dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-01-22 07:03:16: • Verizon Worries: Wireless, FiOS Battles, 'Flow- Back' [investors.com] • Tech insiders bemoan state of TV industry as Intel exits [investors. ..



camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Amazon TV denied by Amazon

There was a headline on Bloomberg TV this morning that Amazon has denied this rumor.

»www.bloomberg.com/video/amazon-d···YsQ.html


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

Man interrogated for an hour over wearing Google Glass in a theater

I've read the link, and other articles on the story. My thoughts are:

1. As much as I hate the MPAA, wearing Google Glass in a theater is just asking for a problem. Sure it was turned off, and yes it is used for a lot of other things than just taking video. But to a theater manager/employee, it is no different than sitting there with a camera aimed at the screen, and claiming it is turned off.

2. He is lucky it was DHS. Wearing a camera device in the theater (on or off) is enough probable cause to confiscate the device as evidence, and possibly even arrest him. Local LEOs would have done just that, and left it up to him (and his lawyer) to prove it wasn't in use. At the very least, he would be without the device while the police took it to the lab to check for recordings.

3. Anyone who is surprised there was an issue, or thinks there won't be more issues like this surrounding such a ground breaking, and often misunderstood device, are just fools.

kaila

join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
I actually feel sorry for the theater. As this kind of stuff (wearables) inevitably gains more traction, the risk of serious harassment (or perception of risk as more of these stories come out) will give people yet another reason to skip the theater.

scross

join:2002-09-13
Cordova, TN

Google Glass

"Thrilling plot twist: Victim is a member of law enforcement himself"

This appears to be incorrect. The linked article makes no such assertion, that I can see, but instead refers to someone else in the chain.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to Camelot One

Re: Man interrogated for an hour over wearing Google Glass in a theater

said by Camelot One:

1. As much as I hate the MPAA, wearing Google Glass in a theater is just asking for a problem. Sure it was turned off, and yes it is used for a lot of other things than just taking video. But to a theater manager/employee, it is no different than sitting there with a camera aimed at the screen, and claiming it is turned off.

As devices like this become more common, more people will start carrying/wearing them on a daily basis. As the article states, the man had prescription lenses in them, so they also served as his normal glasses, which he needed to see the movie clearly. I don't understand why one particular industry should get to dictate what people are and aren't allowed to wear or use. What happens if Google Glass are the only glasses a person has? Should they be told that they're not entitled to be allowed to watch a movie because of their choice of eyewear?

What if one day they perfect artificial eyes that have similar capabilities? Will people be told that they have to remove their prosthetic eyes before entering a theater?

It's getting to the point where everyone in the world is expected to bend over backwards to help protect the movie industry's profits. If I start a computer repair business can I get the cops to force their way into people's homes and arrest them for working on their own computers? After all, people fixing stuff themselves would cut into my profits and I want it made illegal!

said by Camelot One:

2. He is lucky it was DHS. Wearing a camera device in the theater (on or off) is enough probable cause to confiscate the device as evidence, and possibly even arrest him. Local LEOs would have done just that, and left it up to him (and his lawyer) to prove it wasn't in use. At the very least, he would be without the device while the police took it to the lab to check for recordings.

All the people involved were idiots. First of all, any movie that was "cammed" by a wearable camera on someone's head is going to be unwatchable. Even if the guy had attempted to hold his head still, involuntary movements are still going to cause the image to shake and move around. Nobody with any brains would use Google Glass to record a movie. Second, it shows a stunning lack of intelligence that they would interrogate this guy for more than a minute without immediately plugging the glasses into a laptop to see what was on them. This is like the police interrogating a a guy for an hour because his neighbor said they saw him kill his wife, while refusing to even call the guy's home to see if his wife is there.

said by Camelot One:

3. Anyone who is surprised there was an issue, or thinks there won't be more issues like this surrounding such a ground breaking, and often misunderstood device, are just fools.

The middle ages: The church dictated many of the laws. Religion ruled people's lives. Heresy was the worst crime you could commit. Everyone was expected to be on the lookout for heretics and turn them in.

Now: The copyright industry dictates many of the laws. Copyright rules people's lives. Infringement is the worst crime you can commit. Everyone is expected to be on the lookout for infringers and turn them in.

Welcome to the inquisition 2.0.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

RE: The Internet Of Things Has Been Hacked, And It's Turning Nasty

Just recently I came up with a great idea! I took the locks off the doors on my house. It's made coming home so much more convenient, I just walk up, turn the knob and walk in. Unfortunately, since removing the locks, I've been robbed three times.

Someone should really come up with a way to prevent thieves from just walking into your home. Some kind of system that only lets in people who should be there and keeps out those who shouldn't.

Maybe they could hook up a camera and a computer which would then be programmed to recognize the owner's face. But then thieves could wear a mask... So maybe it could be programmed to recognize the owner's face and voice. But then thieves could use a recording of the person's voice... Maybe it could also be programmed to recognize the owner's body language. Such a system would probably be expensive, since it would also need a backup generator in case of a power failure.

Hmm, it's a real puzzler! Can anyone think of a simple, cheap system for preventing unauthorized people from just walking into a house through the front door???