3 ms·

I think your overreacting. Like you say - it's just a patent. The use cases (concerts/cinemas) might not be the actual use cases. Think of it as something like

I think your overreacting. Like you say - it's just a patent. The use cases (concerts/cinemas) might not be the actual use cases. Think of it as something like the feature some drones have to prevent you entering no-fly zones. In the end it all depends how they use the tech. If concert venues started using it they would lose a lot of business and see a lot of backlash. I could see this being useful in a location where you expect your privacy to be protected and some morons is snapping photos. Off the top of my head a polling centre. When I voted last week there were signs everywhere asking people to turn off their phones - and at the same time people were taking selfies. This isn't the best case for implementing but it's the best off the top of my head. Basically it would be useful in places where nobody is legally allowed to take photographs but it's difficult to enforce.

curiousgal 10y ago
Even in the examples you mentioned I strongly believe one shouldn't mess with their devices. You can just take away their phones. My point is that they paid for the device so they get to use it however they want to. Whether they could use it or not depends on the setting they're in, not on whoever "sold" them the device.
letitleak 10y ago
Warning the user that it may be illegal to take photos is reasonable, but making a device that acts on the theoretical authority of someone else against its own/possessor is not. Taking your example of polls, it may be illegal for me to take a photo, but it may be my responsibility to do it anyways. For example, I may see visual evidence of large scale voting fraud within a polling station. It is similar for sensitive data and whistle-blowers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]