion other forms of entertainment where you won't be financing thugs.
- erichocean 13y ago"hey, I'm literally paying people to threaten me; is that a logical, wise or sane thing to do? No. So stop doing it." Did you also stop paying taxes? /jk
- CompuHacker 13y agoWhat does an inactive Glass look like under infrared light? It probably glinted a ton on some recording device, someone noticed, he was detained. And they did say, word for word: "You were caught recording the movie". Advice: Don't point what's basically a cheap webcam at a theater screen for the duration of a movie and not expect to get yelled at. The legal side of this that everyone is discussing is the result of a failure on the technical side which hasn't even been figured out yet.
- retro212 13y ago