Wouldnt a simple IR filter strapped to the camera lens neutralise the system?
The filters are really not that hard to get - most cheap webcams use one because their CCD are actually very sensitive to IRs
Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#12It seems to me like you could use the "oppressive government" argument against most technological innovations, period: - centralized postal system - "now the government can read your correspondence to other people" - telephones invented - "now the government can listen to you talking to other people" - invention of the Web - "now the government can track what you read, watch, etc" - e-commerce takes off - "now the go…
With every technology one must weigh its benefit against the risk of abuse.
Giving someone else the ability to shut off my camera doesn't help me at all (and is in fact something I want not to happen), so all that is left is the risk of abuse. For me that's an easy tradeoff to evaluate.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#13It seems to me like you could use the "oppressive government" argument against most technological innovations, period: - centralized postal system - "now the government can read your correspondence to other people" - telephones invented - "now the government can listen to you talking to other people" - invention of the Web - "now the government can track what you read, watch, etc" - e-commerce takes off - "now the go…
With every technology one must weigh its benefit against the risk of abuse. Giving someone else the ability to shut off my camera doesn't help me at all (and is in fact something I want not to happen), so all that is left is the risk of abuse. For me that's an easy tradeoff to evaluate.
Yes like perhaps the cops don't want you filming them, they can turn off cameras within a certain radius...
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#14It seems to me like you could use the "oppressive government" argument against most technological innovations, period: - centralized postal system - "now the government can read your correspondence to other people" - telephones invented - "now the government can listen to you talking to other people" - invention of the Web - "now the government can track what you read, watch, etc" - e-commerce takes off - "now the go…
Sure, but all these examples are about technologies that introduce freedom, not restrictions. The thing about more freedom, is that you have the right, not the obligation, to exercise it. You can choose not to use the phones if you don't trust whoever's running the network. In contrast, the idea behind restrictions is that they are obligatory, not optional.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#15Maybe they patented it to stop anyone from implementing it, did you think of that?
The article hints at this possibility.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#16This could be done using geolocation too (e.g., if you're inside the GPS coordinates of the Pentagon, camera is deactivated). Of course, all you would have to do is turn of location services on your phone.
Or, depending on how the tech works, point your camera at an angle such that the infrared light doesn't hit the sensor in your phone's camera.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#17Maybe they patented it to stop anyone from implementing it, did you think of that?
I trust Apple for many things, but not that. Patenting ideas is something that is certainly not always done for sake of using the tech. So I wouldn't assume they're going ahead with this. Likely an engineer came up with the idea and they patented it.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#18I could see police lobbying to have this kind of technology required in all mobile devices. Just look at the DMCA and how it is used to enforce anti-consumer technologies like region coding. However, the IR technology described in the patent is so easily circumvented that it's hardly worth anything. So, that's good news if our country takes another (probably unsurprising) huge step in the dystopian direction.
It's already mandatory (Korea/Japan) for phones to make sounds when taking a picture. It's one of the aims to curb perverts. [0]
[0] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Camera_phone#...
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#19Wouldnt a simple IR filter strapped to the camera lens neutralise the system? The filters are really not that hard to get - most cheap webcams use one because their CCD are actually very sensitive to IRs
If 'blockable-by-IR' technology made it into the iPhone camera, it'd be a week before an IR filter exactly as you describe emerged as a Kickstarter project.
It would probably be titled 'Decensored' and accompanied by a spoof of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad. Or, failing that, a guy in a shed with some IR filters, a pair of scissors, some Pritt Stick, and a dream.
Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve
#20Sounds a lot like William Gibson's idea of The Ugliest T-shirt in the World from his novel 'Zero History' [See: http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/09/03/william-gibson/2...].
In it, a certain object triggers all cameras to stop recording normally, but its only implemented by a gentleman's agreement among security equipment manufacturers.