Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Patents Eavesdropping Using Your TV For Ad Targeting

MojoKid writes with news of the latest and greatest idea brought to you by a marketing department. From the article: "It's a patent that sounds like a plot description for a science-fiction movie or the result of Apple's Siri and Google's AdSense mating. With it, Verizon could program its set-top boxes to survey a room to determine relevant ads to display either on your television or mobile phone. Sound a bit scary? It kind of is. Verizon's new technology can work a variety of ways. For starters, it can listen in on conversations — whether it be with someone else in the room or on the phone — and pick out keywords that would aid it in its duties. In reality, it's simple stuff in this day and age, but that doesn't make it any less off-putting. Imagine arguing with your significant other and then seeing marriage counseling ads on the TV — or better, cuddling and then seeing ads for contraceptives."

181 comments

  1. Prior art by ACE209 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't there prior art from 1984?
    (I leave it to you if I meant the year or a certain novell)

    --
    "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    1. Re:Prior art by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Isn't there prior art from 1984?

      It's starting to feel like the title was off by just 30 years. At the rate we're going 1984 (the book) is a blueprint for 2014.

    2. Re:Prior art by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:Prior art by arcctgx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, and people seem to be forgetting that the book was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

    4. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and people seem to be forgetting that the book was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

      Don't see how people could forget, given that this post is repeated every 12 seconds here on slashdot

    5. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that line taken from? It's definitely from something (a line out of some dystopian movie? a magazine article?), but I can't remember what...

    6. Re:Prior art by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

      I remember first encountering it in a political comic about Bush in 2003. Not sure that it's the first instance, though.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    7. Re:Prior art by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      So we keep punching you in the face until you remember 1984?

      Good. Mission Accomplished.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Prior art by kryliss · · Score: 1

      I have not found a camera yet that is resistant to electrical tape on the lens.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    9. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy solved with a soldering iron... or piping the audio from a porno track on a loop into the front of your tv...

    10. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provided you know where the camera is. But that does not work so great for mics, anyway.

  2. Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?

    1. Re:Legal? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?

      IANAL but I am a cynic, so here's what I think would happen:

      Assuming Verizon couldn't just pay some lobbyists to get themselves an exemption, they would simply not record the audio. They would have a list of keywords and they would listen for them in real time. If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does, the audio is immediate sent to /dev/null without any sort of permanent record. No actual recording, no legal violation.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Legal? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I expect it gets around it by not actually explicitly transmitting what it hears or sees to anyone else... but instead uses local software to infer what ads would be appropriate for the context, and then pull those advertisements down.

    3. Re:Legal? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?

      Do you use Verizon? If so, I'd suggest carefully re-reading your contract with this development in mind . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Legal? by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple. Verizon (or whoever licenses their technology) will have made more than enough "campaign contributions" to keep the regulators from bothering them. You didn't really think your privacy mattered when stood up against corporate interests, did you? Wake up.

    5. Re:Legal? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see the result of two of these systems in the same room, like a Furby and Siri talking to each other. On the downside, our current president's last name has the sound of a weapon in it, so would that increment his name and that weapon every time only his name was spoken? Would the SS be summarily notified?

    6. Re:Legal? by jameshofo · · Score: 1

      They can just ask you if you want to enable the feature nothing intrusive, say every time you change the channel or whatever, or just offer you a discount on your bill by enabling it. Maybe they call it something catchy like "Content relativity sensors", or hell just make it enabled by default and bury it in the list of crap you have to sign when you get service. Most people would probably go for it not taking the time to read the enormously long disclaimer that says "we own the content you produce and you have no right to it unless you or anyone who asks pays us ellevendy billion dollars!"

      --
      Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    7. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, we could vote with our wallets. I'd imagine that there are some people that might actually go for something like this, and so would buy into it. I don't see how someone would want it long-term, so as long as there was a way to disable it and Verizon finally got the message that people don't want it, it'll disappear just like other failed technology (the original Windows phone, for example).

    8. Re:Legal? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does, the audio is immediate sent to /dev/null without any sort of permanent record. No actual recording, no legal violation.

      I like speak in phrases whereby the words said never repeat. Using grammatic syntax reconstruction they could discern, to a high degree of certainty, what has been spoken...

    9. Re:Legal? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)? If someone comes over and watches TV, do you have to tell them or does Verizon since Verizon is the party doing the recording?

      IANAL but I am a cynic, so here's what I think would happen:

      Assuming Verizon couldn't just pay some lobbyists to get themselves an exemption, they would simply not record the audio. They would have a list of keywords and they would listen for them in real time. If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does, the audio is immediate sent to /dev/null without any sort of permanent record. No actual recording, no legal violation.

      Well transcribing the conversation would certainly be a recording. However, I think, transcribing a certain subset of words I think would qualify as well.

      ...because... not... record every..., not mean... know... meaning... conversation... especially... recording... key...

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Legal? by jythie · · Score: 1

      EULA.

      Such laws usually state that both parties must consent.. not that both parties must understand hey are consenting.

    11. Re:Legal? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately such a vote would, in many regions, not be between 'good cable company and evil cable company' but between 'cable and no cable'.. which given that cable is somewhat of a luxury item that is not all that nesseary doesn't make the choice that much harder. Still, consumer choice works best when people have equivalent choices to choose between as opposed to 'how much will people put up with in order to access a resource'.

    12. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon will claim you consented to be recorded when you clicked through the EULA.

    13. Re:Legal? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The greatest weakness of EULAs are that there is no signature or other record that a EULA was consented to. The weak boilerplate of "By opening and/or using" fails, because Joe could have opened the box and thrown away the EULA, and then given it to me. He didn't use it, I didn't consent, or even know one existed.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:Legal? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone buy one of these boxes in the first place??

    15. Re:Legal? by hlavac · · Score: 2

      Dump the TV already. I did.

    16. Re:Legal? by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 1

      How does this get around wire-tapping laws...

      Pretty easily actually....
      First: bury it in layers and layers of fine print and legalese in the EULA, which, lets face it, no one actually reads.
      Second: incentivization. Offers for free crap in the US sells crap quicker than ammunition sells in the middle east.
      Third: Lobbying: sell it to congressional officials as a 'counter terrorism' tool, build in a back door for DoD/DHS and it'll be legalized in the annual defense authorization bills almost instantaneously.

      Will it be abused? When hasn't a corporation and/or government entity abused something?
      You tell me....

    17. Re:Legal? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Simple. Verizon (or whoever licenses their technology) will have made more than enough "campaign contributions" to keep the regulators from bothering them. You didn't really think your privacy mattered when stood up against corporate interests, did you? Wake up.

      I don't know which makes me more sad: that this post has been modded Insightful, or the fact it's an appropriate mod...

      Probably the latter :(

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    18. Re:Legal? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      How does this get around wire-tapping laws in the two party states (where both parties need to know there's recording going on)?

      That's the buyer's problem. His computer, not Verizon's computer, is recording people without their consent or knowledge.

      Your computer is your agent. If you don't know whose interests your agent serves, maybe you should fire that agent. If you think your agent might get you in trouble with the government, then all the more reason to JUST SAY NO.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    19. Re:Legal? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the idea of a contract without any communication, or even evidence that communication might have happened, is pretty hilarious.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    20. Re:Legal? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Depends on your definition of record. What's the difference between video recording a road to keep track of all the cars that pass through, or a person counting the cars that pass by and taking note of the registration plates.

      A counter in the TV that takes note of how many times words are said is the same thing as making an audio recording of a conversation. If they did speech to text and produced an entire transcript of conversations, isn't that the same as an audio recording?

      I really hope this never ever takes off, if it does I'll make sure that it can be easily disabled before I'd buy any TV with it (assuming EVERY TV has it, otherwise I just buy one that doesn't)

    21. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Push it under the USAPATRIOT act, or say that it is required for law enforcement... no judge (if they value their career) would get in the way then.

    22. Re:Legal? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Well transcribing the conversation would certainly be a recording.

      No. If that were true, then anyone writing down what was said over a phone call would be in violation of the two party consent laws in the states that have them. Transcription is not legally considered a recording for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which the identity of the speaker is no longer directly tied to the words that were spoken. Anybody can write something down and attribute the words to someone else, but in theory only the speaker could actually say the words themselves.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paranoid have been absolutely certain that their TV watches them since the day TV was invented. Consider this nonsense a paranoia amplifier. And then there are those bathroom mirrors and we all just know that strange beings live in those mirrors.

    24. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the companies give anyone a choice? How do you get cable without a box? It used to be all you needed was a splitter, now you need a box for each display device.

    25. Re:Legal? by dev.null.matt · · Score: 2

      Because you'll get $5 of coupons a month based on what you talk about in the machine's presence. I seriously couldn't (and still can't) believe that people were willing to let their grocery store track their purchases in exchanged for $0.15 off a can of pees (not that it REALLY matters, if you paid with credit, they already know who you are).

    26. Re:Legal? by dsmann · · Score: 1

      Campaign contributions do not influence the Supreme Court, which would be the logical place to argue against a violation of anti-wiretapping laws or the right to privacy. However, IANAL, but nobody is placing this device in your house without your knowledge so I am not sure this would be considered wiretapping so much as a "service" you requested.

    27. Re:Legal? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      "Do you not want to not be tracked by sonar analysis of your living room, which you don't not want scanning turned offedly? Click no to disapprove."

      Umm, "No"?

      "Viewing data shows late night TV interest in class 17 area, suggest leather or bikini productry. Incoming sonar telemetry. Suggest beer advertising due to pronounced abdominal fat deposition."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:Legal? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Campaign contributions do not influence the Supreme Court, which would be the logical place to argue against a violation of anti-wiretapping laws or the right to privacy. However, IANAL, but nobody is placing this device in your house without your knowledge so I am not sure this would be considered wiretapping so much as a "service" you requested.

      It is more than a little disingenuous to suggest that every consumer who buys devices containing this technology will:

      1. 1. Even know that the technology is there
      2. 2. Understand what it does, if he does know it exists.
      3. 3. Know how to disable it. This includes understanding the process and having access to the necessary tools.

      In other words, it is entirely unreasonable to expect fully informed consumers in this market place, so spare us your libertarian rant. About redress via the courts. This is an entirely appropriate place for government regulation.

    29. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no human is doing it,same as the government doing it as long as no human listens they can and do store all transmissions.
      Thats what ya get for letting lawyers run things lol Google....NSA Computer in Utah

    30. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL but what's wrong with not having a written signature for a contract? My telephone, cable, internet have always been set up without a signature, just a verbal contract. Warranties and return policies are sort of like EULAs but they are accepted without signatures.

    31. Re:Legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cable provides internet for many people; it makes the distinction between luxury and necessity somewhat harder to make. Maybe an internet connection isn't strictly necessary, but without one, you're shutting yourself off from a lot of opportunities and services that make life more livable.

    32. Re:Legal? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If the system hears a keyword, it increments a counter associated with the keyword but that is all it does,"

      Which would (in reality) still get transmitted for advertising info purposes and thus is still a violation of informed-consent wiretapping laws.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re:Legal? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Regulators won't bother them.

      Well-armed paranoid people will kill them.

      Doesn't matter. Eventually someone will get pissed enough and they will kill those responsible.

      Those who fail to learn from history...

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    34. Re:Legal? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And I'll get it nullified as a contract of adhesion, since there is no true meeting of the minds and no negotiable conditions of the contract (which apparently many judges absolutely fucking fail to understand, when it comes to contract law.)

      The other problem is that those making the complaints, along with their idiot lawyers, fail to understand this as well despite it being a second-year subject.

      EA's Bankrupt now. I'm partly responsible for that. I kicked their EULA to the curb and they settled. Had they not settled, they'd have been dead sooner rather than now, and very likely my case would've seen the USSC and been made case law.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    35. Re:Legal? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Just do what I and several hundred other people do: use the number (321) 123-4567.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    36. Re:Legal? by cusco · · Score: 1

      When Comcast sent you a set-top box to access their service did you read every bit of documentation that came with it? I didn't, and I'm far, far more conscientious about that sort of thing than the vast majority of people. The "notice" will be in the middle of a paragraph on Page 23, probably called something like a 'consumer interest statistical accumulator'.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    37. Re:Legal? by dev.null.matt · · Score: 1

      What, for signing up for the discount card? Do you then ONLY pay with cash at that store, without exception?

      If not, then they know who you are, unless you also have credit cards with false information associated with them, since the POS captures your CC number and the information on it, and a company with an analytics department which doesn't cross-reference your CC with your discount card is wasting corporate resources.

    38. Re:Legal? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The only times that I use a credit card are for online purchases and equipment for my job. I find it impossible to budget my spending if I can't see how much cash I physically have left in my wallet in order to know how much I've spent. I take out X-amount from the cash machine on Friday, and if I have money left over on Thursday then I've stayed under budget. My memory just isn't good enough to know on Thursday how much I've spent since Friday without the visual indicator. Hell, I can't even remember how many cups of coffee I've had just today.

      Wonder how many credit cards are associated with how many discount cards that use that number. That never occurred to me. In case you can't tell, I'm easily amused.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    39. Re:Legal? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      So when it comes time for a dispute - prove it.

      FYI - you signed for telephone, cable, and internet, whether you still have the paperwork or not, your provider does. Warranties and return policies are subject to the seller, and in case of a dispute, you again will need the receipt - proof.

      Thanks for playing.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    40. Re:Legal? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      "Do you not want to not be tracked by sonar analysis of your living room, which you don't not want scanning turned offedly? Click no to disapprove."

      Umm, "No"?

      Again, if you expect that question to be presented to you in those or similarly plain terms, you are a fool.

    41. Re:Legal? by platypusfriend · · Score: 1

      Good points. What about a hypothetical painter (who has a perfect photographic memory) painting key frames of their own experiences, transcribing all relevant conversations, and associating those transcriptions with the painted frames? Is that equivalent to videotaping? What if they didn't transcribe the audio, and just painted? I'm not arguing for any side; I'm just thinking out loud...

  3. Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, how would Verizon go about this without it breaking the law? It sounds like eavesdropping, interception of communications and whatever other legal description there is for bugging a room.

    I don't think their EULA will protect them from prosecution and civil law suits on this one.

    1. Re:Problem by muindaur · · Score: 2

      That would be easy actually. As there is this thing called fine print, and service with them requires signing an agreement. Since most people don't read theirs, it would be easy to sneak it in.

    2. Re:Problem by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That would be easy actually. As there is this thing called fine print, and service with them requires signing an agreement. Since most people don't read theirs, it would be easy to sneak it in.

      'fine print' is not a legally valid excuse for criminal behavior.

      Source: was sued by a former employer for breach of a contract that a judge determined illegal (due to clauses that flouted the law) and dismissed.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Problem by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Fine print would not protect them from stuff like child porn.

      Little Jane the baby watching Sesame Street without a shirt on, being recorded by a camera. It's already been argued for pirated/cracks for games that a copy has been made in the system RAM, therefore Verizon just created CP.

    4. Re:Problem by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Fine print would not protect them from stuff like child porn.

      Little Jane the baby watching Sesame Street without a shirt on, being recorded by a camera. It's already been argued for pirated/cracks for games that a copy has been made in the system RAM, therefore Verizon just created CP.

      Related question - if you rent a laptop from someplace like Aaron's, is the rental place held liable for stuff that gets put on the laptop while it's in your possession?

      I ask, because chances are Verizon 'rents' these boxes to their customers, which probably means the onus is on the renter, not Verizon. I wouldn't put it past the greedy fucks to charge the parents in your anecdote with producing and possessing CP.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Problem by firex726 · · Score: 1

      I think you would need to establish what is being sent back to Aarons.

      Customers may rent them, but customers could also reformat them clean. If Aarons locked them down so only they had administrator rights and the laptop were reporting back personal information, like CC, photos, porn, etc... then they might be in some hot water.

      Even if Verizon just rented them, I highly doubt they will give users administrator access to them to wipe.

    6. Re:Problem by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Even if Verizon just rented them, I highly doubt they will give users administrator access to them to wipe.

      Perhaps not... then again, that seems just the kind of situation that weasel worded contracts were invented for.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. 1984 by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you haven't already read George Orwell's 1984 , you really should do so. The frequent comparisons between contemporary society and the novel aren't just based on a vague feeling of constant surveillance, which you might imagine if you don't have a knowledge of the book itself, but with things like this even Orwell's specific technology is coming true and even being outdone.

    In the novel, the protagonist Winston Smith's television watched him just as he was watching it. He had the advantage of an alcove in his home that wasn't within the view of the "telescreen", where he could sit and keep a secret diary. With this news story and the way microphone technology is evolving, I fear that even retiring to a secluded part of the room to write one's forbidden thoughts will have a Clippyesque mascot pop up on the screen to sell you pens and paper.

    1. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live - did live, from habit that became instinct-in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

      Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer;

      Reality begets fiction. I would prefer this happen only for wondorous things. But sometimes reality begets nightmares.

    2. Re:1984 by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      In the novel, the protagonist Winston Smith's television watched him just as he was watching it.

      Interestingly, Apple has three relevant patents. The first involves concealing the camera behind a panel. These cameras could still be detected by disassembling the device and inspecting its contents, and as such will appear in any disassembly article. The second involves actually hiding the camera behind the display itself, requiring a specially-modified display panel and backlight. And finally, the real piece de resistance, and actually not the latest of these patents: A display whose image sensing elements are distributed throughout. And of course, through gaming, Microsoft has gotten in on the action too. (I didn't want anyone to think I was going to leave them out, or single Apple out...)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:1984 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Arguably, the stuff the abhuman scum over in advertising are pushing is a much more subtle and dangerous flavor than the traditional statist dystopian genre.

      If you try hard enough, you can build a statist dystopia(y hello thar, GDR); but that sort of thing is staggeringly expensive. The tighter you want your surveillance to be, the bigger the capital and operational costs. If you aren't careful, you'll eventually collapse under your own weight, or have so many subjects pissed off at being poor that you just can't hire enough guns to keep them in line.

      With commercially-supported(but eminently dual use) technologys, though, you can largely sidestep this problem. People buy their own radio-equipped microphone/camera modules, lovingly charge them every day, and pay the cell phone bill. They voluntarily buy the cable box because how else will the magic of football reach them? They sign up for the credit cards and the 'loyalty' cards, and so on and so forth. It still isn't free to build an apparatus for demanding the data from the private sector and crunching it; but the impressively vast and thorough mechanism for gathering and storing in convenient machine-readable format all sorts of cool invasive details is automatically provided, and running at a profit no less! All you have to do is put a few CALEA style mechanisms in place, and enjoy!

    4. Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omnipresent high tech oppression gear, paid for by the target. The future global tyrant who came up with this must be laughing his ass off right now.

    5. Re:1984 by rk · · Score: 1

      I use the loyalty cards and Arthur Dent does a lot of shopping with them.

    6. Re:1984 by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I hope that Mr. Dent is always clever enough to pay cash...

  5. Wait ... who authorized a mike in my STB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't. Did they include a camera too? And here I've been making fun of those guys wearing tinfoil!

    1. Re:Wait ... who authorized a mike in my STB? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      You have speakers right? Same basic principles at work...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    2. Re:Wait ... who authorized a mike in my STB? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      I find that the teeny MEMs mics you can get these days are the best for stoking people with incipient paranoia. "Oh, sure, 3x3.5mm surface mount package, looks barely different from any other teeny IC, reasonably sensitive, they could be almost anywhere..."

  6. Too late by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    "Imagine . . . cuddling and then seeing ads for contraceptives."

    If one could actually get past the creepy, peeping-tom, psycho-stalker element of that concept -- which I don't think I could do -- there's still the problem that once you're "cuddling" you've probably already made your contraceptive purchase. And if you haven't, it's a little late for advertising.

    Now I'm trying to un-imagine what "cuddling" sounds like.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
    1. Re:Too late by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      They could always show ads for baby clothes and the like, if they could differentiate between cuddling with and without contraceptives. I dunno, cuddling has always been kind of snuggling up comfortably to me, what the subbie probably meant to say was having wild yowling sex.

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're trying to unimagine FAP FAP FAP, you're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:Too late by fred911 · · Score: 1

      "once you're "cuddling" you've probably already made your contraceptive purchase."

      Absolutely. Therefore, I hereby patent the use of hyper-linking to display pre-selected porn, once cuddling has been determined.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Too late by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 1

      Imagine arguing with your significant other...

      And seeing an ad for a divorce lawyer.

    5. Re:Too late by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      There is a positive side of course. Sometimes you're there cuddling and trying to find a suitable way of getting smoothly to the sexytimes. Having an add for contraceptives would be a great queue.

    6. Re:Too late by cusco · · Score: 1

      And what is the system going to do if you're watching porn on the computer while the TV is on in the background?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  7. VERIZON RULEZ !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your world !! And you !! Suck it up and stop whining about pending patents that never go anywhere !! Would you rather MS patented it ??!!

    1. Re:VERIZON RULEZ !! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Your world !! And you !! Suck it up and stop whining about pending patents that never go anywhere !! Would you rather MS patented it ??!!

      They already have a very similar patent for use of the Kinect, not sure how the patent office let that one slide...

  8. Fucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is absolutely FUCKED.

  9. Kills the Mood.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doesn't even begin to describe it.

  10. Against this, but not "spying" on TV habits. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a step too far, and sadly it will impact TVs that monitor your viewing habits for advertising and to report actual legit numbers to TV production companies, which is a shame.

    Shame for advertising because advertising isn't a bad thing, just abused by scrubby people and dodgy companies.
    I've found some of my most used services and programs through advertising, without it I would be lost.

    HUGE shame for viewing figures because the current methods are terribly bad. Not even jokingly bad or anything, it is just sad because so many good shows are cancelled because the demographics are exactly the types of people who wouldn't overly-discuss things or subscribe to newsletters or whatever other metrics these companies claim to use. (and especially not voluntary monitoring)
    Sci-fi, horror, obscure comedy, dark comedy, so many other niche areas, they all get cancelled because fans don't obsessively talk about them like they do with, say, reality TV or whatever else. And writing a show to encourage discussion often takes away from the show too, it is all fine and well if you write some mystery in to your show, but it plain doesn't work in some things and can even damage the integrity of the show overall.

    Why would you do this Verizon? You know nobody would want this, and now you just damaged a possible future for monitoring TV habits by default. Great one, idiots.

  11. Re:Too late - and if in Georgia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if your in Georgia and detected as cuddling in the "wrong" way, or with the wrong gender, no doubt the Sodomy police will also get notified!

  12. off putting? people LOVE this stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's "off putting" to me, so I won't buy one. But look at how people fall all over themselves to use email services that data-mine keywords from their emails for advertising purposes. Look at how people let Facebook snoop their visits not only to facebook, but to a million other sites around the web.

    As far as i can tell, people LOVE having parts of their private conversations captured, data-mined for ad keywords, and used to display advertising to them. I see no reason to believe they won't love this too, although I am bewildered at why anyone would. But just watch.... I am always - always, surprised by how little people care about privacy. It seems just the opposite, they actually prefer not having any.

  13. I love my FiOS by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    but that's enough to make me switch to Comcast if they actually follow through with this.

  14. No deaths yet. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    As long as the 'verts don't blow up any heads, where's the harm? /sarcasm

    1. Re:No deaths yet. by Bieeanda · · Score: 2

      Fortunately there's been a bit of lag, and we're only fifteen minutes into the future so far.

  15. Please stop the hyerbolic 1984 rants by h2okies · · Score: 2

    Just because it's patented doesn't mean it will ever see the light of day in a working product.

    Verizon realizes this is a public relations nightmare and that the backlash would be so ridiculous it would cave their corporate head quarters phone system, along with calls to Senate and House hearings and the CEO's head.

    So stand down people we are not on some slippery slope here. If and only if they actually submit a product for testing, should anyone get worked up by this.

    --
    Beware the Lollipop of Mediocrity, Lick it once and you suck forever.
    1. Re:Please stop the hyerbolic 1984 rants by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Uh, what? The time to stop this is BEFORE it is made. Once it's made, it may not show up turned on at consumers houses, but instead will be at Walmart and stores. Once it's built in to TVs, even if turned off by default, it's just a simple switch your cable company/TV firmware has to flip before it's on.

      Or, to prove Godwin s law.

      Don't even let your government talk about making large labor camps with lots of incinerators, once you reach that point it is already too late and your government needs replaced.

    2. Re:Please stop the hyerbolic 1984 rants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but why bother spending the money patenting it? I briefly looked at the patent and all I was a bunch of ideas. No algorithm or anything worthy of an invention. If push comes to shove, verizon will put this in their dvrs if they lose cable subscriptions or it will be a great excuse for them to keep subscription costs from going up. Sheeple will gladly trade freedom for money. Just look at how well Steam is doing.

  16. Another misleading subject line by RNLockwood · · Score: 2

    "Verizon Patents Eavesdropping Using Your TV For Ad Targeting"

    It's not my TV or even yours in which it's installed, it's in the set-top box that decodes the signal and responds to the remote. I'll bet that if it's ever deployed DHS will have a back door.

    --
    Nate
    1. Re:Another misleading subject line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not my TV or even yours in which it's installed, it's in the set-top box that decodes the signal and responds to the remote."

      The Asperger's story was last Sunday.

    2. Re:Another misleading subject line by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      " I'll bet that if it's ever deployed DHS will have a back door."

      And that's supposed to make us feel better?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Another misleading subject line by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Mr. Anderson, what good will a "set-top box" be to you if you have no TV? ::poof::

      Also, you are now aware that many TVs run Linux or other OSs within them. I see no exclusion for performing such "set-top box" features on a TV that has a camera and/or microphone...you know, like a computer has.

    4. Re:Another misleading subject line by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      Why would a TV manufacturer include this? What would the business model be? "Buy our ACME TV, it has real spy ware with a standardized interface that any ISP can use!"

      --
      Nate
    5. Re:Another misleading subject line by RNLockwood · · Score: 1

      If it makes anyone other than those willing participants in the ongoing Security Theater debacle feel better then you can label it an unintended consequence.

      --
      Nate
  17. Oh F'ing great... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    now when the commercial comes on and you get up to get snaks or go to the bathroom it'll pause so you don't miss the commercials...

    1. Re:Oh F'ing great... by cusco · · Score: 1

      One of the network executives said a few years ago that he thought mute buttons should be removed from TV remote controls, because (paraphrased) "every time they're not listening to the commercial that pays for their programming they're stealing from me."

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  18. Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That would be in violation of federal wiretap laws.
    The same reason I can't hack into your webcam.
    Of course if you authorize it then all bets are off.

    1. Re:Unlikely by Scutter · · Score: 1

      Laws are for me and you, not for big corporations, police, or governments.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Unlikely by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      This land is your land (AT&T), this land is my land (Verizon)
      From (Chevron) California, to the (J.P. Morgan) New York Island
      From the redwood (West Fraser Timber)forest, to the gulf stream (BP)waters
      This land was made for you (Monsanto) and me (Archer-Daniels-Midland)

      As I was walking a ribbon of (Cintra-Zachry) highway
      I saw above me an endless (American-Airlines) skyway
      I saw below me a (Alcoa )golden valley
      This land was made for you (Microsoft) and me (Apple)

  19. Bugging by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I bet anything that police / courts will determine that a warrant is not necessary to intercept this eavesdropping since it was already there (or some other flimsy reasoning). Instant audio bug.

    --
    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:Bugging by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Or, indeed, because you have no expectation of privacy.

    2. Re:Bugging by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Or, indeed, because you have no expectation of privacy.

      Even in your living room.

      "You bought a TV with a camera and mic in it, right? So you want to be monitored! What's that? You say you didn't have a choice because today all TV's have camera's and mic's in them? Well, now you're just being a whiner."

      Sadly, this is actually how many of my conversations regarding ubiquitous surveillance go.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  20. Anyone have a Gmail account? by SomePoorSchmuck · · Score: 2

    ...and how is this different from Google reading all your mail discussions and targeting ads to you? You've already accepted that a corporation can listen to your conversations and build a profile of your likely purchasing habits. Does the difference in medium - from text to audio - really make that much difference?

    --

    Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
    1. Re:Anyone have a Gmail account? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do see your point. However, I tend to be careful with what I put into email or Facebook. There are a great many things I will say, but will I will never put them in print.

    2. Re:Anyone have a Gmail account? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I tolerate it from Google because they provide me a useful email service in exchange for access to my infor, and targeting ads that I overwhelmingly ignore (when I'm not gaming them for entertainment). My cable provider delivers to me a service I paid for already. If they which to further enhance their revenue stream by this or similar methods (beyond monitoring my set top already for channel changes and such), I may just clip the cable and move on.

      And as others have mentioned, the real poroblem here is that the government, at all levels, will latch on to this data because, for lack of a better way to put it, they can. We will be fighting this for a long, long time.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Anyone have a Gmail account? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      ...and how is this different from Google reading all your mail discussions and targeting ads to you?

      Well, that's why I don't use Gmail. But there is still a difference: your e-mail, by its nature, goes through Google's servers. Your conversations at home do not naturally flow through Verizon's.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Anyone have a Gmail account? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Installing a microphone in my house is quite a bit different then having an algorithm dig through mail stored on your server.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  21. disable it by jason777 · · Score: 1

    Do these set top boxes have microphones now??? If so, I'm opening mine up and cutting the connection to it. Theres no way I'm allowing the possibility of anyone listening in to my home. You know eventually this will certainly be abused.

    1. Re:disable it by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Breach of contract, violation of terms of service, vandalism of property. I see permanent ban on Verizon telecom services and a civil judgement against you, with possible criminal charges for the vandalism.

      Enjoy the new (TV) lineup!

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:disable it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do these set top boxes have microphones now??? If so, I'm opening mine up and cutting the connection to it. Theres no way I'm allowing the possibility of anyone listening in to my home. You know eventually this will certainly be abused.

      You know the big obvious mic behind the front panel will be fake so the real mic that looks just like another chip on the circuit board can carry on recording.
      Sorry not recording, "Monitoring".

      The cutting of the wire to the fake mic will of course be detected by the internal circuitry and you will suddenly get a lot of ads for tin foil hats.

           

  22. Facebook users say.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We LOVE being data-mined! Please, do it more!"

        - signed, every Facebook user everywhere

  23. Do digital cable boxes report your viewing habits? by Marrow · · Score: 2

    It would be easy for them to see what ads you surfed away from. That information could be saleable and most people would not mind it too much. OTOH, people would mind if they reported on what you were watching when the commercial came up.

  24. Information Extraction by Bob9113 · · Score: 2

    Arguments? Pillow talk? Imagine it overhears you discussing whether it is time to overthrow the government (one of the duties of American citizens is to overthrow the government when necessary -- see, for example, The Declaration of Independence). Now suppose it shows you ads for Buds Gun Shop and three books; The Anarchist Cookbook, The Amateur's Guide to Forming a Militia, and So You Want to Overthrow The Government.

    Now, since Verizon is a good citizen that wants to play ball with the government, they provide access to their private corporate information about what ads they have been serving to which households.

  25. Think of the fun you can have with this.... by 3seas · · Score: 2

    You have a girlfriend over and little does she know you have cause sex based ads to happen... Or to test how far the information collected goes - role play and act out a murder scene...And then wait for the police to show up ....I've fallen and cant get up...

  26. No phone, no problem by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    I don't use Verizon for my television but in my parents case, they don't have a cell phone from Verizon so there can't be any listening in on conversations.

    As to the set top box, the article mentions infrared sensors. Electrical tape works wonders. If Verizon complains about "hacking" their hardware, put the set top box in a closed tv stand. It's your property, not theirs, so they can't complain.

    As to a mic in the set top box, same thing. Inside a a closed tv stand what little sound they can pick up will be muffled and not worth their effort to figure out.

    If they still have a problem, cancel your service. Problem solved.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:No phone, no problem by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      And once the cameras are built in to the actual screen, or the TV has the mic?

      Fuck that, the time to throw a fit is now before everything comes from the factory with a camera and mic.

    2. Re:No phone, no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to the set top box, the article mentions infrared sensors. Electrical tape works wonders. If Verizon complains about "hacking" their hardware, put the set top box in a closed tv stand. It's your property, not theirs, so they can't complain.

      The IR sensor is what the remote uses to communicate with the box. Block it and you can't change channels.

  27. As good a time as any by spcebar · · Score: 1

    Well, I was planning on selling my T.V. anyway.

    --
    Which one is the 'anykey'?
  28. marketability of zero by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    And as soon as CNN gets a hold of this, purchases drop to zero. People do not want to be spied on. If there are 99 TVs that all got together and decided to spy on people and there's 1 Chinese knock off, off-brand that doesn't, everyone is going to buy that one instead. This will fail horribly.

  29. I've said it before... by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    Some people see "1984" as a guidebook, not as a warning.

    But actually, this is just a company, who is trying to maximize profits (breaking laws generates a cash cost, which is taken into account in the optimization study). The spying is scary, but the results are just some ads, which in a worst case are very embarrassing.

    Next week's article, which reports that multiple governments are interested in this same technology, will be more worrying.

    1. Re:I've said it before... by Sentrion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yesterday in Slashdot we discussed that police departments are urging legislators to REQUIRE that mobile service providers keep a log of text messages for all users. While many would agree that using such information to prosecute true criminals of heinous crimes, the same logs could be abused just as easily by a tyrannical regime. Active monitoring devices in our own homes could have a chilling effect on dissent of any form. Congress inquiries with questions like "are you or have you ever been a member of the [fill in your political affiliation] Party?" McCarthyism unfolded on a public stage and revealed itself to the American people for what it was. Today we just have to mention the word "McCarthyism" and it has a similar connotation as invoking the words "Hitler" "facist" or "communist". But if a tyrannical regime could suppress dissent before it ever leaves the home from which the most fundamental discussions begin, then there would be litte hope of dissent ever forming a critical mass following that could effect change. The references to 1984 are quite appropriate.

      But even without the threat from a potential tyrant, imagine the damage that could be done if scammers or British newspapers hack into the system?

    2. Re:I've said it before... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can I buy drugs from you? Seriously, you want to drag partisan rhetoric into this? Both parties are criminally complicit in the erosion of our civil liberties, and people like you are the reason why we cannot make any progress.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    3. Re:I've said it before... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      In my world, you would be able to buy drugs, legally. I'd also regulate and tax them and require sellers to be registered and buyers to present ID to buy it much like alcohol and cigarettes are regulated and controlled. Think about the terrorism caused by the "war on drugs", and realize that narco terrorism is ruining Mexico (and other Latin countries).

      Liberties are being sacrificed because we are sacrificing liberties to gain safety and not getting any safer. The better option is to realize that in a free state of liberty, bad stuff happens, and deal with the bad stuff as it happens, rather than restricting things and having bad stuff still happen, which leads to the increasing tyranny of trying to prevent bad stuff from happening.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:I've said it before... by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      In my world, you would be able to buy drugs, legally. I'd also regulate and tax them and require sellers to be registered and buyers to present ID to buy it much like alcohol and cigarettes are regulated and controlled.

      And that's what it would be like in my world as well, but until you can point out an (R) (or even a credible (L)) candidate that actually campaigns on anything even remotely similar to that idea, then your complaints about the (D)s are just more partisan rhetoric.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    5. Re:I've said it before... by gtall · · Score: 1

      "The spying is scary, but the results are just some ads, which in a worst case are very embarrassing."

      Dear, why is every second ad trying to sell me testosterone pills? What have you been discussing in front of the TV?

    6. Re:I've said it before... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      I think his comment was really more about the media than about the Democrat party. If we ignore the outliers of Fox and MSNBC, the majority of news channels are more-or-less "moderate," but have differing degrees of editorial bias. Noticing bias is easier when "your side" is the one on the receiving end of it, but even on moderate channels/papers, there is a fair bit of a slant, generally in favor of the Democratic party or issues which the Democrats support, if not the party itself.

      On many issues I am right-of-center (economics, guns, etc) and on many others I'm left-of-center ("gay rights", pot, etc). My main news sources are CNN, NPR, Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Slashdot. Getting a good mix helps to be able to call out the bullshit and get as close to objective as possible and when you do that it is much easier to notice subtle biases, especially in attempts to frame an issue (is someone "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"? a "gun rights advocate" or a "gun nut"?). I will say that on the majority of issues, the media, by and large, tends to lean towards the position which the Democrats take. Excepting MSNBC and Fox, I would give the benefit of the doubt that it isn't because of blatant attempts to tow a party line.

    7. Re:I've said it before... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "And it is much worse under the (D) party because the complicity of the media's failure to report anything negative about them."

      You seem to forget that the (R)s hold more of the media than any (D) ever could thanks to Rupert Murdoch.

      Lay off the drugs, you don't need them and I actually have my medical script. Save some for me you wastrel.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:I've said it before... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "realize that narco terrorism is ruining Mexico"

      You'll blame the druglords yet never point a finger at the man that essentially controls Mexico's entire telecommunications and enables these fuckers to do what they're doing, and you'll not point a finger at their corruption, instead choosing to try to place the blame on one group/crimetype and totally ignoring all other major contributing factors.

      How about you realize that your narrow point of view is worse than what's currently ruining other countries, as well as your spreading of such ill-informative FUD?

      "Liberties are being sacrificed because we are sacrificing liberties to gain peace of mind and not getting any safer."

      FTFY since you still cannot figure out the real things, here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:I've said it before... by cusco · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the banking system. The US is the world's largest money laundry, over a trillion dollars gets laundered here every year, half of it from drugs. It's so lucrative (10-15% charge for mostly automated transactions) that a few years ago the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange personally flew to the Colombian jungle to solicit the FARCs business. The Hollyweird movie image of people carting around attache cases containing millions of dollars is (of course) horseshit. Without the active and knowing participation of CitiCorp, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and the like the drug trade would collapse into chaos.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:I've said it before... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      My comment was more about the (D) party and how the press ignores the foibles and follies of the (D) people, much more than the (R) people. Hell, just look at all the comments about Palin and how nutty she is and what not. I don't know ANYTHING about her, but I can be reasonably sure that it isn't nearly as bad as they make it out to be (bat shit crazy cunt), while people like Nancy Pelosi are given a pass at the truly BAT SHIT CRAZY stuff she says.

      Pelosi talking about Fiscal Cliff Deadline, "It's January 1. But December 15 is when we do our Hanukkah and Christmas shopping. And we want that to be - the new income tax cut to be a Christmas and Hanukkah, every possible phase, a celebration of their religion or none."

      I mean if this was said by a (R) it would be run as headlines as batshit crazy talk on all the talking head shows and Comedy Central. Just imagine if Palin had said this?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:I've said it before... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Sorry? I missed something jumping from one topic to another. Narco Terrorism is ruining Mexico (among other things). Regulating Narcs and not making them illegal would eliminate profit motive of the narco terrorists, and they would disappear. The drug market is very very lucrative because it is illegal, just like Prohibition created a huge blackmarket that lead to the rise of people like Capone and the gangs around him.

      Slim is not a nice guy, but he is Mexico's problem. I have plenty of legitimate competition this side of the boarder for telecommunications.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  30. Not a patent, just an application by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    ... so before everyone goes complaining about prior art existing and how the USPTO must be off their rocker to allow this, it hasn't been allowed yet. It hasn't even been examined. It was applied for 18 months ago, and all patent applications are published after 18 months. It'll probably be first examined sometime next year, with the current backlog.

    In the meantime, you can do something useful by submitting prior art.

  31. Re:off putting? people LOVE this stuff. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    It's "off putting" to me, so I won't buy one. But look at how people fall all over themselves to use email services that data-mine keywords from their emails for advertising purposes. Look at how people let Facebook snoop their visits not only to facebook, but to a million other sites around the web.

    As far as i can tell, people LOVE having parts of their private conversations captured, data-mined for ad keywords, and used to display advertising to them. I see no reason to believe they won't love this too, although I am bewildered at why anyone would. But just watch.... I am always - always, surprised by how little people care about privacy. It seems just the opposite, they actually prefer not having any.

    They don't see the downside in their daily lives, so they don't notice it. It takes thinking a few moves ahead to see what constant data capture and mining can be used for. It takes critical thinking and some imagination. But if you sign up for GMail, how is your life different the next day? Other than your new email address, it isn't. We all live in our own little worlds and most of us never question it. Most think the world is just as it seems day-to-day, and don't consider what is happening outside of their immediate field of vision.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  32. block them out by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 2

    So when I fill the microphone device on my set top box with glue, will I get ads for a better cable provider?

    1. Re:block them out by cusco · · Score: 1

      No, ads for lawyers specializing in defending against property damage claims.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  33. The targeted ad myth by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think, decades from now, we'll look back on the very concept of "targeted advertising" with mockery, like "Duck and Cover" drills in the 50s. Not because it's evil or privacy-invading, but because it doesn't work. (At least, in my estimation).

    Seriously. You can *maybe* target your advertising to people working in a general profession, or in a geographical region, or maybe an age group. But every time I've seen ads targeting me because of something more specific, it's been a terrible failure.

    The ads on Angry Birds were, at one point, *convinced* I was a gay black man with HIV. They were bombarding me with ads for "gay thug dating" or "HIV testing", despite the fact that the only thing they actually got right was "male" (and it's easy to get that one right when it's 50/50 on a blind guess).

    Google keeps hitting me with sports ads. Football, I think, but I care so little about sports in general that I can't really tell. Which tells you how inclined I am to click those links. Or if I buy something, I start getting a lot of ads for competing products, *after* the fact.

    Steam targets poorly with their "recommended games" bit. Usually, it's either stuff already on my wishlist (so I've already decided to buy it next time it's on sale), stuff that's blindingly obvious (oh, you just added Call of Duty 7 to your cart? Might I suggest Call of Duty 6, Call of Duty 8 or Call of Duty 5?), or stuff that I don't like (Train Simulator 2012). And they've got nearly as much data on me as Google. I will give them credit for using some of that data properly - they use their knowledge of what games I own to not try to sell me games I already own, or to try to upsell me on DLC for games I have.

    Those are just three examples. But I could list hundreds more. I have yet to see an advertiser try to target me, and "hit" the target. They're amassing all this data on me, but they're no better at advertising to me than when they just classified me as "late teen/early twenties caucasian male working in some sort of computer field".

    We need to collectively get over our obsession with targeted this or personalized that. It might give impressive results when it works, but I'd bet money that the hit rate is under 1% for the most precise groupings.

    (While we're at it, I'll note that even if your targeting *was* perfect, it's useless if your actual ads are shit. And guess what? Most ads are shit)

    1. Re:The targeted ad myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Targeted ads are all about data mining. You can bet they're using similar data mining principles to check how well their ads are working or not.

      it doesn't work.

      Target disagrees.

    2. Re:The targeted ad myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think, decades from now, we'll look back on the very concept of "targeted advertising" with mockery, like "Duck and Cover" drills in the 50s. Not because it's evil or privacy-invading, but because it doesn't work. (At least, in my estimation).

      Just because ads are "targeted" doesn't mean they're 100% relevant to every person. The companies are really just trying to increase their 20% success rate to 23%, which is a significant improvement, but there's still a 77% chance you're irrelevant. (Sample numbers pulled from arse to illustrate point.)

      The work very well. I mean, Coca Cola has convinced people that they have the free will to not buy Coca Cola if they don't want to.

  34. Hello Mr. Yakamoto and welcome back to the GAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Courtesy of IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/quotes

    [after having his eyes replaced to fool retinal scanners]
    GAP Sign: Hello Mr. Yakamoto and welcome back to the GAP!
    John Anderton: *Mr. Yakamoto?*

  35. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a new low for Verizon. I sure won't sign up for FIOS TV now. WAY TO GO VERIZON, you just lost one TV customer..

    1. Re:Wow... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      No, I'm sure the big V operates daily on a far lower base then this. We just don't get to hear about it very often.

  36. Obscene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how would this react to loud conversations between my roommates, one of whom is generally a "douchbag," and told this, loudly and frequently by everyone.

  37. You can be assured... by Jintsui · · Score: 1

    that if Verizon did that and I had the service, I would just build a sound dampening housing around their box, and only allow vents to let heat out and allow my remote to hit the IR panel..

  38. So, Verizon is patenting "stalking"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't surprise me that they do it, just that they have the nerve to patent it. More to sling at the next in the long line of FIOS sales people to dirty up my front porch.

  39. Better than Siri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a great advancement! Now, instead of saying:

    "Siri, where can I bury a dead body?" and waiting for a map, I can just say:

    "Where can I bury a dead body" and watch an ad for the Sopranos.

  40. Why think the worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows, they might be patenting this so that they can prevent people from ever actually using this kind of Orwellian surveillance!

    (And also - flying pigs, unicorns and snowball fights in hell).

  41. Targeted Ads by PPH · · Score: 2

    Imagine arguing with your significant other and then seeing marriage counseling ads on the TV

    Unless Smith and Wesson buys those ad words first. Or a local divorce attorney.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  42. My dog has a Facebook account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and as a single female living in an urban area, she gets lots of ads for lesbian dating services

    1. Re:My dog has a Facebook account by Genda · · Score: 1

      BIG MISTAKE!!! Now you're gonna be getting all kinds of geek guys asking for any videos that fall out of this... so wrong!!!

  43. Problem solved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Get a cheap MP3 player, record yourself saying "I love ads with sexy redheads in bikinis", set it to repeat and glue the speaker to the device's microphone.

  44. Already Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this violate many already existing laws such as eavesdropping telephone conversations, recording someone without their permission, etc?

  45. This is why i will download videos by Nyder · · Score: 1

    This sort of shit is only going to drive up pirating of copyrighted TV shows.

    It's bad enough providers like Comcast push so much content thru their copper lines that HDTV looks like crap with any movement, but to spy on their users? Have content providers no shame? Worse, isn't Verizon just a mobile phone/ISP? Does it provide TV to homes now also?

    Wow, just wow. You'd think there would be laws against this sort of thing, it's one thing having a mic on your computer, but to put that on a cablebox just for the purpose for eavesdropping on what is going on. Completely against privacy.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  46. What about your laptop? by big_e_1977 · · Score: 1

    Most new laptops already have a camera and microphone built into them. For those running windows, there is nothing preventing Microsoft from putting a government surveillance backdoor in the next security update.

  47. Yeah, well, reality and facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have a liberal bias.

    Yes, both parties have problems. But in general Democrats are much more fact-and reality based (admittedly with a large dose of pragmatism and tactics), thus it is not surprising that organizations that are supposed to be after facts and a description of reality would sound similar in many ways. Note that Fox News argued that they should not be judged or held accountable on how factual their reporting is.

    Shrub? Sarah Palin? McInsane? Dog-torturer and all around evil-out, of touch rich asshole Romney?

    Sorry, I used to vote for Republicans quite a lot. But NEVER again. The people they put up for the most important political office in the Universe are bat-shit insane, corrupt, and frankly stupid. The R party needs to implode, maybe we will get a proportional system as a result, otherwise we are in for one party rule.

    1. Re:Yeah, well, reality and facts by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Liberal Bias has a liberal bias. Facts don't have a bias. Unreported facts are still facts. Liberals like yourself claim things like Bengazi are minor events, and not worthy of national attention, yet you promote stupid shit Sarah Palin says as if it is threatening our country on every news and talking head show. Even in your post, you still mention Sarah Palin, and ignore Pelosi, Reid and Jesse Jackson Jr just getting elected, despite being locked up in a loony bin. Imagine the fun Comedy Central guys would have if that was an (R).

      No, facts don't have a liberal bias, liberals have a bias to what "facts" they think are important.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Yeah, well, reality and facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "two parties" illusion is a puppet show. Some people watch the show and spend their lives enthralled by it. Some people would rather watch the well-hidden puppeteers. It's a completely different world when you realize that.

      Don't look up. Just watch TV.

  48. Verizon doing what google does... by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Verizon does not need to have microphones in its set-top boxes to do this. They're a telephone company. If they are your local provider, they they already have access to your telephone calls: the numbers you call and what time of day and which days of the month you make those calls. If they're providing you with TV access, then your phone system has been changed from copper wire analog phone to digital, and then they've got an even easier way to parse the text in your phone calls and keep track of the vocabulary used during the phone calls.
    .
    Once they've got the gist of what you've been communicating about and with whom (and when) you've been communicating, then they can plug in commercials during the fiber feed of your TV shows based on that, or they could even be like google and other dicey internet providers and actually intercept the HTML of pages as the response of http-GET requests and insert HTML snippets as advertisements onto the pages you receive.
    .
    If you have google voice, google already listens to your phone calls for you, and it knows who is calling you and whom you are calling. If you've got a google phone / android phone, they've also got a time-stamped tracking of when and where you go places. (If you don't believe or know about that, check out their new location based game, Ingres which uses the ideas of scoring points by visiting geolocated portals which it decides for you and having you staying there for fixed amounts of time to help populate and validate google's geographic database (and possibly also to volunteer crowdsource how you walk places: footpath data, walking accessibility data).
    .
    Do you really think google does not use all of this vast trove of data which it has about you to help target ads specifically to you and to your interests? Targeting ads by builidng these large databases about you and your interests and your activities is exactly what google does. And ATT or verizon, or any home phone provider, has the ability to abuse your home telephone calls. And ATT or verizon, or any cell phone provider, has the ability to do that and keep track of where you are during the day when you take your cell phone along with you. Wouldn't knowing when you go to which supermarket (even if you don't use the supermarkets frequent shopper id card) by tracking your cellphone going there tell the phone provider a lot about you? (Do you go to Vons or Ralphs, or maybe you have more money and go to Trader Joes or Whole Foods). They would be able to tell when you go to a gas station or when your cell phone goes to a car dealership or how long your phone stays there (are you repairing your car at a mercedes dealer, or going frequently to do-it-yourself autoparts stores?)? Which banks do you frequent? Do you go to movie theaters or bars or nightclubs? Or you frequently in shady parts of town? Are you a college dweller or do you go to high school? Imagine how much info your geolocation info tells your cell phone provider about you!

    1. Re:Verizon doing what google does... by Genda · · Score: 1

      As obnoxious as this is, I'm not afraid of Google. Google selling my information to the government or the government seizing Google's information for whatever purposes it deems fit... that has butt pucker value.

  49. Fuck all this by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    I'm going to be sure to find the microphone and break it on any TV that has this crap in the future. Even if it means I can't facetime on my TV to my neighbor across the street. Yeah.

  50. Simple solutions to these sorts of problems by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Microphone: Find the hole in the enclosure, poke it hard with something sharp, destroy microphone.

    Camera(s): Cover with electrical tape.

    Privacy protected, problem solved!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Simple solutions to these sorts of problems by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Microphone: Find the hole in the enclosure, poke it hard with something sharp, destroy microphone.

      Not so easy, the microphone in my cellphone is not only behind a tiny, tiny hole, the hole goes round a bend first.

    2. Re:Simple solutions to these sorts of problems by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to destroy the microphone in your cellphone?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Simple solutions to these sorts of problems by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Just saying not every hidden microphone is going to be behind a big gaping hole you can poke something in.

  51. It doesn't work. by Fantasio · · Score: 1

    By now, they should have realized that stalking me with ads is commercially counter-productive, but despite all my efforts they still continue.

  52. Charge by number of viewers? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Anyone consider that this will be used to charge for VOD / PPV by the number of viewers?

    Reminds of articles I read (though I can't find sources now) where video rental companies wanted to charge renters by number of viewers and have video tapes that could only be rewound at the store, so customers could be charged for additional viewings. Of course, both ideas are/were completely unworkable for video rentals.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  53. Go team! by azav · · Score: 1

    Go Brian. Go Don. When you control the spice, you control the universe.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  54. Paper will be contraband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the not to distant future paper and pencil will be labeled tools of terrorist, because it cant be monitored.

    How long do we really have left?

    Orwell was an optimist

  55. or more amusing by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Detecting she is faking it and showing ads for vibrators.

  56. Re:Do digital cable boxes report your viewing habi by cusco · · Score: 1

    Yes, the digital set-top boxes can 'phone home'. Most of them don't unless you participate in Nielsen surveys or some such, but the capability is there. I I fully expect it to be enabled wholesale within a few years, unless you opt-out at the excruciatingly long web page listed on Page 15 of the next 'Privacy Statement' that no one ever reads.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  57. Re:Too late - and if in Georgia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminded of the following from: http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Herbert

    "In the last scene of the episode, he turns on the TV to an announcement of the Little League World Series. He perks up and responds: "Jackpot!""

    Can you imagine if something were advertised to a pedophile which encouraged him or her to act on his or her impulses?

  58. Somebody at Verizon... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Somebody at Verizon needs to have their brain removed with a melon baller on public television at prime time for all to watch and learn. Patent an end to civilization, end up a fruit salad. Nuff said.

  59. business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a zombie apocalypse in the making

    1. Use the tube to get people into a hollow eye mouth relaxed opened state.
    2. Tell em You want this on sale
    3. ???
    4. Profit

  60. Homeland Security will love this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how long will it be before the jackboots from Homeland Security will demand that all living room conversations be recorded and archived for two years.

  61. Verbal complaints about the ads... by Julz · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if you complain enough to your set-top box about the ads it'll turn them off for you :P

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
  62. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the real answer here is to rewire the microphone to a 24/7 feed from http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com. Ads for rodent control, anti-fungals, and plumbing I can handle.

  63. But why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would we buy/lease this crap and put it in our house?

  64. Vibrations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone could probably make their TV vibrate quietly all the time overwhelming the listening devices in the TV.

  65. ads targeting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never understood how ads targeting work. Every time I need something I have to do a little research on the topic and I buy only when I feel confident I made the right choice. It is easy with groceries for example and more complex with electronics, but I apply the same algorithm for all. I never understood how people can get hypnotized by ads and click "buy" after they saw one.

    Discalaimer: I do enjoy some ads, the funny ones, and from time to time I watch them just because they are funny. But I've got enough data points over the years to honestly claim that there is no correlation between this and my consumer behaviour.

    Hmm, now that I think about it I believe I might be a robot.