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

http://i.tuaw.com/2011/06/20/apples-infrared-camera-kill-switch-patent-application-hits-a/

by shawndumas • 15 years ago

116 74 15 years ago

i.tuaw.com

gaius2• 15 years ago

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

vacri2• 15 years ago

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

gaius2• 15 years ago

Well, it would be bonkers for them to have this "feature" when no other handset manufacturer did.

mortenjorck• 15 years ago

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.

ghostDancer• 15 years ago

Yes you are right and the new bill won't be used against bloggers who embed a video. I'm afraid i've heard that song. I think Apple wants the content providers on its side (which is legit) so this can be another brick on its side against the rest. For that being valid i think they will have to enforce it.

bryanlarsen• 15 years ago

They can make it expensive for somebody to implement the feature but they cannot stop anyone. Google for "United States vs Besser".

cbailey2• 15 years ago

The article hints at this possibility.

napierzaza• 15 years ago

I trust Apple for many things, but not that. Patenting ideas is something that is certainly not always done for sake of using the tech. So I wouldn't assume they're going ahead with this. Likely an engineer came up with the idea and they patented it.

billybob• 15 years ago

In that case, they could get nice PR points by 1) announcing "we patented this to keep anyone from using it" and/or 2) donating the patent to the EFF or someone similar.

jcromartie• 15 years ago

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.

invertd• 15 years ago

Yup...the radio (wi-fi, 4G, LTE etc) version of this patent might be just around the corner.

Joakal• 15 years ago

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#...

pavel_lishin7• 15 years ago

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.)

kragen• 15 years ago

It is not, however, mandatory that they continue to make sounds when they are recording video.

brown9-24• 15 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.

jcdreads• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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

tomp• 15 years ago

Sure, but all these examples are about technologies that introduce freedom, not restrictions. The thing about more freedom, is that you have the right, not the obligation, to exercise it. You can choose not to use the phones if you don't trust whoever's running the network. In contrast, the idea behind restrictions is that they are obligatory, not optional.

brown9-24• 15 years ago

True, this is a good point. I don't know why any consumer would willingly purchase a device with such limitations.

nickolai• 15 years ago

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

modernerd2• 15 years ago

If 'blockable-by-IR' technology made it into the iPhone camera, it'd be a week before an IR filter exactly as you describe emerged as a Kickstarter project.

It would probably be titled 'Decensored' and accompanied by a spoof of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad. Or, failing that, a guy in a shed with some IR filters, a pair of scissors, some Pritt Stick, and a dream.

crocowhile2• 15 years ago

If I were Apple I would make the IR processing happen at hardware level (so no jailbreak) and I would make sure the hardware would stop working unless a physiological level of background IR light is picked up.

That means that an IR filter physically placed in front of the objective would stop the secret signal but make the camera useless as well.

Construct• 15 years ago

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_lishin7• 15 years ago

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

Unless they implement it at the hardware level.

georgieporgie• 15 years ago

A properly coded IR signal from the transmitting 'disabler' device could still be picked up by the iPhone even if it was severely attenuated.

How about IR filter + 555 timer connected to an IR LED near the camera lens. Filter down the unwanted IR signal, then wash it away with a flood of intermittent IR of your own.

At ~30fps, you can quickly get 100+ samples to cross-correlate with to search for the encoded 'disable' signal.

Can you explain how that works? I don't have a deep grasp of CCDs, so I don't understand how a signal like this could be encoded within a single 1/30 second frame. I thought that all pixels were captured simultaneously, is that not the case?

brown9-24• 15 years ago

Can IR light pass through duct tape?

chrisa• 15 years ago

The article mentions the IR data is received by the camera itself, so you can't just cover a sensor with tape.

cbailey2• 15 years ago

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.

riordan• 15 years ago

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.

asciilifeform• 15 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

joejohnson• 15 years ago

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_lishin7• 15 years ago

> 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• 15 years ago

Unless they have an old camera.

This stops nothing.

scelerat2• 15 years ago

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!

pavel_lishin7• 15 years ago

Reality check: at least at first, this would likely only exist on the iPhone.

Tyrannosaurs4• 15 years ago

That's the problem - if it only existed on the iPhone you basically have no significant suppression, particularly once it's known.

Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever.

Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point.

And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....

Mizza2• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

powertower• 15 years ago

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_lishin7• 15 years ago

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

Tyrannosaurs4• 15 years ago

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...

LXicon• 15 years ago

big concert promoters could point to all the flickr pages with pics of their shows from iphones and threaten to sue apple unless apple implements a means to disable taking pics at a concert. this is very similar to the code that allows DVRs to shut off analogue outputs when playing new release movies (Selectable Output Control) * i don't agree with either of these.

Tyrannosaurs4• 15 years ago

How's threatening to sue the makers of hardware used to commit a crime working out for victims of gun crime?

Phones don't record gigs, people do.

scelerat2• 15 years ago

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.

antihero2• 15 years ago

Perhaps then people would consider rioting. Probably not, seeing as the critical aspect the average person is essentially neutralised if they have been appeased by gadgets and cheap entertainment.

sixtofour• 15 years ago

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

2. Watch the technology become mandatory by law.

3. Profit.

ck2• 15 years ago

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/

calloc2• 15 years ago

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/

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

Related Stories