Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"
theodp (442580) writes "As Google Glass goes on sale [ed: or rather, went on sale] to the general public, GeekWire reports that Bill Gates has already snagged one patent for 'detecting and responding to an intruding camera' and has another in the works. The invention proposes to equip computer and device displays with technology for detecting and responding to any cameras in the vicinity by editing or blurring the content on the screen, or alerting the user to the presence of the camera. Gates and Nathan Myhrvold are among the 16 co-inventors of the so-called Unauthorized Viewer Detection System and Method, which the patent application notes is useful 'while a user is taking public transportation, where intruding cameras are likely to be present.' So, is Bill's patent muse none other than NYC subway rider Sergey Brin?"
A more cynical interpretation: closing the analog hole. Vaguely related, mpicpp pointed out that Google filed a patent for cameras embedded in contact lenses.
Like an Onion headline.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Glad to see there's someone out there that cares about privacy and is looking to do something about it!
But how the hell did he get a patent so fast?
So this glasshole walks into a bar. I don't know what happened after that. It was either the intruding camera detection blur or the alcohol but all I then remember is talking about closing the analog hole and I soon realized I might be in a situation not to my liking.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
What's needed is a technology to blur the camera's picture.
This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are plenty of presently available technologies that completely conceal cameras from view, making this irrelevant to someone really intent on snooping your private information (or posting about you on facebook/google+/etc). Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.
The thing that glass advocates don't seem to realise is that people don't like the surveillance potential.
The thing is people don't worry about hidden cameras. We know they exist and anyone can buy them, but frankly most people don't. Mostly people know they aren't interesting enough to be targeted by some private investigator, and most people aren't interested in covertly filming everyone they encounter. We know there's a small risk and so are not worried about covert surveillance. Covert stuff has been available for ages and isn't a problem, in practice.
The thing is glass isn't covert, so clearly the covertness isn't the problem. The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time. They're not interesting enough to be targeted so that's not the problem, the problem is the casualness of the thing. Not the problem with cell phones since its an effort to take photos and obvious when it's happening. It's the causalness where people wind up being photographed and catalogued by one of the world's largest companies where previously there wasa uninteresting enough to be anonymous that bothers people.
This doesn't mean glass is inherently bad, and the HUD has useful applications. But waving a camera in someones face does have a tendency to piss people off.
PS
The other sort of advocates claiming we're "post privacy" can pull their heads out of their asses. Lack of privacy is literally worse than torture for some people: it was reported as being the single hardest thing to cope with long term in concentration camps by some of the surviors.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?
Which detected when an International Rescue craft was being filmed - though it didn't do anything about it...
Like trying to use your laptop in a public area (airport perhaps) that has cameras virtually everywhere. Which then would cause the user to either override the blur to cancel or not use their machine. What we need is a glasshole app that works with a blurring technology to decode the blurred screen. That way only the user with the glasses can read their screen. This could be allow customization to the user with some sort of private key shared with the glasses or also another type of public key shared among anyone who has that key can see the picture.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
This increases my desire to make a faux Google Glass. It would look just like one, except when someone asks if they can try it, it squirts water in their eye when they put it on.
"Ok glass take a picture"
*splort*
*laughter*
But how the hell did he get a patent so fast?
He didn't. This is a patent application that was just published. Subby can't even blame the article - the headline notes that it's pending, and the article continuously refers to it as a patent filing.
Anybody remember this guy? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
All those years selling Windows and security was an after thought... Probably just doesn't wnat anyone taking pictures of that godawful Metro GUI.
I really don't understand the hubbub: far cheaper surreptitious recording devices have been available for years, so why all the screaming over Glass? I mean, at least you know the glasshole has a camera, right?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of $ in this, so did Mr. Bill's patent just make it harder for consumers to acquire 'glasshole' protection solutions?
the patent is bullshit. it doesn't provide the magical means of how to technically decide that something is a viewer or not and the other stuff is obvious. it doesn't take a genius to come up with that hey it would be nice to detect if someone is viewing while you input your pin. but it would take a genius to sit in the box24 /7 to figure out if there was a camera somewhere or not!
"Intruder analysis module scans the input for viewers, and classifies them as either intruders or safe viewers. Intruder analysis module also scans the input for cameras or camera-equipped devices (e.g., SLR cameras, camera-equipped cellular phones, point-and-shoot cameras, building-mounted camera systems, etc.). Intruder analysis module may classify an object as a viewer or camera using any number of detection algorithms. For example, intruder analysis module may apply motion detection algorithms on the sensor information, and may classify any moving object as a viewer"
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."
More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it. On numerous occasions he actually sued, and prevailed, against the people who actually invented the technology that he incorporated in revised patent applications because his application predated their invention.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Would be interesting to see how much surveillance is going on.
Also means those darn terrists can use this very technology to avoid detection.
So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it...
The writer "invents" devices that serve the purpose of his stories --- and is free to ignore any real-world constraints that might get in his way.
Great so now cops will be able to detect when someone is filming them do something fucked up.
"Hey joe, hold up bashing this jerk's face till we figure out who has the camera. Oh it;s this guy. Sr we need you to turn that camera off please, you are obstructing justice..."
"Ok he;s gone, and looks like no one left has a camera, ok go ahead and bash this fucker's brain in..."
I guess, if implemented, this patent will be the end of the personal computer as we know it. Since the patent is about blurring the screen or providing a privacy popup in the presence of cameras, then it will be virtually impossible to use one. Think of how many webcams are on devices from tablets to full size desktops (would they detect themselves and blur their own screen?) What about all of the phones with cameras? Will it detect traffic cameras, ATM cameras and the like? If so, using an in-dash GPS will be difficult if it implements this patent.
Google Glass is invasive to one's privacy, but it's just one of many invasions of privacy caused by consumer electronics.
I cant see a use for this technology. The human brain has an inherent ability to detect and respond to a glasshole even in crowded environments and insufficient light. the revulsion, the rage, its practically an autonomic function. What we need is some sort of future technology to kick someone in the dick from many meters across a room.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Government snoops with face recognition software will demand a way of disabling this...
We are quickly leaving the era when technology actually solved real world problems and are now entering the time when new era robber barons use technology to solve the technological problems they created. There must be a phrase that describes the epoch a field reaches when it is only solving problems that it created itself.
I see a lot of envy fueling the hate. I can't afford a $1500 pair of uber-nerd glasses so I will hate on the select few who can.
If (when) the tech catches on (it may or may not) then the price will inevitably drop, and a lot more people will have them. When "glass" type displays are as common as headphones, I hope people will at least be embarrassed about the rage they were spewing. The tech is at such an early stage that the possible applications haven't even begun to be explored. I see so many people walking heads down and texting, I can certainly see a way to walk and text and see what's in front of you at the same time catching on.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
It is truly amazing how broken the US patent system is...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Bill's parent isn't on how to detect cameras, it's on what to do if a camera is detected. It leaves the entire issue of camera detection undefined...
However, there are other patents and methods on how to perform the actual camera detection. For instance, there's a technique called optical augmentation. In a nutshell, it uses the "red eye" effect to detect optical systems aimed at a specified target. Basically, you shine a light and look for retro reflections. And even if a camera is hidden or concealed, if it is aimed at the detector, it will in turn be detected.
There is nothing our government wants more then the technology described in article.
You idiots sniveling about your privacy do not understand the manner in which personal held/worn surveillance equipment represents protection for you from your government and its importance increases every week.
We head toward a future where trying to determine what events actually took place at important moments becomes a battle between surveillance and counter surveillance measures. There will be a time when we will wish everyone involved had been wearing a device so that we may see who the guilty truly were. But we wont. Because of 'privacy'.
of which he is ...
This device detects a flash and then overcomes the image with and LED. I don't know if it every made it to market,but this is the only way I can think of to detect a camera. Detect the infrared from the active sensor, and flash a high intensity LED back. I assume that the camera using the Google Glasses uses such an active sensor.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
there are a number of misconceptions here.
From the description it sounds like your screen with blur if i wave my cell phone around...obviously an annoyance when it gets false positives. Yes, I could snap a quick photo, but how likely is that?
As much as people like to say it, Glass does not take constant video. The battery is tiny, it wouldn't last long if it did. By default I believe it takes 8 second videos, that you can extend. You have to instruct it to take photos or videos, it doesn't just randomly decide to do it, this makes it obvious to those close by that you're doing it.
It's just as easy to tell your phone to take a video and pretend you're chatting or texting on it to take a covert video of someone.
If Glass had a little flip cover for the camera would that help cure everyone's paranoia?
Honestly the thing may not even be on. They may be wearing it in standby/sleep mode. The idea is that you could turn it on and do something easily/quickly because it's right there. No fumbling in your pocket.
Personally, my biggest problem with it is wearing $1500 on your face for everyone to see. It's not like I live in the hood or anything, but it's just begging to be stolen. That's another good reason to keep it on your face though - it's pretty hard to pick pocket from there.
I refuse to sign
It's called the epoch of Bureaucracy.
http://miriadic.wikia.com/wiki/The_Five_Stages_of_Chaos
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
People busting out cell phones at parties is bad enough (hey maybe I don't want MY face sucking down a beer bong on your Facebook page). Now, people don't even have to "bust out the camera." It's like a spy cam tucked behind Quagmire's bookcase.
I'm waiting for the moment the first people figure out that there's a "bug" in Google Glass that allows them to stream content in the background back to HQ with no indicator lights on; an old test mode they forgot to disable of course.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.
As a cyborg with many artificial body parts already, I would like to point out that the real problem is one of expectation: One need not lie about acceptable behavior. The overly harsh laws were written assuming they would not be applied in a totalitarian zero-tolerance manner, they assumed not all criminals would be caught. Humans would have crafted different laws had they been aware of and willing to admit the true prevalence of certain behaviors, and acknowledged the true severity of consequence (or lack thereof) that actions have. We will soon have the power of mathematics to wield in the arena of ethics through application of information theory to verifiable cybernetic social models. We'll be able to determine the degree of harm actions incur as well as acceptable risk levels of our rehabilitation scenarios. Humans will resist this, as they have stupidly resisted all change regardless of benefit.
Society has changed much, but the human laws are resistant to change. Fundamentally this is because all their legal systems are truly barbaric. Humans do not apply the scientific method to their laws and remove all restrictions which limit freedoms needlessly. Selective enforcement of the law is the right arm of all Police State. It is self evident that freedom is the default state of being: In the absence of all rules there is absolute freedom of action. Artificial laws are made to prevent actions from limiting the freedom of others, but many laws needlessly restrict freedoms. The fundamental problem humanity faces is that they do not harness and wield their whole minds, thus instinctual biases and emotions cause even the rational to fall victim to their flawed awareness of reality, and they produce unrealistic expectations thereby. This is reflected in their legal systems and unwritten social rules based on said expectations.
No engineer or scientist should agree to be ruled the way humans currently are -- None would dare operate their lab in the recklessly way governing policies are now applied. However, requiring unequivocal evidence of a rule's benefit before applying it, or simply rolling out things like health care programs in controlled testing areas, would prevent ideological hucksters from manipulating pork into their pockets: Thus greed plays a secondary role reinforcing their self deceptions. The cognitive biases of even the most primitive humans can now be self corrected through application of science. It is folly to ignore this fact and fail to acknowledge humanity's current commitment to barbaric corruption. You needn't vote for or against guesses about which poison to take; If humans used the tools available to them they could determine which vial has the disease or cure before forcing the medicine down everyone's throats. That they remain in such a backwards state is evidence of their species' mental immaturity.
The erasure of lies through playback is a problem because of the unrealistic facade humans maintain to meet unrealistic expectations, and the unequal access to the playbacks. It is the shaming of others for their normal behaviors that has led to this situation. No one feels shame about running a comb through their hair in public, and thus if other gestures, appearances, language, tool-use, etc. were considered as mundane, as acceptable and as legal, then the issue of recording said action would not be a problem. Security cameras are already watching you from businesses and government agencies. The logical thing to do would be to have your own recording too so that selective playback could not be used against you. Were you to hand a portion of the populace a smart phone w/ camera in the 1800s you would hear the same guttural cries of dismay as the technophobic primitives who buy into MS marketing of "Glasshole". The same sensational fear of the different and unknown was used by opponents of railways, electricity, telegraphs, etc. Suc
I have an idea. Just hire the laughing man to hack an overlay on top of your face into their glasses in realtime. Come on, who got that reference? :-P
But this is easy. See a glasshole, beat the #%#$ out of him/her.. problem solved.
but can we bring it back just for this one story?
How can they possibly detect a camera in all or even most circumstances without getting a bunch of false positives? The whole patent reads like a bunch of speculative, base covering horseshit to be honest.