Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 04, 2016, 02:17:19 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: AMC movie theater calls “federal agents” to arrest a Google Glass user  (Read 1786 times)

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member

mwb1100

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,520
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Why should this amount to more than nothing?

AMC was apparently running a 'sting' (they were expecting people to be recording the movie), which is probably why there were several agents involved.  From reading the article, it sounds like they had an 'undercover' agent in the audience.  

The guy had what amounts to a video camera in the theater, and was questioned about it.

Irritating as hell?  Sure.  Actionable?  I doubt it.

The main thing that seems questionable is the way the glasses were temporarily confiscated.  However, since they weren't damaged and he wasn't hurt in any way, I doubt that there would be any reasonable finding that something worthy of discipline happened.

I think that I sometimes get hassled more crossing the US/Canada border. On the other hand, I expect a certain probability I'll get hassled there. It probably came as compete surprise to the guy in the theater.

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Actually, it's more than actionable.  They held him without advising him of his rights and questioned him.  Confiscated his equipment.  The manner of questioning for hours is also more than a little debatable.

It comes down to... do we have the rights that our forefathers set forth or not?

Against him is the fact that he didn't challenge them.  It takes balls to do, but when you're uncomfortable, you can request your equipment, refuse to let them search and take your equipment, and ask to walk away.  At the point when you force it back in their court and they're forced to actually do something, they make an actionable stand.  Otherwise they say the double-speak.

It's fear more than anything else- he theoretically had a recording device.  But it has very limited recording capacity, and the fidelity is such that it wouldn't even be useable.  In fact, most incidences of piracy are in house jobs, not the old sit in a movie theatre with a camera on your shoulder.  That wen't out long ago.

Once again, law enforcement is behind.  And being pushed by the MPAA.

TaoPhoenix

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2011
  • **
  • Posts: 4,550
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
It's fear more than anything else- he theoretically had a recording device.  But it has very limited recording capacity, and the fidelity is such that it wouldn't even be useable.  In fact, most incidences of piracy are in house jobs, not the old sit in a movie theater with a camera on your shoulder.  That weren't out long ago.

Once again, law enforcement is behind.  And being pushed by the MPAA.

Very soon it will be great fidelity. That's the real point of this case. Will everyone who wears glasses not be able to see a movie?!

I'll even give you two years... so "come on, it's 2016". Who exactly says the recorder has to be in the glasses? They have had pocket recorders for years that you can't see.

And oh look, it's a Google Glass, but the real trick is the Chinese knockoffs that don't blare the word "Google" ... will agents really examine my glasses with a fine look every time I watch a movie?!


Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,294
    • View Profile
    • www.StoicJoker.com
    • Donate to Member
Actually, it's more than actionable.  They held him without advising him of his rights and questioned him.  Confiscated his equipment.  The manner of questioning for hours is also more than a little debatable.

It comes down to... do we have the rights that our forefathers set forth or not?

Against him is the fact that he didn't challenge them.  It takes balls to do, but when you're uncomfortable, you can request your equipment, refuse to let them search and take your equipment, and ask to walk away.  At the point when you force it back in their court and they're forced to actually do something, they make an actionable stand.  Otherwise they say the double-speak.

It's fear more than anything else- he theoretically had a recording device.  But it has very limited recording capacity, and the fidelity is such that it wouldn't even be useable.  In fact, most incidences of piracy are in house jobs, not the old sit in a movie theatre with a camera on your shoulder.  That wen't out long ago.

Once again, law enforcement is behind.  And being pushed by the MPAA.

I think you meant once again "law enforcement" has proven to be nothing more than hired thugs for corporate interests. Much like the coal mines of Virginia back in the old days. I believe the term RedNeck was originally coind back about then.

Murderous thieves working to protect greedy barons.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Well...ya gotta do something to justify those multi-multi billion dollar budgets.   :P

Now that most police departments are dressed up like ninja and they all have the latest HKs (and tanks) it's starting to get embarrassing. Especially with US crime rates steadily declining since about 10 years before 9/11. :huh:

Boys and their toys... :-\