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!

Apple Patents Tech to Stop iPhones Filming in Venues

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-cameras-please dept.

Handhelds 391

An anonymous reader writes "A patent application filed by Apple, and obtained by the Times, reveals how the software would work. If a person were to hold up their iPhone, the device would trigger the attention of infra-red sensors installed at the venue. These sensors would then instruct the iPhone to disable its camera."

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

Deja Vue (5, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464126)

Haven't we been here before [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Deja Vue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464220)

If I can just patent dupes, I'll be rich!

Re:Deja Vue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464388)

Not only that, this article is on foxnews, so it has utterly no interesting technical info....

Re:Deja Vue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464488)

Not only that, this article is on foxnews, so it has utterly no info....

Fixed that for you... Remember that you're talking about Fox news

Back on topic... (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464624)

Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.

I don't want my electronic gadgets to be told what to do by other sources....I want it up to ME what I film and don't film,etc.

So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?

I mean, aside from the lameness of this, fixing a problem that isn't there....what about the abuses of this?

Re:Deja Vu (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464540)

It's also being reported on The Sun [thesun.co.uk] and linked via Drudge.

Apparently someone just discovered this two-week-old non-news.

Re:Deja Vue (1)

Thruen (753567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464396)

Maybe not. I don't see a reference to the actual patent application here, but from what I can tell, the previous story was about the infrared signal and the camera that can be disabled by it, this appears to be a method of triggering whatever infrared emitter. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't quite about the same thing, although there's no need for Slashdot to cover them both.

Re:Deja Vue (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464504)

Nah, my guess is it's still about the first gadget, it's just that the reporter got it wrong.

The reason I say that is because there is absolutely no need for such a sensor: it's vastly easier and cheaper just to have infrared emitters constantly sending the "do not record" signal.

Re:Deja Vue (0)

Thruen (753567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464576)

Ah good call. I should've checked the source first, too. Fox never gets anything right.

Re:Deja Vue (2, Interesting)

znu (31198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464512)

For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent? Seriously, remember those articles about Apple patenting OS-level advertising that locked people out of their computers until they watched it? Seen any Macs or iOS devices doing that lately?

Re:Deja Vue (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464592)

Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.

Maybe the application for patenting it on all cameras maybe got turned down. It seems like trying to patent anything but the sun gets approved, but maybe some government official realized that if Apple has the exclusive rights to this valuable censorship technology, that could prevent it from being rolled out. Maybe Steve Jobs would say "Okay, you've made it mandatory that all cameras have this in them, so now I have a monopoly on the whole camera market. You'll now have to pay $1000 for a legally-approved 4 megapixel compact camera." So everyone would just buy unapproved cameras and their dastardly plans would be ruined. Thus, the government had the broader patent application denied.

I consider this to be the most likely explanation. You can spout off about slashdot editors being careless, but we both know this is clearly the fallout of a fight between two forces of evil.

I see no way this can go wrong. (3, Insightful)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464134)

There's absolutely no way anyone would ever abuse such technology. Nope. Unpossible.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong. (3, Insightful)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464530)

I hope you're not thinking of law enforcement using such IR transmitters to prevent unwanted filming of unwarranted actions, because that's just crazy talk! You're crazy! Stop it!

Re:I see no way this can go wrong. (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464638)

Lulzsec/Anon etc. are going to be using this at concerts,tourist places etc. etc. wherever people would want to take pics.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong. (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464704)

Lulzsec/Anon etc. are going to be using this at concerts,tourist places etc. etc. wherever people would want to take pics.

Nevermind that - what about mounting one on every police cruiser?

Easy Fix (1)

TheGatesofBill (637809) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464148)

And there would almost immediately be iPhone cases for sale which cover the IR receivers. Or masking tape. Either way.

Software patch for "Easy Fix" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464178)

And all they need is a software patch to detect whether or not the sensor is covered, after all it is a sensor, and disable the camera if the sensor is covered.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464304)

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464420)

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

By putting this in the CCD that is the thing that takes the actual picture? If you do that, 'blocking' the filter means you block the lens.

Remember, these are digital cameras, so you do all of this stuff behind the lens. It's not like they're going to build a separate sensor which can be spoofed/blocked.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464542)

So then someone invents an iPhone case with an IR filter covering the lens.

No, the only solution is to reverse the system and install IR signals everywhere that you're allowed to take photo's with the camera refusing to take pictures unless you have the express permission of the venues owner.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464614)

And we'd build giant, terawatt IR emitters to blanket the entire world outdoors? Why do I have the feeling you haven't thought this one through....

Please tell me you're kidding.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464686)

I think we already have one of those. It rises in the east every morning.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (2, Funny)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464442)

The iPhone 5 will have tape sensors around the IR sensors.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

panikfan (1843944) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464446)

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

Or, no infrared signal because my finger is in the way...

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464536)

Apple says you'd be holding it wrong.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464582)

if the sensor also can detect visible light?, very few situations involve filming in absolute pitch darkness.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix" (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464710)

Aye, but Apple is unlikely to implement a patch.

Apples record shows them to be control freaks, but standard in a way. They want all the control for themselves, however any control they don't have, their first choice seem to be to give it to their users, not 3rd parties. At worst, they usually make some easy to get around 'fix' to make the 3rd parties happy, at best, they fight the 3rd parties (i.e. eventually allowing some DRM-free music from iTunes)

I can't see Apple bending over for the movie theaters (or at least, doing it without finding some way to laugh at the movie theater's idiocy). They are in the business of making others bending over, not themselves...

Re:Easy Fix (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464184)

Then the camera wouldn't work,

Re:Easy Fix (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464270)

Or you could just hold it wrong so the transmissions don't reach.

Re:Easy Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464296)

Or a simple blue-tinted filter which would stop IR from getting to the camera sensor but leave visible light still usable?

Re:Easy Fix (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464450)

And there would almost immediately be iPhone cases for sale which cover the IR receivers

Dude, the "IR Receiver" is the camera lens. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Re:Easy Fix (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464470)

The camera is the receiver... So if you cover the receiver it's not like you are gonna be recording anyway.

PROTIP: turn on the camera on your phone, then point the emitter of an IR remote (such as TV remote) at the lens. Press a button and see the magic!

counter-measure is simple (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464152)

use an infrared filter to block messages from these "sensors"

That's why I don't own a iPhone (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464160)

Even if they're lighter, thinner, slicker, etc.
My phone shouldn't try to restrict me.

Freedom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464168)

Apple has none.

Re:Freedom? (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464522)

Apple has none.

Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.

I predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464170)

Every police car will have one installed by the end of the year.

this is great for law enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464174)

so when will police start wearing a device that sends out IR that stops devices from recording?

Re:this is great for law enforcement (1, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464284)

Actually, when will crooks start wearing the camera-stopper device? I'm sure people robbing a 7-11 wouldn't want to be spied on by random passerbys.

When technologies like this get out there, it won't just be the PD that uses them, the crooks will be using them to, so there is no footage at a murder scene.

Re:this is great for law enforcement (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464538)

this [amazon.com] + this [mpja.com] = paparazzi-proof . Sell 'em to celebs for $2500 a pop.

What if there's a crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464176)

What if there's a crime and you want to use the camera for identifying those involved?

The real counter measure (5, Insightful)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464182)

Don't buy an iphone if this bothers you.

I like a lot of apple products, but in this case I think i'll pass on the new iphone.

Re:The real counter measure (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464308)

Ok, I won't buy one.

But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?

Re:The real counter measure (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464416)

Don't worry, as the title says:

"A patent application"

So nobody can copy them for around 17-20 years or how long the patent is. So we're safe for now.

Re:The real counter measure (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464430)

Don't worry it'll never come to that.

It'll be illegal to film police period.

Re:The real counter measure (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464506)

The nice thing with this patent is it requires an IR transmitter. What about using visible light? Or RF? Or a coded audio signal? Or ... ?

Imagine everyone having this technology, but implementing them in patent-avoiding incompatible ways. Then any way to disable the camera would require a whole rack of equipment to be carried around.

Nevermind all the legacy equipment that'll be incompatible with it (when this comes out, the iPhone 4 will be out of support - it won't get this stuff), etc.

Of course, it could very well be the plan - make it so inconvenient to carry around a rack of equipment to disable cameras that all recordings should still be allowed. Or maybe Apple's got holdings in film companies (ye olde film camera still works today)...

Re:The real counter measure (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464544)

I was referring to people who were discussing various methods to circumvent the "feature". Which is why I suggested they just buy a different product that doesn't have such a stupid feature.

If police are taking advantage of the technology like you describe then the solution isn't to ban companies from making the effected product (people are not forced into buying the product). The solution would be to make it illegal for the police to do that in the first place.

But yes, I would very much like the average citizen to be able to document cases of police brutality.

Re:The real counter measure (1, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464716)

But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?

Don't worry about it, it's not like we live in an iPhone-only society. The recent police shooting in Florida that made the news after it was filmed and the photographer was arrested was filmed using an HTC Evo, not an iPhone. There are enough people with non-Apple smartphones that make it so that anything that Apple does does not have the wide-ranging impact that everyone fears. Apple is just limiting its own customers, not everyone else. For now, anyway.

Maybe it's a preventative patent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464186)

To keep other people from doing it...legally.

Dupe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464188)

Already covered two weeks ago: in this story [slashdot.org]

Do the "editors" even read Slashdot anymore?

Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464198)

with electrical tape. or IR filtering plastic, or sitting out of sight of the IR transmitters....

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464316)

Just hold your thumb over the sensor, that should work.

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented (1)

bbeagle (2262032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464348)

What if the sensor is inside the lens?

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464692)

What if the sensor is inside the lens?

I think your GP already covered that: infrared filter over the lens.

Next up in Instructables and on Ebay (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464210)

Camera-disabling sensors and signaling for everyone! Apple might win a court case on distributing the devices but a PDF of the plans and some software isn't really injunction-able.

I don't see any reason not to put one of these on my house, car, bike and sweater either. It's the ultimate in privacy!

Enjoy your (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464216)

fenced* garden.

*Fenced because some other players are allowed in.

Re:Enjoy your (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464246)

Hm...a "garden" surrounded by a fence, patrolled by a team of guards, and in which a select few people are allowed to come in for "visits." I think I have heard of real-life examples of such a set up, although people don't usually live in such facilities voluntarily.

Re:Enjoy your (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464364)

ohhhhhh, I see what you're insinuating. The iPhone is like a golf course... Although I don't know if I'd refer to beverage cart girls as guards, you must be playing golf at a different country club than me.

Re:Enjoy your (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464382)

No but many people work in such facilities where camera phones are forbidden. Also some places like bathrooms where you would not want cameras to work

Re:Enjoy your (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464706)

Also some places like bathrooms where you would not want cameras to work

The admins of http://ratemypoo.com/ [ratemypoo.com] will be coming over to speak with you shortly.

Re:Enjoy your (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464408)

Bin Laden did as I recall. Of course he was a whack job and was the most wanted man on the planet.

Re:Enjoy your (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464648)

Thanks! I had to fence it to keep the neighbour's dog from eating my tomatoes.

Apple Favoring Corps? (1, Funny)

ctrimm (1955430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464218)

Apple favoring corps over users. Gee, didn't see that one coming.

Re:Apple Favoring Corps? (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464374)

Or even scarier, Apple favoring Cops over users.

hoh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464222)

yaman yaman http://www.warezw.com

My question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464224)

Why buy a device that gives control to OTHERS ?
Very soon, we'll all be REQUIRED to buy APPROVED devices, ie those that keep us safe from ourselves . . .
For our own benefit . . .
Maybe Apple was the machine in that 1984 commercial . . .

Seems a bit overly complex (1)

Zouden (232738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464232)

Why detect the iPhone? Wouldn't it make more sense to constantly emit the infra-red signal so that it affects all iPhones?

Re:Seems a bit overly complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464274)

This would make an awesome andriod app.

Worry when the government starts mandating it (4, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464242)

The police will love it once this is mandated by law in all phones!

Back in the day when we all whined that Microsoft was evil, we had *NO IDEA* what evil really was.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it (2)

KDN (3283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464298)

Hm, I sense an aftermarket for infrared filters. I also wonder how long before hackers start leaving infrared transmitters all over the place to annoy anyone with an iphone.

So could a person wear one? (1)

davidiii (1983894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464244)

Maybe, say a, a cop?

Off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464250)

Has there been a day in the recent years when there was no iphone story on slashdot?

Wheres the innovation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464264)

I am just not seeing it. Anybody can do that, and is an obvious solution. Maybe I should get hired as a patent examiner. It seems like anybody can do it, and if you screw up, there isn't any liability. Sounds like a good job.

easy to disable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464278)

this might not actually be a additional sensor on the phone. infared light will show up on the camera. it may not just be an issue of blocking a sensor to disable it

Fair Use? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464286)

On its face, it is easy to imagine how this could infringe upon fair use rights among others. For example, if there was some person doing something annoying or funny or illegal or whatever and it happens to be in a theater, you should be able to record it for your purposes, needs or requirements. The fact that it is in a movie theater should not trump all other uses and needs.

Re:Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464626)

Are you crazy? You already paid to watch the movie, concert, whatever, so you are going to be bombarded with anti-piracy ads, messages, threats, suspicions and now this and like it!

Bad for more than just iPhone users (1)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464294)

Those darn infrared sensors ruin my day when I'm at a concert and need to transfer data with my IrDA port on my PowerBook 5300. I've been thinking about upgrading to 802.11a, but I've never really thought of myself as an early adopter and I'm really upset that Apple pulls these stunts to make us upgrade all the time.

Wouldn't it be easier (1)

codewarren (927270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464302)

Wouldn't it be easier to just project a big infrared "COUNTERFEIT" or "VOID" across the thing to be protected? Then it works for all cameras (that pick up IR which is all small cameras)

Filming? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464322)

Can we all please stop using the word "Filming" when referencing digital video recording? There is no film involved anywhere. Unless you're a Hollywood DP or an "artiste" making an art school film, no one "films" anything anymore (and haven't for about 15 or 20 years.)

That is all.

Re:Filming? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464482)

Words change meaning, bro. Although actually in this case "film" as a verb never meant to record onto film specifically, at least according to MW:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/film?show=1&t=1308241787

Bad idea ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464334)

Yes, this story is obviously a dupe.

But I think as soon as we start making such devices so they are geared to have copyright (and whim) enforced upon you, it's a bad thing.

Sooner or later, governments or police will be sure that you can't film them doing things they don't want by blanketing the place in IR that says "no recording". And, really, this will be abused both domestically, and abroad. Having the ability to shut off recording devices remotely is a horrible idea.

This is caving in way too much, and continues the trend that sooner or later we won't be able to have general purpose computers because rights-holders figure they're all going to be used to steal their stuff.

I know what I'm building (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464338)

A portable IR rig that I wear on all my clothing. As bright as I can make it, broadcasting the signal to not record. I will thus create my own, wandering, IR-protected bubble where recording is prohibited.

I'll make it a point to go to museums, concerts, public gatherings, and scenic tourist spots.

You guys have it all wrong (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464350)

This technology is a Hammer of Freedom thrown at the screen to prevent your phone from being indoctrinated by Big Content. Apple is always looking out for your interests, which the haters just don't understand.

Jobs should call Gates (2)

CLaRGe (2267700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464384)

Gates understood, according to his testimony in the Clinton Justice Dept case, that it only takes one mistake to wipe a company out. This comes right on the heels of the location scare. This could blow up into "next they'll shutdown cameras during a Rodney King beating", and iPhone becomes the Brave New World gateway device.

AAPL must come out quickly and deal with this, otherwise this news could send customers and devs right into Android's welcoming arms.

Re:Jobs should call Gates (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464594)

This could blow up into "next they'll shutdown cameras during a Rodney King beating", and iPhone becomes the Brave New World gateway device.

And, given that I'm one of the people saying that ... I personally fail to see how this technology wouldn't be abused.

Apparently, you can't publish pictures of the friggin' Eiffel tower, because some company owns the copyright on the lighting. Concert promoters will be all over this. Fireworks. Buildings. Public art. Free Speech Zones. Governments who have no qualms abusing their people (ok, that's all of them).

As someone who tends to carry a camera around an awful lot, the idea that someone else can disable that is a little worrying ... if I'm in public, and if I can see it, I'm entitled to take a picture of it. I don't give a damn that some idiot asserts he owns the copyright to a building ... I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences.

Sure, Apple can use this to negotiate better deals on iTunes. But, speaking as someone who actually owns some Apple products ... if they think I'm going to accept a limitation on when I can use my camera, they're horribly wrong.

This just puts too much power in the hands of people who I don't place any trust in.

this is why i dont buy Apple (2, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464412)

they are so damn sycophantic its pathetic, i dont want some over-priced crappy phone obeying big brother

Re:this is why i dont buy Apple (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464636)

My phone cost me less than 75$ CAD (that's about 20$ for you yankees) and it does wonders for me, such as making calls, receiving calls, etc... It also takes pictures and serves as my mp3 player! Yeah I know, I'm really missing out on all those great apps but someway, somehow, my life is unaffected by not owning one of 'em geniusphones. Hopefully, someday, I will be able to afford so high a price for a fucking phone... might as well get oversized hipster glasses to go along with it!

You know what this means . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464436)

. . . politicians will start wearing camera-disabling gear except when attending authorized photo-ops.

D.C. area strip clubs will proudly tout their camera-disablers.

Soon to be installed on law enforcement vehicles (2, Insightful)

crakbone (860662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464454)

Mainly in Florida, Boston and Compton, California

Re:Soon to be installed on law enforcement vehicle (2)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464610)

and in "townhall" venues where politicians often make fools of themselves

How the mighty is falling... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464492)

"The hipsters outside looked from Windows to Mac and from Mac to Windows, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Maybe not so bad... (1)

Ken Hall (40554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464546)

Since Apple patented it, this means it doesn't (and theoretically can't) apply to anything but iPhones. So everyone else who has an Android, or Windows, or BB, or any other dumb camera phone is not only free, but PROHIBITED from having this "feature" unless the manufacturers license it from Apple.

Way to go, Apple, you just gave everyone one more reason NOT to buy an iPhone. I'm sure the theater owners will love installing a (probably) expensive IR gadget to catch the small percentage of camera phone owners who will be covered by it.

A Good Patent (4, Insightful)

KPU (118762) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464590)

This is dumb. Patenting it will prevent others from being dumb in a similar way.

Fuck Apple (2, Informative)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464616)

Buying (or even finding and using) an iPhone is saying that Apple is right to do stupid shit like this. Please, please PLEASE be smart, and vote with your wallet.

The iPhone means no freedom to use your purchases as you want, and no avenue for recourse because "whatever they say, goes". Buy something else.

I am going to file a patent (1)

chrispix (624431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464628)

That covers a new iphone case which has an integrated IR filter & IR Transmitter. The IR Transmitter will provide some IR light so the sensor does not see it all as blocked, while the IR filter blocks the signals from the concert. It will be magical that you can record @ a concert.

Doesn't make a lot of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464630)

Haven't read the patent, but why bother "attracting attention?" If they have an IR signal that shuts down iPhone cameras, just saturate the area with it. It could be built into police car car light arrays, locker rooms, .....

So, will we need an infrared-absorbing case, or will just a stick on filter for the camera lens be enough?

gosh (0)

tibbar (30026) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464664)

and a infra-red filter (hot mirror) wouldn't stop this ? .. helloooooo...

So when do they issue these transmitters to cops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36464688)

And politicians? You know, to "protect" them from citizens filming their activities.

Move Along, Citizen. (3, Insightful)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36464708)

How long till cops put these on their cars, or make some belt-attached version to stop citizen recordings?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?