Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes" 140
theodp (442580) writes "As Google Glass goes on sale [ed: or rather, went on sale] to the general public, GeekWire reports that Bill Gates has already snagged one patent for 'detecting and responding to an intruding camera' and has another in the works. The invention proposes to equip computer and device displays with technology for detecting and responding to any cameras in the vicinity by editing or blurring the content on the screen, or alerting the user to the presence of the camera. Gates and Nathan Myhrvold are among the 16 co-inventors of the so-called Unauthorized Viewer Detection System and Method, which the patent application notes is useful 'while a user is taking public transportation, where intruding cameras are likely to be present.' So, is Bill's patent muse none other than NYC subway rider Sergey Brin?"
A more cynical interpretation: closing the analog hole. Vaguely related, mpicpp pointed out that Google filed a patent for cameras embedded in contact lenses.
Re:The difference... (Score:4, Interesting)
So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?
No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget. Brains have an unreliable nature to them, which people over the millennia have learned to exploit. There's value in that, which people do not want to lose, so they resist. Plain and simple.
I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?
Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.
Re:Same problem as the anti-glasshole movement (Score:2, Interesting)
.
But people are reacting because the Google glasses bring another dimension to this, when you get a lot of people that are potentially constantly filming you and uploading it to a massive data-aggregator with immense capabilities to correlate data and track people. It is 1984 level constant mass-surveillance, and people don't like the idea of this. You can claim all you want that if you want privacy you shouldn't be out, or don't do anything you want to hide.. but people are reacting for the same reason 1984 struck a note with people reading it. Yes, elements if this was already possible, but suddenly you see it taken to a whole new level. Is this loss of privacy and expectation of constant mass-surveillance something we just have to accept eventually? Maybe.. but not without protests.
bullshit patent (Score:5, Interesting)
the patent is bullshit. it doesn't provide the magical means of how to technically decide that something is a viewer or not and the other stuff is obvious. it doesn't take a genius to come up with that hey it would be nice to detect if someone is viewing while you input your pin. but it would take a genius to sit in the box24 /7 to figure out if there was a camera somewhere or not!
"Intruder analysis module scans the input for viewers, and classifies them as either intruders or safe viewers. Intruder analysis module also scans the input for cameras or camera-equipped devices (e.g., SLR cameras, camera-equipped cellular phones, point-and-shoot cameras, building-mounted camera systems, etc.). Intruder analysis module may classify an object as a viewer or camera using any number of detection algorithms. For example, intruder analysis module may apply motion detection algorithms on the sensor information, and may classify any moving object as a viewer"
Re:The difference... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the difference between: "hey, Jenny was so drunk last night she showed me her boobs!" and "hey, look at this picture of Jenny's boobs." As someone who likes boobs, I try to minimize the incentives for girls to keep them hidden.