If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Homeland Security detains man for 3 hours after he wears Google Glasses to the movies. Feel safer, citizen?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 255
    More: Asinine, Google Glass, Ohio, Homeland Security Investigations, Motion Picture Association of America, AMC Theatres  
•       •       •

8787 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:19 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 12:31:36 AM  

Solutare: I don't like that federal agencies are used to protect privacy companies' profits in what should be handled in civil courts.


Why is that?

Privacy is something that is very important to mankind
 
2014-01-22 12:33:41 AM  
Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.
 
2014-01-22 12:35:42 AM  
Bootlegs filmed with a camcorder are bad enough (Er, so I've heard...) so can you imagine how terrible a bootleg recorded on a pair of Google Glasses would be? Are they saying the guy never moved his head at all for two hours?

/Of course the next generation of Google Glasses will just look like glasses, so no one will ever know someone is wearing them. Hell, if all you want to do is video stuff there are plenty of glasses already available on ebay that wouldn't get a second glance.
 
2014-01-22 12:46:33 AM  

Curious: NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE. all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.


Dude, you know that if you're in a place of business, the shopkeeper usually has a right to detain you until law enforcement arrives if they have reason to believe you're stealing from them, right?  The MPAA was within its rights to hold this guy until DHS or the FBI or whomever got there and took over.

I'm firmly in the camp that wishes the MPAA and RIAA (and most of our bullshiat IP law) would die a quick and fiery death, but wearing Google Glass into a movie is just utterly inappropriate pants on head retarded.
 
2014-01-22 12:51:26 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: I feel safer. And I don't even live in the US.


I feel safer because I don't live in the US.
 
2014-01-22 12:52:59 AM  

sprgrss: So by logical extension you also think insurance fraud and shoplifting any many myriad of laws that protect economic interests should only be handled in civil court?


If I were a moron like you, I suppose I would think that that was a logical extension, yes.
 
2014-01-22 12:57:47 AM  

jaylectricity: OK, he's a jackass for wearing them to the movie, but it looks like they're fitted right to his prescription glasses.

If they had merely taken a look at  the contents of the drive (although he didn't have to let them) in the first 10 minutes everybody would have been able to go on their way.


And if they had done that the dumbshiat would be back next week wearing his Google Glasses to another movie.  Then they'd have to come back again.  I think they held him up and questioned him for 3 hours so that maybe next time he'll leave his Google Glasses at home and take a regular pair of glasses with him.
 
2014-01-22 12:59:40 AM  
Keep in mind that AMC is now owned 100% by the Chinese Communist Government.
 
2014-01-22 01:00:29 AM  

sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?


copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?

A Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie?

Woman Jailed 2 Days for Filming Movie Screen Sues Theater

the second one is the same woman and another person in a separate incidence. they also mention the $500 reward the MPAA offers for catching these villains.

so yeah this is a great use of scarce resources. i feel much safer knowing the "federal protective services" are keeping me safe from pirates.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:10 AM  

Solutare: sprgrss: So by logical extension you also think insurance fraud and shoplifting any many myriad of laws that protect economic interests should only be handled in civil court?

If I were a moron like you, I suppose I would think that that was a logical extension, yes.


So why are you fine with the law protecting these private business profits but not other private business profits?
 
2014-01-22 01:02:10 AM  

mbillips: StoPPeRmobile: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Idiot!

Don't you remember that the Saudis crashed 2 copies of The Expendables into the WTC?

How quickly they forget.

To be serious for a moment, DHS was created in a spasm of panic when we thought we actually had an ongoing terrorism problem in the U.S by taking advantage of a national crisis in order to invoke new laws without serious public scrutiny. Now that it's been completely proven that we DON'T, all those law-enforcement agencies lumped together under DHS still have to do their jobs, which is enforcing criminal law that has nothing to do with terrorism. Better they irritate one neckbeard who's being a douche than that they waste time trying to talk guys in Dearborn with 67 IQs into buying Stinger missiles.


FIFY

Let's not pretend that some people who wrote those laws didn't know *exactly* what they were doing.

/still pissed
//and I was only 18 then.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:17 AM  

mbillips: untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.


This. Anyone wearing Google Glass should be f*cked, broken and driven across the land.
 
2014-01-22 01:03:59 AM  

Curious: sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?

copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?


Copyright violations as a criminal violation predate the MPAA and the RIAA.  Originally it dealt with books and other forms of IP and was extended to movies and recordings once the technology came in to existence.
 
2014-01-22 01:04:20 AM  
If they can willing to do this, why can't they have an usher stand in each theater and ask texters and people on cell phones to get out.

They don't care about theater experience.
 
2014-01-22 01:05:34 AM  
Copyright infringement is a serious threat to the security of the homeland!
 
2014-01-22 01:06:55 AM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


good question
 
2014-01-22 01:12:18 AM  

bearded clamorer: Better article here


simply amazing
 
2014-01-22 01:14:16 AM  

Z-clipped: Dude, you know that if you're in a place of business, the shopkeeper usually has a right to detain you until law enforcement arrives if they have reason to believe you're stealing from them, right? The MPAA was within its rights to hold this guy until DHS or the FBI or whomever got there and took over.

I'm firmly in the camp that wishes the MPAA and RIAA (and most of our bullshiat IP law) would die a quick and fiery death, but wearing Google Glass into a movie is just utterly inappropriate pants on head retarded.


as to point one, fine. the article was less than clear about who actually did what. this quote is from the theater operator: "'The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. " and prompted my ire. at another point the article says the guy was jerked out of the theater by DHS. now given your shopkeeper law exception that's the theater operator or their employees. again NOT the MPAA.

we, you and i, were warned when this legislation was in the congress than letting the MPAA and the RIAA have their way meant local and federal cops would be doing the copyright enforcement for them. and no shiat here it is. to my credit i did write my congress persons but you can see how much that mattered.

and yeah google glass in a theater was dumb.
 
2014-01-22 01:16:55 AM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


itg much?
 
2014-01-22 01:21:51 AM  

drgloryboy: Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?


You, too?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEqHJtzli-s
 
hej
2014-01-22 01:23:39 AM  

Relatively Obscure: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-22 01:29:06 AM  

Without Fail: Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.


Fark you.
 
2014-01-22 01:30:23 AM  

Gyrfalcon: mbillips: untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.

This. Anyone wearing Google Glass should be f*cked, broken and driven across the land.


I don't have one, but I will. Why do you hate them so?
 
2014-01-22 01:32:33 AM  

hej: Relatively Obscure: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x313]


You can download a bear?  COOL!  I'd like a mid sized brown one.
 
2014-01-22 01:35:59 AM  

Bucky Katt: drgloryboy: Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?

You, too?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEqHJtzli-s


/Thank you for that.
 
2014-01-22 01:37:47 AM  

sprgrss: Curious: sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?

copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?

Copyright violations as a criminal violation predate the MPAA and the RIAA.  Originally it dealt with books and other forms of IP and was extended to movies and recordings once the technology came in to existence.


if wikipediaia to be believed it's only been since that "extended to movies and recordings ..."part that any real enforcement has been carried out. especially by the multitude of agencies that are included under DHS. and it wan't since their existence but since things like the walkman and VHS tape got popular. and with the digital age the producers went batshiat crazy trying to protect their cash cow.

keep in mind the RIAA spent years using creative accounting to steal millions from recording artists. but by jolly if you use a iPod to provide music for the lunch crowd you're in deep shiat.
 
2014-01-22 01:47:37 AM  

Curious: Z-clipped:

we, you and i, were warned when this legislation was in the congress than letting the MPAA and the RIAA have their way meant local and federal cops would be doing the copyright enforcement for them. and no shiat here it is. to my credit i did write my congress persons but you can see how much that mattered.


It's true, the copyright law was amended in 2008.  Previously, criminal liability required willful infringement and either intent to profit, or a certain threshold for sales of copies.  Added in 2008: even without intent to profit, criminal to make available online something you should know has a commercial market, specifically including the first-run movie market.
 
2014-01-22 01:55:59 AM  
I find it astonishing how little foresight people in this thread have.

Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.

As to the law and the MPAA, you need to get with the times. Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.
 
2014-01-22 01:59:31 AM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


None of the security and surveillance shiat you've been seeing over the past decade have anything to do with terrorism. If they catch the odd muhammad doing bad shiat here and there, great. But this is about economic and physical control of a populace.

Relevant
 
2014-01-22 02:02:57 AM  

Curious: now given your shopkeeper law exception that's the theater operator or their employees. again NOT the MPAA.


I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA had some kind of legal partnership written into the theater contract that gives them the authority to act as the proverbial "shopkeeper".  Just sayin'.

 
2014-01-22 02:04:24 AM  

jimhill: If they guy doesn't have the presence of mind to say "Am I under arrest?  Am I free to go?" over and over and over then he can cry me a river.  Cooperation with law enforcement agents should consist of nothing more than asking those questions until you're arrested (after which you get Coin) or until they confirm that you aren't under arrest and are free to go ... in which case, you farkin' GO.


They had observed him pointing a recording device at the screen for an hour.  I think that's probable cause enough for an extended stop, if not an arrest.  I'm not sure what the state's position is on this or whether the fact it's a federal crime he's suspected of which gives them the power to do that.

What it definitely is, is probable cause for them to dick him around enough for him to regret it and not be such an idiot in the future.  Sure they could have ascertained he didn't have the recording (maybe he deleted it?) earlier, but that's a waste of THEIR valuable time caused by his idiocy.  I'm guessing they decided to extend his little stay as long as they could to teach him a lesson.
 
2014-01-22 02:10:10 AM  
Here we go:   Investigative Detention is legal for a "reasonably articulated suspicion" in California.

although the cam pointed at the screen I'd argue was probable cause for an arrest.
 
2014-01-22 02:11:05 AM  

lindseyp: They had observed him pointing a recording device at the screen for an hour.  I think that's probable cause enough for an extended stop, if not an arrest.  I'm not sure what the state's position is on this or whether the fact it's a federal crime he's suspected of which gives them the power to do that.

What it definitely is, is probable cause for them to dick him around enough for him to regret it and not be such an idiot in the future.  Sure they could have ascertained he didn't have the recording (maybe he deleted it?) earlier, but that's a waste of THEIR valuable time caused by his idiocy.  I'm guessing they decided to extend his little stay as long as they could to teach him a lesson.


But virtually every phone sold these days is a recording device. I cannot tell you how many times I've been to the theater and the teenage girls have their phones out the entire movie doing texting or whatnot, they could just as easily slip in some recording. The fact that this guy had a recording device out in a movie theater in no way marks him out as special.
 
2014-01-22 02:11:49 AM  

Fubini: Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.


I find it astonishing that you seem unable to differentiate between a recording device (cellphone OR glass) being "in the theater" say in your pocket vs. being pointed at the screen.

Fubini: You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.


Texting or playing games on your cellphone during a movie is construed as worthy of an ass-beating in my book.  But if you're pointing a cellphone at the screen continuously during a movie, YES, you should expect to be hassled by someone about bootlegging. Don't be an idiot.

Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.


Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?
 
2014-01-22 02:14:16 AM  

lindseyp: Here we go:   Investigative Detention is legal for a "reasonably articulated suspicion" in California.


It's legal, but does it make any goddamned sense?

"This person had a recording device out during a movie." is a perfectly reasonably articulated suspicion, but it applies to anyone who uses a cell phone in the theater for any reason whatsoever. Did they detain the other 20 people who had a recording device out in the theater?
 
2014-01-22 02:16:56 AM  

moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?


i forget, why do we hate google glasses?
 
2014-01-22 02:17:24 AM  

Z-clipped: Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.

Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?


There are watchers with infra-red cameras at the front of the theatre, looking for people who are continuously pointing cameras at the screen, which this guy obviously was.  That's a far cry from merely having the phone out and switched on whilst they're texting / gaming etc...   Not many people do that whilst holding the phone steady facing the screen directly at head height.  If they did, you can bet they'd be subject to the same interrogation.

(they all deserve beatings)
((brackets,  the new slashies))
 
2014-01-22 02:19:05 AM  
He was pointing his camera directly at the screen, at head height, for over an hour.

I mean he didn't even have the courtesy to TELL the theatre he was wearing a Glass and that it was to be switched off.   He deserved all he got.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:11 AM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


Small dink?
 
2014-01-22 02:19:28 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Bootlegs filmed with a camcorder are bad enough (Er, so I've heard...) so can you imagine how terrible a bootleg recorded on a pair of Google Glasses would be? Are they saying the guy never moved his head at all for two hours?

/Of course the next generation of Google Glasses will just look like glasses, so no one will ever know someone is wearing them. Hell, if all you want to do is video stuff there are plenty of glasses already available on ebay that wouldn't get a second glance.


this is all i can think of. TS copies are crap enough, without all the head bobbing, and so on. what a fail way to record a movie.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:47 AM  

Fubini: "This person had a recording device out during a movie." is a perfectly reasonably articulated suspicion, but it applies to anyone who uses a cell phone in the theater for any reason whatsoever. Did they detain the other 20 people who had a recording device out in the theater?


Are you really so stupid/obtuse that you don't see that the MPAA would be less concerned with someone recording 20 seconds of a move vs. recording the entire thing?  Jesus farking christ man, get a grip.
 
2014-01-22 02:21:11 AM  

Fubini: I find it astonishing how little foresight people in this thread have.

Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.

As to the law and the MPAA, you need to get with the times. Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.


This is the MPAA we're talking about, so there's no farking way that will ever happen.  Ditto the RIAA.  And as long as law enforcement does their bidding... we'll stay in the Stone Age forever.

/stone knives and bear skins
 
2014-01-22 02:24:18 AM  

lindseyp: Z-clipped: Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.

Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?

There are watchers with infra-red cameras at the front of the theatre, looking for people who are continuously pointing cameras at the screen, which this guy obviously was.  That's a far cry from merely having the phone out and switched on whilst they're texting / gaming etc...   Not many people do that whilst holding the phone steady facing the screen directly at head height.  If they did, you can bet they'd be subject to the same interrogation.

(they all deserve beatings)
((brackets,  the new slashies))


www.rockpapersaddam.com

I'm sayin' Bro!
 
2014-01-22 02:25:24 AM  

Z-clipped: Texting or playing games on your cellphone during a movie is construed as worthy of an ass-beating in my book.  But if you're pointing a cellphone at the screen continuously during a movie, YES, you should expect to be hassled by someone about bootlegging. Don't be an idiot.


The scary thing here is the precedent. *ANY* videotaping of a movie in a theater is a crime, so *ANY* manipulation of a cellphone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as pointing your cellphone at the screen for two hours.

Yes, it's obvious that the guy with the Glass is pointing a recording device at the screen. However, common sense did not win out this day. Common sense would say that this guy has a new piece of technology that fits a camera to his head, and that he probably has it for any one of the myriad of legal activities you can do with the Glass. Instead, the LEOs here had to ignore all the simple explanations that said he was doing nothing illegal, and instead convinced themselves that he might be doing something illegal, despite the complete lack of any indication that he was, and despite the fact that the Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when someone is taking pictures or recording video.

The mere fact that you have the ability to do something illegal should not be construed as evidence that you *ARE* doing something illegal, particularly when much simpler explanations exist that indicate that nothing illegal is taking place. If I wanted to, I could easily construe someone fiddling with their cellphone to be just as suspicious as wearing a Google Glass.

Z-clipped: Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?


No, I'm saying that the LEOs and the lawmakers get with the times and figure out how to do their job without being morons.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:11 AM  

lindseyp: I mean he didn't even have the courtesy to TELL the theatre he was wearing a Glass and that it was to be switched off.   He deserved all he got.


Except the Glass makes it very obvious when it is recording via the light-up display, and doing so requires speaking voice commands or manipulating the device.

Even if you think this guy is a wizard and can somehow disable these things, a simple 30 second function test by the law enforcement officers would have shown whether or not they were functioning correctly, rather than an hours-long detainment.
 
2014-01-22 02:31:47 AM  

some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?


No idea...  But every time the topic comes up this monkey cage is whipped into a shiat slinging frenzy.
 
2014-01-22 02:33:55 AM  

Z-clipped: Are you really so stupid/obtuse that you don't see that the MPAA would be less concerned with someone recording 20 seconds of a move vs. recording the entire thing?  Jesus farking christ man, get a grip.


As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets. From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.

If the LEOs were willing to exercise common sense, they wouldn't have detained this guy and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Clearly, they lack or do not use common sense, so we the public need to shame them until they stop being so goddamned stupid.
 
2014-01-22 02:34:07 AM  

Without Fail: Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.


They should do this in cars. Block all calling and texting while the vehicle is in motion. The FCC would never allow it, though.
 
2014-01-22 02:35:23 AM  

cman: UsikFark: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Movie piracy funds terrorism.

You spelled "opium" and "ak-47" wrong

Movie piracy is something that is big business in China. Last time I checked there are no Chinese terrorist groups who are in an active war with us


The Chinese are their own worst enemy, if only for the unique scale of their systemic problems. I was just taking a shot in the dark with the terrorism thing, but in all seriousness a congressman or Fox News reporter is bound to 'follow the thought-experiment money' and say it out loud.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:43 AM  

Fubini: The scary thing here is the precedent. *ANY* videotaping of a movie in a theater is a crime, so *ANY* manipulation of a cellphone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as pointing your cellphone at the screen for two hours.


You're borrowing trouble.  This is not the case, nor was it the case in TFA.  Again, don't be an idiot.

Fubini: If I wanted to, I could easily construe someone fiddling with their cellphone to be just as suspicious as wearing a Google Glass.


That's because you are not a reasonable person.  A reasonable person can clearly see the difference between taking out a cellphone for a few seconds in a theater (merely annoying) and deliberately and continuously pointing a recording device at the farking screen which represents a clear possibility of someone recording the entire movie for the purposes of re-distribution.

This is a common sense distinction.  It is not the slippery slope you're making it out to be.  Stop being stupid.

Fubini: No, I'm saying that the LEOs and the lawmakers get with the times and figure out how to do their job without being morons.


How about if they go on using reasonable judgement about what constitutes a real threat to copyright, and Google Glass users exercise a little common sense about where they wear their tech toys?  Like not in a goddamn theater.

/I can't believe I'm arguing on behalf of these pig-farker IP-abusing assholes.
//Look what you're making me do, man.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report