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?"
They may hve figured out how to do this, then decided to patent it specifically to prevent its use in the wild.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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 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 :/
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.
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.
"Content's a bitch."
Gee...I dunno. Regulations about that sort of thing, perhaps?
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The police don't necessarily care about photos when they are beating people. In many cases they are following orders. For instance, when the police are sent in to break up a peaceful demonstration they go in with full riot gear and Billy clubs. The NYC Republican convention protests are a great example of this. Throughout the 19th century there are many examples of authorites ordered to repress civilians of america. The 1932 Bonus Army in which the US military was dispatched against peaceful civilian demonstrators. From 1920 to 1940 police were used extensively to break up peaceful and violent union picket lines. Often times these actions resulted in the death of american civilians. It's not one or two "bad cops". It is a purposefully placed systematic corruption aimed at benefiting the powerful. Another example of abuse of innocents by our American government is the Abu Ghraib Prison scandals. The jailors were not ashamed of what they did. They were just following orders. Hell, they took pictures of themselves doing it. Were the people they were raping with broomsticks (yes there are documented cases of this) Hanging up in chains, beating with fists, attacking with dogs and even prisoners beaten to death. Were these people innocent? We will never know as they were never given a trial. But back to my point. No cop is a bad cop when the entire system is corrupt.
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!
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.