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?"
So who would buy that?
Unless... it somehow gets mandated to be in all cameras. Good luck with that.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The scenario is all about police beating innocent people. They're not the bad guys, and are thus rather worth worrying about, I think.
Unless aformentioned camera's are forced upon photographers by law or something- Papparazzi will just avoid buying and using camera's with this technology. The problem is that it is reliant on the person taking the picture to have the magic circuit inside. And lets face it if you are going to be taking pictures of celbrities baring all - or whatever - you aint gonna pick a camera thats not going to do its job properly.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I use a Bessa-R, love that thing. It's a rangefinder and fully manual. I can shoot that thing at night with no flash, in low light, and no shutter lag that you usually get with digi cameras. It's compact but agile.
That and buying good film on e-bay rocks. No digital for me right now, no thanks.
My sig left me for a younger user id.