If a person is wearing his or her GLASS device, when is it not in use?

I might be wrong, but aren’t they pretty much always on?

A have the same opinion. People say there is a LED that lights up if it is recording. My Flip camera had the same. I bought it to record cops so I took it apart and removed the LED and bridged the gap. No more LED. Certainly the same is doable on the glass.

When these were first introduced all I could think was, “well…. driving just got a hell of a lot more dangerous.”

I tried one and I think you actually swipe to turn it on so it is possible that it could be off.

@uberbatman No kidding! My thoughts, too…

You can turn them off. And when they’re on there is a red LED that will be on as well (unless it has been disconnected per @johnpowell‘s description).
However people just don’t seem to understand them, and if I had a pair of Glass I’d beware when I was wearing them.
Someone who went to the movies wearing Glass turned off all the gadgetry but wore them because they had been fitted with prescription lenses. He was thoroughly harrassed by homeland security after theatre management (AMC, boooo!) alleged that he was recording the movie.

@dabbler If the theater didn’t harass them, I would have. ;-) Users are called Glassholes for a reason.
Interesting conversation stops when they walk by.

Ya know, even if there is a red LED that is on while the glasses are in use(and they haven’t been modified) who in their right mind wouldn’t turn them off as they were being pulled over and then lie to the cop saying they indeed were not using them?

@dabbler

That story smells kinda fishy to me.

But he had them turned off… he was still wearing them because he needed the prescription to watch the movie.

He didn’t think that bringing a recording device, or or off, into a theater would raise eyebrows? I mean I wouldn’t expect to bring a camcorder into a theater and then say“it’s cool, I’ve got it turned off” when when the management turns out to not be cool with it. That fact that the story first claims that it was FBI, then later says “actually it was Homeland Security” (which seems fishy to me, since piracy of intellectual property is the FBI’s domain) when someone points out that the closest FBI offices were simply too far away for agents to arrive there in such a short amount of time. And the guy is supposedly in law enforcement himself, yet he stays for several hours for a “voluntary interview”, nor does he request an attorney during all this time? Really? Anyone in law enforcement should know better. Yeah, sorry, but the little things just don’t add up for me.

@Darth_Algar The same two things crossed my mind as well. 1 Why the hell is Homeland handling something like this and 2 Why in the fuck didn’t this man ask for an attorney?

I can see either one of these entities taking this on. Representatives of both the FBI and Homeland Security have inflated sense of responsibilities and egos to match. Who knows the truth? And just because the media says it’s so, doesn’t mean it is. Journalists are now allowed to print just about anything and pass it off as “the truth”.

When you are caught with your cellphone in your hand it is considered in use is it in your area? I don’t see why there would be a difference.