Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Filmmaker Working On Eye-Socket Camera

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-two-they're-small dept.

Robotics 114

An anonymous reader writes "Wired has a story about Rob Spence, a Canadian filmmaker who plans to have a mini camera installed in his prosthetic eye. 'A camera module will have to be connected to a transmitter inside the prosthetic eye that can broadcast the captured video footage. To boost the signal, he says he can wear another transmitter on his belt. A receiver attached to a hard drive in a backpack could capture that information and then send it to another device that uploads everything to a web site in real time. ... Even though his project is still in its early stages, Spence says many people have already told him they wouldn't be comfortable being filmed. "People are more scared of a center-left documentary maker with an eye than the 400 ways they are filmed every day at the school, the subway, the mall," he says. He hopes he will help get people thinking about privacy, how surveillance cameras and the footage they record are being used and accessed.'" Spence runs a blog for the 'Eyeborg Project,' as he calls it, and has recently posted a video about the progress they're making.

cancel ×

114 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Back to the future (4, Interesting)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100177)

I always believed that 20 years from now, technology will allow us to keep a constant record of all that we see. It will be great for keeping memories of the kids, sure. It will also completely change the way we interact. The most fascinating part of this future is that very strong ethical, privacy and legal limits will have to be put in place.

Think of the switch from analog audio to digital. With analog, you could record, but you couldn't store forever without losing quality. Stuff eventually got lost, or forgotten. It's a different ball-game when information stays around forever, easily accessible. Google Search taught us as much.

Bottom line: there is no technological answer to this, it will have to come from principles and laws. Anyone can steal mail from my mailbox, there is no lock. But people don't. Let's see how we can create similar principles for digital information.

Re:Back to the future (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100243)

will allow us to keep a constant record of all that we see.

Except for sex and the occasional witness of a police beating, all I can envision from that is a bastard-child of Twitter and YouTube...as if those two weren't bad enough.

Why not mount enhancements(IR or other extended-spectrum sensitivity, long-range zoom, etc) inside the prosthesis and find a way to feed the visual back into the other eye(and eventually to the visual cortex itself) to give the patient superhuman sight? Now we're talkin', baby.

Re:Back to the future (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100387)

Because he is unable to move/focus the prosthetic.

Re:Back to the future (2, Informative)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100421)

You can definetly move a prosthetic eye, focus is a different matter but I suspect it would be one of the easier things to do given that it's just a matter of finding which nerve went too the muscle.

Re:Back to the future (0, Troll)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100449)

>You can definetly move a prosthetic eye,

Apparently not well enough for touch typing...

Re:Back to the future (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100623)

Focus would not be a matter of muscle, the eye is not connected to the nerve. Fixed focus isn't so bad (think phone cam), and (electromechanical) auto focus is easily implemented in such a confine

Re:Back to the future (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100785)

a bastard-child of Twitter and YouTube

YouTwit? Twitube?

Re:Back to the future (1, Redundant)

kwantar (1398143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101547)

This has already been done. Haven't you ever heard of the Six Million Dollar Man?

Re:Back to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101617)

Honor Harrington called, wants her eye back.

Re:Back to the future (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27104079)

will allow us to keep a constant record of all that we see.

Except for sex and the occasional witness of a police beating, all I can envision from that is a bastard-child of Twitter and YouTube...as if those two weren't bad enough.

Then you're not very imaginative.

I would use it all the time. Can't remember how that thing you just took apart goes back together? Rewind and take a look. Can't remember if you locked the door/turned off the stove/flushed the toilet? Rewind and take a look. Got lost? Rewind and retrace your steps.

Re:Back to the future (2)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100247)

...It will be great for keeping memories of the kids, sure...

I was thinking more that it would be great to replay excellent experiences as porn for "me-time".

Re:Back to the future (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100773)

Anyone can steal mail from my mailbox, there is no lock. But people don't. Let's see how we can create similar principles for digital information.

Principles, hell. If you're in the U.S., the reason people don't steal your mail is because a. they probably don't give a damn and b. interfering with the mail is a felony. No real principles involved there: it's just that nobody wants to go to jail for reading someone else's junk mail. I'm not really sure that reading someone's email should invoke the same sort of penalties.

Re:Back to the future (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100921)

Years ago I lived in an apartment that used the large locked communal type box. The kind where each home has a different lock, but the mailman has one lock on his side. Well, it turns out they used one key for the mailman's side for the whole damn city and someone got a hold of that key. I had no idea my mail had been stolen until a month or so later the police dropped off a bunch of mail that they said they found when they raided some house and it became a big news story. I didn't have any problems with identity theft (and this was about 14 years ago), and they didn't even try to cash the check that was in there to pay my credit card. They just prevented it from getting there, and caused me to miss a payment, so I have no idea what they were looking for, and I never did find out what happened as a final result. So just because someone hasn't stolen the OP's mail yet, doesn't actually mean it is safe.

Re:Back to the future (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101079)

So just because someone hasn't stolen the OP's mail yet, doesn't actually mean it is safe.

I didn't mean to imply that it was ... obviously, the fact that we make interfering with the post a serious crime indicates that it is a potential problem. I'm just saying that I don't believe that extending those same standards to the Internet is automatically a good idea.

Re:Back to the future (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101013)

That's not impossible now. You could record all that you see with current technology. A wearable camera, or even eyeglasses with a built in camera could record everything. (these already exist) and then you'd just dump the recordings to a hard drive or other storage medium on a regular basis, perhaps daily.

You can get a one terabyte hard drive for under $100. A couple of those could record an entire year of video at reasonable SDTV quality using mpeg4-avc. Broadcast quality SDTV is not too bad at all. If you wanted to do HDTV or multiple camera angles, you'd need more drives, but it's not as if that is necessarily break-the-bank expensive these days. A couple hundred dollars worth of hard drive storage per year is doable. Of course, prices will only go down.

Re:Back to the future (2, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101103)

yeah, yeah, I saw the "Final Cut". the guy gets killed for what he's got in his head

Re:Back to the future (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101319)

Bottom line: there is no technological answer to this, it will have to come from principles and laws. Anyone can steal mail from my mailbox, there is no lock. But people don't. Let's see how we can create similar principles for digital information.

It is not going to happen. The reason people don't steal from your mailbox is NOT "principles and laws" it is because generally there isn't anything worth stealing and it is hard to do on a large scale. When it is easy to do on a large scale and there is something of value, then people do steal your mail - for example, new credit cards were routinely stolen in bulk at postal centers until the banks made "activation" from a confirmed phone number a requirement (and even then, the crooks came up with ways around that, changing the phone numbers on file to phone numbers they controlled).

So as long as there is something valuable and it is easy to take with little chance of being punished for it, then no amount of laws or principles will make a bit of difference. (Which, some readers may have noticed applies just as much to the effectiveness of copyright law as it does to any laws regulating the use of digital cameras by the public at large.)

Re:Back to the future... Butt, enough digital (1, Troll)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101377)

replay up peoples rears will be like shit hitting the fanny, like a "HOLE NEW FORM" for "analog", and the upshot of the imprint will a lot of uncomfortable negatives to dislodge.

It will have people tripping and reeling so much it'll take several genetic mutations to overcome the shift, and, then, we can all hail, "The anal log is the new ear drum".

Re:Back to the future (3, Interesting)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102437)

The most fascinating part of this future is that very strong ethical, privacy and legal limits will have to be put in place.

I think something else will happen.

I think society will change.

Speaking strictly for American society (though I fully expect the same to happen in other first-world countries, though perhaps at different rates), we've long had various scruples that, while perhaps not bad, don't make the most sense. For instance, the general requirement that we remain clothed; or, in a more tame sense, that men may go bare-chested but women may not (add to that further with much of women's fashion). There are reasons to wear clothes, but shame for the human body has always been an odd one. Also, it's perfectly fine (by society) to talk about someone behind their back, but never to tell someone they're bad/ugly and give constructive criticism. Who cares if you're helping someone out with that (whether or not they want the help), you should be talking about it to someone who can't do squat like some sort of weasel!

As television has brought us pictures of war sooner and sooner, and VHS everything else, we began to become more and more "open" about things. The internet has only increased this, as well as allowing for amateur footage of... well, everything.

I think that instead of all these huge restrictions being put on such devices, society's view will shift as it is further exposed. There will be a brief push-back, but that will subside. Over time, people will become more and more relaxed about various subjects and previous "taboos". We saw it happen with black rights, women's rights, and interracial marriage. Right now we're seeing it happen with homosexuality and marijuana.

There's always the chance of another Roman-style (or was it Greek?) tragedy happening where we suddenly regress a millennium, but if we continue the path we are bound to become a society that has almost no social bounds outside of actual harm. Perhaps not in 20 years, and maybe not even in 100, but I believe it will happen, especially if content expands exponentially.

Re:Back to the future (1)

Selivanow (82869) | more than 5 years ago | (#27105073)

It is funny that you mentioned toplessness (sp?). In New York it is legal for women to be topless in public. However, i have yet to see one in public. Although, my wife has told me that she has. Maybe this is because women do not wish to be ogled at more than they are now.

Re: always believed? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103215)

You've always believed this? Wait, how old are you? Right... you're at least older than 20, so then if you've always believed that 20 years from when you first started believing it that we'd have all have persistent video, then that would mean we already have it!? What are you hiding? What secret online store [spook-accessories-r.us] do I have to visit to get it? Do I gotta be a spook and have some security clearance, or be secretly enslaved to the CIA [imdb.com] once I have it?

Re: always believed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27104071)

You're not even remotely funny and you come off as a pedantic asshole.

pirate ! (2, Insightful)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100181)

I guess this will get him banned from movie theaters, right ?

Re:pirate ! (3, Funny)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100349)

It won't get him banned, but if he doesn't implement DRM, then the movie theater will aim lasers at his prosthetic eye for the duration of the movie so he can't get a good recording.

Re:pirate ! DRM or not, it won't do him any good (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102665)

If he is listening to the J. Geils Band's "Freeze Frame"...

Such an endowed person could scope out sex workers (of any persuasion) and then people observing his conquest could say, en Espan~nol "He, ho, layyyy"

But, then such a guy could reply, "Aye yaye yaye..."

As for the comment about the eye being able to move, i'd say that's not a real problem. It's the lack of adjacent muscle normality. If the eye swivels, maybe kids won't be shocked or unnerved. But, if the nutates like a gravity/anti-gravity-challenged orb with wonky GPS, well, then that would be a sight to not see...

Re:pirate ! (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103403)

It won't get him banned, but if he doesn't implement DRM, then the movie theater will aim lasers at his prosthetic eye for the duration of the movie so he can't get a good recording.

And if he does it again, they'll point the lasers at his other eye.

Re:pirate ! (3, Informative)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100419)

Or they'll only let him in if he's wearing a certified eye patch, arrr arrr!

Re:pirate ! Socket to me! (4, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100705)

So, if he captures a crime in progress, the criminals (if they recognize him) can hurl all sorts of puns his way:

Eye of the beholder
Socket too me
An eye for an eye...
See, if you had that camera in your ass or fannypack, hindsight would be 20/20

Depending on the focal length he uses, if he fixates on breasts, will he be a living boob tube? Titty-gazing could, like, oh my god... soooo tubular...

If he sees two rogue law enforcement officers beating on a civilian, he could sing "EYE SHOT THE SHERRIF, but EYE didn't SHOOT THE DEPUTY..."

There may be a new law: DCMA

"Don't Capture Me, Aye!" (especially since he's Canadian...)

If he sees a SUUUUUPER ugly person, they may crack his lens.

If they put smoke and mirrors in his path, he could be blinded with science.

If he's in a room with flash-bangs and smoke grenades, he'll be "bedazzled and frazzled"

If his good eye goes out, and he's broadsided, it could be said he was blind-sided...

Would he go crazy if swimming with fisheye lens goggles?

I suppose much of this assumes he as a neuro-optical data link.... and can process the imagery. Hopefully he won't be a cross between Geordi (super barrettes) La Forge and Saul (Demon Eyes) Tigh...

But, if he's visious, and lays eyes on you, you'd be caught in the eye of the tiger...

Yeh, i'm on a ROLL (but not a film roll)... LOL!

Re:pirate ! Socket to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100771)

So, if he captures a crime in progress,..

"I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake..."

Re:pirate ! Socket to me! (1)

kitezh (1442937) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101145)

There may be a new law: DCMA

"Don't Capture Me, Aye!" (especially since he's Canadian...)

I think you mean the DMCE, eh. Unless he's French Canadian, then it's "Oeil, Don't Capture Me!"

Re:pirate ! Socket to me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27102729)

Absolutely hilarious.

I'm rolling on the bed laughing. This is one of the funniest comments I've ever read.

How do we mod you +50 Funny?

That guy from yesterday? (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100197)

He's upgrading.

Re:That guy from yesterday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100461)

wat

babylon 5 (2, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100205)

been there done that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosthetics_in_fiction [wikipedia.org]

Re:babylon 5 (3, Informative)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100359)

Predated by a couple of decades in "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun". Herbert Lom has a spy camera in his fake eye to elude a full-body security search.

Re:babylon 5 (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#27104049)

Heh, yeah right. It never cease to amaze me how people expect rapid technological advancement, when all the historical evidence shows that most of these innovations are decades old, but the equipment wasn't available back then. I saw a photo from the first V2s sent up with a camera yesterday on NASAs site [nasa.gov] , and that was dated 1948. How long until Google Earth hit the mainstream ? 2005 ? The reason for the delay was computing power, access to images, and satellites. Satellites have changed the world in so many ways, they are part of almost everything we do. TV, telephone, data, science all rely on satellites somewhere in the chain. But in the 1960s they were ground breaking and so that 1969 film [imdb.com] could be seen as possibly true. We had no way to determine if a planet really was diametrically opposite us in our orbit of the sun. This is the way it goes, some sci-fi is born out by scientific discoveries, and other stuff is provably impossible. This is why modern sci-fi is mostly dreck, hardly any science is left to the imagination. Back when the best sci-fi was written (due to our ignorance) it was an amazing journey into the possible. Now we're left with existential dilemmas rather than technological ones, which doesn't have the same zing on screen.

Sometimes you have to look at the way it *was*, to better appreciate the way it *is* and I fear that aspect is lacking in todays world. It seems to be all "now" and "next" and disappointment when it doesn't happen immediately. Newsflash - it never did.

Re:babylon 5 (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100507)

What you mean is that someone thought of it. It wasn't quite done.

Re:babylon 5 (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103261)

GP must be a mathematician.

"Ah, this problem is provably solvable!" *goes off to the pub*

I already do something similar. (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100215)

I record everything I see.

The only difference is that I use an organic data storage device.

Limited Storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100301)

With low success of recovery and influenced to outside forces. The data is inherently corrupted and worthless.

captcha: fooled

Re:I already do something similar. (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100329)

Unfortunately, well over 90% of the data gets lost due to a buggy caching policy... :/

Don't worry though, it's on the TODO list in a future release.

Re:I already do something similar. (3, Funny)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100905)

I said I RECORD everything I see.

I didn't say I have access to it later!

I'm getting the sneaking suspicion my wife does though.

Re:I already do something similar. (1)

nasch (598556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102095)

How do you know you record everything if you don't have access to it later?

Re:I already do something similar. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27104329)

How do you know you record everything if you don't have access to it later?

There are plenty of ways that I reconstruct an eviction log, or to "know that I forgot" something. One of them is inbound links to an expired memory from my other memories. Another is memories that have been reduced to sketchy "stubs" once their details have expired.

Obvious Use (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100231)

Imagine the possibilities for this sort of technology... in porn.

Re:Obvious Use (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101403)

Yeah, you'd better imagine them, because porn will remain the same old crap, no matter how good the technology is. It's funny how this idea comes up over and over again - "amazing new porn technology" and yet it still features the same old bad acting, fake situations and poor camerawork. I mean, the technology for good porn has been around since Shakespeare, but it rarely gets implemented.

Maybe because... (5, Funny)

PalmHair (1222728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100263)

Dear Rob, maybe people feel uncomfortable because your eye gives a red glow and you keep telling them "See you later!" in Spanish with a heavy Austrian accent.

nigoGa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100273)

no right to privacy in public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100393)

You do not have a right to privacy in public. And I agree with this. Suggesting so erodes the idea of what privacy is about.

Example: I'm out with family at the beach and filming the event to preserve the memories. Suddenly a man approaches with a police officer and demands that my footage be destroyed because he was captured in the background. Should I have to hand over the content?

This does not apply to broadcasting the footage though, which does require approval from people captured on film.

Another interesting point is that he is suggesting cameras in malls and subways are a bad thing. And to highlight that... he wants to carry it one step further by filming everything and broadcast it. Interesting tactic.

Re:no right to privacy in public (1)

davidphogan74 (623610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100465)

No, broadcasting the footage does not require consent. Broadcasting footage filmed inside a house does, but not in public. How else could the news show generic footage of a Saturday Market or such?

People who claim to be "center-left" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100437)

are usually somewhere to the left of Fidel Castro.

Re:People who claim to be "center-left" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27102345)

"A center-left documentary maker" - Now there's an oxymoron of quite incredible proportions. Simply put, "documentary" implies conveying something as it really is, which is considered immoral amongst the left because it's not advocating necessary change.

Re:People who claim to be "center-left" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27102519)

Fidel Castro is left economically, but in authoritarianism, which is a right trait, he's strong as well.

That makes Fidel Castro a centrist.

See here for more information.

And that's a hat trick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27102961)

Triple fail.

Re:People who claim to be "center-left" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27102829)

How did this troll get modded "Insightful"?

Re:People who claim to be "center-left" (1)

BotnetZombie (1174935) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103593)

[Citation needed]

Saccadian movements (0)

soren100 (63191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100485)

I don't think the guy is thinking about Saccades [wikipedia.org]

These are tiny, quick movements that the eye makes that keep "refreshing" our field of view.

Here's the explanation from Wikipedia:

Humans and other animals do not look at a scene in a steady way. Instead, the eyes move around, locating interesting parts of the scene and building up a mental 'map' corresponding to the scene. One reason for saccades of the human eye is that the central part of the retina, the fovea, plays a critical role in resolving objects. By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently.

In addition, the human eye is in a constant state of vibration, oscillating back and forth at a rate of about 30-70 Hz. These microsaccades are tiny movements, roughly 20 arcseconds in excursion and are completely imperceptible under normal circumstances. They serve to refresh the image being cast onto the rod cells and cone cells at the back of the eye. Without microsaccades, staring fixedly at something would cause the vision to cease after a few seconds since rods and cones only respond to a change in luminance.

So while this happens naturally in all of our eyes, our brains compensate for it automatically and we don't notice anything is happening.

On video, though, this would probably make the video unwatchable and/or cause dizziness and nausea for anyone viewing it. It might be help in researching eye-movement patterns, though.

Re:Saccadian movements (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100505)

I don't think artificial eyes saccade.

Re:Saccadian movements (1, Offtopic)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100973)

I smell a sequel to cloverfield!

Re:Saccadian movements (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101389)

He's not installing this into an eye that actually provides him with eyesight. We're talking about putting a glass eye with a camera in it into an empty eyesocket.

Re:Saccadian movements (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101821)


He's not installing this into an eye that actually provides him with eyesight. We're talking about putting a glass eye with a camera in it into an empty eyesocket.

So the question is, does his good eye saccading cause the artificial eye to move too.

Re:Saccadian movements (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103355)

Basically our eyes work the same way as reptiles' (or as those of hookers in Family Guy) and are based on movement. They just happen to include active scanning to refresh their view even of objects which aren't moving.

I'm sure you could process out the saccades using the same basic image stabilization technology that's used in all but the cheapest digital cameras these days. Then again, why do that when you can use them to your advantage? Mimic the eye's structure with a super-high-rez 'fovea' plus a low rez whole-field sensor, then stitch/combine the images from the whole-field sensor (small rapid movements are perfect for this) to give a lower frame rate, higher resolution wide angle image, while the main focal point gives a high rez, high frame rate view that again can be stitched to provide a full high-rez scene.

This is awesome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100555)

... now the MPAA can go after him when he goes into movie theaters...

Technologically sound itea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100621)

Quite technologically possible, I have a pinhole camera that is not much larger than a six sided dice and will transmit video and audio several hundred feet. The trick would be finding a way to power it, I suppose some form of induction like is used in some implants could be utilized.

But wouldn't he be required to beep? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/26/1846209 [slashdot.org]

One question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100683)

What's his girlfriend look like?

Did he see this movie??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100735)

I caught this old Harvey Keitel flick on a Saturday afternoon ages ago: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081182/

What a wonderful idea! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100759)

Putting a radio transmitter right next to your brain!

Re:What a wonderful idea! (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27100833)

Just wrap it in tinfoil; you'll be fine.

Re:What a wonderful idea! (1)

az1324 (458137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27105397)

The transmitter or the brain?

Re:What a wonderful idea! (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101019)

Unless you're one or those weirdos that paints their walls with lead what's the problem?

Re:What a wonderful idea! (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101143)

ohes noes! Are you one of those wackos who wraps his mobile phone in tinfoil?

Re:What a wonderful idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101923)

Was wondering the same thing - RF/Electronics not a problem? Not quite the same as other implantable medical devices.

The Final Cut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27100907)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/

'Nuff said.

I thank 7ou for your time (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27101069)

shit-fi'lled, any doubt: FrreBSD

Paging the Sci-Fi Community: (1)

brainiac256 (926950) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101089)

We have a code cyan ("life imitating art") in the prosthetics department.

Six Million Dollar Man (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101137)

"Steve Austin, a man barely alive ... we have the technology, we can rebuild him."

Missed opportunity (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101339)

This story has three icons attached to it, but not one of them is the "Bill Gates with Borg eye" one. C'mon, this was the perfect oppportunity to use that icon, and you blew it, slashdot!

Old Cocnept! (1)

DomainDominator (1493131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101353)

The Japanese anime "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" dealt with "interceptors" which were in-eye cameras. This was back in 2002.

basically (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101395)

A camera is a camera, the only difference is if it's considered a hidden camera. If you were trying to film people in public, then go for it, it's public. On the other hand, you try filming in my house without my consent, you're going to have a whole lot of trouble.

SO he's right and everybody else is wrong..... (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101577)

"People are more scared of a center-left documentary maker with an eye than the 400 ways they are filmed every day at the school, the subway, the mall."

Well, yeah. That's because, at the mall, (1) it's a terrible picture, (2) there is no audio, (3) they have so much footage of everybody that nobody's going to find that shot of you with your finger up your nose, and (4) even if they do, they're not going to publish it because they want you to come BACK to the store, and don't want to get sued for big bucks for no good reason.

Contrast that with: (1) Maybe it's a really good picture. In any case, if you're talking to him, you're looking straight into the camera, and it's a close-up. (2) Maybe there's audio as well. Or maybe it's easy enough to read your lips, based on what he remembers about the conversation. (3) He can pick out the interesting (to him) footage, because he saw it all the first time. (4) If he's only a casual acquaintance, how well do I understand his motivations?

I don't know whether I personally prefer mall-surveillance or acquaintance-surveillance, but to assume that people who express a clear preference not to be surveilled by acquaintances don't "get it" shows an overarching hubris and lack of empathy that would make me hesitate to want to be near this guy, even if I would be OK with a different acquaintance videotaping me.

Re:SO he's right and everybody else is wrong..... (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102935)

Really, you can sum it up like this:

Mall surveillance is not being published on a public website in real time.

Eye think otherwise (5, Funny)

nanospook (521118) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101595)

If I was going to wear a small hidden camera, I would attach it to the end of my index finger and transmit it to a set of glasses so I can see what it sees. Think of the uses.. 1. You can see around corners 2. Look up a gal's skirt 3. Read with your finger 4. Pick your nose and put it on youtube 5. film yourself sleeping 6. Experience Sign Language in a fresh way The possibilities are endless..

Joss imitates life? (1)

danaris (525051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101639)

Wow, this is a little spooky. Just saw the preview for next week's Dollhouse, and it looks like they'll be using something very similar to this...

Dan Aris

Easy to add cool filters (2)

Burning Plastic (153446) | more than 5 years ago | (#27101719)

It'll be easy to add colored filters or polarization or similar - just choose the appropriate pair of shades...

Could even use glasses with a built in display to add night vison for the other eye...

Combine audio and vision, you are 'in' it (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102009)

Director, producer and writer Rolf de Heer sort of did this with sound using a a binaural headset.
The stereo focus of the sound recording moves with the actor's head, recording voice and breathing.
Now it can be done with sight.

http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/31/sound_design_rolf_de_heer.html [sensesofcinema.com]

Ocular Biology (1)

JoCat (1291368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102063)

This seems like it would need a crazy amount of image stabilization. When an image is focused and static on the retina, it (fairly quickly) fades from perception. There are microscopic tremors that keep the eye jostling about and the picture 'refreshed'. I'm curious about how these impact the cameras ability to focus and keep a decent picture.

What about sex? (1)

poliopteragriseoapte (973295) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102447)

I wonder how this will impact his sexual life... might have a hard time convincing some partners... "I will keep my left eye shut, promised!"

Re:What about sex? (1)

mikechant (729173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27104735)

"I will keep my left eye shut, promised!"

Naah. Just say "Hang on babe, I'll just remove my left eye and put it away in this draw so we can have some privacy...". That'll have her drooling!

Privacy nightmare? (3, Insightful)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102617)

Not for our new bionic overlord but for everyone he sees on an every day basis. Will he be forced to wear one of those full-body signs saying "I'm filming you as we speak" or does he just wink when someone wants to stay anonymous? There's no way he can ask anyone for the right to take their image w/o consent!?

Gives a whole new meaning... (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102679)

To up-skirting.

Center-left documentary maker (2, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27102969)

Not sure if this refers to his politics or the camera's vantage point.

they are filmed every day (1)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103173)

they are filmed every day

Now, first, dumb as a shoelace. Surveillance camera feeds are not posted on websites for everyone to see, no law allows that, at least in countries I'd be comfortable living in. In very many cases those feeds aren't een recorded. In some other cases the feeds are recorded for a specific amount of time (i.e. 24-48-... hours) and then automatically overwritten. There are - or at least legally should be - no places where every feed's recordings could be retained forever, or disclosed for the general public.

This guy should really get a girl with a beer and wake up.

many people have already told him they wouldn't be comfortable being filmed

As they should. If he won't go around with a large sign stating he's recording what he sees, he'll surel get some beating up at one point or the other in his formidable career.

Gibson called it! (1)

Spice Consumer (1367497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103179)

Novel: Count Zero. One of the main characters was a bodygaurd who was hired to protect one of the actresses because they were filming in some backwater country with Guerrilla activity or something. She had all this equipment wired into her.

He ended up failing in the end and what made him snap was when the studio sent a tech to 'recover' the hardware.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the list of things he 'predicted' in the Sprawl Trilogy is getting pretty long isn't it?

David Brin's Transparent Society (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103447)

Death watch (1)

josiebgoode (754961) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103581)

TV shows will make great use of it... The ultimate of reality TV!

In 1973, D.G. Compton published an excellent sci-fi novel, The Unsleeping Eye or The Continuous Katherine Mortenhoe, about a TV show in which a terminally ill woman will be filmed until her death. This will draw a huge audience in a world where almost all diseases can be cured. The woman runs away after signing the contract and a journalist with a camera implanted in his eye will arrange to locate her and, impersonating a compassionate lover, film the woman's agony without her being aware of it.

As good as the book was the 1980 movie, Death watch (La mort en direct) [imdb.com] , directed by Bertrand Tavernier, with Romy Schneider and Harvey Keitel.

faek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27103685)

It's all fake! It's obvious, just look at 'em.

rational, too (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103855)

People are more scared of a center-left documentary maker with an eye than the 400 ways they are filmed every day at the school

And that's fairly rational, too: the privacy implications and usage of security cameras are much more predictable than those of a filmmaker running around with a bionic eye.

If he's married... (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 5 years ago | (#27103921)

I suspect his wife will soon leave him. If she's anything at all like my wife, anyway. She hates nothing more than to be proven wrong about anything, and all too often she remembers things differently than the way they actually happened. To have a record of everything and be able to prove her wrong every time would make her want to murder me in my sleep.

Security camera vs. eye socket (1)

shadow349 (1034412) | more than 5 years ago | (#27104035)

"People are more scared of a center-left documentary maker with an eye than the 400 ways they are filmed every day at the school, the subway, the mall," he says.

Show me a security camera that editorializes, splices in out-of-context content, and chooses to show only the material that supports its position and then he might have a point.

Many missions to come (1)

Drumforyourlife (1421647) | more than 5 years ago | (#27104391)

This man must be found, and harassed by several wearers of Guy Fawkes masks. Also, Rick Roll'd. The internet will collapse on itself.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?