Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

AMC movie theater calls “federal agents” to arrest a Google Glass user

(1/2) > >>

wraith808:
AMC movie theater calls “federal agents” to arrest a Google Glass user

FBI snatches Google Glass off the face of innocent AMC movie-goer

I do hope he takes legal action... though I know it will amount to nothing.

mwb1100:
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:
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:
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.
-wraith808 (January 21, 2014, 03:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

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:
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.
-wraith808 (January 21, 2014, 03:22 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page