8 ms·
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?"
by scelerat 15y ago
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!
- Mizza 15y agoI run a project which uses cell phones to monitor the police - http://www.openwatch.net/ 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.
- tednaleid 15y agoI 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.
- Mizza 15y agoThat'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.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoReality check: at least at first, this would likely only exist on the iPhone.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoThat'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....
- pyre 15y ago> And Apple just patented it so no-one else > can implement it.... [citation needed]
- ghurlman 15y agohttp://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Tiscareno.IN.&OS=IN/Tiscareno&RS=IN/Tiscareno http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Se...
- jerf 15y agoI 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.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoThe 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).
- 15y ago