Husband and Wife interrogated by the MPAA because of Google Glass

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2429756,00.asp?mailingID=2005C9DF9A43456823A29E347D0664E1

 

Wow. Yet more reasons to avoid theaters altogether. Next they will want to do a compulsory anal probe to "detect" illicit recording devices while they smash your glasses.

 

I had no idea that the MPAA patrolled theaters -- it's totally absurd, and I'm sure that one of these days someone is going to have the balls to sue over crap like this. They were prescription glasses -- yes, it COULD have been used to record a movie. But that alone should not make someone a suspect.

 

What is even more unnerving about this is that there were a total of ten FBI and DHS agents working on this. The MPAA decided arbitrarily that this was a matter of great importance to the Department of Homeland Security...

So clearly the MPAA is in charge of our National Security. And they have made lapdogs of the FBI and DHS. Rather than investigating things that could actually endanger Human lives, they are wasting time investigating possible theft of video on a crappy camera built into someone's glasses. And they made threats against them before even checking the content of the device despite him giving them permission to do that. Hell, he asked them to, and they refused.

I want to move to another nation.

 

Well hopefully these are merely the last desperate acts of an obsolete industry that knows its days are numbered.

 

It's the MPAA, not the industry that is the problem. Roger Ebert has long targetted them with well-deserved criticisms for other things, such as their ratings system. One thing that people don't seem to understand though is that the rating system is merely a recommendation that theaters may choose to ignore. So there was some big controversy very recently when NYCs IFC theater chain decided to ignore the MPAA NC-17 rating of "Blue is the Warmest Color" and stated that they would allow people under 18 to view it with parental supervision (it's controversial because it contains sexual content). One Other theater chain went in the opposite direction, and would not show it at all because of the rating.

Note that not all film studios are members of the MPAA (though the biggest ones generally are members) It's a voluntary trade organization.

 

Still shaking my head and wondering why the *bleep* the department of homeland security got involved in a case of suspected movie pirating.

 

My guess is that they don't really have as many actually important things to do as they claim to. Also either the agents in question, or more likely their superiors, may probably have been on the take (whether in the forms of actual bribes, or some sort technically-legal-but-shouldn't-be "contributions").

 

The whole thing is a problem, honestly. On one hand, there are people who will go to insane lengths to film all that stuff illegally, and on the other hand there are also people like this person who think they are doing a sensible thing and lose time because of it.

Then again, the problem lies in the fact that “capability” can go both ways—if something is capable of filming everything, it can either film it or not film just that and there is no way to tell without actually checking.

Maybe I am far too conservative for my own good (especially since I am a programmer by education and all that ...), but I think that humanity as a whole got too addicted to technology and stopped considering the fact that while all the technological gadgets can be cool “toys”, they are not just that but rather something more potent which fulfils the role of toys for them.
I mean ... for me, technology is something I view as a tool foremost. Oh, sure, I can't say I never use it to have fun, but I am at the very least aware that what appears to be a toy, in this case is not one.

 

It's unreasonable to be pulled out of a movie for questioning for carrying a piece of technology thatis actually necessary to view the movie (in this case, they were prescription glasses) EVEN IF, at least in theory, that device is capable of being used to record the film. This is for the same exact reason that you cannot stop someone from bringing a a seeing-eye dog, crutches, or a wheelchair. You are still welcome to kick said individual out of the theater if they are using a recording device to record the film -- the problem is, how do you prove that without violating an individual's civil rights? If there's no overt evidence, then you can't.

What the theater industry has to do is come to an agreement with Google to make it obvious when said device is being used to record. That's probably the only practical way of both protecting the rights of individuals AND of the copyright holder. This is something that Google and/or the MPAA should have had the foresight to agree on. But you CAN'T violate an individual's civil rights over their mistake (because it's not the theater-goers responsibility, it's the Theater Owner's and MPAA and to a much lesser extent, Google's responsibility).

Note that in a place of business, if there are restrictions on the consumer, such as 'no refunds' or a dress code, it is the responsibility of the business owner to post those restrictions in a visible location. They don't need to tell people not to break the law, but remember -- they DO tell people quite clearly not to use cell phones, not to talk during the movie, and so on. If they want people to not wear Google Glasses, they'd better say so, and even then they'd better first make sure that such a restriction is actually LEGAL. (I'm not sure that it is in the US, but that might be a good question for a judge). If Google didn't make prescription lenses, the question would be a lot less murky. But so it goes.

Any organization that cannot adapt to new technology is obsolete. The MPAA better adapt or go the way of the Dodo.

 

Not to defend the MPAA (they suck), but if you go read the Columbia Dispatch article that first reported this story, you'll find that the PC Magazine article listed above has a couple of major errors or omissions.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/01/21/google-glass-at-easton-theater.html

1) That specific theatre has had ongoing problems with piracy, and that's why they had agents there. So it's not random MPAA screenings, but a targeted stakeout that this guy bumbled into.

2) The agents who interrogated him work for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigation directorate. The ICE HSI is a task force that is specifically "responsible for investigating a wide range of domestic and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people and goods into, within and out of the United States." Also, "ICE Homeland Security Investigations is responsible, in part, for combating piracy and counterfeit goods." If I'm understanding correctly, after 9/11, the investigative arms of the U.S. Customs Bureau and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service were merged into a single body (the ICE HSI) so that all crimes that involved border crossings (from piracy to illegal immigration to human trafficking to terrorist agents infiltrating the country) would be investigated by the same department. http://www.ice.gov/about/offices/homeland-security-investigations/

Those facts really change the tone of the event. But the MPAA still sucks.

EDIT: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I really hate that this kind of abuse can happen to innocent people. So I agree with most of the sentiments expressed in previous posts in this thread, I'm not trying to argue or disagree with anyone. I just wanted to point out that PC Magazine's coverage of the incident was somewhat misleading.

 

It's absurd to think that this makes any difference whatsoever. This guy was NOT suspected of being a terrorist. Just because the same agency is tasked with both jobs does not mean that it is legal or ethical to treat a suspected video pirate in the same manner as you would a suspected terrorist. Someone's carrying a gun, after a threat, you question him. Someone's carrying a cell phone (which, btw, you can ALSO use to illegally film a movie), you leave him alone unless you see him acting as if he's filming the movie.

 

Then again, there is the point that at no point in time had the guy had to wear Google Glass. No, he chose to have those be his prescription glasses and did not have a spare prepared. Yes, it was bad that he was treated this way; yes, the whole thing is controversial; but in the end, the whole thing could have been avoided had he thought “hey, I have a recording device which can be used to record this stuff without giving any signs of it happening, I'll inform them that I'm wearing it for a reason so that they would not suspect me of anything”. Because really, that's what I would have done; or rather, that's what I would have done had I been short-sighted enough to take a potent recording tool into a place where piracy is a widely-known problem.

And there is also the fact that, as you say, it is the responsibility of the owner blah blah stuff but “and even then they'd better first make sure that such a restriction is actually LEGAL. (I'm not sure that it is in the US, but that might be a good question for a judge)”. Which means that maybe it was not possible for them to do this and instead they had to resort to something this drastic. No, I am not endorsing it, but once again, people have to learn to stop underestimating technology “because it's technology, it's just toys then” or things like that will be even more common.

Heck, in the first place Google should have been aware that such absurdities will happen if there is no clear and easy way to check if Google Glass is recording or something. And it would not be hard to simply make it easy to check if the device has recording completely disabled for the time being or something. They failed to make it idiot-proof, the man in the article failed to see the problems beneath the device and communicate it, and the people who interrogated him and his wife ... well, they failed to do many other things.

But the point is, in this case I say fault lies on all sides, and that's pretty much the gist of it.


Oh, and this:

The difference being, a cell phone has to be taken out and kept in the air directed at the stage at all time; thus, it's easy to notice. Google Glass, on the other hand, just is there and has no tell-tale signs that it is actually recording anything. That's an important part of it, and once again it happened because people treat technology as mere gadgets and tools and aren't stopping to think of the possibilities, thus they underestimate technology.

 

But let us take this discussion to the likely future. Let us say this was not a pair of glasses, but rather a replacement digital eye for a person injured or otherwise left without sight. Would it be right to treat a person with artificial eyes as being a thief just because they could also be equipped to record what they see?

I say no. Treating those who are lucky enough to get around limitations of physical handicaps as criminals is unjustifiable in all cases.

 

I will just say it is not acceptable, Omni; using phrases like “in all cases”, while allegedly justified in this case, is something I'd rather not do.

And, once again, I do say that the fault lies on both sides (well, three actually, including people who made those glasses the way they are). The man did not need Google Glass in order to function; he just needed a pair of prescription glasses, chose Google Glass to fulfil this function, underestimated this technology and human paranoia, and did not make sure nothing stupid would happen. Being capable of recording stealthily is one of the major features of Google Glass, so really, it all boils down to underestimating technology and not noticing what it can do and how people treat it.
Yes, they made mistakes, a lot of them. The man also made a mistake, even if it was not of the same scope as teirs. I can see that in this case he indeed is the victim, but I am the sort of person who would not make the same mistakes the man made. Therefore, while I acknowledge that what they did was wrong, I am not capable of feeling the way you guys appear to be feeling, that the man did no wrong.
Maybe there's something wrong with me (well, there likely is), but that's how I feel about it. And honestly, had I made the same mistakes in this case that the man had made, I would smack myself a few times for that; oh, sure, I would still sue them for assault (assuming the version in the article is at least halfway correct) and all that and I would not let anything be forgotten just for that particular bit, but I would not feel completely free of guilt in this case had I been in this man's place.


Also, I don't want to be mean but your comparison here is close to useless. If we ever get to the point when we'll be able to implant artificial eyes functioning like the real ones, capable of sending signals to the brain, and capable of also recording things without making it obvious in any way that it is being done, I'm fairly certain that the detection and prevention technology will also jump in level to the point where whatever is happening now would not have a chance of happening; sure, other things might be happening, maybe even of the same scope, but not that which had happened this time.

 

Btw, I 'googled' Google Glass, because I was curious about how much they cost, etc. I found Google's ad for it, and it seems like it's availlable primarily for people who are product-testing it. In other words, I don't think you can buy them yet (I could be wrong -- I don't know that the website isn't out of date). http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/?source=learnmore

In other words, this may be a lesson learned and there may be changes to it before it's actually sold as a product.

 

Presuming Humans eventually do rise to the level of being able to make artificial eyes, would it be fair to require a search of the device and any possible data storage of the device prior to entering or upon leaving the theater? Again I say no. If I had a prosthetic eye, I may well record data through it that is as personal as what I may see in my own bedroom, or in the right situation, I may have images in storage of a particular rash that I would intend to show my Doctor.

These are just examples of a situation that is not upon us yet. But if things continue like this, people may become their own mobile evidence to be used against them, and not only by overenthusiastic law enforcement, but also by unscrupulous people everywhere.

The courts of the world can require us to *Tell* them what we see in just about any situation, but when they can physically take the images from you, that is every bit as much a violation as rape. We should be very careful to not set a precedent that this sort of thing is acceptable. Theaters be damned.

 

Never mind about the distant future... what if Google Glass was a person's ONLY type of glasses. I can understand now why a person would have both Google Glass and regular glasses. But let's say in a couple of years, you go into your optician's shop and you see among your choices of glasses, Google Glass, or a similar non-Google product. Would a person be unable to view a movie in a theater because he opted for the high-tech option and did not choose to buy a second non-high-tech set of glasses? That's a lot less far out there than what Omni is suggesting.

Granted, the current limitation is that it is difficult to separate the High-tech part from the low-tech prescription piece, and this may not always be the case (we'll obviously see.

 

Myself, I would just go to someone working in the theatre and say “I have this thing, it can be used for recording but it's turned off, and I'm using it because it's the only glasses I have and I need them to see at all. I don't mind it if you check if I hadn't recorded anything after the whole thing, but please mark my seat number somewhere so that I'm not pulled out in the middle for illegal recording or something.”
Considering that they only had the guy taken out because they had problems with piracy, I'm fairly certain they would be willing to be considerate of someone who cooperates from the very beginning.

Then again, that's just me and I'm weird. And there's also the fact that I experienced the whole thing from the other side too, and I know people who do their jobs generally are showing more leniency to those who bother to clarify something ambiguous that might be an issue.

And honestly, I think that if we got to the point when we would be able to buy Google Glass as one of our choices when going to an optician's store, there should be a way to easily check if those models are recording or not. At the very least, this is what this incident should have taught people.

 

BTW, he probably wasn't the first to predict this kind of thing, but I remember years ago some talk given by Science Fiction writer David Brin. Brin has a lot of opinions that I think are kinda nuts, but one thing he talked about (and later described in a novel, the title of which currently escapes me) were wearable video devices. The talk was not related in any way to the issues with video piracy but with privacy issues. A lot of what he said was political so I won't mention that. But He talked about these kinds of devices used as a crime deterrant. This must have been at least 10 years ago (I wish I could remember exactly when) But this predated the ubiquitous combination of camera phones and social media to shave videos. It's a good example of how science fiction writers sometimes think about this kind of thing before it actually becomes an issue, but they often will miss the fine details (such as video piracy). It reminds me of an older example -- SF writers predicted the television and they predicted the moon landing, but no one every put the two together to predict the moon landing being broadcast around the world.