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!

The Next Phase of Intelligent TVs Will Observe You

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the unseen-mechanized-eye dept.

Television 294

An anonymous reader writes "Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it. UTAN (user technology assisted navigation) TV viewing interface, as it is called, has a camera mounted on the TV which photographs the viewer and estimates the viewer's degrees of interest, concentration, etc. The information is processed by a tablet PC and recommended information is shown to the viewer. It is possible to show individual interests as well, in case there are multiple viewers."

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

Nice, however.. (5, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289328)

Would be brilliant if there was anything interesting on!

Seriously.. all TV related technology is kind of meh these days because ultimately you are choosing between 50 different reality TV shows, maybe one or two token sitcoms/dramas and re-runs of real shows you’ve already seen and probably already own the DVD.

It’s not like music where there is enough variety that you can be taken aback by some band you didn’t even know existed. There is a limited amount of TV programming, and if you had any interest in it, you’ve probably already seen it or are at least aware of it.

Re:Nice, however.. (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289408)

I think that in the end this technology will be used not to "enhance" viewer experience, but rather for targeted advertising. Nothing is "innovated" these days for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of the CONSUMER.

Re:Nice, however.. (3, Insightful)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289454)

Nothing is "innovated" these days for the benefit of mankind, but rather for the benefit of the marketing departments.

FTFY

Re:Nice, however.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289802)

Yup, spotted that 2 seconds after hitting "enter"...

Re:Nice, however.. (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289552)

A ton of tech progress is being stifled by the desire to capitalize on digital distribution. Almost EVERY piece of tech is now sold with a built in store. My wife has a Bodybugg. Its a device that measures your daily activity etc. TO be able to USE the device at all, you have to subscribe to their webservice. There is no way to upload the contents to your local machine or use it at all without paying a subscription. They have inserted themselves between the device and the user for no REAL reason other then monetization.

"From Bodybugg support
Posted By: bodybugg Support Team
Posted Date: 6-3-08 1:01PM
We are sorry if you were misled in any way, but bodybugg does require that you maintain an active subscription to the web application. This is comparable to a cell phone company wherein you pay for the phone as well as the calling plan."

Its amazing that they compare operating and maintaining a cellular network to collecting and visualizing personal data on a website. Really?

I mention all this becasue the REASON TV tech is 'meh' is because everyone is jockeying to lock up the digital frontier and ignoring actual technological progress. I would LOVE to have a simple 1 hour TV buffer. No record, no storage, just a 1 hour TV buffer to pause, FF, rewind. It cannot be that hard to make a simple inline buffer like that. But the likelyhood of seeing it in the next decade is slim partly because of patents and partly because there is no ongoing revenue stream from it.

Re:Nice, however.. (1)

Guignol (159087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289632)

You are totally spot on !

Re:Nice, however.. (2)

XFire35 (1519315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289736)

The Sky+ box offered by Sky can let you pause/rewind/FF live TV for an hour and even over that (I think it's dependent on how much you have stored on the hard-drive however), but the principal is there.

Re:Nice, however.. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36290000)

You are perfectly free to reverse engineer the protocol and write up your own server to download the Bodybugg data. Or you can google for one of the many projects, such as FreeBugg.

Re:Nice, however.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289814)

How can you object to anything that starts playing just what you need when you start to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spank_the_monkey [wiktionary.org]

1984 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289338)

No thanks.

Re:1984 (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289514)

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone. Even if all processing was done inside the TV (looking for eyeballs),
the fact that any data gleaned would have to be sent upstream to be useful should be enough to get this technology blocked.

If not, I predict a bump in sales of black electrical tape as soon as these hit the market.

Re:1984 (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289566)

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone.

When has that ever happened before, homeslice?

Re:1984 (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289692)

This is likely to get banned in short order on privacy grounds alone. Even if all processing was done inside the TV (looking for eyeballs), the fact that any data gleaned would have to be sent upstream to be useful should be enough to get this technology blocked.

Why would any data have to be sent upstream? If you read TFA (or even TFS), you'll see that the intention is to provide information to the viewer, not to the service provider. Therefore, there's no need for the data to go anywhere.

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this. If it is only used locally, then there will likely be quite a lot of buyers. Slashdotters tend to be against any and all tracking for any purposes, but if you venture out into the real world, you'll find that there are actually many people who want the personalization that this kind of tracking can provide.

Re:1984 (5, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289796)

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this. If it is only used locally, then there will likely be quite a lot of buyers.

Realistically, they will use this the same way they do any other tracking: they will tell you about the benefits and just not bother mentioning that they are storing your data "anonymously" someplace when it retrieves information for you. Then people will buy it without even thinking about the privacy connotations.

Why would any data have to be sent upstream?

"Have to be" and "will be" are not the same thing.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289864)

Realistically, if the data gets sent upstream, then no one would ever buy this.

Really? What about all the farming and tracking done by various search engines and social networking websites. People gladly go for it because it improves their "user experience".

but if you venture out into the real world, you'll find that there are actually many people who want the personalization that this kind of tracking can provide.

Kinda contradicts your statement above. Why? Because realistically speaking, it takes way too much data to make recommendations or whatever, and local data is just not enough for this kind of thing.

Re:1984 (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289922)

you'll see that the intention is to provide information to the viewer, not to the service provider.

Money earned by providing info to the viewer: $0.

Money earned by providing info to advertisers and media companies: $millions if not billions.

Yeah yeah, the information is for the "viewer". Just be sure to read the fine print.

Re:1984 (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289698)

I can see a big market in a totalitarian society for this. You put on programming to extol the virtues and greatness of the ruler/s and watch to see who is interested and who is not. Viewing of propaganda can be made mandatory and this insures that your people will not only view the programming but remain attentive. Potential dissidents would be much easier to spot. Modern technology has many ways to benefit man and also many ways to enslave him.

Re:1984 (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36290010)

Nono, it will be opt-out, so you can disable it. Of course, disabling it makes you suspicious.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289524)

/thread

Mod parent up. No need for any further discussion.

Re:1984 (3, Interesting)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289646)

If I were still in high school, I would agree with you. What I took away from 1984 after the first reading is all the technological nightmarish oppression that Orwell depicted. When I read the book again, though, that changed. I'm not at all saying that Orwell wasn't warning about invasive technology, but the bigger point of the book is the control the state has over the people's hearts and minds. It's not about the surveillance, it's about what the surveillance is meant to achieve. All the totalitarian measures seemed to be more of a stopgap until the language was finally reduced to meaninglessness via Newspeak and people's ability for thought was so hemmed in by the basic language filled with all sorts of shades of meaning. When Orwell writes about the Two Minutes Hate and the anti-sex propaganda, he makes it clear that those are the more dangerous dangers, because instead of people's having better outlets for their energiesâ"namely, sexâ"all their passions and energies were put toward the service of Big Brother and the government above them. The surveillance is to help enforce that, but the ultimate goal is to make it impossible for people to think about anything else, to want to think about anything else. If all that we get from 1984 is that surveillance is bad, we're not reading it right.

Re:1984 (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289684)

Dammit, Slashdot, those a's-circumflex are supposed to be em dashes.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289752)

tl;dr "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

Don't want to spread FUD, but Utopia through surveillance is way too idealistic. Big Brother is never perfect, and his ethics system is different from that of others.

Re:1984 (2)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289794)

You missed the point entirely. I didn't dismiss the warnings Orwell gives us about surveillance, and especially about perpetual surveillance. What I meant is that the problem with how most people apply the book is that they stop with the technological you're-watched-everywhere nightmare and never look at the other issues Orwell raises and warns about in the same book. (Nationalism, for one.) I am always watching out for news like that of the TVs That Watch the Watcher, I encourage everyone to guard themselves against those sorts of things, and in addition to this I am always on guard against the sorts of tricks used to manipulate people out of reason and into emotion and blind devotion to an abstraction.

Morlocks (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289918)

On the other hand, perhaps the Morlocks and the Eloi from The Time Machine are relevant. Our entertainment systems are essentially a tool for herding us, so that we will continue to be good consumers and buy more from the companies that provide us with the entertainment. We get exactly what we want, which is quick and easy access to entertainment that is tailored to our own personal interests; meanwhile, we continue to provide sustenance for the people providing us with that entertainment, who otherwise remain out of sight.

Re:1984 (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289932)

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometre away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste -- this was London, chief city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of Oceania. He tried to squeeze out some childhood memory that should tell him whether London had always been quite like this. Were there always these vistas of rotting nineteenth-century houses, their sides shored up with baulks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron, their crazy garden walls sagging in all directions? And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air and the willow-herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the places where the bombs had cleared a larger patch and there had sprung up sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken-houses? But it was no use, he could not remember: nothing remained of his childhood except a series of bright-lit tableaux occurring against no background and mostly unintelligible.

T-minus 5... (1)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289352)

... 4, 3, 2, 1. We have Soviet Russia jokes!

Re:T-minus 5... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289406)

In Soviet Russia, count down down counts you!

Re:T-minus 5... (2)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289876)

In future Soviet Russia, you observe TVs.

1984? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289374)

Haven't we seen this already?

Re:1984? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289530)

I don't know if you've seen it already or not.
Let me check my photo archive....

Re:1984? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289900)

I thought so, I could have sworn I read it on my Kindle but it's just not there...

6079 Smith W! (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289384)

Yes, you! Bend lower, please!

Re:6079 Smith W! (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289550)

Yes, you! Bend lower, please!

There's a Kinect app for that. [youtube.com]

Re:6079 Smith W! (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289576)

The soldiers on the Malabar Front have it much worse than you.

MPAA will love this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289386)

With the ideas that the MPAA had of wanting to put sensors into everyones houses a few years back and charge by the viewer for movies and the like, this is a bad feature.

don't need to be watched (1)

LavouraArcaica (2012798) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289396)

I use my remote control to find my "individual interests". Thanks, NHK, but I don't need to be watched.

Re:don't need to be watched (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289720)

We'll decide that for you. I think you are late for your reeducation class.

Re:don't need to be watched (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289896)

The joke's on the TV manufacturers.

Nobody I know watches broadcast TV anymore; everybody uses a device connected via HDMI. The TV is just a monitor.

Simple fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289404)

Great, a new place for post it notes.

1984 by stealth (1)

M4n (1472737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289412)

The difference is we [i]want[/i] the stuff. Because it will enhance our lives.

Re:1984 by stealth (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289490)

That is a common theme in dystopian novels: that the dystopia was established by the very people it oppresses, who thought they were improving their lives, and who often continue to believe they are better off even when they are being oppressed. Even 1984 alludes to that idea, when Winston Smith notes that the proles could overthrow the at any time if they wanted to (but they never will, as Smith is told at the Ministry of Love).

Re:1984 by stealth (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289690)

The difference is we [i]want[/i] the stuff. Because it will enhance our lives.

"we" ?
Maybe you, but not me.

Hey everybody, (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289414)

it's a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Re:Hey everybody, (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289608)

it's a cautionary tale, not a manual.

Yes it is. It seems like we shouldn't stop the semantics there though, I mean this is a novel that was written about and well before a time when there was even a Facebook.

How important can the lessons in there be to the current and future generations if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

Re:Hey everybody, (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289648)

... if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

er... that ought to have read "if people could not press a..."

Re:Hey everybody, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289766)

their

Re:Hey everybody, (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289666)

How important can the lessons in there be to the current and future generations if people could press a "like button" to indicate whether it satisfactorily stimulated there pleasure center.

That sounds more like the other well-known dystopian novel, _Brave New World_.

Re:Hey everybody, (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289620)

It's a tale cautioning against allowing government to manipulate people without restraint. The constant surveillance was just a side effect of the totalitarian regime. Preventing progress on technology out of fear won't change anything. The paranoid life of 1984 already exists in places like North Korea, where people disappear because a government officer doesn't like the way they look, and such a life arrived without the help of any pervasive surveillance.

Re:Hey everybody, (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289708)

On the other hand, we seem to be inching closer to a Brave New World dystopia, where we are bred to want certain things, and we constantly get what we want in order to keep us distracted. We are also free to choose exile from the system, if we want, and live on a island where we have all the freedom we want (except the freedom to communicate with our friends).

We have also been cautioned against creating a world in which we are endlessly distracted by pleasure.

Sounds like a bad idea ..... (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289418)

Does this mean now that law enforcement could have a potential window into our own homes and that we could lose any rights to privacy. I can see this thing being co-opted for law enforcement and surveillance.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea ..... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289526)

No, that will never happen! This is just for entertainment purposes, law enforcement won't have access to it! We promise, really!

Re:Sounds like a bad idea ..... (2)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289688)

Also, we'll pass that law giving law enforcement access to it anytime they want, without any paperwork. But that is just an unintented side effect, law enforcement will never make use of that law. We promisse, really!

Re:Sounds like a bad idea ..... (1)

SunTzuWarmaster (930093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289696)

Hard access trumps software access every time, and the example is quite clear in this instance.

Black tape.

Re:Sounds like a bad idea ..... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289746)

They will never allow that. They care about you. They just want to help you. Now turn on the TV like a good citizen.

File this under.. (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289422)

...things that will turn me off of TV for the rest of my life. The whole 3D crap is really getting on my nerves, and has pretty much stopped me from spending any money at movies. I don't want to spend an extra 5 bucks to watch the movie in 3d, thanks. Except now, often times, it's either 3d or nothing ( I choose nothing ). Then 3D tvs, which aren't worth the extra costs in my opinion. Now this?

The end of TV is nigh! And you know what? That's perfectly fine by me.

Re:File this under.. (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289542)

I've felt that the "TV experience"* has got worse ever since high def TVs started being pushed to the masses. The TV manufacturers suddenly realised that people were willing to throw away perfectly good TVs for ones that shows the same stuff but in higher def. Except most of the TV channels don't do high def.

So now, people are willing to landfill perfectly good HD TVs for the next thing - 3D TVs.

And what will happen next? People junking 3D TVs in favour of ones which "enhance our viewing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmarketability"

*sigh*

Me? I'm still watching the perfectly good, pre-HD TV I bought 20 years ago.

PS: why does everything have to be an "experience"?

Re:File this under.. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289820)

I junked my 15 year old CRT television this year and haven't looked back. I did wait until I could get a decent sized one for a decent price. A 47" 240hz LCD unit for $599 on a Black Friday sale. That's actually probably cheaper in dollars adjusted for inflation than I paid for my 32" CRT unit back in 1995 ($400). I love it. I watch a lot of outdoor programming and it's a nice enhancement. I've seen the 3D TV demos and I am greatly underwhelmed. I'd never pay one cent more for that and so far almost everyone I've talked to is equally unimpressed. You should shop around and buy a new HDTV though, it's worth it as there are plenty of sub $1000 units that look great.

Re:File this under.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289674)

Agreed. Much more important and fun things to do than watch television. I don't need a gimmick to view a film and I stopped going to the theater several years ago.

Re:File this under.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289984)

lol you are getting old

Watching Porn?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289438)

What would it do, if you were watching porn?

Re:Watching Porn?!?!?! (3, Funny)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289462)

Probably stream to chatroulette.

Great, now there will be a run on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289464)

black electrical tape, useful to stop many a "Big Brother" camera.

No No No No No No NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289478)

Fuck you, no, used to determine recommendations for the viewers? HA! And that's all, right? Fuck you, you advertising monsters, I can just see you salivating at the idea.

A thousand times Fuck NO!

Electrical Tape (5, Funny)

chazchaz101 (871891) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289482)

I see you've covered the camera with electrical tape. Would you be interested in these other privacy related products?

Re:Electrical Tape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289586)

+1 Funny

Re:Electrical Tape (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289594)

The production version will simply switch the program to a 24 hour Rick Astley marathon and turns your volume to maximum when it detects interference with the Viewer Monitoring Interface, for troubleshooting.

Re:Electrical Tape (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289780)

Photo of The Cleavers [wikipedia.org] propped up in front of the camera instead.

Re:Electrical Tape (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289866)

Mod parent up. That is a true LOL.

That's partly why I weaned my family off TV. (0)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289488)

But not the biggest reason -- the biggest reason that the TV is an intellect killer. Spend the evening reading and discussing books, cooking a meal, playing a physical game or doing anything else that needs no purchased electronic device together, and see what difference it makes to the quality of family life.

TV is for the lazy and the stupid. For them, the described device will have only benefits.

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289564)

TV is for keeping people lazy and stupid

FTFY

Re:That's partly why I weaned my family off TV. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289842)

Pass the popcorn.

THAT's really orwell now. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289508)

There is but a tiny step in between using this for pushing advertisements, and using this for control of population. actually, if you passively use the information about interests for control, there isnt even a step at all in between them.

Re:THAT's really orwell now. (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289742)

How much more control it gives besides what it currently gives?

Re:THAT's really orwell now. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289858)

imagine that they track how you respond to any news piece containing 'undesirable' elements in it. and then they tag you as a 'dissenter' depending on that.

This is sooo... (1)

cfriedt (1189527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289512)

Doubleplusungood

Big brother is watching you... watching him... (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289516)

Japan based NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories (STRL) is testing an interface which observes
TV viewers, determines their interest and provides information related to the TV program in accordance with the way they are watching it.

...

Though still in the development stage this could actually revolutionize how we watch TV and especially the advertisements.

It basically sounds like additional hardware (with enough resolution and processing power to discern
multiple faces and possible reactions) on top of a TV, just to spam us with more distracting ads.

The only way I see this being even remotely commercially feasible (especially in an anti-big-brother society like America) is:
1. Either the advertisers shelling out for the extra cost for this hardware and paying an additional fee for this privilege
2. Making the additional benefits of such a device so great that users will actually want it.

The second option (albeit doubtful) would probably need it to be on par with a situation where the hardware
was good enough to replace the Kinect, could interface with the Xbox, and was cheaper overall, or advertiser subsidized
(to make up for the perceived -- possibly real -- loss of privacy w.r.t. the Kinect).

Re:Big brother is watching you... watching him... (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289656)

"... an anti-big-brother society like America"

Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.

Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".

Re:Big brother is watching you... watching him... (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289910)

"... an anti-big-brother society like America"

Sadly, I see absolutely no practical evidence for this in the modern era.

Some propaganda to the contrary, yes, but even 1984 had its "Freedom is slavery".

Ahh but see, my main emphasis is on complacency, which there is plenty of, and is what's most likely squashing any of these missing sentiments:

Look at Facebook and Google. There is always some modicum of unrest when they release any new features that further erode privacy standards.
I'll agree that YES, they almost always get their way (aside from Google Buzz being annoying as hell and immediately rescinded), however the two main differences from those situations and this is:

1. FB and Google exist on the internets, and are basically free to anyone who can leech wifi. This hardware sounds like it would cost some $$$.
2. FB and Google offer services such as mind-numbing social brainfarting (guess which one!... granted this distinction is being blurred fast), and lots of well-made freely available cloud-based software.

My point in the first post was that there's a price (albeit a low one) for complacency, and in this situation the price will need to also cover the costs of additional hardware that really serves no other purpose.

In Soviet Tokyo... (4, Funny)

leftie (667677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289540)

TV watches you. ;)

Re:In Soviet Tokyo... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289718)

How did it take so long for someone to make this joke!?

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289578)

...TV watches YOU!

If this comes on my next TV (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289596)

My next TV accessory will be some Duct Tape.

Big Sony is watching you. (1)

infosinger (769408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289604)

This is so scary, it's surreal.

I better buy some black electrical tape.

So, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289616)

Does this mean they'll be banning duct tape for its telescreen-bypassing abilities?

Clippy 2012 (1)

Ashenkase (2008188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289626)

As long as the Clippy type avatar that appears on the TV rides away on a bicycle every time I disable this "feature" I am all for it.

Okay, so I won't own a TV. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289728)

Thanks for saving my money! I suppose I'd be on the computer even more...

(At least I build my computers and control/know what is in/on them.)

Really, I'm capable of doing that myself (3, Insightful)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289756)

I'm fully capable of determining my own level of interest, thank you very much. I'm also fully capable of choosing what to watch. It's not like I wind up missing out on a series that I would have loved if only it had been recommended to me.

This really isn't a problem for me that need to be solved.

No matter, I'll spend a little more money on electrical tape to cover up the camera.

Re:Really, I'm capable of doing that myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36290002)

No matter, I'll spend a little more money on electrical tape to cover up the camera.

I'll desolder both the camera and back-electret mic that will (doubtlessly) also be there.

Assuming the collected data is sent back to channels, advertisers or the manufacturer... I may amuse myself by substituting alternate signals.

Old Yackov joke. (1)

databaseadmin (1978316) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289762)

In Russia, you don't watch TV, TV watches you!!!

I suspect... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289778)

That your viewing habits are all ready being recorded.

Digital TV boxes already provide cable companies with valuable information: what show you are watching, when you increase the volume, when you mute, when you change the channel.

Too bad they don't have their shit together enough to feed a learning algorithm to tailor ads to you.

Google will.

Not on my watch. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289784)

Do not want.

nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289804)

Having a camera in your tv would be a sure fire way for me to specifically not purchase it.

You are also stupid if you think it will be used for anything but targeted advertising.

Turning things around (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289810)

Now we'll have TV's watching porn instead of us watching it on TV!

Mr Clippy (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289828)

Seen while masturbating to porn ....

"Can't get it up? Would you be interested in some ED medication? Or perhaps something guaranteed to add 2 inches."

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289838)

What if I watch TV naked or I end up hooking up with someone while watching TV?

TV is just the start (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289846)

This sort of attention targetted advertising is almost definitely just going to start on TV and then will likely roll out to computers, tablets, phones, electronic billboards, and so on...

Depressing thought, isn't it?

I see TV (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36289880)

My Great Grandmother used to dress up to watch TV in the 1950's because she thought the newscaster and other actors could see her.

In soviet Russia... (1)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289948)

TV WATCH YOU

1984 (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289950)

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face...; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime..."

If it works as well as Netflix... (1)

falken0905 (624713) | more than 3 years ago | (#36289994)

If it's recommendations and intuitive picks work as well as Netflix then... FAIL.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?