AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user

by sounds • 13 years ago

319 294 13 years 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. 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.

coldtea3• 13 years 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!

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

There 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• 13 years 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.

steventruong• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

streetnigga7• 13 years ago

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

mkaito• 13 years ago

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

waterlesscloud• 13 years ago

Then it's a poorly designed product for real-world use.

ohazi2• 13 years ago

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

You know, to avoid situations like this?

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

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

[0] http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdon...

streetnigga7• 13 years ago

I never said anything about the glasses themselves.

You don't have a right to wear a camera into a private establishment just because you mounted them on your prescription glasses. How 'fancy' the rims are is immaterial to the camera you mount on them.

shurcooL2• 13 years ago

Does 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."

streetnigga7• 13 years ago

Please 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.

res0nat0r• 13 years ago

Checking 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.

vellum• 13 years ago

You should turn the brightness down all the way before the film starts. It's less annoying for the people around you.

jasonlotito7• 13 years ago

Filming is prohibited. Not cameras.

Now, if they want to make camera's prohibited, they could try that. Leave your smart phones at the door.

MatthewWilkes3• 13 years ago

Going after the people pointing a camera at the screen is, generally, a pretty accurate way of stopping filming.

streetnigga7• 13 years ago

Filming is against the law, it is often company policy to not allow people to mount cameras onto their shoulders as to reduce the number of people breaking the law by filming.

Acceptable: Having phone in pocket.

Unacceptable: Holding phone out with the camera facing the projector screen a vast majority of the time.

Dude, no: Rigging up a telecine machine with your phone in the projector booth to make a more direct copy during off-hours.

prawn3• 13 years ago

I have been to preview screenings were phones were bagged and kept outside to be picked up later. If the cinemas could do it without infuriating patrons further, I'm sure those up the chain would be keen to encourage it.

__david__• 13 years ago

No, that's not quite the right conclusion. Did you ever go to a music show around 1999–2000? I remember security would confiscate all cameras and cell phones. But not a lot of people had them back then. Nowadays if they tried to do that there would be a riot.

So the real takeaway is, be careful when you have tech that the whole world hasn't embraced yet. If 99% of people are wearing google-glass style things in 15 years, I guarantee there won't be incidents like this.

There is safety in numbers.

bkm• 13 years ago

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

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

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

promptcritical• 13 years ago

I got that reference!

I am old. :(

thejosh2• 13 years ago

You were wearing a camera on your head.

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

PhasmaFelis3• 13 years ago

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

thejosh2• 13 years ago

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

malka2• 13 years ago

Yeah, think about all these sluts that get raped. clearly their fault for wearing provocative outfit. (just in case : sarcasm)

choarham• 13 years ago

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

prawn3• 13 years ago

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

foobarian• 13 years ago

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

8ig8• 13 years ago

I immediately thought of Seinfeld. The Bootleg.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i45IsSYF-PI

altero• 13 years ago

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

ssully• 13 years ago

Yup! 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• 13 years ago

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

alan_cx3• 13 years ago

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

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

Really?

_xhok4• 13 years ago

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

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

flyt• 13 years ago

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

edit: Thank you for editing your comment.

_xhok4• 13 years ago

Sorry, wasn't thinking. I changed it.

gnerd2• 13 years ago

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

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

onedev• 13 years ago

I disagree. I don't think "retarded" was used with the connotation that you thought it was used in.

matt-attack• 13 years ago

Hey, I find people being offended by the use of certain words offensive in and of itself. You should reconsider your reaction, so as to prevent me from being offended.

I'd appreciate it if you'd edit your comment to reflect this.

bigiain• 13 years ago

FWIW, I suspect very few of them are "dumb", and that their behaviour is almost certainly explained as them "doing what they've repeatedly proven works well". They (probably) aren't making "irrational threats", and they've almost certainly not got anything to "feel stupid about" or "refuse to admit" (and, I'll bet they care _very_ little about whether you think they're smart or not).

Their motivations have nothing to do with "appearing smart or logical (to suspects)" or even (with my cynical-hat on) finding out "the truth" or "enabling justice". They're employees using the most effective/efficient techniques they know to achieve their workplace performance indicators – either just enough to keep their managers off their backs, or trying to aggressively exceed those performance indicators for career-climbing purposes. Either way – every single thing they're attempting to achieve is likely to be something you'll end up unhappy about if they successfully achieve it. How much career boost do you suppose their report of "Investigated complaint, discovered misunderstanding. No action taken, apology delivered on behalf of the Bureau" gives them, compared to "During a voluntary interview suspect confessed to three unrelated misdemeanors, two crimes, and one probable felony. Referred crimes to local police, who arrested and charged suspect. No copyright infringement found, case now out of our jurisdiction. Local police will advise outcome of criminal charges through usual channels."

_xhok4• 13 years ago

Good point. I guess all one can do is realize what you just wrote and go along with them...

notdrunkatall• 13 years ago

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

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

jasonlotito7• 13 years ago

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

diydsp3• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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.

nknighthb• 13 years ago

If this person wasn't a federal agent, they committed a felony punishable by up to three years in prison the moment they stuck the badge in his face and claimed to be "federal" anything. This is aside from the litany of other crimes and torts committed throughout the interrogation.

adventured• 13 years ago

It was DHS as it turns out (has been confirmed officially).

whatevsbro3• 13 years ago

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

It's a police state, for starters?

MRSallee• 13 years ago

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

lettergram• 13 years ago

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

patmcc• 13 years ago

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

freshhawk• 13 years ago

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

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

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

jasonlotito7• 13 years ago

He 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• 13 years ago

From what I recall post-9/11, the FBI do not carry badges, but written identification, like a large social security card.

dmourati4• 13 years ago

Yea, most certainly not FBI.

nikcub• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

MichaelGG7• 13 years ago

can call and have a federal agent show up to a movie theatre in the space of a couple of minutes

He says it was about an hour into the movie. Given the cozy relationship the MPAA has with the government, is it really that far fetched? If they really thought he was part of the scene? Not saying you're wrong, but is it that simple?

e402• 13 years ago

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

rangibaby• 13 years ago

It helps if you dress like a detective, too. Detectives dress kind of square. People think this guy is a cop. They're going to think you're packing something. They don't fuck with you so much.

from Repo Man http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087995/

mratzloff• 13 years ago

"So let me get this straight. You are impersonating federal officers and also holding me here against my will. I want a lawyer--and you might consider getting one, too."

Bluestrike22• 13 years ago

In the story, the author said that they identified themselves as being with the "federal service." Unless the author forgot to mention it, it would seem as though they never explicitly identified themselves as FBI at any point. In a situation like that, it's almost trivial to influence a subject's perception of what they're dealing with between the badges (whatever they were) and their demeanor. The subject expects you to be FBI agents based on the information available, and thus, you are FBI agents. At least to them.

If that's the case, then they were most likely trying to avoid falling afoul of 18 U.S. CODE § 912, but I don't think that'd work out to well for them in any case. In United States v. Lepowitch, the Court held that it only requires "that the defendants have, by artifice and deceit, sought to cause the deceived person to follow some course he would not have pursued but for the deceitful conduct."

darkstar999• 13 years ago

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

ben336• 13 years ago

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

brokentone• 13 years ago

Your 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• 13 years ago

What 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.

ggreer3• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

PhasmaFelis3• 13 years 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.

warmfuzzykitten2• 13 years ago

No, 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.

midas0075• 13 years ago

Is this a creative fiction short-story?

yeukhon• 13 years ago

Now 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-...

MatthewWilkes3• 13 years 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.

zobzu2• 13 years ago

when you pay $1500 for glass, you get $600 glasses on it :P

jrockway2• 13 years ago

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

shittyanalogy• 13 years ago

This isn't really a story about the woes of being a google glass user, it's a story about how people don't know their rights and how to apply them.

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

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

MatthewWilkes3• 13 years ago

Please, sir, go through my private photos. I've got nothing to hide!

puppetmaster32• 13 years ago

Shame that he did that.

zobzu2• 13 years ago

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

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

coralreef• 13 years ago

"Authorities" will say almost anything to get suspects to cooperate. Cooperation is usually actually some form of self-incrimination. Unfortunately the average person doesn't understand the system as well as an officer/agent does, so they're susceptible to these kinds of tactics.

mikeash5• 13 years ago

Just remember that police are allowed to lie to you, and will do so any time they think it's to their advantage.

jasonwocky• 13 years ago

It's no choice at all. Don't talk.

Look, I understand these guys have a job to do, and they have a certain toolset they're allowed to use to do it. I don't begrudge them that. But damned if I'm going to let a sense of civic duty lead to my self-incrimination.

A friend of mine spent some time at the Public Defenders office. The number of times she saw people send themselves up for long stretches in prison, under circumstances in which the authorities would /never/ have gotten a conviction otherwise, led her to give me the same advice you see every single lawyer on television offer their clients: don't say anything!

chrismcb2• 13 years ago

No, no it doesn't because you have no proof they won't cause you problems if you do cooperate. If they tell him he is free to go, but he stays and gives them information. It is much harder to claim the fifth latter on.

dbbolton• 13 years ago

I think the point is that you generally have very little to lose by talking to a lawyer before talking to the police, even if you haven't done anything wrong.

The sad reality is that "looking guilty" by not talking is usually a lot better than genuinely trying to cooperate and saying something that can be used against you in court.

justin66• 13 years ago

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

"I would be happy to cooperate fully in the presence of my legal counsel."

downandout2• 13 years ago

If you'd like to hear both a lawyer and a cop explain in explicit detail why you should never talk to the police, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Regardless of what a cop threatens (or promises as the case may be), they are legally bound to arrest you if they believe a crime has been committed, and are not empowered to make deals with you. You will never talk yourself out of an arrest, but you can talk yourself into one. Therefore you should never talk to the police under any circumstances.

In this case, the guy actually cost himself time by talking to them. Had he refused, since a mere suspicion was not enough to book him, they would have had nothing to do other than connect the Glass and find out that there were no movies on it.

jakejake2• 13 years ago

This is just a classic example of not knowing your rights. Of course they will make you think it will be worse if you don't cooperate. The opposite is always true - the only thing that will happen by talking is that you will make things worse.

If you did nothing wrong, then you absolutely no reason to talk or say anything except "am I under arrest and am I free to go?"

PavlovsCat• 13 years ago

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

Because it can't hurt to try, can it?. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKiYpsQhZsI for a bunch of highly fascinating examples of cops outright lying and people not falling for it. Not entirely the same situation, but this line from the article sure "smells" similar:

I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room.

aoeuaue• 13 years ago

Are you serious? You never talk to police. I thought everyone knew that..

fit2rule3• 13 years ago

The only correct response to these threats: "I am innocent, and my lawyer will absolutely investigate you and your group, and we will prosecute you for any law-breaking he finds - including denying me my rights, stealing my property, immitating a law officer."

llamataboot3• 13 years ago

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

Correct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

or the almost always used -

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

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

ww5202• 13 years ago

Whether wearing a camera to the movies is non-consequential. Only if one is actively taping that one is breaking the law.

Possessing the potential doesn't break the law. Otherwise, the theater male management should be charged with rape since they are well equipped with the potential to rape.

repsilat7• 13 years ago

Are you sure?

Do you mean that you know the law of the relevant jurisdictions and can confidently interpret it, or do you just mean that it shouldn't be illegal?

There are plenty of crimes that exist on the books as preventative measures against serious wrongs being done. Sometimes it's worth prohibiting harmless but easily enforced activities if they're corellated the right way with harmful ones.

teawrecks• 13 years ago

In his defense, we're never going to have nice things (like being able to wear tiny cameras on our heads all the time) without shit like this happening at some point in history. One day we could have computers in our contacts, and at some point between Google Glass and Google Contacts, the FBI is going to accuse people of doing illegal things with them.

esschul• 13 years ago

Must be horrible to live in a country where police can and do abuse you like this. 3rd world. Are you all out to get each other?

tluyben2• 13 years ago

Another thing 'we' here in the EU don't really get; if you watched even ONE cop show from the US, you know that you ONLY utter ONE thing when you get arrested/detained/whatever: 'lawyer'. And nothing else. So why, in the same cop shows and real life, do people start blabbing?

Sharlin• 13 years ago

In cop shows, because it serves the plot better; in real life, because humans are not very rational creatures and the intuitive need to try to explain yourself is strong, especially if you're in the company of people who know a couple of psychological tricks on how to make people talk.

asmithmd1• 13 years ago

Here is some pragmatic advice about when to talk with police from someone who has been stopped by police when they could have legitimately arrested him.

If you have done something wrong where someone got hurt - don't talk to them. Otherwise, it depends:

http://tuckermax.me/how-to-deal-with-cops-2/

random_user_kun• 13 years ago

Hi, does this apply to non US citizen residing in the United States? Those one without permanent resident but on visas such as H1B, F1 or J1?

cletus• 13 years ago

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

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• 13 years ago

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

icelancer• 13 years ago

Yes, absolutely. Perhaps ESPECIALLY so.

rosser2• 13 years ago

The 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.

grifpete3• 13 years ago

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

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

Ask a lawyer for that. Borders are some weird stuff in the law. You can also read https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privacy-us-border-guide-tra...

busterarm10• 13 years ago

For folks who really think it through, the OP's account is a perfect example of why people shouldn't talk to police.

The investigators work to make a confession before they even attempt to look at evidence; evidence that is already in their possession. Whether that means collecting/interpreting evidence is harder or if it means that investigators don't consider evidence to be important is an exercise I'll leave to the reader.

Make these people do their jobs so that when they actually do have to collect evidence to "catch a bad guy", they know how to. They clearly aren't used to doing so because if they did they'd know that evidence can make getting a confession easier or at least let them know they're wasting their time.

Lawyer up. Immediately.

vorg• 13 years 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.

mgkimsal2• 13 years ago

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

diydsp3• 13 years ago

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

eruditely2• 13 years ago

This comment is such a mark of the times.

krapp• 13 years ago

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

coldtea3• 13 years ago

So if you break the law badly it's OK?

mgkimsal2• 13 years ago

No, I just don't understand why you'd even bother 'breaking the law' at that point - I can't imagine the rewards would be all that compelling for a 'glass-copy' bootleg.

ben10402• 13 years ago

Not only that, but a recording that's been truncated at 25 minutes or so because either the battery ran out or the Glass device itself got too hot and went into thermal shutdown mode.

vacri• 13 years ago

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

philip1209• 13 years ago

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

amckinlay• 13 years ago

Don't think glasses are medical.

asperous• 13 years ago

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.

diydsp3• 13 years ago

wow, thanks!

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

rosser2• 13 years ago

I wonder who paid for that law...

yardie2• 13 years ago

It 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.

jrockway2• 13 years ago

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

vinceguidry• 13 years ago

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

dmourati4• 13 years ago

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

scdoshi• 13 years ago

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

dmourati4• 13 years ago

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

puppetmaster32• 13 years ago

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

hipaulshi• 13 years ago

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

nathanh• 13 years ago

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

Jach• 13 years ago

No, they can still ban it. If you want subtitles, you'll use a pre-approved device. http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits-almost-6000...

jasonlingx• 13 years ago

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

ww5202• 13 years ago

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

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

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

- Get their supervisor info?

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

- Ask for which laws are broken?

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

- Not consenting to search.

- Anything else?

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

gst2• 13 years ago

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

10feet• 13 years 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.

MichaelGG7• 13 years 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.)

rdl4• 13 years ago

This is a pretty suspicious story, but if true:

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

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

tdfx2• 13 years ago

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

rdl4• 13 years ago

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

grifpete3• 13 years ago

Every single person should watch this immediately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

It is a brilliant talk about your rights.

lolwutf• 13 years ago

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

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

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

whatevsbro3• 13 years 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.

MichaelGG7• 13 years ago

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

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

whatevsbro3• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

x00547• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: Spelling

e402• 13 years ago

I agree with your advice, but I think in this case they would have arrested him. It's definitely a rock and hard place situation.

x00547• 13 years ago

My guess is they would have held on to his Google Glass, verified that no movies were recorded, and returned it to him. They would not be able to arrest him without evidence. Could they falsify some evidence, like claiming that a "witness" saw him record the movie, for sure. But would they? Probably not. Some cops are dicks, but most are honest.

lelandbatey• 13 years ago

It'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.

grecy2• 13 years ago

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

x00547• 13 years ago

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

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

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

etanazir• 13 years ago

Cooperating with the police may engender good will.

aimhb• 13 years ago

Do you even know what you're talking about? Miranda rights are for interrogations.

patio113• 13 years ago

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

tptacek• 13 years ago

Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery

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

patio113• 13 years ago

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

alan_cx3• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

MichaelGG7• 13 years ago

Perhaps 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.

NoPiece• 13 years ago

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

simulate• 13 years ago

In the 19th century, the Kodak Brownie was banned from beaches and the Washington Monument over concern of camera fiends:

"The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. "

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eastman/peopleevents/pande13.ht...

GFischer2• 13 years ago

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

trentmb• 13 years ago

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

grecy2• 13 years 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.

Cthulhu_• 13 years ago

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

rwallace• 13 years ago

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

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

erichocean3• 13 years 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• 13 years ago

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

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

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

AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user

Related Stories