3 ms·

The source of the boing boing post: http://cis471.blogspot.com/2013/08/apple-patents-wireless-camera-kill.html http://cis471.blogspot.com/2013/08/apple-patents-

by tvon 13y ago

The source of the boing boing post: http://cis471.blogspot.com/2013/08/apple-patents-wireless-camera-kill.html http://cis471.blogspot.com/2013/08/apple-patents-wireless-ca... He also mentions there are legitimate but less headline-worthy uses for this: > While the patent does use "covert police or government operations" as an example of an application, it also mentions legitimate applications, for example, stopping cameras in a locker room or other place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

cremnob 13y ago
It'd be pretty great if phones couldn't get make/get calls in movie theaters (aside from emergency calls).
- mikegerwitz 13y ago
  It'd be pretty great if people were polite enough not to make/take calls in movie theaters. Our devices should not dictate such a thing, unless the feature is a "hey, I recommend that you not be an asshole, but you can disable me if you really want".
  - russellsprouts 13y ago
    Yes, I think that would be a good option. When you enter the theater, it pops up with a dialog - "You have entered Regal Cinemas - your phone is going to theater mode. Press here to cancel." Making it opt-out rather than opt-in would create much more social pressure to not text during the movie.
- superuser2 13y ago
  "This is your sitter, I'm on the way to the hospital with your children" is an emergency call, although it doesn't come from 911. Etiquette is the solution here, not technology. If there is a possibility of an emergency, put your phone on vibrate and if it wrings, silence it immediately, leave the theater, and call the person back from the lobby. Not hard.
kennywinker 13y ago
I find the idea that there are legitimate uses for this technology a bit questionable. There have been important photos taken in locker rooms. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy at times, but it is enforced by social pressure, not a technology backdoor. If someone really wants to take surreptitious locker room photos, they can, and do, find ways around tech like this. The inverse is also true. If someone has a legitimate reason to take a photo in a verboten place (locker room or protest) it's much more likely they will be stopped by this.
- cransa 13y ago
  Exactly. I think the best way to combat people who take pictures in places they shouldn't is by adding a camera sound that can't be disabled or turned down. I believe I read that's how it is in Japan.
mikegerwitz 13y ago
While those uses may be ``legitimate'' in the sense that they enforce social norms, it is important that users are able to use their own discretion; laws exist---where appropriate (and sometimes not)---to help deter such things, but a citizen has a right to disobey that law if they so choose. If Apple decides to implement this technology, they are choosing enforcement before any legal process: They, or whomever is controlling such an anti-feature, are acting above the law, because these devices so heavily influence their users' lives. Lawrence Lessig goes into the concept of social norms and the dangers of this type of enforcement in Codev2 (http://codev2.cc/); http://codev2.cc/); he summarizes it as follows: > Thus, four constraints regulate this pathetic dot—the law, social norms, > the market, and architecture—and the “regulation” of this dot is the sum of > these four constraints. Changes in any one will affect the regulation of the > whole. Some constraints will support others; some may undermine others. > Thus, “changes in technology [may] usher in changes in . . . norms,” and the > other way around. Who decides what is and is not a ``good'' time to use this anti-feature? The RIAA might want this feature enabled during concerts, for example, and try to compel Apple to do so---DRM in the real world. This is a slippery slope that one should not go down. > [...] stopping cameras in a locker room or other place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sort of like I have a reasonable expectation when using my personal devices?

by tvon 13y ago

cremnob 13y ago

It'd be pretty great if phones couldn't get make/get calls in movie theaters (aside from emergency calls).

mikegerwitz 13y ago
It'd be pretty great if people were polite enough not to make/take calls in movie theaters. Our devices should not dictate such a thing, unless the feature is a "hey, I recommend that you not be an asshole, but you can disable me if you really want".
- russellsprouts 13y ago
  Yes, I think that would be a good option. When you enter the theater, it pops up with a dialog - "You have entered Regal Cinemas - your phone is going to theater mode. Press here to cancel." Making it opt-out rather than opt-in would create much more social pressure to not text during the movie.
superuser2 13y ago
"This is your sitter, I'm on the way to the hospital with your children" is an emergency call, although it doesn't come from 911. Etiquette is the solution here, not technology. If there is a possibility of an emergency, put your phone on vibrate and if it wrings, silence it immediately, leave the theater, and call the person back from the lobby. Not hard.

kennywinker 13y ago

I find the idea that there are legitimate uses for this technology a bit questionable. There have been important photos taken in locker rooms. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy at times, but it is enforced by social pressure, not a technology backdoor. If someone really wants to take surreptitious locker room photos, they can, and do, find ways around tech like this. The inverse is also true. If someone has a legitimate reason to take a photo in a verboten place (locker room or protest) it's much more likely they will be stopped by this.

cransa 13y ago
Exactly. I think the best way to combat people who take pictures in places they shouldn't is by adding a camera sound that can't be disabled or turned down. I believe I read that's how it is in Japan.

mikegerwitz 13y ago

While those uses may be ``legitimate'' in the sense that they enforce social norms, it is important that users are able to use their own discretion; laws exist---where appropriate (and sometimes not)---to help deter such things, but a citizen has a right to disobey that law if they so choose. If Apple decides to implement this technology, they are choosing enforcement before any legal process: They, or whomever is controlling such an anti-feature, are acting above the law, because these devices so heavily influence their users' lives. Lawrence Lessig goes into the concept of social norms and the dangers of this type of enforcement in Codev2 (http://codev2.cc/); http://codev2.cc/); he summarizes it as follows: > Thus, four constraints regulate this pathetic dot—the law, social norms, > the market, and architecture—and the “regulation” of this dot is the sum of > these four constraints. Changes in any one will affect the regulation of the > whole. Some constraints will support others; some may undermine others. > Thus, “changes in technology [may] usher in changes in . . . norms,” and the > other way around. Who decides what is and is not a ``good'' time to use this anti-feature? The RIAA might want this feature enabled during concerts, for example, and try to compel Apple to do so---DRM in the real world. This is a slippery slope that one should not go down. > [...] stopping cameras in a locker room or other place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sort of like I have a reasonable expectation when using my personal devices?