
Apple's infrared 'camera kill switch' patent application hits a nerve - shawndumas
http://i.tuaw.com/2011/06/20/apples-infrared-camera-kill-switch-patent-application-hits-a/
======
scelerat
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!

~~~
Mizza
I run a project which uses cell phones to monitor the police -
<http://www.openwatch.net/> \- so this patent is _terrifying_ to me.

Police already use cell phone jammers in prisons and remote systems to disable
engines of vehicles in chases, I don't doubt for a second that they would use
this as a way to disable recording devices at public demonstrations, etcetera.
The (anti)feature may be put in place to prevent 'piracy' of live events, but
a backdoor is a backdoor.

~~~
tednaleid
I agree that this is an awful technology, if implemented, but could it be that
the patent actually works in favor of freedom?

The fact that this kind of technology "could" be created has nothing to do
with whether or not there is a patent. This always could have bene done.

Having someone (like Apple) who might respond to social pressure own the
patent could be better than a company who has less interest in it's image.
Their ownership of the patent could prevent other companies less likely to
care about their image from developing this technology because it's already
patented by a famously litigious company that protects it's patent library.

~~~
Mizza
That's actually a great point. I suppose my fear is not the patent, but rather
the salience of the technology - something which Apple is adept at.

------
jcromartie
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.

~~~
Joakal
It's already mandatory (Korea/Japan) for phones to make sounds when taking a
picture. It's one of the aims to curb perverts. [0]

[0]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Camera_phone#...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Camera_phone#Social_impact)

~~~
pavel_lishin
Ugh. I hate it when any of my devices make sounds without me explicitly
allowing it to, both in principle and on a practical level. (Dear Macbook,
please shut the fuck up forever so I don't wake up my girlfriend at night when
I boot you up.)

~~~
crocowhile
[http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2003122015465176...](http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20031220154651763#comments)

~~~
pavel_lishin
Thanks!

It's kind of ridiculous that I have to dig through a Japanese-language-only
website to find a Beta software to simply control the fact that my computer
moos like a cow with intestinal distress every time it boots up.

~~~
epochwolf
If you mute the computer before rebooting, it doesn't make any noise.

~~~
mirkules
This works in Snow Leopard (and possibly Leopard), but in Tiger it definitely
didn't work.

------
nickolai
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

~~~
Construct
It depends on 1) the IR attenuation of the filter and 2) the sensitivity of
the camera element to IR.

IR filters can only attenuate incoming IR so much while still allowing nearby
red wavelengths through. And any filter will have a non-flat response through
the visible wavelengths, slightly distorting the color response of your
photos.

A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still
be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated. At ~30fps, you
can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded
'disable' signal.

My gut feeling is that Apple patented this technology because it was low-
hanging fruit. They saw they could roll it into a legitimate patent and
prevent others from claiming it down the road. Still, I think it's worthwhile
to send a quick letter to the powers that be to let them know we all disprove.
If it does get implemented, the popularity of jailbreaking will move up
another notch.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> If it does get implemented, the popularity of jailbreaking will move up
> another notch.

Unless they implement it at the hardware level.

~~~
jrockway
If only there were multiple suppliers of mobile phones.

------
Tyrannosaurs
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...

~~~
scelerat
My fear would be some consortium of big-box retailers, the MPAA, police
unions, and fearful save-the-children groups lobbying congress to create laws
requiring the inclusion of such turn-off features in all cameras.

Possibly paranoid, but not exactly far-fetched. See: Communications decency
act; DMCA.

I agree, photo crippling features seem hardly in Apple's interest.

~~~
sixtofour
1\. Patent something that appeals to government and other control freaks.

2\. Watch the technology become mandatory by law.

3\. Profit.

~~~
camiller
Worked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying
to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented
tech, congress never went for it.

~~~
thebooktocome
It failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his
monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous
prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.

~~~
camiller
And it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version
engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false
positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get
the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade
below the table surface instead of destroying itself.

Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it
mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees.

Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.

~~~
thebooktocome
When you license a patent, somebody else can take on manufacturing costs
and/or risks. Theoretically, there is competition, consumers have options, and
the argument for legislation doesn't look quite so self-serving.

------
riordan
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...](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.

~~~
asciilifeform
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation>

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

~~~
vacri
After all, Apple does have a strong tradition of altruism!

~~~
mortenjorck
Apple has a strong tradition of making the best possible user experience.
Imagine the following scenario:

1\. Sony Ericsson invents the camera-disabling technology instead of Apple.
Pressure from Sony Pictures results in its implementation in a new SE Android
phone.

2\. The MPAA catches on and begins requiring theaters to install the
technology while lobbying for laws that require it to be implemented on phones
and cameras sold in the US.

3\. Other mobile manufacturers start implementing the technology just in case
the MPAA's lobbying succeeds, and to maintain relationships with content
providers.

4\. Apple, despite really not wanting to damage the user experience of its
phones, is forced to implement the technology as well, as the industry has
mostly adpoted it and Apple's content partners are using this as leverage in
negotiating iTunes deals.

And so here we have the alternative, where Apple has foreseen this and
patented the technology to keep the industry from adopting it and forcing
Apple to make a less-enjoyable product.

~~~
albemuth
Another scenario: Certain venues will not allow mobile devices unless they
have iDisable technology. That's a win for the user I guess...

------
cbailey
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.

------
powertower
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.

~~~
pavel_lishin
It's a great trick for checking if your remote's batteries are dead, or
whether the problem is something else.

------
brown9-2
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.

~~~
jcdreads
With every technology one must weigh its benefit against the risk of abuse.

Giving someone else the ability to shut off my camera doesn't help me at all
(and is in fact something I want not to happen), so all that is left is the
risk of abuse. For me that's an easy tradeoff to evaluate.

~~~
theklub
Yes like perhaps the cops don't want you filming them, they can turn off
cameras within a certain radius...

------
ck2
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/>

~~~
calloc
Anti-theft shopping cart wheels are at a frequency that can be played by an
MP3 player using a simple wire antenna that plugs into the headphone jack.

For those of you following along at home, a friend of mine posted this a while
back: <http://zpriddy.com/2010/07/13/wal-mart-shopping-cart-locker/>

------
joejohnson
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'?

~~~
pavel_lishin
> How would they market a phone to consumers that would have less capabilities
> as a camera than their competitors'?

It would not have less capabilities - in fact, it would have more, and they
would simply have to play this up. See their examples about extracting more
metadata from the environment.

I'm sure they could spin the possibility of forbidding photos in a positive
light - "Worried about perverts photographing your children at the playground?
Worry no more, with the iPerv - simply turn it on, and cameras in the vicinity
won't be able to steal your child's innocence pixels!"

~~~
sukuriant
Unless they have an old camera.

This stops nothing.

