Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]
from the zero-tolerance! dept
Just a couple months ago, we wrote about the MPAA's insane "zero tolerance" policies that it was sending to movie theaters, telling them to be extra vigilant in stopping anyone from filming movies:The MPAA recommends that theaters adopt a Zero Tolerance policy that prohibits the video or audio recording and the taking of photographs of any portion of a movie.As we noted at the time, these kinds of policies seem more likely to piss off movie viewers than to actually stop any form of "piracy." And, indeed, as pretty much every one of you has sent in this morning, a story over at The Gadgeteer appears to show these overreaching policies in action, as a guy wearing his Google Glass (with the power off) was summarily yanked out of the theater in the middle of a movie and held in an office while a bunch of people posing as officials quizzed him about who he was recording for.
Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place. Do not assume that a cell phone or digital camera is being used to take still photographs and not a full-length video recording. Let the proper authorities determine what laws may have been violated and what enforcement action should be taken.
Theater management should determine whether a theater employee or any other competent authority is empowered to confiscate recording devices, interrupt or interfere with the camcording, and/or ask the patron to leave the auditorium.
The story is a little short on some key details. For example, it's never clear who the people interrogating him actually are associated with. The article title claims "the FBI" and other reports have similarly claimed the FBI was involved, but that seems unlikely. Apparently someone claimed to be with the "federal service" which is not what anyone would say if they were actually a federal employee. Someone is claimed to be from "the Movie Association" -- which might mean the MPAA (the Motion Pictures Association of America), but that's hardly clear. It's especially odd since the person who went through the experience claims that he got the business card of this guy -- named "Bob Hope" -- from "the Movie Association" so if it was actually the MPAA, you'd think he'd look at the business card and properly state where the guy came from. Or, you know, send in a picture of the business card (perhaps with contact info redacted).
To be honest, all of those factors make me question the legitimacy of the entire story -- though there have been other similar stories in the past that we've seen involving mobile phones. And it does fit with the MPAA's guidelines on "zero tolerance."
Update: AMC has confirmed that "a guest with a potential recording device inside the auditorium was questioned at our AMC Easton 30. Another report says that the MPAA was on site and interrogated the guy and then contacted DHS, claiming they have "oversight for movie theft." I'd be curious to see where or how DHS has authority over "movie theft." I'm guessing people will claim it's an ICE issue, but that goes way beyond what ICE is supposedly working on.
Separately, the guy begged the "police" or whoever was there to look at his Google Glass and go through his private things. While that has no bearing on the legitimacy of his story, as Popehat recently reminded people, this is monumentally stupid for a whole variety of reasons.
Whether or not this turns out to be a legitimate story, this issue is going to come up again and again as Google Glass and a flood of similar products heading to market become more popular. The MPAA's "zero tolerance" attitude and its general antipathy towards any new technology it can't control or quash is going to lead to this sort of scenario playing out one way or another eventually. If the MPAA and the theaters had any vision at all, they'd be working out a better way to deal with it, but since they seem to see everything as a black and white situation, expect an even more extreme version of how they've treated mobile phones -- even to the point of (at times) requiring them to be confiscated before people can go into the theater -- thereby encouraging fewer people to actually go to the theater.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google glass, movie theaters, zero tolerance
Companies: amc, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
Now, if MPAA ran with a story like this, Mike and fanboys would HOWL -- well, much as ankle-biters can.
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
06:52:51[h-705-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
OOTb has a couple similar characteristics but cannot approach the epic troll capability of Prokofy Neva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
Wait, you're not suggesting AJ is this 'Catherine' person, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
It's kind of funny, I was thinking about this earlier today when I stumbled across one of Prokofy Neva's comments on another article and I attempted to find some sort of writing style comparison software to compare Blue's and Cathy's writings.
My Google-foo failed me though and I got sidetracked with some actual work, so I didn't get very far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
The "Commie" rant was the giveaway. I've never heard of Prokofy Neva but I think that's more of a persona. Remember, when you're anonymous, more cats get out of the bag.
As for the incoherency, that's in nearly every post.
Finally, the blog is all about teh copyright and how anything other than uttermost maximalism is piracy and offenders should be extradited for it, etc.
Oh, and Cathy hates Google with a passion, per her blog posts.
In short:
1. barely coherent anti-"leftist/commie/collective/OS" rants
2. irrational fixation on copyright maximalism as a common law right
3. pretends to hate "the Rich" and corporations, but seems to think the **AAs are the second coming
4. is convinced that selling copies of works is the only way to make a living as a creative
5. considers all who disagree with her position on anything to be the enemy and treats them as such
6. doubles down on her argument's position when proven wrong
7. changes the subject when owned instead of admitting to being wrong
8. arbitrary standards of right and wrong
9. dismissal of the value of due process where copyright is concerned
10. irrational hatred of Google while continuing to use it. I've pointed that out many times, then she's gone on to admit to using it despite being told there are alternatives
She hates Google more than Mike, and her Mike-hate thing is more of an envious pseudo-libertarian thing than a personal one. I hadn't noticed much of the pseudo-libertarian/Alex Jones rants on her blog because I was more focused on the toxic copyright protectionism and hatred of alleged pirates, but I guess it's in there somewhere.
Hey, I could be wrong, but if you manage to unmask OOTB and prove it, I'll be the first to admit to being wrong. It's just that the arguments we have with her here are arguments I've had with her elsewhere. We're just repeating ourselves because we have to because she can't admit to being wrong and is unwilling to learn anything that doesn't mesh with her opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The MPAA CONFIRMED what was reported here.
How do you like your humble pie? With or without crow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution:
Don't be caught singing, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution:
... from the members of the lobbying organizations, please; I know of a number of artists who hawk CDs and mp3s of their work directly on their youtube channels, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution:
Sorry, this approach doesn't work and will never work.
You are basically saying, "As long as the content industry keeps trying to hold our culture hostage we should just avoid participating in our culture until they get bored and go away."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just the thought makes me dizzy.
Nobody can hold their head still for 90 minutes to get a decent "pirate" copy of a movie that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just the thought makes me dizzy.
> a decent "pirate" copy of a movie that way.
That misses the point.
There may be small segments, say up to five seconds that are perfectly watchable. That five seconds of watchable recorded content is copyright infringement.
Please do not underestimate the economic damage caused by copyright infringement. The total damage caused by Limewire alone, according to the RIAA, is $75 TRILLION. The total damages of copyright infringement is far, far greater than the entire economic output of all human activity for all human history. Please think of the artists.
Look at how little profit Hollywood makes, and look at how little it increases each year setting new records. Please consider their plight and take pity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just the thought makes me dizzy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget the bounty
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-wants-advanced-anti-piracy-measures-at-movie-theaters-131114/
...which also means theater employees have a disincentive to just tell the guy wearing Glass to take it off when they sell him a ticket or when he hands his tickets to the user in the lobby because they make nothing off of that. Instead, wait until he's in the theater and turn him in for cash - doesn't matter if he's guilty or not because the incentives only run one way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget the bounty
While I never actually caught anyone in the act, there was one time I caught a guy trying to bring in a full size video camera in a backpack. We had to search all over sized bags coming in and when I found it I gave him that "you have to be kidding me" look, and told him he couldn't bring it in. He couldn't grasp why I wouldn't let him bring it in even though he promised he wouldn't record anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Update #2:
I just received info from the author with regards to the agents that questioned him:
For the sake of having all the facts right.
I have been trying to find out who the agents that �interviewed� me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the �federal agents�
talking to me were DHS."
Looks like it was the Department of Homeland Security who interrogated him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have been trying to find out who the agents that �interviewed� me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the �federal agents�
talking to me were DHS."
Looks like it was the Department of Homeland Security who interrogated him.
I find that equally unlikely. Claims like that need extraordinary proof of support, not just "some guy I know at the FBI." How would some FBI guy know that DHS went to a movie theater? And why would DHS be going to a movie theater over this? It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That hasn't exactly stopped them from acting as hollywood's private police force before.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/02530219774/homeland-security-issuing-its-own-dmca- takedowns-youtube-to-stifle-speech.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/17043918217/new-bi ll-seeks-to-let-dhs-agents-coordinate-more-with-private-companies-seizing-property-like-domains.shtm l
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blo g-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/014 02812935/full-affidavit-latest-seizures-again-suggests-homeland-security-is-twisting-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
HAHAhahahahAHAHAHA! Wait, did you just... HAHAHAHAHAHHA. OMG LOL. OK OK... so I know you have to write that, go with what's given, but in context of US agencies it sounds very funny.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as incredulous as you about the Glass rumors, but...
Just Google CIA (insurgent, Iran Contra, domestic operations, election, FBI, crack, really damn near any context will do, its all the same shiat).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is tasked with...
"[2](DHS), responsible for identifying, investigating, and dismantling vulnerabilities regarding the nation's border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security."
The The Cyber Crimes Center (C3) is operated under ICE, and is responsible for investigating "Intellectual property rights violations (including music and software)."
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Cyber_Crimes
Do I know if this story is true? No I do not. It reads like the story is true. Especially the way the victim describes the interrogation techniques used against him. Trying to coax a confession out of the victim before actually reviewing the media evidence in front of him.
All I can say is this is an interesting story. Doubly so if it turns out to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not to lend legitimacy to this pile of shit, but DHS is the parent of ICE which runs the National Intellectual Property Rights Center.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.businessinsider.com/man-interrogated-by-fbi-for-wearing-prescription-google-glass-at -the-movies-2014-1?op=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Cuckoo's Egg -- Clifford Stoll
I am pharaphrasing... You want us to investigate over an accounting error of $0.07? We only investigate crimes that involve over a million dollars or murders, threats to the nation, etc.
It's a good thing the FBI now focuses on non-issues such as Google Glass. But doesn't focus on important things such as major white collar crime involving millions or billions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully in the future this guy will stick to small and victimless crimes that the FBI takes no interest in, such as wrecking the global economy or running a massive ponzi scheme on wall street.
It has already been said that copyright is incompatible with free speech. I propose that as technology advances that copyright becomes incompatible with free society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
next time he will.. he will probably also include the phrase "beat his face with the butt of a tazer". Anything for effect, and to keep the fans happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is SOP
I was informed by another patron that someone was taking pictures in the theater. After removing the patron from the theater, he was indeed taking pictures of the movie. I had to, by the contract that I signed, call the police and inspect the capturing device (a standard consumer-grade digital camera) as the pictures were erased.
Was his intent malicious? No, definitely not. Did I feel bad for dragging him out of the theater and "banning" him? Yes. Did I regret doing the hours of paperwork afterwards? Yes, hell yes.
Though I do not like the MPAA (at all), I do understand their Zero-Tolerance with this. But this story doesn't seem truthful.
See, I HIGHLY doubt the FBI or DHS was involved in this. They should never be contacted about this kind of thing. If AMC's policy was similar to the one from my company, the highest this should go would be the local police. SOP says that after the police have been contacted, the incident has to be reported to the MPAA. At no point would the FBI or DHS even have TIME to show up! I am calling BS on that whole aspect of the story. I 100% believe he was kicked out of a theater for wearing glasses (I would have kicked him out too) but I don't believe he was interviewed by DHS/FBI at the theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is SOP
Relevant quote(this is what the 'Bob Hope', MPAA reps said):
'All he said was AMC called him, and he called the FBI'
And if you don't think that the *AA's have very close ties and significant pull with government agencies, you've not been paying attention, they managed to get a military style raid on someone(Dotcom) in a foreign country over accused copyright violations, yanking a guy out of a theater is nothing comparatively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is SOP
> in a foreign country over accused copyright violations,
> yanking a guy out of a theater is nothing comparatively.
Also, they managed to get a kid arrested and extradited, for linking to (but not hosting) content. And what he was doing was legal in his own country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of people who should never go to movies
-People who wear glasses (any glasses, even prescription)
-People who wear watches (mobile devices in the form of a watch are already being worked on)
-People who wear bracelets (looks too similar to a watch)
And in the future these people will also be added to the list
-People who wear necklaces (someone will surely build a mobile device worn as a necklace)
-People who wear rings (someone will surely build a mobile device worn as a ring)
-People who wear any kind of clothing (hidden cameras and recorders can be sewn into the clothing)
-People who can see and/or hear (eventually they'll hook up your brain to a computer and the Internet)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of people who should never go to movies
If NOBODY wearing cloths sees the movies and everybody pretends they did anyway it is an extended chapter for "The Emperor's new clothes" story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of people who should never go to movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of people who should never go to movies
When that technology exists, the MPAA / RIAA will insist that everyone be hooked up at birth so that a computer can automatically charge you whenever you see, or hear anything copyrighted.
Hey, you overheard the radio some guy is playing in the adjacent office -- that's gonna cost you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E
And draw your attention to 1:57 :-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: List of people who should never go to movies
Best response of the day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm surprised they didn't do this guy Kim Dotcom style, and have a swat team repel down on the movie theater roof with a UAV drone circling overhead.
They're starting to lose their touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As soon as the words "voluntary interview" came out of the "feds", he should have replied "I do not consent to this interview" and got up and left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
Excellent advice, but real life is sometimes different. I really doubt that he would've been able to just walk out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Netflix
I would rather support a business that "gets it" and does so for a reasonable price, than all those who don't.
Cable tv and 400 forced channels I don't care for?
Internet bandwidth throttling? Minuscule data caps?
Overpriced movie theaters that treat customers as criminals?
DVD's that cost more than a small car and with region restrictions at that?
No thanks.
Give me $8/month Netflix and I can find the 5-10 hours a week of video entertainment I need and go about my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a Maroon
Passive-aggressiveness at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a Maroon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Papers please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Papers please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Papers please.
First question - "Am I being detained?"
If the answer is yes, skip down to third question.
If the answer is no, then second question - "Am I free to go?"
If the answer is yes, then get up and leave; ignore whatever "... but BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU" is going to be added on. If those bad things can legitimately be done to you, they will be regardless of what you do; if they are law enforcement, they are indeed quite free to make empty promises to get some kind of confession.
If the answer is no, then third question - "Under what authority are you detaining me?" or "Specifically what agency are you working for?"
If the answer is not an agency with law enforcement powers, attempt to leave. If barred, note that preventing you from leaving constitutes false imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, if they forcibly move you to a different location (such as an office), then that can technically count as kidnapping*. False imprisonment can generally result in both criminal and civil complaints.
*I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman's understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Papers please.
More people need to understand their rights and exercise them.
Politely, but resolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Papers please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any time a movie goer walks away from a theater with less than satisfaction the business has lost some customer good will. I have not set foot in a theater in years over bad viewing experiences. I have no plans to ever return as all the articles I read show it continues to degrade.
Wake me up when these studios go bankrupt because they have no idea how to compete, how to treat their customers, and how to satisfy them.
Does anyone think that this guy is eyeing his free tickets he got at the end when they figured out they made a mistake going to make up for his treatment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Called the Theater!
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was going to ask...
Looks like that's who it was:
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/
Dirkmaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stories Appearing EVERYWHERE
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/man-wearing-google-glass-in-movie-theater-detained-interrogat ed-for-four-hours/
DailyCaller
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/man-wearing-google-glass-in-movie-the ater-detained-interrogated-for-four-hours/
Phandroid
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass- movie/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The story has been confirmed. I just received this email from the author:
Julie, Rob.
I spoke with a reporter from Columbus Dispatch, who obtained a
statement from DHS and forwarded it to me. Here it is:
From: Walls, Khaalid H [mailto:Khaalid.H.Walls@ice.dhs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Allison Manning
Subject: ICE
H Ally,
Please attribute the below statement to me:
On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE�s Homeland Security Investigations
and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an
electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in
Columbus. The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to
authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of
prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been
inactive. No further action was taken.
Khaalid Walls, ICE spokesman
Khaalid Walls
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
313-226-0726
313-215-7657(m)"
Source:
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls- fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess we're not considered a police state, because offering to refund your ticket purchase doesn't happen in police states.
I'm pretty sure this guys constitutional rights were violated. No "warrant". No "probable cause".
This is exactly like New York. If you're in a public place, your possessions can be seized and searched based on nothing more than an officer's or movie theater employee's "suspicion" of you.
Suspicion a much lower standard that probable cause. In this day and age in America, probable cause is basically dead. Hell, in some parts of Texas, police can run up in your house, and get a search warrant from the judge afterwards. And it's 100% legal!
That's what this country is coming too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If someone dragged me out of a theater for questioning mid movie i sure as shit wouldn't be going back for more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're being far too generous.
They see everything as a black issue. Everyone is a pirate or potential pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize they could do anything in this clearly civil matter.
I'm sure this will result in a lot of tired officers being called down to the movie theater when someone is caught texting on their phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interrogated Movie Goer Hometown Paper Interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't Florida recently pass legislation, stating it's illegal to record a crime, because of those kids doing the "Knock Out" game.
Keep that in mind while wearing Google Glasses in Florida. Additional charges will almost certainly be added if you accidentally record on-duty police officers with your glasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business card
Contact information can absolutely be private. If he gave the business card to one person that doesn't mean he meant for it to be public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business card
When I ran my own business, I had several different business cards, each aimed at a specific audience. To salesmen, I was the receptionist, to developers, I was the developer, etc. One of my cards was a "private" one that had back-channel contact information. Private email, cell phone, etc. This was absolutely not meant to be publicly available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cop defends gunning down unarmed man in a theatre."BUT IT LOOKED LIKE A GUN!!"
Tomorrow's headline:
Cop defends gunning down unarmed man in a theatre. "BUT IT LOOKED LIKE A SMARTPHONE!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]