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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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.)
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 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 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.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
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.