AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
1-21-2014

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/01...utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer



A Google Glass user was interrogated without legal counsel for a couple of hours under suspicion that he may have been recording a film in the AMC movie theater


Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean.



I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording).



Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong.
 
F

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Lol, "Google glass user," like it's some sort of class to be discriminated against.

This was a dude who brought a camera into a movie theater. He could even have taken it off, there was no reason to watch the movie while wearing it.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Fox5 said:
Lol, "Google glass user," like it's some sort of class to be discriminated against.

This was a dude who brought a camera into a movie theater. He could even have taken it off, there was no reason to watch the movie while wearing it.
Click to expand...

he wanted to be cool

also lol @ "interrogated me without counsel". Did he ask for counsel? Did he invoke his 5th amendment right? No
 
D

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Stupidity should not be a protected class, either. AMC should be made to pay for the FBI's time and for the inconvenience of this guy.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
drebo said:
Stupidity should not be a protected class, either. AMC should be made to pay for the FBI's time and for the inconvenience of this guy.
Click to expand...

Reporting a suspected crime is not illegal, especially when this guy consented to it all. He should pay for his own ignorance.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,032
10,360
136
Fox5 said:
Lol, "Google glass user," like it's some sort of class to be discriminated against.

This was a dude who brought a camera into a movie theater. He could even have taken it off, there was no reason to watch the movie while wearing it.
Click to expand...

Do you bring cellphones into the theater? Maybe you should be harassed and interrogated.
 
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,980
8,572
136
Were any of his constitutional rights violated? If so, then I guess he has grounds for retaliation in a punitive/remunerative kind of way.

I wonder what would happen if he chose to wear those while entering a secured military base because he was trying to look all kinds of nerdy cool? Heh, I'd like to see what happens if he tried, although I'm not even sure if Base Security branches are even aware of the potential espionage capability the glasses represent. I've seen folks spread eagled on the pavement with sidearms pointed at them right at a couple of secured entry points to Joint Hickam AFB/Pearl Harbor NB and wonder if the same awaits the unwary googly wearer.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
tweaker2 said:
Were any of his constitutional rights violated? If so, then I guess he has grounds for retaliation in a punitive/remunerative kind of way.

I wonder what would happen if he chose to wear those while entering a secured military base because he was trying to look all kinds of nerdy cool? Heh, I'd like to see what happens if he tried, although I'm not even sure if Base Security branches are even aware of the potential espionage capability the glasses represent. I've seen folks spread eagled on the pavement with sidearms pointed at them right at a couple of secured entry points to Joint Hickam AFB/Pearl Harbor NB and wonder if the same awaits the unwary googly wearer.
Click to expand...

He waived them. You cannot waive your rights and then say they were violated.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Sounds to me like we should cut the FBI budget, since they have the resources to spare to be the movie industry's rent-a-cop.
 
HumblePie

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
rudeguy said:
He waived them. You cannot waive your rights and then say they were violated.
Click to expand...

Yah, by telling them from the beginning to search the glasses, he waived them. In his position I would have played hardball. Since their original taking of his glasses and detaining him without a warrant was not legal. I would have had a lawyer all up their asses as fast as I could get one there. They could ask me to leave the theater, well an employee of the theater can since it's private property. They can ask me if I was recording anything. They can't detain me further nor take my property without consent.

Stupidly, the guy gave consent retroactively though even if his rights were violated initially. Scared stupidity I guess. Which is what empowers assholes like those law enforcement officers he was dealing with to do more of the same shit to others. All he can do now is lodge a formal complaint and protest over the procedures and hope there is some internal punishment handed out for how badly that was handled.
 
rudeguy

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
HumblePie said:
Yah, by telling them from the beginning to search the glasses, he waived them. In his position I would have played hardball. Since their original taking of his glasses and detaining him without a warrant was not legal. I would have had a lawyer all up their asses as fast as I could get one there. They could ask me to leave the theater, well an employee of the theater can since it's private property. They can ask me if I was recording anything. They can't detain me further nor take my property without consent.

Stupidly, the guy gave consent retroactively though even if his rights were violated initially. Scared stupidity I guess. Which is what empowers assholes like those law enforcement officers he was dealing with to do more of the same shit to others. All he can do now is lodge a formal complaint and protest over the procedures and hope there is some internal punishment handed out for how badly that was handled.
Click to expand...

And this is why I get on my soap box when these threads come around.

If we all start standing up for our rights instead of waiving them at the first sign of conflict, the police will have to change their ways. Its perfectly legal for them to ask you questions. Its legal for them to ask to search you and your belongings. Its legal for them to ask you to do anything. They have zero responsibility to advise you of your rights until you are under arrest. The thing is that most people get arrested because they didn't use their rights.

In this situation it would have been a very short conversation. "I'm sorry officer, I don't wish to answer any questions until my lawyer is present. Am I free to go?" Sure the guy wouldn't have been able to finish his movie, but that is the private property owner's right to ask him to leave. At no point should this guy have answered any questions, consented to any searches and for sure not consent to being detained (by not asking to leave).

The more people we have standing up for their rights, the more free we will be.
 
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,980
8,572
136
rudeguy said:
He waived them. You cannot waive your rights and then say they were violated.
Click to expand...

I see. Thanks. So now I wonder if the guy can claim coercion after the fact as a way to seek redress? I'm wondering because it seems to me that the theater management and the FBI should be taken to task for what seems to me an overly reactive way the apparently clueless guy was detained and interrogated.

edit - I can see where the FBI were at the most having some fun over this and the theater management wanted to make an example of that guy. Sort'a like how store owners enlist neighborhood cops to scare kids from shoplifting ever again.
 
Last edited:
HumblePie

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
tweaker2 said:
I see. Thanks. So now I wonder if the guy can claim coercion after the fact as a way to seek redress? I'm wondering because it seems to me that the theater management and the FBI should be taken to task for what seems to me an overly reactive way the apparently clueless guy was detained and interrogated.

edit - I can see where the FBI were at the most having some fun over this and the theater management wanted to make an example of that guy. Sort'a like how store owners enlist neighborhood cops to scare kids from shoplifting ever again.
Click to expand...

Cops can threaten all the want as long as it isn't a specific threat. Threats like, "Things won't go well for you if you don't do X" are perfectly legal things for them to say. Now if they say , "I'm going to break your arm if you don't do X" that is a specific threat/coercion and is illegal.

The only thing the cops did illegal from what I can tell in that story was originally grabbing the glasses off his face without consent or a warrant. But when he offered to let them search through the glasses that really no longer mattered.
 
Doppel

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Police only question you for two hours if you talk.

NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. If you are arrested you say f king nothing other than continually repeat you are exerting 5th amendment right to not speak and that you want a lawyer. Do not even deny having done what the police accuse you of. Say nothing.
 
B

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
R4fODtb.gif

Department of Homeland Security priorities.
 
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Turns out that it wasn't the FBI, it was the Homeland Security Investigation arm of ICE.

What I'd like to know is what the heck does Homeland Security have to do with possible copyright violations?
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
Victorian Gray said:
Turns out that it wasn't the FBI, it was the Homeland Security Investigation arm of ICE.

What I'd like to know is what the heck does Homeland Security have to do with possible copyright violations?
Click to expand...

Because the C in ICE stands for customs. ICE and its Investigations Service have primary jurisdiction over cases that involve selling, trading, or producing counterfeit goods(piracy, especially movie piracy falls into this). They have always been heavily involved in piracy and counterfeit goods cases. It is their jurisdiction.

ICE also runs the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center. Which is a joint operation between ALL federal law enforcement agencies(as well as two International agencies) and they are responsible for enforcing US intellectual property law. ICE not only runs it but is also the primary enforcer mainly because of their role in customs.
 
Last edited:
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Wreckem said:
Because the C in ICE stands for customs(which covers both import and export). They are heavily involved in piracy and fake goods cases. It is their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


Ok, just looked up how the Homeland Security aspect fits in and discovered that apparently intellectual property and cultural crimes are considered a threat to the 'homeland'.

Slowly but surely the world becomes ever more corporatized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom