Glasses, smartwatches and other devices must be turned off and stowed 
 
 Don't plan on being able to wear your Google Glass or smartwatch when heading to the movies. 
 
 On Wednesday, the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners adopted a zero-tolerance policy against wearable technologies, such as Google Glass. Moviegoers must turn off and put away any and all such devices, or risk being asked to leave. If theater staff suspects that illegal recording is taking place, law enforcement authorities will be notified. 
 
 Read more Homeland Security Questions Man for Wearing Google Glass in Movie Theater 
 
 The same anti-piracy policy already exists for phones and other recording devices. 
 
 Officials with the MPAA and NATO approved the new rule during a meeting at ShowEast, the annual fall gathering of theater owners in Hollywood, Fla. Many theater owners already have a zero-tolerance policy against wearable devices, but on an individual basis. 
 
 "The National Association of Theatre Owners and the Motion Picture Association of America have a long history of welcoming technological advances and recognize the strong consumer interest in smartphones and wearable 'intelligent' devices. As part of our continued efforts to ensure movies are not recorded in theaters, however, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward using any recording device while movies are being shown," the two organizations said in statement. ||||| I’m pretty neutral on the whole face-computer thing. Would I buy Google Glass? Nah. But if you want to roll around looking like a broke-ass Robocop, we can still be friends. 
 
 But you should take it off your face at certain times, particularly when seeing a camera strapped to your noggin would irk people out. 
 
 Bathrooms. Parties. Bars. Movie theaters. 
 
 The MPAA has gone ahead and made that last one an official rule, in partnership with NATO (the National Association of Theater Owners — not that other NATO.) — who, according to Plunkett’s Entertainment Almanac, represents roughly 26,000 theaters across the U.S. 
 
 Under the new rules, theater owners will ask anyone with wearable recording devices to turn’em off and put them away. Fail to do that, and they’ll give you the boot. If they have any reason to think you’re recording in the theater, meanwhile, they’ll call the cops. 
 
 Of course, all this shenanigans ignores something pretty crucial: if someone is the type of person who will strap a computer to their face, they’re probably also the type of person who knows of easier/better ways to pirate movies than recording a shaky, crap-resolution copy on Google Glass. 
 
 Just sayin’. 
 
 [via ArsTechnica] ||||| SAN FRANCISCO — Google ’s wearable computer, the most anticipated piece of electronic wizardry since the iPad and iPhone, will not go on sale for many months. 
 
 But the resistance is already under way. 
 
 The glasseslike device, which allows users to access the Internet, take photos and film short snippets, has been pre-emptively banned by a Seattle bar. Large parts of Las Vegas will not welcome wearers. West Virginia legislators tried to make it illegal to use the gadget, known as Google Glass, while driving. 
 
 “This is just the beginning,” said Timothy Toohey, a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in privacy issues. “Google Glass is going to cause quite a brawl.” 
 
 As personal technology becomes increasingly nimble and invisible, Glass is prompting questions of whether it will distract drivers, upend relationships and strip people of what little privacy they still have in public. 
 
 A pair of lens-less frames with a tiny computer attached to the right earpiece, Glass is promoted by Google as “seamless and empowering.” It will have the ability to capture any chance encounter, from a celebrity sighting to a grumpy salesclerk, and broadcast it to millions in seconds. 
 
 “We are all now going to be both the paparazzi and the paparazzi’s target,” said Karen L. Stevenson, a lawyer with Buchalter Nemer in Los Angeles. 
 
 Google stresses that Glass is a work in progress, with test versions now being released to 2,000 developers. Another 8,000 “explorers,” people handpicked by Google, will soon get a pair. 
 
 Among the safeguards to make it less intrusive: you have to speak or touch it to activate it, and you have to look directly at someone to take a photograph or video of them. 
 
 “We are thinking very carefully about how we design Glass because new technology always raises new issues,” said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman. 
 
 Developers, however, are already cracking the limits of Glass. One created a small sensation in tech circles last week with a program that eliminated the need for gestures or voice commands. To snap a picture, all the user needs to do is wink. 
 
 The 5 Point Cafe, a Seattle dive bar, was apparently the first to explicitly ban Glass. In part it was a publicity stunt — extremely successful, too, as it garnered worldwide attention — but the bar’s owner, Dave Meinert, said there was a serious side. The bar, he said, was “kind of a private place.” 
 
 The legislators in West Virginia were not joking at all. The state banned texting while driving last year but hands-free devices are permitted. That left a loophole for Google Glass. The legislation was introduced too late to gain traction before the most recent session ended, but its sponsor says he is likely to try again. 
 
 In Las Vegas, a Caesars Entertainment spokesman noted that computers and recording devices were prohibited in casinos. “We will not allow people to wear Glass while gambling or attending our shows,” he said. 
 
 Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren famously noted in 1890 that “numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.’ ” 
 
 Glass is arriving just as the courts, politicians, privacy advocates, regulators, law enforcement and tech companies are once again arguing over the boundaries of technology in every walk of life. 
 
 The Senate Judiciary Committee voted last month to require law enforcement to have a warrant to access e-mail, not just a subpoena. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of devices that mimic cellphone towers to track down criminals is being challenged in an Arizona case. A California district court recently ruled that private messages on social media were protected without a warrant. 
 
 “Google Glass will test the right to privacy versus the First Amendment,” said Bradley Shear, a social media expert at George Washington University. 
 
 Google has often been at the forefront of privacy issues. In 2004, it began a free e-mail service, making money by generating ads against the content. Two dozen privacy groups protested. Regulators were urged to investigate whether eavesdropping laws were being violated. 
 
 For better or worse, people got used to the idea, and the protests quickly dissipated. Gmail now has over 425 million users. In a more recent episode, the company’s unauthorized data collection during its Street View mapping project prompted government investigations in a dozen countries. 
 
 Like many Silicon Valley companies, Google takes the attitude that people should have nothing to hide from intrusive technology. 
 
 “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt, then Google’s chief executive, in 2009. 
 
 Glass is a major step in Google’s efforts to diversify beyond search, and potentially an extremely lucrative move. Piper Jaffray, an analyst firm, estimates that wearable technology and another major initiative, self-driving cars, could ultimately be a $500 billion opportunity for the company. In the shorter term, IHS, a forecasting firm, estimates that shipments of smart glasses, led by Google Glass, could be as high as 6.6 million in three years. 
 
 Thad Starner, a pioneer of wearable computing who is a technical adviser to the Glass team, says he thinks concerns about disruption are overblown. 
 
 “Asocial people will be able to find a way to do asocial things with this technology, but on average people like to maintain the social contract,” Mr. Starner said. He added that he and colleagues had experimented with Glass-type devices for years, “and I can’t think of a single instance where something bad has happened.” 
 
 An incident at a Silicon Valley event shows, however, the way the increasing ease in capturing a moment can lead to problems — even if unintentionally. 
 
 Adria Richards, who worked for the Colorado e-mail company SendGrid, was offended by the jokes two men were cracking behind her at the PyCon developers conference. She posted a picture of them on Twitter with the mildly reproving comment, “Not cool.” 
 
 One of the men, who has not been identified, was immediately fired by his employer, PlayHaven. “There is another side to this story,” he wrote on a hacking site, saying it was barely one lame sexual joke. “She gave me no warning, she smiled while she snapped the pic and sealed my fate,” he complained. 
 
 Critics lashed out at Ms. Richards, using language much more offensive than the two men used. SendGrid was hacked. The company dismissed Ms. Richards, saying there was such an uproar over her conduct, it “put our business in danger.” 
 
 “I don’t think anyone who was part of what happened at PyCon that day could possibly have imagined how this issue would have exploded into the public consciousness,” Ms. Richards reflected later. She has not posted on Twitter since.
– It's official: If you want to see a movie while it's still in the theaters, you'll have to take off your Google Glass or smartwatch first. The MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners yesterday banned all wearable tech, meaning you'll need to turn such devices off and put them away if you don't want to get kicked out. And—in a policy that already exists for phones and other recording devices—if theater staff thinks you're recording illegally, they'll notify police. The new zero-tolerance policy was approved during the ShowEast convention, where theater owners gather each year, according to the Hollywood Reporter; the Washington Post reports that the association represents about 32,000 US theaters. But many individual theater owners had already instituted such a ban. Two potential problems: The new rule "ignores something pretty crucial," writes Greg Kumparak on TechCrunch. "If someone is the type of person who will strap a computer to their face, they're probably also the type of person who knows of easier/better ways to pirate movies than recording a shaky, crap-resolution copy on Google Glass." Plus, what happens when smart glasses become more popular and some people "choose to use the device as their primary eyewear"? wonders Chris Morran at the Consumerist. "At that point, do theaters kick people out just for wearing glasses that could shoot video?" One theatergoer has already been hauled from his seat by the feds because he was wearing Google Glass.