The Next Phase of Intelligent TVs Will Observe You

An anonymous reader writes "Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it. UTAN (user technology assisted navigation) TV viewing interface, as it is called, has a camera mounted on the TV which photographs the viewer and estimates the viewer's degrees of interest, concentration, etc. The information is processed by a tablet PC and recommended information is shown to the viewer. It is possible to show individual interests as well, in case there are multiple viewers."

Comments

Nice, however..

[Anrego]

Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!

Seriously.. all TV related technology is kind of meh these days because ultimately you are choosing between 50 different reality TV shows, maybe one or two token sitcoms/dramas and re-runs of real shows you’ve already seen and probably already own the DVD.

It’s not like music where there is enough variety that you can be taken aback by some band you didn’t even know existed. There is a limited amount of TV programming, and if you had any interest in it, you’ve probably already seen it or are at least aware of it.

Re:Nice, however..

[Frosty Piss]

I think that in the end this technology will be used not to "enhance" viewer experience, but rather for targeted advertising. Nothing is "innovated" these days for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of the CONSUMER.

Re:Nice, however..

[Stormthirst]

Nothing is "innovated" these days for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of the marketing departments.

FTFY

Re:Nice, however..

[spire3661]

A ton of tech progress is being stifled by the desire to capitalize on digital distribution. Almost EVERY piece of tech is now sold with a built in store. My wife has a Bodybugg. Its a device that measures your daily activity etc. TO be able to USE the device at all, you have to subscribe to their webservice. There is no way to upload the contents to your local machine or use it at all without paying a subscription. They have inserted themselves between the device and the user for no REAL reason other then monetization.

"From Bodybugg support
Posted By: bodybugg Support Team
Posted Date: 6-3-08 1:01PM
We are sorry if you were misled in any way, but bodybugg does require that you maintain an active subscription to the web application. This is comparable to a cell phone company wherein you pay for the phone as well as the calling plan."

Its amazing that they compare operating and maintaining a cellular network to collecting and visualizing personal data on a website. Really?

I mention all this becasue the REASON TV tech is 'meh' is because everyone is jockeying to lock up the digital frontier and ignoring actual technological progress. I would LOVE to have a simple 1 hour TV buffer. No record, no storage, just a 1 hour TV buffer to pause, FF, rewind. It cannot be that hard to make a simple inline buffer like that. But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

Re:Nice, however..

[Guignol]

You are totally spot on !

Re:Nice, however..

[XFire35]

The Sky+ box offered by Sky can let you pause/rewind/FF live TV for an hour and even over that (I think it's dependent on how much you have stored on the hard-drive however), but the principal is there.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, spotted that 2 seconds after hitting "enter"...

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you object to anything that starts playing just what you need when you start to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spank_the_monkey

Re:Nice, however..

[camperdave]

You are perfectly free to reverse engineer the protocol and write up your own server to download the Bodybugg data. Or you can google for one of the many projects, such as FreeBugg.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...but the principal is there.

Good. Now if we can just find the superintendent...

Re:Nice, however..

[spire3661]

Thats all well and good, but misses the point i was making that devices and features that dont have ongoing software revenue streams are being stifled. I was pointing it out as a reality of our time, not calling for their heads.

Re:Nice, however..

[Bios_Hakr]

Windows Media Center does what you want.

Re:Nice, however..

[Seumas]

Yeah, this "technology" seems irrelevant to an increasingly large portion of the population. I haven't had cable TV in many years and I don't even have access to over the air television. Or, I do, but I haven't bought a digital receiver and plugged it in and all that, because I don't care. Everything I watch on my televisiont hat isn't a videogame is streaming from Netflix. The few current things I need to watch (well, one current thing) I just get online.

Don't get me wrong - there is a LOT of awesome stuff on television these days. More now than ever before. Better in quality and quantity. However, the price for that content continues to go up, to. Even if I watch four shows consistently every single week, that isn't worth $100+ per month when I can get 90% of that experience for $8 on, say, Netflix.

Re:Nice, however..

[Frosty Piss]

But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

Yes, it's true, developing new technology is very expensive, and most people / companies don't want to do it unless they can make money on it.

Re:Nice, however..

[Seumas]

You mean, like when I was watching some show over at my friend's the other day and all of the cans on the table were turned so the labels were facing the camera and they kept mentioning the brand of their cell phone like ten times while sitting on the sofa in front of the camera?

Fortunately, I think content like that is going to be shortly lived, because people are smart enough to know when they're being directly marketed to like that and find it distasteful.

When it comes down to it, I don't need eight hours of television to watch every day. I know that until recent years, the average American watches something like 8 hours a day of television (which I found shocking until I read a statistic that the Japanese during the same period watched about 9 hours a day). I don't even watch a hour worth of "television" content (meaning content that is essentially television content whether or not I'm watching it live and directly from the television).

If I'm only watching a few hours a month of "television" content, then that content needs to be high quality and I'm willing to pay a couple bucks total for it. I'll pay two bucks a month to watch Game of Thrones, for example. But I won't watch Game of Thrones with advertising or product placement, even if it's free.

Re:Nice, however..

[Frosty Piss]

I was pointing it out as a reality of our time...

It's *not* the reality of our time, it has for the most part always been so.

The fact it, there are fundimentally different motives in basic science and advancing technology. Most "inventors" have always been about the money. Even with basic science, money has been a motivator long before "our time".

Re:Nice, however..

[Plombo]

But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

Yes, it's true, developing new technology is very expensive, and most people / companies don't want to do it unless they can make money on it.

Emphasis mine. It looks like you missed that word in the original post.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

FAIL, and not only that.. KISS MY ASS.

Re:Nice, however..

[Ucklak]

The Television world is much bigger than the US market.

Re:Nice, however..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This complaint has been going on since the TV was invented. Yet, we all still have our DVRs and our shows that you dare not criticize.

The problem isn't that there's nothing on, the problem is how you measure it. "I have 500 channels and only watch 6 of them. 6 / 500 = 0.012, that's almost zero!~!!!1"

I wouldn't mind, but really, both my dad and my grandfather said this sort of thing.

Re:Nice, however..

[BluBrick]

You mean, like when I was watching some show over at my friend's the other day and all of the cans on the table were turned so the labels were facing the camera and they kept mentioning the brand of their cell phone like ten times while sitting on the sofa in front of the camera?

Fortunately, I think content like that is going to be shortly lived, because people are smart enough to know when they're being directly marketed to like that and find it distasteful.

A wise man with no name to speak of once said "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky animals, and you know it!".

It's called "product placement", and it's not at all short lived - it's been happening for decades. The current form in which a character mentions a product ad nauseam is, surprisingly, a little subtler than the original form. Radio plays from as early as the 1920's were sponsored by companies as an advertising vehicle for their product, a strategy first successfully employed a brand of laundry soap (hence the term "soap opera"). You can bet the characters in those shows asked each other how they got their whites so fresh and clean with rather unnatural frequency.

It's not going to go away, because people are dumb enough to fall for it. Advertising works, sad to say.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Buffer until your hard drive is almost out of memory is more like it haha! But you raise good points. I would really enjoy watching 4k / 5k resolution movies but instead of companies investing into that kind of tech, they invested into 3D instead. So now we have to wait until 3D becomes glasses-less and at a HD level so we can wait for the next big thing like either super high resolution or something else. I could care less about TV's anymore since I get 100% of my "TV" entertainment online anyway. I'm not going to pay $150/mo. for something that isn't readily available and forces me to watch commercials.

Re:Nice, however..

[jon_doh2.0]

I didnt even think young people watched TV anymore, neither me nor any of my friends have TV, yes we have the TVs, but we are using them to play games and watch videos, no one is buying TV licenses or paying for cable/satellite. For one thing its all available online, and you have control over when you watch it, and because your watching what your actively seeking out you dont end up stuck on the couch watching an endless stream of crap. Havnt had TV in years, and frankly it depresses me completely when i am exposed to it at my parents or else where.

And the funny thing is the BBC put all there shows up for free online to UK residents, and they are the broadcasting company the TV licence fees go to. Guess they were in somewhat of a bind, they had to go online to stay relevant, but they failed to device an adequate pay model.
Anyways, off-topic sort of, so mod me down, i just had to post something as i accidentally modded someone flaimbait and need to cancel it out.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

When I finally called Comcast and told them to cancel my subscription they were mystified. "Are you switching to dish?" No. "Are you moving?" No. "Then why do you want to cancel?" Because I pay you $140 a month. You charge me for stuff I don't want. Every single broadcast is in HD but unless I pay for for HD you go to the extra trouble to reduce the quality of the signal before delivering it. I pay you for service but I still have to watch you paste pop-up ads over the top of the programming in addition to the ads that are already there. I have over 200 channels and there is NOTHING to watch that isn't a bunch of insipid BS or reruns. If I want to record programming you require me to use your DVR that you charge me for every month, deliver a used one to my house and refuse to fix when it doesn't work. I can stream every single thing I want to see in the same resolution for free. I want to cancel because you provide nothing of value.

Long silence followed by "we can give you a 6 months discount to keep you as a customer". You really weren't listening were you?

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

"They have inserted themselves between the device and the user for no REAL reason other then monetization."

Yet you purchased the device anyway. This kind of thing will never stop as long as there are hundreds of millions of people lining up to buy the latest shiny thing with lots of corporate lock-in.

Re:Nice, however..

[vgerclover]

I distinctly remember that a coffee company was one of the main sponsors for the Twilight Zone (the original series), and they had to change one of the lines of an English submarine captain from asking a cup of tea (the nerve! promoting the competition!) to the compromise of just asking for a cup.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't change a thing: Most people / companies invent and improve with the idea of getting income out of it.

Re:Nice, however..

[PopeRatzo]

Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!

That's the whole point. The new interface will allow the system to choose programs "that will interest you" without you having to make any decisions. It will probably sold as providing new freedom for TV viewers, but the only "freedom" it will provide is the "freedom" from having any choices.

This is the holy grail for advertisers, for content providers: to take away viewers' freedom to choose what they watch. After all, choosing is just so difficult especially when there's nothing good on. I mean, how many times have you had a difficult time deciding what to watch because everything is shit? Now, you won't have that problem any more. It's a Win-Win. The content providers win and the advertisers win. That covers all the important parties in the cultural transaction that is television.

And don't think for a second that an effort isn't being made to do the same thing with the Internet. For the providers, the problem with net neutrality (the concept, not the law) is that the viewer gets choices and nothing puts a crimp in profits like choices.

Re:Nice, however..

[stms]

I would LOVE to have a simple 1 hour TV buffer. No record, no storage, just a 1 hour TV buffer to pause, FF, rewind. It cannot be that hard to make a simple inline buffer like that. But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

What are you talking about I use one of those it's called ThePiratebay.

Re:Nice, however..

[scottrocket]

"Buffer until your hard drive is almost out of memory is more like it haha"

(Ha! I got rid of cable a month ago, & haven't looked back!) Just last night I was playing a stream on VLC, & had to set my buffer to 60000 ms; but the annoyance of that & the occasional freeze are insignificant compared to: Saving well over a US$100/month; and reducing my tv time by half or more. I prepared for the coax umbilical cut by gathering a plethora of pd movies from archive.org, cultofuhf.com, etc, as well as making a large number of "dollar DVD" purchases (not all of them "used"!). I'm also lucky (?) enough to receive perfect reception from all of the local television stations. So far, I'm much happier* now than I was in the past, when I would drop cable for a year at a time - I guess I need some level of a/v entertainment... Honestly, I can't see any reason why I would get cable again-just hoping for a faster DSL connection!

*I feel freer somehow, can't put my finger on it.

Re:Nice, however..

[kheldan]

It's actually an old idea that's been brought back from the so-called "golden age" of television, where specific sponsors funded a show. Viewship, and by extension ad revenues, have taken such a nosedive because television is so poor, and more lately because of the economy, that they've had to resort to this old tactic to try to make ends meet. I can't speak for anybody else, but so far as I'm concerned if it's done too obviously too often, it turns me off to the show I'm watching and I'll just stop watching it completely.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, we all still have our DVRs and our shows that you dare not criticize.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? Just because you are a stupid, bleating sheep doesn't mean everyone else is.

Re:Nice, however..

[muindaur]

I would rather the TV itself have a SSD in it that did that. They are so thin these days that's easily done.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Big Television World,

We stole all your crappy shows.

Sorry.

Sincerly,

The US Market

P.S. We made US viewers watch them, so are we even?

Re:Nice, however..

[captjc]

Especially when a good number of TV's today come with either USB ports and / or SD Card Slots for pictures and MP3s

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if they can only figure out how to take away my freedom of choice in turning OFF the TV and doing something that doesn't require an electronic signal.

I can see it now, mankind rediscovers the joy of Frisbee in the a park after 50 years of attempting, without success, to enjoy yet another rerun of Wings, Fraiser and NCIS. Too bad too, cause diving for that disc on pavement will hurt.

Re:Nice, however..

[c0lo]

Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!

With the TV set able to spy, the selection range may be wider. E.g.

You - during news: "Fuck X (a politician at you choice)"
TV: "would you like an pr0n movie featuring X? His TV captured some delicious scenes".

Re:Nice, however..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Just because you are a stupid, bleating sheep doesn't mean everyone else is.

In other words, don't be a sheep, be like me.

Re:Nice, however..

[Twisted64]

In all seriousness, personalised advertising is the only type of advertising that'll work on me. Also, it's the only type of advertising I wouldn't mute and grab a book to avoid watching. If the TV shows ads for cat food, tampons and Neighbours, those ads are entirely wasted. If they advertise dog food, technology and Van Damme movie marathons, then I'll be interested and may possibly buy something. The main fear I would have is that the ads end up all the same until Van Damme burns into my screen.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing... one doesn't believe how close we got to having TV set-top boxes be the primary means of communication as opposed to computers.

In the early 1990s, if it wasn't for the fact that there were so many well heeled investors throwing money at ISPs and college projects (Google, Yahoo, et. al. all started out as college websites), we might be using TV set top boxes with the limited interface (using what the cable company provided and no more) to do all our interaction, paying per E-mail, paying per "page" view, paying per search, etc. Instead of /., we would have a Web forum with employees vetting posts, not just for quality of content, but stomping any complaints.

Of course, any "MP3 revolution" would have been stopped in its tracks. Movies would be moved to PPV, and at best, one might be able to set up a personal streaming service... paying $0.25 a song selected or some stuff like that.

It can be argued that desktop/server/laptop computers are pretty much the only open computer technology out there. (Just try installing a completely different OS on a cellphone, for example.)

Re:Nice, however..

[Nyeerrmm]

I agree for the most part, but there are two things I find traditional broadcast TV useful for:

Sports: its not for everyone, but I love college football. ESPN3 (despite its obnoxious attempt to translate their cable revenue model to the internet) helps a lot, but broadcast is indispensable, particularly when it comes to bowl season.

Weather: I grew up in Oklahoma, and though I've moved away now, I still have it instilled in my core that with serious weather, you turn on the TV as the best way to get pertinent information. Professional judgement, along with the moving pictures that show the storm's progress are ideal for informing a large area of potential dangers, and for telling those in immediate danger to take shelter immediately. I would be very nervous to live in a tornado prone area without some sort of TV broadcast reception.

Of course, living in California now and football season not starting for a few months still I certainly understand the sentiment. I haven't used my antenna since February. Still, I'm glad I have it.

Re:Nice, however..

[Foobar of Borg]

Just because you are a stupid, bleating sheep doesn't mean everyone else is.

In other words, don't be a sheep, be like me.

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know what to do other than watch TV. You see, there is a world of difference between "don't be like the mass of sheep watching television and buying all the latest stupid gadgets" and "be like me". You see (and apparently, I have to explain this to you), there are so many other things one can do in life that don't involve watching television. There are so many things to do, so many ways to develop, so many kinds of lives that can be lived. Being an idiot who spends hours every day watching television, and who feels like he has to own every idiotic shiny box for sale is only one of them. It's not important. Get over yourself.

Of course, I'm sure you will intentionally misunderstand this in a feeble attempt to inflate your own ego.

Re:Nice, however..

[cashman73]

Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine.

Re:Nice, however..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You see, there is a world of difference between "don't be like the mass of sheep watching television and buying all the latest stupid gadgets" and "be like me"... Get over yourself.

You would have a point if that was what you said originally. But, you didn't, so here we are.

You see (and apparently, I have to explain this to you), there are so many other things one can do in life that don't involve watching television.

I see three other comments where you're making references to other TV shows. How long have you been showing symptoms of hypocrisy?

Of course, I'm sure you will intentionally misunderstand this in a feeble attempt to inflate your own ego.

This statement is amusing given the elitist post it is contained within.

So is posting on Slashdot with your shiny computer about how much more productive your free-time is what you do with your free-time?

Re:Nice, however..

[Foobar of Borg]

You're not really good at reading comprehension, or understanding shades of gray, are you? I never said that one should *never* watch television or *never* do anything like read slashdot. For example, my posts you so triumphantly mentioned were over two months ago. I do not treat slashdot, television, or anything similar like a *necessity*, which is what you were implying television shows, DVRs and so on are for people.

One simply does not need to spend inordinate time on these things. One does not need to watch television for hours a day, buy DVRs, keep up with the latest bullshit, and so on. Do you understand? No, probably not. You are too interested in "winning" an argument instead of understanding a point of view.

You see, I have watched Star Trek, Doctor Who, and other shows. So what? If someone thinks they are stupid, I don't care. I do not have a show "that you dare not criticize". You assume "elitism" (whatever the hell that is) simply because I do not share your world view. Most people in the world do not feel the need to spend their lives glued in front of a television set. But, I guess they are all "elitists" to you, too.

Re:Nice, however..

[PopeRatzo]

Now, if they can only figure out how to take away my freedom of choice in turning OFF the TV and doing something that doesn't require an electronic signal.

I think they've already done that to a great extent. Look at how many people spend all their waking hours in front of a screen.

Just yesterday, there was an "Ask Slashdot" from a guy who was going on vacation and wanted to know what was the best data plan he could get without a contract so he wouldn't have to be off the grid even for a day.

"Freedom to turn it off" is only real if you occasionally choose to do so. It's like the smoker who says "he can quit any time he wants" but he just doesn't want to.

I can see it now, mankind rediscovers the joy of Frisbee in the a park

The first thing he'll do is tweet about it and post the video on YouTube.

Re:Nice, however..

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're not really good at reading comprehension, or understanding shades of gray, are you?

That problem is not on my end. Here is an example of your idea of a shade of gray: "You see (and apparently, I have to explain this to you), there are so many other things one can do in life that don't involve watching television. There are so many things to do, so many ways to develop, so many kinds of lives that can be lived. Being an idiot who spends hours every day watching television, and who feels like he has to own every idiotic shiny box for sale is only one of them. It's not important." If this were a painting it'd be of a barcode.

Do you understand? No, probably not. You are too interested in "winning" an argument instead of understanding a point of view.

Fascinating. Speaking of shades of gray and points of view, you have no idea how much TV I actually watch. Although if you had been civilized enough to attempt to use that question mark key on your keyboard, the answer would have had a detrimental impact on your argument.

You assume "elitism" (whatever the hell that is) simply because I do not share your world view.

I am guessing that you didn't spend any of your self-improvement free-time looking up commonly used words and understanding their meaning. Pity, because if you did, you would understand how you are coming across right now.

Most people in the world do not feel the need to spend their lives glued in front of a television set. But, I guess they are all "elitists" to you, too.

Heh. No, just the ones that shout loudly about how dumb everybody that watches TV is. I give extra credit to those who obviously watch a lot of TV anyway and still have the nerve to criticize others.

Re:Nice, however..

[PReDiToR]

My Sharp Aquos does have a USB port that takes a FAT (patent troll) formatted device to record live TV.
Problem is that it only works on OTA TV.
We don't watch the 5 channels that come over analogue, nor the (fucktifiknow) DVB channels that it can show; we have cable.

Recording cable is the grail, isn't it? Then transcoding it to Pirate Bay format so people can download it without commercials rather than waiting a month until it is shown again and hitting the mute button for 2/5ths of the runtime.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically a 1 hour TV buffer is indeed trivial: my mythbuntu STB has done that for years. But you're absolutely correct that the chances of seeing that or a million other kinda obvious, kinda cool features in a commercial device without some kind of impediment being placed between you and the feature is practically zero.

It makes perfect sense in a sick, twisted sort of way. I mean, morals aside, why *would* you just sell the user a stand-alone box that does a bunch of cool stuff and has already had most of the bugs ironed out? Not only would said box be more expensive than the crappier, quicker to market alternatives, but you would be sacrificing an ongoing revenue stream from subscriptions, losing the ability to force upgrades by eliminating support for "obsolete" models a few years down the road, and failing to make the most of a potential targeted advertising bonanza.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

A counter argument to this would be that the inventors who were actually all about the money benefited mankind much better than governemnt funded inventors. THe money driven inventers were people like Thomas Edison, who gave us recorded music. The government inventors give us face scanning cameras and high tech bombs.

We actually need more inventors who are in it for the money and that alone. The problem is government inventors creating things to serve that class, and not the people who actually want to buy useful crap. I'd rather useless BS on infomercials than new smart missiles to kill more people with.

Re:Nice, however..

[VoltageX]

With the bodbug, what's its interface to your PC/Phone? Could you reverse engineer it?

Re:Nice, however..

[thunderclap]

Oh he was listening, and had he or she said 'yes, I understand. They will retrieve the stuff tomorrow.' He/she would have also lost their job.They aren't mystified. That person simply hadn't dealt with a person who was sick of it yet.
And yes monetization is the problem. Solution? Stop buying.

Re:Nice, however..

[thunderclap]

Hard to watch programming when the device has no power. Oh and I am ignoring the obvious Max Headroom comment

Re:Nice, however..

[Scarletdown]

In all seriousness, personalised advertising is the only type of advertising that'll work on me. Also, it's the only type of advertising I wouldn't mute and grab a book to avoid watching. If the TV shows ads for cat food, tampons and Neighbours, those ads are entirely wasted. If they advertise dog food, technology and Van Damme movie marathons, then I'll be interested and may possibly buy something.

Why would you need an advertiser to tell you about dog food. If you have had your dog for any significant length of time, you should already know what he or she prefers. Hell, I know perfectly well what my cat prefers, and I didn't need to be advertised at. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an ad for Purina Natural. Then again, I haven't had the TV turned on in the past few years for anything other than gaming on the Wii and more recently, Netflix streaming. So perhaps they have advertised. I wouldn't know.

I also don't see a need to be advertised to for tech. If I am in the market for some new gadget, or to upgrade a bit of hardware or whatever, I'll seek out what I need via appropriately related sites (you know, sites that give reviews and whatnot). Don't need advertising for that. If I am interested in a manufacturer's product, I'll seek it out. (This, by the way, helps me live within my modest means, since it avoids impulse purchases that may be regretted later.)

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

MythTv

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

but you don't have to watch the video stream. just record it and play it back on device of choice if and when you decide to.
There was a survey that proved a large proportion of people preferred to have video media streamed at them rather than choose the content as, for intance, visiting a library. Shall we see a black market (aka Pirates!) in stored and indexed content?

Re:Nice, however..

[FriendlyLurker]

I would LOVE to have a simple 1 hour TV buffer. No record, no storage, just a 1 hour TV buffer to pause, FF, rewind. It cannot be that hard to make a simple inline buffer like that. But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

It is here now. We use open source Team-MediaPortal as the main family TV - buffer limited only by the HD space you allow it to use. There is no going back to "primitive" TV's once you have used something like this - very annoying on a primitive TV where I can't pause a channel for an hour or two while we finish dinner, to continue to the show after - or watch one channel and record another (if you have a duel channel card installed). Also the "online videos" menu choice is getting more and more use each year, it will not be long before the free to air TV will hardly be used at this house - which is great IMO. Only thing really missing if for some smart cookies to bundle software like this into the TV hardware - and no, the most advanced TV's on the market with their HD buffer and crappy youtube surfing interface do not come even close (A friend bought some ~$5K "advanced" Sony TV - and was blown away by our Team-MediaPortal + ~$500 TV setup which left it in the dust for features and interface.

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me play devil's advocate (to some extent - I partly believe what I'm saying). If you can provide a better product without these monetization features, why don't you? There's an extent to which the monetization features fund the development of these things.

I'ts not quite as simple as "technically, you could do it without the monetization features". It will eventually come down to that, when the technology is commoditized, but it's not yet. You could (legitimately, in my opinion) complain about consumer ignorance here, but something does actually have to fund development somehow, and monetization features are one way that happens.

(Now, back on your side, I have to agree that a lot of these business practices are taken to a shortsighted extreme. Why not provide a better product and build long-term consumer loyalty to your brand? That seems to work, too. On the other side, why do we as consumers focus so narrowly on price and not on long term value? Are we actually wrong? Does this behavior really reflect a socio-economic problem, or is it just a natural outcome of industrialization, and a natural if uncomfortable change from an artisan economy? But, still, there is more to it than the technical problem.)

Re:Nice, however..

[slackbheep]

The most iconic piece of product placement that I can think of is from the original (or possibly second) Superman movie. It's early on and shows Mrs Kent setting the table as the sun is coming up over their farm and shining through the window, she sets a box of Corn Flakes on the table within the beam of light. The only thing I can recall nearly as blatant is ... well... all of " I, Robot", with Will Smith.

Re:Nice, however..

[Grizzley9]

Problem is that it only works on OTA TV. We don't watch the 5 channels that come over analogue, nor the (fucktifiknow) DVB channels that it can show; we have cable.

That's really a shame. In my area, we get around around 25 digital channels OTA (not including those religious only channels). That includes the major networks and a companion weather channel, 2 different music channels with videos, 2 PBS stations, spanish, kids channel, movie channel, and numerous other misc channels, many in HD. With that and shows being available on the web, if you have good net access there's really little reason to have cable. Even sports you can get streamed these days, free and legal. (Which is odd as ESPN streams many games on the web which with things like PlayOn or just plugging in your laptop to your TV, you remove m/any needs to get cable)

Re:Nice, however..

[jon_doh2.0]

I'm sorry, do you have a problem with something i wrote, or is it how i wrote it?

Are you really being that much of a small minded microdick?

What it is with this site? People are trying to debate an issue and so often i see tight-arse, small minded people such as yourself calling up others on sp/gr when the point they have made is quite clear.
Which is more than can be said for your useless little comment. How exactly does it necessarily follow that "given that it is a British corporation, the BBC could include more personalized educational programs"? Perhaps i will write to one of our British porn broadcasting companies and complain that i am not receiving enough personalised educational programming. Or shall i complain to a Spanish company that their educational programming is really inappropriate? At least we have critical educational programing, unlike the majority of the sensationalist tripe your channels pump out in the guise of documentaries. Assuming that your an overweight, undereducated, close-minded, right-wing, deluded religious sheep of an American simpleton.

Perhaps i misunderstood you, as your comment really makes little logical sense, in which case i apologise. However, if i have understood the point you were trying to make, no thanks to your idiotic phrasing, then could you kindly curl up and die, because your patronising little lessons are not appreciated, nor required. Besides, last i checked this is not an English writing message board, so stop playing teacher, you little worm.

Re:Nice, however..

[partyguerrilla]

What's the deal with Ovaltine? The bottle is round, the label is round... It should be called roundtine.

Re:Nice, however..

[cshark]

Absolutely right. There hasn't been anything on tv for years. That's why we've all stopped watching it.
This is a great idea for an invention. But it's about 25 years too late.

Re:Nice, however..

[kryliss]

A circle is an oval but an oval is not a circle.

Re:Nice, however..

[aarggh]

Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!

Seriously.. all TV related technology is kind of meh these days because ultimately you are choosing between 50 different reality TV shows, maybe one or two token sitcoms/dramas and re-runs of real shows you’ve already seen and probably already own the DVD.

It’s not like music where there is enough variety that you can be taken aback by some band you didn’t even know existed. There is a limited amount of TV programming, and if you had any interest in it, you’ve probably already seen it or are at least aware of it.

I take objection to this, on my TV there's at least 100 reality shows! Could there really ever be ENOUGH reality shows? Or Paris Hilton stories? And my wife says there real so that's good enough for me!

Re:Nice, however..

[Anonymous Coward]

Virgin media offer that in the UK.

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks.

Re:1984

[icebike]

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone. Even if all processing was done inside the TV (looking for eyeballs),
the fact that any data gleaned would have to be sent upstream to be useful should be enough to get this technology blocked.

If not, I predict a bump in sales of black electrical tape as soon as these hit the market.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

/thread

Mod parent up. No need for any further discussion.

Re:1984

[iluvcapra]

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone.

When has that ever happened before, homeslice?

Re:1984

[boarder8925]

If I were still in high school, I would agree with you. What I took away from 1984 after the first reading is all the technological nightmarish oppression that Orwell depicted. When I read the book again, though, that changed. I'm not at all saying that Orwell wasn't warning about invasive technology, but the bigger point of the book is the control the state has over the people's hearts and minds. It's not about the surveillance, it's about what the surveillance is meant to achieve. All the totalitarian measures seemed to be more of a stopgap until the language was finally reduced to meaninglessness via Newspeak and people's ability for thought was so hemmed in by the basic language filled with all sorts of shades of meaning. When Orwell writes about the Two Minutes Hate and the anti-sex propaganda, he makes it clear that those are the more dangerous dangers, because instead of people's having better outlets for their energiesâ"namely, sexâ"all their passions and energies were put toward the service of Big Brother and the government above them. The surveillance is to help enforce that, but the ultimate goal is to make it impossible for people to think about anything else, to want to think about anything else. If all that we get from 1984 is that surveillance is bad, we're not reading it right.

Re:1984

[boarder8925]

Dammit, Slashdot, those a's-circumflex are supposed to be em dashes.

Re:1984

[Rary]

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone. Even if all processing was done inside the TV (looking for eyeballs), the fact that any data gleaned would have to be sent upstream to be useful should be enough to get this technology blocked.

Why would any data have to be sent upstream? If you read TFA (or even TFS), you'll see that the intention is to provide information to the viewer, not to the service provider. Therefore, there's no need for the data to go anywhere.

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this. If it is only used locally, then there will likely be quite a lot of buyers. Slashdotters tend to be against any and all tracking for any purposes, but if you venture out into the real world, you'll find that there are actually many people who want the personalization that this kind of tracking can provide.

Re:1984

[amiga3D]

I can see a big market in a totalitarian society for this. You put on programming to extol the virtues and greatness of the ruler/s and watch to see who is interested and who is not. Viewing of propaganda can be made mandatory and this insures that your people will not only view the programming but remain attentive. Potential dissidents would be much easier to spot. Modern technology has many ways to benefit man and also many ways to enslave him.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

Don't want to spread FUD, but Utopia through surveillance is way too idealistic. Big Brother is never perfect, and his ethics system is different from that of others.

Re:1984

[boarder8925]

You missed the point entirely. I didn't dismiss the warnings Orwell gives us about surveillance, and especially about perpetual surveillance. What I meant is that the problem with how most people apply the book is that they stop with the technological you're-watched-everywhere nightmare and never look at the other issues Orwell raises and warns about in the same book. (Nationalism, for one.) I am always watching out for news like that of the TVs That Watch the Watcher, I encourage everyone to guard themselves against those sorts of things, and in addition to this I am always on guard against the sorts of tricks used to manipulate people out of reason and into emotion and blind devotion to an abstraction.

Re:1984

[cforciea]

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this. If it is only used locally, then there will likely be quite a lot of buyers.

Realistically, they will use this the same way they do any other tracking: they will tell you about the benefits and just not bother mentioning that they are storing your data "anonymously" someplace when it retrieves information for you. Then people will buy it without even thinking about the privacy connotations.

Why would any data have to be sent upstream?

"Have to be" and "will be" are not the same thing.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this.

Really? What about all the farming and tracking done by various search engines and social networking websites. People gladly go for it because it improves their "user experience".

but if you venture out into the real world, you'll find that there are actually many people who want the personalization that this kind of tracking can provide.

Kinda contradicts your statement above. Why? Because realistically speaking, it takes way too much data to make recommendations or whatever, and local data is just not enough for this kind of thing.

Re:1984

[Dunbal]

you'll see that the intention is to provide information to the viewer, not to the service provider.

Money earned by providing info to the viewer: $0.

Money earned by providing info to advertisers and media companies: $millions if not billions.

Yeah yeah, the information is for the "viewer". Just be sure to read the fine print.

Re:1984

[MightyMartian]

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometre away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste -- this was London, chief city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of Oceania. He tried to squeeze out some childhood memory that should tell him whether London had always been quite like this. Were there always these vistas of rotting nineteenth-century houses, their sides shored up with baulks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron, their crazy garden walls sagging in all directions? And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air and the willow-herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the places where the bombs had cleared a larger patch and there had sprung up sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken-houses? But it was no use, he could not remember: nothing remained of his childhood except a series of bright-lit tableaux occurring against no background and mostly unintelligible.

Re:1984

[Opportunist]

Nono, it will be opt-out, so you can disable it. Of course, disabling it makes you suspicious.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Duct tape on the camera.

Re:1984

[nospam007]

I'm not concerned, I'm this guy.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

Re:1984

[mfnickster]

Amen. From the book:

"...do not forget this, Winston: always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever."

Notice the only technology in that image is a boot!

Re:1984

[Abstrackt]

Yeah yeah, the information is for the "viewer". Just be sure to read the fine print.

'The viewer of your data, hereafer refered to as the "viewer"...' Huh, no kidding.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

In what universe do you live where things are banned because they invade people's privacy?

Because in the one I'm in, that tends to get them mandated, not banned.

Re:1984

[anyGould]

Obvious counter - integrate the camera with the IR receiver for the remote. No watching, no control of the TV.

Re:1984

[Xacid]

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

So target market of China then?

Re:1984

[Rick17JJ]

That sounds too much like in the book "1984," where there was a camera everyones homes, with big brother watching. If my TV set was watching me, it would also make me self conscious about sitting in front of the TV set in my underwear?

I only watch a few hours of television per month anyway. I have never had cable or satellite and do not miss not having it. I get 6 TV channels from my rabbit ears antenna. The mountain top translator between here an the Phoenix area was not required to make the digital transition. So, I am still getting analog TV on my old 13-inch, mid-1990s television set from my rabbit ears antenna without a converter box. If a TV set watching me and sending me targeted advertising, ever becomes the normal standard type of TV, I would just stop watching TV. Unless, I still had the option of still using an older technology or watching DVDs from Netflix.

That level of technology is good enough for me. However, I might eventually decide to sign up with Netflix, for the one disk at a time method. My Internet connection probably is not fast enough for watching movies over the Internet. At least with DVDs from Netflix, my TV set would not be watching me.

Re:1984

[creat3d]

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone. Even if all processing was done inside the TV (looking for eyeballs), the fact that any data gleaned would have to be sent upstream to be useful should be enough to get this technology blocked.

If not, I predict a bump in sales of black electrical tape as soon as these hit the market.

That's cute. No, it won't be "blocked". I can easily imagine such technology eventually becoming mandatory because it's the only sure way to see if terrorists are plotting against the nation. It will be followed by another best way to fight terrorism, and so on so forth, like a boot stomping a human face, over and over again.

Re:1984

[gary_7vn]

Crimespeak. Like saying, "Shooting bin Laden in the face was murder."?

Re:1984

[creat3d]

I'm pretty sure most people reading 1984 see it as an invasive, all-controlling, psychopatic totalitarian govermnent... not just telescreens.

Re:1984

[boarder8925]

Sure, but the way most people I've talked to and read interpret the book, they never get past the whole surveillance and control thing. They're stuck on the result rather than on what can lead toward it, which was Orwell's point in writing the book.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Me either time to become a mountain man. Come to town once a month get supplies and a hooker then back to the cabin.

Re:1984

[AK Marc]

1984 was almost a sequel to Animal Farm. Animal Farm was a book to show that communism doesn't work and why. He wanted to show the cat (everyone hates the lazy and focuses on the lazy, but they are the red herring - the cat doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't strain the system at all). He wanted to show that equality can't work when you have people who will believe themselves to be better than others (and that's human nature, so it will happen).

But then Animal Farm was used to push nationalism. He never said communism/socialism was "bad" but that it was essentially an exploration into why it would, left unchecked, fail. However, democracy, left unchecked, would also fail. That's why constitutions are set up. They place limits to help things stay checked in a manner that would promote longevity.

1984 was the response that fighting socialism could lead to a greater evil. When fascism/nationalism takes over, society collapses as well. You have to understand that it's not a lone book, but that it's part of the body of work of a government critic and when he bashes something it's not just because it's bad or that the opposite is right. I remember other parts than just the technical surveillance being the big parts. It's having to be like everyone else all the time, even in your home (the how didn't matter) and that if you didn't you would be punished by society. And that not only describes fascism, but high school as well.

But all that digresses. The "point" of the book was to essentially bash the nationalists that were waiving around Animal Farm as proof that nationalism was better than communism, at least when looked at in a very specific context.

Re:1984

[Spomenik]

Would you like some toast?

Re:1984

[js_sebastian]

If I were still in high school, I would agree with you. What I took away from 1984 after the first reading is all the technological nightmarish oppression that Orwell depicted. When I read the book again, though, that changed. I'm not at all saying that Orwell wasn't warning about invasive technology, but the bigger point of the book is the control the state has over the people's hearts and minds. It's not about the surveillance, it's about what the surveillance is meant to achieve. All the totalitarian measures seemed to be more of a stopgap until the language was finally reduced to meaninglessness via Newspeak and people's ability for thought was so hemmed in by the basic language filled with all sorts of shades of meaning. When Orwell writes about the Two Minutes Hate and the anti-sex propaganda, he makes it clear that those are the more dangerous dangers, because instead of people's having better outlets for their energiesâ"namely, sexâ"all their passions and energies were put toward the service of Big Brother and the government above them. The surveillance is to help enforce that, but the ultimate goal is to make it impossible for people to think about anything else, to want to think about anything else. If all that we get from 1984 is that surveillance is bad, we're not reading it right.

I agree that newspeak is the most interesting (and scary) part of 1984...

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a modern example of Newspeak, look at Fox News's slogan, "Fair and Balanced." The fact that people buy into that slogan shows that it is working. Putting cameras in all the TVs is just asking for abuse by whoever is in control. Looking at all of the major news networks, you can see they always have something that is designed to scare you. You hear people say things like "we can't do that like we could when I was a kid" not because it actually is more dangerous but because the danger is more hyped. Where in the past you might catch word of a horrific crime in a distant city on the third or fifth page of the newspaper, today you hear it 24/7 all over the tv. The Two Minutes Hate essentially happened all the time with Bin Laden (don't get me wrong, he was a piece of shit, but at some point you have to get on with your life or he wins).

Now imagine the warrantless wiretap scandal extending to your TV camera. First you'll have drug dealers being busted. Next, it'll be people who swap DVDs. The ACLU will make a fuss, so it will get tied into the next revision of the Patriot Act, which will be required for Social Security or some other vital program to continue. Soon, they'll be looking for people who scowl when the story of the latest phase of the War on Terror come on TV. The world of 1984 is a justified fear, and I for one will not have a camera in an internet-connected TV.

T-minus 5...

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

... 4, 3, 2, 1. We have Soviet Russia jokes!

Re:T-minus 5...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, count down down counts you!

Re:T-minus 5...

[easyTree]

In future Soviet Russia, you observe TVs.

1984?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't we seen this already?

Re:1984?

[icebike]

I don't know if you've seen it already or not.
Let me check my photo archive....

Re:1984?

[GameboyRMH]

I thought so, I could have sworn I read it on my Kindle but it's just not there...

Re:1984?

[Opportunist]

There is no archived file of something like this. If you disagree, please report to the MiniTru and bring your database.

6079 Smith W!

[betterunixthanunix]

Yes, you! Bend lower, please!

Re:6079 Smith W!

[Animats]

Yes, you! Bend lower, please!

There's a Kinect app for that.

Re:6079 Smith W!

[iluvcapra]

The soldiers on the Malabar Front have it much worse than you.

Re:6079 Smith W!

[elsurexiste]

Thanks! I thought I was the only one thinking, "This is 'Enemy of the State' all over again". Glad to know I'm not alone.

The antidote for this Soviet Russia joke: put sick stuff right in front of the camera, like bestiality or something like that. If it wants to watch me, it should be ready for the consequences. :)

Re:6079 Smith W!

[creat3d]

I am ready to start up new fetishes if my home becomes surveilled like this.

MPAA will love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the ideas that the MPAA had of wanting to put sensors into everyones houses a few years back and charge by the viewer for movies and the like, this is a bad feature.

don't need to be watched

[LavouraArcaica]

I use my remote control to find my "individual interests". Thanks, NHK, but I don't need to be watched.

Re:don't need to be watched

[amiga3D]

We'll decide that for you. I think you are late for your reeducation class.

Re:don't need to be watched

[Anonymous Coward]

The joke's on the TV manufacturers.

Nobody I know watches broadcast TV anymore; everybody uses a device connected via HDMI. The TV is just a monitor.

Re:don't need to be watched

[Opportunist]

Oh, you may of course opt not to be watched. Sadly, watching this movie requires you to accept being watched since we want to know whether you take your leak during the commercials. You may of course not bend over and take it up your ass, but then no movie for you!

Considering how we swallowed everything else, I guess most people would just buy a big pack of lube.

Re:don't need to be watched

[creat3d]

Most people would say "I have nothing to hide". Of course you have nothing to hide, you've been put in a glass cage!

Simple fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, a new place for post it notes.

1984 by stealth

[M4n]

The difference is we [i]want[/i] the stuff. Because it will enhance our lives.

Re:1984 by stealth

[betterunixthanunix]

That is a common theme in dystopian novels: that the dystopia was established by the very people it oppresses, who thought they were improving their lives, and who often continue to believe they are better off even when they are being oppressed. Even 1984 alludes to that idea, when Winston Smith notes that the proles could overthrow the at any time if they wanted to (but they never will, as Smith is told at the Ministry of Love).

Re:1984 by stealth

[YrWrstNtmr]

The difference is we [i]want[/i] the stuff. Because it will enhance our lives.

"we" ?
Maybe you, but not me.

Re:1984 by stealth

[Opportunist]

Want it or not, the usual bait-and-switch will be used.

Did you want HDCP? Did you want something that doesn't allow you to record? Don't think so. But no HDCP, no HD content for you. Why do you think this will be different?

You want to watch that movie? Only possible if you have a TV that watches you in return. No spy in your living room, no SuperduperHD3Dwhatevernextfad movie for you. And no, this movie will not come out on BluRay or anything else that doesn't allow us to spy on you.

Think people will buy the SpyTubes?

Hey everybody,

[teamhasnoi]

it's a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Re:Hey everybody,

[Fibe-Piper]

it's a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Yes it is. It seems like we shouldn't stop the semantics there though, I mean this is a novel that was written about and well before a time when there was even a Facebook.

How important can the lessons in there be to the current and future generations if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

Re:Hey everybody,

[Sarten-X]

It's a tale cautioning against allowing government to manipulate people without restraint. The constant surveillance was just a side effect of the totalitarian regime. Preventing progress on technology out of fear won't change anything. The paranoid life of 1984 already exists in places like North Korea, where people disappear because a government officer doesn't like the way they look, and such a life arrived without the help of any pervasive surveillance.

Re:Hey everybody,

[Fibe-Piper]

... if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

er... that ought to have read "if people could not press a..."

Re:Hey everybody,

[russotto]

How important can the lessons in there be to the current and future generations if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

That sounds more like the other well-known dystopian novel, _Brave New World_.

Re:Hey everybody,

[betterunixthanunix]

On the other hand, we seem to be inching closer to a Brave New World dystopia, where we are bred to want certain things, and we constantly get what we want in order to keep us distracted. We are also free to choose exile from the system, if we want, and live on a island where we have all the freedom we want (except the freedom to communicate with our friends).

We have also been cautioned against creating a world in which we are endlessly distracted by pleasure.

Re:Hey everybody,

[Anonymous Coward]

their

Re:Hey everybody,

[Anonymous Coward]

what island? there's no where else to go on this planet.

Re:Hey everybody,

[betterunixthanunix]

Think of it as a metaphorical island. You can choose not to participate in the consumer culture -- you are not required to have a TV, a cell phone, a Facebook account, etc. -- but in doing so you will be isolated from a lot of people. Part of the way the consumer culture wins is by network effects: in order to participate in certain conversations and activities with your friends, you need to have the same kinds of things they have, watch the same TV shows, and so forth.

So, refusal to participate in the distraction leaves you on an "island" in the sense of being isolated.

Re:Hey everybody,

[epyT-R]

the problem is that these things become part of the culture and thus become expectations.. ie "everyone" has a car, or "everyone" has a cellphone.. bosses expect to be able to reach employees no matter where they are.. before cellphones that wasn't true, granting employees some real downtime..

facebook is becoming one of these things too, and it's worse than cellphones because it's 'free'.. of course, it's still a time sink I'd rather not deal with. for now, that is working, but more and more people are asking me for 'my facebook.' They give me funny looks when I tell them I don't use it. before long I expect to be looked upon as an antisocial 'get of my lawn' type because of this.

I do have a choice, but it's not a pleasant one. it's right up there with eat or die. one can choose not to eat, but death is the outcome. in this case, it's having a social life that is increasingly surveilled by people I don't know who are in power and pass judgment, or not having one at all. so in reality a choice is being removed: having a social life that isn't quite so public.

Re:Hey everybody,

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading an article (unfortunately I couldn't find it again, I believe it is on tor...) that neither 1984 or Brave New World were correct, but both of them together are much more accurate.

Step 1. Create artificial desires and distract people with meaningless nonsense (Brave New World)

Step 2. Start scaring people into submission. (1984).

By the time step 1 is done, the average person doesn't give a shit and they dismiss everyone who does pay attention, and by the time step 2 is done, everyone who wasn't submissive in step 1 is gone...

Sounds like a bad idea .....

[DaMattster]

Does this mean now that law enforcement could have a potential window into our own homes and that we could lose any rights to privacy. I can see this thing being co-opted for law enforcement and surveillance.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[betterunixthanunix]

No, that will never happen! This is just for entertainment purposes, law enforcement won't have access to it! We promise, really!

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[marcosdumay]

Also, we'll pass that law giving law enforcement access to it anytime they want, without any paperwork. But that is just an unintented side effect, law enforcement will never make use of that law. We promisse, really!

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Hard access trumps software access every time, and the example is quite clear in this instance.

Black tape.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[amiga3D]

They will never allow that. They care about you. They just want to help you. Now turn on the TV like a good citizen.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that such a contrived and difficult-to-sell solution to quite a trivial problem (just ask us what we like) will become so ubiquitous that it will be useful to law enforcement? And even if it did, just turn the telly off before you light up, man. We live in a democracy. People are grouchy enough about being groped at airports. I don't see them cow-towing to the policeman in their living room.

This isn't a slippery slope. It isn't even a good idea. It's just a shit invention from the not-because-we-need-to-but-because-we-can dept.

Is there some system on Slashdot that only works if people regularly cry wolf on civil liberties?

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[Opportunist]

Rest assured that this will be a required "feature" for the system to work. You want to see something? Let me see something! You black out my cam, I black out your screen.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffff. . . .

They already have one. Your cell phone. The greatest surveillance gift ever known very likely already sits in your home. In the case of the omgIgottahaveit
Iphone, it has dual cameras ( front and back ), a mic, and a GPS unit all wrapped into a package where you cannot remove the power source. Meaning, it
can be remotely activated anytime they want to. ( unless you store it in a Faraday cage :D ) Any data that passes through it is likely on a server somewhere
( texts, IM's, mail, phone calls, etc ) Law Enforcement couldn't possibly ask for a better tool to track you with.

The best thing about it ? Everyone WANTS one. They can't sell em fast enough.

Though, to get back on topic. . . .

Going to put a camera on my TV to watch me do anything ? Like I need a reason to quit watching TV already . . . nothing worth a damn ever on as it is.
No thanks. I'll catch the few shows I actually watch online sometime.

 

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[creat3d]

Today, Chief Johnson admitted officers accessed this private data without appropriate motives. Chief Johnson has promised it won't happen again, now here's Tom with the weather.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[creat3d]

Do you seriously think the goal of this is simply for marketing purposes and tailor ads for you? Of course, there's a lot of money there but that's a convenient side-effect.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey good idea for another revenue stream for content providers cause you know it costs them money to setup the surveillance and all.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea .....

[Anonymous Coward]

The tv is watching you to see if you're pirating anything that might belong to the media companies.

Covering the sensor is a DMCA violation.

Put your hands in the yellow circles.

File this under..

[grasshoppa]

...things that will turn me off of TV for the rest of my life. The whole 3D crap is really getting on my nerves, and has pretty much stopped me from spending any money at movies. I don't want to spend an extra 5 bucks to watch the movie in 3d, thanks. Except now, often times, it's either 3d or nothing ( I choose nothing ). Then 3D tvs, which aren't worth the extra costs in my opinion. Now this?

The end of TV is nigh! And you know what? That's perfectly fine by me.

Re:File this under..

[Stormthirst]

I've felt that the "TV experience"* has got worse ever since high def TVs started being pushed to the masses. The TV manufacturers suddenly realised that people were willing to throw away perfectly good TVs for ones that shows the same stuff but in higher def. Except most of the TV channels don't do high def.

So now, people are willing to landfill perfectly good HD TVs for the next thing - 3D TVs.

And what will happen next? People junking 3D TVs in favour of ones which "enhance our viewing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketability"

*sigh*

Me? I'm still watching the perfectly good, pre-HD TV I bought 20 years ago.

PS: why does everything have to be an "experience"?

Re:File this under..

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Much more important and fun things to do than watch television. I don't need a gimmick to view a film and I stopped going to the theater several years ago.

Re:File this under..

[amiga3D]

I junked my 15 year old CRT television this year and haven't looked back. I did wait until I could get a decent sized one for a decent price. A 47" 240hz LCD unit for $599 on a Black Friday sale. That's actually probably cheaper in dollars adjusted for inflation than I paid for my 32" CRT unit back in 1995 ($400). I love it. I watch a lot of outdoor programming and it's a nice enhancement. I've seen the 3D TV demos and I am greatly underwhelmed. I'd never pay one cent more for that and so far almost everyone I've talked to is equally unimpressed. You should shop around and buy a new HDTV though, it's worth it as there are plenty of sub $1000 units that look great.

Re:File this under..

[Anonymous Coward]

lol you are getting old

Re:File this under..

[Abstrackt]

Don't knock it, I've been getting fantastic deals on used flat screens thanks to those people.

(My old TV developed this shrill whine that drove everyone insane so it needed to be replaced anyway)

Re:File this under..

[anyGould]

Me? I'm still watching the perfectly good, pre-HD TV I bought 20 years ago.

I replaced our old TV for two reasons

1. The old TV only supported composite hookups (not even component).

2. The old TV was an absolute bitch to move around and took up a ton of space.

The old TV was donated to a family friend who had been bugging his parents for his own TV.

Got a 40" widescreen, 1080p, for about $800. I don't want 3D, and wasn't going to pay multi-thousands for LED. Works fine, and I expect to keep it for the next decade or so (which is how long the old TV lasted)

Re:File this under..

[jon_doh2.0]

"it's worth it as there are plenty of sub $1000"

Depends how much you value a grand, compared to how much you value a new TV.

Watching Porn?!?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

What would it do, if you were watching porn?

Re:Watching Porn?!?!?!

[egcagrac0]

Probably stream to chatroulette.

Great, now there will be a run on

[Anonymous Coward]

black electrical tape, useful to stop many a "Big Brother" camera.

Re:Great, now there will be a run on

[MightyMartian]

Door: Knock knock knock

AC: Who's there?

FCC TV Repair Patrol Officer #1 [smashing in door]: Comrade AC, we have noticed that your TV no longer functions according to FCC standards. According to Article 7 of the Patriotic Freedom Act of 2016, we are empowered to enter your residence to troubleshoot and repair your TV.

AC: You can't do that! I have constitutional rights!

FCC TV Repair Patrol Officer #2: Is this your signature on this bill of sale?

AC: Yes, why?

FCC TV Repair Patrol Officer #2: According to Hippie v. Walmart, 572 U.S. 144 (2017), the EULA for this TV, which allows the FCC, via the contract you signed with Walmart, to observe you via your TV.

FCC TV Repair Patrol Officer #1 [looking at TV]: Yup, he put electricians tape over the lens.

FCC TV Repair Patrol Officer #2: According to Article Eighteen of the Digital Liberty Copyright Act 2016 you have circumvented security measures of this device. This is now a capital offence. Could you please have the name of your next of kin so your remains, if there are any after we're finished, can be sent properly directed. Now please drop your pants spread your ass cheeks wide...

Re:Great, now there will be a run on

[ArcadeNut]

That would probably be a violation of the DMCA or some patent....

Re:Great, now there will be a run on

[cyclomedia]

AC: Have you got a 27B-6?

No No No No No No NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, no, used to determine recommendations for the viewers? HA! And that's all, right? Fuck you, you advertising monsters, I can just see you salivating at the idea.

A thousand times Fuck NO!

Electrical Tape

[chazchaz101]

I see you've covered the camera with electrical tape. Would you be interested in these other privacy related products?

Re:Electrical Tape

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny

Re:Electrical Tape

[parlancex]

The production version will simply switch the program to a 24 hour Rick Astley marathon and turns your volume to maximum when it detects interference with the Viewer Monitoring Interface, for troubleshooting.

Re:Electrical Tape

[PPH]

Photo of The Cleavers propped up in front of the camera instead.

Re:Electrical Tape

[PRMan]

Mod parent up. That is a true LOL.

Re:Electrical Tape

[laughingcoyote]

Not while I'm drinking coffee, damn you! You owe me a keyboard!

Re:Electrical Tape

[FrankN]

Electrical tape crossed my mind too, then I thought a more interesting project could be a small mirror redirecting the camera's field of view to the dog's food bowl, or the fish tank. Or if you really want to go high tech, something with fiber optics in place of the mirror. Frank

Re:Electrical Tape

[rastoboy29]

That is absolutely fucking hysterical.

Re:Electrical Tape

[FauxReal]

I see you've covered the camera with electrical tape. Would you be interested in these other privacy related products?

They'll simply hide the camera in the center of the TV between some pixels to discourage that kind of behavior.

Re:Electrical Tape

[thunderclap]

Good luck generating that when I remove the plug from the outlet, last time I checked the best batteries for streaming video lasted, oh, 2 hours?
The idea is doa because someone in the chain has enough of a brain to realize that and enough authority to do what I just said above.

Re:Electrical Tape

[Anonymous Coward]

So when visiting a friend with a TV like that, all you need to do is to sneakily go to his turned-off TV and put some electrical tape over that thingy in order to rickroll him? I love it how technology makes things so much simpler.

Re:Electrical Tape

[toddestan]

I'd probably just carefully remove the camera/lens assembly from the TV, then solder in some new leads and extend the wires that run to the camera by a few meters. But that's just me.

That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[siddesu]

But not the biggest reason -- the biggest reason that the TV is an intellect killer. Spend the evening reading and discussing books, cooking a meal, playing a physical game or doing anything else that needs no purchased electronic device together, and see what difference it makes to the quality of family life.

TV is for the lazy and the stupid. For them, the described device will have only benefits.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[betterunixthanunix]

TV is for keeping people lazy and stupid

FTFY

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[amiga3D]

Pass the popcorn.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[Seumas]

You do realize that you don't *have* to watch the shit television, right? I mean, just because there's Jersey Shore and a shit ton of idiotic "Wedding Story/Marriage Story/Relationship Story/Dating Story/Single Story/Makeover Story/Baby Story" shows on The Ladies Channel doesn't mean you can't ignore all that and just watch The Wire.

Television is not any more lazy and stupid than any other medium and it's fairly naive or ignorant for people to keep saying so. The laziness and stupidity is in the content you choose to consume. If your television watching is filled with utter shit, then that's a failing on the viewer's part.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[Abstrackt]

TV is for the lazy and the stupid.

I watch a lot of cooking shows, news and documentaries on scientific subjects that interest me (i.e. pretty much anything NASA does). I'm not advocating excessive use here but I would love to hear your thoughts on how my viewing choices make me lazy and/or stupid.

FYI, Alton Brown does a pretty good job explaining the "how stuff works" of cooking. I highly recommend Good Eats.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[bluegreen997]

Yeah, there is a lot of /. groupthinking going on here with 'all TV is bad!'

I like live sports. Unless I go to the games, which can be fun too, TV offers something that I would other wise be missing out on.

That being said with streaming now and the accessablity of everything on some form of digital media my TV consumption has gone steadily down as the tech has changed.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[siddesu]

Let me know which is this "no shit" tv then. Please.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV.

[siddesu]

I don't know who is Alton Brown, but apparently he has a degree in "drama" and another one from a highly regarded "culinary university", and his successful shows are about searching "good" places to eat out along the road and along the beach. And after seeing an episode or two of those "Good Eats" on the youtubes, I can only say that no more than 30% of it is related to actual cooking. But, it has ladies with British accents in it and shopping tips, and that must be giving it some depth that I'm missing. Were I qualified to judge, I'd say it is obviously a first class authority on good eating and cooking.

But I am clearly inferior to judge, though. First, I've not sampled many other TV cooking "entertainment", and second, I can only bake bread and make cheese well, and my skills come from learning the trade the boring way -- by working in several shops in the middle east and southern Europe, and attending several chemistry and biology classes at a local university. Some of my teachers had French names, but their performances were definitely not as American, and their cars were much less fancier. In fact, I was at times insulted by some when I'd do something stupid.

So I lose, like, totally.

THAT's really orwell now.

[unity100]

There is but a tiny step in between using this for pushing advertisements, and using this for control of population. actually, if you passively use the information about interests for control, there isnt even a step at all in between them.

Re:THAT's really orwell now.

[marcosdumay]

How much more control it gives besides what it currently gives?

Re:THAT's really orwell now.

[unity100]

imagine that they track how you respond to any news piece containing 'undesirable' elements in it. and then they tag you as a 'dissenter' depending on that.

Re:THAT's really orwell now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple! It allows the broadcasters to serve the KIND of shit you seem to like. (Does it smell like bullshitt or more like horseshit or maybe you like your average shit!)

Re:THAT's really orwell now.

[camperdave]

Well, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was an exercise program hosted by Ed Allan. He would occasionally interject encouragements like "Lift your knees higher, Marcia", or "Keep going, Linda". With this new feature, he'd be able to actually see who needed to lift their knees higher, and which viewers had actually just flopped back onto the couch. Nothing like a "Come on, Elizabeth at 127 Sycamore Avenue, in Des Moines. Lift those pink legwarmers!" to motivate a person.

This is sooo...

[cfriedt]

Doubleplusungood

Big brother is watching you... watching him...

[XiaoMing]

Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes
TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it.

...

Though still in the development stage this could actually revolutionize how we watch TV and especially the advertisements.

It basically sounds like additional hardware (with enough resolution and processing power to discern
multiple faces and possible reactions) on top of a TV, just to spam us with more distracting ads.

The only way I see this being even remotely commercially feasible (especially in an anti-big-brother society like America) is:
1. Either the advertisers shelling out for the extra cost for this hardware and paying an additional fee for this privilege
2. Making the additional benefits of such a device so great that users will actually want it.

The second option (albeit doubtful) would probably need it to be on par with a situation where the hardware
was good enough to replace the Kinect, could interface with the Xbox, and was cheaper overall, or advertiser subsidized
(to make up for the perceived -- possibly real -- loss of privacy w.r.t. the Kinect).

Re:Big brother is watching you... watching him...

[dcollins]

"... an anti-big-brother society like America"

Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.

Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".

Re:Big brother is watching you... watching him...

[XiaoMing]

"... an anti-big-brother society like America"

Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.

Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".

Ahh but see, my main emphasis is on complacency, which there is plenty of, and is what's most likely squashing any of these missing sentiments:

Look at Facebook and Google. There is always some modicum of unrest when they release any new features that further erode privacy standards.
I'll agree that YES, they almost always get their way (aside from Google Buzz being annoying as hell and immediately rescinded), however the two main differences from those situations and this is:

1. FB and Google exist on the internets, and are basically free to anyone who can leech wifi. This hardware sounds like it would cost some $$$.
2. FB and Google offer services such as mind-numbing social brainfarting (guess which one!... granted this distinction is being blurred fast), and lots of well-made freely available cloud-based software.

My point in the first post was that there's a price (albeit a low one) for complacency, and in this situation the price will need to also cover the costs of additional hardware that really serves no other purpose.

Re:Big brother is watching you... watching him...

[dkleinsc]

The only way I see this being even remotely commercially feasible (especially in an anti-big-brother society like America) is:

3. Collude with competitors with no fear of being stopped by the government (because they want to be able to easily spy on citizens) to ensure that Americans can't get any new TVs without one.

In Soviet Tokyo...

[leftie]

TV watches you. ;)

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[91degrees]

How did it take so long for someone to make this joke!?

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it was in Orwellian Oceana where the TVs watched you. And if you didn't watch it right? Room 101!

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: "...if the viewer's expression does not change for a brief period, then he may be concentrating on the program."

Or they are asleep. Two scenarios that would likely have opposite effects on the algorithm they are using to judge interest.

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the N.H.K.

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, what gives? I was expecting that joke after I read the headline. Yet I had to scroll this far down to find it. Shame on you! Shame on you all!

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again: What is a TV? Do people in Japan even still know what those are?

I haven't had a TV for a decade, and I thought a lot of times about buying one. I just have no idea what for.
I browse the TV program... crap, more crap, advertisements disguised as crap... hmm... hey, a great show! No, I already watch that on their website / via torrent. In HD. On a projector. With 5.1 sound.

Seriously, TV is more dead than Geocities muliplied by the print industry, to the power of Elvis. ;)

Re:In Soviet Tokyo...

[dubsnipe]

More like Capitalist Asia.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...TV watches YOU!

Re:In soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

TV watches you! as well?

If this comes on my next TV

[OzPeter]

My next TV accessory will be some Duct Tape.

Re:If this comes on my next TV

[Phydaux]

But that is just it! It's the big international duct tape conglomerates that are pushing this technology!

Big Sony is watching you.

[infosinger]

This is so scary, it's surreal.

I better buy some black electrical tape.

Re:Big Sony is watching you.

[mjwx]

This is so scary, it's surreal.

I better buy some black electrical tape.

What if they start putting in IR camera's?

So,

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean they'll be banning duct tape for its telescreen-bypassing abilities?

Clippy 2012

[Ashenkase]

As long as the Clippy type avatar that appears on the TV rides away on a bicycle every time I disable this "feature" I am all for it.

Okay, so I won't own a TV.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for saving my money! I suppose I'd be on the computer even more...

(At least I build my computers and control/know what is in/on them.)

Really, I'm capable of doing that myself

[holophrastic]

I'm fully capable of determining my own level of interest, thank you very much. I'm also fully capable of choosing what to watch. It's not like I wind up missing out on a series that I would have loved if only it had been recommended to me.

This really isn't a problem for me that need to be solved.

No matter, I'll spend a little more money on electrical tape to cover up the camera.

Re:Really, I'm capable of doing that myself

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter, I'll spend a little more money on electrical tape to cover up the camera.

I'll desolder both the camera and back-electret mic that will (doubtlessly) also be there.

Assuming the collected data is sent back to channels, advertisers or the manufacturer... I may amuse myself by substituting alternate signals.

Re:Really, I'm capable of doing that myself

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fully capable of determining my own level of interest, thank you very much. I'm also fully capable of choosing what to watch. It's not like I wind up missing out on a series that I would have loved if only it had been recommended to me.

This really isn't a problem for me that need to be solved.

No matter, I'll spend a little more money on electrical tape to cover up the camera.

The camera will be inside the tv screen so u willnt be able to cover it Wo affecting ur view

Re:Really, I'm capable of doing that myself

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably not the target demographic then.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreMorons

Re:Really, I'm capable of doing that myself

[aduxorth]

ummm ever heard of permanent markers???. my TV will just have a lil spot in the middle of the screen. Doesn't have to be black either.

Old Yackov joke.

[databaseadmin]

In Russia, you don't watch TV, TV watches you!!!

I suspect...

[Anonymous Coward]

That your viewing habits are all ready being recorded.

Digital TV boxes already provide cable companies with valuable information: what show you are watching, when you increase the volume, when you mute, when you change the channel.

Too bad they don't have their shit together enough to feed a learning algorithm to tailor ads to you.

Google will.

Not on my watch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not want.

nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a camera in your tv would be a sure fire way for me to specifically not purchase it.

You are also stupid if you think it will be used for anything but targeted advertising.

Re:nope

[Seumas]

If there is a way to reverse the process and TRANSMIT images of your dong, someone will do it.

Turning things around

[michelcolman]

Now we'll have TV's watching porn instead of us watching it on TV!

Mr Clippy

[PPH]

Seen while masturbating to porn ....

"Can't get it up? Would you be interested in some ED medication? Or perhaps something guaranteed to add 2 inches."

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I watch TV naked or I end up hooking up with someone while watching TV?

TV is just the start

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of attention targetted advertising is almost definitely just going to start on TV and then will likely roll out to computers, tablets, phones, electronic billboards, and so on...

Depressing thought, isn't it?

I see TV

[Anonymous Coward]

My Great Grandmother used to dress up to watch TV in the 1950's because she thought the newscaster and other actors could see her.

Morlocks

[betterunixthanunix]

On the other hand, perhaps the Morlocks and the Eloi from The Time Machine are relevant. Our entertainment systems are essentially a tool for herding us, so that we will continue to be good consumers and buy more from the companies that provide us with the entertainment. We get exactly what we want, which is quick and easy access to entertainment that is tailored to our own personal interests; meanwhile, we continue to provide sustenance for the people providing us with that entertainment, who otherwise remain out of sight.

In soviet Russia...

[Palmsie]

TV WATCH YOU

1984

[Metabolife]

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..."

If it works as well as Netflix...

[falken0905]

If it's recommendations and intuitive picks work as well as Netflix then... FAIL.

"TV is something that watches you"

[Darth Technoid]

12 years ago, I wrote about this. "TV is something that watches you," is on the first page of chapter 1 of my book, "Playing for Profit" (still available on Amazon). It's obvious that watching behavior leads to better personalized service and better opportunities for marketers to try to sell you stuff.

The only correct answer is NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

No TV, period.

Whether the damned thing has a camera watching you or not, sitting passively in front of it
while the increasingly inane programming spews from the screen is one of the very worst
ways for an intelligent human being to spend his or her precious time on earth. Disagree
if you like, it's your life and you are free to waste it if you choose to do so.

Re:The only correct answer is NO.

[Seumas]

Pretty ignorant. There's a lot of great programming on. Not enough to justify the cable bill, but there's a ton. Don't paint it all as shit just because all you consume is shit. There's a lot of shit books out there. And shit internet sites. And shit podcasts. And shit music. And PLENTY of shit movies. Myself, I pick the good stuff and don't waste my time with crap. In any medium. I'll take Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Killing and such over 80% of the movies that have come out in the last decade any time.

No, it wont.

[geekprime]

Not so long as tape or towels exist it won't.

smart TVs? i'm done

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the idea of my TV watching me. If this does become mainstream (with no reasonable way around it), I will happily stop watching TV. Simple as that. I'm not sure how that fits into their business model. I suspect I'm not the only one who will have a living room with a 'smart' TV.

Time for Bill Clinton Happy Face Posters

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a Bill Clinton Happy Face Poster to place in front of the TV.
OR
Black electrical tape over the camera (just like on my laptops).

You know the mask - see Full-Time Killer, a movie.

Obligatory

[$0.02]

I for one welcome our Soviet overlords!

Two words

[lopaka1998]

Two Words: Duct Tape

This can be fixed.

[cvtan]

Black electrical tape will fix that spying camera in 5 seconds.

New poll?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

POLL TIME!

[_] This is nothing new. I know someone who has claimed for more than a DECADE that their TV is spying on them.
[_] Like men will ever give up control of the remote!
[_] "Excuse me, but why is it every time YOU walk into the room the TV ask if we want to switch to pay-per-view porn?"
[_] I'd rather have a TV that lets me keep an eye on the scum who think that watching me is a good idea.
[_] That scream you heard was all those "In Soviet Russia TV watches YOU" jokes dying.
[_] It doesn't matter - he'll still spend the evening clicking from one channel to the next every commercial.
[_] Just when you thought you couldn't come up with another reason not to watch TV ...
[_] Duct Tape Lesson # 2,389,042 - Did you know that you can use duct tape to cover the sensors to keep your TV from spying on you?
[_] You know that they'll soon be charging extra for a TV that doesn't watch you.
[_] Mess with them - stick a computer monitor with The Sims having awesome double-back-monkey sex for hours at a time in front of the sensor. Bonus points is you screen "Faces of Death" with the monkey-brain-eating scene instead.
[_] Sue them for "producing and distributing under-age porn" because your under-18 daughter walked in front of the TV while running from the shower to her bedroom.
[_] mumble mumble remote when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:New poll?

[mellon]

Stereotype much?

Re:New poll?

[Noughmad]

What stereotype?

Re:New poll?

[thunderclap]

POLL TIME!

[_] This is nothing new. I know someone who has claimed for more than a DECADE that their TV is spying on them.

[_] Like men will ever give up control of the remote!

[_] "Excuse me, but why is it every time YOU walk into the room the TV ask if we want to switch to pay-per-view porn?"

[_] I'd rather have a TV that lets me keep an eye on the scum who think that watching me is a good idea.

[x] That scream you heard was all those "In Soviet Russia TV watches YOU" jokes dying.

[_] It doesn't matter - he'll still spend the evening clicking from one channel to the next every commercial.

[_] Just when you thought you couldn't come up with another reason not to watch TV ...

[_] Duct Tape Lesson # 2,389,042 - Did you know that you can use duct tape to cover the sensors to keep your TV from spying on you?

[_] You know that they'll soon be charging extra for a TV that doesn't watch you.

[_] Mess with them - stick a computer monitor with The Sims having awesome double-back-monkey sex for hours at a time in front of the sensor. Bonus points is you screen "Faces of Death" with the monkey-brain-eating scene instead.

[x] Sue them for "producing and distributing under-age porn" because your under-18 daughter walked in front of the TV while running from the shower to her bedroom.

[_] mumble mumble remote when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:New poll?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot
[_] 1984 did it.

Re:New poll?

[wootcat]

In this case, however, it's "In Soviet Russia YOU watch TV!"

Re:New poll?

[bostongraf]

[_] You know that they'll soon be charging extra for a TV that doesn't watch you.

This is the truly unfortunate reality of what will come of this...

Schroeder's cat

[Anonymous Coward]

Snuggie's Cat: is that Snuggie's commercial always on, or just when I'm awake to see it?

From my Computer?

[__aazsst3756]

One of the "cutters", so we view tv through an old computer repurposed to stream the 'net (and antenna for local sports). How are they supposed to watch me?

Re:From my Computer?

[cashman73]

Ever hear of ECHELON?

And if the viewers have an interest in ...

[Keyslapper]

"extracurricular activities" whilst watching, shall we say, content intended for mature audiences?

Can't see this working for long. Anyone aware of these cameras and not explicitly into exhibitionism of some kind will immediately cover or otherwise disable the camera (don't we already have webcams for this kind of thing?)

Next it will be people that don't want their kids being viewed in the privacy of their own home by complete strangers. Some folks get really touchy about that.

We see you got up during the commercial break....

[pholus]

Let us repeat it for you.

Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to sneak down and watch porn channels sometimes when the rest of the family is asleep. In fact that is about all the TV watching I do.
I don't think I will get one of these things.

Re:Oh dear

[Noughmad]

I like to sneak down and watch porn channels sometimes when the rest of the family is asleep.

How can you post to Slashdot with no internet access?

The Next Phase of Intelligent TVs Will Observe You

[QuietLagoon]

No, they won't.

Alter the way you perceive reality through your TV

[Anonymous Coward]

So your TV will work out how you see the world? hmmmmm

I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

The transition to HDTV coincided with the rise of cheap LCD screens. Yes, they cost somewhat more, but it is a better product. 'digital' TV signals require less spectrum for a similar picture. LCD HDTVs consume less energy, are smaller, lighter and have higher resolution, and tend to have a larger screen size.
The update of blu ray players was slow, until the player price fell below $200. Reception of '3D' has been unenthusiastic. The incremental cost of a 3D TV will not be much, so it will be adopted for new TVs, just like Windows 7.

Give the average consumer some credit.

Twenty Eleven

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen...

Shel Silverstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinking and Drugging and Watching TV sung by Bobby Bare.

Watched twice now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Two years ago there was a post about the cable box doing the same thing: PrimeSense (.com)

So now your cable box and your TV will both watch you!

Did I say two? I meant three. Your game system is watching you also!

TV

[Anonymous Coward]

TV?

April fools article?

[bjdevil66]

No? This is real? Then hell no...

Then again, somebody will figure out what the right carrot will be for people to accept this. Maybe they'll try to sweeten the deal somehow, by paying for a year of cable in exchange for your privacy. "We'll give you a free year of premium cable, or 3 months of pay-per-view (pornography channels included), if you allow us to collect data that will make YOUR viewing experience better." Maybe they'll somehow tap the vanity/celebrity of everyday viewers and turn people viewing TV into some kind of programming, with people making asses of themselves just to get on the "Real YouTube" channel.

You never know what people will do to get something they consider valuable for free, or to get their 15 seconds of fame.

Comcast has been working on that for years

[bussdriver]

I have a guy who used to be inside comcast who said they were working on audio and video monitoring of you from their cable boxes. audio was already there he said but it wasn't that useful while video was being developed. He said the motive was to know the demographics of people watching the ads and if they were actually looking at the ads. At the time, 6 years ago-- they didn't have a way to sell the intrusion to customers (that is, if they even tell us about it-- he seemed to think they wouldn't be secretive about any of it.)

Me personally, I'm waiting for them to come out with gesture based remote control system so we don't need the tv remote anymore because that would justify the feature.

Re:Comcast has been working on that for years

[captjc]

Why would they need to be secretive? All they have to do is just knock $5 off the cable bill and people would flock to it. I see Car insurance companies doing this kind of thing now. "Let us install this device in your car and you could save money!"

Oh well...

[Brafil]

In Soviet Russia, you watch TV!

Looking back

[bjs555]

When I was about 5 or 6 years old, I just assumed people on TV could see me like I saw them and I was careful to be well-behaved. I think it's natural for most kids to have the same experience since it mirrors what happens in real life. As I got older and learned how TVs work, I discovered that I was wrong and felt a great sense of relief and freedom. Now maybe I'll have to re-evaluate my position.

Orwellian!

[Anonymous Coward]

1984!

black tape anyone?

[DewDude]

I don't care if these things monitor my viewing habits...they'd find it's mostly DVR with a cable box that never leaves the local radar stream. As someone more worried about the thing watching ME rather than what I'm watching; I'd just put a piece of black tape over the camera sensor.

I can already see there being a huge market of "SmartTV Privacy" accessories.

Re:black tape anyone?

[muindaur]

I plan on not owning another TV. After much debate I have determined that a gaming quality PC with no web cam on it or the monitor, combined with an internet connection, emergency radio, books, and occasional movie theater visits will be sufficient. This is just my feelings, I know, but it's gotten to the point that paying for a TV in addition to a monitor is just not worth it.

No it's not just this issue, just part of a realization that I never watch the old CRT TV that I have now. It's not like I need one for news or emergency broadcasts.

Uh - yeah like we were doing this last year....

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet enabled TV has public API's that allow all types of interactions like this. Even using server logs in conjunction with events fired back from the devices enable anyone to do this. Ever heard of LogicTech's venture with Google TV (http://www.logitech.com/en-us/smartTV/revue)? Kinderspiele!

In soviet Korea

[Chicken_Kickers]

I dimly remember a documentary about a North Korean family living in an apartment block. Thay have a wall mounted radio that can't be turned off but could be dimmed a little. The radio plays propaganda 24 hours a day. Considering that in a capitalist society, advertisements are in a way, a form of propaganda,we are not that far off.

Re:In soviet Korea

[cela0811]

That sounds a lot like 1984.

Re:In soviet Korea

[amiga3D]

I think in N. Korea they use 1984 as a government how-to manual.

I, for one, welcome...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our TV-panopticon- ...

No, fuck this, I don't welcome this at all, it's like Orwell's worst nightmares

1984??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a telescreen and it was conceived by George Orwell. Every conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare. Down with big brother.

1984 my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the NHK!

Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for anything that makes watching TV easier

I, for one, welcome...

[Libertarian001]

... this crap. This is exactly what I need to help me kick the idiot box to the curb once and for all.

Required Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone read 1984?

Re:Max Headroom!

[captjc]

20 Minutes into the Future!

Max Headroom isn't a playbook, people!

Privacy B.S.

[jimbrooking]

American idio...I mean citizens have given away every shred of privacy to the credit card companies, to everyone for whom they carry "loyalty cards", and to every dot-com entity (and others) whose web site they visit. "Social networking" web sites? A better way to collect and sell more detailed information about you. Really, why should we care if the always-on box(es) that cast blue flickering glows out of every window on the street are capturing your faces, your emotions and your body english? Interesting that there is sooooooooooooo much concern about the gummint collecting information when the Experians, the Equifax's, Wal-Mart and the gods only know who else already know more about you than your mother.

The next X will Y! - Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of this theme. Every other day, there is a post like "The next will ! zOMG"
Seriously? It's research - just research. Even really good ideas that everyone loves have a hard time making it as a standard feature into hardware that has price pressure and dozens of competing manufacturers. If people don't like it, they won't buy it. If it's not popular enough, they will stop making it.

While I am sure there will be 100 posts about Orwellian worlds of 1984, the reality is that in the worse case, you could put a piece of tape over the camera.. jeez.
Nobody gives a shit about 3D, and that's more interesting than this, I don't think this will be making it into many production TVs any time soon, so there isn't much to worry about to begin with.

A marketing failure by a giant

[Walt Dismal]

From trial of failed product Microsoft Porn Clippy: "I see that you're watching Two Girls, One Cup. Would you like to watch 'The Sound of Music', too?"

Re:Dramas

[TaoPhoenix]

It's not that bleak.

There's The Chicago Code, a nice new entry about Cicago style corruption, Fairly Legal which breaks mild ground dealing with mediators where there's no evidence rules junk, and it's about people cutting deals to avoid bug ugly suits. Harry's Law is rather funny. Breaking In is a great geek comedy.

However you're right that some big ticket shows are winding down, and I don't yet know much about the replacements. House was iconic.

Truly revolutionary

[satcomjimmy]

What would be truly revolutionary as far as TV would be if it would kill the volume on commercials by about 6dB rather than jumping it by 3. Maybe then I could actually watch a TV show while I was falling asleep.

A wise man once said

[DragonHawk]

"Television [network] companies are not in the business of delivering television programmes to their audience; they're in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers." -- Douglas Adams

(From "What Have We Got To Lose?"; first appearance in Wired UK #1, 1995; reprinted in The Salmon of Doubt)

Thanks but no thanks

[DrXym]

I'll stick with ceiling cat if it's all the same.

It seems very unlikely...

[Bones3D_mac]

But...then again, that "kinect" stuff went off like wildfire, with thousands of families instantly installing a networked 3D camera in their living room, completely unaware of the potential implications. You'd think someone would have read "1984", or at least watched the movie after hearing about it on the news following the adoption of the patriot act. Soon it'll be the same for our daily use media devices and smart phones...

It'll probably have to become a video game before they figure it out, but by then, the creepiness will be outweighed by the false sense of security, knowing that "there's an app for that"... featuring the next generation apple iDevice that features multiple 3D cameras that can view the device's entire surroundings as a single 3D sensitive sphere around 15-20 feet in diameter, that can use AI assisted augmented reality to pick out and identify every object in view, then recreate the scene entirely 3D from a database of similar 3D objects as hastily collected as google's image search function. Which in turn will be uploaded to YouTube3D, where random users will watch you in realtime 3D, able to rummage through your belongings without having to actually being there. Finally, someone will think to turn this YouTube3D thing into a service you can pay for to have random people watching you 24/7 like Brinks home security, except the security "staff" actually pay for the service as well to watch you like an episode of "survivor", except it's "interactive"... and the viewers can choose to either watch you die your own home from a fire or break-in, or, call the police and be the great busy-body hero they imagine themselves to be... or just to collect a cash reward, like some sick game show.

Who watches the watcher?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Japan tv watches You!

Perfect!

[Morky]

Now those responsible for TV programming can accurately calculate the lowest common denominator.

Creepy, Really Creepy

[docwatson223]

Sorry, I'll pass - this is something Orwell would make up. Seriously, I don't want a TV to watch me.

Multiple viewers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the multiple viewers are actually.. hm... joined?? Will the algorithm be able to understand that and.. er.. evaluate their individual interest base on the scene playing on the screen at that time??

Patriot Act allows warrantless access to TV cams..

[Anonymous Coward]

The business world has figured out that getting their customers on a monthly payment plan is a very successful model to follow. Even things that you would think wouldn't require a subscription often do. Ahh, the monthly payment plan.... $weet.

suggestions taking up more screen real estate.

[Anonymous Coward]

i can barely see the tv show now with all the promo crap for stupid movies and 6 tiered crawls for upcoming programing and thunderstorm warnings and scores for extreme parcheesi world cup games and station bugs the size of an elephant's butt!

are they going to market dual screen tvs so you can actually see a show? you know, one for programing and the other one for all that junk. of course you wouldn't be able to turn off the info screen. that's a given. i'll exchange that for privacy. i am a very dull person. processing my information would put them to sleep.

you can't stop it. it's not possible to get rid of these invaders. they are the same as cockroaches and republicans.

This is the TV of the past.

[bobs666]

Tell me... What is the TV of the future. With time shifting like Tivo, and TV on demand like Hulu and Netflicks, there will be more.

Who is going to watch live TV. Hulu and Netflicks all ready have monitoring, not as intrusive as TV watching you. Netflicks knows what you watch. If you want the Hulu queue you also give up that info. So the list of what you watch is already out there. Even with out the Queue your IP address can be used.

In 20 years people will not be watching live TV. I also do not think broadcasters will be getting away with the Voyeur TV set.

In Soviet Russia...

[cela0811]

In Soviet Russia, television watches you!!

Big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

says hi, how are you?

And don't worry, not showing appropriately high levels of interest to government propaganda will _not_ result you ending up in a reeducation camp. double negative!

In Soviet Japan...

[Arancaytar]

:P