Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet US, Comcast Watches YOU
cayenne8 sends us to Newteevee.com for a blog posting reporting from the Digital Living Room conference earlier this week. Gerard Kunkel, Comcast's senior VP of user experience, stated that the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into its devices so it can know who's in your living room. Cameras in the set-top boxes, while apparently not using facial recognition software, can still somehow figure out who is in the room, and customize user preferences for cable (favorite channels, etc.). While this sounds 'handy,' it also sounds a bit like the TV sets in 1984. I am sure, of course, that Comcast wouldn't tap into this for any reason, nor let the authorities tap into this to watch inside your home in real time without a warrant or anything."
This is one privacy issue that a little electrical tape can cure easily.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
They will never succeed in getting this technology in people's homes in the first place. People would just say "Nah i'll take the one WITHOUT the camera built in." And that'll be the end of that.
Why the *frag* are cameras in the set-top boxes to begin with?
It sounds like we need a constitutional amendment giving us the explicit right to privacy. (We'd probably need it to state explicitly that it was not to be used in the context of the abortion debate, or it would never pass.)
Note to self: no more sex in the living room.
A 'bit' like 1984? Who in the hell would go for this? Americans seem to have managed to convince their politicians and corporations that they have no interest in freedom at all.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
If the camera's integrated into the set top box, that means the box has to be pointed at the viewers (not, say, rotated 45 degrees), and not in, say, the drawer of your entertainment center. Even then, a little duct tape in the right spot, and you've got an obscured camera.
There's really not much possibility of this being used without the consumer's knowledge.
Does Comcast think the behvior exhibited is beneficial to them in the eyes of current/potential customers or the FCC? To think, someone actually believes this is the way to run a business.
Although, I suppose it gives us something to talk about between SCO updates.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Cool! Maybe the DVR will only show my porn channels when my wife isn't in the room! :-) :-)
:-) But I could see some value in context-sensitive cable box a/o DVR behavior.
Actually, it's more fun to watch with her anyway.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
While this sounds 'handy,' it also sounds a bit like the TV sets in 1984.
Apart from the fact that allowing them into your house is entirely voluntary and not mandated by law. You know, the important bit.
I'm sick of people comparing everything to 1984. It's like they read one book in school and anything that has privacy implications is immediately associated with it because it makes them feel smart.
Look, I think this is a stupid idea and there's no way I'd let one into my house, but it's not like 1984. Hardly anything compared to it actually is.
This would be useful for determining who's on the end of the cable line, using bittorrent. The FBI can then go ahead and break their doors in, during an early-morning no-knock raid.
They can then go ahead and develop technology to determine who's watching the commercials and who isn't... and then apply a flat per-minute fee for not watching advertisements.
Alternatively, they can charge a per-viewer fee for pay-per-view events. After all, if you crap 20 people around your HDTV to watch a $40 boxing event, isn't it logical that you should pay extra for every extra person who's watching it?
Heck, there's all kinds of useful things a company could do with this information.
They already used the "In Soviet Russia..." joke. Now I'm going to have to come up with a car analogy or something...
See it's like someone is looking at you while you are driving down the road...
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
I'm going to run out and register www.comcastxxxvoyeurism.com right now!
I had to check today's date 3 times because I was sure this was an April Fool's story.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
look forward to our Comcastic overlords!
I, for one, welcome our new comcast overlords. Not really, I owe them $335 right now and they keep calling me... Unfortunately, too many people will find this handy and think outloud, "I have nothing to hide." Where does it end?
dumber people are doing harder things everyday
Wow, posted when there were 0 comments... and showed up as the third almost identical comment
Good to see the Slashdot hive mind is still functioning
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
The idea that your TV can recognize you, and automatically turn to your favorite shows, is a neat idea in theory. The problem is that nobody trusts the asshats that make these boxes NOT to try to spy on you. Welcome to the digital age.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The RIAA and the MPAA will love this. At last, content can be licensed to the individual, not the device. "Pay per viewer", at last.
And you can't cover the camera; if it can't see you to identify your biometrics, your licenses won't validate.
Roe v. Wade
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
There will be a "think of the children" campaign. People will protest children seeing adult material and someone will argue that "the technology already exists" to solve this problem. These cameras will detect that children are in the room and block inappropriate material. A law will be passed requiring the camera-in-box technology. There you go... it's in people's homes.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
The ultimate reality show: watching yourself watch yourself.
No, no, no! Keep on spanking the monkey, but for the sake of the camera do it while surrounded by:
Roll 1d8:
1) Stuffed animals
2) Feminine hygiene products
3) Jars of Bovril
4) Jars of Marmite
5) Old computer hardware
6) Cassette tapes of ABBA albums
7) Duct tape
8) Any two of the above
With any luck, the Demographic Analysis software will either give up or -- unless 1960s SF shows have taught me wrong -- spew reams of paper tape, shout "DOES NOT COMPUTE!" in a tinny voice, and catch on fire.
Do they think this will be a 'popular' feature? Is this the best new feature they can add? Why even go down this road. Aren't there enough cameras watching us now, as it is? We're better off not inviting even such a 'benign' one as this so-called new improvement into our homes.
"Honey, how come every time you walk in the room the TV switches to the Girls Gone Wild pay per view?"
Anyone notice that the summary closes with a quotation mark but doesn't have an opening quotation mark anywhere?
Otherwise, I enjoyed this summary more than most. Of course I've got 1984 (book on CD) in my car right now. Which reminds me--it's "Telescreen."
I'd just drape a white towel over the camera and smile as I am deluged with ads for snowshoes, fur coats, and skis.
It used to be my only complaint about all the sex on TV was falling off, now I've got to worry about an audience. Maybe I can charge them for it, like selling power back to the electric company?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I got a new cable box a month ago (a HD box for my HDTV). After reading this, I made a note and stuck it on the front of the box :)
I can't wait until stupid Verizon is avaiable here, now I'm canceling my Comcast cable to. Way to go Comcast!
What makes you think the camera is not already there? Have you disassembled your cable box?
Food for thought. Your cable box could have a camera already. If you have cable internet you know it has enough bandwidth for monitoring you.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
After all don't we all have tape over the flashing 88:88's already?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
What company ever won a war with their customers?
Here's what they are really thinking, they can really charge for access to the individual level for everything you view and block access to people who have not paid. All the other things like invasion of privacy are just bonuses to them and a way to get the government to push for it by making it a key for V-Chip access control.
Ted: Hey, that hot chick in H3378 just ordered another porno!
Bill: I'll get the popcorn!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Plain ole paper books are sounding better and better all the time.
I put a picture of Mickey Mouse in front of mine. They got me for copyright and trademark violations too. How did they know?
TV is not worth this. Thanks to MythTV, I considered paying for cable TV again. There is no way in hell I'd sit a camera in my living room for it. What complete morons.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
....the USB ports in front of the cable box are for. It all makes sense now!
And here I was hoping the USB ports were for plugging in game controllers for some sort of gaming-on-demand service.
Personally I think this would be a huge invasion of privacy. If some hacker tapped into this and got video of some guy doing his wife. If they were 'in front of the tv' and watching pr0n, and then it got posted on you tube. I'd imagine that there would be a huge law suite in the US.
I really hate comcast at this point. I wish there were other cable companies in my area, and no dish does not work so well were I live. It is too windy and foggy.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Isolate the video signal of the camera inside the box and pump in a video of you sitting happily in your favorite arm chair, wife by your side, your 2.5 children, the family cat on lap and the dog at your feet. Either that or find the raunchiest sex scene and feed that back at them. At least with the second option, you'll find out how often they actually monitor the signal.
It sees you when you're sleeping, it knows when you're awake, it knows if you've been bad or good, so be good or get blackmailed.
Does anything sound like a bad idea to these idiots? I can just see the board room discussion...
CEO: I'm thinking anal probes.
CLO: I don't think we're quite there yet, remember you have to work up to this stuff gradually.
CTO: We already know everything about their web surfing, let's expand on that.
CEO: What do you mean?
CTO: Let's build cameras into the converter boxes, this way we can watch them.
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
Why not just have 4 buttons on the remote, so 4 users can be assigned a button. Another can bring up a full list of users. When the user wants to watch some TV, they just press that button to turn on all the devices they will typically want (sound system, TV, cable box, etc) and load their settings.
Twinstiq, game news
well, this time tin foil has a real use, to cover the camera!
They're using their grammar skills there.
Dear Comcast,
Blow it out your ass.
Love,
America
Duct-tape the camera. Done.
World's not such a fucked up place is it?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Cali's the state you go to if you need to keep your financial records unavailable to the public, if you want theft of your private data reported to you, etc...
I am having flashbacks to that Oliver Stone mini-series Wild Palms.
Now the solution for 5,000 and 1 problems in your life. Though Electrical Tape might be better for aesthetic reasons.
Unfortunately, by sticking electrical tape on the camera, you have invalidated your warranty (by their own definition) and they cannot be held responsible if, say, the device becomes permanently nonfunctional when it notices the channels being changed while the camera detects no motion or light.
Them's the breaks!
Well, looks like I'm going to have to make a hard plastic shell to put over all my network devices that covers everything but the fan ports. Sigh.
Go to atomfilms and search for "Me and the Big Guy." I'm pretty sure if it ever became mandatory to have these devices, This would be the way to get rid of them....
Restore the madness of youth's lechery
Let 'em try that where I live. I'll give them a show they'll never forget. 2 (alleged) captured cable and/or government a-holes. 1 cup So many regrets. I think they might want to entertain that mental image for awhile, and then see if this whole thing still makes sense.
Come on people. It's not like the NSA works with communication companies illegally!
because each time I walked into the living room the tv started playing pr0n! Awesome. My cable company really is working to know me and help me save time.
This is a part of a new marketing campaign to figure out how to get people to download more shows from bittorrents and stop using cable.... and I think it might just work.
...of me ever getting cable again. I don't even like YouTube, but I'd rather be subjected to that than ever give these people another dime. The worst ad-infested, DRM laden video downloads are way, WAY better than this. I'd rather never watch a video ever again than allow that into my home. I can barely believe they're going to try this crap. Sent this to my Congresscritter. You should too.
"I am sure, of course, that Comcast wouldn't tap into this for any reason, nor let the authorities tap into this to watch inside your home in real time without a warrant or anything."
Let's not miss the important part... Why would you want something that would let the authorities "tap into" a camera in your living room with or without a warrant.
Yes, but In Soviet Russia, YOU watch ... i mean Comcast watches... wait, what?
stuff |
If to underage people decided to ahve sex in front of a store video camera, the store isn't liable. unless of course the store encouraged it in some manner.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
iMacs and MacBooks all have built-in cameras which are sold as chat tools, Comcast could sell it as that too.
Of course you usually know when your iSight is on because there's either an indicator light, or you started it.
If Comcast wanted to do it for their own purposes, there is plenty of further opportunity for abuse.
Of course, being Comcast they might make it look like HAL in their usual odd mix of levity and faux-creativity.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Why not crack the system to sens someone else's image to them?
Why not feed the TV program your watching into the camera
I am pretty sure you can do better then I just did, and I know for a fact you can do better then the tired old 'Duct Tape' solution.
Come on, turn the Clever up to 11!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Yow! Those people look exactly like Donnie and Marie Osmond!! "
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Hopefully that clarifies things a bit.
I'm still glad I have TW cable in my area.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The API to use it gave you the option of NOT turning on the indicator light and using the camera.
Yes, if you know the IP of a machine you could turn on their camera and they wouldn't no. I did several tests and reported my finding to Logitech. They never replied, but the next version of the API had that removed.
My point is that the indicator light is nice, but don't rely on it.
Yes, that sounds tin foil hatish, and it probably wasn't there for spying, per se, but I could have easily recorded people and posted it online. Not that there was anything like youtube yet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bravo, sir. I LOLed.
(ironic captcha: congress)
I can't be bothered to look up the specific law right now, but I know it is specifically illegal for cable companies in the US to implement this.
The obvious application of this is a pricing model that includes the number of viewers in the room. This has been an issue since the early VCR days. Many of the big players (e.g. Disney) were violently opposed to the VCR at first for just this reason, that they could no longer charge based on the number of viewers. I'd be suprised if that idea didn't get floated soon after the debut of the camera, maybe in connection with some huge event.
Improved preferences/customization seems a small payout for such a large investment. They already have the 'thumbclick' data, which is far easier to run throgh the (Bayesian) software. I expect it's already got a model for how many regular users there are. From the perspective of preferences or targeted ads, who's holding the remote is more important than who's in the room.
may cause those who view to Comcasturbate (TM)!
There have been several scif/fantasy stories about the TV as a "window" both sides could interact or travel through. (Used to be "magic mirror" windows in fairy tales.)
So this theme ebcomes more 'real" then.
I think its much more likely they will roll out some sort of per seat licensing, then should you have guests over and exceed the number of licenses they just shut it off.
The cable box is in the closet, along with the mythtv server. So if they want to look at my closet door, go for it.
However I'd much rather them focus on providing HD Service that I can use with all the channels I pay for:-P.
Privacy issues aside (eek!),
... I'm not sure whether I have a problem with that or not - but do we really want advertisements that are targeting our kids?
I understand that they want to do this so that they can display ads that target you
I'd mod you funny if I could
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
From the Fine Article's Comment page:
- - - - - - - - - -
Chris,
Your article on "Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You" portrayed some assumptions that require correction and clarification. I want to be clear that in no way are we exploring any camera devices that would monitor customer behavior.
To gather information for your article on Comcast's exploration of cameras you picked up on my conversation with another conference attendee. The other attendee and I were deep in a conversation discussing a variety of input devices offered by a variety of vendors that Comcast is reviewing.
The camera-based gesture recognition device is in no way designed to - or capable of - monitoring your living room. These technologies are designed to allow simple navigation on a television set just as the Wii remote uses a camera to manage its much heralded gesture-based interactivity.
We are constantly exploring new technologies that better serve our customers. The goal is simple - a better user experience that allows the consumer to get ever increasing value out of their Comcast products.
As with any new technology, we carefully consider the consumer benefits. In fact, we do an enormous amount of consumer testing in advance of making a product decision such as this. I'm confident that a new technology like gesture-based navigation will be fully explored with consumers to understand the product's feature benefits - and of course, the value to the consumer.
Sincerely,
Gerard Kunkel
- - - - - - - - - -
I despise Comcast, but thought the fellow should at least be allowed to defend himself.
How ticked off he must be - those meddling journalist types!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
"In Soviet US, Comcast Watches YOU"
I didn't know Fark was writing Slashdot headlines now...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
It seems to me that if the goal is to get the box to configure itself based on who's in front of the TV there ought to be other solutions out there that would be more robust and cheaper than facial recognition. More importantly, there ought to be solutions that have less potential for invasion of privacy.
It could be done by manually hitting a button on the remote to change configuration.
It could be done automatically by wearing a radio device that the cable box detects.
Granted, these are not as "convenient" as perfectly working facial recognition. In the first case you have to press a button and in the second case if you forget your radio device somewhere else, it does not work.
When I posted something similar, I got modded troll and have had bad karma ever since. Mods, how about some love? http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=55255&cid=5395938
Wow. So how long before it's illegal to turn your TV off? Max Headroom is starting to look creepily accurate in some ways. Cable execs will know if you're "stealing" the shows by getting up to get food during the commercials. Maybe they can bill us. On the flip side is ratings - they can tell if there's someone in front of the TV or nobody watching. Overall, the networks and cable channels aren't going to like that . . . Hey, and once this is widespread, we can all be required to sit for our daily government "information" programming! Wow! And if they know thie distance, they might even be able to figure out details like approximate weight!
This will fix 'em: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
did not forsaw all of this coming, but instead gave the bad guys the ideas...
What makes these idiots at comcast believe that this would be a welcome feature in any one's home? Have customers been calling their customer service lines in India begging, nay, demanding that their cable box have cameras that can watch them watching the TV?
More importantly, are there such people clamoring for this? Actually, that is a much, much scarier question. If such people do exist, I imagine they're the ones yelling that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind bush's illegal spying. Now that I could make sense of.
Oh, look, it's yet another use for duct tape.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
With all due respect. If the thing is capable of being wired up and sending data back to ComCast, there will, not might, arrive a court order opening that up for police. I thought they already did this when "magic lanterning" a PC. ComCast, and any other peripheral vendor would be well advised to ensure there is no way to enable remote access. Of course with software there really is no way to do that since anything in memory can be grabbed and uploaded to ComCast. So the second ComCast introduces this expect the tinfoil hats to rightly call them out and suddenly ComCast looses tons of R&D money as nobody buys it and get's labeled as snitch in the press. There will just be no way to trust this. Same goes for voice recognition or retnia.
Watch your neighbors while they watch pay-per-view pr0n.
Have gnu, will travel.
You already posted in this article with your sockpuppet account.
For real black mirror operations, see the Goetia Magick series here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Maxtolkien
How effing lazy are you Americans (or how lazy do your omnipotent corporate overlords think that you are)?
How difficult is it to pick up the remote and press a button upon entry of the room in order to trigger an event?
Do you need technology to pre-empt and fulfil your every intent?
This is almost an insult to the customers (spoon-fed consumers), who are perfectly capable of changing the channel/customisations when and if they see fit.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
You said 'It does not make the demographic data any more valuable than it already is.'.
So it sounds like the device is even less of a 'consumer gesture' feature to aid in switching channels and more of a determine if someone is sitting in front of the TV, save this private info in a database, and report this back to advertisers / Nielson.
These guys have no shame when it comes to extracting/monetizing us 'consumers'.
if(camera.users.count == 1 && (camera.users[0].profile.indexOf('pants') == -1) && (time >= 0000 && time = 0600)) channel.setById('CINEMAX');
If Comcast can't guarantee that they won't let the authorities watch inside your home in real time even WITH a warrant they must:
- Not implement this technology
- Destroy all the research
Seriously, the ability to look into anyone's home through a common device that most homes will have and at whim will only end badly. This is very much like destroying all the terminator research, privacy cannot be protected if this device exists, so it must be destroyed before anyone gets any dangerous ideas. (And it must be done now whilst it's still a prototype, rather than trying to do it in 10 years time when there's one in every home and the research is too widely disseminated to destroy.)If someone was on the verge of developing a more virulent strain of smallpox, would you let them? Even if they promised that they'd never let it out of their lab without putting it in the care of a 'responsible' person or agency?
If it was you, would you continue your research?
Exactly.
FGD 135
When watching pr0n and you have a comcast box to make sure it's facing the wall, the box, not you
All citizens are required to install, pay for and utilize, the manatory national comcast system -- for your protection
You gotta love it when Slashdot turns everything into a corporate evil privacy issue.
Yes, there would be an issue if the camera had to send video (of you) or other information about you over the cable network. But has anyone actually considered that this camera could simply be used on the TV/set-top box without sending any information? The recognition software (however it works) could reside in the TV/STB and wouldn't even be directly connected to the network (would only impact the STB settings). Privacy issue solved.
No, I didn't RTFA, so I have no clue how Comcast's implementation works, but I'm guessing I'm not the only one.
This space up for sale.
They are completely trustworthy - right?
... sorry had to vent
I mean - they would lie about anything ever - right?
It's not like they mess with your torrents and then lie about it - right?
They don't completely suck donkey balls - right?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
If the camera wasn't transmitting back to Comcast, then this should be "ok", where "ok" means they'll think it's a good feature to implement.
However, if the camera is sending video back to the office, then the first time it gets hacked, Comcast would get sued into oblivion. Imagine if a million customers suddenly found themselves on youtube? If an employee abuses the system, then Comcast would probably survive the lawsuit. Either way, Congress would be quick to ban the practice after the first public incident.
I could see a new reality tv show being started from just grabbing peoples' recorded activities and sending them $5 in the mail.
You're nothing; like me.
If you have never read it, "Fahrenheit 451" is now trying to fullfill itself. If you haven't read it, now might be a good time.
...channel changing when my wife walks in the room...at least put a biometric device on the remote.So when your wife walked into the room the TV channel would still change?
Ok, ok, It was a bad interpretation from Comcast. But I'm surprised that most of the comments are about security and privacy. As I see it this would not have been controlling everything you do and use it against you. This is a lot more subtle. This is deciding for you what you watch. The latest choice available, which program to select, is kindly made by someone else. This is for getting us used to someone else deciding for us, this is for making us even more passive and accepting than we are now. This is far more scary than security and privacy.
I'm no hardware expert, but I don't think the Wii uses any cameras, only infrared sensors. You can even use well-placed candles instead of the sensor bar and it works just fine.
there is no reason to fear.
(or so am always told by my right wing co-workers)
Shamelessle and blatantly stolen from A Child's Garden of Grass: A Pre-Legalization Comedy (1971)
Profound Revelations:
Survival of the species is everybody's business.
No matter how much you may dislike pickles, it is, after all, the only thing you can do with cucumbers.
Can't remember the third one!
Anyone know where to get a digital copy, my album is a bit warped
Let's assume the worst here: Comcast's technology enables the government to spy on its own citizens. That's 300 million potential suspects at least. THEN, the government has to hire people to observe said 300 million people. Let's assume that through massive emplacement of supercomputers and a Gi-gantoid amount of new fiber being laid down throughout the geographic United States JUST for the sole purpose of providing enough bandwidth to do this is done. Let's say all this comes in place and there's a sizable workforce of several hundred or thousand people specifically hired to watch all of us in front of our TVs. With a implanted federal bureaucracy in place to oversee it all. Let's say this all comes to happen. We, the American people, could shut this all down in less than forty eight hours simply by sitting nekkid in front of our cameras for prolonged periods of time. There is no way any government-no matter the philosophy-would ever foot the bill to force people to spy on millions of ugly fat naked people staring back at them.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I'm pretty sure this is to make sure you don't go to the bathroom during commercial breaks. If you do, they add a charge to your monthly bill.
Samantha and i will be in bed about 9:00pm for your viewing pleasure.
Using the electrical tape will be classed as theft
No, they'll call it vandalism or put something in their TOS that says covering up the camera isn't allowed.
The newteevee.com article "Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You" portrayed some assumptions that require correction and clarification. I want to be clear that in no way are we exploring any camera devices that would monitor customer behavior. To gather information for this article, the blogger picked up on a conversation between Gerard Kunkel and another person at a recent conference. They were discussing the various input devices offered by a variety of vendors that Comcast is reviewing. The camera-based gesture recognition device is in no way designed to - or capable of - monitoring your living room. These technologies are designed to allow simple navigation on a television set just as the Wii remote uses a camera to manage its much heralded gesture-based interactivity. We are constantly exploring new technologies that better serve our customers. The goal is simple - a better user experience that allows the consumer to get ever increasing value out of their Comcast products. As with any new technology, we carefully consider the consumer benefits. In fact, we do an enormous amount of consumer testing in advance of making a product decision such as this. We're confident that a new technology like gesture-based navigation will be fully explored with consumers to understand the product's feature benefits - and of course, the value to the consumer. Frank Eliason Comcast Executive Offices
Its what they COULD do with this technology. Just because some executive of the offending company says "Don't worry" doesn't mean I'm not going to worry. What's to stop them from inserting a camera anyway, admittedly or not? I don't recall On-Star saying that their service can be hijacked by the FBI to listen to in-car conversations, did I miss the memo? There are plenty of other ways to customize a TV set, I don't need a camera or anything LIKE a camera to do it, never mind do it FOR me. Just because they claim it can't send any info back to corporate doesn't mean it's true nor does it mean it can't be switched on when say a subpoena is issued. What about employees switching it on, or the cable installer hijacking it for his/her own purpose. To all that claim sensationalism and having an alarmist attitude is wrong, I'm sorry but trusting ANY company to do what they say considering the benefit of what they COULD do to gain market share or more ad revenue is wrong. History is littered with all sorts of examples of government abuse of it's people's privacy and rights, and since companies are part of our government now, who knows what they will do. Remember everyone is worried about what THEY COULD do once it's in the home.
I think it's time to stimulate the economy by forcing Comcast to surrender all assets. Divide the assets and send every customer a check. Then ban them from all business relating to telephone, cable, etc.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
I'm surprised that vidicons weren't somehow implemented directly into TVs over all these years. It's the same basic principle of operation, I'm sure they could have had the electron beam scan another surface inside the TV to act as a display and camera.
Destroy the CCD. Problem solved.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Every cable box has a camera, and each user can browse the camera feeds. If your box ends up on the Popular list, you get a share of the ad revenue.
Combine this with an opt-out and you get a real "The Truman Show" -- it would replace YouTube with live video
Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
make a cable box that sets its own clock, and then sync's the time up with all your other gadgets that need a time set? Now that would almost be worth the Nobel Prize.
Just tape a picture of it over the lens.
Or perhaps tubgirl...
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
Hrm... ok, how about this: make a model of your living room or some room with models of all the people and place it in such a way so that the camera believes the models as the real thing. Move some light to cast different shadows and so further... perhaps even better, have the model people move in some way when the channel changes.