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 257
    More: Asinine, Google Glass, Ohio, Homeland Security Investigations, Motion Picture Association of America, AMC Theatres  
•       •       •

8777 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:19 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2014-01-22 02:42:39 AM

Fubini: As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets.


I don't think you know what "precedent" means, because this doesn't set any.

Fubini: From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.


No, it's not.  If you think it is, you've got a problem with your grip on reality.

Fubini: 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


Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:41 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?


Cognitive dissonance? On one hand, we know glass owners probably are not so different from us more than any other demographic, but because they are doing this visible thing and making themselves even more visible by posting shiat our brain goes "gimme gimme gimme" and suddenly their lives seem better then ours.
 
2014-01-22 02:45:09 AM
I still don't understand why theaters a dont just install a handful or IR LEDs behind the screen. Put a specific pattern to track ala the Eurion or enough to washout the whole thing. Invisible to people and ruins camera recording of screens. You could do it for A few hundred dollars a screen and end camming.

/95% of cams suck
//the others you know are employees doing it and have it perfected
///theatre is nice for some movies. I'd just prefer they release them all at once theatre, DVD, bluray, iTunes whatever
//// but fark ultraviolet.
 
2014-01-22 02:50:19 AM

Z-clipped: He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.


So he was Black, a geek, wearing expensive technology, and sitting quietly?
 
2014-01-22 02:51:25 AM

aseras: I still don't understand why theaters a dont just install a handful or IR LEDs behind the screen. Put a specific pattern to track ala the Eurion or enough to washout the whole thing. Invisible to people and ruins camera recording of screens. You could do it for A few hundred dollars a screen and end camming.

/95% of cams suck
//the others you know are employees doing it and have it perfected
///theatre is nice for some movies. I'd just prefer they release them all at once theatre, DVD, bluray, iTunes whatever
//// but fark ultraviolet.


IR filters are not hard to come by and are already installed in most digital cameras.
 
2014-01-22 02:56:13 AM

UsikFark: 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?

Cognitive dissonance? On one hand, we know glass owners probably are not so different from us more than any other demographic, but because they are doing this visible thing and making themselves even more visible by posting shiat our brain goes "gimme gimme gimme" and suddenly their lives seem better then ours.


I figured it was just that people don't like the idea of being surreptitiously A/V recorded in public.  I don't even have the terrible fear of public speaking or being in front of an audience that most people have, and the idea of it irks me.  I don't mind being photographed candidly, but even then, I prefer to know approximately when I'm under surveillance.  Google glass has the potential to be incredibly annoying and intrusive.

Some aspects of its utility also represent an over-attachment to the virtual at the expense of real social interaction, which induces disdain in a lot of people.  Neal Stephenson was writing about this kind of thing (gargoyles, everyone hates them) back in the early 90s.
 
2014-01-22 02:58:52 AM

UsikFark: Z-clipped: He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.

So he was Black, a geek, wearing expensive technology, and sitting quietly?


He was black, and sitting quietly in a movie theater?  Now I've seen everything.

/I keed, I keed...
 
2014-01-22 03:19:42 AM

moike: 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.


yeah, i'll say. that is a perfect description of fark at the best of times. it's awesome.
 
2014-01-22 03:59:50 AM
This theater's idea of what a professional camshot recording ring member looks like is quite different from what I would describe as professional. If he was actually going to, his method of attempted media robbery could be compared to the old blinking light in a hat method. Apparently walking into a theater with an obvious in plain sight camera mounted on your face equals mastermind involved in an apparently uncapturable theft ring.

Prescription glasses of not, he was a moron for wearing his face computer into a theater and expecting not to get hassled at some point.
 
2014-01-22 04:11:30 AM
He should just have been shot. It happened in America, after all.
 
2014-01-22 04:26:07 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?


A billion times THIS.
 
2014-01-22 04:51:46 AM
Next week in The Further Adventures of Entitled Man With No Sense, our intrepid hero will visit a swimming baths with his google glasses and whine when he's hauled in by the cops on suspicion of taking pictures.
 
2014-01-22 05:20:57 AM

BitwiseShift: So the MPAA has not one or two federally-payrolled cops looking a patrons making bad copies but ten in one movie theater? I wonder how many shows the exotic LEOs caught, and whether their popcorn was comped?


Movies are digitally watermarked and pirated content can be analysed and traced back to the cinema it was filmed in. I wouldn't be surprised if the watermarking even carries a timestamp so someone can pinpoint the exact date & time it was filmed and thus the particular showing and potentially infer who it was if they booked seats, or if they had filmed several movies from the same credit card.

But whatever the reason, the MPAA got a heads up that this particular cinema was the source of some online content and they were staking it out a new movie hoping to catch whoever it was. Then glasshole walks in with his camera on his head and the rest follows on from that. He gets arrested, the feds wait for someone to properly examine the device and eventually he's let go.

Whether it should be a federal crime to film a movie, is a highly contentious point, but given that it *is* a federal crime, and cinemas are plastered with signs and warnings not to film, it seems ever so slightly stupid to walk in wearing a camera and pointing at the screen the whole time.
 
2014-01-22 06:17:21 AM

sprgrss: mbillips: 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?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


Correct on FBI. Coast Guard, however, was moved under DHS, unless deployed to a forward theater like Iraq.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:22 AM
".... and the laaaaaaannnnnndddddddd of the freeeeeeeeee....!!!!"


(Pause)

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAA....!
 
2014-01-22 08:02:09 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.


grumpycatgood.jpg

/I would pay extra taxes for cops who would haul people out of theaters for texting and/or playing games on their phone during a movie.
 
2014-01-22 08:25:11 AM

sprgrss: mayIFark: Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.

come into the real world, ayn rand.  You are engaging in the same histrionics idiots did when laws regulating child pornography on the internet went into effect.


Umm, the BS that is being put into place under the guise of protecting people from CP is actually hurting the internet.  And if you didn't care about that, it's at the very least in the early stages of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars tilting at windmills.
 
2014-01-22 08:26:00 AM

Mangoose: Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen.


Oh noes!   He pointed a recording device at a movie screen, and now all the pixels has been stolenized!  The police was looking for the pixels he stole!  And now other people can not have the pixels at the movie that he stole them from, but only the rubbery popcorns and the ju-ju-bellies!
 
2014-01-22 08:31:02 AM

Z-clipped: Fubini: As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets.

I don't think you know what "precedent" means, because this doesn't set any.

Fubini: From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.

No, it's not.  If you think it is, you've got a problem with your grip on reality.

Fubini: 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

Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.


Don't you have to go measure someone's lawn with a ruler or check the serial numbers on trashcans in case someone is using an unapproved model?
 
2014-01-22 08:40:12 AM

lindseyp: 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.


Wasting THEIR valuable time?  They are sitting around a movie theater trying to catch camcorder bootleggers.  Their time is less valuable than that of the guy who picks up my trash each week.  At least the trashman is providing an essential service.

If these idiots knew enough about their jobs to make themselves valuable, they would have realized that google glass is probably the worst 'movie recording device' that you could possibly choose.  Worse than a $10 pinhole camera.  So the only valuable time they wasted was the time of the guy they harassed for doing nothing wrong.
 
2014-01-22 08:41:42 AM

Z-clipped: He was black, and sitting quietly in a movie theater?  Now I've seen everything.


You sound like a grumpy old racist.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Google Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when it is recording something. If you weren't such a luddite, you'd realize how silly your argument is.
 
2014-01-22 09:21:55 AM
Recording in a theater should not be illegal. If the owners do not want to allow recording devices to be used that's fine but it shouldn't be a legal matter until they have someone who refuses to leave after being asked.
 
2014-01-22 09:22:30 AM

Z-clipped: Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.


It might have been 100% legal for them to detain this guy, but it was not in any way morally right.  Those are two very, very different things.

First, let's suppose he was recording the movie.  Who cares?   There were already 100 bootleg versions of "James Reacher Ryan the Spy Guy" on every corner of every third world city and on every pirate site on the internet.  Suppose he really is making one more?   Who cares?  Seriously, who cares at all?   There might be one more jittery bad transfer available on some streetcorner in Dubai, which some Filipino slave might buy on her way back from the market?  That's terrible.

Second, let's suppose he wasn't recording the movie.  Again, who cares?   If there were 30 people watching that movie, then there were probably 35 recording devices in the theater already.  Every single person who walked in the theater that day, from nightly cleaning crew to the youngest patron who cried through the move, probably owns a recording device of some kind.   And cameras that will fit on your regular glasses (or a thousand other hiding places) are 1/10th the price of google glasses, and unlike google glasses are completely hidden.   If it's reasonable to hassle anyone who might be recording a movie, they should just get rid of the theater entirely and simply take anyone who buys a ticket straight to the police station for interrogation.  (Maybe that's a little harsh; perhaps the system should be setup so that people can buy overpriced popcorn and soda before they are taken to jail, so the theaters can continue to make a profit.)

This is just a stupid, misguided overreaction that does nothing but increase resentment and lower ticket sales, while doing nothing to solve the actual problem they want to solve.
 
2014-01-22 09:52:16 AM
Leave these guys alone! Here are my points:

1. CAM copies suck, the video is bad, often not properly aligned and the Audio is probably worse. A CAM copy is Nothing that you want to keep in your library
2. At Best someone seeing a CAM will think "I really want to go and See that movie!" or "I'll buy that the minute it comes out on Blu-Ray or DVD!"
3. At Worst someone seeing a CAM will think "I sure am glad I Didn't Pay to go see that POS!".
4. So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?
 
2014-01-22 10:06:50 AM

Lapdance: So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?


NO!   Every single person in the whole world would have gone to see "Jack Ryan:  Oops!  Sorry about the Ben Affleck Last Time!", but the googlez and the glassez made the MPAA have a sadz!
 
2014-01-22 10:07:58 AM

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.


My roomate's jobless boyfriend is always bringing shiatty pirated movies to the house and doesn't undertstand why I don't want to watch them. Because they are laggy, they jump around like they were filmed by Michael J Fox after 10 Redbulls, have people's heads in the way, and you can hear people talking on them, that's why. Even the DVD copies are grainy.

I have Netflix, I can watch movies that are much better quality. Either that or black friday Blurays from 7-9 bucks.
 
2014-01-22 10:36:39 AM

fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.


Actually, somehow, piracy has ended up in the DHS's purview.So you better believe it, because it's happening.

/we told you people this shiat wouldn't stop at "fighting terrorism" when all these laws passed after 9/11.
//but did you listen?
///nooooooooooooooooo, of course not.
 
2014-01-22 11:24:31 AM

sprgrss: mbillips: 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?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


USCG is under DHS, but during time if war they can move to DoD. Currently, they're under DHS
 
2014-01-22 11:46:09 AM

Fubini: You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Google Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when it is recording something. If you weren't such a luddite, you'd realize how silly your argument is.


*facepalm*

This is true of basically all video cameras. It doesn't stop people from poking out the light so they can record movies in the theater surreptitiously.

Look kid, I know you think Glass is cool. It's hella expensive and sophisticated, and carries additional nerd cred on top of that since Google has to basically choose you to own one.  I know you think wearable computing, augmented reality, and direct interface are the future, and that someday we'll all be wearing these things.

Guess what?  There will always be places where wearing a camera on your face (on or not) will get you hassled by police, and movie theaters, locker rooms and children's playgrounds will always be among them.  Your mission, should you choose to back up your ridiculous position, is to go to three of the next high-budget blockbuster new release films at the same theater, hold up a camcorder (turned off, if you like) pointed at the screen through the entire film, and report back with your experiences.

The Larch: It might have been 100% legal for them to detain this guy, but it was not in any way morally right. Those are two very, very different things.


Don't confuse my position.  I don't side with the MPAA on anything.  I torrent the ever-loving fark out of movies, books and music. I think most IP law is corporation-fellating bullshiat and despise any big company that's willing to use money to get laws written in an attempt to preserve the viability of a business model that should be allowed to die.

But given the actual state of the world today, I'm still not stupid enough to wear a device on my face that's generally vaguely understood to be a surreptitious recording device into a movie theater, and I'm not naive enough to argue that people should have a right to do so without being approached by the pig-farkers who are desperately trying to keep their copyrighted material off the internet.

The Larch: First, let's suppose he was recording the movie. Who cares?


The MPAA cares, numbnuts.  And they have enough money to pay law enforcement (via political donations) to care on their behalf.  Is it right? No.  But attempting at this late date to draw the line of principle at "wearing Google Glass in a movie theater" is farking moronic.

It's like saying "I should have the right to walk into a store that sells $50K fur coats holding two open cans of spray paint in my hands, as long as I'm not actually spraying paint, "  and then getting all huffy because when you tried to walk out, the store owner detained you long enough to check for damage to his merchandise.  Is recording a movie the same as damaging a fur coat?  No. But that's pretty much the way the law is written, and pretending otherwise because you think getting picked by Google to test their face-computer makes you special is going to land you in trouble.

The Larch: This is just a stupid, misguided overreaction that does nothing but increase resentment and lower ticket sales, while doing nothing to solve the actual problem they want to solve.


It doesn't look like many people in this thread resent the fact that a Glasshole (their word, not mine) wore his camera someplace inappropriate and got investigated for it.  It's bad enough that 90% of people are selfish un-self-aware jitbags who can't even grasp simple cellphone etiquette.  Wearable cameras open up an entirely new arena for people to use tech in a way that should end with them being beaten with sticks.  This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.
 
2014-01-22 12:00:03 PM

Z-clipped: This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.


Why couldn't the manger just tell the guy that they don't allow recording devices to be worn in the theater? Why investigate or search the guy?
 
2014-01-22 12:08:14 PM

Z-clipped: they were 100% right to detain this guy


Z-clipped: Is it right? No.


Go home, z-clipped.   You're drunk.
 
2014-01-22 12:15:15 PM

Torok: Z-clipped: This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.

Why couldn't the manger just tell the guy that they don't allow recording devices to be worn in the theater? Why investigate or search the guy?


He certainly could have, and I would prefer that he had.  However, the current legal climate regarding piracy is such that some governments and law enforcement agencies are whipped into a frenzy trying desperately to break up bootlegging rings.  They're following the same pattern as they do with drug enforcement: grab the little guy, get him to give up the guy above him in the chain, repeat.  And that's not a secret.  We all know it's going on, and anyone tech-savvy enough to get themselves a Glass DEFINITELY knows.

It's a crappy situation that our judicial system has sided with big corporations over the rest of us, but that's the way it is.  And given that, you'd have to be really, really stupid not to know that you need to put away a recording device while watching a blockbuster movie in a theater.  Seriously, it's not like Glass users are unaware of the controversy that Glass has created...  That they make people uncomfortable, create privacy issues, and that many businesses are banning them completely.  Movie theaters are kind of a no-brainer on that score, don't you think?
 
2014-01-22 12:17:20 PM

The Larch: Z-clipped: they were 100% right to detain this guy


I should have said, "within their rights".  Congratulations, you won a point on semantics.  It doesn't change the fact that you're arguing a moronic position.
 
2014-01-22 12:27:13 PM

Voiceofreason01: 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.

uh...pretty much. Recording the movie is a crime. He was doing something that, to any reasonable person, looked like he was recording the movie. The authorities detained him long enough to determine that he was not committing a crime. Then a representative from the theater gave him some free passes. The only really unreasonable thing that happened here is that some jackass wore Google Glass into a movie theater.


Umm... no, they didn't. FTFA: "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," the man wrote to Gadgeteer.
"I also insisted they look at my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first.
They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I'm making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don't I just give up the guy up the chain, 'cause they are not interested in me." They repeated this "Over and over".

The man said that after a long time someone came into the office with a laptop and USB cable and searched through the photos on his glasses, which were all of his wife and dog.
"I asked why didn't they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room," he wrote.

This is textbook Authoritarian harassment, and he was ignored when he offered a clear means to identify if he was telling the truth. I'd say that due process was violated here, as well as unreasonable search and seizure (the snatching of his PRESCRIPTION  glasses). He can (and should) sue the piss out of Homeland Security, as well as the theater owner. Just because an accessory or tool CAN be used for something doesn't mean it is being used for something. Can homeland security confiscate anyone's phones now, because they "Might have recorded copy written material" with it? How about confiscating two-way radios? After all, you can use them to signal your terrorist cohorts! While we are at it, let's confiscate your car too! You could have robbed a bank with it! See the problem here?

/Enough of this precrime bullshiat.
 
2014-01-22 12:51:03 PM

washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.


I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.
 
2014-01-22 01:01:52 PM
So a thing with a camera and little screen that connects the the internet and goes with you everywhere is a terrible thing that automatically makes the owner a douchebag.  Am I getting that right?

jsp2897: In my mind, I see a vast, featurelees plain. Stretching across this plain, from horizon to horizon, is a masive wall of glass. It stands high as a mountain, and so deep that the eye vanishes into its green-blue depths. and it is ever so slowly, but inexorably, gliding forward.
Before the wall, gesticulating and screaming, stands a small, angry ape. He is screaming and hooting in rage, jumping up and down, and occasionally stopping to grap a handfull of shiat from the considerable pile that has accumulated behind him, and fling it angrily at the wall.
From time to time, he must stop, gather up his little pile of shiat, and retreat from the ever-advancing wall.

With each mighty hurl, a hefty glob of shiat hits the wall with a resounding splat!, and then slowly runs down onto the ground and into the dust, leave the smooth, flat, featureless surface as unbesmirched as it was before.
This seems to only stimulate the ape's rage, and he screams ever loud, hopping around ever more frenetically, and flinging handfull after handfull of shiat, harder and harder - but accomplishing nothing, and ever retreating.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Modern Conservative
 Google Glass hater.

Who would have thought something from the politics tab would fit here so well?
 
2014-01-22 01:02:55 PM

Z-clipped: washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.


The law of common sense does not apply.   Its a waste of money to check for piracy at the movies.  Also only cheap bastards watch shiatty cam copies and its mainly to see if the film is shiat that way they dont waste their money on a shiatty product.  Perhaps the movie industry should change its model of content delivery and while they are at it they should also not release crap movies.  I know every time a good movie is released and then bootlegged.  The people that watched the crappy cam copy usually will go see it at the theater.   If its a crap film they wont bother wasting their time or money.    The way I see it is the movie and record industries slowed progression by trying to horde content instead of evolving like every other industry does with the times and the technological advances.  Remember when they threw a fit because of VHS could record tv?  Now we have TiVo and DVR.   Imagine if they got their way it they had blocked VHS from being able to be purchased.    I enjoy  my Netflix.  Its at a responsible price with all the content you want to watch when you want to watch it.  Netfilx is a prime example of progression with in the film industry.
 
2014-01-22 01:10:31 PM

Z-clipped: This is true of basically all video cameras. It doesn't stop people from poking out the light so they can record movies in the theater surreptitiously.


The "light" on the Google Glass is the HUD display. If you "take out" the recording light then your $2100 techno gadget will no longer work. In the picture below, it's the one on the right (that is an actual photo of the Glass in recording mode).

You are getting super upset over something that you have no clue about. You just go ahead being angry at the world, or something.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-22 01:34:30 PM

scroufus: Its a waste of money to check for piracy at the movies.


Agreed.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're doing it, and everyone knows that.  The security checks at airports are mostly a waste of time and money too, but I don't go trying to bring banned materials onto airplanes, just because they're cool, and Google gave them to me.

scroufus: lso only cheap bastards watch shiatty cam copies and its mainly to see if the film is shiat that way they dont waste their money on a shiatty product. Perhaps the movie industry should change its model of content delivery and while they are at it they should also not release crap movies. I know every time a good movie is released and then bootlegged. The people that watched the crappy cam copy usually will go see it at the theater. If its a crap film they wont bother wasting their time or money. The way I see it is the movie and record industries slowed progression by trying to horde content instead of evolving like every other industry does with the times and the technological advances. Remember when they threw a fit because of VHS could record tv? Now we have TiVo and DVR. Imagine if they got their way it they had blocked VHS from being able to be purchased. I enjoy my Netflix. Its at a responsible price with all the content you want to watch when you want to watch it. Netfilx is a prime example of progression with in the film industry.


You'll get no argument from me on any of this.  It also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Fubini: The "light" on the Google Glass is the HUD display. If you "take out" the recording light then your $2100 techno gadget will no longer work. In the picture below, it's the one on the right (that is an actual photo of the Glass in recording mode).


I know how Glass works.  But there are only 10,000 of these things in circulation, and most people, including the average cop probably doesn't know.  You can't expect every new piece of alpha tech to be instantly understood by everyone.  In the meantime, it's up to Glass users to be cognizant of their surroundings and refrain from wearing the device in situations where it might cause issues.  That includes blatantly obvious situations where the use of cameras is a major legal concern, like movie theaters.

The fact that this guy apparently had his Glass permanently affixed to his only pair of prescription glasses shows that he expects to be able to wear them anywhere, anytime which is completely unreasonable. I'm not surprised he eventually ran afoul of law enforcement in some way, being either that oblivious or that entitled.
 
2014-01-22 01:37:51 PM

Z-clipped: It also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


I think what you're say can be boiled down to:

Wow, what they are doing is really damned stupid.    But I'll gladly argue with anyone who gripes about it on the internet, because I'm very bored today.


Does that about cover your position, or Have I missed any of the nuance and subtlety of your position?
 
2014-01-22 01:50:50 PM

Watubi: If Google Glass can record 90 minutes of video, sign me up


wait until they port Gandhicam to it, then tether it to your phone with 3G connectivity.
 
2014-01-22 02:00:50 PM

The Larch: Does that about cover your position


No.  My position is that, given the current legal climate and the obvious commonplace restrictions on recording the screen during a movie, any idiot should know that wearing Google Glass into at theater is going to attract the attention of law enforcement eventually.

Is that too difficult?  Do I need to use smaller words?

Various people seem to be arguing that:
a) there was no reason this guy should have known wearing Glass in a theater would be a problem
b) people should be allowed to wear Glass anywhere, anytime, in any situation
c) wearing a camera on your face is the same as having a cellphone in your pocket
d) that the entire structure of IP law is farked, and therefore people should be allowed to bootleg movies in the theater
e) the cops in this case acted with undue suspicion and held the guy too long

Points a, b, and c are patently stupid, and point d is a complete failure of logic regardless of the veracity of its conclusion.

Point e is debatable, given that the LEOs were allegedly on high alert at this particular theater, they were within their rights to do everything they did, and no harm came to the Glass dude, or any of his possessions.  Could the issue have been resolved more quickly?  Perhaps, if they had a laptop readily available, which they may or may not have.  Was it their prerogative to thoroughly question this guy about continuously holding a camera up to the screen?  Absolutely.

What isn't debatable is that if Glass dude had removed the camera from his face before watching a movie as any reasonable person would know to do, he wouldn't have lost three hours of his time, and we wouldn't be arguing about it.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:13 PM

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?


nobody-is-right-everyone-is-wrong.png?subject="Google Glass"
 
2014-01-22 02:18:06 PM

Z-clipped: No.  My position is that, given the current legal climate and the obvious commonplace restrictions on recording the screen during a movie, any idiot should know that wearing Google Glass into at theater is going to attract the attention of law enforcement eventually.

Is that too difficult?  Do I need to use smaller words?


No, I think you've made yourself very clear.  You're not constantly switching positions to whatever is most convenient for an argument because your ideas are evolving or because you believe there's some subtle nuance that needs to be sharpened to a point.  You're just arguing because you're bored and you don't have anything better to do.  That makes sense; I'm glad you cleared that up for me.
 
2014-01-22 02:39:58 PM

Lapdance: Leave these guys alone! Here are my points:

1. CAM copies suck, the video is bad, often not properly aligned and the Audio is probably worse. A CAM copy is Nothing that you want to keep in your library
2. At Best someone seeing a CAM will think "I really want to go and See that movie!" or "I'll buy that the minute it comes out on Blu-Ray or DVD!"
3. At Worst someone seeing a CAM will think "I sure am glad I Didn't Pay to go see that POS!".
4. So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?


Feds are just pissed that they aren't getting their piece of the action, learned it from the Mafia.
 
2014-01-22 02:59:30 PM
Remember when people annoyed others in movies theatres with cellphones? Those were the days.
 
2014-01-22 03:23:07 PM

Haoie: Remember when people annoyed others in movies theatres with cellphones? Those were the days.


I would rather sit in a theatre full of Glassholes than be distracted by even one blinding cell phone screen.
 
2014-01-22 04:02:31 PM

Z-clipped: washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.


If its only purpose was as a camera, then you would have a valid point. Except that Google Glasses  are like cell phones: Sure, they have a camera on them but that is ancillary to their main function as a device (which is to project data). In this case, it is even worse because they also serve as corrective lenses which are required by law for you to legally drive in most states if your vision is bad. I too dislike glassholes (about like I dislike applefappers), but strictly legally speaking this instance of federal jack booted thuggery was explicitly illegal and a gross abuse of authority. In order for your argument to hold any standing they would have had to prove he was recording the film with the glasses, which they obviously could not. If they do not want to allow Google Glass in theaters, they should have placards plainly posted stating so, just like when a theater wishes to disallow concealed carry.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 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