Slashdot Mirror


Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired Cameras

alphadogg writes "The little cameras in your home are multiplying. There are the ones you bought, perhaps your SLR or digital camera, but also those that just kind of show up in your current phone, your old phone, your laptop, your game console, and soon your TV and set-top box. Varun Arora, founder of startup GotoCamera in Singapore, wants you to turn them all on and let his company's algorithms analyze what they show, then sell the results as marketing data, in a sort of visual version of what Google and other firms do with search results and free email services."

129 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Jennicam 2.0? by dtmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Startup wants to peek through the wired cameras in your home, sell the data

    Wait, wait. Could we go back and cover the part about why I would want them to do this, again?

    1. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its not what *you* want. It is what advertisers want. You are just the product being sold.

    2. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by mhajicek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For 2% off on up to 15 gallons of gas.

    3. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You missed a step. First they need to come up with some incentive, let's call it a Judas goat, to sign on and let their programs sift through our pictures. This is a little more complicated than web bugs and tracking cookies, since it requires more effort on our part than logging into Facebook or searching through Google.

    4. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by berashith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no kidding. do i get a free house or something?

    5. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Informative

      The way gas prices are headed that could add up to real money.

    6. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      let's call it a Judas goat

      If they gave every user a goat, then they'd certainly come up with some footage to resell.

    7. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yessir. One free glass house coming up!

    8. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Andrewkov · · Score: 2

      Judas goat? Perhaps if we built a large wooden badger..

    9. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      The era of cheap gas has a few miles on it left, if the current Iran situation calms itself a little. Sure, $4 a gallon is higher than historical norms... but not by all that much, if you adjust for inflation (which is what really makes the current prices bad). Check it out. It may not be getting massively better, but there's still a long way to go before it's really panicking time for the average driver.

      (Cutting back on extra trips? Sure. Looking for a more fuel-efficient car? Probably. Bicycles, high speed trains and mass transit takes over? Don't count on it, even if you like trains as much as I do.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    10. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by fran6gagne · · Score: 1

      Basically three reasons :

      1.Money
      2.Money
      3.Money

    11. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      ... and sent it into their camp.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    12. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by mcavic · · Score: 1

      I want a lot of things. That doesn't mean I'm going to get them.

    13. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah. What's in it for me, Mr. Arora? And don't say "Access to ads for products you actually want!" because I'm a grown-up and know how to find things I want*. Besides, I doubt your "targeted ads" are any better than clicking I'm Feeling Lucky and dumping my CC# into the first 16 digit field I find.

      I could be persuaded to let you watch me pick my nose at $1000 per frame, though. Otherwise, you and your startup can feck right off, sir.

      *Who are we trying to kid, anyway? As a married father of two teenage daughters, I already KNOW what ads would best target ME: late-night Tampax/Midol shops, Rue 21 and Banana Republic clothing stores, and any vendor at the mall selling shit that confuses me. You should pay my kids as if they were on your marketing staff; they already did your research for you, buddy.

    14. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Too bad they don't make cars with carburetors any more; we could convert them to propane, CNG, methane etc. and fuel them without our decomposing waste.

    15. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see what the issue is.
      If the device is assigned, for example, ip address= 192.168.1.37, then add this to your iptables config:
      "-A FORWARD -s 192.168.1.37 -j DROP". (or whatever your particular firewall config requires). Nothing gets out - no harm,no foul. If it goes through your firewall, you have ultimate control - it doesn't matter what the SOB'S TRY TO DO.

    16. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the show would be called "goat see"

    17. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only it worked this way:

      Dear Sir,

      I would like to sign up for your offer of (robotic voice) FREE GOAT. I have been made to understand that FREE GOAT is both adorable and delicious..

      Please ship FREE GOAT overnight directly to my doorstep at your earliest convenience, for I have become hungry while typing this sign-up request.

      Thank you,

      Guy willing to let a FREE GOAT vendor know he likes FREE GOAT for a FREE GOAT.

    18. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by modi123 · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait. Could we go back and cover the part [...]

      I am certain this is *NOT* what they want you to do. As R.J. Madison would say, " *NO* going back.. *NO* covering up!".

    19. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed a step. First they need to come up with some incentive, let's call it a Judas goat, to sign on and let their programs sift through our pictures.

      They already have - they've ripped off the government excuse - security. "Turn all your cameras on and be able to monitor everything." And if you do, they "give" you 1 gig of storage. (which they would need anyway to do any video datamining).

      And he wants the camera companies in on it - selling the cameras below cost in return for getting a kickback on the revenue stream.

      Can someone please take this retarded idea out behind the barn and shoot it?

      --
      Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    20. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yep. Looks like the nominal price of gasoline started to skyrocket right after Nixon took the US off the gold standard.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by Jessified · · Score: 1

      I think if I agreed I would be reprogramming my cell phone camera to 'record' a 24/7 feed of YouPorn.

    22. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Quickest way to kill the idea.... logically at least.

      First time I come home from really spicy Mexican food or some questionable Indian curry, in my glass house, with my glass toilet... and I think the neighbors would kill the idea. Or me. I think I know which one would be first.

      You would *think* that seeing what you really don't want to see would stop the idea in its tracks... but.... explain spandex and banana hammocks where they have no reason being in the first place. If we have not already created laws banning the "inappropriate use of spandex", it's not going to stop this idea.

      Think I am kidding? I just had somebody forward me "People of Walmart" in a YouTube video. Improper use of spandex indeed....

    23. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I think if I agreed I would be reprogramming my cell phone camera to 'record' a 24/7 feed of YouPorn.

      Your hands must get really tired.....

    24. Re:Jennicam 2.0? by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Tell people they're going to pitch the footage to MTV as a new reality show. 10 million idiots will sign up within a day.

  2. Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired Ca by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

    And ponies, too. Good luck with that...

  3. Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd trade pictures of myself in my underwear for a "free" console. For an added fee, I'll even put clothes on.

    1. Re:Good Idea by jjp9999 · · Score: 2

      Lol. I wonder how long it would take them to seriously regret looking through people's webcams.

    2. Re:Good Idea by bobcat7677 · · Score: 2

      Maybe there is a cross-marketing opportunity in there somewhere with that "People of Wal-Mart" site...?

    3. Re:Good Idea by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I would just aim my camera at a printed picture of Goatse

      That would stop real quick

    4. Re:Good Idea by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably about 10 seconds after the first time they recorded and then looked at child porn (i.e. a nude "good" under the age of 18 in most U.S. states). That's a strict liability crime in most states. Also, makes you a registered sex offender.

    5. Re:Good Idea by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Funny

      a printed picture of Goatse

      I read that as "a painted picture of Goatse." I thought, "You, Sir, are a connoisseur."

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  4. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by telekon · · Score: 1

    Maybe if ponies were the incentive offered, this would be a viable startup idea.

    --

    To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

  5. The offering to the user... by Neil_Brown · · Score: 5, Informative

    a startup that provides online storage and software for web and Wi-Fi cams

    Sadly omitted from the summary (albeit in the article) — the user gets "free" storage in exchange for the analytics.

    Far too little to convince me to share such data, though.

    1. Re:The offering to the user... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      What are you talking about? It's a perfect exchange. I get free stuff at the price of being watched for about half an hour. After that, it's safe to assume who ever is watching has already gouged out one eye and is busy working on the other.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:The offering to the user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because storage is so expensive these days. There's a reason I have an ad-blocker, and a sticker on my mailbox that says "NO JUNK MAIL". I don't want it, why on earth would I enable them to give me more?

      In the realm of "doesn't get it", these guys.

    3. Re:The offering to the user... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Funny

      After a week of analytics they shifted their business model slightly. "We are now offering users cash money to keep their cameras turned off, in the name of basic decency, animal rights, and several reports recently published by the FDA. When we say our users are sick we being literal in the most precise and correct sense of the word."

    4. Re:The offering to the user... by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

      Sadly omitted from the summary (albeit in the article) — the user gets "free" storage in exchange for the analytics.

      AKA, the Google business plan.

      The only difference here is their transfer is 'pull' while Google waits for you to 'push' your life on to their servers.

    5. Re:The offering to the user... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, it's A Gig, not gigs.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:The offering to the user... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      The information you provided means this cannot be a real thing that is happening; if it is I think my head just might implode.

      What it means is they want to watch us at all times using our own cameras, and in return they're offering, for our convenience, to snoop through our data. A few posts up we were talking about getting free goats for offering up constant home movies of ourselves. This is more like offering up constant home movies and, in return, getting a free goat that's constantly staring at you.

    7. Re:The offering to the user... by Jakester2K · · Score: 1

      .... This is more like offering up constant home movies and, in return, getting a free goat that's constantly staring at you.

      "The Goats Who Stare At Men" (TM my gf Carole)

    8. Re:The offering to the user... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The only difference here is their transfer is 'pull' while Google waits for you to 'push' your life on to their servers.

      Well, that and the fact that Google actually provides useful services, such as searching and e-mail.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  6. Yeah right by Sean · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let a company spy on me constantly so it can make a profit by selling information about me? That sounds like a great deal for me. Where do I sign up?

    1. Re:Yeah right by twotacocombo · · Score: 5, Funny

      www.facebook.com

    2. Re:Yeah right by phrostie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if ever there was a post that deserved a 6, this is it.

    3. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You won the internet today. Good job.

    4. Re:Yeah right by nickdc · · Score: 1

      if ever there was a post that deserved a 6, this is it.

      Don't be such a glory hog, I personally like the one above yours that says

      www.facebook.com

    5. Re:Yeah right by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 2

      try and find a way to force it on to people

      Like deals with Skype, Microsoft, or laptop makers (what laptop doesn't have a webcam these days), Sony (a lot of PS3s have EyeToy plugged in; slip something deep in the EULA for the upgrade making it nice and legal), etc. Ultimately, it's scary that these people are actually even suggesting this.

      It's more scary that there are a bunch of "I'm not doing anything I don't want them to know about, and I get free stuff"tards who will sign up for it. Now, I have to worry about going to visit people just because they may have signed up for this nonsense.

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    6. Re:Yeah right by phrostie · · Score: 1

      I agree. it was what i meant.

  7. Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    No company or "customer" could possibly be this stupid.

    1. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you give the common individual WAY too much credit. Just look how successful facebook is. :P

    2. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      Rarely has a business gone bankrupt because they underestimated the stupidity of the average consumer. There will be a large number of people who don't know enough or care about their privacy who will line up to get "free" storage.

    3. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by markana · · Score: 2

      You're new around here, aren't you? All they have to do is add some tangible, meaningless incentive for the customer and they'll have people signing up in droves. Free storage, free email, maybe a social site with some music and games - they'll get tons of takers. Add in some real prizes, say, a monthly random drawing for a car or a vacation, and stand back.

      The lesson of Facebook is - a very large number of people either don't value their privacy, or don't recognize when they're giving it away. They'll happily trade some potential future negative outcome for the shiny bauble here and now.

    4. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by Githaron · · Score: 2

      I can hand pick what information Facebook gets.

    5. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by causality · · Score: 1

      I can hand pick what information Facebook gets.

      Can you perfectly control what everyone else posts about you? Can you absolutely lock down what else can be inferred about you by anyone who can take a long view of everything you post plus everything everyone else posts, such as Facebook staff and their partners?

      If you can, well ... that's a neat trick.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by idontgno · · Score: 1

      That has a striking resemblance to "I can quit any time I want" and "That only happens to other people."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      Can you perfectly control what everyone else says or does with information about you anywhere? This is not a Facebook problem, the solution is to find better friends.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by causality · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you perfectly control what everyone else says or does with information about you anywhere? This is not a Facebook problem, the solution is to find better friends.

      It would normally be difficult to aggregate and analyze all of that information in a single central place. At least without a court order. Facebook is a system designed to do just that, with no court order needed since you agreed to give them permission to the data. To ignore that obvious fact means you are either being dishonest or you're performing mental gymnastics to rationalize away legitimate concerns about Facebook, no doubt to dismiss the foolishness of using it. Otherwise it would be hard to continue doing so, which you fully intend to do.

      No, it's not difficult to see what's happening here and it's really transparent. You're just a different kind of fanboy and those pesky facts won't stop you. A Microsoft fanboy has to downplay the whole abuse of monopoly thing. An Apple fanboy has to downplay the disadvantages of walled gardens. You have to downplay the fact that the system is carefully designed to separate users from their privacy. That kind of selective blindness is a step towards psychosis, you know.

      Further, I appreciate the way I disagree with you, therefore I must have horrible friends (and by extension be a horrible person myself), but I tire of these little childish stabs that have no place in rational discourse. Facebook's privacy settings, even with friends who use them perfectly, don't stop Facebook and its marketers from analyzing data everyone posts to Facebook. My friends have the decency and self-respect not to betray my trust, but that's no good if I am communicating with them and the medium of communication itself is untrustworthy.

      In the case of using Facebook while desiring privacy, that's the situation. Thus, I don't use Facebook and neither do my friends. Isn't that so much easier than trying to perfectly control everybody else? When you don't use a system designed to violate privacy in the first place, suddenly there is no need for that.

      This is a problem quite unique to Facebook and systems like Facebook (such as MySpace before it, etc). Trying to generalize it the way you are doing in order to obfuscate that fact is beneath you, or should be.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    9. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and that seems to be advertiser's market right now -- only those with less than 3 digits in their IQs. But it probabably works, since there are 150 million Americans with two digit IQs.

    10. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Not really. Can you control what others say about you?
      Facebook can build pretty accurate profile of people who have never signed up for the services based on what others have said.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Editors: This is March 1st, not April 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but I tire of these little childish stabs that have no place in rational discourse.

      OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is Slashdot. You want room 12A, Just along the corridor. (sotto voce) Stupid git!!

  8. Watching us? by jjp9999 · · Score: 1

    Oh, you evil bastards!

  9. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I'm allowed to encrypt the images and videos before I upload them, then sure, you can run all the analytics you want on the encrypted files.
    I'll happily take the free storage in exchange for that.

    1. Re:Sure... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Why not just send them white noise and tell them it is encrypted video?

  10. Re:GREAT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're only conspiracy nutjobs till proven right. Then they are wise.

  11. Re:GREAT!! by artor3 · · Score: 1

    Nah, this is being done by a startup, not the United States government. It doesn't fit with their world view. Unless...

    the start-up is a front for the NSA!!!
    dun dun dunnnnnn....

  12. Two sentence reponse: by fallen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you. No.

    Pardon me for being crude but - what are these nutjobs thinking? All it takes is someone in the household going "Sure, we'll do that!" and then little 15 year old Suzie walks by the camera on the way from her bathroom to her bedroom and *boom!* the company behind this has just analyzed child porn. Congrats!

    I cover up or disconnect all cameras in my home that might be turned on remotely for one simple reason -- it is my private home. Period. The end.

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

    1. Re:Two sentence reponse: by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      I think the end result will be more like chat roulette. Nothing but guys showing their junk.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Two sentence reponse: by QuasiSteve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [...] and then little 15 year old Suzie walks by the camera on the way from her bathroom to her bedroom and *boom!* the company behind this has just analyzed child porn

      Putting aside for a moment that perhaps such households should think for a moment before opting into such plans, I have to ask... ...what, exactly, would be wrong with that scenario?

      For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.

      For another, my computer could be analyzing child pornography all day long every day of the week. Perhaps it's analyzing it to see if it's known pornography or new pornography. If it's new pornography, perhaps it's trying facial recognition to see if this is of a person whose case has already been handled, or that it may be a new case and should be flagged as such.

      But given that the system doesn't know what the material is in the first place, perhaps it's analyzing the picture, sees what looks like a human form, detects that either there's no clothing or the person happens to walk around in a wetsuit that matches their skin color, and either way decides to discard the data.
      The analyzing software may be much more interested in that bright rectangular surface called your TV to see what programs you watch.

      People are way, way too jumpy about this stuff. Next thing you know an adult can't go to a lake for a swim because there's also kids who like diving into the water and have issues keeping their bikini bottoms on* and you just might see that. Oh noes.

      It's different if that's the purpose of going swimming there in the first place, of course. Just as it would be different if one of the goals of this company would be to catch people naked (adults: blackmail, kids: CP market?), or if, as part of its operation, the material would be made available to third parties who in turn might have such motives.

      ( * apparently, that's a thing? Here, have a plug: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/525823883/swimwear-that-stays-put-made-locally-made-responsi )

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not opting into such a program anytime soon.. but the whole "what if it catches X doing Y!?" thing? Not the biggest problem with this by a long shot.

    3. Re:Two sentence reponse: by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to hide?
      Only criminals hide things.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:Two sentence reponse: by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      We care much more about legal issues along with slippery slopes than your thoughts.
      Enjoy.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    5. Re:Two sentence reponse: by fallen1 · · Score: 1

      For one thing, it's not child pornography. The law may perhaps interpret it as such, especially if it ends up being treated as such by the person caught on camera / their legal guardians, but naked people walking in front of a camera does not necessarily pornography make.

      I fully agree with you. I went down the road that it seems our governing bodies* want to take to make a point. I personally don't believe that an image of a nude person is, per se, pornography. Nor do I believe it is immoral or illegal or prurient by most measures. SOMEONE will take it that way, but I am not one of those people.

      I also agree that people are way too jumpy about things like this. Ready, fire, aim response. Once again, our governing bodies* are usually the ones to take that tact if not "concerned citizens" that, ultimately, should have been more concerned with what goes on at their house than everyone else house. Someone accidentally walking by a camera that this company is analyzing should be way down on the list of concerns about this program. Number one should be the realization that if you're willing to give up your liberty (privacy in your own home) for what amounts to nothing to this company, then why should you be concerned with letting in the authorities? Other than that pesky Constitution, of course.

      *our governing bodies in this case means those in the United States of America, just for clarification.

      --

      Dream as if you'll live forever.
      Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
      ~Anonymous~

    6. Re:Two sentence reponse: by antdude · · Score: 1

      What about microphones/mics? How do you turn those off without physically disconnecting that are part of the devices?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Two sentence reponse: by cffrost · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to hide?
      Only criminals hide things.

      Yes. Especially the billions of criminals hiding their indecent exposure on a daily basis.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:Two sentence reponse: by Cederic · · Score: 1

      diving into the water and have issues keeping their bikini bottoms on

      You kidding me? You've never been swimming with friends and see someone dive in and then have to look around to find out where their clothing ended up?

      Happens more to men than women in my experience, but that's also because
      - men tend not to wear one-piece swimsuits
      - men have large bellies making it easier for clothing attached to the waist to slide down past the hips
      - men are more likely to dive in while socially swimming

      But hey, a little accidental nakedness is harmless.

  13. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ponies and wireless cams?

    You pervert.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Copy Machine by rullywowr · · Score: 2

    Sounds like we should give them the same image as one reproduces by sitting on the copy machine, sans trou.

    1. Re:Copy Machine by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      You mean without the bloody anus from the copy machine glass shattering from being sat on?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  15. Analytics by paleo2002 · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a great deal, actually. I get free off-site storage and all I have to do it put little post-it notes over the webcams on my computers. I'd change the color each day, just to give their consumer data algorithm something different to look at. Only draw-back is the resulting spam email with offers for pills that will turn my penis yellow or electric blue.

  16. Re:GREAT!! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    the start-up is helping the government end-run the Constitution, by providing it with information that would otherwise be unconstitutional for the government to collect!!

    BTTRFY (Brought That To Reality For You)

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  17. wow by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, if I got this then I could guarantee that all of my spam would be about weight loss, masturbation aids, and (naughty) maid services? I don't see the difference from my current crop of spam.

  18. Late to the party. by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My botnet already does this. Except I don't sell marketing data to advertisers. Visit RealAmatuerTube.ru. /TongueInCheek

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  19. Everyone is looking at this all wrong... by JSC · · Score: 1

    Sign up for the service, get the freebies...and then paste a screenshot of goat.se in front of the camera.

    --
    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog
  20. Strange times by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    We very well may be heading toward an Orwellian future. Sadly we seem to be selling ourselves while making it happen more so than it being thrust upon us. I'm still dumbfounded by shows like the Jersey Shore, Kardasians, etc. These people are rich because they act like (or are) complete morons and do so in front of a camera. Then the masses happily do the same on Youtube for free. And now this. Lets' not forget the domestic drones and other cameras that have been slowly invading our privacy for years.

    I remember as a small child being creeped out thinking that the people on the television could see me the same as I could see them. It seems this could very well become reality soon.

    Weren't we supposed to have flying cars, no poverty, and shiny cities under glass domes on the moon to go along with the computers, "eyes in the sky", the police state, and video phones? Someone really screwed this up.

  21. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I don't know about ponies... surely it is horses that would sell more videos.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  22. No way dude. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want to sell some porn, hire some actors you cheapskates.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  23. Exhibitionists rejoice. by Medievalist · · Score: 2

    I don't think these guys are going to get what they are looking for.

    Or maybe they are - if they are going to sell the data to Durex and Trojan...

    1. Re:Exhibitionists rejoice. by BillX · · Score: 1

      Or for the /. crowd, Kimberly-Clark.

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  24. My company is working on a blocking technology. by Lashat · · Score: 2

    We are timing the product to launch at the same time these cameras become available. We are making it easier than ever to block intrusive cameras in your home.

    Look for our product out soon.

    Electrical Tape.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:My company is working on a blocking technology. by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Click and Clack have prior art.

  25. Next Year is 1984 by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Is it 1983- are we getting ready for 1984?

    Cameras in our home watching us? Plus bad.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  26. TFA says this is B2B by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

    For now, his company makes money by charging manufacturers for offering its services with their products, or from users that upgrade to extra storage. Currently most such cameras are USB-driven, but a new wave of cheap Wi-Fi models are on the way, and manufacturers like Samsung and Panasonic are putting them into TVs and other devices, mainly for motion control and video conferencing.

    "USB is a sunset industry" for cameras, Arora said. He showed off a tiny wireless camera from partner Trek 2000 International, about the size of a roll of film. It sells online for about US$65, and other manufacturers will soon launch for less than $50. Unlike USB models, Wi-Fi cameras don't need to be plugged into a computer or network, and usually just require a power source, which makes them ideal for security and monitoring.

    As the prices of such devices fall, manufacturers will be squeezed, and GotoCamera proposes to provide a portion of the online fees it receives back to them, a rare ongoing revenue stream he compares to disposable blades for shaving razors, that must be continually purchased.

    "What we say to them is, 'Please accept that you're a commodity, and let us bring the Gillette model to you,'" Arora said.

    Their primary audience seems to be camera manufacturers, not users. The indirect offer to consumers seems to be, "buy this camera at a discount and in exchange we get access to its video feed."

    Which is not enough to make me buy one, but hey, maybe it's enough for others. Or it'll just be in the fine print and people won't know about it.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:TFA says this is B2B by JobyOne · · Score: 1

      Or it'll just be in the fine print and people won't know about it.

      Probably that one. The crap that is regularly hidden in fine print on boxes and buried in wordy EULAs is horrifying.

      --
      Porquoi?
    2. Re:TFA says this is B2B by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "The indirect offer to consumers seems to be, "buy this camera at a discount and in exchange we get access to its video feed.""

      Hm. Cheap wifi webcam to stick on a robotic telescope?

    3. Re:TFA says this is B2B by cffrost · · Score: 1

      +1 Purple Heart for RTFA for us. Thanks for your service.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  27. $40 per GB per year for the premium service by biodata · · Score: 1

    Isn't it cheaper to just buy USB memory (or disks or..)?

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:$40 per GB per year for the premium service by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      or what Dropbox gives you free for signing up.

  28. Uhm... what's the reward? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Google, Bing (from Microsoft), and others track your search requests but also provide free access to their search results when you ask for them.
    GMail (from Google). Live Mail (from Microsoft) and others may scan your e-mail, but they also block spam and give you a functional e-mail account.

    GotoCamera is not from a rich company and only seems interested in selling your data to marketers. Could they at least offer some sort of "We'll call 911 for you..." or other feature that would at least be a benefit to the consumer. Just noticing the brands in my kitchen and filling the living room TV with ads from their competitors just doesn't work. Why do we need to connect our cameras to him in the first place?

  29. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no, ponies are of a much more comfortable height. For a horse you'd need a ladder.

  30. "Please accept that you're a commodity..." by idontgno · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did he really just say that?

    Did he just call me a fungible mass material, like pork bellies and orange juice? Am I going to be traded as futures at the Chicago Board of Trade?

    My God. He just called us sheep. No, not even sheep. Less than sheep. Meat. Raw materials. Resources, in the most over-the-top insulting reading of "Human Resources" possible.

    Wow. I guess some people have no subtlety. And no shame. And scum like this wants to turn the world into the largest episode of The Prisoner ever.

    Let me reiterate. I am not a number. I am a free man.

    I must respectfully decline your intriguing offer. I will not be subscribing to your newsletter.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:"Please accept that you're a commodity..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did he really just say that?

      Did he just call me a fungible mass material, like pork bellies and orange juice? Am I going to be traded as futures at the Chicago Board of Trade?

      My God. He just called us sheep. No, not even sheep. Less than sheep. Meat. Raw materials. Resources, in the most over-the-top insulting reading of "Human Resources" possible.

      Wow. I guess some people have no subtlety. And no shame. And scum like this wants to turn the world into the largest episode of The Prisoner ever.

      Let me reiterate. I am not a number. I am a free man.

      I must respectfully decline your intriguing offer. I will not be subscribing to your newsletter.

      Marketing types often use the argument that nobody is truly private any more, so why not just give it all up?

      Makes about as much sense as saying that you'll never be as young as you used to be, so you might as well shoot yourself and get it over with.

      I find that my modest efforts to preserve what privacy I have left are quite effective, thank you. I'm not overly spammed, nor am I plagued with intrusive personalized ads. Browser settings and plugins, along with a modicum of internet street smarts, can keep things fairly well under control.

      Of course, if you spread your personal info over various social networks, it's a bit silly to complain about loss of privacy at that point.

    2. Re:"Please accept that you're a commodity..." by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      Did he really just say that?

      No, he called the cheapo cameras and, by extension, their manufacturers a commodity. But this is slashdot, let's not let reality get in the way of a good rant ;-)

    3. Re:"Please accept that you're a commodity..." by pz · · Score: 1

      Did he just call me a fungible mass material, like pork bellies and orange juice?

      No, you have misread the article. The comment was directed at the manufacturers of small video camera, referring to their product --- that being small, ubiquitous cameras. He's saying, please change the way you view your market and think of it as amenable to the well-known schemes used by large personal care items manufacturers.

      (This is an excellent example of needing a -1 incorrect moderation.)

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  31. Two words for them.... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    Fuck No!

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  32. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Bonsai horses...

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  33. win for them by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    Gonna be getting a whole lot of porn adverts in my home

  34. It'll probably be buried in the EULA by ThinkDifferently · · Score: 1

    EULA...I agree
    Privacy Policy...I agree
    Countersurveillance Agreement...I ag...wait, wuh?

  35. I'll take It. by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    Sure, I'll take them up on the offer. If they want to give me a free high quality camera I could remove from the device and use for a webcam I see 100% win-win for me, all they are going to be receiving is "No Signal".

  36. Eventual law enforcement aid? by Mundefined · · Score: 2

    So you've purchased a cellphone with microphone, video camera and GPS capability. And you've also purchased an extremely high-powered computing device to play games on that, coincidentally, has high-powered voice-processing and surveillance capabilities (e.g. Xbox360 w/kinect). On neither of these devices do you have admin/root privileges. And both of them have been shown to connect to their "home" manufacturers/owners and send back data periodically.

    So... suppose law enforcement decides to publish their Top 10 Wanted to both of these manufacturers with the understanding that all capable devices will periodically scan for known voice patterns and/or facial patterns and report back findings. Nothing technically impossible about this.

    So... once it becomes ridiculously cheap to store this data... why not scan continuously under the guise of "homeland security"? Characteristics can include people with long beards, dark skin, particular languages, what-have-you.

    But you may be thinking... "I have nothing to hide. If a company is willing to buy me a camera/game/etc they can watch me all they want." Recall... there's a difference between having nothing to hide and having nothing to show.

  37. Know the difference between.. by Roachie · · Score: 1

    ... a pickpocket and a peeping tom?

    A: a pickpocket snatches watches

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  38. This will do wonders... by GigG · · Score: 1

    This will do wonders for duct tape sales.

    --
    Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
  39. Leonard Cohen: 1988 by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

    "But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
    That will disclose
    What everybody knows "

  40. If I may quote Dr. Evil.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    How about......NO!!!!

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  41. Re:GREAT!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Ah. You might be interested in this:
    http://tinyurl.com/7j5uqml

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. what about the user? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    They seem to have forgotten something:
    What benefit does the user get from giving up their privacy? i.e. what is their motivation for agreeing to this? ...Or dont they get a choice at all (other than to not buy any product with this 'feature')?

  43. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Why would you want a ladder? You can't get down off of a horse, so why go up one?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  44. Ads by ameline · · Score: 1

    Look, the last thing I need is more penis enlargement ads.... :-)

    --
    Ian Ameline
    1. Re:Ads by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

      Pics or it didn't happen.. :p :p :p

  45. Re:Startup Wants To Peek Through Your Home's Wired by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    These may work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincoteague_Pony
    They are smaller. And you can actually buy them. They have an auction every year.

  46. Orwell Must Be Laughing... by andersh · · Score: 1

    Thank you for reminding me of the TV that was always on in "1984". Ever present, ever vigilant and recording.

    If only Orwell/Blair had known what we can do with technology today, he would have had a field day writing "2014".

  47. My feelings in 3 words by atomicxblue · · Score: 1

    FUCK THAT SHIT!

  48. Creepy but already possible by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

    You don't need to ask permission, you only need to know how to google. Lots of people install cameras and leave them wide open for anyone to view.
    Search for anything with inurl:/view.shtml

    This has been known for a long time.

    There is even a bunch of blogs and videos detailing exactly how to do this:
    http://www.mydigitallife.info/hack-to-search-and-view-free-live-webcam-with-google-search/
    http://www.wonderhowto.com/how-to-view-live-cams-through-google-155767/

    --
    You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
  49. Customer recruitment does not have infinite value by cardpuncher · · Score: 1

    The business world is becoming obsessed with the value that can be attached to knowing more about people's habits and using that knowledge to sell them stuff. There isn't infinite value in this stuff, though. The more you collect, the less value individual data points have. Ultimately, it will be self-defeating - when every competitor knows everything there is to know about their customer base, there's no point in knowing anything. At which point, I suppose, they take the final step in monetizing the data by selling it to the government.

  50. Child Porn machine .. so what happens when by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    By accident this system takes a picture of an under age child with less than 100% clothing coverage - Mr Arora's system just made a child porn image. I suspect that Singapore has strict liability and very harsh penalties for such crimes.

    1. Re:Child Porn machine .. so what happens when by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      you do know what "strict liability" means in this case and as you get the death penalty for 500g of weed in Singapore i doubt that possession or create of CP would be looked on at all lightly.

    2. Re:Child Porn machine .. so what happens when by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      And how is this (your liability for child porn) a concern for the makers and sellers of this (proposed) software?

      Citation please for cases where the death penalty has been carried out for 500g of cannabis leaf (what I assume you mean by "leaf"). And this affects people who aren't utter idiots, just how?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Child Porn machine .. so what happens when by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      If your running the system that took and stores the pictures that is "making an image" and you are liable and the Death penalty is from the Wikipedia page on Singapores legal system (its not referred to as Disyland with the death penalty for nothing you know).

  51. Won't last long by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    How many pictures of minor children in various states of undress to they need to upload before they get shut down by onerous child pornography laws?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  52. Silly argument by EdwinFreed · · Score: 1

    I have no control over what anyone else says or posts about me on Facebook or elsewhere, irrespective of whether or not I choose to create a page on Facebook.

    In point of fact I have a Facebook page that I didn't create and have no control over. Because I wrote some RFCs I've been found to be a "public figure".