FBI snatches Google Glass off the face of innocent AMC movie-goer [UPDATE #3]

UPDATE #3: Through our source, we’ve received an Official Statement from authorities (below) and are in the process of following up:

“On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in Columbus.  The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been inactive. No further action was taken.”

Love it or hate it,   Google Glass has been the cause for a lot of excitement lately. Last week it was pronounced legal to wear but not use while driving in the state of California. Shortly after, Glass was making waves again with the launch of an app called “Sex with Glass“, allowing participants to essentially create their own sex tapes with the facial tech. Apparently, the FBI felt left out of all the fun.

Screen Shot 2014-01-20 at 6.01.05 PMAt an AMC theater in Easton Mall in Columbus, Ohio, one Google Glass Explorer went to see Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, but got a rude awakening instead. An hour into the movie he was approached by a federal agent who, without hesitation, snatched the Google Glass off the man’s face and removed him from the theater.

Outside there were 5 to 10 officers and agents who proceeded to allegedly badger and question him for over 3 hours, suggesting he was illegally recording the movie. Let’s get a few facts out of the way:

  • It’s probably not smart to bring a recording device into a movie theater, but let’s not forget mostly everyone takes a mobile phone into a theater that is perfectly capable of recording
  • The man’s Google Glass were the prescription version, so he essentially needed them on to see the movie (maybe he should have worn other glasses)
  • The man had his Google Glass powered off in advance to avoid any misunderstandings

The authorities eventually let the man go, but not without hours of intimidation and a frightening story that has him shaking – literally – even a day after the event. A Movie Association representative compensated the Glass Explorer with 2 free movie tickets for his night of troubles.

The authorities certainly have the right to remove a patron from the theater suspected of recording the screen, but should wearing Google Glass be suspicion enough? The Explorer cooperated with the authorities, but considering his rights and his innocence, would you have acted differently or pursued a better outcome?

As Google Glass and other wearable tech become more prevalent, you can bet we’ll hear a lot more of these stories popping up across the world.

Read our full Google Glass Review and discuss Google Glass on  Android Forums.

UPDATE: We’ve been in touch with the subject of this story and received some additional information, shared below, although the man has asked to remain anonymous.

Asked whether or not his Google Glass were damaged in the process:

My glasses were not damaged. After I explained to them how much they cost, they touched them in a gentler way. The only rough part was when they took them off my face in the theater.

Asked how other movie-goers reacted:

People around me were all looking in my direction. Being dark in the theatre, I didn’t see how the other people react. And it happened rather fast. I followed my glasses – I wouldn’t let somebody just take them and leave without me following.

Asked if  he could confirm the identities and/or organization of the officers:

I didn’t get the contact information for the officers. I was too shaken to remember the names, and I didn’t ask for business cards. The IDs they showed me looked legit – but what do I know?

The guy that said he represented the Movie Association gave me his business card, which I photographed with my phone and gave back, as I do with all business cards that are given to me (I am very good at losing little pieces of paper). I wrote him an email today (EMAIL ADDRESS REDACTED) asking him for the names of the federal agents and he didn’t reply
yet.

I also tried a different avenue. Until April of last year I worked at (REDACTED) where I have been in contact with an
agent from the bureau from the internet crimes division (NAME REDACTED), and I asked him to help me find out his colleagues names. He asked me so far if I am sure they were the FBI, or maybe DHS, Columbus PD or RIAA, and all I could do was to describe their IDs (they looked white with two horizontal light blue stripes on them).

I expect (REDACTED) will help me, and when I find their names I will probably file a complaint with their supervisors. My wife told me that while I was in the room with the two officers, she was in another room where nobody paid any attention to her and a long-haired guy that apparently was in the movie theater with us was talking to two cops about how is it to
be “under cover”.

From what (REDACTED) said, they were having known issues on that theatre, and they had suspicions there would be attempts to pirate that particular movie. Columbus is not a big city, and I think it was about an hour after the movie started until they snatched me out.

Asked why he didn’t wear regular glasses that day:

After I got my prescription lens for Glass, I wore Google Glass exclusively, including at the movies. As the prior couple of times there was no issue with me wearing glass at the very same movie theater, I didn’t even think about wearing my old pair of glasses to the movie, and I didn’t have my old glasses with me.

I always carry an “emergency pair” in my car, but the car was in the parking lot. So the short answer is no, i didn’t consider wearing regular glasses.

Asked if this experience will change the way he wears Glass or handles authorities that approach him about the use of Glass:

This experience doesn’t change the way I wear Glass. I will just have another pair with me when I am going to the movies.

In the event somebody else shoves a badge in my face in the future (not in a traffic situation), my plan is to say “lawyer” and then nothing else. If I am in a traffic situation I plan to just be polite, and if the traffic officer decides to give me a ticket for wearing Glass I plan to fight it in court.

He then insisted he never wanted to make a big deal about this, simply wanting to warn fellow Glass Explorers about his experience and how they might learn from it. He topped it off with a rather interesting observation about the “fear” of new technology and how perceptions change over time:

I still remember the days when people didn’t want to put pictures of themselves on the Internet, and now that’s all there is on the internet.

Don’t forget about all those 6-second Vines and animated GIFs.

The original account of the event can be seen on the-gadgeteer.com.

Continue reading:

TAGS:



  • VersedNJ

    Wouldn’t politely asking him to remove the glasses been enough? Didn’t seem like this person was a trouble maker. This agent or whomever should be charged with assualt, fired for misuse of power and liable for a civil law suit. We aren’t talking about Al Quida or the Talaban here.

    I’m no fan of the Google Glasses, but I’m not a fan of rude and offensive behavior by our government even more.

    • sdrawkcab25

      If the google glass user’s account is true….we have no other witness accounts, and no way of verifying the user’s credibility. People have a tendency to sub consciously exaggerate things like this…

    • snapper.fishes

      Assault for snatching away his glasses? That guy wasn’t even hurt or anything. Stop exaggerating things. If I snatch your glasses away the most I can be charged with is theft and/or damage of property. It may be rude, but it’s not illegal to be rude.

      • Jsilvermist

        “That guy wasn’t even hurt…”
        This comment almost makes me think you were the FBI agent in that theatre… care to comment?

        • snapper.fishes

          Read the article again. Did the guy ever mention that he felt pain?

        • snapper.fishes

          On second thought, I kinda wish I am the agent. They probably get paid quite well. *sigh*

          • Jsilvermist

            To each his own I guess, some people will do absolutely anything for money. *sigh*

      • American Patriot

        The ‘ACT’ of theft can also INCLUDE assault…You had to make physical contact to take the property, therefore, your ACT of THEFT INCLUDES ASSAULT…It IS as SIMPLE as that,to INCLUDE an assault charge in with the theft charge!

      • VersedNJ

        Assualt and battery is anyone who touches your without permission. Has nothing to do if you’re injured or felt pain. Taking the glasses off his face is assault and battery. Being on private properity where that properity which is allowing customers to occupy is not the same as crossing somebodies properity for no reason and without permission. Do I think the movie theater has the right to refuse entrance to someone with Google Glasses, yes. Do they have a right to grab you and take the glasses off without asking, no. To be honest if I had a restuarant or something with a gathering, I wouldn’t allow them on while coming in, I would politely ask them to be removed, and it can go on from there.

        Not sure how true this story is or not is another question. Nor am I a fan of Google Glasses as well as this sense of entitlement people think they have with these gimmicks. But it doesn’t make allegedly what happens right.

      • Jroc869, Nexus-Life

        Simply spitting on someone counts as assault. Hurt or not it shouldn’t have been done.

    • http://www.phandroid.com Quentyn Kennemer

      The theater is probably private property, so they are probably allowed to confiscate items for any reason. For what it’s worth, the whole “snatched” part sounds highly exaggerated anyway. But that’s just me.

      • American Patriot

        Private property does NOT make forced theft legal, by NAZI FED, or anybody else,it is still THEFT!

  • Guest

    How did the FBI know he was in there with google glass in the first place??

    • mcl630

      If you simply read the linked article you would know the answer. AMC called MPAA, MPAA called FBI.

      • daysofdre

        still doesnt make. The FBI has nothing better to do then to chase down potential pirates in movie theatres?

        • snapper.fishes

          As I have explained above, FBI has different divisions for different tasks. Not every single agent is investigating murders and terrorists.

    • chuckles87

      I would be hiring a lawyer and suing amc for even going to this extent. Just having an employee check for recording would have sufficed but really calling the fbi is going way too far

  • jasonv1

    I gotta say unless the agent introduced himself as authority and displayed a badge i would have grabbed his hand and knocked him out thinking he was attempting to steal the glasses. The agent is an idiot and needs to be removed from the field before he causes something way worse to happen.

    • snapper.fishes

      You know it’s illegal to knock a thief out right? Aggravated assault is a more serious crime than theft, and unless if the “thief” is causing you bodily harm, punching him is not self defense.

      • Joshua Hill

        Your perspective is whacked. Defending the authorities when they overstep in such a simple situation yet informing others of illegalities in their proposed alternative response to such a situation.

        • snapper.fishes

          I did not defend the authority. I am just telling jasonv1 that you can’t punch someone just because they are stealing things from you. For all you know I may have saved him from future jail time.

          • American Patriot

            WHERE did you learn of such insanity?
            You DO have every RIGHT to STOP an assault by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, and DEATH if you FEEL if your life is being threatened by ANYBODY!
            You DO have the RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE in every state, WE THE PEOPLE have the RIGHT to such acts!

      • nater2525

        You’re full of crap.

      • jasonv1

        First off i have the right to protect myself and my property. If i know the person is only trying to take my stuff that’s one thing., but someone ripping something off of my person could easily be construed as an aggressive act and possibly as an assault. I have the right to defend myself if i believe i am being assaulted and i think any judge or jury would agree.

    • American Patriot

      I prefer to SHOOT HIM as he was attacking me, I felt ‘threatened’ and had to kill him to save myself from being killed by a crazed lunatic!

  • Jason Crumbley

    Further proof that the 4th Amendment is dead.

  • Brandon David Obert

    Columbus is “supposed” to be tech friendly, glad I did’t go to Easton that day

  • simpleasker

    This sounds like some episode in southpark.. really? FBI? don’t you have better things to do. …tho i think no one should wear that hideous thing inpublic.

  • Todd Fongemie

    This is truly absurd…. When is the mmpa gonna finally wake up and understand that u can’t ruin someone’s lives over the fact that he wearing a computable device… I mean cmon loom at all the tax payers money this would be wasting

  • r1

    Some tips that may help in many tricky situations:

    GENERAL RIGHTS YOU SHOULD ALWAYS KNOW:

    You have the right to remain silent
    You have the right to an attorney
    You have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
    You have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech
    You have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

    QUESTIONING BY “AUTHORITIES”
    If you are stopped by police, FBI, or other governmental “authorities,” remember your rights listed above, as well as these helpful hints:

    Ask, “Am I being detained?” If the ‘authority’ says, “No,” then move on. You do not have to speak to them if you are not being detained. Do not allow them to trick you into speaking. For example, you may ask if you are being detained, and the authority may respond, “Not technically; I just want to ask you something,” or they may avoid the question completely. The best thing to do in this situation is to keep walking. Tell them that you do not wish to speak to them and that you are invoking your right to remain silent.

    If an authority answers that you are being detained, remember that you still have the right to remain silent. They may ask for your name, social security number, address and phone. You do not have to provide this information. However, if you are subsequently arrested, you will waste a lot of time if you do not give your name and address, because they will hold you until they get it. If you don’t want to wait, the ONLY INFORMATION YOU HAVE TO GIVE IS YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. You do not have to provide your phone number or social security number. (Note: there has been much debate over this issue. Some cases say that you must provide identification when lawfully detained, or you can be arrested for interfering with the duties of an officer. When in doubt, try to call your attorney, as many cases are fact specific.)

    Just because you are being detained, does not mean you will be arrested.

    Activists are routinely followed to their cars after protests. The best thing to do in this situation is keep walking and do not allow the ‘authority’ to follow you to you car and into your personal life.

    • sdrawkcab25

      and they also have the right, if you do not cooperate, to detain you for 24hrs and not charge you with anything. Since the person in this case was obviously wearing a recording device, they have enough probable cause to let him sit in a cell until they obtained a warrant to search through the device. It is in your best interest to fully cooperate with them, especially if you are not guilty of anything. By not cooperating you just make the process longer and harder for yourself. You can obviously go ahead and exercise your rights listed above, but they are only really helpful if you are actually guilty of something.

      • r1

        ahh guilty until proven innocent. so we should just roll over and live in a police state, let them detain you for 24 hours, and when it’s shown they violated your rights sue their ass.

        they are the ones that are going to have to write the report saying you are being detained for wearing glasses, waking up a judge to sign a warrant to search your device, ect ect basically making a mountain out of a mole hill, let them play the fool.

        • snapper.fishes

          Innocent until proven guilty is for the courtroom. If police and feds can only arrest people after getting evidence, how are they suppose to arrest suspects for questioning?

          Btw, they don’t need to wake the judge up. They just need to keep you locked up until the judge is awake.

          • r1

            all I am saying is it’s not my job to do the cops job for them. If they want to arrest/detain me on what ever grounds they believe i violated it is up to them to prove I did said action. It’s not my job to aid or hinder their investigation. If you are not 100% comfortable with whatever you say to them since it can be used against you, you maybe better to go through the legal process and seek legal representation.

            It’s a slippery slope and it comes down to how much time do both sides have to waste.

          • snapper.fishes

            If you believe that you have been harasses by the police or the feds unfairly, you should file a complaint. You may think that they won’t handle your complaints fairly, but remember this – the police hate internal affairs as much as you do.

          • American Patriot

            Internal affairs….NAZIS watching NAZIS, no different than the FOX watching the HEN HOUSE!
            NAZIS do NOT jail fellow NAZIS for anything!

          • mcl630

            What part(s) of “right to remain silent” or “right to an attorney” and the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination do you not understand?

          • nater2525

            They still need evidence to arrest someone. They can detain, but not arrest.

        • American Patriot

          Roll over, play dead, and let the NAZIS abuse YOUR rights and then feel as if they did YOU a favor…NO THANK YOU, I prefer to MAKE them PAY NOW!
          Ii don’t give a DAMN what the NAZIS want!
          It is NOT my job to make their jobs easier!

      • Chris DuBois

        You can roll over and be “reasonable” or you can exercise your rights at all times, because they are yours. I don’t have to be guilty to exercise my rights as defined in the constitution.

        • snapper.fishes

          You know, cops and feds are normal people too. Stop thinking of them as a hivemind. Not everyone of them is out to get you.

          • American Patriot

            MOST are out to make a name for themselves, and 90% ARE NAZIS!
            When they STOP attacking the people, gunning us down, OBEYING the CONSTITUTION, and UNDERSTANDING they work for US, and are OUR EMPLOYEES, I may change my thoughts on this, until these NAZIS begin acting like citizens, and not terrorists, NOTHING CHANGES, but the HUNTING PARTY GETS BIGGER!
            The people will FORCE the NAZIS to change, or they will be EXTERMINATED by excessive civil force as only WE THE PEOPLE can provide!

          • jakesdad

            “cops and feds are normal people too”

            I’m curious what your definition of “normal” is?

      • mvgc3

        It’s been a while, but I once watched a lecture about how you should never speak to the cops without a layer present. Even if you know you are 100% innocent, all it takes is one mistake in your recollection of events (and many things can affect how one remembers something) for things to go south for you. I believe the example the lecturer gave was that a man was asked where he was at a specific time and date a while after the crime occurred. He said he was one place, but the cops caught him on camera somewhere else. I think he ended up getting convicted, and then later proven innocent. All because he was cooperating with police.

        • FrozenPatriot

          It’s worth your time to watch the whole thing:

          • mvgc3

            Thanks for tracking it down! I don’t know if your comment is simply being expressed towards others who find the post, or if you’re saying that I’m wrong about some of the stuff I said. If it’s the latter, I apologize. As I said, it’s been a long time since I watched it,

            If it’s the former, then I completely agree. Everyone should watch the video at some point. I wish I had the time to watch it again.

          • FrozenPatriot

            Certainly the former. :)

      • American Patriot

        Probable cause DEMANDS a WARRANT in order to be VALID!
        There is nothing a cop can say that validates his ‘need’ to violate the rights of others based ONLY on his feelings. If the SHEEP stop taking the abuse, and start FORCING these retarded NAZIS to actually go through PROPER CHANNELS before causing injury to a citizen by means of illegal arrests and phony or fabricated charges, you SUE THEM PERSONALLY, and MAKE them suffer for their crimes against US. STOP playing SHEEP, these bastards are using YOUR money to assault you, how INSANE is THAT?
        Paying to be assaulted by your own employees should be CRIMINAL at the very least!

    • leenephi

      Always good to be reminded of this kind of stuff.

    • CerealFTW

      but do we really have freedom of speech? speaking your mind in a lot of places will get you thrown out if you don’t speak in formalities(ie. no swearing) and really the only place you can is your own property, but even then you can get sued for harassment

      • ryansworld10

        A private business has the right to enforce their own rules. The right to freedom of speech mainly applies to public areas.

        Freedom of speech also doesn’t protect things such as Clear and Present Danger, Fighting Words, Obscenity, Libel, and Slander.

        • CerealFTW

          I know. But I’m just saying that freedom of speech has so many exceptions that it is misleading

          • Kévin Costelloe

            By “exceptions” do you mean those pesky things that interfere with other people’s rights to live their life unimpeded?

          • KingofPing

            Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say whatever you want wherever you want, whenever you want without consequences.

            Freedom of Speech protects you from prosecution and recrimination from Government authorities. Not private businesses. Not individuals. It does NOT give you free reign to be a complete jackass without consequence.

            Example: They cannot arrest you for calling the Government a bunch of ignorant twats.

            But the restaurant you are doing this in can *definitely* kick your ass out.

            This isn’t an “exception”. Free Speech applies to one thing and one thing only: Protection from the Government.

            Not businesses… Not individuals…

  • gtbarry

    The FBI has time to do this?

    • mcl630

      My thoughts exactly. Sounds like they ran right to the theater when the MPAA called them. And they wasted an hour “interrogating” the guy before actually checking his Glass and smartphone to see if he actually recorded anything. Must be nice for the MPAA and AMC to have the FBI at their beck and call, willing to waste the taxpayers’ money in hopes of catching a small-time pirater.

      • gtbarry

        I question if they were really FBI. When I read this, my thought was that I would have gone off to confirm they were really FBI: “I asked to see his badge again and I asked what was the problem and I asked for my Glass back. The response was “you see all these cops you know we are legit, we are with the ‘federal service’ and you have been caught illegally taping the movie”.” (the only other mention of FBI was when the “movie association” guy said he called the FBI when the theater called him. Sounds like they were all giving fluffy information from the start to protect something)

        • snapper.fishes

          You have the right to ask cops to see their badge and identification, and you can call 911 to ask for identification. I assume you can do something similar with feds.

        • nater2525

          Read the article. They were DHS agents.

      • master94

        FBI is in charge of protecting movies. They do this quite often in the AMC theater in Flushing NY were I live. Yet people still sneak in with devices. Annoys me since they always have the best seat.

    • snapper.fishes

      The FBI, like any other organization, has separate departments to deal with different issues. There will be agents assigned to investigate murder case, as well as people assigned to going after movie copyrights. So yes, they have time to do this.

      • Jim Strathmeyer

        I think our problem is with harassing innocent people out in public.

        • Alu Zeros

          How about wanting tax payers money? Add that one on to the list

          • American Patriot

            REFUSE funding the terrorist FBI, they are constitutionally PROHIBITED from existing in the fist place!
            The government was NOT granted any police powers through the constitution!

      • jakesdad

        well, there’s an obvious opportunity for deficit reduction…

    • Joseph Cascio

      Haven’t you seen that documentary…I mean episode of The Simpsons?

    • beernotwar

      Business and DHS are now working hand-in-hand to control everything we do in public. If you attend a sporting event you now have to submit to search (MLB just implemented this policy and the NFL has for years). TSA has teams roaming all kinds of modes of public transportation now, from rest areas to train stations. If we don’t stand up for ourselves we’ll soon be used to total control by the state in the name of “security.” Yet they still couldn’t catch two punks with homemade bombs that the Russians warned them about specifically. Because it isn’t about our security at all. It’s about protecting the corporate state. From us.

  • uniquename72

    “maybe he should have worn other glasses”

    Because otherwise he’s guilty until proven innocent, right? Should the FBI decide what medication I’m allowed to take in a public restroom as well? I mean, it could be heroin!

    • snapper.fishes

      Innocent until guilty is only for the courtroom. Police and feds don’t need solid evidence to arrest and question someone. It would be silly to do so.

      • American Patriot

        You better study the law a little closer.

  • jakep_82

    “maybe he should have worn other glasses”
    There is no maybe, he should not have worn Glass into a movie theater. I’m not a fan of how the situation was handled, but it isn’t terribly surprising. He had a recording device pointed at the screen during the movie which is pretty clearly not okay. It’s like holding up a cell phone during a movie and then being surprised that you get kicked out even though the phone was off. My guess is that in the near future you’ll see signs explicitly banning Google Glass, even though they’re really already banned as a recording device (a phone in a pocket is not the same thing).

    • Nickan Fayyazi

      And what if he didn’t have other glasses?

      • jakep_82

        I don’t know anything about this man’s situation, but my guess is he owns other glasses. If he wasn’t carrying them at the time, he should have gone another day.

        • American Patriot

          I wear glasses, and only have ONE PAIR, but IF I did buy Google Glass, I would still have ONE PAIR on me, I should NOT be expected to carry a spare simply because I ‘may’ go see a movie!
          I refuse to carry more than what I am wearing for anybody, and if I have prescription glass, TOO BAD!
          Lay your hands on me just because I have Google glass on my face is NOT going to be your ticket to NAZI FAVOR, it WILL get you a BROKEN JAW!.

          • jakep_82

            I can’t tell if this is satire, or just sad.

      • snapper.fishes

        If he can afford Google Glasses, he can afford normal glasses. Also, it is common sense to keep a spare pair of glasses (usually your previous pair) just in case the pair you are wearing breaks.

        • renGek

          What does being able to afford 2 pairs of glasses have anything to do with actually having that second pair with you? Do you wear glasses? If you did you would realize after a day or two you are no longer aware of the glasses you have on your head.

          • ScottColbert

            If you’re an idiot maybe, you don’t.

          • snapper.fishes

            I have been wearing glasses since I was five, so I know what you mean by not being aware of the glasses. But the guy mentioned in the article that he is conscious of the fact that he is going to a cinema with a pair of Google Glasses, and he thought it is okay because he has already done it twice.

            Anyway, I am getting a little off track. I was just replying to Nickan that this guy most likely have a spare of glasses, and he does.

        • American Patriot

          Then leave your cellphone home the next time you go to see a movie, it is the SAME THING, and a cellphone has a far better imager than Google glass has!
          There was NO PROOF the glass owner was doing ANYTHING improper, but ACTING on suspicion is also ILLEGAL when those acts ABUSE the rights of another without just cause!
          The ignorant NAZI was simply obeying his movie/RIAA master, assuming everybody to be violating SOMETHING!

    • CGS

      It is like holding a cell phone up to the screen in exactly zero ways.

      • jakep_82

        They’re same in the only way that’s relevant in the context of the story. They both have cameras that are capable of recording video. The metaphor stands.

      • snapper.fishes

        He’s pointing a video recording capable device at the screen. That’s more than enough ground for suspicion. Why do you think people are uncomfortable with glassholes?

        • renGek

          And if it wasn’t actually glass or something that looks like tech, its still justifiable to confiscate first and question later?
          By that logic you believe that poor boy in northern ca holding a realistic toy gun in public should have been shot by the police.

          • snapper.fishes

            The police over-reacted, and the boy’s parents are foolish or ignorant to let their child run around with a realistic toy gun. I don’t think I need to find you examples of real children having access to real firearms now, do I? I never said the feds are not at fault for over-reacting, but the guy who wore the glasses into a cinema probably shouldn’t have done it either.

          • American Patriot

            Taking of property without a warrant is ILLEGAL, and NAZI PIG or not, the cop had NO right to ‘confiscate’ his property without PROOF of a crime, and intent MUST be PROVED to validate a criminal charge. The constitution DEMANDS a warrant to seize property, NOT the word of a FILTHY NAZI TERRORIST!
            Cops are taking far too many ‘liberties’ with their badges and guns, it is time to make them PAY for their acts of TERRORISM against the people that EMPLOY THEM!

        • Alu Zeros

          Have you ever recorded a video on glass? People are making it a bigger deal of the recording capabilities that it is. It’s not a full camcorder and nor can it record a full movie like a camcorder. People are being plain silly. Go ahead and try to record a full movie on glass and see if you can pull it off and it being remotely enjoyable and viewable. People with authority in this article have too much leverage and power and are completely blowing a situation that could have handled better with some common sense by just going straight to google and see what it can do. They’ll find out real quick that yeah, they don’t have anything going to worry about for now.

        • mcl630

          If the big red LED on the front isn’t lit, Glass isn’t recording. Besides, if you were actually going to record a movie at a theater, you wouldn’t want to use Glass anyways. As I hear it (I don’t have Glass myself), the field of vision for recording is limited (not wide enough for the big screen) and it automatically stops recording after 5 minutes so you’d have to keep restarting recording.

  • Luxferro

    Tax dollars at work…

    • pedophil

      Whining at work.

    • snapper.fishes

      Feds paid tax dollars too you know.

  • Matthew Wright

    I am dubious of this story. No source other than “a friend said”. No statement from AMC. Different versions on different websites.

    • robjackson81

      I’m trying to track down details. Would love to have the guy on our podcast this week… I’m waiting to hear back from him.

      • ScottColbert

        You’d love him on the podcast even though you have no evidence other than his word it happened?

  • pedophil

    Fake story

    • robjackson81

      I’ve made contact with the man who this happened to and he is indeed a Glass Explorer. I’m awaiting answers to some questions and hopefully will get feedback soon… article will be updated once I hear back.

    • ScottColbert

      Agreed. There’s too many little details that don’t make sense. Some other corroboration of the story should have been verified. Lazy journalism, I’m afraid.

  • http://bit.ly/plusrichard Richard Soper

    Everyone in this story was stupid in one way or another. The “victim” was an idiot for wearing Glass into a movie theater. It is very obvious that that thing has a camera and no one is familiar enough with it to know if it is off or on. The FBI agents could have handled it in a more human manor. You know, like saying “hey are you recording this movie?” To which the “victim” could have replied, “No, I turned it off before coming in” as well as showing the agents that it was in fact off. All of that could have been done in 10 minutes.

    But instead, like most reported encounters go, the agents/officers assumed the man was guilty. They interrogated him as though he was guilty and attempted to intimidate him like most “authorities” do.

    disclaimer: the relevance of this comment is all dependent on whether or not the details in this article turn out to be true.

    • snapper.fishes

      Finally a voice of reason. Most people have no idea that there is a LED on the Google Glasses to indicate it’s power state, but a lot of people knows that it has video recording capability, so it’s definitely suspicious to wear a video recording device on your face while watching a movie. Police have the right to stop and question you if you are acting suspicious.

      The Feds are being stupid too. Instead of arresting him in the theatre and making a fuss (and disturbing everyone in the theatre), they could have just waited until the movie has ended and arrested him outside, where they could have the opportunity to identify themselves and ask for his cooperation instead of manhandling him.

      • American Patriot

        By the vary ACT of wearing such a device, the NAZI COP had ZERO proof of a crime, or the intent of a crime, therefore, the act of the arrest and imprisonment was ILLEGAL and the VICTIM must SUE for damages resulting from the actions of a RETARD NAZI COP!

    • ChrisBlah

      “The “victim” was an idiot for wearing Glass into a movie theater.”

      Guess he should’ve just pirated the movie like everyone else. No wonder theaters are dying.

      • jakesdad

        you know, this is actually a very good point! the correct response to this (from the general public) is a general boycott of theaters! if the FBI’s on-call for the MPAA & agents/MPAA/owner can get away w/this w/o consequence then theaters are unsafe/dangerous for customers! hell, you can’t go w/o worrying about being SHOT by a cop in one (at least retired ones)! if you’re going to treat me (your customer base) like this you aren’t going to have customers!

    • Alu Zeros

      Even if google glass was recording, not only the quality isn’t fantastic, but it would die because the battery dies pretty quick. So I’m not sure what the fbi, police, or anybody even upset about even if they were. Google glass doesn’t even compare to a crappy camcorder used to record pirate movies. The two are not even in the same ball park. I know, I own a pair. Video recording on glass is made for short clips.

      • http://bit.ly/plusrichard Richard Soper

        Exactly my point. No one knows a damn thing about Glass except for a small group of Explorers and ultra nerds who follow the development. Hopefully that wont be the case in the near future though!

    • FrellMeDead

      I agree with you for the most part except for the fact that the guy should be able to wear whatever he feels like, especially since it was prescription glasses with Google glass. Just because they movie industry can’t or won’t adapt and work with it’s consumer base doesn’t mean that everyone should change to fit is requirements. The industry is the one that needs to change to match its audience. If they refuse to change and actually make money in the process then that is the industry’s fault and it should/has been suffering as a result. Employing stupid, draconian laws to limit and in most circumstances intimidate the consumer is wrong and needs to be stopped.

      • http://bit.ly/plusrichard Richard Soper

        I definitely agree with you there. He was not at all breaking the law, so the way they treated him was completely uncalled for. However they would have been totally justified in pulling him out of the theater to politely ask him about the camera on his face, rather than harassing him for however long they did. Whether or not you agree with the laws they do still exist, no matter how dated they may be.

        The feds are definitely the bigger jackasses here though, no doubt about that.

    • American Patriot

      I would LOVE to charge every NAZI PIG with ASSAULT….Make them PAY out of their own pockets instead of being protected by TAXPAYER funded CRIMES!
      When NAZI COPS act like terrorists, it is time to HUNT THEM DOWN and EXTERMINATE ALL OF THEM!
      A free society does NOT require armed state assassins roaming the streets!

      • http://bit.ly/plusrichard Richard Soper

        While I dont share your extreme views, I definitely think that people who abuse their “authority” should be heavily punished. Put to death? Not unless they wrongfully murdered someone. But if I were to harass someone the same way a fed/cop does now-a-days I would be arrested/sued and they should be too. But not all of them are bad, there are still officers and agents out there who sincerely want to protect their community. But “Cop obeys the law, while protecting everyones rights” isnt as great of a headline as “Cop pepper sprays protesters”.

        Just my two cents. Im still all for bringing down this scumbag government, they stopped representing the people a very long time ago.

    • mcl630

      You seem to have missed the part where the victim had wore Glass to the same theater twice before without incident. You also missed the part where he entered the theater wearing his Glass and none of the theater employees objected to his wearing the device.

      • http://bit.ly/plusrichard Richard Soper

        All parts of the story that were added after my comment :)

        But I still wouldn’t advise people to go to the movies with a camera strapped to their face. Its just asking for unwanted attention. And again, I dont think the victim was deserving of the treatment he reportedly received and I frankly wouldnt care if this guy was trying to pirate the movie either. My point is, if you walk into a theater with a camera on your face you should not be surprised that people investigate the situation. Just like you would be observed carefully for taking a backpack into a store with a sign posted to not have a backpack in the store.

        • mcl630

          While I don’t disagree, if I had Glass I wouldn’t wear it to a theater, the theater employees should have said something to him when he entered the theater. They shouldn’t have waited for the movie to start then call the feds in.

  • steveb944

    I would want a year or lifetime free movies at AMC. If not sue for being treated like a criminal.

    Can Glass even record for 1.5 hrs+ a whole movie? As far as I know the battery sucks.

    • Pkmmte

      A fully charged battery would die in less than 40 minutes of video recording with Glass. Trust me, I tried recording a family event with my Glass last Christmas and the battery died that fast.

  • mrnyjet

    another example of hollywood greed and money buying congress to pass laws that enrich studio coffers and take away your individual rights.

    • American Patriot

      Only SHEEP assume they can ‘lose’ rights…..

  • SorinDobrin

    There it is…another reason to get tied into Apple ecosystem…you don’t have to deal with this kind of situations. :-P

    • snapper.fishes

      That’s a bloody stupid reason to use Apple products.

      • American Patriot

        Crapple says it all….

    • SorinDobrin

      I guess the art of sarcasm is all lost.

  • tltan86

    i’m no google glass user, but have similar experiences. i wore a pebble watch to an examination, but have both my watch and handphone bluetooth switched off. surprisingly one of the female examiner (didn’t expect she (around late 40s) will even know about smart watches) somewhat notice the weird screen display, questioned me and took my watch away for inspection before returning me soon after. luckily nothing happened. :)

    • Erika H

      You don’t think people in their late 40′s know about current tech? How silly!

      • American Patriot

        Gee, I guess I should NOT have my Aeroflex digital spectrum analyzer!
        I better turn OFF the P25 function, and begin decoding CDMA traffic off my local Verizon tower!
        At 53, I must be too old to be an electrical engineer!

    • snapper.fishes

      Are you sure that she wasn’t just showing it off to her colleagues? :D

  • CerealFTW

    I try not to be biased against cops/agents, etc. but its really hard when I hear stories like this where he snatched his glasses off his face. the importance of warrants is really dying down recently(*cough* NSA *cough*) and how do they expect us to follow laws when they don’t follow laws themselves?

    • American Patriot

      I pick and choose the laws I follow, and if i know they violate my rights, I IGNORE THEM!
      I no longer give a damn what some NAZI SCUM says, MY rights are SUPERIOR to any paltry authority they think they have!
      NO MORE PLAYING SHEEP, AMERICA!

  • Mungus

    I’m calling bull$hit on this one..

  • supremekizzle

    Guy brought a camera into a theater. This assclown deserves it.

    • dizel123

      Like the article says, everyone who brings a cellphone into a theater brings a camera. I guess that makes everyone(especially you) an assclown

      • snapper.fishes

        People who take their cellphone out in the middle of a movie are assclowns (think glowing screen).

    • Jim Strathmeyer

      Authoritarianism is a form of government. It is characterised by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.

      • lolwut

        Thank you. Seriously well put.

      • supremekizzle

        I’m a person that hates paternalism and am all for personal autonomy. But this dude was wearing a new peice of tech that looks like a face mounted camera. Of course they’re going to worry about their intellectual property. Piracy is huge problem….in case you were unaware…

        • FrellMeDead

          You’re point about piracy is moot and to be fair inaccurate overall. The poison wasn’t recording smirking, the device was off. Also the officer/agent/etc had no right to touch the person’s private property regardless of what they believed.

          • American Patriot

            NAZI POLICE assume they are above the constitution, and once they begin hanging by their necks from trees, signs and wherever a LIBERTY TREE GROWS, they WILL continue the plan to assault FREE AMERICANS by the DICTATES of their BUSINESS MASTERS!

      • American Patriot

        I QUESTION EVERYTHING, and if a law is found to be abusive, violating any of my rights, I IGNORE THOSE LAWS!
        It is a simple thing to DISREGARD LAWS that are illegal, government does this daily, why should we obey any law when government IGNORES the CONSTITUTION?
        Don’t like a law that VIOLATES YOUR RIGHTS….IGNORE THEM, it is easy to do, and you are NOT harming anybody!
        If you are a NAZI and wish to push the law, then PROVE they are laws, or better yet, quit your job and JOIN America as a FREE nation,and STOP BEING SHEEP!

    • renGek

      How about having a cellphone in a theater or museum? Or cellphone at a concert, riaa would love that.
      You could overreact like a former company I worked for who won’t allow recording devices in the office so we had to leave our Cellphones at home.
      What’s next, no Cellphones or wearing glass while we are at home watching a ball game on tv because we didn’t get expressed permission by the broadcasters?

      • snapper.fishes

        You are allowed to record TV broadcasts, taking photos at museums, and record videos at a concert. How are these examples even relevant?

    • indio7777

      “guy brought a camera into a theater…6 cops harassed him while my wife was being carjacked/raped/robbed/etc so on and so forth”

      You’re an ‘assclown’. On second thought, I’m too intelligent to use such a moronic word. You’re a blind follower.

    • Paul Taylor

      Wait… didn’t most of the audience bring a camera into the theatre?

    • Itchy_Robot

      You, and our government (and every government for that matter) are not ready for whats to come. You think technology is a burden for governments now? Just wait another 10-20 years. It is going to be interesting to see how they deal with information, all information (classified, patented, copyrighted, etc) being easily distributed and found. And once 3D printers mature, jeez, that is another can of worms.

  • renGek

    When you have people in the position of law enforcement (police, law makers etc) they have a tendency to overreact with technology because they generally don’t understand it and can only relate to science fiction. They will quickly pass laws to shoot it down faster than passing a law to save a city.
    Look at something as innocent as a segway. Before the first one was even sold lawmakers passed laws restricting where segways could be used. Cellphones had all kinds of people up in arms at gyms and resulting in banned use of Cellphones in locker roons. I see people using their phones every time I’m at the gym and nobody is freaking out.

    • indio7777

      When you have people in the position of law enforcement (police, law makers etc) they have a tendency to overreact *****OVER ANYTHING**** because they’re drunk with power. There, fixed it.

      • Fifth313ment

        Yeah you’re right, there are three kinds of cops: Those who want to help their community and make a difference, those who don’t care and consider this a “job” or a “paycheck and those who just wish to bust skulls, take out their aggression and have power. I would say 50% are skull busters, 40% are paycheck cops and 10% are good cops. Oh and the best part is these numbers change by how long they are a cop! The longer they are on the job the more they shift to paycheck cops and the rookies tend to be head busters. This is all scientific of course, lol.

        5th

        • snapper.fishes

          I can’t argue with this. However, the more you accuse them of being skull busters and paycheck cops, the more likely the remaining 10% will become jaded and turn into paycheck cops.

        • jay

          Most of the cops are about the power they have over citizens .Very few of them are good cops especially after 911 when most of our constitution was removed.

  • InspectorGadget80

    That guy is a idiot.

  • jonzey231

    I LIVE IN COLUMBUS!!! I wonder who this guy is, I was at Easton mall that day shopping with my girlfriend lol. Small world I guess.

  • Adam Adam

    Just called the theater.

    AMC Easton Town Center 30
    DirectionsWrite a review
    Address: 275 Easton Town Center, Columbus, OH 43219
    Phone:(614) 428-5716

    I talked to Stephany Mack who said that she didn’t know what Google Glass was then she talked to her manager who told her to tell me that she had no comment on the story. I then asked if it was OK if I can go to the theater with my google Glass and if i could wear them she said she had no comment. I told her that I was not asking for a comment on the story. I simply wanted to know if it was ok to wear my google glass while watching a movie. She reference me to a corporate number. So it appears that they are not a fan of Google Glass at the Easton Town Center 30. Thanks for your help Abby !

    • snapper.fishes

      She’s probably just a part timer working for a living. When you keep pestering her with questions, you are just making her job more complicated than it has to be. The top brass who makes all the call are by no way affected by your actions at all.

      • Paul Taylor

        She’ll be pleased, no doubt, to learn from you that answering customer queries is no longer part of her duties. :-)

      • American Patriot

        Most employees that are not management, have no clue and couldn’t care less. Look for the SHOULDER PADS to find the managers, not the drones!
        Drones wear them,managers do not.

    • American Patriot

      If your Google Glass has prescription lenses, they CAN’T deny you access, or take them from you.

  • http://www.petergmcdermott.com/ Peter G McDermott

    This article is irresponsibly written. It does nothing but repeat hearsay. I’m very disappointed. None of this seems legitimate.

    • lolwut

      What evidence do you have that it’s not? Nowadays would you really doubt stuff like this is happening in a bonified police state?

      • http://www.petergmcdermott.com/ Peter G McDermott

        Yes I would. I also shake my head at the down votes on my comment. I have experience working for both private security and state law enforcement. This entire account sounds like a bunch of overzealous mall security officers.

        • jay

          police are nothing but a legal gang that keeps common people in line for the feds.You are part of that gang so your opinions are always going to be in the gangs favor

          • http://www.petergmcdermott.com/ Peter G McDermott

            Please keep in mind, in my original comment, I said nothing about this “seems” legitimate. I have written e-mails to ICE, AMC and the MPAA this morning and look forward to getting responses to clarify what really happened. I would have hoped that one of the hundreds of blogs reporting on this hearsay would have done the same already.

          • jay
          • http://www.petergmcdermott.com/ Peter G McDermott

            I still have received no replies for the three bodies I mentioned in the comment above. Until I do, or see something official from AMC, ICE or MPAA, I don’t believe all of this ads up.

  • ericshmerick

    TIL the FBI hangs out at movie theaters.

    Who knew?

    • Ken

      Guess they need something to do!

  • Fel Pe

    Uh… really?

  • Jenny Nolan

    til&nbspI&nbspsaw&nbspthe&nbspdraft&nbspthat&nbspsaid&nbsp$­­­­­­­9793,&nbspI&nbspbe&nbspcertain&nbspthat&nbspmy&nbspfather&nbspin&nbsplaw&nbspwas&nbsplike&nbspthey&nbspsay&nbspactually&nbsperning&nbspmoney&nbsppart&nbsptime&nbspat&nbsptheir&nbspl­­­­­­а­­­­­­ρ­­­­­­τ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ρ..&nbsptհ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­е&nbspbrothers&nbspfriend&nbsphas&nbspdone&nbspthis&nbspfor&nbsponly&nbsp12&nbspΜ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspand&nbsprecently&nbsppaid&nbspthe&nbsploans&nbspon&nbsptհ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­е&nbspcondo&nbspand&nbsppurchased&nbspa&nbspgreat&nbspInfiniti.&nbspI&nbspwent&nbspհ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­е,…&nbspWW&#x57&#46Googleprojects2014rewindsaysrace&#x2E&#113&#114&#x2E&#110&#x65&#116&#47&#x6D&#x4Bl&#x6A/

    ♝♝♝ ♝♝♝♝♝ ♝♝ᜟ♝♝ ♝♝♝ ♝♝ᜑ♝♝and I think it was about an hour after the movie started until they snatched me out.

  • hi hello

    I am wondering if the agent identified himself before snatching the glasses off. Could of been turned into a big scene with agents shooting the guy. Seriously, no one is wasting any money on shitty CAM versions of movies anyways. It is a monetary crime and yet all this wasted manpower trying to enforce an outdated monopoly copyright law.

    • snapper.fishes

      They still sell them in South East Asia.

  • Francis

    The irony is that i the glasses were on, he’d have evidence of the FBI interaction. The more people wear these things the better. Let’s be real. The current version of Google Glass doesn’t have the video quality or the battery life or storage to be a movie pirates dream. The more of these are in public and visible. the less likely a cop, an employee or person of authority is going to *screw* with you.

    • snapper.fishes

      Agreed. All these fear mongering by the media is blowing the Google Glasses issue out of scale.

  • Davyd

    What was the FBI doing in a movie theater?

    • Fifth313ment

      I was thinking the same thing? WTF? Do they have night vision cameras in every movie or something? Scary…

      5th

      • MC Tron

        Most movie theaters have cameras because the MPAA wants to make sure not a single person walks out with a unauthorized recording and if they do they can hit them with a felony.

        • FrellMeDead

          It still wouldn’t be a felony… also the officer committed assault and didn’t identify him/her self so even if the person had been recording any evidence would be thrown out (at least for criminal charges, civil charge-which is what this would be would also be contested and more then likely tossed out).

          I just love how much time and effort goes into “protecting” the interests of a private business. Maybe the movie industry and theater should foot the bill instead of the FBI. Such a waste…..

          One more thing, the person should really file suite against everyone involved especially the supposed “FBI” agent for grabbing the person’s personal property off their face. It’s still simple assault regardless. What a huge fiasco over nothing much less even if it had turned out to be recording. So stupid…..

          • American Patriot

            In today’s world, I prefer to see the NAZIS being shot dead, for all the citizens they murder in the name of the fictitious laws they profess to be enforcing!
            I hold ZERO faith in any NAZI COP, and even less for the federal government!
            Nothing but taxpayer supported terrorists now!

        • http://www.petergmcdermott.com/ Peter G McDermott

          Most movie theaters have cameras to absolve themselves from the liability of general claims against them, not to catch people recording videos.

        • American Patriot

          Funny, the RIAA can not detain anybody, and if they grab you, you DO have every right to resist, and beat them senseless!
          SUE them and take large sums of cash from the RIAA for felony assault and battery. I suggest people obtain a cop of the constitution, and KNOW a little about law, and also understand that NOBODY can simply arrest and then assault you simply for ‘alleged’ violations, a business is NOT empowered to play cop, if you are grabbed, that action becomes an assault, and if more forces is used, it becomes battery, and if they detain you against your will, it becomes unlawful imprisonment. BIG money comes from big business, not to mention the BAD PR they gain from playing GESTAPO AGENT.

      • American Patriot

        Build an IR hat, using infrared LEDs that remain ‘on’ the entire time, they can not record in IR, as your LED hat is blinding their cameras.

  • thecrud

    I conceal carry and if someone snatched them from my face in a dark theater I would fear for my life and blast them.

    • EKU28

      No you wouldn’t, simply because you’re not as bad as your internet self thinks you are.

    • American Patriot

      Being a NAZI does NOT grant you rights above my own, you actually have LESS rights while you are under the EMPLOY of the people!
      YOU become PROPERTY of the people, you have very few rights, and NONE to violate the rights of others!
      If they put a hand on a weapon, SHOOT THEM!

      • Ken

        Glad your not an FBI agent!

    • JLLNYC

      No, you wouldn’t.

    • jakep_82

      And you would go to prison for murdering a federal official. He clearly states in the story that the officer showed his badge before he removed the glasses.

  • Crimsonshadow774

    Next up: Innocent man proclaimed a terrorist, shot to death when checking smart watch.

    • maysider

      they even have a law for that:


      You can be KILLED or you can LOSE all your rights (indefinite detention) when the USA says you are just an abettor of terrorism (just striking? who knows?), Washingtonpost: “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free”.

      they will just write down you were suspicious when striking in a report so…… between the eyes

      • American Patriot

        I will gun down any fed that tries to trample my rights, I do NOT recognize the federal government as a police agency, they were NEVER granted such authority, that was left ONLY for the STATES and NOT the terrorist government!

        • Ken

          You blew this way out of proportion!

  • Alex

    Maybe we shouldn’t just reprint every forum post as a legitimate news story. Just an idea.

  • Truffol

    Was it an off duty agent? How did they know?

  • maysider

    “Study Saying Piracy Actually Helps Sell Movies Suppressed?”

    “NSA surveillance does little to prevent terrorism, says think-tank report”: “there was only one case out of the 225 that was initiated by NSA evidence. The case involved a cab driver named Basaaly Moalin who was convicted of sending money to Somalian terrorist groups. While successful, the case did not involve any direct threat of attack”

    “blank media tax or levy” = pure robbery

    So my conclusion:

    1) I won’t buy any song or movie or visit a cinema (I’ve already paid for that see “blank media tax or levy”)
    2) I will download movies and music forever
    3) I will spend more money for apps because I like them

    wake up, keep the facts and don’t listen to the puppet called Obama

    • Equinoqs

      If you think Obama is the cause of all your problems, then you’re the one still asleep.

      • maysider

        do you see the term “the puppet called Obama”?
        so again please :)

        • Equinoqs

          Obama is president, therefore he’s a figurehead owned by those who actually control your life.

          • maysider

            Exactly, don’t you still see the word “puppet”?

    • American Patriot

      Government supports terrorism, that is a FACT!

  • Paul Taylor

    Snatching Glass roughly from his face counts as an assault/mugging in my opinion. With all respect to my Chinese friends, this sounds more like the kind of thing you’d expect in Beijing than in America. Or maybe times have changed?

    • American Patriot

      Times have changed, and FEDS that act like TERRORISTS must be gunned down as an example of what NOT to do to their EMPLOYERS!
      MAKE them PAY DEARLY for any crimes committed against us!
      They assault us, hunt them down and HANG THEM for crimes of TYRANNY and TREASON!

  • Dan Vikkelsø

    ‘Murica…

  • metronome

    Ha, Google Glass is really limited how much can you actually squeeze into that tiny screen, is it worth looking like a cyborg for??

    I can’t wait for these to come out and actually get something worthwhile!

    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/atheer-one-what-it-feels-like-to-have-superpowers/x/4042531

  • Equinoqs

    If the FBI were nearly as interested in corrupt politicians as they are in entertainment-corporation profits, we would all be much better off.

    • david bowie

      Fascism is the new american government. anyone who thinks that the united states is a country is a fool. the united states is a corporation with a president.

      all americans are employees of the federal corporation known as the united states of american which in ever aspect is incorporated.

      • jay

        Big business is what runs this country.They tell the government what laws to pass and the senators get a nice reelection fund set up.The people have no say in how this regime is run.

    • American Patriot

      Government SUPPORTS big business, they are the GESTAPO for the movie industry, R.I.A.A and any other group that panders to the governmen for personalized protection, unlike the CITIZENS that get crapped on, abused and MURDERED by their EMPLOYEES!
      Government MUST be EXTERMINATED!
      Thy no longer obey the constitution, they violate it every chance they get,proving they can NOT be trusted with such authority!

      • http://libertyfirewall.com/ The Firewall

        The States need to abolish or dramatically alter the federal government in order to address the harm generated that a federal cabal with unchecked power has wreaked upon the world.

        The question is: Will the federal government be abolished with non-violence? Let us all hope we are civilized enough.

    • Robb Nunya

      The FBI’s bosses ARE the corrupt politicians though. Ironic, no?

      • 3fe578

        I think I would call that sarcastic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucyparanormal Daniel Tiberius

    I feel so much safer now.

  • American Patriot

    I would have demanded all the names from every NAZI that was involved, then indicate they are being sued in federal court for illegal imprisonment due to how long they took, theft of private property, unconstitutional search and seizure, 4th amendment violations, assault, threatening, intimidation, armed assault(they did have guns), battery (for grabbing your glasses off your face), The new wave MUST be: ‘Contempt of NAZI’, STOP allowing YOUR employees to threaten you, fight back, SUE them, then if that fails, take the next step and assault them!
    We are NOT their property, they DO work for US, and are OUR PROPERTY as we pay their salaries!
    I hope they SEE and READ these comments, so they UNDERSTAND their time is getting short, WE ARE COMING AFTER YOU! Try such NAZI tactics on me, I guarantee you a bullet to your head! NO MORE BACKING DOWN….NEVER!

    • JLLNYC

      SO BRAVE.

    • http://www.stlgatekeepers.com/ Johnny_H

      Your posts remind me of the guy in Hubert Selby Jr’s book, The Cage.

  • http://libertyfirewall.com/ The Firewall

    Should have shot the first one that touched you. Correction, every single one of the ‘agents’ involved in the detention should have been shot on site.

    Your rights are defined by that which you’re willing to die for.

    • JLLNYC

      You need professional help, and quickly.

      • http://libertyfirewall.com/ The Firewall

        Actually, there’s no greater danger than a government that does not obey the law.

        • louched1

          A greater danger would be a nutjob with a gun who has an itchy trigger finger.

          • J____S

            Some could argue you just described a government officer. “I don’t have time for this,” as an officer shoots someone. Little kid is killed when officers call out to him, and he turns with a toy gun (red-tipped) towards the officers (who just called out to him). The only difference sometimes is who pays the itchy finger, armed nutjob.

        • corona10

          And your one gun isnt gonna be to be very effective against the military.

  • DannyB2

    What puzzles me is why they did not follow standard procedure of beating him up when he denied their accusations of recording the movie?

    Hopefully in the future this guy will stick to small and victimless crimes that the FBI takes no interest in, such as wrecking the global economy or running a massive ponzi scheme on wall street.

    • TheJunkie

      They definitely forgot the strip searching part at the very least.

      • macgiobuin

        They stopped once they realized he had health insurance.

  • Julie Strietelmeier

    If you’re trying to check http://the-gadgeteer.com for the original article, it’s currently down due to the insane amount of traffic this article is receiving.

  • Jake Hazelip

    Why is the outrage over his treatment, and not the fact that criminal bankers didn’t get treated like this at all?

    • 3fe578

      There is outrage over that as well, however we are not talking about that right now.

  • TheJunkie

    Corrupt and power tripping law enforcement agency….why am I not surprised?

  • icantremember

    And suddenly the-gadgeteer.com is relevant again for the first time in five years.

  • Slovakish

    http://www.servismobilov.sk/servis/servis-samsung/servis-samsung-galaxy-s5

    Samsung Galaxy S5 is in Slovakia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    They got spare parts.

  • lumpysherman

    More gestapo tactics by our beloved federal agents.

  • Ken

    Maybe their just afraid he was going to record them. his spy toys were better than their own. Kinda like Get Smart. I was supposed to get the anti gravity machine not him!

  • NunyaBiz

    Hey moron – you’re wearing a camera on your face to a movie theater. It doesn’t matter if it is off. Don’t be shocked when people treat you as a threat. Its the same thing as walking around with an unholstered and unloaded gun pointed straight out in front of you. Nobody but you knows that its harmless.

    • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

      Hey Moron, you’re carrying a camera in your phone to the movie theater. It doesn’t matter if it is off and in your pocket. Don’t be shocked when people treat you as a criminal!

      • NunyaBiz

        The first tick against you is the name calling. I was referring to the guy in the article. You elected to attack me directly as your opening statement – which is a sign of weak footing.

        You are making the very short intellectual leap of equating a cell phone cam (off and in your pocket, no less..) to Glass – which was/is worn on the face, pointing at the screen. Ok, I guess we’re going to debate at the pre-school level.

        Let me break it down for you: With a cell phone, anyone can tell you’re recording. You’ve got to take it out of your pocket, point it at the screen, and have at it. With Glass? No such barrier. Its almost completely transparent to anyone that it is recording.

        Try walking into a movie theater and pointing a camera of ANY sort at the screen – even in a powered-off state – and see what happens.

        • JLLNYC

          You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

        • drksilenc

          your the one that started with insults…

          • NunyaBiz

            “you’re”

        • Percy Mercy

          This nunya guy isn’t exactly the brightest candle on the cake is he?

        • https://www.facebook.com/thisismynew.espnaccount Thisismynew Espnaccount

          How do you knock someone for calling you a moron after you just called someone else a moron? Get off your fucking high horse. They were his prescription glasses and no one should have their glasses ripped off by any authority anywhere. Asked to leave sure but keep your hands to yourself. I have more of an issue with the aggression over a non violent crime.

        • 3fe578

          You are making the very short intellectual leap of equating a weapon capable of instant murder (unholstered and pointed straight out in front of you, no less..) to an electronic device capable of the henious crime of taking videos and photos. Ok, I guess we are going to debate at the toddler level.

          Let me break it down for you: no matter what the RIAA would like you to believe, piracy != murder. Glass cannot be used for mass murder as a gun can.

          The response by the law enforcement agencies seems more akin to something you might have expected in communist USSR than in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It could all have been avoided had the officers taken the time to check to see if they were correct in their suspicions rather than assume they were and harass the individual involved for 4 hours.

          • NunyaBiz

            Here… I’ll break it down further into something you may be able to wrap your mind around. I realize that the gun scenario may be a bridge too far for many here and it appears to be hanging people up.

            I walk into a movie theater and right after the movie starts, I move to the back row and take out my GoPro camera, put it on a tripod, turn it on, and sit back to watch the movie. Now, I’ve not hit record – its just sitting there pointed at the screen.

            I would not be surprised one iota if someone from the theatre, or the FBI, came in there and put their hands on my property. Were the GoPro attached to my head, I would expect there to be all sorts of hands all over my face. For all they know, I am recording, and they are protecting their intellectual property and stopping a crime in progress.

            As I stated above, the cops could have acted with a bit more discretion – but for all they know a crime was being committed and they acted as such. In the case of anything that records, its rule number 1: assume it is on and broadcasting at all times. This is the exact same rule when speaking about firearms (assume they’re always loaded), so the analogy is totally sound, even if it appears to run afoul of comprehension around here.

            Glass is a camera. It is at the very core of what it does. The fact that these were prescription glasses is secondary to the nature of the device. They were made to record, upload, download, and meld tech and the real world. To argue anything otherwise is folly.

          • Anonymous Person

            Actually the core of what it does is not be a camera, but rather display information in your field of view with out having to pull out a phone. Secondary uses include video/photo but they are not the primary use case. It would be just as simple to have a phone in my shirt pocket over my heart and have it recording from my breast pocket which would be directed right at the screen and almost impossible to tell it was recording(No light on the front unlike Google glass that has a red dot on the front so you know when it is recording)

        • Craig

          What I expect to happen is someone to tell me to stop, not for a bunch of goons to bum rush me, potentially breaking something that has more than one use. It’s indefensible.

          • NunyaBiz

            In the case of a crime – the first step is to stop the crime from continuing. If I am beating someone, the police are going to stop me from beating that person in whatever manner they deem acceptable. If I am vandalizing someone’s property, they are going to stop me from continuing to vandalize and remove the spray paint from my hands. If I am pointing a gun at someone, they are going to remove the threat in whatever manner in which they choose – in the fastest and cleanest way possible.

            The threat was the camera. The camera was pointed at the protected property, so the camera was swiftly and efficiently removed. If it WAS recording, every second it was allowed to remain in service was another second of breaking the law, and the police are not in the business of allowing law-breaking to continue.

            The flaw in your argument is one that is at the very crux of Glass – it’s worn. Were it up on a tripod, they would have simply snatched up the tripod immediately and taken it, and the owner, away for questioning. The assumption is made from the outset that the camera is recording simply because its existence in that environment is against policy, the rules, and/or the law.

          • Craig

            Your example is flawed. It’s extremely important that you stop someone from being beaten, performing a physical crime. There is nothing stopping them from just walking up to the guy and saying stop it. or even demanding that they hand them over, since at any point, if he was actually committing the crime, it could be erased. The urgency isn’t there. And even when they got him outside, a quick check would show that there was no wrong doing.

          • NunyaBiz

            And as I stated above, the scope and severity of their response was uncalled for, but within the wide-scope of “legal”. They have a lot of latitude in how they deal with a situation.

            Also, as I stated above, they had no way of knowing if the camera was broadcasting or not, so the assumption was made that it was – as their training dictates.

          • Hootyman

            By your reasoning, do they not also assume that every recording device in the theater was also turned on (from a legal standpoint makes no difference whether they were recording just the audio of the movie).

            Now you’ll probably start to use a “common sense” argument – which is the whole point of the inappropriate action of snatching someones glasses off their face instead of just saying, “We suspect your recording this illegally, please remove your glasses, hand them to me, and follow me out of the theater.”

            See- isn’t that much more appropriate?

          • NunyaBiz

            You will get no argument from me regarding an appropriate response. Were you or I the cop, things would have been handled differently. But my point in stating that they were well within the parameters of legal response still stands.

            To your point about a recording device in the theater – it’s only a threat if pointed at the screen. Anyone pointing anything at the screen that can record and/or transmit sound and video should expect the same response. On or not.

          • Hootyman

            > it’s only a threat if pointed at the screen

            Wrong – it is as illegal to record the sound track of a movie as it is the actual video of it – that’s the law…

          • NunyaBiz

            This is an excellent observation and a prime example of the ‘slippery slope’ associated with tech and copyright. Legally, anyone with a cell phone that’s powered on can be removed from the theater and questioned because their phone is a legitimate threat to the copyright.

            There’s absolutely nothing stopping the theater from doing so other than the fact that it would piss everyone off and they’d lose business. But it would be fully legal.

            I’ve enjoyed conversing with you, Hootman, Craig, and Adam. You make me think.

          • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

            This is an example of what the theaters will do in 10 years, when wearable cameras are ubiquitous.

          • Craig

            Doesn’t matter if it was broadcasting, in fact it would be better if it was to should would be thieves what the response would be. On that subject, this was not an FBI matter. This was an theater manager kicking out or speaking with the offender issue. A waste of resources and time. Escalated far beyond what was needed or called for.

          • NunyaBiz

            No, as I stated above, in the case where there is an active victim – be it an assault, robbery, or in this case – copyright infringement – the primary objective is to stop the crime from continuing as quickly and efficiently as possible. Police are not known for being subtle or patient in situations like these. There is usually a lot of screaming, yelling, and throwing people to the ground in cases where someone/something is actively being victimized.

            Were he streaming the movie to a hangout, the damage would be irreversible and permanent since once its on the web, its gone. So yes, they had to act with urgency.

          • Craig

            The simple act of them showing up and demandingthe glasses ruins any streaming that would be happening. unless he is going to try to keep his face on the screen and ignore the police officers standing in his way, your comment makes no sense.

          • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

            Suuuure… by assaulting him.

          • NunyaBiz

            I think you’re making some rather large assumptions here. Mainly, by your eager adoption of only one side of the story as the ONLY side of the story.

          • Hootyman

            > In the case of a crime – the first step is to stop the crime from continuing.

            Wrong. First step is to decide what action to take appropriate to the situation – IE you would not shoot at an armed robber holding up a store if there were people standing behind the robber. First step is NOT to stop the crime, but to take appropriate action weighing all relevant factors.

            Similar to a robbery, you would not decide to draw your weapon or physically tackle someone who you *suspected* was shoplifting – first thing to do would be to ask the person to come with you (not smack an item out of their hands that you *think* they were about to steal).

          • NunyaBiz

            Deciding a course of action is a secondary event to stopping the crime. My point stands.

            To your point, the selection of an appropriate course of action is left to the officer and he/she has a wide variety of tools at their disposal. I have stated before that I thought they went too far, but they were within the parameters of the law.

          • Hootyman

            Wrong. You should talk to some LEO’s – sometimes you let a crime “finish” so that you can prove more easily the crime occurred given apprehension is a near certainty OR if doing so is “safer” in the situation – depends on the crime – weighing factors and taking appropriate action ALWAYS more important than just “stopping the crime right now”.

            That is why many agencies will stop pursuit of a vehicle breaking laws if the speed of the chase starts to endanger other people.

          • Craig

            Tell me the last time you saw a jaywalker get tased. Cops to come to the the door with guns drawn for simple traffic stops. They determine the level of threat and act accordingly based on that.

          • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

            The flaw in your argument is that you should stop a crime from occurring by abusing a person’s rights.

            In other words, if personal assault is your “go-to” for stopping crime, then you might be North Korea.

          • NunyaBiz

            We only have one side of the story here – the guy who was sporting the Glass. Sorry, I’ll wait until the rest of the details come out regarding “personal assault”. There are quite a few things in his comments that don’t appear to hold water.

        • Hootyman

          > Try walking into a movie theater and pointing a camera of ANY sort at the screen

          They can ask me to leave and/or ask me to stop recording but if someone tries to “snatch it from me” things will escalate quickly and badly – THAT is what happens when someone decides to inappropriately exercise authority.

          Similar to a traffic cop pulling you over for speeding and immediately confiscating your car and taking you in for 3 hours of questioning.

        • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

          The first tick against you is making this about you. This is a sign of narcissism, and you should work on that.

          The problem is that you are unable to see that the two instances are exactly equal. Perhaps you are too young to remember back in the ’80′s, when movie theaters were searching people for cameras. And yet, they have stopped now. Why is that, do you think?

          Let me break it down for you, any idiot who takes a minute with Google can figure out how to hide recording with a cell phone. It is dead easy to make it look like a cell phone is “off” when it is not.

          Try walking into any movie theater with a cell phone, looking like it is powered off, held in a position to see the screen. What happens? Nothing. It’s “just a cell phone” and no different from Google Glass.

          You’ve been educated now.

          • NunyaBiz

            Dude… You verbally attacked first. I don’t think narcissism means what you think it means. Moving on.

            Your arguments have all been addressed elsewhere in this thread, with the exception of searching for cameras. The reason they have stopped is because the prevalence of cell phones. That’s it. They know that everyone in the room has a camera, so they’ve shifted enforcement to eliminating those that are an active threat.

            I think you’re mistaken in your assumption that you’d be left alone if you had a cell phone pointed at a screen for any length of time. Here in ATL, they walk the aisles a few times during a movie looking for just that.

            “You’ve been educated now.”

          • http://bit.ly/glUAR7 Calladus

            “The reason they have stopped is because the prevalence of cell phones. That’s it.”

            Thank you, so much, for proving every point I’ve made for me.

            You were educated, let’s see if it sticks this time.

        • doug

          Can’t people put the phone in their chest pocket, with just the lens peeping out? It would be almost completely transparent to anyone that is recording in such a manner. Tape over the recording light and nobody would be the wiser.

          I think you’ve made some interesting points, but I think you’re waaaaay overreacting. Nobody was harmed or being harmed, or likely to be harmed at the point that the glasses were ripped of this guys head. The cops (or whomever) were totally out of line. There was no danger to anybody, until the cops showed up and started throwing their weight around.

    • Adam McIntosh

      Yay for treating people as guilty until proven innocent. You’re perfect for Obama’s new America.

      P.S. It’s nothing like walking around with a handgun pointed in front of you, as that is a felony in all 50 states, regardless of whether or not it is loaded or not. Walking around with Glass turned off would be more like walking with a holstered weapon in an open carry state and assuming they are committing a crime. =)

      • NunyaBiz

        While I see your side of the discussion, your argument is flawed.

        In the case of Glass, the damage is copyright infringement and the capacity to do so. In the case of the gun – the damage is putting someone in fear for their life (regardless of the pointing of the gun already being illegal).

        Google Glass has the capacity to break the law just by sitting on his face, much like a gun has the capacity to break the law just by being in your hands. Were they in his pocket, your argument would be valid.

        But they were not. They were on his face, pointed at the copyright protected material.

        • Adam McIntosh

          My point in refuting you was it doesn’t matter that he had it pointed at the screen as it would only be illegal if he was recording. However, having a gun un-holstered and pointing at people is a felony in every instance unless it’s aimed in defense of death or grievous bodily harm.

          That’s the difference. The onus of proof is on the FBI to determine he was committing a crime (he wasn’t) not the victim to prove he wasn’t.

          • NunyaBiz

            Wrong. To law enforcement, the assumption is made that the threat is always active. A gun is always loaded, the fleeing car is always dangerous, and cameras are always recording and/or broadcasting.

            Only in cases of passive crime – where nobody is actively being impacted – does the assumption swing in the other direction and the person given the benefit of the doubt.

            They were DUTY-BOUND to remove the camera from the room as quickly and efficiently as possible.

          • Hootyman

            > To law enforcement, the assumption is made that the threat is always active. A gun is always loaded….

            Bad analogy, Adam is right. Pointing a gun, loaded or not, at someone where you do not have a VERY good reason for doing so is a felony.

            Pointing cameras or recording devices which are turned off breaks no laws different than having the device on your person.

            See?

            In one case, (camera) it makes no difference where it is pointed (and in some cases only makes a difference if it is actually recording) – in the other case (gun) makes a big difference whether it is holstered/concealed or pointing at someone – still may be illegal to have it on your person BUT a completely different charge if you are pointing it at someone w/o cause.

          • NunyaBiz

            Again – let’s entertain the gun analogy. Now, for arguments sake – imagine that it is legal to point a gun at someone, and the crime only happens when the trigger is pulled without legal reason to do so.

            If you’re pointing a gun at someone and a cop rolls up, are they going to know if the gun is loaded? If it isn’t, the gun is totally and completely harmless. Its just a hunk of metal with no capacity for harm other than being thrown really hard.

            The cop isn’t going to be able to tell. They’re going to assume its loaded. Asking you if its loaded, and taking your word for it if you say it isn’t, is a quick way to become a dead cop.

            Same thing with a voice-activated camera pointed at the screen. They have no way of knowing if its broadcasting or not, so they assume it is since that assumption has greater capacity to preserve the copyright. Just as the assumption that the gun is loaded has the greater capacity to save someone’s life.

            Breaking copyright law down to its most basic elements, the only things that are legally permitted to take-in the film are your eyeballs and your earnubs. In my local AMC, they will remove you from the theater for having a camera. Cameras are expressly forbidden and this is plainly stated on signs throughout the lobby. Anything that has the mere capacity to take the audio or video beyond the walls of that room without permission is a legitimate threat to copyright.

            Yes, this includes cell phones, but if they are concealed, the theaters give you a pass.

          • Craig

            More proof that this was an over reaction. Like you said, in your AMC they will just remove you. No cops, definitely no FBI. This was way out of bounds.

        • ReggielovesBarry

          “Google Glass has the capacity to break the law just by sitting on his face, much like a gun has the capacity to break the law just by being in your hands.”

          Neither statement is true, because both items are inanimate objects without the capacity in and of themselves to do anything without the input of an outside force. In other words, the Google Glass needs someone to activate its recording function, and the gun needs one to decide to orient his hand in such a way so that it is pointed at someone or something with the intent to cause harm, loss, or alarm.

          Oh, and if pointing Google Glass at a movie screen is reason enough to assume criminal activity, so is facing someone within a range of ten feet or less. After all, if your mouth is pointed at me, how am I to know that you won’t spit upon me? FYI, prior restaint isn’t allowed in the U.S. yet, but unfortunately, due to the ignorance of people like you, it may be here soon.

          • NunyaBiz

            Well now you’re getting a little nitpicky, don’t you think? Did I have to be that explicit in my statement? Ok – I will revise it. “They both have the capacity to do harm when coupled with the input of the user”. I feel dumber for having to write that sentence out, but there it is.

            The camera – any camera – is a legitimate threat, as well as already being afoul of the theatre’s policy. I don’t understand why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp.

            The difference between your “10 feet” analogy and protecting a copyright, is that I can easily turn around and walk away if I feel threatened. KEEP following me, and I will feel threatened, and that constitutes assault, at which time – I can respond in a self-defensive manner. The movie can do no such thing. It can’t get away – so it is a locked-in victim (and remember, corporate entities are now people, so some of those doctrines are being applied to corporate property as well..) and as such, the law has an onus to defend it.

            Prior restraint IS allowed in matters of copyright protection. See this page, and scroll down to “permissible prior restraint”:
            http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Prior_restraint#cite_note-13

            Quote:
            In addition, prior restraint is generally permitted, even in the form of preliminary injunctions, in intellectual property cases, such as those for copyright or trademark infringement.[14]

          • ReggielovesBarry

            You’re grasping at straws.

            What you cited has nothing to do with the issue at hand as the incident at hand had nothing to do with copyright law and the protections it affords.

            Let me explain it to you in a way that even you might understand:

            You had a right not to have been hit in the head with a sledge hammer when you were a kid, but that does not give anyone the right to detain me for carrying a sledge hammer, just because he would like to ensure that there is zero chance that my sledge hammer will be used to hit someone in the head.

            Get it?

      • Jim Jones

        You’re perfect for Sarah Palin’s new America where using your brain will be a federal offense.

        • Adam McIntosh

          I loved the part of your post where you refuted me with a well thought out argument. What were you saying about using your brain?

          • NunyaBiz

            I’m sorry – let me drill down further to address your specific “guilty until proven innocent” argument. I’ve done so elsewhere in this thread, but I will cut/paste here with some mild editing…

            In the case of a crime – the first step is to stop the crime from continuing. If I am beating someone, the police are going to stop me from beating that person in whatever manner they deem acceptable. If I am vandalizing someone’s property, they are going to stop me from continuing to vandalize and remove the spray paint from my hands. If I am pointing a gun at someone, they are going to remove the threat in whatever manner in which they choose – in the fastest and cleanest way possible.

            The threat was the camera, and the victim was the movie. The camera was pointed at the protected property, so the camera was swiftly and efficiently removed. If it WAS recording, every second it was allowed to remain in service was another second of breaking the law, and the police are not in the business of allowing law-breaking to continue. They HAD to act in a manner in which the camera was live since there simply was no way to tell otherwise, and when the ability of the threat can’t be determined, they must – not should – act as if the threat is ‘live’.

            Were it a camera up on a tripod, they would have simply snatched up the tripod immediately and taken it, and the owner, away for questioning. The assumption is made from the outset that the camera is recording, much like the assumption that a gun is always loaded.

            Just like a gun – the cop has NO way of telling if it is loaded (broadcasting) or even a toy. They have to assume that its real, and its a threat.

            If you don’t want to be treated like a criminal, stop doing crap that looks illegal. Were I to walk around a mall parking lot holding a slim jim, a car stereo, and a ball-peen hammer, should I be surprised when the police respond in-kind?

          • Adam McIntosh

            The problem was no crime was being committed. Hence why I keep stating guilty until proven innocent isn’t what this country should be about.

            Assumptions get people in trouble. If you can confirm he was recording or he was in the act of committing a crime, then sure, do what you must. However, merely having Glass is not enough to warrant your constitutionally protected rights from being figuratively raped. Just like having a gun doesn’t mean you’re about to commit a crime or warrant police stopping you.

            Your last comment reeks of the same logic that says “Women, if you don’t want to be raped, then don’t dress so provocatively.”

          • NunyaBiz

            Going for the women & rape thing was a dredging the barrel, and an expected “extremes apply” response. Weak. If you really think there’s a correlation between the two, I don’t know what else I can say. I’m just going to pretend you didn’t go there so that we can continue in this discussion.

            You’re either being willfully obtuse, or just incapable of seeing that the mere act of having a camera pointed at a movie is a legitimate threat. In your pocket? Nope. Cell phone to your ear? Nope. On your face, pointed at the screen, capable of streaming directly to the web with a whispered command or a nondescript touch to the frame?

            Absolutely.

            Again, in cases where no determination can be made as to the severity of the threat, the assumption is made that the threat is active. Like it or not, its one of the tenants of law enforcement.

          • Adam McIntosh

            “The mere act of having a camera pointed at a movie is a legitimate threat.”

            No, it’s not. Having a camera pointed at a movie whilst recording, that is a legitimate threat.

            “in cases where no determination can be made as to the severity of the threat, the assumption is made that the threat is active.”

            No, it’s not. Just having something doesn’t mean you’re breaking the law. If I am safely open carrying a rifle in Texas, the cops have zero authority to stop and detain me. It doesn’t matter if a rifle has the potential to be a threat, unless I am using it in an unlawful manner, then it’s business as usual.

            We aren’t in Minority Report yet, and hopefully people will not forget that. Deal with me after I commit a crime, not before, and don’t assume without credible evidence.

          • NunyaBiz

            You are correct about the rifle being slung over your shoulder. However your argument loses footing once the rifle enters a “ready” state – meaning it is pointed at something or someone.

            I’m not sure how else I can explain this. Look at it this way – in our world, people kill people with guns. The mere act of pointing a gun at someone is a crime due to its capacity to do immediate and irreparable harm. Were you to point a gun at someone, loaded or unloaded – the officers are going to act as if it is loaded.

            To a copyright, anything that can record and transmit audio and video kills the copyright. While it isn’t illegal (yet) to point a camera at the screen, its definitely inviting trouble from management and/or the law. Were you to point a camera at a movie – off or on – the police are going to act as if it is on. Either by standing in front of it, pointing it away from the screen, or simply removing it (and you) from the theater.

            Another thing you are forgetting, in nearly every movie theater in the US, simply having a camera is against the rules and they can bounce you for it. Sure, they give you a pass on the cell phone, but try it with anything else. Walk up to a box office with a GoPro in your hand and see what happens.

          • Adam McIntosh

            “While it isn’t illegal (yet) to point a camera at the screen, its definitely inviting trouble from management and/or the law.”

            That statement is why my argument holds true. Being treated as a criminal for doing nothing illegal can never be the norm.

            Obviously Glass is having its growing pains on what is and isn’t allowed (as we saw with the lady pulled over in her car). I do suspect that movie theaters will prohibit Glass from being in the theater much like the GoPro you mentioned. However, that will probably not hold true if that Glass has a prescription lens (much like Seeing Eye Dogs being allowed where other dogs are disallowed.)

            This has been a good debate though.

          • NunyaBiz

            I agree – I’ve really enjoyed the conversation and I’ve learned a few things along the way. While it got off to a somewhat ugly start, I have a lot of respect for those I’ve chatted with today.

          • Rich Johnson

            Oh my god you are an idiot. So unbelievably stupid it’s not worth pointing out why you’re a moron. Do you have someone that follows you around all day to take your gum out of your mouth when you need to walk?

          • geektinker

            When your job is to be a hammer long enough, everything you see starts to look like a nail. Comparing a camera to a weapon is simply illogical. The movie isnt being “harmed” while being recorded, so there is no reason to do anything except a polite whisper of, “Sir, could you please step outside of the theater and answer some questions.” If for any reason, so they don’t annoy the other movie goers.” Or, how about the theater management approaching the Google Glass wearer before the movie starts? This sounds more like an “undercover” idiot with a hard-on for thinking he actually caught somebody breaking the law and some bored DHS agents.

            Additionally, regarding federal agents being duty bound to stop a crime as it’s being committed, have you read the details of the Fast and Furious scandal? There was a whole lot of crime(with actual firearms) going on that federal agents were aware of and they were doing nothing to stop it while it was happening.

          • Grayson Carr

            Do you have a wife or daughter? If or when you do, how would you react if cops came running in while you were shopping at Target with her, ripped her purse away, and detained her for questioning for three hours? Hey, for all they know she was using or planning on using the purse to conceal and steal merchandise, right? Somehow I don’t think you would have the same view you have now if that happened.

    • http://weblogs.java.net/blog/opinali/ Osvaldo Doederlein

      Hey idiot—tell that to everybody else who goes to a movie carrying a smartphone which is btw much more capable for recording a movie, plus extremely easy to conceal while doing that, different from Glass.

      • NunyaBiz

        aaaaand if you were to whip out that smartphone and point it at the screen, you’d be a fool to think you’d be treated any differently. Why does the cell phone analogy keep popping up? One lives in your hand or your pocket, and the operator has to jump through many hoops to get it to record, AND re-orient the device to point at the subject of the recording, and the other is there, ready to go, and can stream live to a hangout with a simple touch or whispered word?

        One must simply reach up and touch the side of the device, or stream directly to the web where it can easily be recorded. Its there, ready to go, in a fully operational state. So yes, they were wise to act as if this was a legitimate threat to copyright.

        The phone is a threat to copyright only after certain parameters have been met. Parameters that are easily and efficiently decoded by anyone viewing the operator. Google Glass? Not so much…

        • http://weblogs.java.net/blog/opinali/ Osvaldo Doederlein

          Nope, I wouldn’t be such a fool to hold my smartphone high and front of my face. I could easily clip it to the corner of my seat (or to an empty seat in my side if the theater is not full). Nobody would notice, and it’s perfectly stable for much better capture, different from glasses unless you are a professional statue-man. And of course, a high-end smartphone has the camera quality, resolution and memory necessary to make a decent recording of a full-length movie; much different from Glass which has a lower-quality camera, max 720p, burns a whole battery charge in 30min of video capture. Of course future versions of Glass will improve these specs, but it will always be inferior for that task than a good smartphone, not to mention a dedicated mini-camera, it doesn’t even take a special “spy camera” like others suggested.

          I fully understand people concerned with Glass users in “semi-public” places where some privacy is expected and necessary (the local strip club…), but not in theaters for stealing copyrighted material, this is just plain stupidity.

    • geektinker

      Your point loses all of my respect when you appear to compare a camera to brandishing a weapon in public. Treating anyone as a threat unless they are actually threatening you or your family is illogical and a recipe for trouble.

    • DisquisTL

      It’s the components of a video camera. It’s not a video camera until it’s turned on, and those components are stitched together by software into a video recorder. Once stitched together by software, it’s a pretty inferior camera, and it’s incapable of recording the whole movie.

      Until he turns the thing on, though, it’s just a pair of prescription glasses with some potential.

  • http://www.stlgatekeepers.com/ Johnny_H

    I don’t believe his story. 5 to 10 officers/agents were waiting for himself outside? Which is it? I don’t expect him to be able to quickly recognize the difference between 50 and 55 people but he doesn’t know if it was 5 or 10? There is a serious lack of details. He’s not sure what agency people were from? I get he may have been shaken/scared at first but at some point during 3 hours of questioning when you know you are innocent I would think most people would start asking for ID and requesting an attorney. The guy from the “movie association” was named Bob Hope? He claims he has physical evidence, the 4 movie passes they gave him. How about a picture of those?

    • disqus_7zCKYC2BSD

      a better question would be is why are a bunch of fbi agents at a movie theater anyway??

      • Aaron Steck

        It was Homeland and they take the matter to serious?

        • disqus_7zCKYC2BSD

          i have never heard of homeland security patrolling movies theaters.

          • Warren Clarmont

            Maybe since that guy opened fire in that theatre a year or so ago, they have been keeping undercover officers around?

    • http://www.stlgatekeepers.com/ Johnny_H

      There has now been confirmation of the report from AMC. While his story didn’t sound legit to me, I credit him for sharing it and I’m glad to see others on the web were able to gather more information. So now I have to wonder why in the hell is homeland security responsible for copyright enforcement of films? Forget defending the homeland. THERE ARE CORPORATE PROFITS TO PROTECT!

    • geektinker

      Impair your vision and attempt to count people and identify their professions while being “detained” for questioning. These days officers have a way of swarming a scene of an arrest to establish a border around the event. Plus, it was a theater in a mall with Federal agents, local police, and mall security present.

  • Anonymous Person

    I am innocent until proven guilty, treat me any other way and I will not recognize your authority as you will in my opinion have forfeited that authority by disregarding my rights, and I will not honor nor respect anything about you while I tear your life down around you with civil lawsuits against you. Since I only have to show that is is more likely than not that you were assuming I was guilty and not innocent. Further I would go ahead and sue the FBI, movie theater and anyone else I even spoke to for violating my rights as if those are prescription glasses then they profiled you based on your disability(Impaired sight).

    • phor11

      Then you’ll get pepper sprayed and the officer will get a $40 payout…
      USA, USA…

  • DisquisTL

    Ironically, most movie piracy at theaters happens by theater employees hooking up hardware to one of the projectionist output ports on the other end of some legitimate HDCP capable electronics interfaced with a fake flat panel LVDS device emulator to just pull the data off digitally, and then it’s compared with multiple other copies of the same content to strip out any per-theater watermarking. Most of this happens in foreign theaters after foreign release of the films.

    Google Glass is good for at most about 45 minutes worth of recording at 720p, and is about as watchable without software reframing to a lower pixel resolution as The Blair Witch Project. So even a crappy recording of the 1:45 Jack Ryan film would require 3 Glass wearers, and the audio quality would suck, and the video watermarking artifacts would clearly identify both the theater and showtime.

    BTW, most digital copy piracy actually happens by dumpster diving the prerelease copies of the DVDs sent to members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in order to get their votes for the Oscars, which is why most piracy occurs prior to the Oscars. These are also now watermarked, so without multiple samples, it’s hard to strip the watermarking, and the members have recently been more careful about destroying them before they end up in the dumpster.

    Most actual DVD piracy happens in the Chinese factories producing the DVDs, where they run what’s called a “third shift”. The do an 8 hour production run for the studio, then they do another 8 hour production run for the studio, then they do another 8 hour production run (not for the studio), and sell the results. The “third shift” happens in electronics and other manufacturing as well, which is why companies like Apple generally have a choke-hold on the availability of at least 5 or six device components in their supply chain, so it’s impossible to use their designs for the counterfeits – the components necessary just aren’t there.

    • NunyaBiz

      Glass can stream directly to the web where it can easily be recorded. Great points on piracy, though.

      • geektinker

        And the battery won’t last through a full movie. Plus, they get very warm while recording video for more than a few minutes. The quality is very poor and the person would have to sit very still through the whole movie. Logically, that just doesn’t add up.

        • DisquisTL

          Yeah, the battery was the limiting factor I was referring to; the local storage being the limiting factor would raise it to the point where you’d need 15 or so people on your “tag team” if it were all being stored in local flash RAM. Easier to bribe a minimum wage janitor in a theater without identity coded access to the projection equipment.

    • ReggielovesBarry

      “and the members have recently been more careful about destroying them before they end up in the dumpster.”

      Nope.

      If you want to see how careful the average Academy member is, just visit any thrift store on LA’s West Side.

    • TheJunkie

      With everyone into hd, almost no one in this country is even interested in pirated DVDs anymore. There is no market and no profit in it.

  • aki009

    His mistake was allowing them to badger him in the first place. Starting with theft of property and assault (the removal of the glasses from his face without permission). But he must be a bit on the meek side, unless he’s talking to a lawyer to discuss options at this point. If nothing else, it’s looking more and more like DHS stands for Dept of Homeland Stasi.

    • TheJunkie

      not like he had a choice against those thugs

    • Kriegar

      They would’ve thumped him, if he’d resisted. I bet you.

      • Justice Delivered

        Cause to extract more damages.

  • joejoe5709

    Eh… Like most I can see both sides of this. But I think the officers were a bit excessive with their interrogations. So a word to the wise… a movie is not the place to wear your Glass.

    • Chris Hollman

      I’ll wear it wherever I damn well please because it is not illegal to do so nor does it bother anyone else.

      • Kriegar

        Amen.

    • Kriegar

      I can’t. Unless they collect cell phones at the door.

    • Justice Delivered

      Regardless of what people are wearing, it should not be in any theater. To hell with them, their rules and their obnoxiously loud commercials before the movies.

  • warped655

    The fear of new technology is not an excuse for the behavior of these officials. They ought to be fired. Then again, most of our government bodies like the DHS, NSA, CIA, ATF and I’d argue even the FBI have all lost their original purpose of protecting us and now protect the powerful from the weak.

  • Justin van Breen

    Honestly, anything that makes it clear that Glass is unacceptable in the public sphere is A-Okay in my book!

    • Kriegar

      Why? What are you so afraid of?

      Why would it be any different that a camera, video or otherwise? Sometimes, people are very strange. Are you still skeered of the microwave, as well?

      • Justin van Breen

        It makes me think less of a person if they can’t bear to be without a screen in their damn face at all times. Plus which, it’s just antisocial to have it on when having a normal conversation, like the person you’re talking to isn’t worth your whole attention. I think Glass could be *great* in certain professional contexts, but otherwise you just look like a douchebag who hasn’t yet mastered the whole ‘human interaction’ thing.

        • Justice Delivered

          Eventually this will be replaced by direct optic nerve or brain stimulation. Having enganced capabilities does not preclude human interaction.

          I remember well in the early cell phone days similar reactions to yours. What is considered acceptable social behavior does evolve.

          The only problem I have with this is that we can be certain Google will be collecting even more data of anyone stupid enough to buy any of their products.

        • Kriegar

          I understand where you’re coming from-but if it isn’t on, then the only thing left is that it might be a distraction to other people. Aside from those things you’re saying that can be legitimate concerns, there is a lot of downtime between this and that, in which one could enhance ones’ productivity, or attend to other matters.

          I’m sorry that it’s that easy to make you think less of another person, but they were prescription eyeglasses, also.

  • http://www.onlinebusiness.org/ Gaurav Gurbaxani

    Poor guy!

  • geektinker

    Just pointing out that AMC is owned by a Chinese company. Anyone who thinks this reaction was OK should be learning Chinese well enough to say, “I welcome our Chinese overlords.” While groveling in preparation for their economic takeover. The theater missed a few steps and should have either stopped the man from entering the theater with them on or asked him to step outside to explain before the movie started. Calling in the feds was a complete over reaction that only escalated once they arrived. Had I been attempting to watch that movie where this man was removed, I’d have complained about the interruption and asked for a refund of my ticket costs for the inconvenience.

  • http://texnat.org/ Texas Chris

    Lesson learned. If a cop asks you anything, anything, your response is “lawyer”. Then shut your mouth. Shut it. Not a word, other than “lawyer”.

    What this DHS agent did is called assault, search without cause, false arrest, and even kidnapping. Sue his ass, and live well off the settlement (because it won’t make it to court) in a freer country somewhere warm.

    • Sinixstar

      There’s a phrase you may have heard in the past. “you might be the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”.
      There’s a fine line between asserting your rights, and shooting yourself in the foot. Simply saying “lawyer” and shutting up is shooting yourself in the foot. You will likely have cuffs slapped on you and sit in a cell until you go in front of a judge. Depending on the severity of the charge that can have life changing consequences, even if charges are dropped.

      Claiming assault is… amusing. Search without cause is also amusing. False arrest? was he arrested or simply detained? Kidnapping? You have got to be out of your mind. Sue? over what?

      • garyduch

        You don’t have to say lawyer, all you have to do is simply ask. “Am I under arrest or being charged with anything?” If the answer is “No”, then you simply demand that they return your items and you are free to go. That is the law. If the answer is “Yes” then your next response is absolutely “Lawyer” and you don’t say another thing and let them dig themselves a nice lawsuit hole.
        His possessions were illegally seized without warrant or reasonable evidence that something illegal was going on. Seizure of private property without a warrant requires probable cause, which it doesn’t seem that they didn’t had. First, set aside the Google glass, they took his wallet and his two phones which were in his pocket and clearly not in use at the time they observed him. As they were not objects that were observed in any capacity or capability to be doing anything illegal and since he had not been placed under arrest they had no right to take and withhold these items from him. This is ILLEGAL.

        Regarding the Google Glass, as he noted, if it were recording, a light would have indicated it was recording. All the agents had to do was observe him for all of five seconds to ascertain if the device was on or not. It is pretty clear that they lacked even any basic understanding about Google Glass. They had no idea how to recognize if it was in operation (as evidenced by their not knowing how to recognize if it was powered on/recording or not). They had no clue as it’s dollar value (as evidenced by their handling of it before and then after they found out what it cost). They made an uneducated leap/conclusion about his activities, leading to unwarranted seizure of private property and then holding him and his wife against their will for several hours without being charged or given their Miranda warning.

        I think you very much could make an argument for kidnapping against both the agents and the theater as he was held against his will for several hours without being charged or read his rights as well as illegal search and seizure.

        It’s certainly worth his contacting a lawyer or the ACLU. This type of rampant jack-booted thuggery needs to be publicly, and legally opposed at every turn. The police and other agencies were formed first and foremost to protect the citizenry and uphold the law, but more and more they are made to serve the bastions of corporate power and greed. Silence is acquiescence.

        • Sinixstar

          eh – whatever. Sorry but your interpretation of the law is simply not supported by, ya know, the law.

          You’re entitled to your opinion though. carry on.

          • Kriegar

            Strangely enough, you’re wrong.

        • http://clockwork.fr/ Jozef

          They had reasonable suspicion because he was constantly pointing a recording device on the screen. The “light would be on” argument is bogus since there are reasonably easy ways to circumvent the LED. The camera itself being crap for recording movies and the Glass getting hot are better arguments. Also instructions in cinemas are quite simple “NO recording devices”, there is no mention of them being on or off. He has a pair of regular glasses at home, he could have thought to bring those to the theater. Agents are not there to know every detail about every gadget either. If you would bring a toy camera which looks like a real one it would get seized as well.

          Of course if the comportement of agents here is described accurately they did act like douchebags.

          • amiganguli

            The sign is irrelevant unless the signed something going in saying he agreed to being assaulted. Of course they can ask him to leave – it’s private property after all – but they can’t take his stuff.

          • AnarchCap

            “Also instructions in cinemas are quite simple “NO recording devices”, there is no mention of them being on or off” — So, why was anyone allowed in with a cell phone? Pretty much every cell phone you can buy today is capable of taking pictures and/or recording. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

            If theaters don’t want Google Glass coming in, they need to put up a sign specifically saying so and make sure that buying a ticket means you agree to the terms of theater.

      • amiganguli

        I’m curious how this isn’t assault. If I grab your glasses off your face without permission it’s certainly assault, and you would have a right to defend yourself.

        In this case, what if the guy had had really fast reflexes and gotten his assailant in an arm lock before he could make off with the glasses? He has no way of knowing it’s a cop, so it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

        • http://texnat.org/ Texas Chris

          Here in Texas, a guy grabs your glasses off your face (and doesn’t identify as LEO before hand) and he’s damned near surely going to get shot.

      • http://texnat.org/ Texas Chris

        If you want to be a little chickenshit and let law enforcement walk all over you, fine. Personally, I’m not having my rights trampled. This guy was sitting in a theater, minding his own business, hurting nobody, and a federal agent came in and assaulted him! Go find a cop wearing classes and snatch them off his face. You’ll get your ass shot. Why? It’s assault!

        Initiation of physical contact construed as use of force is assault. Arrest means you’re being detained under suspicion, you are not free to go. Kidnapping is holding a person against their will without cause. All three happened, and he has an airtight suit.

  • Kriegar

    I can’t say 100%, but I believe that snatching the eyeglasses off his face constitutes assault, besides being absolutely unnecessary.

    Just goes to show, police will abuse their authority in any venue, at any opportunity.

  • Dougau

    All of the touchy feely geeks wearing these things need to get smacked around by the cops if you ask me, especially if they are named Rob, Biff, Buffy, Chad, or Todd.

    • John Fowler

      And those punk kids with those new-fangled bifocals, too!

  • Justice Delivered

    People should boycott AMC theaters and the victim should sue them.

    It is long past time that the term of copyright is reigned in. Surely, twenty years is enough to give creators a fair return. As it stands, return on investment, which drives content creation is based on a far shorter time frame.

  • QueensGambit

    Land of the free, or land of the oppressed? But hey, who cares as long as there’s cheap gas and new movies and video games coming out at a frequent rate, right?

  • Some Asian Guy

    If I was that guy the first thing out my mouth would be something like this, “Who are you, what is your name and employer?” and the next thing would be “good I’m going to sue your balls”. Period.

  • ninegturn

    I’m not only going to stop going to AMC theaters….I’m thinking I’ll download a few copies of this movie just on principal. There…I said “thinking about” so you can’t arrest someone for “thinking” about committing a non violent crime yet! We don’t have Minority Report laws yet do we?

  • Adam McIntosh

    Thanks for your well thought out post. I hope I didn’t take too much out of your day to type that long response with lots of sources to back it up. =)

  • bunker32792

    Love it one one calls another “idiot” , when they themselves can’t spell past an elementary school level.

    “irony”
    “contractions”

  • TheJunkie

    Speak for yourself. It looks like you are just making a total fool of yourself.

  • Adam McIntosh