51–59 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably worth noting that were this to take off it would probably also be embedded in every TV out there. If it's infrared, you can always find and cover the emitter.
Good point. In your home yes, but not everywhere.
The patent was filed December 2, 2009 when the 3gs was the latest and greatest iPhone. I'd be surprised if you see this on an iPhone near you anytime soon. And if the powers that be try to use it to repress Apple users, there are tons of other devices out there. No need to get alarmed.
Unfortunately there aren't any other smart phones that I could recommend for my mom in good conscience. I haven't tried WP7 yet which actually looks like it's made for humans. Unlike my Nexus One which is no good for mom yet for a number of reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really think sheets of visible light transparent but IR opaque plastic are going to be outlawed? Do you think your favorite band is really going to allow such a device to be enabled during one of their shows, thus pissing off their fans? Do you really think some company is going to bring a DMCA circumvention device suit against iPhone case manufacturers? Are you willing to wager? I'm feeling lucky: I'll bet you $…
> You really think sheets of visible light transparent but IR opaque plastic are going to be outlawed? When you woke up on September 10th 2001, did you imagine you would ever have to take your shoes off to board a plane? Weird things happen and weirder rules get enacted. The tech we build is, sometimes, misused. I even like nuclear bombs - they can be used for good. This recording prevention device cannot. > Do you t…
It should be noted that The Man hasn't yet mandated compulsory licensing and implementation of this technology on all camera equipment. Then again, I don't know what the Trilateral Commission's been up to recently, so maybe this technology is already in place.
> "This recording prevention device cannot [be used for good]."
You are wrong. Maybe I can have one of these in my bedroom, so people can't take photographs of me while I'm walking around naked or making sweet love. Maybe abortion providers can have them outside their facilities so that people can't take pictures of people coming in for procedures and being publicly humiliated. I can think of all sorts of uses for this device that might be for the better.
Do I ever want to see such technology deployed? No, because I, like you, think the negatives outweigh the positives, but to suggest that the device has no positive use is to betray a lack of imagination.
Do you really want to suggest that atomic weapons have a moral justification while this technology does not?
Vote with your wallet!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You really think sheets of visible light transparent but IR opaque plastic are going to be outlawed? When you woke up on September 10th 2001, did you imagine you would ever have to take your shoes off to board a plane? Weird things happen and weirder rules get enacted. The tech we build is, sometimes, misused. I even like nuclear bombs - they can be used for good. This recording prevention device cannot. > Do you t…
> IIRC, HP patented a similar device a couple years back. It should be noted that The Man hasn't yet mandated compulsory licensing and implementation of this technology on all camera equipment. Then again, I don't know what the Trilateral Commission's been up to recently, so maybe this technology is already in place. > "This recording prevention device cannot [be used for good]." You are wrong. Maybe I can have one o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most CCD-based cameras alread have an IR filter film behind the lens. There are lots of people that hack them out to turn their webcams etc into night vision cameras.
True night vision is a bit different than just adding near-infrared, unless you plan on using an IR illuminator. It's more like cranking the ISO to ridiculous levels, and if it's thermal the wavelengths are much much longer than any digital camera (or optics) can pick up. In any case, the first poster is right, an additional IR filter would remove this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True night vision is a bit different than just adding near-infrared, unless you plan on using an IR illuminator. It's more like cranking the ISO to ridiculous levels, and if it's thermal the wavelengths are much much longer than any digital camera (or optics) can pick up. In any case, the first poster is right, an additional IR filter would remove this.
My point was that consumer CCD cameras filter out short-wavelength IR to enhance the image, so how does the Apple patent expect to get around that without removing the filter and making the visible light camera worse?
Different take: this would allow people to carry iPhones into company buildings (eg. service centres belonging to banks, government offices) and areas where camera-phones are banned for security reasons. The bank I used to work for banned camera phones from their offices, I imagine many other companies do the same. I would think twice about buying a phone I can't take to work. Or, corporations might rule out iPhones…
Interesting take, hadn't thought of that at all. Something along those lines would definitely be boon to AAPL or others penetrating that sort of market. However, we all know the software on smartphones are if not trivially, at least often manipulated. This may be able to skim a little of the market, but if I had a business where I couldn't trust camera phone now, I wouldn't trust this technique against even a slightl…