21–30 of 75 posts
Also, I think Apple would be crazy to implement this first. How would they market a phone to consumers that would have less capabilities as a camera than their competitors'?
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
IR filters can only attenuate incoming IR so much while still allowing nearby red wavelengths through. And any filter will have a non-flat response through the visible wavelengths, slightly distorting the color response of your photos.
A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated. At ~30fps, you can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded 'disable' signal.
My gut feeling is that Apple patented this technology because it was low-hanging fruit. They saw they could roll it into a legitimate patent and prevent others from claiming it down the road. Still, I think it's worthwhile to send a quick letter to the powers that be to let them know we all disprove. If it does get implemented, the popularity of jailbreaking will move up another notch.
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
It depends on 1) the IR attenuation of the filter and 2) the sensitivity of the camera element to IR. IR filters can only attenuate incoming IR so much while still allowing nearby red wavelengths through. And any filter will have a non-flat response through the visible wavelengths, slightly distorting the color response of your photos. A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be…
Unless they implement it at the hardware level.
I 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#...
I don't think this is a real threat. As people have pointed out, IR filters could circumvent this "feature" if it were ever implemented. Filters could even be incorporated in iPhone case designs. Also, I think Apple would be crazy to implement this first. How would they market a phone to consumers that would have less capabilities as a camera than their competitors'?
It would not have less capabilities - in fact, it would have more, and they would simply have to play this up. See their examples about extracting more metadata from the environment.
I'm sure they could spin the possibility of forbidding photos in a positive light - "Worried about perverts photographing your children at the playground? Worry no more, with the iPerv - simply turn it on, and cameras in the vicinity won't be able to steal your child's innocence pixels!"
It 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.
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
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
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.
That means that an IR filter physically placed in front of the objective would stop the secret signal but make the camera useless as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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#...
Ugh. I hate it when any of my devices make sounds without me explicitly allowing it to, both in principle and on a practical level. (Dear Macbook, please shut the fuck up forever so I don't wake up my girlfriend at night when I boot you up.)
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
Can IR light pass through duct tape?