Hacker News Reader

Comment by streetnigga | Hacker News Reader

Yea... Does it have a camera on it? Don't wear it into a theater or other area where filming is prohibited.

Well, it's a rim. If you wear eye glasses, you have your regular "I need these to see things" lenses mounted into your fancy-ass $1500 rim. You'd need them to see the damn movie, even if you weren't recording.

So if you're going to go through the trouble and expense of getting prescription lenses mounted onto this thing, then maybe it's also worth your while to get a second pair?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

We've seen people get into trouble with stuff like this before [0]. This is a new, socially unproven device meant for developers. As an early adopter, you should expect to run into occasional resistance until the general public and law enforcement become more familiar with devices like this.

Expecting everybody to automatically be on the same page as you regarding what is and isn't reasonable with this device is pretty naive. You are the public image of this technology. Behave appropriately.

[0] http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdon...

Yes! Anybody who has been victimized by the security apparatus automatically should have known better and spent any sum of money to avoid targeting.

Nobody could possibly expect businesses or sworn officers of the law to treat innocent citizens like human beings, to know anything about technology that is directly relevant to their jobs, or to think for five seconds.

> Nobody could possibly expect businesses or sworn officers of the law to treat innocent citizens like human beings, to know anything about technology that is directly relevant to their jobs, or to think for five seconds.

You're obviously being sarcastic, but I really don't think it's prudent to expect this.

I'm not trying to brush off the behavior of the FBI in this case, but I am trying to be realistic. Yes, in a perfect world your rights would never be violated, but law enforcement groups in this country have a long history of behaving poorly in situations like this... why on earth would you expect them to behave any differently when it happens to you?

I was just trying to point out that your actions don't exist in a vacuum, and people don't take the time to figure out what's actually going on before they react. When you behave in a certain way, people make judgements and decisions based on the context they have for that behavior. If you're not fully aware of the social context surrounding a particular behavior, you're likely to get yourself into all sorts of trouble.

If you're trying to provoke authority figures and make a statement about rights or privacy or whatever, then fine, you probably understand what you're doing and should do the opposite of what I suggested.

But it sounded to me like the author had no idea what he did wrong. The thing he did wrong was to fail to understand that walking into a theater with a camera bolted onto your glasses is a colossally stupid thing to do, given the context of piracy, the MPAA, and the FBI.

And the thing you're doing wrong is promoting the view that unless you're paying a great deal of attention to the obscure behaviors of the rich and powerful and automatically genuflecting to their obscure interests, then you're colossally stupid.

It's absurd. Citizens should have the right to go about their business, living reasonable lives generally unmolested. This guy wasn't doing anything sneaky; he talked with the theater company staff about Glass not just on this occasion, but previous ones. It is not his job to know what theater company executives might think, or what relationship they have with mysterious unnamed federal law enforcement groups. It is their job, quite literally, to be clear about any expectations they have for their patrons.

The guy wasn't stupid. He was being perfectly reasonable. Your victim-blaming here is horseshit, a way for you to feel smart and superior. And, as a side effect, to justify the excesses of the powerful by shifting blame away from them. Knock it off.

> You know, to avoid situations like this?

So if an innocent guy gets strip-searched, your advice would be to tell him not to wear clothes?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

That's not at all what was said, don't blow it out of proportion.

Think of it this way. I carry a pocket knife at all times. When I know I'm going to get on a plane and go through security, I leave it at home. Obviously this is not exactly the same because no one is getting shanked by google glass, but the point remains. If you know you're going to a movie where they really don't like you filming, don't point a camera at the screen. Even if it's off.

I fear for you if this is what you inferred.

You know how to avoid situations like this? Have the theatre tell their customers that google glasses aren't allowed.

I don't think "socially unproven" should excuse the behaviour written up in this story.

As the writer noted, they could have demonstrated very quickly that they weren't filming anything if the police weren't willing to take their word for it.

Then it's a poorly designed product for real-world use.

I never said anything about the glasses themselves.

You don't have a right to wear a camera into a private establishment just because you mounted them on your prescription glasses. How 'fancy' the rims are is immaterial to the camera you mount on them.

No, that's not quite the right conclusion. Did you ever go to a music show around 1999–2000? I remember security would confiscate all cameras and cell phones. But not a lot of people had them back then. Nowadays if they tried to do that there would be a riot.

So the real takeaway is, be careful when you have tech that the whole world hasn't embraced yet. If 99% of people are wearing google-glass style things in 15 years, I guarantee there won't be incidents like this.

There is safety in numbers.

Does your phone have a camera on it? What if you decide to take out your phone and check an email, would you want what happened to the guy happen to you? "Don't take out your phone out of your pocket in a theater or other area where filming is prohibited."

Checking your email on your phone is OK (even though it is a dick move since you annoy others in the theater), but holding your phone up to the screen to record all 180 minutes of The Wolf of Wall Street is in fact not ok.

IE: Wearing a device on your face that is pointed to the movie screen that can possibly record the entire flick is not the same as your phone being out of your pocket for 20 seconds to read your latest text message.

It seems pretty evident that some people are going to be wearing computers on their faces, and all of these computers come with cameras. Bootlegs are always available (in terrible quality), anyway.

Most illegal things are always available / possible (drugs, weapons, theft..), the fact that they happen isn't a reason not to prevent them happening when possible. You can argue things shouldn't be illegal, but not that illegal things shouldn't be pursued based on the fact that they happen anyway.

You should turn the brightness down all the way before the film starts. It's less annoying for the people around you.

Please don't light a bright back-lit screen in a theater for something like email. The focus break ruins the experience people pay the ticket price for. Emergencies only.

I agree and I don't. It was just a counter-example.

Filming is prohibited. Not cameras.

Now, if they want to make camera's prohibited, they could try that. Leave your smart phones at the door.

Going after the people pointing a camera at the screen is, generally, a pretty accurate way of stopping filming.

Evidently not.

I have been to preview screenings were phones were bagged and kept outside to be picked up later. If the cinemas could do it without infuriating patrons further, I'm sure those up the chain would be keen to encourage it.

I think that would be frowned upon for the same reasons cell/gps jammers are. Creates a potential for lack of prompt emergency response during unexpected situations that often occur when people gather.

I recall the patent[1] by Apple that was aimed at turning off recording functionality at events, with a concert being used as an example. Cell service left intact while your device's sensors refuse to cooperate with recording a video.

Of course that creates a whole other set of potential problems now doesn't it? :)

[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=H...

I'm pretty sure cops would LOVE this feature.

Filming is against the law, it is often company policy to not allow people to mount cameras onto their shoulders as to reduce the number of people breaking the law by filming.

Acceptable: Having phone in pocket.

Unacceptable: Holding phone out with the camera facing the projector screen a vast majority of the time.

Dude, no: Rigging up a telecine machine with your phone in the projector booth to make a more direct copy during off-hours.

> it is often company policy

I search AMC's website for policies related to carrying a camera. There wasn't any. Considering that the Glass wearer had been there at least 2 times earlier that week without issue, your argument is invalid.

"This guy got away with it previously and I didn't see anything about shoulder mounted cameras on AMC's web site so your argument is invalid."

OK buddy, you got me. Go wear cameras into prohibited areas on private property, specially those where federal law comes into play.

> OK buddy, you got me. Go wear cameras into prohibited areas on private property, specially those where federal law comes into play.

I do things like this all the time and never have an issue. Granted, I've never done this with Google Glass as I haven't gotten one. But your scenario is carried out every day across the country without issue.

Oh, and please, share the federal law that prohibits carrying a camera into a theater? Oh wait, we covered that already. It doesn't exist. And, unlike some dystopian future you might imagine we live in, being able to commit a crime doesn't mean we've actually committed one.

"Oh, and please, share the federal law that prohibits carrying a camera into a theater?"

I did not say that it was, just that the property owner has much incentive to be proactive about not having cameras facing the projector screen. Why? There are federal laws against the act of filming copyrighted media in such a manner.

Get it? When federal laws come into play, on private property?

> I did not say...

Never said you did. So... what's your point?

As for the property owners incentive: we've already established that they allow people to point cameras at the screen, and that it's not a policy of the company.

So... it's not a federal law, and not a policy of the company.

So, again, what point are you trying to make?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com