1. The glasses were powered off.

2. They are prescription glasses, he needed to wear them to watch the movie.

If I were him I'd sue for false imprisonment.

The theater management and the cops way overreacted.

The glasses wearer desperately wants attention.

The glasses wearer just wanted attention

I recommend executing the man, the government agents, the movie theater staff from the CEO on down, and everyone involved in the making of the Jack Ryan movies.

What a strange corporate state we live in. How much are we paying these federal agents to protect Jack Ryan movies from the evil recording devices that almost every single person carries with them (and some unfortunate people carry on their faces)?

@1 - (2.) Please don't tell me that his prescription Google Glass glasses were his only set of prescription glasses. Surely he has another, non-recording-device pair of glasses he can wear to see movies out in public. Because (1.) no one else can tell when Google Glass are powered on or off.

He's either slightly dim for not wearing regular glasses to a movie, or he foolishly forgot his reg pair at home and took a risk.

I didn't know GG came in an Rx form. Fancy that. Unauthorized recording is going to be an interesting issue. When I worked in a live theater, we regularly pulled people out and shamed them into deleting phone photos or video. We were supposed to call the cops if someone refused (that never happened). Theater companies required this policy as a condition of performing. I don't know how it would even be enforced with GG-- likely a universal ban of the device. Based on the 3 hour interrogation I am willing to bet this customer refused to reveal or delete content, perhaps in a bid for attention or sincere insistence on privacy. Theaters will need to get explicit about GG.

How hard would it have been for the feds to find someone who knows how the Glass works and determine if he had recorded anything? What would that take, like three minutes? Three hours of being stupid, that's pretty unacceptable.

As for the glasshole, I hope he enjoyed the experience. It probably fulfilled his wildest dreams of being irrationally and unjustly victimized by stupid people for being an Explorer.

I'll bet he came three times..

Musicians have largely given up on the idea of banning cameras. Theaters should realize what century it is and do the same.

However, given that cameras are currently banned it is pretty brazen to wear one strapped to your face.

Back in the early nineties I knew a couple cyborgs who wore hand made rigs and would have these kind of battles, but that was part of the point of being a cyborg. Seeing how society treated someone with a video camera bolted to their head.

@6: There is an easy solution. Nail polish or craft paint right over the camera. Now if the Glass wearer wants to see the movie with prescription glasses, they can do so with no ill effects. Their prescription glasses will still work perfectly.

@4 ftw

How in the fuck does this full under the Department of Homeland Security's purview?

At least nobody shot him.

He's a moron for walking into a theater with a recording device strapped on his head and knowing full and damn well that theaters frown upon recording devices, but doesn't the FBI have more important things to worry about?

@6 I neither have nor want Google Glass and think they make anyone wearing them look like a real dbag, but are you seriously saying that "foolishly" wearing google glass to the theater is a "risk" for which the punishment should be removal, detention, and 3 hrs of interrogation by federal agents?

@4 Well, Tom Clancy is gone, so one down...

Given that people have been thrown in solitary for months for exercising their rights, you think he actually had to incite the federal agents to hold him for 3 hours while interrogating him? Do you really intend to be an apologist for jackbooted statists?

The Glass wearer is always the biggest idiot of them all. Doubly so for associating your prescription with your recording device.

Wear contacts so your fashion statement isn't tied to your vision.

@9: "Musicians have largely given up on the idea of banning cameras."

Bootleg performances are of an individual experience. Bootleg copies of movies in theaters are a more universal experience.

@12: "How in the fuck does this full under the Department of Homeland Security's purview?"

Piracy/counterfeit goods, I imagine.

the guy explains the experience in detail here

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-…

and yes, he insisted the agents check the files on his Glass; they just wanted to interrogate him in depth about his life. what #18 said.

1. The Glasshole is a complete moron for attempting to wear Google Glass in a movie theater. They had every right to toss his dumb ass out.

2. However, the FBI? Seriously? A three hour FBI interrogation? Over stupid Google Glass??? That is way, WAY over the top. The theater should have just tossed his ass. At worst, charged him with criminal trespassing.

Plus, no matter how much of a douchebag he is, the FBI had no right to snatch the glasses off his face.

Probably could have gone from 3 hours to 15 minutes if he had just invoked his 5th amendment rights. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE people. "I am I free to go?" .. no? "I invoke my right to remain silent. I want to talk to a lawyer". Then shut up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7n…

Hiking yesterday, on my way up, I stopped to talk to a guy coming back down. He was wearing those damn glasses and staring right at me. I was super uncomfortable and can't seem to forget about it. Something about nature and privacy and human interaction. I'm not saying he was an asshole, but I certainly remember him as one.

Paul:

Not a story: guy puts his $600 prescription lenses on Google Glass, instead of spending the money on two sets of prescription lenses. Clearly, he is some kind of asshole.

Maybe actually a story: DHS has agents stationed at shopping malls, enforcing federal copyright laws in movie theaters?

Paul, the guy didn't get "thrown out of [the] movie theater" -- he was arrested (illegally), searched (illegally), hauled to the mall's security office and questioned for an hour. By agents of DHS, who apparently work there full time. You don't see a problem with that? Come on.

@25: "he was arrested (illegally), searched (illegally)"

I would imagine the blinking, lit-up, and in-use eyeglasses might give them cause.

@25: It doesn't sound like they illegally detained him. They had reasonable suspicion that he was recording the movie, which is enough for questioning. And as far as the length of the detention, it is not clear whether he asked for the questioning to stop (asking "am I free to go?"). I'm guessing he was trying to prevent his Google Glass from being seized as evidence (which they could do under the plain view doctrine). This might be why he allowed the agents to search it.

Really, the wearing of Google Glass during a movie is not much different from bringing in a camcorder, pointing it at the screen for a length of time, and then saying that you never used it to record. It would be seized and you could be arrested.

Condolences to all those living life as douchebags.

@27,

They definitely had reasonable suspicion to detain, but the actions taken collectively amount to arrest:

1. The show of authority (flashing a badge) and order "you need to come with me immediately" - mostly okay so far

2. Removal from the immediate area. Just exiting the theater makes proper sense; hauling him to the security office is way, way over the line

3. Search of his person & belongings - they emptied his pockets of his phone and other effects. No doubt they thought they were conducting a search incident to arrest (for unlawful recording), but in the context of an investigative stop, this type of search is way out of bounds and tends to push the overall encounter further into a de-facto arrest

4. Prolonged detention - investigative stops must be brief in nature and must only last long enough to confirm or dispell the original basis for suspicion. Instead they grilled the guy for hours. This again is way over the line for investigative stops, clearly an arrest, and arguably false imprisonment as well.

You can't expect any different treatment for bringing your Google glasses somewhere than you'd get if you brought your Segway.

But I'm sure the NSA is meeting with the FBI as we speak to make sure they know the government wants a nation of rubes wearing eavesdropping hardware right on their faces. Never got that from Segway.

@30, the guy's prescription lenses cost $600 a set. You expect him or anyone else to spring for multiple sets of lenses when he should be able to get by with just one?

@26, Wrong. The glasses were powered off. Not lit, not blinking, and not recording.

@27,

Also, that whole "last chance to come clean before we review the contents of your Google Glass" bit is clearly a warrantless search. And "last chance to come clean" is not something one says before performing a consensual search.

@31 - if he can only afford a single pair of lenses then he shouldn't own GG. There are far more situations where GG is inappropriate than appropriate.

You wear GG, you deserve the GGulag. End of story.

@29:

#2: Why is it over the line? Is it more over the line than bringing people in for questioning to a police department building?

#3: You may have a point here, but the cops could simply reply that they had probable cause to conduct an arrest, but changed their minds at the last minute. Or they could say that they emptied his pockets for their own safety. I don't see him getting much mileage here. And as far as justifying probable cause, all they have to say is that they thought he was recording.

#4: Again, the point is that they can question you forever if they want. It is your responsibility to ask if you can go. It doesn't matter if this is ethical or not (it isn't), it is the law. And if the man didn't ask if he was free to go or if he could talk to a lawyer, and didn't try to leave himself, there is nothing actionable.

@32: No, that would be a lie, which cops are allowed to do in questioning. This is among the other thousand reasons why you need to assert your 5th amendment rights and demand a lawyer. What the cops would have actually had to do is seize it (which they had the authority to do), get a warrant, and then search it.

@31,

Given that many businesses have completely legitimate reasons to ban Google Glass on the premises, the guy is an idiot if he doesn't own another pair of prescription lenses.

It frequently surprises me how many people defend illegal actions by law enforcement because they don't like the victim or the perfectly legal activity tthey're engaged in. that's a Republican attitude; we're supposed to understand that civil rights aren't based on personal opinions.

I'm with #14 on this one. He was in a theater with a recording device on his head. C'mon. It's good to know that law enforcement can spare 5-10 agents for such a master criminal, however.

So.. the Department of Homeland Security (a fucking misnomer) treats a suspected and obviously innocent movie pirate as if he'd been caught robbing a bank with a kilo of cocaine. I mean, really.. what the fuck? And the takeaway you guys have is to make fun of Google Glass? Really?

The most important point of this story has nothing to do with Google Glass. Let me repeat, we have the DHS busting potential movie pirates, funded by taxes the corporate powers that put them in that situation don't even pay. Think about this.

Have your iPhone mugged and can show the police exactly where it is with a GPS? Nope - they have other priorities than to follow up with that.

Small charity devastated by a fraudulent $8000 bank transfer? Sorry, the amount is too small to investigate.

Large corporation worried about a potential revenue loss? Send in the militarized police!

Was his detention legal? Sure. Can he sue for anything? Most likely not. And you fucks are arguing because proper legal procedures were followed, there's no outrage here. The most effective of authoritarian regimes are very careful to do everything to the letter of the law, in case you didn't notice.

How did we become a country from where corporations had to justify their charter to where they now have God given inalienable rights to grow as large as they can?

How did we come to militarize our police and put "homeland security" federal agents in charge of defending goddamn copyright law for fuck sake?

Because of people like you who see this type of incident as a way to snicker at tech fashion.

This is how the balance of power got so hopeless lopsided. We the people will never see that power balance restored because it was shit away and sold to plutocratic politicians.

Fuck Hollywood. Fuck you hipster assholes who claim to be apolitical and sit back and let the power slide like this. And fuck all of you who actually think this situation is in any way serves our interest as citizens and people.

@27, @29, etc.:

If the officers insisted that he was not under arrest, then he was free to go. Period. They had long exceeded the bounds of a "brief" detention.

Furthermore, if he was not under arrest, then they had no legal justification to retain his personal, non-contraband property.

He had every right to demand his Google Glasses back and to walk out the door. If he asked "Am I free to go?" and was met with anything short of an unequivocal "yes", then he needed to shut up and call a lawyer.

How many of the people here offering their opinions of the legality of the police interrogation are actual criminal lawyers?

I didn't think so.

He's lucky he wasn't watching a Disney movie. They'd have found him in an abandoned quarry with a knife in his eye.

@42: You don't (and shouldn't) have to be a lawyer to understand your rights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7n…

Any legitimate discussion of how clueless or douchey this guy must have been to wear Google Glass as his primary prescription eyewear goes right out the window when his rights are violated. Protections against unreasonable search/seizure and against unlawful detention exist to protect even the most dipshitted among us.

He wasn't under arrest. His detention exceeded the bounds of a "reasonable suspicion" Terry stop. There was no probable cause and his Google device was not "evidence". Had he asked insistently, "Am I free to go?", and requested to speak with a lawyer, that would have been the end of that.

@43,

I agree w/you that there weren't grounds for his arrest, but he was most definitely under a de-facto arrest. The sum of the agents' actions (detaining him, transporting him to the security office, searching his person, questioning him for three hours, performing a warrantless, non-consensual search of his device) go way, way past any reasonable argument that it was a mere Terry stop.

"But," delirian protests, "he was not under any duty to answer their questions! And law enforcement is allowed to lie to you!" Both true statements, as far as they go, but also totally irrelevant to the question of whether he was arrested, which I restate here: "Would a reasonable person have believed themselves free to go?" His failure to explicitly ask whether he was free to go does not nullify his right to be free from arrest; if anything, it serves as further evidence that there was no question in his mind that he was being detained.

@40, true. My grandma was scammed out of about $10k of savings (pretty much all the cash she had) when she was going downhill but not yet under assisted living... Think the cops had time to follow up on any leads? He'll no. Fuck tha police!

OMG! Is nobody else freaking out about how the fuck federal agents knew immediately about some guy walking into a theater in Columbus-fucking-Ohio who happened to walk into a theater wearing Google Glass? Are we at THAT level of surveillance now??

@44: I wasn't arguing for the ethics of the situation, just the facts. And as I've pointed out many times here on Slog, you need to educate yourself about your rights and what to do when detained. The ACLU has a great card on what to do if you are stopped, a police detective explains why you don't ever talk to police without a lawyer, and a criminal defense lawyer explains why you need a lawyer when you talk to the FBI*. A reasonable person will believe that they can simply explain an issue to the cops. This doesn't work and the legal issues are far more complex. I've linked to these videos multiple times, so calling me out saying that I'm justifying this detention or that I'm uneducated is bullshit.

* I should also link to an article pointing out that you now have to assert your right to be silent before it is recognized, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

@40: "Let me repeat, we have the DHS busting potential movie pirates, funded by taxes the corporate powers that put them in that situation don't even pay. Think about this."

From what I remember, customs agents were doing similar busts on counterfeit videogames and pirated movies dozens of years ago.

The difference here, I suppose, is that this is on potential "pirates" versus goods coming into the country.

As has been mentioned before, the original story is enlightening.

http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-…

@46 Theater management called them in. In many places, they are obliged to do so by the agreement they have with the movie companies.

No one covered themselves with glory that day. Dude was a douchenozzle, management should have asked him to take them off (he had a pair of regular glasses in his car), and the DHS guys should have just checked the thing right away instead of wasting everyone's time for three hours.

Still believe this story is a total work of fiction. Nothing short of a press conference from someone in DHS would convince me otherwise.

This entire thing is a hoax.

First off it's anonymous, second why would ICE agents be interested in copyright infringement?

This has MEDIA WHORE written all over it.

DHS does, in fact, cover copyright infringement--it's a federal law.