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 buildings broadcasting the "don't film" signal such that photographers wouldn't be able to take pictures (i don't know why they like to do this, but this activity has been consistently upheld by courts). Lots of entrepreneurs have ideas that inevitably revolve around the utility of ubiquitous cameras which would be nullified by ubiquitous camera-canceling signals. And so on.
The chilling effect could become commonplace. And then in the event of a real crisis when you do want photos, people can't take them because of a stupid IR signal. What you do then? Oh crap! There's a guy getting beaten in front of me. Nobody move; let me run to Walgreens and get an IR filter!
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 'piracy' of live events, but a backdoor is a backdoor.
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.
I think it may have been an observation that patents can be licensed. Having a patent doesn't mean nobody else will implement it.
Further, if a government requires it, they'll do whatever it takes to make sure you will include it. If that means legislatively nulling the patent, they'll do it.
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.
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.)
It's kind of ridiculous that I have to dig through a Japanese-language-only website to find a Beta software to simply control the fact that my computer moos like a cow with intestinal distress every time it boots up.
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 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.
A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated.
How about IR filter + 555 timer connected to an IR LED near the camera lens. Filter down the unwanted IR signal, then wash it away with a flood of intermittent IR of your own.
At ~30fps, you can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded 'disable' signal.
Can you explain how that works? I don't have a deep grasp of CCDs, so I don't understand how a signal like this could be encoded within a single 1/30 second frame. I thought that all pixels were captured simultaneously, is that not the case?
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.
If I were Apple I would make the IR processing happen at hardware level (so no jailbreak) and I would make sure the hardware would stop working unless a physiological level of background IR light is picked up.
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.
Besides which, when Apple adds features, they traditionally do so to benefit their users. I'd suggest that, even though they cite concert censorship as an example of use in the patent, that's probably a cover-all-bases addition; we're more likely to see an iPhone IR sensor that enhances the user experience rather than one that impedes it.
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 more questionable moves are, based on Apple's view of the world, based on improving the lot of the end user. You can talk about how not being open doesn't benefit the user but Apple clearly disagree - they're not walling off their phone because they're fascists, they're doing so because they believe that provides a better experience overall. You can disagree with that but I see no rational argument even if they do you disagree with their approach which takes you from the walled garden to this sort of kill switch.
Plus to implement such a thing would put them at a significant commercial disadvantage against Android and other smart phone platforms at precisely the time when their advantage is shrinking (if not gone altogether). Certainly if they implemented this then my current iPhone would absolutely be my last.
But just because something is technically possible it doesn't mean it will happen and this would seem to be one of those cases.
Unless someone can come up with a realistic scenario where Apple benefit from this? And please no shadowy conspiracies - if that were the case Apple wouldn't have publicly patented it and it wouldn't just be Apple, after all, the Man doesn't just care about Apple customers...
My fear would be some consortium of big-box retailers, the MPAA, police unions, and fearful save-the-children groups lobbying congress to create laws requiring the inclusion of such turn-off features in all cameras.
Possibly paranoid, but not exactly far-fetched. See: Communications decency act; DMCA.
I agree, photo crippling features seem hardly in Apple's interest.
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.
And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself.
Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees.
Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.
When you license a patent, somebody else can take on manufacturing costs and/or risks. Theoretically, there is competition, consumers have options, and the argument for legislation doesn't look quite so self-serving.
Perhaps then people would consider rioting. Probably not, seeing as the critical aspect the average person is essentially neutralised if they have been appeased by gadgets and cheap entertainment.
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.
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.
In that case, they could get nice PR points by 1) announcing "we patented this to keep anyone from using it" and/or 2) donating the patent to the EFF or someone similar.
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 cameras sold in the US.
3. Other mobile manufacturers start implementing the technology just in case the MPAA's lobbying succeeds, and to maintain relationships with content providers.
4. Apple, despite really not wanting to damage the user experience of its phones, is forced to implement the technology as well, as the industry has mostly adpoted it and Apple's content partners are using this as leverage in negotiating iTunes deals.
And so here we have the alternative, where Apple has foreseen this and patented the technology to keep the industry from adopting it and forcing Apple to make a less-enjoyable product.
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.
Yes you are right and the new bill won't be used against bloggers who embed a video. I'm afraid i've heard that song.
I think Apple wants the content providers on its side (which is legit) so this can be another brick on its side against the rest. For that being valid i think they will have to enforce it.
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.
This 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.
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.
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.
Because that consumer has a different set of motives than you do.
Every piece of technology you own has limitations, you simply decided that that particular trade-off was worth it in that case. Would your mom care that the police can turn off her camera? Or would she be intrigued that when she goes to Cancun for vacation, she can opt to send you a photo-postcard with CANCUN: WISH YOU WERE HERE! automatically superimposed over the top?
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 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!"
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 buildings broadcasting the "don't film" signal such that photographers wouldn't be able to take pictures (i don't know why they like to do this, but this activity has been consistently upheld by courts). Lots of entrepreneurs have ideas that inevitably revolve around the utility of ubiquitous cameras which would be nullified by ubiquitous camera-canceling signals. And so on.
The chilling effect could become commonplace. And then in the event of a real crisis when you do want photos, people can't take them because of a stupid IR signal. What you do then? Oh crap! There's a guy getting beaten in front of me. Nobody move; let me run to Walgreens and get an IR filter!