Google Glass owner wears it to AMC movie theater; claims federal agents came to remove him [Update]

We have already seen a few establishments ban the use of Google Glass inside their buildings, but now one man claims those efforts went to another level. In an article on The Gadgeteer, the unidentified owner of the wearable computing device says that federal agents removed him from an AMC theater in Columbus, Ohio while he was watching a movie.

The man claims in his report that he had owned his Google Glass unit for two months and had worn them before to the same AMC theater. On Saturday, he wrote that he and his wife went to see "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit", and again he put on his Google Glass device because his prescription lenses were on the frame. He turned off the device before the movie began but later he claimed that a man with a badge came in, removed the Google Glass unit from his face and asked him to go outside the theater.

The rest of the report is about the man's dealings with the "federal service" authorities who accused him of illegally taping the movie with his Google Glass unit. Both his wife and himself were questioned for several hours until finally the agents hooked up the device to a PC and saw that he had not recorded the movie. He then was given two free passes to see the movie again by an unnamed "Movie Association" representative, along with an apology.

The unlucky movie attendee admits it might have been a mistake to assume that it was OK to wear his Google Glass product in the theater even if he had done so in the past. So far, there's been no outside confirmation on this incident.

Update: The Washington Post has received a statement from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department of the Office of Homeland Security that confirms this story. The statement reads:

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.

Source: The Gadgeteer | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung expected to launch Galaxy S5 on February 23

Next Story

Bill Gates releases annual letter, says there won't be 'poor' countries by 2035

127 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Is there rules not to wear the Google glasses at theaters or a law? I do not own the glasses and I am not aware of a rule or law. If I bought the glasses I might wear them to at the theater not knowing anything is wrong. Who would? Why where the glasses. How is it different then wearing a Bluetooth ear piece.

It is nice to see tax dollars wasted on stupid things like this. It sucks those people were inconvenienced due to a corporation being a bully.

Does not matter who is right and wrong in this case, but person with a function brain will know not to do that in the theater. Don't act like that is the only prescription glass that he has. Either he is stupid or only want 15 mins of fame.

ICE + Special Agents... geez.. what are they trying to do? kill two birds in one stone.. throw the person in jail..and potentially deport in the next hour? WTF?

So a guy walks into a cinema with a recording device, gets interviewed by authorities about the same device and because of that incident (he wasn't recording the movie) he gots 2 free tickets and apologies...

how is this news??

Hello,

Praetor said,
So a guy walks into a cinema with a recording device, gets interviewed by authorities about the same device and because of that incident (he wasn't recording the movie) he gots 2 free tickets and apologies...

how is this news??


Well, "news" how the word implies is "new". Has a accident like this happened in the past?

BTW, its not just a recording device. They are perscription glasses provided by Google that can record.

This is NOT as issue for our tax dollars to be spent via "Homeland Security".

This involves a number of megacorporations selling products and it is up to them to spend their own profits to handle this.

So, he has prescription lenses in a Google Glass device, but doesn't have normal eyeglasses? Considering the need for a prescription, what did he wear prior to GG?

Why didn't he speak to the management about it prior to viewing the movie?

What has happened to personal responsibility and 'due diligence'?

Personal responsibility disappeared after the the "boomer" generation. On a separate venue, the same following are generations outsourcing child rearing. Note the general age levels of "selfies." So sad.

TsarNikky said,
Personal responsibility disappeared after the the "boomer" generation. On a separate venue, the same following are generations outsourcing child rearing. Note the general age levels of "selfies." So sad.

Um, don't lump all Gen X'ers with the other crowd. I, like my peers, understand "personal responsibility quite well since the boomers taught us that. My problem is that "pc" is preventing us from raising our kids like the boomers did us.

And others are magically supposed to know his thoughts so they can confirm, how exactly?

Such cases are bound to occur with increasing regularity until there's some sort of precedent set for courts to follow. So far the newness of the tech means it's still very much a gray area.

installshield_freak said,
I would sue. The thought may not have occurred to him to use those for recording purposes.

The thought that he could use the video camera strapped to his face for recording purposes... never occurred to him?

Try this with your cell phone. You'll get the same response.

installshield_freak said,
I would sue. The thought may not have occurred to him to use those for recording purposes.

The movie theatre didn't do anything wrong, but how the FBI dealt with it is appalling.

Do you guys not have anything similar to the UK's PACE? (Police and Criminal Evidence Act). This is the law about police powers, how investigations should be conducted with due diligence, etc. Questioning someone for hours about illegally recording a video without first establishing a video was actually recorded would not be 'due diligence' and I'm sure a claim against the police for wrongful detention could be made.

Like I say, not sure if the USA has an equivalent to PACE though.

Hardcore Til I Die said,
Like I say, not sure if the USA has an equivalent to PACE though.

We used to. Then our legislators voted in the Patriot Act (irony!) after 9/11 and our rights have steadily slipped away.

To the person wearing Google Glass they might just be a pair of glasses but to others, particularly those in law enforcement.. it's a gadget. And using gadgets while driving or in the cinema is a no-no.

I really dont understand the hate. Wearable devices such as google glass are going to become increasingly popular in the next 2 years and will be common to have. This sort of thing needs to stop.

They are hurt because it is from Google and not Microsoft. When Microsoft announces their own version of Glass 5 years down the road, they will sing a different tune.

recursive said,
They are hurt because it is from Google and not Microsoft. When Microsoft announces their own version of Glass 5 years down the road, they will sing a different tune.
Speak for yourself instead of generalizing. I think this sort of thing is terrible irrespective of which dumb-a** company makes it.

looks like people who decide to wear Google Glass in a public place indoors or outdoors are not going to enjoy the experience! - harassment from authorities and the public, the risk of being punched and have their Google Glass smashed to pieces will be common place.
I think it is common practice in movie theaters to throw out anyone who points any kind of camera device to the screen and may have their device confiscated.

smart contacts are the new thing, and where google glass is eventually headed. We'll literally be able to view the world through someone elses eyes. These talks of Augmented reality and immersive 3D worlds where you can't tell reality from fantasy are just the tip of the iceberg. Matrix here we come!

warwagon said,
Google Glass Explorer Edition has a 30-minute battery life while shooting video
As someone said above, even short clips are illegal. If that's the law then 30 mins. is plenty to get you arrested.

I'd rather they allow google glass to be worn and walk in and beat people with a large stick anytime someone opens a cell phone!!! I get so annoyed at just one being turned on to check something as if it couldn't wait till after the movie was over. I go to watch a movie not be blinded by the light these things put off or listen to someone tapping on one to send messages or lamebook messages.

I know a lot of people are saying, "Who would wear one of these to a Cinema", but keep in mind that you can now get Google Glass with Prescription lenses. If the guy needs the glasses to watch the movie then why should he remove them? You could say, "Why not wear normal glasses". Not everyone's situation is the same. He may have legitimate uses for Google Glass which is why he has prescription lenses. It's a bit like Car Drivers who require glasses but also want sunglasses as well. Why not combine the two, which I guess is what the man was thinking.

I can see Google Glass being a problem for years ahead........

If you can't afford Google Glass and an extra set of glasses for the movie theater, you REALLY need to reconsider purchasing Google Glass, and deserve whatever results your cheapness and idiocy brings.

Also, my job requires me to have prescription safety glasses, but I totally don't wear those for anything else. I wear one of the other 5 pairs of glasses I own that I bought for $40 or less from the internet.

Battery Life! From what I've read, even without the issue of head movement you wouldn't be able to record for 1-2 hours.

Edited by ozric, Jan 21 2014, 3:11pm :

The source site is being overloaded, failing to load for me now. Looks like this bag if bull**** made somone some moneys, but i suppose if there's folks that'll believe it then why not, obviously there's a lot more than one born every minute these days....

Interesting how from merely questioning "did it even happen?" above you simply jumped to the conclusion that it didn't without any proof, and started calling the whole thing a "bag if bull****" [sic]. Ironic how you demanded proof of it happening but failed to offer any when you jumped to the opposite conclusion, instead simply resorting to calling others fools for believing the guy. As you can probably see now there's a reason people tend to believe reports like this, because when it comes to the MPAA and RIAA more often than not they do happen to be true. Not saying one should believe in things blindly, but next time you'll probably want to remain non-committal instead of jumping on either bandwagon without proof.

I recall reading somewhere about cinemas testing some infrared light projectors that would blind any recording device while being invisible to the audience.

Did that get anywhere?

That's what they want you to think! It's like the dye they put in pools that will glow green if you go tinkle in it (can we say "go tinkle"??). Ha, sure it does!!

Most cinemas ban you from bringing in any form of recording device, or having it in use during the movie. It is pretty obvious to all but an idiot that Google Glass's are going to be frowned upon!

We may scoff at this sort of thing but it does go one, so if you want to blame anyone for the carpet bans, and over reactions, blame the pirates who record stuff!! They are the real villains!

Personally I don't appreciate the idea of being recorded without my permission and hope a lot ofplaces ban these type of recording devices!

briangw said,
Can these things even record the whole movie without being connected to an external storage device?

You could stream the video and get it recorded somewhere else, but I'd think if you were to record a movie you'd use something that isn't so visible and that doesn't require keeping your head completely still during the whole movie.

Also I'm not sure if Google Glass allows watching what you are recording on the HUD. If it doesn't then it would be impossible to tell if you are actually recording all of the movie screen.

Tigurinn said,
"So far, there's been no outside confirmation on this incident."

So a free ad for Google Glasses (make it look like regular glasses and then maybe I'll be a customer ....maybe)

Well, he's lucky the FBI didn't shoot him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

I was beginning to despair for a while then, thank god someone else has some common sense to at least question this story, due to, you know, lack of any proof what so ever along with the layers of anonymity AND the ridiculous notion that federal agents would need to be involved!

So a 'reader' told the author of this article, that his 'friend' emailed this story to him.

COME ON! Jesus Christ have you all had all sense of suspicion and common sense removed before reading this article?

2 layers of anonymity, and no one thinks to question the validity of this?

no outside confirmation?

hey neowin readers, my brother is a banker in Nigeria, his client is an exiled prince and he needs someone outside the country to help smuggle his money out of the country. All we need is your bank account details...................

duddit2 said,
hey neowin readers, my brother is a banker in Nigeria, his client is an exiled prince and he needs someone outside the country to help smuggle his money out of the country. All we need is your bank account details...................

Oh, hey, just pm'ed you my bank account details and also thought it would be better if I also pm'ed you my social security number and home address. Just say the word if you want my mobile number and it's yours.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9...1708865f120fa82e0e2491c.jpg

But this is sadly all too common in media today, even amongst so-called "respected" news outlets; where there is no confirmation is highly suspicious but is 'printed' anyway as news. All news should have at least two sources, if possible.

And it bugs me that many news headlines in online media end with "?"

And it also bugs me that the personal lives of celebrities are forced down my throat whenever I go the website of my local paper because it's intertwined with local and world news. And personally I couldn't have cared less what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office

I'm not surprised. I've been to UK Movies where staff comes in at random times with night-vision glasses to check if anyone is taping the movie. Those people will be escorted out, but I don't know what happens after. I have witnessed this a couple of times. Doesn't surprise me they do this with Google Glass.

HAHAHAHA... This is classic. How dumb do you have to be to think it's okay to bring a recording device to a movie theater? I've seen people get kicked out for having their phones out pointing at the screen during the previews. This guy knew what he was doing, it's ridiculous that he lasted this long without anyone questioning him. I find it too convenient how the only pair of glasses he had on him were the Google glass ones. I'm also having a hard time believing that he wears those particular glasses everywhere he goes prescription or not. There is one thing that is bothering me about this whole situation though, why would the FBI be involved in this at all? Talk about mixed priorities for the FBI, forget about apprehending the other extremely dangerous people running around instead lets get the guy with a Google glass device he definitely posses a threat to society. Just stupid.

They have a whole division dedicated to antipiracy, look at any store-bought video, first thing you see.

That said.. dumbass for wearing a recording device into a theater.

The quote of the day from the story: "The unlucky movie attendee admits it might have been a mistake to assume that it was OK to wear his Google Glass product in the theater even if he had done so in the past. "

lolz

"Glass-hole makes up persecution story for attention" should be the title of this article. Seriously, this kind of dumb made up crap story is what you'd find on the reddit.com/r/thathappened.

Why does neowin keep publishing crap like this without any verification of the claims?

Wapoz said,
Why does neowin keep publishing crap like this without any verification of the claims?

Well, in fairness to them the slogan is "Where unprofessional journalism looks better."; but it should be under the logo. But sadly this kind of "journalism" is all too common, even in respected news media

Wapoz said,
"Glass-hole makes up persecution story for attention" should be the title of this article. Seriously, this kind of dumb made up crap story is what you'd find on the reddit.com/r/thathappened.
Anything to say now after the update? No?

I can understand they're worried about him pirating it, but honestly, being questioned for hours because of it? Sounds ridiculous... Like the article said, all they had to do was hook it up to a PC, and see that he wasn't recording it.

Glad the guy got tickets to see the movie again, at least.

JaykeBird said,
Glad the guy got tickets to see the movie again, at least.

After being treated the way he was, I doubt he will want to patronize that theater ever again--free or not.

teknix360 said,

After being treated the way he was, I doubt he will want to patronize that theater ever again--free or not.

Ah, I suppose... Well, they could've not given him free tickets and apologized... that'd be even worse! At least with the free tickets, there's at least a little bit of something...

Recording equipment is not allowed in theaters. This is nothing new. Guy was an idiot for wearing this in the theater. Only reason this is "news" is because its Google Glass

techbeck said,
Recording equipment is not allowed in theaters. This is nothing new. Guy was an idiot for wearing this in the theater. Only reason this is "news" is because its Google Glass

that's funny, i take my cellphone in with me all the time...

Is it in your pocket or are you holding it up with line of sight to the screen? Big difference, wearing Glass on your head would be no different.

And if you were caught recording, you would be kicked out. You cannot tell if glass is on or not and why the lady who got a ticket for wearing them a few months ago while driving, the judge let her off.

Buttus said,

that's funny, i take my cellphone in with me all the time...


Rest assured you'd risk the same if you held up your smartphone against the screen.

Max Norris said,
Is it in your pocket or are you holding it up with line of sight to the screen? Big difference, wearing Glass on your head would be no different.

but no one stares at the screen 100% of the time. you look down at your drink or if you're eating something. you say something to the person you're with, whatever. you're not putting the glasses on a stable tripod that would make a good video. most people can't even take a steady film when they're trying to with image stabilization!

and they think he's using the glasses to video the movie? that's just stupid...

Buttus said,
and they think he's using the glasses to video the movie? that's just stupid...

You'd be surprised.. the occasional cam done by cellphone does show up.

Buttus said,
and they think he's using the glasses to video the movie? that's just stupid...

Doesnt matter if it is the full movie, or clips. It is still illegal to do.

Buttus said,

but no one stares at the screen 100% of the time. you look down at your drink or if you're eating something. you say something to the person you're with, whatever. you're not putting the glasses on a stable tripod that would make a good video. most people can't even take a steady film when they're trying to with image stabilization!

and they think he's using the glasses to video the movie? that's just stupid...

I've already watched a cam of the Hobbit done by a Google Glass just to see what a cam from a Google Glass looks like. Not that much worse than any other cam actually.

Buttus said,
that's funny, i take my cellphone in with me all the time...

And that can get you in just as much trouble. Remember that case not too long ago with the woman who took a picture of some guys' abs on screen during a movie? She was arrested. - Link: http://www.wired.com/threatlev...010/07/woman-suing-theater/

At least this guy was just detained. In both situations, stupid actions were taken by both parties, but I still side with the citizens because there wasn't criminal intent. It's not a crime to be stupid.

Because you can't wear Google Glass while watching a movie?

Why WOULD you even do that, if not for piracy? Having a HUD in front of you when you've paid to watch something on the big screen doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

No, because the FBI was called and interrogated a man for wearing it. This is already on top of the egregious prices for tickets and snacks. It is cheaper, more comfortable, and more convenient to watch a movie from my home.

Like the guy in the article, I would not remove my _prescription_ Google Glass if I had one. Even if the HUD portion is detachable, it would be a hassle to safely store it during the movie.

Considering that I currently own 5 different sets of eyeglasses (safety, normal, driving, sunglasses, formal) and always carry at least 2 on me. and haven't paid more than 40 dollars for a set in 6 years.

This is a stupid answer. Eyeglasses can be purchased for cheap and anyone that can afford Google Glass can afford a second pair of prescription glasses.

Not sure about anyone else here, but carrying a second pair would be annoying. I prefer to travel light.

The movie theater should be pleased, if not honored, that the guy was willing to spend his money at their facility to see a movie. Treating a paying customer like a criminal is no better than DRM.

nvllsvm said,
Just another reason to avoid going to a movie theater.

because you can't wear google glasses??
isn't it kind of against theater policy to have or wear recording hardware while the movie is playing, anyways??

No such thing as bad publicly, while I'm not assuming they did it would not surprise me if this is googles handywork

duddit2 said,
No such thing as bad publicly, while I'm not assuming they did it would not surprise me if this is googles handywork

You mean Google sent in some guys impersonating federal agents to harass this guy? How ridiculous.

spenser.d said,

You mean Google sent in some guys impersonating federal agents to harass this guy? How ridiculous.


of course not, i mean did it even happen?

duddit2 said,
No such thing as bad publicly, while I'm not assuming they did it would not surprise me if this is googles handywork

Do you read what you post before you submit it?

Ambroos said,
Eh, are you sure you're not taking your conspiracy theories a bit far?

conspiracy? Do you even know the meaning?

duddit2 said,
No such thing as bad publicly, while I'm not assuming they did it would not surprise me if this is googles handywork

"So far, there's been no outside confirmation on this incident"

duddit2 said,

of course not, i mean did it even happen?

Fair enough, though that seems an unlikely thing as well, as it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it didn't really happen. Google isn't that stupid.

duddit2 said,
No such thing as bad publicly, while I'm not assuming they did it would not surprise me if this is googles handywork

the responses to my post, in which i even stated i wasn't assuming it true but would simply not be surprised if it was made up clearly shows how people simply do not require proof on the internet and will accept anything in print.

look at the source article, which mentions the writer receiving an email in which he is told that this incident happened to a friend (of the author of the email).

sorry but this is like being in the pub and the local billy bull**** talking about his mates wifes brother being involved in a far out incident that he just wants you to believe so he looks good, this may not be google but it smells of bull**** either way.

now, can all the very rude and stupid ****tards ****off now and maybe next time respond with a hint of manners and possibly even think before you reply, thanks.

spenser.d said,

Fair enough, though that seems an unlikely thing as well, as it wouldn't be hard to figure out that it didn't really happen. Google isn't that stupid.


no, look at the source of this article. The original source is burried under 2 layers of anonymity (a reader told me on google hangouts that he got an email of a friend).

come on!

duddit2 said,

no, look at the source of this article. The original source is burried under 2 layers of anonymity (a reader told me on google hangouts that he got an email of a friend).

come on!

Yeah I see that. But its more likely some random guy in a basement made it up to get a kick, or maybe 15 minutes of fame than google making it up.

spenser.d said,

Yeah I see that. But its more likely some random guy in a basement made it up to get a kick, or maybe 15 minutes of fame than google making it up.


yeah, well in my initial post i did only say it wouldn't surprise me and i also said i was not assuming they did, but i got jumped on by the 'i cant think before i post stupid mob' and its taken on a different theme now.
my main point in regard to my replies was that it stinks of bull****, due to the whole 'reader' told me via hangouts that his 'friend' told him via email......

my initial point was that it wouldn't surprise me, and it still wouldn't, if google had a hand in this. If they did it would be more likely an agency doing viral marketing, as they are so far removed from the article it doesn't matter. But as you said it could be anyone, even the source articles author fishing for page views (which he got).

Given one would have to sit rigidly still and not move you head to get even a modicum of the film at all its a kinda stupidly overblown accusation. Wouldn't it be funny if during a film an actor wore the glasses and said O.K., Glass record a video.......

arachnoid said,
Given one would have to sit rigidly still and not move you head to get even a modicum of the film at all its a kinda stupidly overblown accusation.

I'd agree with that to an extent. But you're also inviting trouble in some respects by basically wearing a camera on your head, to the cinema. They don't exactly make it a secret that they get extremely upset by piracy and will jump on anyone who they think is going to contravene the rules.

On the plus side they apologised, and gave him two more tickets so he could watch the film. Sounds like the whole thing was handled quite fairly. Just the frustrating way of life - guilty until proven innocent!

Chicane-UK said,

I'd agree with that to an extent. But you're also inviting trouble in some respects by basically wearing a camera on your head, to the cinema. They don't exactly make it a secret that they get extremely upset by piracy and will jump on anyone who they think is going to contravene the rules.

On the plus side they apologised, and gave him two more tickets so he could watch the film. Sounds like the whole thing was handled quite fairly. Just the frustrating way of life - guilty until proven innocent!


fairly? Being questioned for several hours by federal agents because you might have recorded a movie with substandard and very awkward to film a movie with recording device that common sense alone would have ruled out as worthwhile is now considered fair?

federal agents, basically corporate agents protecting profit margins

duddit2 said,

fairly? Being questioned for several hours by federal agents because you might have recorded a movie with substandard and very awkward to film a movie with recording device that common sense alone would have ruled out as worthwhile is now considered fair?

federal agents, basically corporate agents protecting profit margins

He deserved worse just for being so stupid...

Depicus said,
Then why not rough up anybody with a modern smart phone ?

If they have it out, and the camera facing the movie for the duration of the film, they should be asked to leave. Not just because of the obvious disturbance, but if you're that stupid, you deserve what you get.

But cell phones are quite different and annoying for other reasons. LOL

M_Lyons10 said,

He deserved worse just for being so stupid...


well, to be honest they should ask him from the entrance to remove or turn off the device. you can't walk in to a movie theater with the Glass and not expecting a reaction from the management.

macoman said,

well, to be honest they should ask him from the entrance to remove or turn off the device. you can't walk in to a movie theater with the Glass and not expecting a reaction from the management.

I do not disagree at all. LOL

I just can't believe someone would think this appropriate to begin with.

Typically there aren't people at the doorways looking at people. I think they sit in the projector room and watch for lights on phones.

So, I'm assuming that there was a blinking LED or something that tipped off somebody, which is completely reasonable. If they see somebody playing on their phone during the movie, it's likely they'll be kicked out. I've seen it a few times.

M_Lyons10 said,
He deserved worse just for being so stupid...

I disagree. The issue is the draconian restrictions imposed by the government and movie studios, with people effectively having to prove their innocence. Imagine if every time you took a photo in public that police came and searched your device with the assumption that you're producing child pornography. It's insane.

Google Glass is a paradigm shift in personal computing - there is no precedent for using such a device. A reasonable cinema manager would have waited until the end of the film and asked the owner to cooperate, rather than removing the device, evicting him from the showing and involving federal agents. I mean, we're talking about watching a movie here.

theyarecomingforyou said,

I disagree. The issue is the draconian restrictions imposed by the government and movie studios, with people effectively having to prove their innocence. Imagine if every time you took a photo in public that police came and searched your device with the assumption that you're producing child pornography. It's insane.

Google Glass is a paradigm shift in personal computing - there is no precedent for using such a device. A reasonable cinema manager would have waited until the end of the film and asked the owner to cooperate, rather than removing the device, evicting him from the showing and involving federal agents. I mean, we're talking about watching a movie here.

Shift or not, common sense still goes a long way...

And I think this is being blown out of proportion by this google glass user too. How would Federal Agents even respond to a movie theater before the movie was over? The story doesn't make sense. He got questioned and is trying to make himself out to be a victim when it was a result of his own stupidity.

M_Lyons10 said,
Shift or not, common sense still goes a long way...

Common sense dictates that you shouldn't be treated like a criminal for going to the cinema. His prescription lenses were fitted to the Google Glass and he had been using them in an everyday capacity, meaning he probably didn't even think about it.

M_Lyons10 said,
And I think this is being blown out of proportion by this google glass user too. How would Federal Agents even respond to a movie theater before the movie was over? The story doesn't make sense.

Copyright infringement is treated very seriously, so that doesn't surprise me at all.

macoman said,

well, to be honest they should ask him from the entrance to remove or turn off the device. you can't walk in to a movie theater with the Glass and not expecting a reaction from the management.

He had it off according to the article and he couldn't take it off because his prescription lenses was on it.

I would guess it was a sting operation. This guy had a pattern of going to the same theater and putting on Google Glass after entering the theater. That's just stupidity.

NastySasquatch said,
I would guess it was a sting operation. This guy had a pattern of going to the same theater and putting on Google Glass after entering the theater. That's just stupidity.

I wouldn't say the federal agents were stupid for organising a sting operation but certainly uninformed and over zealous.

shinji257 said,

He had it off according to the article and he couldn't take it off because his prescription lenses was on it.

I think this will be a problem... Not all places accept glass. And if you have your prescription in them then either go blind or dont go their. That is what it seems to come down to. Unless glass really takes off so much so that places start advertising glass friendly places. It will be interesting =).

>>well, to be honest they should ask him from the entrance to remove or turn off the device. you can't walk in to a movie theater with the Glass and not expecting a reaction from the management.

Agreed.

M_Lyons10 said,

He deserved worse just for being so stupid...


He wasn't stupid. As the first comment says, google glass is just about the poorest way to record a movie. There is absolutely no way he could have captured the movie in any way decently enough to be considered copyright infringement.

Unless he also put on a neck brace and held his head perfectly still for the entire movie, lol... even then I doubt it would be decent enough quality.

Stupid is the overblown reaction to him wearing google glass. Stupid is the feds getting involved in every little copyright infringement, they should be investigating real crime not serving corporate interests.

james.faction said,

He wasn't stupid. As the first comment says, google glass is just about the poorest way to record a movie. There is absolutely no way he could have captured the movie in any way decently enough to be considered copyright infringement.

Unless he also put on a neck brace and held his head perfectly still for the entire movie, lol... even then I doubt it would be decent enough quality.

Stupid is the overblown reaction to him wearing google glass. Stupid is the feds getting involved in every little copyright infringement, they should be investigating real crime not serving corporate interests.

I'd agree with everything you said if I thought this story was actually tue, but it stinks far too much of bull**** for me to believe it.

BUT, if true, feds getting involved in an issue like this is simply proof that the agencies that are supposed to be protecting citizens are actually mere employees of corporations, I mean feds getting involved in a possible recording or a movie using sub standard recording equipment which also doubles as presciption glasses, and this isn't the onion?

theyarecomingforyou said,

His prescription lenses were fitted to the Google Glass and he had been using them in an everyday capacity, meaning he probably didn't even think about it.

You lost me here. No way you get prescription Google Glasses and forget you have them on, especially walking in to a movie theatre.

They had probable cause IMO. Putting prescription lenses in doesn't change the fact it is a recording device. Who would be aware of the inappropriateness of Google Glasses in a movie Theatre? Google Glass owners, more so than theatre staff, but that's about to change.

duddit2 said,
BUT, if true, feds getting involved in an issue like this is simply proof that the agencies that are supposed to be protecting citizens are actually mere employees of corporations,

I believe copyright infringement falls under federal jurisdiction along with many other types of crimes. Just about any crime that crosses state lines also falls under federal jurisdiction.

james.faction said,

He wasn't stupid. As the first comment says, google glass is just about the poorest way to record a movie. There is absolutely no way he could have captured the movie in any way decently enough to be considered copyright infringement.

Unless he also put on a neck brace and held his head perfectly still for the entire movie, lol... even then I doubt it would be decent enough quality.

Stupid is the overblown reaction to him wearing google glass. Stupid is the feds getting involved in every little copyright infringement, they should be investigating real crime not serving corporate interests.

First of all, it doesn't matter if Google Glass is the poorest recorder out there to use it to pirate a movie because if someone did get away from recording a movie using it, and it becomes available for download, people will download it.

Second; this is speaking from experience, I was detained by theater management because someone blatantly lied that I recorded Transformers with my laptop. I brought my laptop because I got early in the theater, and I decided to surf the web while waiting on line. The guy accused me of taking my laptop out of my bag during the movie, and even thought I didn't do it, I was still questioned. It doesn't have to be feds, but I have to power on my laptop just to prove to management that I didn't do it. As for the guy that lied, he got an earful of cuss word from me, especially when he said "I was wondering why you brought your laptop here."

MorganX said,
You lost me here. No way you get prescription Google Glasses and forget you have them on, especially walking in to a movie theatre.

They had probable cause IMO. Putting prescription lenses in doesn't change the fact it is a recording device. Who would be aware of the inappropriateness of Google Glasses in a movie Theatre? Google Glass owners, more so than theatre staff, but that's about to change.

And what about smart watches like the Galaxy Gear? They also have a camera on them and people can easily forget they're wearing them. Personal computing is evolving. When you wear or use something every day you start to take it for granted and cinemas will not be able to respond in this manner.

theyarecomingforyou said,

And what about smart watches like the Galaxy Gear? They also have a camera on them and people can easily forget they're wearing them. Personal computing is evolving. When you wear or use something every day you start to take it for granted and cinemas will not be able to respond in this manner.

If they see you in the cinema holding your wrist or wristwatch up in a manner that could be recording, I"m sure they will respond in a similar manner. Just because new technology is introduced, that still doesn't change the laws. They make plastic guns that won't set off a metal detector, you're still not supposed to take them on a plane.

I think everyone with Glass should do this and show the cinemas how ridiculous their rules are. Like it or not, something similar to Glass will take off in the near to mid future and its going to be a hell of a job policing all those users.

M4x1mus said,
I think everyone with Glass should do this and show the cinemas how ridiculous their rules are. Like it or not, something similar to Glass will take off in the near to mid future and its going to be a hell of a job policing all those users.

Until it's cheap and doesn't look stupid, it won't be attractive to the masses anytime soon.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Until it's cheap and doesn't look stupid, it won't be attractive to the masses anytime soon.

I totally agree with you, but it depends what you mean by soon. In the next two years its doubtful that it will take off. In 5-10 years I find it hard to believe that something like it wouldn't have been a success.

M4x1mus said,

I totally agree with you, but it depends what you mean by soon. In the next two years its doubtful that it will take off. In 5-10 years I find it hard to believe that something like it wouldn't have been a success.

Oh absolutely. In the next decade we might have bionic contact lenses and all sorts of little sensors we can hide on our bodies.

The biggest hurdle is going to be the battery though, which is why these things don't last long and are huge. Once we have decent batteries, we'll begin to see some really awesome tech.