

Apple patents system for iOS devices to prevent image and video capturing - ary
http://www.9to5mac.com/70193/apple-patents-infrared-system-for-ios-devices-to-prevent-illegal-image-and-video-capturing/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+9To5Mac-MacAllDay+%289+to+5+Mac+-+Apple+Intelligence%29

======
orangecat
Yet another reason why replacing general purpose computers with locked down
appliances would be extremely bad for freedom and innovation.

~~~
awnroca
Bad for freedom, great for innovation. If you lock me down I will find a way
around to root/jailbreak/whatever you.

------
ary
Now just imagine it being used at political events or to suppress collection
of evidence of abuse at demonstrations.

Edit: Probably worth noting that were this to take off it would probably also
be embedded in every TV out there.

~~~
kelnos
_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.

~~~
ary
Good point. In your home yes, but not everywhere.

~~~
kelnos
In which case you could cover the receiver on the phone instead.

------
cheald
I want this to go into the iPhone 5. If it does, I can think of about a
million ways to troll the general public with it.

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).

~~~
jamesbkel
Agreed, my first thoughts too. This is ripe for abuse.

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.

------
kjell
This is really scary. I'm a total apple fanboi. But no way I'd buy a phone
with this baked in.

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."

~~~
rbanffy
> But no way I'd buy a phone with this baked in.

Don't worry. It'll come bundled in a firmware update.

------
sudonim
The patent was filed December 2, 2009 when the 3gs was the latest and greatest
iPhone. I'd be surprised if you see this on an iPhone near you anytime soon.
And if the powers that be try to use it to repress Apple users, there are tons
of other devices out there. No need to get alarmed.

~~~
sjs
Unfortunately there aren't any other smart phones that I could recommend for
my mom in good conscience. I haven't tried WP7 yet which actually looks like
it's made for humans. Unlike my Nexus One which is no good for mom yet for a
number of reasons.

------
SeoxyS
Oh god, I don't like the sound of that. I wonder how Apple's going to spin
this to make this sound in any way acceptable, when and if this does get
released.

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.

~~~
roc
If they actually did this, they would obviously focus everything on the the
value-add cases: the shopping assistant, tour-guide apps, etc. And there's
really no indication they would include the 'copy protection' feature even if
they implemented other parts of it.

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?

------
Tycho
Different take: this would allow people to carry iPhones into company
buildings (eg. service centres belonging to banks, government offices) and
areas where camera-phones are banned for security reasons. The bank I used to
work for banned camera phones from their offices, I imagine many other
companies do the same. I would think twice about buying a phone I can't take
to work. Or, corporations might rule out iPhones when choosing a model for the
company phone. This would let Apple back into that (fairly large) market.
Possibly.

~~~
jamesbkel
Interesting take, hadn't thought of that at all.

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.

~~~
Tycho
True enough. A more likely solution would be to just sell a 'corporate' iPhone
with no camera (and support for some other stuff to sweeten the deal).

------
gte910h
I can see police officers affixing this to their gear....

~~~
sedev
That was my very first thought, too - "wow, this is going to be a boon to
criminals in uniform!"

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.

~~~
pyre
Hear, hear! I wonder how Apple will spin it when I can't photograph a police
officer abusing someone with my iPhone? Is that a feature? Or is Apple trying
to tell me that 'photographing abuses of power' is not one of the intended
uses of the iPhone and if I want to use it for such a purpose, I shouldn't buy
one?

------
gamache
This gives me a giggle. Around ten years ago, a few friends of mine put
together a system for Palms to receive IR annotations next to physical
objects, and one of the use cases was for museum guide information.

Never ended up commercializing it.

They were calling it the iPod...

------
rufo
Infrared filter, anyone?

~~~
joezydeco
Most CCD-based cameras alread have an IR filter film behind the lens. There
are lots of people that hack them _out_ to turn their webcams etc into night
vision cameras.

~~~
juiceandjuice
True night vision is a bit different than just adding near-infrared, unless
you plan on using an IR illuminator. It's more like cranking the ISO to
ridiculous levels, and if it's thermal the wavelengths are much much longer
than any digital camera (or optics) can pick up.

In any case, the first poster is right, an additional IR filter would remove
this.

~~~
joezydeco
My point was that consumer CCD cameras filter out short-wavelength IR to
enhance the image, so how does the Apple patent expect to get around that
without removing the filter and making the visible light camera worse?

~~~
rufo
I don't think Apple has an IR filter; IR blasters show up as bluish-white -
handy for testing remote controls.

------
brudgers
The technology described kind of reminds me of the "Ugly T-Shirt" in Gibson's
_Zero History_.

------
monochromatic
Software patents are bad, right? EVERYONE should be able to build this
capability into their phones!

------
jamestr
Vote with your wallet!

~~~
edw
So by voting with your wallet and not purchasing an Apple product, you are
sending the message that you won't purchase products that _don't_ incorporate
technology from patents that you don't like?

------
lotusleaf1987
This is a purely defensive act to keep some company from producing a device
that blocks Apple devices, but they can still make one for
WebOS/Blackberry/Android/WP7.They're doing it to prevent someone else from
producing/selling a similar device.

~~~
rbanffy
If that's the case, they should donate the patent to either the EFF or the
ACLU.

~~~
edw
No, I think they should license it to HTC and all the other Android handset
manufacturers, giving them one more bullet point in their long list of
features that the iPhone lacks.

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.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
| edw: No, I think they should license it to HTC and all the other Android
handset manufacturers, given them one more feature bullet point in their long
list of features that the iPhone lacks.

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.

~~~
edw
For what it'a worth, my comment ends on a very "Meh, who cares?" note. I don't
know where that puts me in the context of your agonizing over our society's
depressing descent into Manichaean dichotomies.

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.

