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.
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.
That depends on the marketing strategy. If it's a `cool new device for interacting with your friends`, I'm sure they'll get not so tech-savy or privacy-savy people to buy it.
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.
I had to check today's date 3 times because I was sure this was an April Fool's story.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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.
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.
If they simply must market such a technology, at least put a biometric device on the remote. That would have to work better than some mysterious body shape recognition, give them the same marketing information and I can still watch Sanford and Son reruns in my underwear.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I'm sure Comcast will say they are going to sell some type of video phone service or something similar to justify putting the camera in the box. If asked why all boxes have a camera rather than some with and some without, Comcast could come back with some excuse indicating that it is cheaper for them to stock a single type of box rather than multiple types that could result in shortages and poor customer service.
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
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?"
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.
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.
well, this time tin foil has a real use, to cover the camera!
They're using their grammar skills there.
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!
My box has a firewire port on the back. I plugged it into my laptop once and it was detected as a video for windows device. After digging around for some drivers i was actually able to watch the video coming off the box directly on the laptop. In doing some research for this it looks like all set top boxes made after a specific date are required to have this built in by the FCC.
It would have been even better though if it acted as a tv tuner card that you could use to change channels on the box from the computer.
Yes, but In Soviet Russia, YOU watch ... i mean Comcast watches... wait, what?
stuff |
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 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)!
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
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!
did not forsaw all of this coming, but instead gave the bad guys the ideas...
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.
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.
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.
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"