It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ericthenewbie
reply to post by CrimsonMoon
reply to post by Gauss
If the device only recorded images as a result of the attack/damage, how then were images of witness 1 and 2 taking during their food order at the counter prior to the incident?
Damage in my mind would result after/during the attack and thus record either minimal footage or nothing of the actual attack unless the images are continuously taken and stored within the device. To me it appears that if recording someone without their knowledge/permission is illegal in France, that information could be conveniently left out of the device's description to avoid legal action against him which is ironic that one law is broken to provide evidence of another law being broken...anyone else see the problem that lies within?
The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system. As a result of Perpetrator 1's actions, therefore images that would not have otherwise been captured were captured. Therefore by damaging the Eye Glass, Perpetrator 1 photographed himself and others within McDonalds.
Originally posted by earthdude
What an idiotic policy when cameras are so easily hidden. To have one in plain sight shows honesty, a trait McDonald's is against. I hope they get what they deserve. A public restaurant has no right to ban filming.