Slashdot Mirror
No Pictures, Thanks
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's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
Gee...I dunno. Regulations about that sort of thing, perhaps?
A real-world broadcast flag. Just what we need. Thanks, Carly!
sulli
RTFJ.
use good old-fashioned film!
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
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.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Something that came out of a research lab but won't ever make it to production.
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!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Ahh Slashdot, where everything from the legit to the inane is seen as a 'serious rights issue'.
#include
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who wants a camera which enables anyone to remotely cripple it.
Something tells me this item is NOT going to be a big seller.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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?
It's a patent, not a law... Come back and complain about it when it becomes law and every camera has to implement it...
Besides, it's a vital tool in our war against terror. After all, think of the children!
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
I reckon a lot of what has happened in the U.S. in the past several years would've previously been considered to be "unlikely to be mandated by law" and "nothing to be concerned about." You never know.
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.
The real question is how many people get your reference, I do
Personal Website
Because many of us don't inherently trust law enforcement or government to do the "right thing."
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.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
This submission is what happens when someone accidentally wears their tin foil hat inside-out.
paintball
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Nothing interesting here, move along
All the more reason to keep my Canon A-1 circa 1970-something in good working order. The theoretical implications of this technology are disturbing, but I wonder about the actual implementation and the practicality of it. Still, a good, mechanical, film backup camera is a good thing to have for multiple reasons. Speaking as someone who has taken pictures of cops beating up people and of landscapes and what not, and who likes the geekness of the film processing and photo developing chemical and physical technologies.
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).
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
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
One of the few places where "They shouldn't be filming me in public" and "I should be able to film anyone else in public" aren't seen as logically inconsistent.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Please visit our gift shop!
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!
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 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.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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?
"...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.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
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.
/supports enforcement of this rule, too...
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.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
What's to prevent this being used by police to block their images when they're beating or otherwise mistreating people?
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?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
so HP have been granted a patent for this.. That, in itself, means nothing at all. For the issues raised in the article to become issues in the first place, people will have to buy the products in question.
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..
Unfortunately, current day dissenters don't seem to understand that this isn't the 60's. There is a negligible amount of police misconduct now. Stories such as that may serve as rallying cries today, but they are nowhere near as relevant as they were forty years ago. The notion that this HP patent is a prelude to rampant police brutality is a total joke. With all of the kicking and screaming that goes on here about our rights being taken away and law enforcement harassment, few if any slashdotters have ever experienced such things.
I always wondered, what if you don't answer the phone? Doesn't Sadako (Samara) have to TELL you that you have seven days? Just don't ever answer the phone again and maybe she can't get you.
Say what? It's worse now then it was back then, including how many people are outright killed by cops. Magnitudes worse. You have no knock raids now as common, and frequently they just barge in and kill everything moving, sometimes even at the wrong address, and mostly get away with it.. Every police force from podunk on up size has black suited anonymous ski masked ninja killers squads with full military arms. You have cameras going up all over, civilian surveillence cams, you have random freekin checkpoint roadblocks,straight out of a bad grade B war spy movie,and people accept it, something we were taught as kids only bad places like east germany had, massive and pervasive government data mining that is going way beyond just flat files in actual file cabinets, spy satellites, helicopters using penetrating radar running grids over cities mapping everything, mass arrests at demos when there is no violence whatsoever, things called "free speech zones" that are just barbed wire enclosures that they 'allow" any protesters to assemble in, the complete abandonment of Posse Comitatus, government snatches and removals to camps where you can be charged in secret and held indefinetly, they are sticking RFID tracking chips in everything, including humans now, and on and on and on and on. I mean, sheesh, that crap is all real stuff!
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.
Victoria Snelgrove, murdered by the Boston police this past October would probably disagree with the parent poster about the idea that police misconduct is "negligible." So would Abadou Diallo. And Abner Louima. Google the name Clifford Glover. While you're there, look up Eleanor Bumpers, too. I'd mention Rodney King yet again in this thread, but that'd be trite.
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.
Fight for something better: www.socialistalternative.org