Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Censorship HP Patents Technology Hardware

No Pictures, Thanks 749

Posted by timothy from the grandfather-clause dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Pictures, Thanks More

No Pictures, Thanks

Comments Filter:

  • Great. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sulli ( 195030 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:43PM (#11482879) Journal
    A real-world broadcast flag. Just what we need. Thanks, Carly!

    • Re:Great. (Score:3, Funny)

      by nocomment ( 239368 )
      Just think of all the robberies that will occur right in front of cameras.

    • Police are already experts.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @04:26PM (#11484990)
      What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?

      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!

  • Simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lucky Kevin ( 305138 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:43PM (#11482881) Homepage
    use good old-fashioned film!

    • Exactly! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by metlin ( 258108 )
      ...Or for that matter, any cameras without this "feature".

      And once the market demand goes down, people will just stop using them.

      As simple as that.

    • Re:Simple.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Charcharodon ( 611187 )
      Hehe have a sniffer looking for people who don't want their picture taken and then take their picture with a film camera.

      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

  • Cops? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:43PM (#11482883)
    Maybe the cop cameras just won't use that functionality. Just because it exists, doesn't mean that every camera in the world will be running it.

    It will have certain applications to certain situations, but implying that criminals can immediately use this to their benefit is just pure speculation.
  • Until this "feature" is mandated by law (not likely), I don't see it as a concern...

  • Another solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:44PM (#11482893)
    There is a more low-tech solution available as well. There's this guy who advertises in the back of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine who will blur anyone's face for a fee.
  • It may blur the faces but does it blur the b00bs attached to them?
  • Wouldn't the camera have to support this as well? Time to stock up on digital cameras before they all ship with AutoPrivacyBlur(TM) technology.

  • but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by hyperstation ( 185147 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:44PM (#11482907)
    if their faces are blurry they'll die in 7 days!

  • Serious rights issues?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geoffspear ( 692508 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:45PM (#11482920) Homepage
    Umm, no.

    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!

    • It may be a defensive patent (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:48PM (#11482994) Homepage Journal
      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.

      They may hve figured out how to do this, then decided to patent it specifically to prevent its use in the wild.

  • Photo Radar (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:45PM (#11482933)
    This might be useful when I'm cruising down the road at 15mph over the posted speed limit and notice a second too late the police van parked on the side of the road waiting to take my picture.

  • ANSI Standard (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bob McCown ( 8411 )
    #include <kneejerk.h>
  • How will this affect my 1934 Leica? Not very much, I'd bet, so please remove the tin-foil hat.

  • Silly... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
    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?

    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.

  • I have one of these nifty gadgets (Score:5, Funny)

    by slartibart ( 669913 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:45PM (#11482940)
    They've actually been around for quite some time. They are called ski masks.

  • who would by this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:45PM (#11482941)
    Who wants a camera which enables anyone to remotely cripple it.

    Something tells me this item is NOT going to be a big seller.

    • Wait until some big **AA consortium mandates it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @02:42PM (#11483783)
      Who wants a CD that can't be copied or played in a car?

      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).
    • What makes you think you'll have a choice?

      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

  • Evidence (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TildeMan ( 472701 ) <.gsivek. .at. .mit.edu.> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:46PM (#11482946) Homepage
    I've heard digital photos are often inadmissible as evidence in court because of how easy they are to modify. This sounds like rather intentional automatic digital editing, which would just make picture reliability / integrity worse. IANAL, but can someone else fill in the legal issues here?

    • Re:Evidence (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 )
      The problem is the mindset that has existed since the begining of photography, namely that a photograph is the truth presented in an unbiased way, which is not exactly true.

    • Re:Evidence (Score:3, Informative)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) *
      I've heard digital photos are often inadmissible as evidence in court because of how easy they are to modify.

      Canon and Nikon now have DVKs, data verification kits, which tag photos with checksums and signatures. You can prove that this image was taken by that camera and wasn't modified between the camera and the file you now have.

      These days tho', digital images are really no easier to modify than film. You can do a high quality negscan, do what you want in Photoshop, then write the image back out onto fi

  • Oh, for fuck's sake (Score:3)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:46PM (#11482955)
    So here's a technology that is trying to PROTECT peoples' privacy, and the first thing you can fucking think of to say is that this has serious privacy PROBLEMS, and about cops blurring their faces so they can beat people?

    Please, sir, are you fucking serious?

  • Dude... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PincheGab ( 640283 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:46PM (#11482957)
    It's a patent, not a law... Come back and complain about it when it becomes law and every camera has to implement it...
  • Where can I buy one of these wonderfull new cameras that doesn't always work? We should all be lining up now and demanding HP bring them to market quicker so I can have LESS.

  • Laughing Man (Score:4, Funny)

    by mr_rattles ( 303158 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:47PM (#11482974) Homepage
    I'm just thinking about the first time someone would commit a crime and all you see is a Laughing Man logo with a spinning quote from Catcher in the Rye around it over the criminal's face. And next thing you know there are dozens of people claiming to be the Laughing Man...
  • What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people

    Why the consistent anti-law inforcement sentiment on /.? It would seem to me the more obvious use of this technology would be for criminals to use it to escape detection.
  • Just incorporate the "evil bit". If something "evil" is being recorded, like a police beat down, it won't blur. But if it's inconvenient for you to be on film you can blur the image. Easy fix.
  • If government needs cameras monitoring potential criminals it should start monitoring racist gang rapists in the government's own prison system [hrw.org] rather than public thoroughfares. Amazingly the most famous organization supposedly opposing prisoner rape, Stop Prisoner Rape [spr.org], could not bring itself to even support deployment of tamper-proof badge cameras to be worn by all prison guards to audit their behavior. Clearly the recent behavior of US prison officials as they are spreading around the world is bringing

    • How do you make something 'tamper proof' that can be covered by doing something as innocent as crossing your arms?

      • You would then know that the badge was being covered by the wearer. With other forms of tampering, you might not realize that photographic evidence had been tampered with. Eg, if a prisoner claims that he was beaten by three guards and each of the guards' badge cameras were conveniently covered up during the time in question, then that's pretty strong circumstantial evidence supporting the prisoner's accusations.
  • Sure, in the US, we have the right to take pictures of people in public. But they still retain the right to cover their faces.

  • an important issue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wattersa ( 629338 ) <andrew@andrewwatters.com> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:49PM (#11483001) Homepage
    I'm a believer in the firmly rooted idea that when you're in a public place, you're willingly presenting yourself to the view of others and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a problem for me when I took a photo of a stranger's car [yafro.com] because I believed she was abusing the disabled placard system. It was on private property-- a mini-mall-- but still in a public place. Neither of us could understand the other's point of view. While I can understand her not wanting me to take a picture of _her_, it was difficult for me to accept her angry and indignant view that I needed her permission to photograph her car. She retaliated by taking a photo of _me_ (ha!). Needless to say a device in her pocket that could have disabled my digital camera would have bothered me greatly. Which is why if something like this ever comes to market, I'm going to stick with the 1965 Pentax SLR, which is entirely mechanical, instead of the more modern Kodak digital. Seems like DRM is just making us go back to older but DRM-free tech :/

    • Re:an important issue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @03:36PM (#11484407)
      it was difficult for me to accept her angry and indignant view that I needed her permission to photograph her car

      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)

      by potus98 ( 741836 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @03:54PM (#11484626) Journal

      "...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.

    • as someone whose disability is not clearly visible, i'd have a problem with a random stranger snapping pictures, too. For all she knew, you were just a stalker choosing a mark.

      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 understan
  • I just replaced my two-year-old cell phone with a Samsung A670, which has a camera. I was surprised to find that the sound effect of a shutter clicking, which happens every time you snap a picture, cannot be turned off even with the phone in silent mode. (You can change it to one of four other sounds, all more annoying than the original; but none of these five choices is "silent".)

    I was wondering if this was an attempt at addressing privacy issues - people around you would know that you were taking pictur
    • There have been some pushing for mandated sounds on camera phones, to avoid people snapping pictures down blouses or up skirts without some chance of the target knowing about it. I believe I saw something recently that the EU was strongly in favor of this.
  • What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?

    Um, the DMCA? Unless HP licenses it to them, that is.

  • A little mixed already (Score:5, Informative)

    by bushidocoder ( 550265 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:49PM (#11483010) Homepage
    ... if you're in a public area, you're fair game for being photographed?

    Not really - If you're distinct enough to recognize, you can be photographed by anyone, but those photos can't be distributed for profit without your consent for the most part. For instance, no one can snap a picture of you and use that in an ad or commercial without your consent, but a journalist can publish photos of you in a newspaper. I'm not sure about how the law works around it, but I know that it can get pretty complicated if you sell digital photos because you need stacks of waiver forms.

  • I can't imagine the technology is so good, that it would be able to pick a face up out of a crowd. So much for stopping the Papparazi.

    For that matter, I can imagine that this technology would false very easily. You could be trying to take a picture of a flower, but someone nearby might have a "magic no picture" transmitter on. Result? Blurred flower, or perhaps the loss of a one-in-a-lifetime photo.

    This kind of device seems to have far, far, far more drawbacks than advantages in any real life scenari
  • The 'what-if' in this submission is one of the most tinfoil 'what-if's I ever read on /.

    You get people coming out of the woodwork to protest camera's in public spaces, now some comapny says they can blur out a face in a picture and you get people going off half cocked all over again.

    What is it like to be so paranoid?

    This is just one company, if you don't like this technology don't use their cameras. Besides the fact that it's more of a could do this than a can do this.
  • ...the patented it. So you don't have to worry about anybody other than HP actually implementing this.
  • What about politicians who don't want to be seen talking to certain people? Or corporate CEOs who don't want people to know which countries they have dealings with? Surely these are the types of people who are most likely to have the money and influence to abuse this technology?
  • If this tech can be used to blur faces, it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications

    Have we forgotten about plain old film? Or the fact that only cameras that have this feature installed will be affected? Do you actually believe that this will be legislated into each and every digital camera manufactured? Even if that were the case, that would only open up the market for imported, non-blur-enabled, or a black market of hacked de-blur-enabled cameras.
  • While this is being promoted as a privacy measure, does anyone else see the serious rights issues here?

    No.

    What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?

    What's to keep them from turning off or siezing the camera in the first place?

    If this tech can be used to blur faces, it can be quite easily adapted to turn cameras off altogether, with deeply troubling implications.

    Huh? And what does the power switch do? I'm not seeing the

  • This doesn't mean every camera on earth will be equipped this way. Lets say you're a bystander when COPS is filming or something. A neat feature would be opt-IN camera blurring, so that the maniac loser that ran into your yard after the high speed chase doesn't get your face on national TV. I see this mainly as a useful tool for TV filming.

  • So buy an old camera (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs@ajs . c om> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:51PM (#11483042) Homepage Journal
    This seems like a rather silly concern. There are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of old cameras out there using digial or analog media to store images that won't be affected by such a device.

    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.
  • "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?"

    Just like you are fair game for having your pockets picked or having a bird crap on you. Which doesn't mean you couldn't or shouldn't do something about it if you don't agree with it.

    It's not my job to make it easy for someone to photograph me - ("Oh sorry, the sun is in my back ? I'll stand over here beating up this poor fellow then, ok ?"). Really, this is n

  • Slashdot headline is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IWannaBeAnAC ( 653701 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:51PM (#11483057)
    As the article says,

    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.

    • Solution #1
      The hardware is mine, I do whatever I want with it. Even disable this dumb protection.

      Solution #2
      The money is mine, I will NEVER buy a camera with this STUPID feature.

    As simple as that, if you don't want to be seen, then don't put your face in public places.
    IOW: STAY HOME!.

  • I just hope Paris Hilton doesn't get one :)

  • Meh (Score:2)

    by delmoi ( 26744 )
    Just wear a paper bag over your head.
  • I definitely see problems with this one. I firmly believe that if you are in public, you are fair game.

    That is why I don't have problems with the use of video cameras by the police, etc., in public spaces to monitor activities there.

    I firmly agree with David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com/ [davidbrin.com], who said in The Transparent Society http://www.davidbrin.com/privacyarticles.html#ts [davidbrin.com] that we face stark choices about privacy and transparency.

    He takes a position, quite contrary to what is popular on Slashdot, concern

  • Idiots should NOT have ideas (Score:5, Funny)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:56PM (#11483134) Journal
    I think there should be some sort of policy in all technology companies, dilbert style, that says that non-technical people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about should not be allowed to make product suggestions or patents. There is already a similar policy in the airline industry that says non-pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly planes and i hear it works very well!

    This is one of those ideas with no thought behind it, its based on the assumption that like good little boys and girls we are all going to accept technology lock down - they haven't even figured out how they are going to persuade other companies to stick this in their cameras?! or is this going to be mandatory by law soon? well i've got news for any legislator who thinks for a fucking second they are going to dictate what i can do to my property in my own home. To me it seems like this idea was thought up not by a business minded person (who in their right mind would try and cripple only their companies products for no reason!?) but by a complete and total idiot, in fact i would like that idiot to come and explain themselves, slashdot?

  • Think bigger... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by andymac ( 82298 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @01:58PM (#11483170) Homepage
    This "techonology" could be used in places where you don't want some goof with a cellphone camera taking snaps of stuff, i.e.: my company's office, the ladies change room at my local gym/pool, government offices, etc. I know I'd love to have something that disables a cellphone camera in specific areas - right now I have to rely on the honesty of my guests in disclosing if their camera has imaging capabilities or not... (hint: I work with secured technologies).

    The patent may be broad enough to cover the larger concept of obscuring/degrading/modifying digital data when captured via certain types of devices.

  • Public behavior (Score:3, Insightful)

    by doubleyewdee ( 633486 ) <wd @ t e l e k i n e s is.org> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @02:01PM (#11483202) Homepage

    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.

  • Chicken little poster... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <.adavis. .at. .ubasics.com.> on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @02:56PM (#11483952) Homepage Journal
    The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.

    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)

    by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @03:04PM (#11484057)
    So, how does this work on a film-based camera? Is the device really big and you hold it up in front of your face or what?

    This is just nonsense.

  • Obligatory Futurama (Score:3, Funny)

    by Exocet ( 3998 ) * on Wednesday January 26, 2005 @03:16PM (#11484193) Homepage Journal
    [Scene: Planet Express: Lounge. A show called Cop Department is on TV.]

    Cop Department Announcer [voice-over; on TV]: Cop Department is real. The people you see are not actors. Most of them aren't even people.

    [Fry, Bender and Leela sit slumped on the couch. The coffee table is filled with dishes, uneaten burgers and boxes of Chinese food. On the TV is a dazed centipede-like alien with a blurred face.]

    Alien [on TV]: C'mon man, I didn't fire off no laser.

    Smitty [on TV]: Then why is there a smoking hole in your ceiling sir?

    [The camera points to the ceiling.]

    Alien [on TV]: What? Crazy upstairs lady must've been shooting down.

    URL [on TV]: Sir, you're on the top floor of this particular domicile.

    [snip!]

    Alien [on TV]: OK. OK, I'm co-operating.

    Smitty [on TV]: That's it, now put up your hands.

    [The alien puts it's 20 hands in the air and URL moves towards him, cuffs at the ready.]

    URL [on TV]: Nice and slow. Aww yeah!

    Smitty [on TV]: And while you're at it, unblur your face.

    Alien [on TV]: Aw man.

    [He unblurs his face. It wasn't a TV effect!]

    --Futurama, "The Lesser of Two Evils"

Slashdot Top Deals

Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter

Close