Slashdot Mirror
Apple Camera Patent Lets External Transmitters Disable Features
sticks_us writes with news of an Apple patent application, recently published by the USPTO, for an on-board camera system that would include circuitry for processing external infrared signals. The data received from these signals could then be used to present information to the user of the device, or even to modify the device's operation.
"For example, an infrared emitter could be located in areas where picture or video capture is prohibited, and the emitter could generate infrared signals with encoded data that includes commands to disable the recording functions of devices. An electronic device could then receive the infrared signals, decode the data and temporarily disable the device's recording function based on the command. ... In some embodiments, a device may apply a watermark to detected images as an alternative to completely disabling a recording function."
Apple has tapped into a pretty nice market there. They'll make quite a bit just selling portable IR transmitters that cops can wear on their belts--for when our boys in blue need to enforce a little extra discouragement on handcuffed perps and don't want to deal with any pesky pinkos filming or taking pictures.
Not only that, but by holding the patent, they stand to make a fortune when the government decides to make it mandatory in all new cameras.
That Steve Jobs is nothing if not a money-making machine. I bet he'll have every college student in the U.S. lined up around the block to buy one of these "enhanced" cameras. He's like one of those Bond villians who comes up with a plan that's undeniably horrific and evil, but also damned creative and ingenious.
Meanwhile the old Bond villian, Bill Gates, is off fighting AIDS in Africa. Guess that's like when Jaws became a good guy in Moonraker.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I am frequently baffled by some of the stuff that Apple gets away with patenting. In this case, the patent described would(to my layman's inspection) appear to be a mere subset of Microsoft's (equally odious and sinister) 2008 "Digital Manners" patent, except that that patent covered a much broader range of possible prohibition/settings propagation media, and a much more generic set of possible commands.
Give external control over over a non-networked part of my device to a thrid party? with any intent? HELL NO. Really. If mankind buys such devices without thought... May the gods be merciful on us all.
The is no reason for this dangerous feature to be included in a device that I purchase. That could get someone killed. Take some pics of some criminal activity and post it online, then the pic rats you out like a cheep stool pigeon. Then youâ(TM)re pushing up daisies.
It would only be a matter of time before everyone had a camera with this feature. My guess is that it will never be mandatory, but that companies will do it to appease the Justice Department (see: laser printer watermarking).
Palm trees and 8
This'll be perfect for following scared women at night, and disabling their ability to make calls/send texts/take a picture.
And sure cops will have their flashing lights stopping pictures being taken of them.
Can't think why I'd want a camera that would do this. The small ability to get meta data about something I'm taking a piccy of is far outweighed by the negative uses.
Go go masking tape.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Considering that most people aren't going to carry a standalone camera to document police brutality/corruption, and most people tend to upgrade their cell phone every few years, a law would prove pretty devastating.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
That will be in the china IOS update.
That was my first thought, as well. But a closer look at the patent shows that they are using the camera sensor itself as the IR receiver. If you tape over it to block the IR datastream , you can't take any pictures with it anyway.
What is needed is a filter that blocks IR, but passes visible light.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
There is actually a very good market for this invention: Plenty of companies have places where they don't want any photos being taken (how many people post here "I can't buy a MacBook because of the built-in camera hahaha stupid Apple!!!"), so all you need is a little transmitter in the room, and everyone with the proper device can come in. It will take a while, but at some point certain places will only allow you to use a computer or phone if it has no camera, or if it is an Apple product.
Don't most daylight digital cameras already have IR filters on them? That's why when you look closely at a digital camera lens, it has a dark reddish tint to it. I've tried using IR light to convert a webcam into a nighttime camera and it never goes well unless i feel like tearing the camera apart and removing the filter. (which on MOST cameras, is a severe pita)
But without that filter, the IR light overwhelms the sensor during the daytime, so it's required for daytime use. I just bought a camera that has daytime/nighttime mode, and it swings a red IR filter into place in front of the CCD for daytime operation.
Sooooo my question is, just how effective is this system going to be if there's an IR filter in place? Now I realize it doesn't completely cut out the IR - I can for example see the blinky light on my remote in my webcam, but it's brightness is greatly reduced.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
But most of those videos/photos that show bad stuff aren't done by professional photographers. They're done by average citizens holding up their smartphones. Just think of what this kind of technology would have done if the Libyan/Yemeni/Egyptian/Tunsian/Syrian/etc. governments had been able to deploy it in the streets of their cities.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Plz make borg picture for Jobs and put halo around Gates borg. kthxbai
Just put an IR filter in front of the lens, or a tape on the detector..
Here is a list of printers that do and do not include the watermark...
Ken
Only problem with that is that the paparazzi will have high-end cameras where that "feature" either doesn't exists or can be disabled.
Joe Consumer isn't going to know how to do that on his iPhone 6, though.
I remember a time when patents were used to protect inventions that enhanced our life. Hell, I remember a time when Apple was a company that focused on making products that were easier to use. Now they seem to be focusing on ways to prohibit you from using your device the way in which you'd like. From their perspective, this makes sense. As they expand their business to include media distribution (iTunes) and advertising (iAds), they can no longer focus solely on the experience of the end user. They need to make concessions to appease content creation companies and advertising customers. Many of these concessions will require limiting what the end user is capable of doing with their device.
But not all hope is lost. Based on the success of Apple, many other tech companies have learned just how important it is to develop interfaces that are easier and more enjoyable to use. No longer are we stuck with the attitude that users need to stop whining about quirky interfaces and just use the hacked-together interface which is "good enough". Hopefully these companies will pick up where Apple left off. Given the success of Android devices, I'd say that things aren't looking too bad.
Ah, the geek "If it isn't absolutely 100% foolproof it's completely useless!!" mentality.
Governments love people like you.
No sig today...
Just wait till everyone starts carrying the IR "no camera" devices, rendering ALL camera's useless all the time.
The problem with technology is that for every action there is an opposite reaction, that is often greater that the intended one. Call it a corollary to the Streisand Effect.
Imagine for a minute that someone develops low cost "camera jammer" that does what is proposed and all the asshats of the world just start carrying them all the time, everywhere. It would mean that the camera wouldn't take any pictures anywhere. Of course they would make a law preventing anyone from owning such a device except for official government purposes, granting even more power to a tyrannical government. We are slowly becoming slaves to the state and our elected slave masters.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Excuse my lack of knowledge concerning IR transmission and filtering but couldn't a movie theater just light up the screen with an infrared light shining the words BOOTLEG or PIRATE or a checkerboard pattern or something to that effect? Would it be effective?
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
What the article doesn't mention is Apple's rumored R&D into the Smart Phone Taser. At the push of a button a [insert tyrannical abuser of power] can activate a taser function to safely disable any [ insert enemy of the state (ie. terrorist, activist, single mother ripping MP3's)] holding the phone or storing the phone in their pocket. The codes to activate the taser function will be stored online behind a secure unhackable firewall only accessible to government authorities and copyright enforcement companies with a paid subscription. Analysts expect Apple's stock to double after the prototype is demonstrated at the Crowd Control Conference this fall.
Just put an IR filter in front of the lens, or a tape on the detector..
This is detectable. When you are in a room that is lit, there is always some infrared light. If you place an IR filter on the lens, there will be no IR light.
The camera can also, when no signal is detected, emit a modulated IR signal which will be reflected off the subject back to the camera. If the amount of IR received is 0, or the camera can't see its own IR reflection, then it acts as if the no picture signal is received.
IR camera jammers... useful for:
(1) Celebrities, to protect their image, help prevent members of the public/paparazzi from snapping their dealings on film
(2) Streakers/Nudists
(3) Museums, any place where professional photography occurs, to force you to buy the pictures instead of taking your own.
(4) Festivals, Sporting events, other occasions of public gathering; to ensure rights protection for the official photographers.
(5) Women to carry around who are concerned about stalkers/upskirters
(6) TSA/Police/Private security firms, concerned about event visitors taking pictures of something that might reveal sensitive information -- like where the exit is located, or what the inside of a building looks like, who is getting the enhanced pat down
(7) Burglars/thieves/muggers/etc, all the smartphones/webcam/ATM/CCTVs jammed, so they can do the act with impunity without their face being seen, and without risk of winding up on Youtube....
(8) Cheating spouses who don't want to be caught
(9) Any public entertainment venue - Concert halls, Auditoriums, Play Houses, Sports Amphitheaters, Stadiums, Movie Theaters, Opera Houses, Dance Studios. To protect publicity rights of the venue.
(10) Criminals/Terrorists/etc, to keep as many details of their acts a secret as long as possible
Indeed... I can see a very large market for the IR blocking device.
This tech is useless without a monetization plan. It will simply be more juice to move people to competitors' products when they learn their Apple camera is no longer that useful. It needs to be a combined effort that all smart device manufacturers simultaneously turn on, and they all need a standard monetization framework, so they all profit.... otherwise it will just be competitive pressure, that will hurt them all, or not let the restrictions be adopted.
Instead of designing a technology to involve merely blocking.... Apple should have provided a system where the camera would be loaded with details about the 'registered owner' of the event / thing being photographed. So they could charge the Apple customer $1.99 a photo with a small commission paid to the museum/theatre/venue/event owner.
And apply DRM of 'event owner' 's choice.
Also, instead of using IR as a control plane, they could use the 3G network to provide data about 'restricted photo' locations near the user's location, with possibly checksums. And use GPS as the primary data channel for loading restrictions, with IR as a backup way of providing location services data to the device.
That is the IR sensors can transmit packets that identify location of the sensor (GPS coordinates), and a copy of Apple's digitally authenticated "restriction zones" table and 'direction restricted'/compass data for a 100 mile radius. GPS and cell tower location data are harder to avoid/spoof because they are more integral to the device operation. You cannot simply put a piece of foil over your phone's antenna or jam GPS and expect everything to still work. IR sensors are easily tampered with or fooled.
There's also a possibility of using the network to load more details about restrictions, such as orientation, maybe some simple litmus tests, so the phone can perform image processing to determine if the thing being photographed is the restrictive object, or a more restricted object that requires a higher price to be paid for the user to take a DRM-shielded photo only viewable on their device and authorized computers for their Apple ID.
I believe you are thinking of a UV filter.
You're assuming it won't be integrated such that it's in the same sensor or behind the same lens as the optical CCD.
I believe you are thinking of a UV filter.
Another name for "UV Filter" is clear piece of plastic/polycarbonate.
Because common plastic lens materials filter high-energy UV light and pass lower energy EM.
Anyways... the UV filtering for lens protection is just a harmless side effect, that can also be useful in some outdoors shooting conditions.