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
There is a more low-tech solution available as well. There's this guy who advertises in the back of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine who will blur anyone's face for a fee.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
if their faces are blurry they'll die in 7 days!
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.
They've actually been around for quite some time. They are called ski masks.
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.
Hey, maybe they should just make a regulation against cops beating and mistreating people.
If you have boobs attached to your face, please blur them too. Thank you.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I'm just thinking about the first time someone would commit a crime and all you see is a Laughing Man logo with a spinning quote from Catcher in the Rye around it over the criminal's face. And next thing you know there are dozens of people claiming to be the Laughing Man...
Erik http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~rattles
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 :/
Not really - If you're distinct enough to recognize, you can be photographed by anyone, but those photos can't be distributed for profit without your consent for the most part. For instance, no one can snap a picture of you and use that in an ad or commercial without your consent, but a journalist can publish photos of you in a newspaper. I'm not sure about how the law works around it, but I know that it can get pretty complicated if you sell digital photos because you need stacks of waiver forms.
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.
Because many of us don't inherently trust law enforcement or government to do the "right thing."
I think there should be some sort of policy in all technology companies, dilbert style, that says that non-technical people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about should not be allowed to make product suggestions or patents. There is already a similar policy in the airline industry that says non-pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly planes and i hear it works very well!
This is one of those ideas with no thought behind it, its based on the assumption that like good little boys and girls we are all going to accept technology lock down - they haven't even figured out how they are going to persuade other companies to stick this in their cameras?! or is this going to be mandatory by law soon? well i've got news for any legislator who thinks for a fucking second they are going to dictate what i can do to my property in my own home. To me it seems like this idea was thought up not by a business minded person (who in their right mind would try and cripple only their companies products for no reason!?) but by a complete and total idiot, in fact i would like that idiot to come and explain themselves, slashdot?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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."
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
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.