Posted on 08/15/2016 10:59:02 AM PDT by Lorianne
A patent granted to Apple this month details technology that remotely disables iPhone cameras using infrared sensors. Someone you do not know and cannot see will be able, without your permission, to disable the camera on a phone you own and are legally using, perhaps to take video of your son’s Little League game, perhaps to take video of a police officer choking to death an innocent man.
Apple’s patent application used the example of a rock band wanting to prevent audience members from recording a concert. Nasty bootleggers and their darn YouTubing!
While the First Amendment, backed up by much case law, guarantees the right of citizens to record the actions of government employees, including the police, conducting their duties in public places, the Amendment does not guarantee corporate America has to sell you the technology to do so. It is Constitutionally unclear if a police force using such technology to block video would violate the First Amendment (hey, you could switch over to your Dad’s camcorder that’s in the basement), but knowing the way things work, the cops would try it first, worry about court cases later.
(Excerpt) Read more at wemeantwell.com ...
Actually, I think this is pretty cool, because the real way to monetize this technology is to sell it to the public. Once that happens, in very short order, you would effectively kill the use of the phone as a camera, except for in the instances where someone actually WANTS their picture taken. I would actually like to have a jammer that prevents someone from taking a picture of my property 24/7, and putting one on a car would effectively kill the traffic camera industry (red light cameras and photo speed traps). If anything, I see the govt making this tech illegal.
You obviously need to avoid going out in public where all those nasty cameras are just waiting to take your picture.
BTW, for those who don’t know ... virtually every camera made in the last 20 years has an IR device in it ... you may know it by its marketing name ... AUTOFOCUS
Wouldn’t surprise me.
But, if it can be defeated, by mechanical or electronic means, it will be.................
It would make the ‘old’ phones a high demand item................
Actually, it probably would not impact the sales of phones ... it would not take away their ability to access the internet, but it would surge the demand for “old” cameras where you can turn the lens to manually focus them. It would also increase the demand for extremely high resolution cameras that could be given a fixed focal length so that autofocus could be turned off, and you could still get detail by zooming into the actual picture, rather than zooming the camera. In theory, the device would function much like a cell jammer ... emit a signal that overwhelms the IR sensor with information that the item being focused on is really really close. Instant blurred picture.
“but I want it to remain illegal for people (I don’t object to your calling them terrorists) to point guns or cameras at innocent people without their permission.”
It is not illegal to point cameras at people.
LOL!!!
I appreciate wanting privacy but privacy in public is impossible and it always was.
“BTW, for those who don’t know ... virtually every camera made in the last 20 years has an IR device in it ... you may know it by its marketing name ... AUTOFOCUS”
I think it is time for you to do some learnin’ on autofocus ...
If it’s actuated by a low level optical coding in the visual range, then adding additional strobe pulses—adding static to the signal entering the camera might jam the shut-down command.
Perhaps the commands are coded as blue-tooth??? or wifi-direct??? type transmissions.
Samsung.
The article says IR.
“Lots of people don’t want to be photographed without their permission.”
Then they had better stay on private property, or get used to wearing a burka.
“Our founding fathers said nothing about any special right to take pictures of other people.”
They never said anything about the right not to have pictures taken of you either. Maybe because photography didn’t exist back then. Either way, it falls under the general principles of liberty. I’m free to photograph, and you’re free to not like it.
“...but I want it to remain illegal for people (I don’t object to your calling them terrorists) to point guns or cameras at innocent people without their permission.”
You talk as if it currently is illegal to photograph people without their permission. It isn’t. If they’re in a public place, it’s completely legal to photograph them. You only need permission if you want to publicly broadcast those images.
So, you are coming out for "smart guns", too? I will not comply. You'll have to use deadly force to make me give me up my old, "non-smart" guns and camera phone.
I don’t believe that anyone can make a camera or a gun smart. But, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be educated.
#3 Only Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster and aliens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.