Apple patents system for iOS devices to prevent image and video capturing
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
Edit: Probably worth noting that were this to take off it would probably also be embedded in every TV out there.
If it's infrared, you can always find and cover the emitter.
Imagine, little solar-powered IR LEDs that you could ninja-drop in places (like...an Apple store) that would broadcast "Hello, you are photographing a copy of The Hurt Locker". This would make the best hidden-camera show ever (though you'd have to record it with a non-iPhone).
I honestly would be less concerned about "legit" or "publicly known" use (concerts, sports, political event etc.) since it would lead to public dissent towards of the offending performer/venue. Not saying it wouldn't be used, but there would be a significant PR liability if they imposed sanctions on photography.
If I were a criminal, first thing I would do is get a few of those IR transmitters to wear on my ski mask.
I don't like to think apple would bow this deeply to the recording industry. Maybe the government. Either way it turns my stomach.
"At block 950, a record function can be disabled. For example, if the encoded data includes a disable command, the device can temporarily disable its record function for a period of time after receiving the command (e.g., 30 seconds or 30 minutes). After the device's record function is disabled, the device may not be able to store images detected by the device. In some embodiments, after the device's record function is disabled, the device may not be able to even display images detected by the device (see, e.g., system 500 shown in FIG. 5). In some embodiments, a device may even delete one or more of the most recently stored images (e.g., the first image detected at block 910) when disabling the device's record function."
[1] http://www.patentlyapple.com/.a/6a0120a5580826970c014e88d777...
Don't worry. It'll come bundled in a firmware update.
Note, though, that a patent does not mean the feature is coming. Most companies patent everything their R&D departments come up with, and only 10% of those ever make their ways into products.
Personally, I can't see anyone bothering with it. You'd set up some proprietary transmitter that would only work on a subset of devices, that is based on a technology that the wider market wouldn't be interested in adopting (why would Nokia or Nikon care to adopt such a standard?) and ultimately it could be defeated by a cheap piece of IR filtering glass or plastic.
What would be the point?
Something along those lines would definitely be boon to AAPL or others penetrating that sort of market. However, we all know the software on smartphones are if not trivially, at least often manipulated. This may be able to skim a little of the market, but if I had a business where I couldn't trust camera phone now, I wouldn't trust this technique against even a slightly educated and motivated individual.
Think of it the way Bruce Schneier would: what could a malicious person accomplish with this technology? There's no effective way to keep it out of their hands, so you need to know what happens when someone tries to use this technique for malicious ends. The security implications of this are just nasty, nasty, nasty.
Never ended up commercializing it.
They were calling it the iPod...
In any case, the first poster is right, an additional IR filter would remove this.
There's no incentive for Apple to produce/sell this device.
There's a patent. That much is (apparently) fact. Everything else is speculation. Is it really worth getting worked up over things that haven't happened and may never happen?
Finally, if this were to come to pass, there's a very easy solution: a filter. You will see cases that cover the lens with an IR filter. Problem solved. Yawn.
What are you talking about? To follow your absurd scenario, you think if Apple gave this bizarre patent away, but none of their others, that the EFF should then turn around and backstab the inventors and license it to their rivals? Yeah that's real classy and makes a whole lot of sense..
Why do so many people see the world in these binaries? Good/evil, black/white, red/blue.
P.S. My suggestion was intentionally absurd. I think it's more likely that, like someone else suggested, this patent would be used to prevent people from exploiting such systems.
A guy enters your office with a machine gun. He doesn't fire, but keeps holding it and looking around like he's looking for someone. What do you do? Ask him "how may I help you, sir?"
> there's a very easy solution: a filter. You will see cases that cover the lens with an IR filter.
This works until someone passes legislation prohibiting it.
It's even worse than when I criticize Microsoft between 9 and 18 PST...
Are you willing to wager? I'm feeling lucky: I'll bet you $100 that ten years from now you'll be able to real-time stream 3D holographic recordings of the Rolling Stones directly to your Facebook friends.
When you woke up on September 10th 2001, did you imagine you would ever have to take your shoes off to board a plane? Weird things happen and weirder rules get enacted. The tech we build is, sometimes, misused. I even like nuclear bombs - they can be used for good. This recording prevention device cannot.
> Do you think your favorite band is really going to allow such a device to be enabled during one of their shows
I'd have no problem if the Rolling Stones decided to start using recording prevention devices to "protect" their shows. I'll worry when the police starts wearing them on their helmets.
IIRC, HP patented a similar device a couple years back.
It should be noted that The Man hasn't yet mandated compulsory licensing and implementation of this technology on all camera equipment. Then again, I don't know what the Trilateral Commission's been up to recently, so maybe this technology is already in place.
> "This recording prevention device cannot [be used for good]."
You are wrong. Maybe I can have one of these in my bedroom, so people can't take photographs of me while I'm walking around naked or making sweet love. Maybe abortion providers can have them outside their facilities so that people can't take pictures of people coming in for procedures and being publicly humiliated. I can think of all sorts of uses for this device that might be for the better.
Do I ever want to see such technology deployed? No, because I, like you, think the negatives outweigh the positives, but to suggest that the device has no positive use is to betray a lack of imagination.
Do you really want to suggest that atomic weapons have a moral justification while this technology does not?