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?"
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:1, Interesting)
It may be a defensive patent (Score:5, Interesting)
They may hve figured out how to do this, then decided to patent it specifically to prevent its use in the wild.
an important issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because expanded police powers increase the threat of the development of a police state. We need to keep a leash on the police. They are a useful tool for keeping peace in society, as long as they are OUR tool.
If you increased police powers significantly, you would run the risk of those powers being abused.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)
And once the market demand goes down, people will just stop using them.
As simple as that.
Think bigger... (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent may be broad enough to cover the larger concept of obscuring/degrading/modifying digital data when captured via certain types of devices.
Re:Mod parent up as funny! (Score:2, Interesting)
One summer at camp there was a kid that would only agree to be in the cabin photo if he wasn't forced to look at the camera. He later threatened to eat me, but that's beside the point.
Re:Camera shutter SFX can't be turned off (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple.. (Score:2, Interesting)
There is also the whole analog is cool aspect. Like why some musicans still prefer acoustic instrements over electric.
There are also art/natural aspects that are hard to reproduce. Especiall with "toy" cameras such as the holga or diana cameras.
Many professional photographers use both film and digital.
The whole HP thing is another reason to use film.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:4, Interesting)
So the police who are ignoring the laws about mistreating and beating the shit out of innocent people are going to suddenly obey the law when it comes to not obscuring their faces and badge numbers when they do it?
LK
Or just use it to take pictures of the blurred? (Score:1, Interesting)
Now picture this: police looking for criminals specifically tell cameras to take pictures of people who wear the blurring device, since they "have a much higher chance of being the criminal we're looking for."
It's a two-way street; once you're identified, for whatever reason, you can be filtered for either good or bad reasons.
Re:anti-law inforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
Oooh, oooh.
This is why [vehiclehitech.com]
A Scanner Darkly (Score:2, Interesting)
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Reminds me of the scramble suits [amazon.com] worn by narcotics agents in Phillip K. Dick's excellent A Scanner Darkly [philipkdick.com]?
Hmmmmm. . .
[Soon to be a major motion picture [imdb.com] too!]
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple.. (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a simple solution to this as has been for every type of stupid tech solution. Don't buy it.
Beside it won't be long before someone sues. It's pretty much ingrained in civil law. You have no right to privacy while in public.
I can see though it being legal and usefull to companies, the military, and other public/private venues such as concerts to keep people from being able to use their easily concealed digital cameras. Outside these areas I see it as nothing more than an attempt to extend copyright far beyond sane boundaries. Of course it would be funny if they required this technology in all security and police cameras too. So much for evidence and it would be the death to the show "Cops"
Police are already experts.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't going to be a problem for police. With a couple of notable exceptions *cough*Rodney*cough*King*cough*, they're already well skilled in hiding their own wrongdoing.
Why, the New South Wales Police (Sydney, Australia) Senior Constable with badge number 66312 simply left the room and removed his official badge and other identifying stuff before he started beating up on me in the old North Sydney Police Station. There were lots of other police in the room at the time, but none of them saw a thing. (Good thing I'd already committed the number to memory huh!)
No, cops won't need to worry about electronic gadgets to blur faces - they'll just turn the other, er, cheek like they've been doing for years!
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:2, Interesting)
When people talk about strong encryption, they always talk about how the government has no right to interfere, how VOIP is hard to tap and that's good. Why the hell is this increase in privacy related to police powers? I mean, it's a plausible situation, but no one ever asks if strong encryption can be used by government agents for illegitimate reasons. Seriously, this is such a biased posting. What about drug dealers using the device to prevent photo surveillance of deals? What about any illegal activity that is prevented from being photographed? If it increases privacy, it increases it for everyone. The question is wrong because it's one-sided.
A couple of problems with this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this affect ALL cameras in range, or only cameras pointed at the person wanting privacy? If it affects all cameras, how do I prevent the paranoid person behind me from spoiling my family pictures at Disneyland? If it only affects cameras pointed at the person with the privacy device, how does the camera know who has the device, or which way it is pointing?
As has also been pointed out, there's also the problem of criminals (in uniform or otherwise) using such a device to block the collection of photographic evidence. If a device like this does become mandated for all digital cameras, I can see a booming business selling privacy devices to those wanting to get past security cameras.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:1, Interesting)
I have a hard time seeing how this kind of technology would be applied in such a way. The submitter, and the article, talks about blurring faces but I think there could actually be an even more useful application for it.
For example, let's assume a reporter was given temporary access to a government facility (e.g. one that belongs to say FBI or the NSA.) which has classified equipment or information in it. If this technology was applied, the agency to whom the building belong to, could then strategically place devices inside the building that instructs a certain type of camera to automatically blur out sensitive areas. That way, the reporter wouldn't be able to accidentally divulge classified information about the facility (It has happened before if I'm not mistaken). In many of these buildings no cameras are allowed, period, so this could also be a reasonably safe way around that. It would probably be necessary for the agency to provide a camera of their own that has been properly checked out though. The only thing the reporter would need to bring would be a memory stick to hold the pictures.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a cool idea. Sorry I don't have mod points, but I can boost the visibility a bit.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:2, Interesting)
My point is, aren't you making a really gross generalization yourself when you say that a large group of people (law enforcement) is somehow bad or worth degrading? Come on, you're only seeing one side. I happen to know a few people in law enforcement. They are ALL nice, decent, hard-working, and law-abiding citizens themselves. I, for one, do not want a state of chaos where there's no protection for me.
Re:What a stupid question.... (Score:2, Interesting)
So if police powers doubled tomorrow, we wouldn't actually be any closer to a police state, as long as (I assume) the police behave themselves?
That line of thinking is exactly why most Americans still believe they have freedom, when basic human rights like due process have been thrown out the window. As long as it's not happening to you, it's not really happening, right? Never mind that the police can seize your vehicle just by accusing you of posessing drugs, with no actual proof -- if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about, right?
Let's call a spade a spade. Expansion of police powers is *exactly* what makes a police state.