Intel To Launch TV Service With Facial Recognition By End of the Year

MojoKid writes "Despite television being a rather tough nut to crack, Intel is apparently hoping that its upcoming set-top box and subscription service will be its golden ticket to delivering more Intel processors to the living room. The service would be a sort of specialized virtual cable subscription that would combine a bundle of channels with on demand content. So what's Intel's killer feature that distinguishes it from the vast and powerful competition? Granular ratings that result in targeted ads. Intel is promising technology in a set-top box that can distinguish who is watching, potentially allowing Intel to target advertising. The technology could potentially identify if the viewer is an adult or a child, male or female, and so on, through interactive features and face recognition technology."

Comments

The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit until they force us all to wear burkas or Guy Faulks masks.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[bbecker23]

It's worse than that. Imagine the enhanced DRM this would enable. "Sorry, We have detected more than the allotted number of audience members. Your account has been charged $9.99 per extra viewer."

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[alanshot]

It's worse than that. Imagine the enhanced DRM this would enable. "Sorry, We have detected more than the allotted number of audience members. Your account has been charged $9.99 per extra viewer."

Or:
"Sorry. John Q Public rented this video. You appear to be his wife, Sally V Public. If you wish to view this video John must be present or you must rent it again."

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We can only hope that a brave transvestite, a crack team of ACLU litigators, and the threat of public ridicule can save us from this dystopia...

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[Mitchell314]

Or the very cheap solution of duct tape. Which solves all problems, from broken tool handles to helicopters to any given international crisis. :P

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[davester666]

Uh no, it won't. Rental play stalls until the induhvidual is confirmed.

Step forward and be recognized, citizen.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[barvennon]

Um, would you like to buy an ap that blocks that software?

Very cheap Only $1 per month.

(Until Intel offers me more:)

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[Mitchell314]

So duct-tape your photograph to the camera!

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[the monolith]

What's all this about Duck Tape, or Duct Apes? How about a simple solution: put a fish bowl in front of the sensor! It will probably still pick up your hand gestures, but get driven crazy by the Goldfish! OK, I have been watching too much the American Dad (social education programs.)

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[kheldan]

You want to be "saved" from this technology? Then don't buy it in the first place! Nobody is twisting your arm. Intel Corp exists for one reason only: to make money. You don't give them money, they do something else. You don't want a camera in your living room watching everything you do (which is straight out of 1984 by the way) then don't buy anything that has that technology in it, damnit!

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that worked so well for preventing walled gardens.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[kheldan]

Really? So we're all forced by law to subscribe to these "walled gardens", or are jailed? Have our livelihoods taken from us? Or perhaps instead you're just another of the brainwashed masses who weren't raised to think for themselves, convinced that there's no reason to fight anything, no point in "going against the grain", instead just yielding to false peer-pressure? If so please sterilize yourself, we need fewer people like you in the gene pool.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[marcello_dl]

> Intel Corp exists for one reason only: to make money

money (now) exists for one reason only: enforce control.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[HArchH]

It is "duct".

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[HArchH]

Starting with the Microsoft Connect thing that's watching, and thanks to Flame, transmitting, everything you and your gay lover are doing in your living room.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[camperslo]

It's worse than that. Imagine the enhanced DRM this would enable. "Sorry, We have detected more than the allotted number of audience members. Your account has been charged $9.99 per extra viewer."

There was a time when F.C.C. rules prevented cable operators from even being able to track what programs were watched. Should we track people to see what channel their watching. The wikidrips guy has a show on RT you know. Some might want to know whether you watch PBS or Fox, or those foreign news channels.

The tech should provide relief to any who find old malware problems boring. Expect that some will create websites with a bunch of video windows showing people watching tv. I bet some people would write that code for free just to thank Intel for their contribution. Candid Camera lives again? What do you do while watching tv?
Think of it as reality tv with no ads.

Re:The marketing dweeb bastards won't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not.

1984 much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because what we *really* need in the world is a TV that watches you...

Re:1984 much?

[Nexion]

I hear in soviet Russia they've had this tech since the 80's. :P

Re:1984 much?

[alphatel]

It is not called "tech", it is called "voting booth".

Re:1984 much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tele-screens of '1984' will be coming to a video wall near you soon.

This is the logical next step to the national security surveillance police state control grid. One must not only obey Big Brother, but also learn to love Big Brother, love him more than life itself. We already have a police state. We already have perpetual war. Oceania already exists. As the fog of war dissipates, the discernment of a EurAsia and EastAsia also becomes apparent.

Wasn't Orwell's '1984' supposed to have been a dystopian novel filled with warnings about a tyrannical future, and not a blueprint for action by the oligarchy? And yet, here we are. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. If you want to know what the future holds, imagine a jack-boot stomping a human face, forever.

Re:1984 much?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

No, no, this is better...

Telescreens, Pravda, and assorted dictators' gigantic golden statues and peculiar cults of personality(while undoubtedly dramatic) have the convenient tendency to collapse under the weight of their own inefficiency.

We, in the free world, have had our profit-motivated-innovators tirelessly striving toward a world of constant surveillance, laughably misleading information substitutes, and vapid celebrity worship that is economically self sustaining. Indeed, quite handsomely profitable. Plus, it is much easier to handle upkeep when your citizens carefully charge their own wireless tracking modules and buy protective cases allowing them to be carried as often as possible, and demand to have their telescreens replaced when they break or are deemed insufficiently large for super bowl purposes. Such cooperation... Can you imagine how many threats of torture the Stasi would have had to use to get people to go to Best Buy?

Re:1984 much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. People always compare the present (and future) with 1984, but 1984 couldn't be farther from reality. No, we live in the infancy of a Brave New World.

Re:1984 much?

[TheRaven64]

Thank Ford for that!

Re:1984 much?

[gtall]

I knew it, a Conspiracy!! Could you please tell us who's behind this, Oh Insightful One? Is it the Illuminati, I'll bet it is...with their fellow travelers, the Free Masons, trying to spackle over our freedoms. Don't forget to watch out for the black helicopters now that you are on to them.

I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Rene S. Hollan]

So, a cat food commercial will be presented whenever one of my cats enters the room?

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[arth1]

No, your cats likely buy very little cat food.

They'll already have your grocery bills, whether they be through paying with a card or by using a "rebate" card, so they'll already know that it's you who buy cat food, so they will show the ads when you enter the room.

Oh, and that search you did for "pregnancy risk" the other day? Unencrypted through your cable modem, by the same provider as your cable TV? With a contract giving them a right to monitor all traffic? Expect to see a lot of diapers and baby food commercials for the next couple of years.

Welcome to Ayn Rand's world. Please take a seat (great couch cleaning service starting at $5.99) and relax.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Rene S. Hollan]

I pay cash for cat food, so by seeing me the system will not know that I buy cat food. But, by seeing my cats, it could infer that I buy cat food.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[anubi]

No, but it might be able to sense when you leave the room during a commercial...

It would count that commercial as being undelivered and try, try, try again until it succeeds in delivering it.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[JaredOfEuropa]

What exactly does this have to do with Ayn Rand?

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[the eric conspiracy]

You pay cash? How does that help you when RFIDs in your driver's license or face recognition scanners at the supermarket checkout line identify you as Mr. R Smith of 2341 Maple Lane?

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Nadaka]

He is getting his dystopias mixed up.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is a shocking idea on Slashdot, but have you considered tempering your paranoia with at least a sliver of common sense? 99% of most grocery stores' customers are perfectly happy to sign up for a "discount card" (or whatever name the store in question gives it) with their address, phone number, etc. It is bordering on clinical paranoia to seriously believe your grocery store is investing serious money into tracking that last 1%, and if they did make such an investment they would drop their discount card programs immediately -- why give anyone a discount for giving up their privacy when they have no privacy in the first place?

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[stephanruby]

Yes, but it will be more like a little light that wiggles around the screen, or a little bird in a cage, not the actual LSD-inspired cat food commercials that are usually targeted at their human owners.

The cats will also be able to miaow at the TV to trigger a credit card purchase and a delivery of cat food through the mail slot that next day. This functionality should save quite a bit of heart-hake the next time a cat owner dies and its cat has nothing to eat except for its owner's body.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Nyder]

You pay cash? How does that help you when RFIDs in your driver's license or face recognition scanners at the supermarket checkout line identify you as Mr. R Smith of 2341 Maple Lane?

Thats why I have the same ID that expired back in 1996.

Best part is, no one ever seems to have a problem that it's expired.

Plus, if you are worried about places reading RFID in ID, then don't carry the ID in the stores when you plan on paying cash. Leave it in the car, wrap it in foil, i don't know, i don't care. My ID is over 15 years old. lol.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in a libertarian world where corporations are unfettered by "too much regulation" they can do whatever they want. You of course are free to try and stop them with whatever meager resources you have, but don't you dare try to organize or unionize, because concentrating of resources towards one's personal benefit is strictly for the wealthy. (looking at you, any working person who votes for Republicans)

Briefly, economic libertarianism unchecked will ALWAYS lead to fascism in the classic dictionary meaning of the word. It also yields a small number of very wealthy people, a very small middle class of doctors, lawyers, successful store owners, and a vast majority of the working poor. Every single time without fail, that has been the result. Only this time we have technology to make it easier on the corporatists to control the masses.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[arth1]

It's the values of laissez-faire and abhorring laws protecting the interests of individuals who are unable to protect them themselves.

When a majority of the population is apathetic and willing targets, you soon will have no choice but to buy TVs that monitor you. Just like the average DVD/BD unit these days calls the mothership and tells what movies you watch, and how you now buy cars with a black box that registers your driving.

Stop being an egotist who gloat that you are too "rational" to buy such a TV, because unless you instead take action like working to get laws that protect your fellow man, you won't have a choice ten years down the road. Because he has a wallet to vote with too, and he is legio.
Put limits to how the market forces are allowed to operate, or you yourself will one day be the victim. You already are.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Anonymous Coward]

I will grant you that there are an awful lot of people that willingly give copious amounts of information to corporations for free, usually for some kind of discount or bonus. That advertising list is worth quite a bit.

But now it's also another revenue stream for your greengrocer, etcetera -- your taxpayer dollars fund government access to those databases for other purposes, ever since the oxymoronically named USA Patriot Act. John Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness" project didn't die but went underground. It's more PC replacement, "MATRIX", is the national security interface to these commercial databases. It's not just about reading your emails anymore.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[DanTheStone]

How does that help you when RFIDs in your driver's license

In the US, your driver's license only has a chip if you've paid extra for an Enhanced DL, and they even typically give you a radio-shielding sleeve for those. And facial recognition is still terrible, especially for blind matching rather than verification. Stick to the loyalty and credit cards for your conspiracies, for now.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[the eric conspiracy]

Face recognition is a rapidly improving technology.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/28/hundred_percent_face_recognition_claim/

Perhaps also they will scan your license plate when you get out of your car.

Or maybe you live in Florida:

http://1787network.com/2011/03/senate-sneaks-rfid-drivers-license-internet-id-into-transportation-bill/1047

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[Anonymous Coward]

God, you are truly a complete fucking retard. You don't think the government wants surveillance too? And your alternative is that it's better to live in a world where things aren't invented? If the problem is with peoples values, how the fuck is that laissez faire's fault? If peoples values were correct in the first place, then the companies wouldn't be trying to dump this shit on our braindead apathetic joe sixpack populace. Fucking retard.

Re:I wonder what it thinks my cats like

[samoanbiscuit]

Lol lol lol. This has got to be the stupidest comment I have seen today. Most libertarians are at least smarter than this. The reason why such a corporation run distopia would be laissez-faire economic policy's fault is because we KNOW that people are as a rule stupid, petty and selfish. But somehow the objectivists think that these drives will somehow transmute through the power of the market into rainbows and sunshine. The reason why commerce has to be regulated is the same reason democracies need constitutions to limit how badly the majority can oppress the minority.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you.

wait

[Fusen]

why would any customer want this?

Re:wait

[TheGratefulNet]

people are idiots; they will trade their privacy for a 'goodie'.

some goodie will be presented. discounts or some motivator. it will be very cheap and laughable but people will sell their souls for bullshit token items. ever see a stampede at trade shows for the give-aways that are 'cool' ? same deal, here.

go to slickdeals (site) and watch how many people sign up for emailings from companies or will fill out lengthy forms to get a token piece of junk or a $10 discount on something. they'll give lots of info away and not even care. they'll justify it with 'but I'm getting this neat thing for free! its FREE. how can that be bad?'

that is a prevalent form of modern thinking. at least in the consumer age (20's 30's).

we already accept cameras at nearly every traffic light. in the UK, its more invasive than that. people tolerate loss of privacy.

I weep for us, because we value it so little and are quickly willing to sell it out for virtually nothing. once gone, its gone, too.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Fewer boring ads and lower subscription costs of course.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that'll happen, just like paying for cable means TV is ad free.

Re:wait

[TubeSteak]

that is a prevalent form of modern thinking. at least in the consumer age (20's 30's).

If you really think that kind of idiocy is limited to the 20s and 30s age group, you need to hang out with an older crowd.
Experience does not equal intelligence.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

*We* aren't the customers for this. Cable companies are the customers for this set-top box. It'd be another revenue stream for them. You're just the product.

Re:wait

[TheGratefulNet]

I disagree; I do think that the older crowd has grown up with the *expectation* of privacy. the difference in attitude of 50's and 40's vs the younger crowd is immediate and obvious.

Re:wait

[ChunderDownunder]

Well since it's advertising subsidized, Intel will supplying each consumer with a 70" LED tv FOR FREE!

Oh wait...

Re:wait

[ohnocitizen]

I think we will trade our privacy if it feels "abstract". With Facebook, we think "oh we are putting it out there anyway, who cares if coca cola learns whether or not I prefer dr pepper or mr pibbs?". If it comes down to "would you buy a tv set for less if you knew that tv set was WATCHING you", I think several factors would keep people from purchasing it. There are practical concerns about privacy, civil rights/liberties if law enforcement wants in, but beyond everything else: a truly deep "creepiness" factor that would make privacy feel very concrete indeed.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree it's not *limited* to the 20's and 30's crowd, nor is it universal among that group, but it sure the hell does seem a lot more common in that demographic. There's been some sort of cultural shift in this regard, I think.

Re:wait

[DogDude]

I think the same thing every time I read or hear the word "facebook".

Re:wait

[turkeyfish]

That's not the right question. The right question is how will anyone be able to avoid it?

With IPV6 now here, I can see the future now. Rupert Murdoch will appear on the screen of your alarm clock demanding that you must pay him 10% of your income or he's going to deflate the your tires on your car or shut off your refrigerator.

What? You didn't listen to the 7th straight hour of the Sean Hannity Inanity Program? We will be sending you a small jolt of electricity to your remote to cure you of your condition.

Meanwhile, the ditto head will welcome their 150 volts as a sign they are in good standing with the 1%. Dems will get 400 volts.

Re:wait

[turkeyfish]

This is a social conservatives dream. Now they will be able to monitor what goes on in everyone's bedroom.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite your freakin source! You 'know' this how? Was it God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster that whispered these pearls of wisdom in your ear?

Just because you sign up for give-aways from Harley Davidson or the opportunity to win an AM/FM Multiplex stereo in exchange for sitting through a 4 hour long presentation on time-sharing, doesn't mean the rest of the world feels compelled to give up 'their' personal history or that they tell the truth when they fill out forms associated with these marketing scams.

Re:wait

[EdIII]

Expectation of privacy has nothing to do with it.

The younger crowd finds no value in it, or much worse, finds value in not having it.

It's youthful idealism and naivety that leads them to these conclusions. One simply needs some exposure to history to see the risks, and exposure to fields of study like game theory to understand why even a little loss in privacy can have dramatic detrimental affects for society as a whole.

The loss of privacy at this scale is quite unprecedented though. It is not all that surprising that the average person has a hard time figuring out just how dangerous it could be in the long term.

Unfortunately, it will take some pretty harsh experience to educate them and hopefully pass the wisdom down to the next generations.

That is of course assuming that we don't irreversibly damage the environment to the point that mere survival is all our future generations can think about.

Re:wait

[sosume]

Since the late Steve Jobs announced how he had 'cracked' the 'television problem' every major electronics manufacturer is panicking, afraid to get behind or miss out on a lot of patents. These horrible systems are a direct result of Apple disrupting the TV market. Reality distortion is still very much alive.

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

No person (except the corporate personhood variety) is interested in this technology... being watched while relaxing in front of the TV.

Nothing is worth this invasion of privacy. No ad presented in this manner will loose a dollar from my grip. I will actively boycott products and services that invade in this fashion.

No waving my hands about to change the channel is worth being watched 24/7. If our service provider decides this is the set top box to be next, I will cancel service.

Marketing pricks and corporations need to get a clue. The reason we aren't spending any money on trinkets isn't because you've failed to target us with the right ads... it's because we fear the next financial crisis, and therefore we fail to spend for things that aren't required to sustain life.

The banks and speculators need to own up to their own failure... the reason we continue to see the lack of interest in buying crap is primarily due to the huge swindle they pulled.

F#@k ads!

Re:wait

[Anonymous Coward]

cant we just shoot them instead?

Re:wait

[TheRaven64]

I can imagine a family wanting the TV to, for example, only allow itself to be turned on (and only to certain channels) at certain times if an adult is not in the room. It might also be nice if when you sat down it showed the shows that you want that it's recorded, rather than the ones your partner might want to watch, or if you're both in the room for it to default to showing the intersection of your two sets of favourites. It would be nice if it could automatically pause itself if I stood up and resume once I sat down again. Depending on the fidelity of the tracking, I can imagine my mother would like a TV that noticed when in a film she fell asleep and let her resume watching from just before that point.

And once you've got the technology into people's living rooms, and you're recording the information locally anyway, I bet a lot of people would opt in to targeted advertising in exchange for a small reduction in their cable bill.

Re:wait

[caution live frogs]

True. Yet another reason not to tolerate a set-top box. The only reason they really exist is to allow pay-per-view; there's probably no technical reason a descrambler couldn't be installed at the incoming source rather than on a per-set basis, except that the set-top setup makes you use their (usually awful) remote, allows pay-per-view, forces you to accept their ad-laden on-screen channel guide, runs about the shoddiest DVR interface you can think of, and conveniently costs you an extra $10 per month per device.

We really need a universal descrambler that can be incorporated into viewing devices themselves. Perhaps with a slot to allow providers to hand you a thingy that ties your device to their service to discourage hacking. Oh wait, we tried that, and even though CableCard works fine in my TiVo for some reason the cable companies defined it as a "failure" and continue to push their shitty set-top boxes.

Re:wait

[gtall]

Yep, there's nothing Steve didn't cause. Yesterday, my cat rose on its hind legs and lectured me about the etiquette of keeping the litter box free. I know she got this idea from Steve.

Re:wait

[EdIII]

cant we just shoot them instead?

No, no, no.

You cannot use lethal measures to get them off your lawn. Not to mention it usually results in a body on your lawn, which defeats the purpose.

Dear ad people

[Anonymous Coward]

Kindly fuck the hell off.

wear a mask

[ozduo]

3d print your fathers face and kids will see adult content

Re:wear a mask

[dlingman]

So, those Nixon and Reagan masks will finally have a good use...

And i'm interested in buying this because?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to pay extra for a TV which watches who's watching to better target ads because???

Re:And i'm interested in buying this because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of your children, not about the TV set. And the terrrorrists, don't ever forget about them... they are you enemy, and their are not sleeping (neither should you, until you get our TV set).

Oh, look... that shiny thing there...

Re:And i'm interested in buying this because?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'd pay handsomely for a TV (or more accurately, a content service) that lets me view what I want, when I want, without any damn ads thanks. But pay extra for a box that puts a camera in my living room, the better to serve me ads?! Seriously, who came up with this?

Re:And i'm interested in buying this because?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you prefer that to having no TV at all... don't you?

Forgot about the consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not want!

Re:Forgot about the consumer

[RightwingNutjob]

Apply tape directly to the camera.

Re:Forgot about the consumer

[turkeyfish]

You probably won't have a choice. The advertisers and corporations and republicans will demand that all sets be equipped with them to be sure that you are not paling around with terrorists. Turn off the TV and the Hillsborough Baptist Church will picket your house and place you on a pervert list.

Re:Forgot about the consumer

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

FATAL ERROR: Scene Contrast Parameter Excursion, Lower Bound, in STB Content Viewership Assurance Module. Please Contact Your Service Provider or Authorized Warranty Representative.

Congratulations, Intel!

[Anonymous Coward]

For zeroing in on what would instantly become the television industry's most hated product. Considering the industry as a whole, that is no small feat!

Re:Congratulations, Intel!

[LSDelirious]

that is until they introduce Picture in Picture 24/7 non-stop commercials DURING the show

Re:Congratulations, Intel!

[Anonymous Coward]

    You mean that is until they introduce Picture in Picture 24/7 show DURING the non-stop commercials.

    There was a recent story on about tornado damage. A beautiful shot of a blue sky, with a few clouds, at the top. All the damage shown at the bottom of the screen was covered by the station ID, the station "coming attractions" crawl, a crawl for Toyotas, and some sports scores.

    Not to mention the incredibly rude practice of running show final endings and credits in a tiny window at 10X speed in some corner, while commercials and promos take up the other 80% of the screen.

    With Intels Incredible new technology, I wonder how long it would take to watch something, wearing only a hard hat and suspenders, before an ad for the Brooklyn Bridge shows up.

Shrimp dangling in my anus

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as with the transition to HDTV (for project bluebeam?), I'm curious how long our current TVs and older will remain until they "require" a system which includes a camera to better get closeups of your hot goatse action and other antics.

Forget 1984, we're bringing the cameras and microphones into our homes voluntarily!

Re:Shrimp dangling in my anus

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as we know, it could have initially been voluntary in 1984 as well.

Anti-service

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay to have my cable box NOT have these features.

Two words

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Electrical tape. Same as for obnoxiously bright LEDs.

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, there is actually a retail product for this! http://lightdims.com/

Re:Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually kind of want to buy that TV now, just to see how it responds to that. Hey, if it can't place me in any demographic, then it can't target ads, so it will skip them, right?

Re:Two words

[thereitis]

Sure, till they tie hand-gestures to control channel changes. "New! Remote-less TV!" Cover the camera and it will render the TV useless.

Re:Two words

[FridayBob]

Indeed: what's in it for the end users? It sounds both creepy and obnoxious, so if all they can expect in return for further lost privacy is targeted adds, what's to stop them from simply taping over the camera lens? Or, will the TV then give an error if it decides that the user has done just that?

Re:Two words

[griffjon]

So what does a hand with the middle finger only pointed straight up do, remote wise?

A) Skip to the next ad
B) Vote the ad down to improve ratings
C) Report you to the nearest business plan and marketing compliance association of america? (BPMCAA, formed by a merger of RIAA and MPAA?)
D) All of the above.

Re:Two words

[marcosdumay]

Obviously, it won't be option A. B and C are possibilities.

Re:Two words

[turkeyfish]

Don't worry there will be a law like in the UK that if you are caught blocking a camera you face jail time.

Re:Two words

[turkeyfish]

" what's to stop them from simply taping over the camera lens?"

You can be sure that industry lobbyists will insist that those blocking the camera are probably busy pirating video and subject to a lawsuit and prosecution.

TV is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 44 years old and I grew up with TV. None of my kids watch TV. I do not watch TV. Nobody I know watches TV. The TV is now just a screen in which content which is chosen by the person, at a time specified by the user, is displayed. Yeah, there are still people out there but that whole model of forced advertising is going away. The writing is on the wall.

strike

Re:TV is dead

[cpu6502]

I still watch TV. I admit I don't pay much attention to it. I just turn on some random channel (usually the antennaTV channel), but focus my attention on the internet screen. Only time I pay attention is if a classic Twilight Zone or Hitchcock episode appears.

Re:TV is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

We watch tv at bedtime. Just the talk shows, (Letterman or Leno). Yes, and a great program "How it is made" where I learn how mass production or artistic items are manufactured.

Re:TV is dead

[antdude]

I know a lot of people who still use TV, even old CRTs like my grandparents, my parents, and even myself. We prefer dumb screens and not those fancy ones out there.

In CorporoFascist America...

[Anonymous Coward]

TV watches YOU!!!

Big Brother is watching you

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Brother is watching you

Re:Big Brother is watching you

[marcosdumay]

Well, that solves the problem of the tought police not being able to watch everybody all the time...

George Orwell meets AI. Is the Big Brother human?

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

... TV watches you!!

A telescreen?

[griffjon]

"The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. [...] 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.[...] 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. "

Via http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

Re:A telescreen?

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all know how it worked out for Winston.

Re:A telescreen?

[Immerman]

Obviously he had a crude older set that was overdue for an upgrade. The modern ones can not only clearly hear you whisper in the next room, but also see around corners in the pitch dark thanks to the built-in IR laser illumination.

And thanks to the automated computer vision, voice recognition, and behavioral analysis systems that detect any potentially ungood tendencies, it takes only a handful of Party members to continuously protect everyone from their own destructive deviation from orthodoxy. Rejoice citizen, within a few short generations we hope to be able to intercede on behalf of such afflicted individuals, subtly nudging them back toward the path of clean-mindedness long before their deviation leads them to commit a thoughtcrime.

Re:A telescreen?

[Xeranar]

The whole point of that passage was to prove that paranoia drove the world in 1984. In fact that was the whole message of the book. Winston gave up because the system was self perpetuating. This is a loosely-similar idea that would be demolished the first time some horny IT guy figured out how to turn on little susie's camera in her bedroom. The inevitable outcome is set just like the charter school laptops from about a year ago. I know slashdot is obsessed with dystopian paranoia but history has told us we're flexible but not incredibly stupid about it. Inevitably if the cameras were turned on somebody would tattle or try to use it against somebody and the whole situation would blow up.

Re:A telescreen?

[griffjon]

I think I'm supposed to come back all frothing-at-the-mouth, but you make a solid point; we're not quite there yet. However, we are increasingly willingly allowing absolutely insane levels of our personal information to be tracked, collated, and traded around. It gets to be a slippery slope if the advertising data ever connects with the credit industry (Gee, Tommy, your credit score is pretty good right now. Here's an ad for a huge package-deal vacation you can finance with your very own credit card!).

The government may have some horribly annoying and privacy-ignoring programs (Yes, TSA, we're talking about you), but by and large is too bureaucratic and full of a mix of People Who Believe in Democracy and People Who Believe in Paperwork to get to 1984. The corporate world, however, is getting too creepy and untethered to civil-society controls (regulation, whistle-blowing) for my liking. Sure, someone abusing the system would cause an uproar; but every ad-buyer abusing our privacy - but within the terms of service we clicked through at some point - won't cause a stir at all.

Re:A telescreen?

[gmhowell]

And we all know how it worked out for Winston.

Tears of joy, IIRC. Sign me up!

Hopefully it is intelligent enough to...

[dohzer]

... recognise that whenever TV commercials start I change channels, or in the case of online video ads, mute the video and read something else until they are over.
It would save me a lot of hassles if it does all this automatically. Sounds like the future of television is going to be far more user friendly!

Re:Hopefully it is intelligent enough to...

[LSDelirious]

and recognize that you aren't watching the commercials and pause the show until you do? No thanks!

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

nah... to easy...

Masking tape

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a good product once a piece of masking tape is placed over the camera lens!!!

Re:Masking tape

[c0lo]

"Hmmm... there's noone watching... for the sake of you energy bills, I'll be shutting myself off."

If you want privacy, visit our accredited psychologists and buy the set of masks most suitable with you and your family members' personality, we'd be happy to quickly recognize your character with less computational effort.

Taped over the camera lens ...

[PPH]

... a photo of the Cleavers.

Every once in a while, we switch it with the opening shot of The Simpsons.

Re:Taped over the camera lens ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and the microphone?

Re:Taped over the camera lens ...

[TheGratefulNet]

... a photo of the Cleavers.

I think that's just axing too much of us, at that, uhm, point.

Re:Taped over the camera lens ...

[PPH]

We'll play a recording of one of Enver Hoxha's political speeches.

Re:Taped over the camera lens ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"... a photo of the Cleavers."

    And if you have been watching something particularly naughty, it's of that famous scene where June says to Ward: "You were awfully hard on the Beaver last night".
    The following ads will be evenly balanced between Boner pills and Taxidermy supplies.

Because it's a video phone

[tepples]

I guess they think customers will pay extra for the SIP/Skype video phone feature. The advertising capability comes at no extra charge.

MST3K

[Ichijo]

I want one that will connect with my friends online and overlay everyone's silhouettes on the screen and send their voices through the speakers.

Ads that pause when they lose focus

[tepples]

in the case of online video ads, [I] mute the video and read something else until they are over.

So what do you plan to do once all the online video ad providers make the ads pause until they gain focus?

And the next step

[LSDelirious]

is special screens to display different targeted ads to different viewers of the same screen depending on where they sit in the room...

Obligatory Bill Hicks

[LSDelirious]

"by the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising... kill yourself"
Bill Hicks on Marketing

Cameras watching people

[Stan92057]

Cameras watching people watch TV, ya thats going to fly. Thats a bit over the top and i may be mistaken but what we rent ,watch is already protected by privacy laws.

Re:Cameras watching people

[turkeyfish]

You obviously haven't read the republican party platform written for them by the advertising industry.

Re:Cameras watching people

[Immerman]

correction, was already protected by privacy laws

IIRC that was one of those annoying legal bugs corrected by the PATRIOT act.

Re:Cameras watching people

[Stan92057]

You are correct.

Not to mention the hacking...

[Esteanil]

These will in all likelihood be internet-connected, to allow people to browse YouTube and whatnot.

So, in 4 easy steps:
1: Hack TV, stream all video to your server
2: Discard any pictures not showing enough skin tone (reverse porn filter)
3: Blackmail person owning the TV, "If you don't pay us, all your Facebook friends will receive these naked pictures/pictures of you masturbating"
4: Profit

when they cancel the word?

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy? i wonder seriously,it lost it's meaning ages ago already...

facial recognition - not so hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a facial when I see one... ;)
This IS the internet...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo

Repair technique

[kelemvor4]

I'm pretty sure a piece of electrical tape over the camera will repair this problem.

Steven Thomas, R.I.P! Was he MKUltra'd? WEBROOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Us Recall: Mysterious events surround death of former FOUNDER of the company WEBROOT

        GOOGLE about the former FOUNDER of the company WEBROOT, Steven Thomas.

        Maybe he was onto something? You have to read many articles about him to get a better picture of how odd the events were surrounding his death. Webroot Software founder Steven Thomas was found dead in Hawaii. Save the articles and store them off-line on read only media because the stories will disappear eventually.

        I wonder if he was MKUltra'd.

So Nielson homes can stop using those damn boxes?

[mark-t]

As a member of a former Nielson ratings household, I can say that I always found it incredibly annoying always having to log into a set-top box whenever I turned on the television... plus I seem to recall having to periodically re-log in to the box every hour or so, if I was doing a TV marathon, just so that it would know we weren't just leaving the TV idle.

What if no one is watching?

[Pinkfud]

I leave my TV on while I'm web surfing because (a) I don't like a silent house, and (b) there will be something I want to see in an hour. So I'm wondering what this thing will do if it detects no one is watching. Probably turn up the sound and play all commercials!

A question

[Brett Buck]

How well does it work with tape over the camera?

Buy a second TV

[Golden_Rider]

... and let them watch each other. And enjoy the hilarity of seeing them both trying to serve ads to each other. And then implode.

Why, oh why ...

[Anonymous Coward]

do I keep seeing ads for Kleenex, hand cream and penis enlargement pills?

Feminine Hygiene...

[Anonymous Coward]

If this means I don't have to see another Summers Eve or Tampax commercial I might opt in.

Re:Feminine Hygiene...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If this means I don't have to see another Summers Eve ... commercial I might opt in."

    Now that is just being a douche.

    "...or Tampax..."

    Aw, put a rag in it.

    As for opting in... have you ever seen a commercial for Ferrari? Or Rolls Royce? Or McIntosh Audio? Or Anchor Steam Beer? Or Twinings tea? Or Kiwi shoe polish? Of course not. Quality products, whether horrendously expensive, merely expensive, moderate, or even dirt cheap just don't need television commercials. And some of the items above have been around for much longer than a century. But I bet that their commercials might actually be fun.

    And as for Feminine products, it is only a matter of time before we see commercials for Merkins. I can just see the brands: The Van Dyke, (Sorry, the Van Lesbian.), The Soul Patch, the Muttonchops, the Crab Salad, the Eternal Golden Braid, the Mons Etna, the Muffley: There are fortunes to be made from selling to Women's insecurities!

Bonus!

[VocationalZero]

Programmers of this recognition device should offer hidden features for specific faces or objects noticed, including the ability to program the feature itself so that I could make it go crazy at random times whenever my sister is watching alone.

Nudists

[thoughtspace]

Nudists will be in for a surprise!

Re:Nudists

[dlingman]

This is really being sponsored/run by chatroulette isn't it?

I just have to wonder...

[gishzida]

If I sit in front of my TV equipped with this Intel marvel how it would react to a rubber mask of famous politicians or famous SF characters or a fantasy character-- what kind of commercials would be served and who would be looking to sell products to a an elven-vampire politician from the Second Foundation? Technology marketing at its finest!

Re:I just have to wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

this will trigger an error event requiring manual intervention. A qualified operator from the ad company will check the picture.
He will decide if the information is relayed to the Dept. of Homeland Security or if you will receive information on some exciting new products.

Re:I just have to wonder...

[aix tom]

Well, this guy's mailbox might give you an idea.

The cable box market sucks

[JDG1980]

This is emblematic of what's wrong with the set-top box market. Except for the handful of CableCard third-party devices (e.g. Tivo), most set-top boxes are sold not to end users, but to cable companies. That means average quality is low, and the only "features" they care about are the ones that pad the cable company's profits. Cable boxes guzzle power like crazy (even when turned "off") and offer a poorer UI than almost any other modern electronic device, and now they're planning to invade your privacy as well!

Re:The cable box market sucks

[ghn]

+1.... it is like being forced to use the only computer model supplied by your ISP

Re:The cable box market sucks

[spire3661]

Even the tivo is loosely 'sold' to you. They inject advertising strings into the pause bar, and add ads above your My Shows feed. Im paying $20/month for a glorified electronic TV guide and for them to serve ads to me on hardware i 'own'.... I asked if i could have them turned off, and the rep told me those ads are there to 'keep the cost of the service down'

Just jealous

[drinkypoo]

They're trailing microsoft... they feel the need to catch up

Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

So a condom add will be served whenever someone is having sex on the couch?

I agree with you!

[LucyMary]

Yes! The technology could potentially identify if the viewer is an adult or a child, male or female, and so on, through interactive features and face recognition technology.

interaction only

[moophus]

Those of the African descent may have mistargeted ads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM

I got a better idea

[amoeba1911]

make a tv box that comes with a robot that takes up residence in your house, prying around your living room, watching you sleep, watching you shower and take a crap to find out as much about you as possible so bombard you with constant ads targeted entirely to you.

buy our crap! Buy Our Crap! BUY OUR CRAP! B_U_Y _ O_U_R _ C_R_A_P!

Warning! You haven't been paying attention to the ads! Further ad avoidance will result in cancelling your TV subscription!

Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

In general, I think that Orwell did the mankind a great disservice when his own fear of Communists made his work focused on oppressive societies with Communist attributes. It created an impression that Communists are the only ones who oppress and brainwash people, and allowed Capitalist societies to safely develop far more powerful propaganda machines than Communists could ever think of, all the while proclaiming that they are paragons of free thought and action.

However this time, I have to thank him. He instilled in all of you a great instinctive fear of cameras in everything that looks like a TV. And this time, by pure coincidence, it is justified.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

s/instinctive/almost instinctive/

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[1u3hr]

In general, I think that Orwell did the mankind a great disservice when his own fear of Communists made his work focused on oppressive societies with Communist attributes.

It wasn't unmotivated "fear". It was based on what Stalin was doing when Orwell wrote it. In any case, the word "communist" isn't in the book. It was just "The Party'. Orwell had recognised that dictatorships end up the same, whatever the philosophy they start with.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

It wasn't unmotivated "fear". It was based on what Stalin was doing when Orwell wrote it.

It was not "unmotivated", it was "misdirected". In the same way how fear of black people is misdirected, even though there are plenty of violent criminals among black people.

In any case, the word "communist" isn't in the book. It was just "The Party'. Orwell had recognised that dictatorships end up the same, whatever the philosophy they start with.

Just like there is also not a single mentioning of the word "mafia" in The Godfather.
Not only it's absolutely definitely was intended to refer to the society under Communist, or specifically Stalin rule, most Americans' idea of USSR is actually closer to Orwell's fiction than to reality.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[1u3hr]

It was not "unmotivated", it was "misdirected". In the same way how fear of black people is misdirected, even though there are plenty of violent criminals among black people.

Yeah, right. Thinking Stalinism was evil is the same as being a bigoted racist. Because most communist states were actually so nice and benevolent. Its only the exceptional ones, like USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, Romania, Albania, that gave all the the others a bad name.

My own politics are very liberal, in American terms, even socialist. But real communism is to be feared. They probably never were a threat to the US in the "Red Menace" way, but they certainly were to their own citizens.

Not only it's absolutely definitely was intended to refer to the society under Communist, or specifically Stalin rule, most Americans' idea of USSR is actually closer to Orwell's fiction than to reality.

Americans' ignorance isn't the fault of Orwell. If he had wanted to pillory communism specifically, he would have done so. He fought against the fascists in Spain, he knew how evil both extremes were. Big Brother could have been a Fascist as easily as a Communist. The labels are irrelevant once they get into power.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

Yeah, right. Thinking Stalinism was evil is the same as being a bigoted racist.

Stalin is one politician, harshly denounced by his successors. While he achieved iconic status, he is no more relevant to Communism than your local friendly bicycle thief to the rest of Black people.

Because most communist states were actually so nice and benevolent.

Actually, yes. Even among USSR leaders, Lenin (and most of his government) and Khruschev were definitely in the "benevolent" category, Brezhnev was more incompetent than evil, Andropov mostly deserves criticism for his actions outside USSR, and Gorbachev's worst action of his whole political career was causing dissolution of USSR (out of incompetence and poor understanding of Communist doctrine). Communist leaders on the local level certainly had greater moral standards than any Governor or Mayor in US -- at their time, or now. Masherov probably was the only leader in the whole history of Belarus that was remembered fondly by almost everyone, including political opponents of Communists.

Americans' ignorance isn't the fault of Orwell. If he had wanted to pillory communism specifically, he would have done so. He fought against the fascists in Spain. Big Brother could have been a Fascist as easily as a Communist. The labels are irrelevant once they get into power.

Orwell's portrayal of oppressive society was intended to be based on Stalinist USSR and not anything else, it emphasized and greatly exaggerrated obsessive intrusion of political machinery and propaganda into the lives of otherwise politically inactive people, a specific attribute of Stalinism. For Fascism that would be government colluding with business power structures around common self-serving, usually nationalist, ideology, with brutal oppression of politically active opponents and open, continuous hostility toward anyone perceived as an obstacle to the aforementioned power structure -- attributes not portrayed by Orwell. There is an overlap (emphasis on ideology, loud propaganda, charismatic leaders, excessive violence) and superficial similarity, but the differences are both fundamental and recognizable in all attempts of exaggerated portrayal. Stalin was dead in five years and denounced in eight, but Orwell's works were kept unchallenged in European and American cultures, and were widely promoted for anti-Communist propaganda value.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[1u3hr]

Stalin is one politician, harshly denounced by his successors. While he achieved iconic status, he is no more relevant to Communism than your local friendly bicycle thief to the rest of Black people.

Stop this invocation of racism. It's insulting.

Stalin wasn't exceptional. Mao. Kim Il Sung. Pol Pot. Its hard to name a communist leader in power for a decade or more, who wasn't a paranoid tyrant who sent millions to labor camps, or just had them killed. Only after the leader is dead, the system has collapsed economically, do his successors dare to change his policies.

Orwell's works were kept unchallenged in European and American cultures, and were widely promoted for anti-Communist propaganda value.

Of course they were.But again, "1984" doesn't ONLY apply to communism. This article shows that it is still invoked, correctly, to point out the implications of things in our own society.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

Mao. Kim Il Sung. Pol Pot.

Only Mao of them was actually Communist -- the rest at most paid lip service to some Communist ideas.

Its hard to name a communist leader in power for a decade or more, who wasn't a paranoid tyrant who sent millions to labor camps, or just had them killed. Only after the leader is dead, the system has collapsed economically, do his successors dare to change his policies.

This is completely baseless, and I have spent a significant amount of my time here debunking "USSR was all-Stalin for all its history" and "USSR collapsed economically" myths.

Of course they were.But again, "1984" doesn't ONLY apply to communism.

No, 1984 is specifically about Communists because it was specifically written about Communists.

This article shows that it is still invoked, correctly, to point out the implications of things in our own society.

Actually, no. While some things apply legitimately, the idea of being watched by a TV has nothing objectively frightening about it, not any more than having an electricity meter or phone billing system that keeps track of call times and destinations. People would fear it even if TV used the camera to adjust contrast, brightness and white balance to match the surrounding.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[1u3hr]

Only Mao of them was actually Communist -- the rest at most paid lip service to some Communist ideas.

If you're going to redefine communism to leave out the ones you don't like, you're on the way to Newspeak yourself.

No, 1984 is specifically about Communists because it was specifically written about Communists.

Despite the word never appearing in it.

Orwell wasn't an idiot. He was writing about totalitarianism, not just communism. He probably felt sentimental about "real" communism, as you seem to. But he had seen where it goes in practice. Communism isn't the only route to totalitarianism. Nazi Germany, Czarist Russia, both did pretty well in that regard. East Germany seemed to switch over from one form of totalitarianism to another without missing a beat.

Actually, no.

Actually yes. Seems we won't agree on much. So let's just call it a day and leave it. I will anyway.

Re:Thank you, Orwell.

[Alex Belits]

If you're going to redefine communism to leave out the ones you don't like, you're on the way to Newspeak yourself.

Communism was defined by Marx, and I use his definition. Stalin was a Communist (though a rather crappy one), Pol Pot was not a Communist at all.

Orwell wasn't an idiot. He was writing about totalitarianism, not just communism.

"Totalitarianism" does not exist. It's a label people from one society give to another one because they can not believe, that other society can exist without someone constantly threatening to kill people if they will not obey that other society's rules. In reality, such a situation is impossible -- if anyone tried to do that, society would be completely dysfunctional, and people in power would not be able to keep the resources that support their power, even if no actual opposition ever formed. In particular, it shows Americans' hubris -- they can not believe anyone, anywhere may want anything other than American-style Capitalism.

This is also why Orwell's portrayal of society is completely irrelevant to reality, and only has value as an illustration to anti-Communist propaganda. It's not s thought experiment, it's just fantasy with some illustrative value.

He probably felt sentimental about "real" communism, as you seem to. But he had seen where it goes in practice. Communism isn't the only route to totalitarianism. Nazi Germany,

Nazi Germany had a government that was both Fascist and Nationalist (in the original, ethnocentric/racist meaning of Nationalist). While thoroughly disgusting, Nazi did not all that much intrude in the lives of ordinary Germans as long as those Germans weren't of supposedly inferior origin. If anything, that's less "totalitarian" than Stalinism, when government was suspicious of everyone.

Czarist Russia, both did pretty well in that regard.

Czarist Russia was a run-off-the-mill Capitalist country with widespread poverty and remnants of Feudalism, however there was nothing unusually intrusive about oppression practiced there. Lenin himself claimed that Russia was closer to a revolution because of its position as "the weakest link in the chain of Capitalism", not because Czarist government had any kind of unique evilness that had to be fought specifically there.

East Germany seemed to switch over from one form of totalitarianism to another without missing a beat.

East Germany, along with Romania and other countries, managed to out-Stalin the Stalin (or at least kept Stalinist system long past the time USSR abandoned it). This has nothing to do with Nazi and everything with government oppression being actually a very popular idea among countries' rulers.

Actually yes. Seems we won't agree on much. So let's just call it a day and leave it. I will anyway.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. I have demonstrated that your position is baseless, and you are full of shit.

Haha

[LucyMary]

That's good news for me!

Advertising is dying

[Mandrel]

...that whole model of forced advertising is going away. The writing is on the wall.

Yes as we get more affluent and rational we'll be less willing to trade our time watching ads for free or subsidised content, preferring instead to get relevant ads on-demand from search engines, or eschewing ads altogether and learning about things being sold from editorial content that unlike ads doesn't push an agenda by giving you less than the whole truth.

As it runs low on the fuel of poverty and irrationality that sustains it, advertising's currently passing through its bloated red giant stage. The core collapse is imminent. But the white dwarf remnant will remain a slowly diminishing beacon in our culture for many years.

Inward-looking facial recognition?

[MemoryAid]

I was hoping for facial recognition of the actors that appear on television. It would save a lot of time flipping through the channels; imagine being able to tell your TV which actors (or newscasters) you enjoy watching and have all their televised appearances recorded for you, even uncredited cameos. You could get Star Trek, TJ Hooker, Boston Legal and Priceline commercials with one request! Utopia!

Idea: Masturbation counter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Masturbation counter?

What happens when my "johnson" changed the channel accidentally?

Creepovision 2000

[treadmarks]

If you want to improve upon television, you could start by not having all 900 channels suck.

$0.99 fix

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't distinguish who's watching if there's a wad of used chewing gum in its eye.

They may get more than they bargained for

[atomicxblue]

Imagine how quickly those cameras will be shut off when they get enough views of the average American in their underwear on the couch!

Cognovision

[MoGrapher]

I wonder if this has come out of Intel's acquision of Cognovision, and I hope it's better than what they gave developers in 2011. I worked with this product for about a year, attempting to integrate it into our digital signage systems. Not only did it take a dedicated i5 with 2gb of RAM to safely run in the background, it often (as much as 40% of the time) produced the wrong information about a person. Gender was correct about 80% of the time, age was correct in only about 30% of samples, and race was almost never correct (except for very dark skinned folks were alwas called determined to be of African origin).

The result was that we had to write an algorythm to essentially average out samples over a given duration. When we took 500 samples over 5 seconds, dropped the extremes, and averaged the rest we improved the accuracy to nearly 85%, but that is still pretty bad when you consider that automated actions will be taken based on those results (i.e. to play content for YOUR demographic).

I don't really want my TV watching me.

-MoG

Innovation - fail

[paxcoder]

I thought they finally "invented" something a common Joe haven't thought of: Recognizing actors/actress' faces and recommending shows which feature our favorites. But it seems it's just spy tech again.
Taking it further: Software might also recognize a genre by analyzing program textual info, music, natural language phrases or even objects in the video, and might augment the remote, or the TV guide.

No Thanks

[sociocapitalist]

Any product like this will never be willingly or knowingly allowed in my house.

Targetted ads? Don't make me laugh

[gilgongo]

I splash my personal browsing habits and general information all over the web (I don't even log out of FB most of the time) yet I have never been aware of anything other than random, pathetically irrelevant ads. Right now, for instance, I have my Gmail open in another tab and I'm looking at a automated mail from Spotify that says "Anna just joined Spotify" - Anna is a friend of mine. Now, what Adsense do you think the mighty Google might be selecting, given that it knows lots and lots about me, and reads all my emails numbering tens of thousands? Tadaa!! "How To Declare Bankruptcy" and "Easy Web Site Builder". WFT? I'm not even self-employed, have never been in fact, and tons of my emails deal with subjects such as Apache and MySQL (I maintain a small little server for my friends). Why the hell would I want an easy web site built?

Maybe that was atypical. Let's try another. Here's one from a recruitment agent asking me about a job in user experience (I'm a designer). Google decides to show me these: "Gap Year Placements" and "Doctors in hot demand" - Huh?? I'm not a student!! I'm not a doctor!! Does Google know NOTHING about me??

If Google can't get this right (and similarly idiotic ads are shoved at me the whole time on FB too), then what hope Intel? It's also a total mystery why anyone who invests in those companies doesn't notice that a cornerstone of their supposed value - targetted ads - is in fact total, laughably dumb, shit.

This is bound to end badly.

[waferbuster]

I can see it now... Mom, Dad, are watching TV in the Den. Little Susie comes in, and the next set of commercials include a "My Little Pony" advert. In walks Junior, and up pops an ad for adult videos and Jergens.

Or Wifie is watching TV (with ads for feminine products). In walks Hubby, and the next commercial is for divorce lawyers. Screaming commences.

There's just so many ways for this camera concept to go badly...

Buy a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

and save one TV

camera in my living room that I dont control

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think a camera in the house that is not directly under my control is a good idea, sounds like an access point to big brother or any perv that might be out there to come look around my home. No thanks