Slashdot Mirror
HP Experiments with 'Always On' Camera
An anonymous reader writes "Hewlett-Packard researchers in the U.K. are working on a camera that's always on, recording everything you see and letting you go back later and decide what's actually photo-worthy. Raises some serious privacy questions. But as an HP researcher notes, "If your wearable camera is always on ... you're not going to miss any moments, but you're also going to get a load of junk.""
Looks like the dawn of times when one would have to decide what NOT to capture.
*sigh... life's tough
http://efil.blogspot.com/
Hmm...intesting idea... need some big batteries..
Sure, it may create some privacy issues...if it's storing it at some central HP or public database. If it's just recording it to some internal storage drive, and then you move the footage to your hard drive or somewhere else, then what's the problem?? I'm not trying to troll, but why is this such a big deal?
Is it just me, or is the paranoia level going up these days...
And yes, you can pry my mechanical Yashica and my black and white films from my cold, dead fingers...
This comment does not exist.
I wonder, at times it seems technology gets a pass, just because it is complicated.
Though the article mentions privacy concerns, it is stuff away between a half-dozen other headings. All technology is nothing more than tools. It is the context that gives the tool its meaning. And in this case, the social context of the tool should very much be weighed against the abilitity to "never miss an important moment." Who defines important? And who defines what *should* be recorded, and what should not be recorded? The social implications of all technology deserve more consideration than they currently recieve, I think.
The concept of this, apparently, is that you will never miss an important event or moment or anything. But that's not quite so. You'll only capture things that YOUR OWN EYES were looking at. If someone says "hey look over there" and that thing is gone, you're still screwed.
I would say that, in about a year, there are approximately 10 minutes worth even recording. Why would I want to wear a stupid camera and deal with it being confiscated or the video later being used against me if I'm raided before being able to delete it - and most of all, deal with 365 DAYS worth of video just to take the 10 minutes I might even remotely give a fuck about.
Whatever happened to the day where you just EXPERIENCED MOMENTS rather than experiencing them through a fucking lens? If you weren't there -- TOUGH!
Where's the privacy problem? Let only people you trust see things they're allowed to remember. That's why the difference between "public" and "private" places is so important, and why the right to control access to our private places is essential to privacy, and to our participation in society - rather than alienating us from it.
--
make install -not war
Stranger things have happened. I still can't see why webcams are popular.
Bceause they make phone sex so much more interesting.
Sattinger's Law: It works better if you plug it in.
Atleast the police would have the evidence that it was her who did it as long as she didn't hit the camera while plunging the knife into your chest.
I can see this device being extremely useful in certain situations:
If a police officer had a device like this when conducting an arrest or a stop the device would be beneficial for everyone involved:
1) If Officer does anything illegal the defendant has proof
2) If the defendant says something or does anything, the police now have proof.
In this context the only person with cause to worry is the individual doing something illegal (either police officer of member of public).
>If someone says "hey look over there" and that thing is gone, you're still screwed.
not at all. that's where THEIR camera comes in useful.