Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve

Absolutely the thought of this kind of "feature" used to actively cripple a democratic tool by big gov is chilling. i.e. "What if cops used it to mask abuses?"

But somehow it's the more banal applications I can imagine that would deliver a more real sense of oppression. Stores turning it on so that nobody could photograph their displays, meaning you couldn't take a picture with your mom if you were out shopping. Or buildings broadcasting the "don't film" signal such that photographers wouldn't be able to take pictures (i don't know why they like to do this, but this activity has been consistently upheld by courts). Lots of entrepreneurs have ideas that inevitably revolve around the utility of ubiquitous cameras which would be nullified by ubiquitous camera-canceling signals. And so on.

The chilling effect could become commonplace. And then in the event of a real crisis when you do want photos, people can't take them because of a stupid IR signal. What you do then? Oh crap! There's a guy getting beaten in front of me. Nobody move; let me run to Walgreens and get an IR filter!

I could see police lobbying to have this kind of technology required in all mobile devices. Just look at the DMCA and how it is used to enforce anti-consumer technologies like region coding.

However, the IR technology described in the patent is so easily circumvented that it's hardly worth anything. So, that's good news if our country takes another (probably unsurprising) huge step in the dystopian direction.

Wouldnt a simple IR filter strapped to the camera lens neutralise the system?

The filters are really not that hard to get - most cheap webcams use one because their CCD are actually very sensitive to IRs

The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's best for the user over what's best for third parties (most notably the networks when they launched the iPhone, stopping their "value add" customisations) and it's hard to see how using this technology to implement a kill switch benefits the user.

Even Apple's more questionable moves are, based on Apple's view of the world, based on improving the lot of the end user. You can talk about how not being open doesn't benefit the user but Apple clearly disagree - they're not walling off their phone because they're fascists, they're doing so because they believe that provides a better experience overall. You can disagree with that but I see no rational argument even if they do you disagree with their approach which takes you from the walled garden to this sort of kill switch.

Plus to implement such a thing would put them at a significant commercial disadvantage against Android and other smart phone platforms at precisely the time when their advantage is shrinking (if not gone altogether). Certainly if they implemented this then my current iPhone would absolutely be my last.

But just because something is technically possible it doesn't mean it will happen and this would seem to be one of those cases.

Unless someone can come up with a realistic scenario where Apple benefit from this? And please no shadowy conspiracies - if that were the case Apple wouldn't have publicly patented it and it wouldn't just be Apple, after all, the Man doesn't just care about Apple customers...

Sounds a lot like William Gibson's idea of The Ugliest T-shirt in the World from his novel 'Zero History' [See: http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/09/03/william-gibson/2...].

In it, a certain object triggers all cameras to stop recording normally, but its only implemented by a gentleman's agreement among security equipment manufacturers.

Maybe they patented it to stop anyone from implementing it, did you think of that?

This could be done using geolocation too (e.g., if you're inside the GPS coordinates of the Pentagon, camera is deactivated). Of course, all you would have to do is turn of location services on your phone.

Or, depending on how the tech works, point your camera at an angle such that the infrared light doesn't hit the sensor in your phone's camera.

If you want to see if your CCD picks up infrared light (it does), just point a remote control (from a tv) at it and press a couple of buttons.

A trick I learned about a few years ago.

It seems to me like you could use the "oppressive government" argument against most technological innovations, period:

- centralized postal system - "now the government can read your correspondence to other people"

- telephones invented - "now the government can listen to you talking to other people"

- invention of the Web - "now the government can track what you read, watch, etc"

- e-commerce takes off - "now the government can keep records on what you buy"

- GPS becomes popular in cars - "now the government can track where you drive"

- GPS becomes ubiquitous in cell phones - "now the government can track where you walk"

Perhaps we should consider more than just the worse possible way to use a technology when the idea of it is broached.

You know the tv-b-gone device? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV-B-Gone

Imagine iphone-b-gone, because it will be easily accomplished.

There is already a device to un/lock anti-theft shopping cart wheels at will http://lekernel.net/blog/2009/01/consumer-b-gone/

I don't think this is a real threat. As people have pointed out, IR filters could circumvent this "feature" if it were ever implemented. Filters could even be incorporated in iPhone case designs.

Also, I think Apple would be crazy to implement this first. How would they market a phone to consumers that would have less capabilities as a camera than their competitors'?