Google Glass wearer interrogated by police inside AMC movie theater for movie piracy
117 replies, posted
Honestly, I would not be comfortable having a conversation in a company of someone wearing anything that can record me...
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630513]How about pen lighters on airplanes? How about Swiss army knives? They have functions you may need for your day-to-day life, but also incorporate elements that may be unwelcome, and you don't get to say 'but I need [x]' to justify also having [y].
If a business doesn't allow recording hardware on their premises, it doesn't really matter what else you've stuck to the recording hardware.[/QUOTE]
You're grasping at straws in order to compare Google glasses to a concealed weapon. Never mind that "recording hardware" includes most mobile phones and iPads. I guess we aren't allowed to have phones at all in the theater
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630513]How about pen lighters on airplanes? How about Swiss army knives? They have functions you may need for your day-to-day life, but also incorporate elements that may be unwelcome, and you don't get to say 'but I need [x]' to justify also having [y].
If a business doesn't allow recording hardware on their premises, it doesn't really matter what else you've stuck to the recording hardware.[/QUOTE]
I need prescription glasses to see. The only way I'd be able to use Google Glass is to get prescription lens for them and since lenses are fucking expensive and Google Glass is even more expensive chances are I'd only be able to afford one pair of glasses. If i'm forced to remove them I'm rendered basically fucking blind, my vision gets blurry around 10 inches from my face.
Glasses are essential to my life and without them I can't function properly. I'm pretty sure I can live my life without a fucking cane shotgun or a pen lighter or a Swiss Army knife.
You can make an argument for contacts or laser eye surgery but the fact of the matter is that those solutions aren't for everyone, nor should they be required even if they were.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630513]If a business doesn't allow recording hardware on their premises, it doesn't really matter what else you've stuck to the recording hardware.[/QUOTE]
Then politely ask them to leave. Don't call in [I]fucking homeland security[/I].
honestly the only real difference between google glass and a smartphone is that you don't wear a smartphone o. your glasses.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43624691]These were his prescription lenses, he replaced his regular glasses with them
The Engadget article is terrible for failing to mention this, and also for failing to mention that it wasn't the police that showed up, it was [i]homeland security[/i][/QUOTE]
Even The Verge got the info down.
I imagine eventually, just like some places have things that block wifi etc, cinemas and stuff might have devices that block certain functions of glass and anything similar
[QUOTE=Kyle902;43630604]You're grasping at straws in order to compare Google glasses to a concealed weapon. Never mind that "recording hardware" includes most mobile phones and iPads. I guess we aren't allowed to have phones at all in the theater[/QUOTE]
Theaters don't allow you to have phones out. The rational response would be to ask you to put the Google glasses away, just like they do with phones, not kick you out of the theater immediately.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;43630610]I need prescription glasses to see. The only way I'd be able to use Google Glass is to get prescription lens for them and since lenses are fucking expensive and Google Glass is even more expensive chances are I'd only be able to afford one pair of glasses. If i'm forced to remove them I rendered basically fucking blind, my vision gets blurry around 10 inches from my face.[/QUOTE]
If you can only afford one pair of glasses, then don't choose the pair that will cause problems with any establishment that has concerns over recording. It's not really that complicated.
Some businesses and workplaces, especially government offices, don't allow smartphones because of security concerns with their recording capability. You're free to use a dumb phone, but the argument that you chose to buy a smartphone and so should be allowed to use it freely doesn't carry much weight.
You and you alone are choosing whether to use a normal pair of glasses or Google Glass. If you choose Glass, then it's your responsibility and you cannot reasonably expect special treatment on account of your decision.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;43630627]Then politely ask them to leave. Don't call in [I]fucking homeland security[/I].[/QUOTE]
Nobody has said that the theater's reaction was appropriate.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630734]Theaters don't allow you to have phones out. The rational response would be to ask you to put the Google glasses away, just like they do with phones, not kick you out of the theater immediately.
If you can only afford one pair of glasses, then don't choose the pair that will cause problems with any establishment that has concerns over recording. It's not really that complicated.
Some businesses and workplaces, especially government offices, don't allow smartphones because of security concerns with their recording capability. You're free to use a dumb phone, but the argument that you chose to buy a smartphone and so should be allowed to use it freely doesn't carry much weight.
You and you alone are choosing whether to use a normal pair of glasses or Google Glass. If you choose Glass, then it's your responsibility and you cannot reasonably expect special treatment on account of your decision.
Nobody has said that the theater's reaction was appropriate.[/QUOTE]
I'm free to purchase whatever glasses I see fit. I shouldn't have to worry about it.
Then refund my money. If I'm going to be treated like a criminal by default then they don't deserve my money.
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
Hey windwakr, if you've got an actual opinion on the matter I'd be happy to hear it.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;43630796]I'm free to purchase whatever glasses I see fit. I shouldn't have to worry about it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are free to purchase whatever glasses you see fit. Nothing is legally preventing the sale of Glass. Nothing is preventing you from wearing them in public, or in your own home. But you cannot reasonably expect every private business to be totally okay with you having recording equipment just because they're your prescription glasses. You made the choice to combine those two, so you are responsible for the fact that your glasses are also recording equipment.
Maybe this will change. Maybe in twenty years, people will be accustomed to everyone being able to record anything at any time, and the notion of privacy will have changed radically. But right now, people expect that in their home or business, they can be free from being recorded. If you expect businesses to just deal with it because you made the decision to buy glasses with a camera strapped to them, it is you who is being unreasonable.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;43630796]Then refund my money. If I'm going to be treated like a criminal by default then they don't deserve my money.[/QUOTE]
A decent business certainly would refund your money if you decide you would rather leave.
The ability to record is by far the most controversial part of Glass. If Google tied that recording ability to a visible, removable piece or feature, it would make it much more acceptable to privacy advocates since you could physically remove the ability to record and stash it in a pocket. The problem right now is that it's all or nothing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630974]
The ability to record is by far the most controversial part of Glass. [B]If Google tied that recording ability to a visible, removable piece or feature,[/B] it would make it much more acceptable to privacy advocates since you could physically remove the ability to record and stash it in a pocket. The problem right now is that it's all or nothing.[/QUOTE]
I thought they did. Iirc you have to say "Record" or some variation of that and when you're recording a bright (blue?) LED lights ups.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43630974]Yes, you are free to purchase whatever glasses you see fit. Nothing is legally preventing the sale of Glass. Nothing is preventing you from wearing them in public, or in your own home. But you cannot reasonably expect every private business to be totally okay with you having recording equipment just because they're your prescription glasses. You made the choice to combine those two, so you are responsible for the fact that your glasses are also recording equipment.
Maybe this will change. Maybe in twenty years, people will be accustomed to everyone being able to record anything at any time, and the notion of privacy will have changed radically. But right now, people expect that in their home or business, they can be free from being recorded. If you expect businesses to just deal with it because you made the decision to buy glasses with a camera strapped to them, it is you who is being unreasonable.
A decent business certainly would refund your money if you decide you would rather leave.
The ability to record is by far the most controversial part of Glass. If Google tied that recording ability to a visible, removable piece or feature, it would make it much more acceptable to privacy advocates since you could physically remove the ability to record and stash it in a pocket. The problem right now is that it's all or nothing.[/QUOTE]
It's absolutely unacceptable that I can't wear Google Glass in a theater, companies need to realize that they just can't stop someone from recording a movie, with or without glass, and hindering a conveinience isn't going to do anything. If Glass never existed, there would still be many filmed movies on the internet, and while Glass may end up causing more movie copies on the web, it doens't really make a difference, since their movie isn't that much different than the movie from someone who recorded it without glass, and the same amount of movie is going to be "stolen". I can see you having to remove your Google Glass if it's something "TOP SECRET", but if the public is allowed somewhere, that place is going to be recorded with or without Glass.
I don't see why anyone would be so concerned about someone recording a movie. To make it worth watching you'd have to set up a tripod in the middle of the theater (and even that wouldn't eliminate audience noise), so short of that, the terrible quality makes bootlegging completely negligible, at least in my opinion.
It most certainly shouldn't warrant a visit from homeland security. What a waste of tax dollars.
It may be outlandish or even miss the point (Or even Big-Brother Like), but would it solve the issue by some sort wireless lockout that disables the camera while the movie is playing?
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;43631196]I thought they did. Iirc you have to say "Record" or some variation of that and when you're recording a bright (blue?) LED lights ups.[/QUOTE]
If they cover up the LED (trivially easy with a Sharpie) then there's no outward indication that it's recording. If someone walks up to you wearing Glass, how do you then know if they're already recording or not?
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43631223]It's absolutely unacceptable that I can't wear Google Glass in a theater, companies need to realize that they just can't stop someone from recording a movie, with or without glass, and hindering a conveinience isn't going to do anything. If Glass never existed, there would still be many filmed movies on the internet, and while Glass may end up causing more movie copies on the web, it doens't really make a difference, since their movie isn't that much different than the movie from someone who recorded it without glass, and the same amount of movie is going to be "stolen". I can see you having to remove your Google Glass if it's something "TOP SECRET", but if the public is allowed somewhere, that place is going to be recorded with or without Glass.[/QUOTE]
This goes way beyond just movie theaters. The ability to record anyone, anywhere, at any time, is something a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Businesses and individuals on private property have a [i]right[/i] to privacy that isn't overridden by your desire to use the latest shiny toy as a [i]convenience[/i].
How about when the government starts using it? Are you comfortable with police officers and federal agents recording everything you do and say, even in ostensibly private settings- and is it excused if they just so happen to be wearing it as part of their essential equipment?
I'm not saying Glass is inherently bad. Hell, I've been wanting a heads-up display in my everyday life for as long as I can remember. What I'm saying is that you and a lot of people here are trivializing a device that represents the most direct, fundamental end to privacy in any kind of face-to-face interaction, and it's absurd to think that it will be initially treated by the public any differently than a camcorder. Movie theaters treating it the same way they treat other recording devices is just the first example.
[QUOTE=NinjaTomate;43627976][i]"What followed was over an hour of the “feds” telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a “voluntary interview”, but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me."[/i][/QUOTE]
I would've said no just because I could.
so some amc usher thought he was recording and called the cops, who came and interviewed a man for wearing google glasses. the man cooperated fully, and he was released free to go?
police state fuck the police
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;43630610]I need prescription glasses to see. The only way I'd be able to use Google Glass is to get prescription lens for them and since lenses are fucking expensive and Google Glass is even more expensive chances are I'd only be able to afford one pair of glasses. If i'm forced to remove them I'm rendered basically fucking blind, my vision gets blurry around 10 inches from my face.
Glasses are essential to my life and without them I can't function properly. I'm pretty sure I can live my life without a fucking cane shotgun or a pen lighter or a Swiss Army knife.
You can make an argument for contacts or laser eye surgery but the fact of the matter is that those solutions aren't for everyone, nor should they be required even if they were.[/QUOTE]
I need prescription glasses to see, too. As a fellow prescription glasses wearer, you understand the importance of having a spare frame, in case your main pair is broken or misplaced. I would leave my recording glasses home on movie day and wear the spare, non-recording pair because it's common sense. Especially when an expensive device like Google Glass is being discussed, which makes me a prime target for a mugging.
[QUOTE=catbarf;43631487]If they cover up the LED (trivially easy with a Sharpie) then there's no outward indication that it's recording. If someone walks up to you wearing Glass, how do you then know if they're already recording or not?
This goes way beyond just movie theaters. The ability to record anyone, anywhere, at any time, is something a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Businesses and individuals on private property have a [I]right[/I] to privacy that isn't overridden by your desire to use the latest shiny toy as a [I]convenience[/I].
How about when the government starts using it? Are you comfortable with police officers and federal agents recording everything you do and say, even in ostensibly private settings- and is it excused if they just so happen to be wearing it as part of their essential equipment?
I'm not saying Glass is inherently bad. Hell, I've been wanting a heads-up display in my everyday life for as long as I can remember. What I'm saying is that you and a lot of people here are trivializing a device that represents the most direct, fundamental end to privacy in any kind of face-to-face interaction, and it's absurd to think that it will be initially treated by the public any differently than a camcorder. Movie theaters treating it the same way they treat other recording devices is just the first example.[/QUOTE]
Glass is just bringing up something that people consider a "problem" that people didn't see before. I could go to any public place and pull out my phone and record everyone (as creepy as it would be, it would be legal). Glass would just make that easier for people, but it's still legal, though in privately owned but places it isn't legal depending on what rules the company makes. Besides, anywhere you go you are still being recorded by the hundreds of security cameras all over, yet nobody bats an eye.
What is the big deal about being recorded? It's not like they have the superpower of perfect video editing you into a video you wouldn't want to be seen in. And if they are recording you for super creepy purposes, it doesn't make a difference, if they don't have the recording they have the memory from the recording devices that are our eyes.
Anywhere the public (and not just select people, mind you) is allowed then privacy goes out the window, you are in a public place then shouldn't be doing anything you're not supposed to, so you shouldn't have anything to hide. This sounds obnoxious, but it's not like I'm saying police can randomly search your car because you shouldn't have anything to hide, instead anything that you make visible in a public place should be allowed to be recorded.
Also, convienience is way more important than privacy if companies want to make money, if one theater makes it difficult for me by not letting me wear my Glass, but another doesn't care, then I will definitely go to the 2nd theater and the other one can go ahead and lose money. If no theater allows ie, then I wont go to those theaters and instead wait for the home release since our own homes are basically theaters with big TV's, comfy furniture, nice sound, etc. Some people would probably pirate the recorded version (which would exist with or without Glass) if they didn't want to wait, and all these make the theater lose some money (though the pirating = losing money is questionable), since they wouldn't let me wear my Glass, I'm always going to go for the most convienient option and if that doesn't include companies like the theater, sucks to be them, they can go ahead and lose money.
More and more people are going to be using Glass soon, so companies can either adapt or don't and lose out to the ones that do.
Windwakr, care to add anything other than spam dumbs on people that disagree with you? Not attacking you, but honestly it's counter productive to do that then not say anything, obviously you are thinking something, you aren't going to change peoples opinion if you don't share it!
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43627784]You could always stream it so it doesn't appear on local storage.[/QUOTE]
And as long as you don't shut the machine down, you'd be able to find traces of that in the primary memory
(And probably in the local storage, as well, as I'd assume the primary memory is too small to actually act as a direct buffer)
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43631801]-snip-[/QUOTE]
Why enforce the laws if people are just going to break them anyways?
And I think you're getting public and private confused. A public place would be a park or the street outside your house. A movie theater is a private establishment. They can tell you to leave if they disagree with you, and can get you arrested for trespassing if you ignore them.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;43627784]You could always stream it so it doesn't appear on local storage.[/QUOTE]
True. Nevermind, that the Google Glass can't record that long without overheating, without the wireless radio. But that's how this situation was resolved. It was a whole lot of hoopla for what amounted to fucking nothing. Especially calling Homeland Security? That's insane. They could have asked him to leave or called the police to escort him out if he caused a stink.
[QUOTE=Demache;43632304]True. Nevermind, that the Google Glass can't record that long without overheating, without the wireless radio. But that's how this situation was resolved. It was a whole lot of hoopla for what amounted to fucking nothing. Especially calling Homeland Security? That's insane. They could have asked him to leave or called the police to escort him out if he caused a stink.[/QUOTE]
except DHS is the agency that deals with movie piracy
AMC is well within their rights to request that you don't wear a camera to watch a movie, and if you were dumb enough to bolt it to your prescription glasses, that doesn't give you a free pass
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
also this specific theater had just recently had pirates
if this was any other theater it would have been more like "hey pls take those off"
but guy was unlucky and dumb to bolt them onto prescription glasses
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43632087]Why enforce the laws if people are just going to break them anyways?
And I think you're getting public and private confused. A public place would be a park or the street outside your house. A movie theater is a private establishment. They can tell you to leave if they disagree with you, and can get you arrested for trespassing if you ignore them.[/QUOTE]
Because why hinder someones happiness because someone else is breaking the law? The way I see it, 2 things can happen. 1. People will record without a Glass and people will watch so and so amount of bootleg videos and Glass wearers have to deal with it even though them wearing a Glass doesn't make a difference. Or 2. People will record without or with a Glass and both will produce the same quality videos and the same amount of people will watch the videos and people who wear Glass don't have to suffer. You should be able to see which scenario is better, (hint: the one with the same amount of negatives but also a positive for people you use their Glass honestly!).
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43632606]Because why hinder someones happiness because someone else is breaking the law? The way I see it, 2 things can happen. 1. People will record without a Glass and people will watch so and so amount of bootleg videos and Glass wearers have to deal with it even though them wearing a Glass doesn't make a difference. Or 2. People will record without or with a Glass and both will produce the same quality videos and the same amount of people will watch the videos and people who wear Glass don't have to suffer. You should be able to see which scenario is better, (hint: the one with the same amount of negatives but also a positive for people you use their Glass honestly!).[/QUOTE]
if i see someone's glass lighting up during a fucking movie
they're a glass hole
just because it's on your head doesn't mean you shouldn't use cell phone etiquette in a movie theater
aka not using it to do anything
plus does it really bother you all that much to just take it off for a bit
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43632529]except DHS is the agency that deals with movie piracy
AMC is well within their rights to request that you don't wear a camera to watch a movie, and if you were dumb enough to bolt it to your prescription glasses, that doesn't give you a free pass
[editline]22nd January 2014[/editline]
also this specific theater had just recently had pirates
if this was any other theater it would have been more like "hey pls take those off"
but guy was unlucky and dumb to bolt them onto prescription glasses[/QUOTE]
Yeah why the fuck would anyone do that?
"I just spent $1000 on Google Glasses, I better throw my other glasses out! I can't afford them!"
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43631801]Glass is just bringing up something that people consider a "problem" that people didn't see before. I could go to any public place and pull out my phone and record everyone (as creepy as it would be, it would be legal). Glass would just make that easier for people, but it's still legal, though in privately owned but places it isn't legal depending on what rules the company makes. Besides, anywhere you go you are still being recorded by the hundreds of security cameras all over, yet nobody bats an eye. [/QUOTE]
It's not that it's a new problem, it's that it's a more widespread one. Normally with a smartphone it's pretty hard to discreetly record someone standing right in front of you, but with a platform like Glass, not only is it easy for them to record, but you may not know if you're being recorded. More than that, as people start adopting systems like Glass for their other benefits, it's going to put recording capability in everyone's hands all the time, and as we've seen in this thread people will not take kindly to someone asking them to put it away. You can't honestly say that a society where everyone can record anything at any time without the knowledge or consent of the person they're recording will be exactly the same as one where many (I'd hesitate to even say most) people have video-capable smartphones in their pockets. Let's also not forget that this technology is going to get better, so while Glass may only have the memory for a very limited recording time, I'd be very surprised if in ten years there isn't a model that can record an entire day, and people will certainly do it for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons.
But really my main point is that it's odd that people who are normally pro-privacy and oppose the kind of snooping the government has been doing are so gung-ho about a device giving everyone surveillance power, so much so that they think it's unreasonable for a private business to [I]not[/I] want people using that sort of technology on their premises. The fact that it is extremely convenient for the user to have, and inconvenient to take off, doesn't automatically justify the intrusion on the privacy of others that it represents. The implications if that were the case would be a little absurd- 'sorry ma'am, it's very inconvenient for us to move our spy van elsewhere, so we're going to keep it in front of your house and monitor you through the windows'. The fact that you've put yourself in a position where taking off a recording device is inconvenient [I]for you[/I] does not mean that other people should be obligated to give up their fundamental right to privacy to accommodate you.
Security cameras are an entirely different issue because they do not record what you are doing with nearly the degree of clarity that a personal camera right in front of you does, especially since most security cameras don't record audio. The most a CCTV camera can record is your presence and a bit of what you look like, and if you do a bit of research you'll find that cameras with the fidelity and networking to paint more specific pictures of who people are, what they're doing, and where they're going have almost always been opposed by privacy advocates and then opposed in court. The US government has actually ruled that even in a public setting, it's unlawful for law enforcement to collect enough information about someone to get a clear picture of their day-to-day life without a specific warrant. It's not just a question of where you're being recorded, but how much information about you is being recorded.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43631801]What is the big deal about being recorded? It's not like they have the superpower of perfect video editing you into a video you wouldn't want to be seen in. And if they are recording you for super creepy purposes, it doesn't make a difference, if they don't have the recording they have the memory from the recording devices that are our eyes.
Anywhere the public (and not just select people, mind you) is allowed then privacy goes out the window, you are in a public place then shouldn't be doing anything you're not supposed to, so you shouldn't have anything to hide. This sounds obnoxious, but it's not like I'm saying police can randomly search your car because you shouldn't have anything to hide, instead anything that you make visible in a public place should be allowed to be recorded.[/QUOTE]
Like I said before, even in public the police can't constantly monitor you 24/7 without a warrant. It's all about what is considered a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're walking along outside, you cannot reasonably expect that absolutely nobody will be recording anything for any reason, so you can't complain if you end up on like three frames of some nature documentary in a park. But you do have a reasonable expectation that the government, or a private citizen, will not be following you and monitoring everything you do, [I]especially[/I] in a private setting like a business. People don't like paparazzi, stalkers, or Big Brother.
And again, this isn't just about in public. If people actually believe that it is unreasonable to expect them to take off Google Glass in a private business, then that is allowing for recording and surveillance even in a setting that is ostensibly private.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43631801]Also, convienience is way more important than privacy if companies want to make money, if one theater makes it difficult for me by not letting me wear my Glass, but another doesn't care, then I will definitely go to the 2nd theater and the other one can go ahead and lose money. If no theater allows ie, then I wont go to those theaters and instead wait for the home release since our own homes are basically theaters with big TV's, comfy furniture, nice sound, etc. Some people would probably pirate the recorded version (which would exist with or without Glass) if they didn't want to wait, and all these make the theater lose some money (though the pirating = losing money is questionable), since they wouldn't let me wear my Glass, I'm always going to go for the most convienient option and if that doesn't include companies like the theater, sucks to be them, they can go ahead and lose money.
More and more people are going to be using Glass soon, so companies can either adapt or don't and lose out to the ones that do.[/QUOTE]
I'm not denying that. But right now, if the company doesn't want people bringing in recording equipment, then Glass doesn't get a free pass by being mated to a pair of glasses. They have every right to ask the Glass user to take it off and put it away.
And more importantly, as Glass starts to become adopted and socially accepted, privacy is going to erode. There's no way around that. I just find it very strange how many people here are concerned about Big Brother but gung ho about giving all their fellow citizens the power to do the same exact thing.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43632664]if i see someone's glass lighting up during a fucking movie
they're a glass hole
just because it's on your head doesn't mean you shouldn't use cell phone etiquette in a movie theater
aka not using it to do anything
plus does it really bother you all that much to just take it off for a bit[/QUOTE]
If you can take it off and still watch the movie then that is the preferable option, but if they are connected to your prescription glasses and you can't (because you like glass features but don't want to carry around another pair of glasses that risk getting damaged, lost, stolen, etc), I never said you could or should use your Glass in a movie, but you shouldn't have to take it off if it means you can't see the movie, when the reason it's not allowed to be worn is "risk of recording movie" when the movie is going to be recorded with or without Glass wearers (not saying it's right, but it just doesn't make a difference and why should honest Glass wearers have to suffer for it).
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43632723]If you can take it off and still watch the movie then that is the preferable option, but if they are connected to your prescription glasses and you can't (because you like glass features but don't want to carry around another pair of glasses that risk getting damaged, lost, stolen, etc), I never said you could or should use your Glass in a movie, but you shouldn't have to take it off if it means you can't see the movie, when the reason it's not allowed to be worn is "risk of recording movie" when the movie is going to be recorded with or without Glass wearers (not saying it's right, but it just doesn't make a difference and why should honest Glass wearers have to suffer for it).[/QUOTE]
the point is that if you go "haha wow lets bolt a camera onto my only pair of rx glasses"
you shouldn't get a special pass just because they are rx glasses
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43632757]the point is that if you go "haha wow lets bolt a camera onto my only pair of rx glasses"
you shouldn't get a special pass just because they are rx glasses[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't need a special pass anyway, you should be able to wear Glass wherever you want if it's a public place, technology is becoming more and more integrated with ourselves, the issue is going to get "worse" up to the point where we can just take what we recorded with our eyes and ears throughout the day straight from our head, that's inevitable, so why try and stop it now? We should be focusing on adjusting and adapting to this change. Not letting people into a publicly open place because of this is not a step in the right direction.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;43632879]You shouldn't need a special pass anyway, you should be able to wear Glass wherever you want if it's a public place, technology is becoming more and more integrated with ourselves, the issue is going to get "worse" up to the point where we can just take what we recorded with our eyes and ears throughout the day straight from our head, that's inevitable, so why try and stop it now? We should be focusing on adjusting and adapting to this change. Not letting people into a publicly open place because of this is not a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
holy shit hi
a movie theater is not a public place
notice how you have to pay to enter a movie theater??? that makes it a private place and you agree to their terms for entering their establishment when you give them your money
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.