FBI interrogates man for wearing Google Glass in cinema
The man told Gadgeteer the Glass goggles were turned off and his reason for wearing them was that they were linked to his prescription lenses he needed for clear vision.
He claims to have worn the Glass twice before at the same cinema without incident.
The customer was ordered to leave the cinema by a policeman who removed the Glass from his face, before reportedly questioning him for more than hours. They claimed he was attempting to illegally record the film, although the man invited them to check the Glass to prove he had not been recording.
The unnamed man said: "I kept telling them that I wasn’t recording anything – my Glass was off, they insisted they saw it on. I told them there would be a light coming out the little screen if Glass was on, and I could show them that, but they insisted that I cannot touch my Glass for the fear “I will erase the evidence against me that was on Glass”.
After police checked the device and found no evidence of recording, they returned the Glass.
The lightweight frames are equipped with a hidden camera and tiny display that responds to voice commands. The technology can be used to check email, learn background about something the wearer is looking at, or to get driving directions, amongst many other features.
A member of staff at the cinema said there had been issues with piracy of films at the venue, and he had been instructed to contact the FBI by his management.
The man was offered four free tickets to apologise for the incident.
He added: "I guess until people get more familiar with Google Glass and understand what they are, one should not wear them to the movies. I wish they would have said something before I went to the movies, but it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won’t be any incident either."
The news comes days after a woman was cleared by a San Diego court of driving whilst wearing Google Glass.
Cecilia Abadie was found not guilty as she had been cited under a code that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was in operation, which the officer failed to provide.