No Pictures, Thanks 749
An anonymous reader writes "HP has received a patent on technology that would allow anyone who didn't want their picture taken to remotely instruct cameras to blur their face. While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here? What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people? If this tech can be used to blur faces, it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications. And even without these 'what if' scenarios, isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?"
What a stupid question.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Gee...I dunno. Regulations about that sort of thing, perhaps?
Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops? (Score:4, Insightful)
It will have certain applications to certain situations, but implying that criminals can immediately use this to their benefit is just pure speculation.
Sounds like.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Serious rights issues?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably the most useless patent ever filed. It allows HP to attempt to sell a device that no one will buy, because what it does is prevents someone from photographing the owner with a camera, also produced by HP, that no one will buy, because it can be scrambled.
The best part is, the end of the article mentions that HP doesn't plan on a commercial use for the patent, for exactly that reason.
Up next, Smith and Wesson announce a device that will prevent you from being killed by someone using a specific model of gun that they make. Get yours now; you can't afford to be vulnerable to 0.0001% of the guns in the world!
No I Don't, Thanks (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh Slashdot, where everything from the legit to the inane is seen as a 'serious rights issue'.
ANSI Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Silly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just figure out how it detects the blurring signal and jam it. If it's visual, try some filters, if it's RF just put a tin-foil-hat on it.
Duh! I thought /. catered to hackers. I don't see much hacker aptitude in such worry-warting.
who would by this (Score:5, Insightful)
Something tells me this item is NOT going to be a big seller.
Evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this... (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, it's a vital tool in our war against terror. After all, think of the children!
Re:Evidence (Score:3, Insightful)
So buy an old camera (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't see how HP would market this. Any hint that this technology is in a camera would destroy its sales (pros wouldn't touch it and reviews would herd the unwashed masses away). Certainly it could not stop the paparazzi or stalkers (both of which would circumvent as described above), so what's the value in owning the technology? Stopping 20% of tourist snaps? Certainly no one's going to want to add this to disposables (ups the cost), so even there you miss most of the audience.
Nope, this is less of a rights issue and more of a matter of filing for a patent because that's the only potential value you could extract from a technology.
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot headline is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
The AC is on crack when he says it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications. It isn't some magic EMP device, the camera is under no obligation to obey. And there is no way it would be retrofitted to the millions of existing cameras anyway.
Big Brother left the building. In fact, he was never here.
Re:Laughing Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:anti-law inforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Public behavior (Score:3, Insightful)
And even without these 'what if' scenarios, isn't there an expectation that, if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?
Sure, I guess. But uh, even though while I'm in public I must expect that I'm fair game for being farted on, I still don't like it. Just because you're "fair game" doesn't mean you have to enjoy it. I'm fair game for being shit on by a pigeon too, but if someone made an anti-pigeon-shitting device that allowed me not to get splattered by bird feces, I'd take it and run away gleefully laughing.
Just because you CAN take pictures of everything doesn't mean you should. Some of us want to be able to walk around outdoors without the concern of being in someone's photo gallery because they have a camera phone and too much time. I don't see why that's so bad.
"What if the cameras can't see someone?!?!?!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, those liberal-conservative labels are for blinkered sheeple.
Expansion of police powers increases the danger of a police state forming. It does not guarantee it. I was merely indicating to the original poster, why we need to concern ourselves with restriction of police power even if it results in some reduction in police efficiency. High police efficiency, for example, existed in the Third Reich - didn't help their citizenry much, it just enabled criminals and gangsters in the police forces to exploit them more easily.
Police efficiency is not an end in itself, in my opinion.
Patent duration is 20 years (Score:3, Insightful)
20 years is a long time in the business world, my friend. I'm not saying that HP definitively obtained this patent as a defensive measure, but I do think it's a possibility. Also, the same patent that is a defensive measure today could be an offensive measure tomorrow, and vice-versa.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because cops who abuse their authority are the bad guys (i.e., they are breaking the law).
The reason we need to keep an eye on the cops is due to their ability to use the legal system to cover up their crimes.
A cop-killer is more important to the a community because that individual has shown that no amount of legal authority will stop them from committing a crime. A cop "who is a killer" is more important to the public because they operate under the color of authority and can therefore act with impunity.
At least I can still get off an upskirt shot N/T (Score:2, Insightful)
Another reason to keep your film camera. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait until some big **AA consortium mandates it (Score:5, Insightful)
Who wants a computer will only continue to give you access to your data if you keep paying a monthly subscription fee (and only if you use approved applications and operating systems)?
Who is happy with DVD players that will not play legally purchased discs from other parts of the world and will not allow the owner to skip advertisements?
This is not something being developed in response to consumer demand. It sounds like something that might be included in some future "standard" mandated by the congress (cough cough Fritz Hollings cough cough) for consumer electronic devices. Maybe someday you won't be able to use a phone/PDA/camera/whatever unless it includes DRM technology, a nationally registered ID number, a biometric login to limit use to approved users, and perhaps a GPS transmitter trackable by the government. "Legacy" devices would be around for a while, but at some point they would no longer work with the phone system. Of course, tampering with any of these functions would constitute a felony under some "Digital Millenium National Security Patriot Anti-Terrorism Motherhood and Apple Pie Act".
(OK, so I'm stretching it, but many of these things are possible, and all of them will be possible soon).
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I also have a shaved head, and a big frame and tend to look a little rough and edgey. (You will not be seeing me in a J.Crew advertisement...ok? Not trying to paint myself as a big toughguy here, but you get the idea.) The trick is being respectful. Seems hard to fathom, and apparently - some people's parents (or lack thereof) don't teach it anymore, but I swear it works.
Ever see the Chris Rock comedy PSA on how not to get your ass kicked by the police? I highly recommend it...maybe it'll carry more weight for some, since it doesn't come from a caucasion such as myself.
Chicken little poster... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here?
No, I'm stupid. Howabout you tell me?
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Ah. Yes. This is the old "What if the bad guy could use it against us!" Silly me, I should have guessed.
Every technology can be used equally by anyone with any motive. The minivan is great for soccer moms, but what if the MAN uses them to transport innocent victims of the justice system or *GASP* spy on people?!?
Yes, the patent covers a technology which couldn't possibly work right now except under some exceptionally limited circumstances. Think of taking a picture of a crowd. What technology could possibly pick the one person out of the crowd that has this device and blank out only their face without user intervention and fits in a large camera, nevermind a cellphone? None. This is a useless IP grab.
But let's assume it's possible. Well, then either you use cameras that don't have this feature, you disable the feature on cameras you use, and otherwise you shouldn't care because it's not your *$#!@ camera or picture.
Worried about this technology being mandated by congress? It's unlikely given that anything done in public is public. They'd have to take away a ton of civil rights before they even got close to being able to prevent public pictures in public places.
No, Chicken little, the sky is not falling. It's not even overcast. There is little in this topic that's worth discussing to any degree as any intelligent person can work through all the scenarios and satisfy themselves of the limited utility of this patent.
-Adam
Film? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just nonsense.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot... (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the Golden Gate Bridge Shoreline Park (Score:2, Insightful)
Cameras are electronically disabled in the park.
Please visit our gift shop!
Golden Gate Bridge color photos are now only $3.99!
Please visit our gift shop!
Say the magic words and *poof* it's the law (Score:3, Insightful)
If this technology works, how long until there's a law passed that, "due to the threat of terrorism," all digital cameras sold or imported into the US must have this "feature." All "sensitive" sites will be equiped with jammers. As will all law enforcement officers, to prevent them from being targeted by terrorists.
Needless to say it will be illegal for the hoi poi to have or use this technology. With suitable exceptions for major contributors to the republican party - I mean officers of major, "critical" public companies.
The way this paints a big bullseye on every potential target ("Hey, Sven, let's drive around town and take pictures of everything and see what's blurry!") will be completely ignored. 'Cause, you know, those foreigners are too stupid to think of it.
Re:an important issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument exists between her and the owner of the mini-mall. Still, it sounds like you were trying to use your camera as a form of intimidation. Would you have been happy if your picture was taken and shown to people as "watch out for this jerk, he abuses the disabled"? No?
Re:an important issue (Score:5, Insightful)
"...I took a photo of a stranger's car because I believed she was abusing the disabled placard system..."
OT: I'm curious, had you been tailing this person and become familiar with their physical abilities? Or, did you witness someone park in a blue space, get out of their car, and appear to walk into the mall with no obvious problems?
I ask because a member of my family has a neurological disease that makes it difficult to walk due to poor balance and/or difficult to walk a long distance. Their doctor ordered them to use the blue spaces and not over-excert themselves as this can further aggravate the condition. It's a completely legitimate and doctor prescribed use of the blue space.
Because this person is very self-conscious of the condition, they have learned to mask its effects -most of the time. This results in the situation where they park in the blue space and *appear* to be walking into the mall just fine. They have ever received the "what are doing parking in that space asshole?" looks in the past. If that stranger were to start photographing *me* I sure would be pissed to.
This is not a hyper-sensitive insesitive clod post, I'm just honestly curious about differnet forms of parking space vigilantism. Do you often photograph people you don't believe should be using the blue spaces?
This is not a flame! I'm curious because I also perform a little parking space vigilantism. When someone parks in a space so crooked they make the space next to them virtually unusable, I'll squeeze my car in so they have to climb into their car from the other side. I drive an old beater, what are they gonna do? Key my hood? So what. Besides, they know they suck.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because crime isn't actually as bad as you'd think from watching TV.
In reality, most of us live in an age of incredibly low crime rates, even those of us who live in cities in America. I've never even seen a gun, and the one time I was within a mile of an actual violent crime, there were so many cop cars (and bikes and helicopters) after the guy it was like a scene from The Blues Brothers.
Sure, there are exceptions; maybe you live in Gary, Indiana or inner city DC. But for most of us, the chances of being beaten up or having our stuff stolen by law enforcement are much greater than the chances of the same happening because of a violent criminal.
Someone in your apartment block deals drugs? Guess it's time for a drug forfeiture sweep. Doesn't matter if you're found innocent, you can kiss your worldly possessions goodbye.
Selling video signal clarifiers or bootleg arcade game emulators? You could be the next person to be raided by the Department of Homeland Security. (No, I'm not kidding [go.com].)
Sharing lots of files? Thanks to Bill Clinton, copyright violation in sufficient quantities is now a felony, and you could find the feds kicking down your door.
Political protester? It's now routine for protesters (whatever the cause) to be illegally mass-arrested [indymedia.org] in advance to get them off the streets, mistreated in jail, and then freed without charge once the event being protested is over. That's if you're lucky; if you're unlucky, the cops engineer a riot and wade in with the tear gas and batons. If you're really unlucky, they discover that you once sent a pair of boots to a Chechen rebel [cageprisoners.com] or contributed to an Islamic charity, and you suddenly disappear to jail indefinitely, or to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured.
I don't lie awake at night worrying that my next-door neighbors might steal my stuff; even if they did, I have insurance, and it's just stuff. I do sometimes worry that I might get arrested or "disappeared" by the US authorities.
Re:an important issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait. This was a stranger, not someone you knew, and you WERE taking a picture of her car for the purpose of later identification.
Frankly, i might not have 'retaliated' by snapping your picture; i might have stayed where i was and called the cops, just to make sure you weren't in the habit of trailing disabled women. I understand that you felt that she was abusing parking space privileges, but you have no way of knowing whether she had a disability just by whether she could stand unaided, and really, the way to fight such abuse (in my opinion) is to push for stricter laws and regulation, so that she will have to prove disability under her doctor's care.
I push for those laws- and i'm disabled.
On the other hand, if she was parking without a placard or plate, i'd simply call the traffic division in the hopes that she'd get a ticket... there's a reason those placards are designed to hang in your car, not hide in a purse!
What's done is done, but i think i might have been bothered by it, if it happened to me how it's presented here.
Re:So don't use a camera that honors this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:who would by this (Score:2, Insightful)
Something tells me this item is NOT going to be a
Oh, wait...
It goes both ways... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is to prevent me from using this while I assault the holy crap out of a cop? Any technology can be abused. You are not really asking a question, so what is the point of your anti-technology rhetoric?
don't be so damn silly.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Given that I will not buy an iPod because of intrusive technological restrictions deliberately introduced by the manufacturer, how likely am I to go an buy one of these?
Clipper chips anyone? Palladium (sorry, NGSCB or whatever it's called this week..)? No 2 ways about it, this crap is doomed.
While underestimating the intelligence of the american public is usually not a serious barrier to getting rich, I don't think people are likely to fall for this.
Remember - lower functionality and higher price = low sales. Just ask any LCD TV manufacturer..
Re:who would by this (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the wrong question. The right question is 'Can the people that want to sell it convince Congress to mandate it?'
Look at the HDTV broadcast flag issue. Consumers don't want it. Hardware manufacturers don't want it. Come July we get it anyway.
Re:glad you liked it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Why wait? There's several choices in digital backs for large-format cameras, and Sinar even sells a complete, turn-key setup.
You're a fucking idiot. None of these setups can even hope to reproduce the possible detail of 4x5 format using film. The max resolution on their highest end model of the BetterLight is about 2600dpi. Not bad, but when I consider how much more detail can be gained going from a 2700dpi film scanner to a 4000dpi one, I have a feeling that this is not the be all end all of film replacments. Also, CCD performance and readout speed are not quite fast enough to mimic equivalent film speed and detail. It's going to be a few years yet.
Re:but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, in the same way that gun control has been so successful in New York, Chicago, and D.C.?
"So the criminals who are ignoring the laws about raping, robbing, and murdering are going to suddenly obey the law when it comes to turning in their illegal firearms when anti-gun legislation is passed?"
Yeah, I got karma to burn.
"negligible amount"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I call the whole system much more "abusive" than it used to be and the trends are full bore brave new world styled total fascism, right around the corner.
If you can't see it...well... sorry but it's true. I guess you would have had to watch it, every year another law, another technique, another facet of command and control *over* the civilian population introduced. It's called the "slow boiling frog" technique and it's worked admirably for those people seeking it.
Any amount is NOT negligible. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not go around espousing the idea that because recent history has seen a lull in police brutality in the United States, that it isn't a problem, or that it's acceptable in any way.
And, especially, let's not go around supporting the curtailment of technologies that can keep these abuses in check.