Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

i.tuaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#61

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

LXicon wrote: post #44
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #42

The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's best for the user over what's best for third parties (most notably the networks when they launched the iPhone, stopping their "value add" customisations) and it's hard to see how using this technology to implement a kill switch benefits the user. Even Apple's…

big concert promoters could point to all the flickr pages with pics of their shows from iphones and threaten to sue apple unless apple implements a means to disable taking pics at a concert. this is very similar to the code that allows DVRs to shut off analogue outputs when playing new release movies (Selectable Output Control) * i don't agree with either of these.

How's threatening to sue the makers of hardware used to commit a crime working out for victims of gun crime?

Phones don't record gigs, people do.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#62

Post by sukuriant »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #25
joejohnson wrote: post #21

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'?

> 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…

Unless they have an old camera.

This stops nothing.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#63

Post by tednaleid »

Mizza wrote: post #49
scelerat wrote: post #32

Absolutely the thought of this kind of "feature" used to actively cripple a democratic tool by big gov is chilling. i.e. "What if cops used it to mask abuses?" But somehow it's the more banal applications I can imagine that would deliver a more real sense of oppression. Stores turning it on so that nobody could photograph their displays, meaning you couldn't take a picture with your mom if you were out shopping. Or b…

I run a project which uses cell phones to monitor the police - http://www.openwatch.net/ - so this patent is _terrifying_ to me. Police already use cell phone jammers in prisons and remote systems to disable engines of vehicles in chases, I don't doubt for a second that they would use this as a way to disable recording devices at public demonstrations, etcetera. The (anti)feature may be put in place to prevent 'pirac…

I agree that this is an awful technology, if implemented, but could it be that the patent actually works in favor of freedom?

The fact that this kind of technology "could" be created has nothing to do with whether or not there is a patent. This always could have bene done.

Having someone (like Apple) who might respond to social pressure own the patent could be better than a company who has less interest in it's image. Their ownership of the patent could prevent other companies less likely to care about their image from developing this technology because it's already patented by a famously litigious company that protects it's patent library.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#64

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

pyre wrote: post #47
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem - if it only existed on the iPhone you basically have no significant suppression, particularly once it's known. Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever. Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point. And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....

> And Apple just patented it so no-one else > can implement it.... [citation needed]

The whole basis of the original post is that this is a potential use of a patent Apple has filed.

(Not one which is mentioned in the patent I believe).

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#65

Post by Mizza »

tednaleid wrote: post #63
Mizza wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a project which uses cell phones to monitor the police - http://www.openwatch.net/ - so this patent is _terrifying_ to me. Police already use cell phone jammers in prisons and remote systems to disable engines of vehicles in chases, I don't doubt for a second that they would use this as a way to disable recording devices at public demonstrations, etcetera. The (anti)feature may be put in place to prevent 'pirac…

I agree that this is an awful technology, if implemented, but could it be that the patent actually works in favor of freedom? The fact that this kind of technology "could" be created has nothing to do with whether or not there is a patent. This always could have bene done. Having someone (like Apple) who might respond to social pressure own the patent could be better than a company who has less interest in it's image…

That's actually a great point. I suppose my fear is not the patent, but rather the salience of the technology - something which Apple is adept at.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#66

Post by ck2 »

You know the tv-b-gone device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV-B-Gone

Imagine iphone-b-gone, because it will be easily accomplished.

There is already a device to un/lock anti-theft shopping cart wheels at will http://lekernel.net/blog/2009/01/consumer-b-gone/

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#67

Post by calloc »

scdc wrote: post #46
pavel_lishin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

try plugging a headphone jack into the audio-out on your Macbook when booting if you don't want to hear the chime.

This does not work. The headphone/speakers output is software controlled and as such at boot even with the headphones plugged in the chime will sound.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#68

Post by calloc »

ck2 wrote: post #66

You know the tv-b-gone device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV-B-Gone Imagine iphone-b-gone, because it will be easily accomplished. There is already a device to un/lock anti-theft shopping cart wheels at will http://lekernel.net/blog/2009/01/consumer-b-gone/

Anti-theft shopping cart wheels are at a frequency that can be played by an MP3 player using a simple wire antenna that plugs into the headphone jack.

For those of you following along at home, a friend of mine posted this a while back: http://zpriddy.com/2010/07/13/wal-mart-shopping-cart-locker/

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#69

Post by vacri »

mortenjorck wrote: post #53
vacri wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After all, Apple does have a strong tradition of altruism!

Apple has a strong tradition of making the best possible user experience. Imagine the following scenario: 1. Sony Ericsson invents the camera-disabling technology instead of Apple. Pressure from Sony Pictures results in its implementation in a new SE Android phone. 2. The MPAA catches on and begins requiring theaters to install the technology while lobbying for laws that require it to be implemented on phones and cam…

There is absolutely zero reason why SE and Apple can't be swapped in your hypothetical, especially given that SE has a much smaller market share than Apple.

Apple's vertical integration also cuts out things users want - do you like pornography? Lots of people do. It's very popular. Where it's illegal, there are black markets for it. But where it can, Apple puts roadblocks in the way of these users' experiences.

What about iTunes being required for the iPhone? Lots of people absolutely hate it and many screeds have been written about the horror. Not exactly "optimal user experience".

Hell, I like to have the browser that comes default on my operating system to do fullscreen, but no, it has been decided that for "optimal user experience" Safari will not fullscreen, so I have to download another browser...

Apple is not altruistic. Apple have their game plan and are running with it for the betterment of Apple, not the general user. That's great for some people, but it doesn't mean that Apple is altruistic.

Re: Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

#70

Post by thebooktocome »

camiller wrote: post #59
sixtofour wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Patent something that appeals to government and other control freaks. 2. Watch the technology become mandatory by law. 3. Profit.

Worked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented tech, congress never went for it.

It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.
Post reply on HN