Slashdot Mirror


Legislators Introduce Bill To Stop Set Top Boxes From Watching You

An anonymous reader writes "For a few years now, we've been hearing about TV-related devices that have built-in cameras and microphones. Their stated purpose is to monitor consumers and gather data — often to target advertising. (We'll set aside any unstated purposes — the uses they tell us about are bad enough.) Now, two members of the U.S. House of Representatives have submitted legislation to regulate this sort of technology. '[They] said they want to get out ahead of the release of this new technology and pass legislation that ensures it would include beefed up privacy protections for consumers. They added that this legislation is particularly relevant given the recent revelations about the National Security Agency's Internet surveillance programs. ... Additionally, the bill requires a cable box or set-top device to notify consumers when the monitoring technology is activated and in use by posting the phrase "We are watching you" across their TV screens.'"

161 comments

  1. Oh please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As if the law is going to stop people from spying...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Oh please! by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

      As if the law is going to stop people from spying...

      They do. Or else your DNA would have been public property and related information a public property.

    2. Re:Oh please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Or else your DNA would have been public property...

      How am I supposed to know it isn't? Trust them to tell me so? Haven't you people learned anything yet? Yeah, ok, it's not public property. It's the government's private property. I'm supposed to feel better, right?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh please! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      The law might not be able to stop people from spying, but a simple post-it-note or a piece of electrical tape sure would.

      Although this common-sense advice will only help people tech-savvy enough to know to do this.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Oh please! by icebike · · Score: 1

      As if the law is going to stop people from spying...

      The law should just ban the manufacture, import, sale, rental, or lease of any cable box equipment with cameras and microphone built in.

      Game consoles should have bright red camera housing with LEDs indicating camera on, and a manual slider door that disables
      the cam and micrpohone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Oh please! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and like the OLPC the lights should be hard-wired to the camera/mic so that it's physically impossible to record without activating the lights.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Oh please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed! theres another issue here(there and everywhere) switch is the IR image capturability, vis-a-vis the remote-control port on the tv,vhs, dvd, cable/sat box, etc.etc

      AC/DC/WIFI bandwidth hopper, EM field-player, playing the fields like a strawberry jam!

      camera!action! LIGHTS!!!!!!!!

    7. Re:Oh please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But since it makes it illegal, you can sue and win.

    8. Re:Oh please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The feds enjoy sovereign immunity, and/or presidential pardons.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Oh please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The law should just ban the manufacture, import, sale, rental, or lease of any cable box equipment with cameras and microphone built in.

      Why? So only "The Law" can do those things?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Oh please! by icebike · · Score: 1

      The law should just ban the manufacture, import, sale, rental, or lease of any cable box equipment with cameras and microphone built in.

      Why? So only "The Law" can do those things?

      Um, there seems to be a problem of understanding here.

      You buy your set top cable box from Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Dish, etc. Not from the police.

      Sorry I was speaking above your level of understanding. Next time I'll try speaking in early american knee jerk.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Oh please! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, the 'police' can tell them to put a camera and a mic in there if they want. Sorry the water is a little shallow at your end of the pool.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Oh please! by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      The law should just ban the manufacture, import, sale, rental, or lease of any cable box equipment with cameras and microphone built in.

      You are you, to say my HTPC can't double as a phone?

      The best way to solve this problem is to outlaw DRM and any other proprietary licensing needed in order to manufacture these computer systems. That would allow competition (and "promote progress" if I may lapse into a little constitutionese). The competition created by ending receiver lock-in, would put users (buyers) in the drivers seat as to what features/bugs are desirable. Then if users don't want to be spied upon, they won't buy the spies-on-you-boxes.

      Right now we can't have that market, because the DRM, both through DMCA (i.e. a gun pointed at your face) and also trade secrets, make it so there can't be competing boxes; users are a captive audience and have to accept whatever features/bugs come with The One Box that they're allowed to use.

      (The DMCA aspect is particularly infuriating; the government isn't even neutral or laissez-faire in this issue, they're actually neck-deep committed to an anti-consumer position.)

      Imagine if it worked the way it ought to (and how it did a decade ago, when many of us subscribed to analog cable TV) : would you decide to include a camera and a mic in your MythTV build, and if you did, and would you write (or even bother to install) the plugin which would forward those inputs to your cable company? Or if you didn't want to build it yourself and instead you preferred to buy it from someone who did that, would you pay extra for the ones that spied on you?

      It's absurd when I put it that way, isn't it? That's how simple it is, and how awful it is that you're not allowed to be in control of what this computer does.

      This problem can totally solve itself, if we can get government to reverse its pro-DRM position. There's no need to prohibit things like cameras and mics; just legalize consumers' Just Say No strategy for dealing with hostile computers.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    13. Re:Oh please! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      At least they passed a law. Now we'll have legal protection from being spied on in our living rooms and bedrooms just like how the constitution gives protection against unreasonable search by the NSA. I feel safer already. NOT.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. Don't stop there by rogueippacket · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't just limit this to set top boxes, include gaming consoles and make a big fucking red blinking light mandatory on devices like Glass.

    1. Re:Don't stop there by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      And have the light hardwired to the camera power so it's physically impossible for software to turn it off.

      This last bit will stop government from backdoor watching, even via court order.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Don't stop there by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And have the light hardwired to the camera power so it's physically impossible for software to turn it off.

      And electrical tape or paint doesn't block light. Right?

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Don't stop there by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's funny. You all are asking the people who spy on us to cripple the tools they use for the job. When when they tell you to 'roll over and take it like a man', you happily comply and ask for more.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Don't stop there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And have the light hardwired to the camera power so it's physically impossible for software to turn it off.

      And electrical tape or paint doesn't block light. Right?

      Nope, never seen any paint or electrical tape installed by software that could block light...

    5. Re:Don't stop there by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Because no one would bother de-soldering the LED off the board.......

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Don't stop there by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If it's a device whose normal operation would involve that light being on then it'll be pretty obvious that it's been tampered with. And of course if you want to remove such a safeguard on your own device that's your business. Short of imprisonment you can't protect someone who doesn't want to be protected.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Don't stop there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some sets have the camera built into the lcd screen, so unfortunately the tape idea won't work.

    8. Re:Don't stop there by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      In other words, you say that this law excludes things like the new "Xbox One" which has that mandatory camera.

    9. Re:Don't stop there by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Don't just limit this to set top boxes, include gaming consoles and make a big fucking red blinking light mandatory on devices like Glass.

      Why no blinking lights on security cameras? You expect no one is filming you without your knowledge in public? If glass makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you look up occasionally.

    10. Re:Don't stop there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any game console that masquerades as an IPTV set-top box like the Xbox360 (and presumably its successor) should fall under this.

      Microsoft and others will have a hard time with some of the initiatives. For example, companies like Audible Magic openly demonstrate set-top boxes (in this case, from Technicolor) at shows like the National Association of Broadcasters with built-in microphones that fingerprint audio from commercials to track how many actual commercials were delivered to consumers. Even though I'm in the broadcast industry, it's extremely creepy and I would be willing to open that box up and unsolder the surface-mount microphone just to make sure they didn't have that capability. But I'm probably one of about fifty customers who would ever attempt such a thing, much less understand that it exists or why it would be important.

      Also happy to see that this is bipartisan in nature. I guess a stopped clock is right at least twice a day...

    11. Re:Don't stop there by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And electrical tape or paint doesn't block light. Right?

      I put my STB in a wooden cabinet underneath the television, and shut the door. It's sealed pretty tightly, other than some holes I cut out the back of the cabinet, for wires to come in, for Video/Audio/IR Cabling, and some air holes, in the places where I mounted the fans.

      I imagine... I don't have much to worry about cameras on an STB that normally lives in a box with no light, other than from the LCD panels of other devices.

    12. Re:Don't stop there by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Why no blinking lights on security cameras?

      Because there are typically signs about video recording taking place. If they are visible; everyone knows it's either a security cam that's always recording, or a dummy cam that's never recording --- dummy security cameras often have "red lights" to attract attention.

      Security cams also dump their footage to DVR systems, large amounts of video are archived --- extracting video requires a lot of effort, this is not done lightly - generally, only for the legitimate purpose the camera is there for..

      Generally, security cams will not record audio, for fear of legal problems with wiretap laws.

      Google glass, et al. On the other hand, are personal devices. If someone records something with Google glass, there is a very high chance that their recording will wind up on social networking sites.

      Also, security cameras are sometimes designed to be covert -- and 'a flashing light' likely compromises the critical purpose of the camera. Therefore.... even if they had such a light, the owner would likely find a way of obscuring, disabling, or removing said flashing light in many cases.

      There are a very large number of both subtle and superficial differences between "personal video recording" and security camera recordings for explicitly safety and protection purposes (esp commercial security).

    13. Re:Don't stop there by antdude · · Score: 1

      Don't forget mic(rophone). You can't cover that to block audio inputs easily. One would have to disconnect it physically! :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    14. Re:Don't stop there by drcheap · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are some choice sentences in the installation/operating instructions of these new-fangled STBs that explain how they MUST be located in a specific position relative to your TV. You know, for "optimal performance" and whatnot.

    15. Re:Don't stop there by drcheap · · Score: 1

      Just put your STB inside of a small vacuum canister!

      (Yes, I realize there are all kinds of problems with that idea...just stop thinking about it and enjoy the humor you oversensitive clod).

    16. Re:Don't stop there by drcheap · · Score: 1

      Because no one would bother de-soldering the LED off the board.......

      "I don't want to know when they are spying on me."

      Yeah, that makes sense. A lot.

    17. Re:Don't stop there by antdude · · Score: 1

      Har har har! /me throws a rotten tomato at DrCheap for his cheap joke.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    18. Re:Don't stop there by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Security cams also dump their footage to DVR systems

      Nope. I can find unsecured security cams all day long on google. Quick. Hide. I might be watching you!!

    19. Re:Don't stop there by melikamp · · Score: 1

      Instead of protecting the consumer by outlawing every evil feature a computer might possibly have, they should simply mandate free and open source software in all consumer electronics. It will make all software cheaper, spur the competition, and provide adequate protection from all evil features, even the ones we can't imagine today.

  3. That's fine by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    I think I'll drop my drawers and spread my ass cheeks really wide for the camera. Hopefully that'll nauseate the folks on the other end watching. Knowing my luck, if there is targeted advertising then I might suddenly see advertisements for Charmin Ultra and Tidy Bowl.

    1. Re:That's fine by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know you're going for the Funny here, but:

      In the 1984-esque future that some people would have for us all, you'd be quietly picked up by law enforcement officials some time shortly afterwards, and taken to a hospital for "observation" because of your "deviant behavior", then either committed to a mental institution or a "re-education" facility to "cure" you of the mental illness causing your deviant outbursts. Have to protect the citizens, after all.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think your ass is that much different from your face?

    3. Re:That's fine by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      I'm partly going for funny and partly serious. I really don't want to be observed in my own home like that. I figure if I can make it distasteful enough, it may stop. :-)

    4. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if he's underage, his parents could do jailtime for being responsible for creating underage pornographic material, or be convicted himself (children do get convicted sometimes when it is "intentionally").

      Besides, his watcher's are probably jerking off to the movies of his little "revolting revolt", or selling them to asian porndealers.

    5. Re:That's fine by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't project.

    6. Re:That's fine by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Trying to think like someone working for a police state would: If you were observed, you would probably at least get "interviewed" by the police, because they'd think that if you were that much of an exhibitionist, knowing that you were obviously being monitored, that you might expose yourself to children -- and we have to think of the children!
      Of course that's why this shit has to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible, so we don't end up going down that road. Or, at least, put off going down that road until I'm dead, after which I won't give a crap, because I'll be dead.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:That's fine by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The folks on the other end watching will be Indians working for a few dollars a day.

    8. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/05/24

    9. Re:That's fine by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      You would probably start receiving advertisements for the Bravo channel.

    10. Re: That's fine by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      Or ads for hemroid cream

    11. Re:That's fine by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think I'll drop my drawers and spread my ass cheeks really wide for the camera. Hopefully that'll nauseate the folks on the other end watching. Knowing my luck, if there is targeted advertising then I might suddenly see advertisements for Charmin Ultra and Tidy Bowl.

      Perhaps if you cause some of your copyrighted work to appear on the camera, and then start sending takedowns, demanding that their "recording/monitoring center" immediately destroy all copy of tapes with video captured from your STB.

    12. Re:That's fine by Drahgkar · · Score: 1
      --
      Justify my text? I'm sorry, but it has no excuse.
    13. Re:That's fine by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Or, at least, put off going down that road until I'm dead, after which I won't give a crap, because I'll be dead.

      Spoken like a true corporate sociopath.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    14. Re:That's fine by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44_JUkrLXp8

      -or if you prefer the original-

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

      One of my favorite hits! GEICO had Mysto & Pizzi do a version that was cool as well.

  4. I have some better ideas: by kheldan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Don't allow the technology at all. Why does your television or set-top box (video game consoles excluded) need a camera or microphone in it in the first place?
    2. Mandatory user-configurable setting to turn off such devices permanently if that's what the consumer wants, or better yet, make such devices separate accessories that physically plug in, so you can physically disconnect them when you're not actively using them.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:I have some better ideas: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What if some customers want to be watched? I assure you, there are many such people. Why do you think there are so many people with Facebook privacy settings wide open? Instead, make it so you can't make any of the cable services dependent on it. Then users who don't want to be watched can cover the camera port. Of course, even then, they'll attempt to manipulate you. They could show you only the most annoying possible ads if the camera port is covered, but show you ads that they have calculated will be less annoying to you if they can see you. No camera? Nonstop ads for penis pills, laxatives and feminine hygiene products.

      Even basic ad targeting is more profitable than untargeted ads they shovel at us now. Why advertise high-end cars to people who can't afford them? A camera in your living room could tell that what you really might be interested in is a new couch and you probably don't have a lot of money to invest, or that you have young'uns or don't and tell whether it would be likely to be profitable to show you ads for diapers and toys.

    2. Re:I have some better ideas: by dugancent · · Score: 2

      Most facebook profiles that wide open are because they don't know they are or don't know how to change it.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    3. Re:I have some better ideas: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      1. Don't allow the technology at all.

      And when has that ever worked?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I have some better ideas: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be an advertiser. No one willingly wants to be watched BY ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TARGET THEM FOR ADS. Yes, they want friends and family to follow their Facebook but NOT ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TARGET THEM FOR ADS. The whole premise of open sharing and communication on the Internet is ruined when the ones trying to database people are THE ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TARGET THEM FOR ADS.

      First it was text ads, then static banner ads, then animated banner ads, then Flash banner ads, and now even HTML 5 video that plays when embedded in a page even when I have Flash and browser add-ons disabled. All because of THE ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TARGET THEM FOR ADS.

      So, STFU--no one wants to be targeted for personalized ads by THE ASSHOLES WHO WANT TO TARGET THEM FOR ADS.

    5. Re:I have some better ideas: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      You're just wrong. Nobody wants ads that are more intrusive than they already are, or they want them to be less intrusive. But if you're watching TV, they're GOING to show you ads, and they're going to have audio and video because that's the medium. Most people don't particularly care what ads, as long as those ads aren't more annoying than average, therefore most people won't care if the ads they get are targeted, and most people won't think twice about walking scantily dressed or naked or having sex in front of an active webcam.

      When you do a web search, you see lots of ads. Your search results are full of them. On Google, they're all over the right sidebar. They call them sponsored links, but they're targeted ads. On Bing, which is the 2nd most used search engine in the USA, they're all over the page, as they are on Yahoo!

    6. Re:I have some better ideas: by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot, moderators, for encouraging this sociopath and his fucked-up worldview.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:I have some better ideas: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My idea is not new and it works for me: over the air TV. I'm getting only 7 channels this way but it is sufficient for me - there are other thing to do. So no, they can not get feedback or watch me.

    8. Re:I have some better ideas: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get why penis pill ads would be annoying? Personally, I would find something like feminine hygene product commercials more annoying.

    9. Re:I have some better ideas: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The irony of this is that today I have mod points, and I'd mod you up if I could.

    10. Re:I have some better ideas: by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Why do you think there are so many people with Facebook privacy settings wide open?

      Mostly because they are too lazy / don't know how to go through a bunch of settings which Facebook made very complicated.

      What if some customers want to be watched?

      Why should the 95% that don't want to be watched have invasive technology added to their TVs just to appease the 5% that do want to be watched.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:I have some better ideas: by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1
      Do you realize that the "fix" for this is any of
      1. (a) buy a TV that doesn't have a camera in it?
      2. (b) don't connect the upstream connection?
      3. (c) put a piece of tape or a conveniently placed object in front of the camera?

      Why should 5% be forbidden to have/use a technology that they want for whatever reason because some others don't want it in their homes? What kind of Nanny-State thinking is that?

    12. Re:I have some better ideas: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, you can always use foam and tape, I think this is just another attempt from cable companies to stop innovation and deter competition, such as MS XBox or Intel's. More scary than media mafias are the distribution mafias.

    13. Re:I have some better ideas: by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Simple.
      Blacklist all the ad servers on your router.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    14. Re:I have some better ideas: by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Why? Because corporations lie about their intentions. Because corporations are all about profit, not protecting people's rights, and cannot be trusted to be responsible anymore.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    15. Re:I have some better ideas: by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the mandate should be that this feature is clearly labelled on the product as a product warning.

      Why should anyone pay for this if they don't want it, a clear example of a feature all TVs have that doesn't benefit the consumer is HDCP, they pay for the chips to decode encrypted signals, they pay for the relevant patents and research, but this is a technology which reduces the functionality of TVs and audio-visual equipment in general.

      (a) buy a TV that doesn't have a camera in it?

      1) Cameras in TVs could become ubiquitous - can you find a new laptop without a camera?

      2) The camera might not be advertised, the feature might not be mentioned.

      (b) Don't connect the upstream connection?

      This wouldn't necessarily be possible to stop if a network like BT openzone is nearby and BT did a deal with the TV makers to carry the data via WiFi.

      (c) put a piece of tape or a conveniently placed object in front of the camera?

      And what if you can't see it, do you rip your TV open to find it. Or it could be so close to the IR-sensor that if you block it then your remote also stops working?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  5. Put it on the box by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's too late once you already bought the thing. There should be a message on the box in big bold letters, "this device may be used to watch what you are doing in your own house" or something, like on cigarette packs. If you don't mind, sure buy it but you should have the information ahead of time.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:Put it on the box by kheldan · · Score: 2

      1. Put it back in the box, take it back to the store, exchange it for something with no camera and no microphone.
      2. Electrical tape over the camera and/or microphone.
      3. Disconnect it from your network when you're not actively using these features for the legitimate purposes you bought them for.
      3a. Doesn't work when disconnected from the network/internet? Return it to the store or sell it on Craigslist, get something that doesn't invade your privacy.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Put it on the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the speakers? i know headphones can be used as a mic, so speakers can be listening too, right?

    3. Re:Put it on the box by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Older headphones could be used as mics, but I'm not all all sure that's true of recent technology. (The last ones I was certain that it worked for were carbon membranes. Around 1950.)

      So, are you even certain that your initial statement is true? (I don't know that it isn't, but that's much different from knowning that it is.)

      However, presuming that it is, then speakers could be used as mics. They wouldn't be very good ones, but probably good enough that signal processing could recover the sound. So then we come to the capabilities of the electronic system that they are plugged into.

      In short, there are very good reasons why mics and speakers are generally separate pieces of hardware.

      OTOH, are you aware that, at least in some people, with a sensitive enough mic you can hear some of their thoughts through the ear? The volume is quite low, and you don't, IIRC, hear non-verbalized thoughts (I'm not even quite sure what that would mean). Something about pre-verbal thoughts constricting muscles in the vocal chords, but not sufficiently that speech results. Why you can hear it through the ear I do not know.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. All fine and good, but what about the NSA? by sideslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The NSA doesn't ask for permission. A head honcho director just recently lied to Congress under oath about the extent of surveillance, and nobody in charge seems to mind. Tell me again exactly what this law is supposed to accomplish?

    1. Re:All fine and good, but what about the NSA? by Rougement · · Score: 1

      True. Even so, can't people monitor their internet connection and be able to tell when they're being spied on? I'm not competent enough to do this but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to record the IP address that unauthorized data is being sent to, along with the nature of the data itself.

    2. Re:All fine and good, but what about the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is supposed to provide the illusion of security so consumers get back to consuming.

    3. Re:All fine and good, but what about the NSA? by sideslash · · Score: 1

      can't people monitor their internet connection and be able to tell when they're being spied on? I'm not competent enough to do this but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to record the IP address that unauthorized data is being sent to, along with the nature of the data itself.

      A competent hacker can hide his identity by relaying his connection through multiple other servers, so you often can't determine the origin of even black hat spying. The NSA has resources that hackers don't, such as listening filters installed at many of the internet's core communication hubs. So they can spy on basically everybody and nobody (except the big telcos) knows exactly how it's done.

  7. guaranteed way to get this to pass by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    consider the habits of young folks and what could happen if this records a young girl/boy being kids

    Oh Noes its dah Kiddey Pron!!!

    seriously can any manufacturer guarantee that they will not record or allow to be posted online children in states of undress??

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:guaranteed way to get this to pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you mean like a naked child running in front of the camera? Why, they will simply arrest the child for distribution of child pornography, and he/she will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his/her life. Easy.

  8. Re:Filthy sows! Become clean! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had *ANY* clue, you'd done a clean reinstall. Failing that, would merit otherworldly suspicions.
    Your "MyCleanPC" sounds, judging by your post, like a sanity-infecting virus on its own.

    Captcha: nebulous

  9. also add give people the right to buy the box by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    also add give people the right to buy the box with no outlet / mirroring / per box access / card fees.

  10. Set Top Boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, when was the last time anyone made a TV set that had a top big enough for any of these boxes to sit on?

    More seriously.. I work for a satellite TV company, and our STBs do gather viewing information and report it back to the mother ship, but it's viewer statistics (like the Nielsen boxes) and pay-per-view info, etc. The boxes don't have cameras or mic's in them. Even if they did, since the remotes are wireless radio rather than infrared, you could put the box inside an opaque equipment rack or behind something and it would work fine with no line-of-sight to the viewer.

  11. Re:Disgusting anus by worf_mo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do I have to waste precious moderation points to downmod this crap? Why can't this be blocked automatically? It's not like it's something completely new and out of the blue.

  12. Contact your congress critters.... by wiggles · · Score: 2

    The bill is H.R. 2356, introduced by Michael Capuano (D-Mass) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

    Find your congressman here. Send them some sort of correspondence that says you wish them to co-sponsor the bill. If you e-mail, make sure you request a response.

  13. Re:Become clean immediately! by harrkev · · Score: 1, Funny

    Spam, spam, spam, spam!
    Lovely spam, wonderful spam.
    spaaaaaaaaaam!

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  14. Good Luck With That by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    ...Additionally, the bill requires a cable box or set-top device to notify consumers when the monitoring technology is activated and in use by posting the phrase "We are watching you" across their TV screens.

    Yeah... that's not gonna happen.
    If the entertainment Industry's lobbyists are unable to get this legislation stopped that will be the first provision to be removed. It's simply too creepy and will have most people taking their STB back to the local office to get an older one with no camera.

    1. Re:Good Luck With That by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      ... It's simply too creepy and will have most people taking their STB back to the local office to get an older one with no camera.

      You're saying that like it's a bad thing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Good Luck With That by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      It is for the MSOs.

      They want their new boxes because chances are the new boxes will have a higher monthly rental rate than the old ones, justified by the extra features they have and sleeker design.

    3. Re:Good Luck With That by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If the entertainment Industry's lobbyists are unable to get this legislation stopped that will be the first provision to be removed. It's simply too creepy and will have most people taking their STB back to the local office to get an older one with no camera.

      There is a bigger problem.... consumers' TV may be turned off; the STB may be plugged into a "video switching" unit, so that nothing can be displayed on the TV screen.

      On the other hand... if they are watching the STB feed, the message may obstruct what they intend to be doing.

      I would rather see it be mandatory, that There will be a clear and unambiguous indicator active on the STB at all times, while recording or monitoring is occuring.

      And (2): There must be a front-mounted, large, easily seen and operated physical switch that is guaranteed to shut off power to all micrpohones, video recording devices, and phone home for transmission of device or customer information.

      In addition, no monitoring and recording is allowed if the device is in an "off" or "stand by" mode, or appears to be turned off.

  15. Obfuscation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't help but get the impression the wording will make all of this a piece of theater. "No no, it can't POSSIBLY be observing us, we don't need to worry, it hasn't TOLD us we're being watched right now". The NSA gets our guards down, the distributors get 'compensated' with both the data they need and a little cash reward from taxpayer pockets for having snuck around.

  16. People will get upset! by patriciacurtis · · Score: 0

    That's going to piss the NSA off then!

    --
    http://luckyredfish.com
  17. Stupid government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumb idiots haven't noticed that TV is obsolete.

    1. Re:Stupid government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not for the vast majority of the population, please dont take your small sample size of 1 to be the fucking facts

  18. Re:Rancid, filthy anuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last one here is the best. It doesn't even involve a virus on the computer: the advertised website cures lung cancer (and divorce, child abuse, etc.).

  19. its like blocking data mining by RobertLTux · · Score: 2

    these sub-sentients with less than favorable lineage and parents not married (to each other) use various tricks to evade ip based blocking (and other things).

    the only way for them to be blocked is for the admins to block based on keywords.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:its like blocking data mining by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      Keywords and bayesian filtering might be helpful. Also, the fact that the post in question contains a high number of links that all point to the same url could ring a bell. Less than favorable lineage, indeed.

    2. Re:its like blocking data mining by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      And the irony is you can't post code on a site where most can program because it is automatically blocked (unless you add a ton of superfluous writing).

      A good way to implement a spam filter would be to have longer term members that obviously aren't trolls (based on their profile stats) get a [this is spam] button, and the post gets hidden and marked as spam like on youtube with the option to say it isn't spam because some fools will of course abuse the spam button. Then anyone who abuses the spam button gets warned and then the button gets permanently removed for them.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    3. Re:its like blocking data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only way for them to be blocked is for the admins to block based on keywords.

      The way for them to be blocked, is for Slashdot to care. Whenever you decide you need to solve a problem like this, you end up solving it, and it can usually be done with no collateral damage.

    4. Re:its like blocking data mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't Randall Monroe (of xkcd) come up with a solution for this? Seems I recall one not too long ago where his "hat-guy" came up with a technique that stopped people from posting if they couldn't prove they had something to say, which a spammer, by definition, does NOT. Can't recall which one, and can't be troubled to find it, but it was funny, and I'm sure someone here will remember.

      BTW, I'm really surprised I can't find a single reference to the Panopticon (which is what they're trying to ban, in effect,) in this story, nor tags. Weird. What, has no one here read "1984?" Seriously?

  20. Re:Disgusting anus by icebike · · Score: 1

    Why do I have to waste precious moderation points to downmod this crap? Why can't this be blocked automatically? It's not like it's something completely new and out of the blue.

    Slashdot editors themselves have unlimited mod points and use them to control this type of crap.
    Set your sliders to zero and you never see this because they mod them to oblivion instantly.

    Hey slashdot: How bout some sliders that actually work on Android!!

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  21. Wouldnt matter if they made a law or not.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everything is mute with EULA enforcement.. since the EULA can say anything and be changed at anytime.. You basically agree to whatever they say you agree to.. So if they use the cameras to view you naked in front of TV/xbox/etc.. then you agreed to it by saying "yes" to the EULA..

    You sign a contract with lots of fine print for a cell phone.. Which is a remote bug / camera / GPS tag / etc all rolled into one nice package the government has proven time and again it loves to snatch and snoop on..

    the problem isnt needing government to provide laws.. We need to educate people to understand how their privacy is a commodity they are selling cheaply for a fancy doodad or worse.. PAYING to have taken from them..

    Remember the words Everything you do or say can be used against you in court - They literally mean everything if they can find proof of it..Caught speeding? used against you in future tickets, ask any felon how many times they gotten a chance from any police agency.. (I am not a felon, but Ive known a few)

    In short, the stupid, uninformed and clueless will continue to throw away basic freedoms / etc for a few bright shiny things, and in some cases will even pay for the use of said shiny (think Cars with On-star)..

    the "patriot act" needs to be abolished.. We need to reinstate the checks and balances in government before we force checks and balances on company's who stupid people will continue to do business with

  22. Congress, Grow Some IQ Points by OneFlame · · Score: 0

    The Xbox One is always on, but the televisions are not. And devices can be turned on remotely. Get a clue.

    Also, "We are watching you." ... is a bit disconcerting every time I make a Skype call, right? It used to be the case that recording equipment had visual indicators to let people know--but these can all be disabled.

    Why don't you do something intelligent: require that these peripherals and monitoring features can be evidently deactivated by end users, (privacy mode), put an elected official into the FISA court, or limit your own terms to cripple the power hoarding representatives like to engage in.

    SOPA, PRISM, this??? Get some IQ Points, please.

    Remember, you did swear to protect and Defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND domestic. Please, feel free to fire yourselves.

  23. Invert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since they are politicians we can safely assume that anything they say is false and everything is to be inverted, thus they are making it mandatory for the set top boxes to include surveillance capability.

  24. Re:Hmm by wmac1 · · Score: 2

    "Legislators Introduce Bill To Stop Set Top Boxes From Watching You"

    Awww, how considerate. How about a Bill to Stop "Prism, Fairview, Blarney, Boundless Informant ..." watching us? Oh... never mind.

  25. Mandatory spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is it true that the new xbox will cause continual error displays if you try to tape over the camera, and that it actually does face recognition so that it can recognize people who walk in the room and trigger actions based on such events?

    What is the resolution of these things (in millimeters at 2m)?

    1. Re:Mandatory spyware? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Face it towards the wall.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Re:Disgusting anus by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 1

    sorry, I thought this was a different thread. Oops! I'm an idiot. Ha ha.

  27. They are not idiot by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Step 1 : check an image from TV, say every 15 minutes or so.

    Step 2 : if no image can be detected (and even in the complete darkness with only the TV light tehre will be an image with contrast light/darkness) announce "no person detected" , then show an automatic shutdown in a few minutes message.

    Step 3 : announce this feature in the manual as a power saving measure.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re: They are not idiot by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Easy fix: Smear Vaseline on the lens. It will still be able to detect motion, but the image won't be useful for much else.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  28. Re:Oh police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    easier said than done! different manafacturers of light-capture devices (cameras/webcams) have different specifications surrounding spectrum, not only visible-light spectrum, far,far beyond.... just as ELF or EHF in radio can penetrate or bounce, so light waves may behave.
    3post-its should do, but what about the mic and speakers? sometimes i use a pair of headphones plugged into the mic-jack and it works well enough, built-in speakers may also be used as microphones?

  29. Think of the paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bill requires a cable box or set-top device to notify consumers when the monitoring technology is activated and in use by posting the phrase "We are watching you" across their TV screens.'"

    Why doesn't anybody think of the persons suffering from paranoid schizophrenia! They will loose their marbles when they see the text across their screens.

    1. Re:Think of the paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously they should go with the much friendlier "be seeing you." complete with gesture.

  30. No competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government doesn't like competition

  31. Re:Hmm by DarkTempes · · Score: 0

    The high cost? You do remember the PS3, right? That launched at $500 to $600 and that was in 2006 dollars and at a significant loss for Sony.

    The Xbox One messes up on a lot of fronts but I can't really see people arguing the launch cost as extreme compared to historical console values.

  32. What Would Be Useful by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Is to be informed as to which boxes have microphones and cameras, and their locations.

  33. ehemmm. by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Ah, ahead of this technology? How many of us own a sony television with a "presence monitor"? I always wondered about the capability of this device. Considering the depth of thought required for NSA to perform in an info war, I do really wonder how many devices they have in there long before the XBone.

  34. Because by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    The janitors who run this site can barely figure out how to post submissions. Next you'll want spelling/grammar/factual checks.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Because by JimCanuck · · Score: 1

      Now now, that is insulting to janitors comparing the two groups.

  35. Too Little Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mostly hype from two Congressional want-a-bees for their back-n-the-wood constituents and pandering on national events.

    Our laptops and 'smart'phones have cameras that are always on, even though "appear' off.

  36. Read the bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a provision that exempts monitoring that is compelled by a warrant from a secret court.

    Nothing to see here. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Move along.

    1. Re:Read the bill by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      So nice of you to hold trust in what is on paper is how things work out, and blindness to the constitution also on paper, and failure to realize that what is on paper is not the way it works out.

    2. Re:Read the bill by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      And now we know what BO means by "transparency in government:" we can't see that they're watching us.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  37. Re:Disgusting anus by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editors themselves have unlimited mod points and use them to control this type of crap.
    Set your sliders to zero and you never see this because they mod them to oblivion instantly.

    Your naïvété is touching.

    Hey slashdot: How bout some sliders that actually work on Android!!

    WFM in Opera and FF on multiple Android devices.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  38. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...YOU watch the set top box!

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, one could expect these things in a communist regime, on occasion I suppose one would even pose for the set top box, but in the US, our economy is not compatible with fear mongering, shared intel between the military and judicial branches of gov't, unregulated gov't spending, war declared upon anything other than a sanctioned nation, hypocrisy or A.D.D. from our leadership, throwing pork to people then calling them terrorists. Such things could lead to a bill to dissolve and reform the U.S. Gov't or worse yet, civil war.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and it takes your Superbowl ring.

  39. Re:Hmm by Dahamma · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the Xbox 360 cost $400 in 2005. The Xbox One costs $500 in 2013 and additionally includes the next gen Kinect. Both are still less than an iPad, and Apple sold more than 60 million of those in one year. And the *current* gen consoles are still selling pretty well at $300.

    The fact is $400-$500 is about right for these consoles based on the hardware they include, and based on the sales of the last gen (between 70-80M each for Xbox and PS3) it's idiotic to claim "no one can afford them". It's practically guaranteed they will sell out their initial inventory almost immediately.

  40. Re:Disgusting anus by symbolset · · Score: 1

    How about if you want a forum with censorship, you go find one?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  41. Kent, is that you? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    "You know you're not supposed to park that on campus"

    1. Re:Kent, is that you? by drcheap · · Score: 1

      Bwahhahaha...nice. I doubt many of these young'ns will get that reference though.

    2. Re:Kent, is that you? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Except the more appropriate quote would be, "And from now on, stop playing with yourself."

      Watching that movie now.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  42. The box is an agent of a foreign power by Marrow · · Score: 1

    And your threshold is your last line of defense. I am leaving my xbox unplugged unless I use it. Which is less and less frequently; and I dont see myself buying any more games for it.

  43. Physical Switches by Pepebuho · · Score: 1

    I want a mechanical switch to physically disconect any Camera / Microphone from the computer/TV/media box. I do not trust any software setting that just says that they are off. The computer can be lying. At least with a switch, where I can open up the box and verify that the switch really disconnect things, I can be sure that those sensors are off.

  44. Unless it is the NSA doing the spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This mock concern for your privacy is actually about ensuring ALL set-top box companies work with the NSA, and inset cameras and microphones that directly connect to NSA servers on demand.

    Here is what a government action to protect your privacy would look like. All set-top boxes, computers, laptops, consoles and other similar devices must, by law have user accessible switches that can physically disable any microphones and/or cameras present on the device. A simple examination of the circuitry by an expert in the field must be capable of determining that the 'off' position of the switch is effective and cannot be over-ridden by any other non-user mechanism. Devices with cameras and/or microphones must be capable of identifying whether these sensors are currently active at simple user request.

    The ability to switch off the sensors must NOT be obscure, but must be a front-line function as straightforward as removing the power from the device itself. The status of the sensors must NOT be obscure, but be as clear to the user as the status of the power connection. The purpose of the sensor controls is to explicitly turn these sensors off when not in explicit use by the user.

    The 'REGULATION' I detailed above is straightforward and trivially implemented. It also runs in direct contradiction to current NSA demands. The NSA is currently involved in an act of mass public grooming (Google Glass is a specific part of this program). The grooming is similar in form and intent to the increasing use of biometric identification systems in UK schools. The idea is to get people used to massive state infringements on their privacy until the sheeple are as likely to say "why shouldn't the state have cameras in your house" as they say "why shouldn't resisting arrest be a serious criminal offence, regardless of whether the arrest was legal in the first place". The most important act of a police state is to get the sheeple defending the mechanisms of a police state.

    You see, people can be so dumb that they both dislike a police state, but are groomed to defend each aspect of that police state. It is GOOD that Team Obama has a camera in my living room because, after all, the media works hard to make me adore Obama like a young O.J. Simpson, and it would be plain racist and illiberal to distrust such a person. Ask yourself this question. Why does America put so many black American citizens into the prison system for the most trivial and racist of reasons, and yet the same system promotes, as 'heroes' young black sports stars whose parents dosed them with Human growth hormone (why do you think black basketball players got that tall) or steroids and other muscle bulk producing chemicals (how do you think young football players get so 'chunky).

    America is the land of cretins manipulated by media and PR wizards. Does it not bother you that you literally treat some of your young people like cattle, so they become fit subjects for your 'bread and circuses'? Giving little kids Human growth hormones in the hope they'll become the next basketball champion is child-abuse in its sickest form.

    The NSA spying in your own homes may seem a very different issue, but it is not. It is again based on ordinary Americans accepting any act of wickedness if some side-effect of this wickedness amuses them. You can have organised sport WITHOUT the depraved chemical abuse of children. You can have electronics in the home without the depraved abuse of NSA spying.

    ANY device with a camera and Internet connection appears on a list at NSA facilities if the company that made the device (or OS in the case of Windows) has any contact with the NSA. Within a 100 milliseconds, NSA personnel can remotely tell that camera to start streaming video to their computers. With set-top boxes and the Xbox One, this function is massively enhanced with dedicated hardware blocks, including high quality real-time video compression and encryption.

    Let me say this again. Every single Xbox One with a current internet connection appears on an NSA

  45. Re: Disgusting anus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, forums with censorship find you!

  46. But for us citizens only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what Microsoft and others do with foreigners private data. :D

  47. I know what this will lead to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... people will just ignore the message. Imagine seeing some arbitrary TV report about a US family. A television is running in the background. On there, the phrase "We are watching you" and nobody cares. In fact, you'll see this everywhere ... the phrase "We are watching you" will become omnipresent, and people won't give a fuck, after a while ... that's perhaps the really sad thing about it ... recently, I heard a report about how in the US, there's not even the same concept of privacy as in other countries (the protection of personal information from scrutiny by the government or businesses).

  48. Re: Oh police! by jxander · · Score: 2
    For the microphone, I just tune a radio to whatever pop station I can find, and aim that directly at the mic. Maybe switch it up to yodeling every so often, or Gregorian Chants.

    Then, once every couple days ... BLAMO!!! Balloon or brown paper bag popped right over the mic.

    --
    This signature is false.
  49. NSA will be exulded!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure these jackoffs will pass a bill claiming privacy concerns, kind off ironic considering they sold out citizens privacy to the NSA.. I guess if the NSA wasn't in the news politicians would probably have blown this off. But they need to give the illusion they are fighting for your privacy1!

  50. Re:Disgusting anus by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Now that's a rather inane answer, do you really read slashdot at -1 all the time so that you can see all the spam and trolling? Spam could be a mod option that doesn't cost points.

    Or an anti-spam option like Youtube's could be implemented, but with improvements to stop it being abused.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  51. Re:Disgusting anus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spam could be a mod option that doesn't cost points.

    Which would, of course, be abused. Infinite troll points!

    None of this is even a big enough deal to worry about. I just close the comments (unless someone else replied to them, in which case I usually read those).

  52. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sticky tape over the camera and blu-tack the mic holes. Done.

  53. Imagine this ... 45 yr old, obese man, underwear, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine this ... 45 yr old, obese man, underwear, slapping it.

    Go ahead an watch.

    once.

  54. A suggestion: by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    A simpler process might be to adopt a policy where score values less than -1 are deleted completely.

    And maybe, additionally, a policy where repeat offenders under the same UID or IP are banned for an appropriate quarantine period.

    I can understand the egalitarianism of the original Slashdot rules, but times have moved on. There are just too many bad guys, and since we aren't allowed to just kill them, other means have to be implemented.

  55. Re:Disgusting anus by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Yes, I do. To me it's worth it to see what comments have been voted down due to moderation abuse. Sometimes they are the most interesting and informative comments of all. While I don't especially like the spam and trolling for me it's worth putting up with that to get these golden nuggets. If you don't care for it, slide the slider to "0" or "1".

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  56. Re:Disgusting anus by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    do you really read slashdot at -1 all the time so that you can see all the spam and trolling?

    In my case, yes, since I often prefer to post rather than moderate, even though I seem to quite frequently have mod points. Besides which, quoting previously downmodded posts under my UID is a perfectly valid way of bringing them back into the open.

  57. This makes me think of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Max Headroom.

  58. Re:Filthy sows! Become clean! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks

    "Tricks", "anti-virus software" ? Uh. Just remove it manually, duh. Like any normal Slashdotter would.

    The only "trick" I can think of that would be relevant is reimaging in fifteen minutes using a network boot installer, then after restoring only the files the user wants and I can't see how that trick would fail.

    You don't know your job, please go.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  59. On the tv screen eh??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UPDATE devices SET spy_mode='1', tv_message='We are watching you' where tv_state in ('disconnected', 'off');

  60. Low tech Solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick solution to this involves stabbing both the mic and the camera with a screwdriver.