09-13-2004, 07:00 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Bluetooth: Disables Embedded Cameras (With Suitable Software Installed)
"Voyeurism, invasion of privacy and confidential information leaks - these are just some problems that have arisen from the use of camera-phones. But now, with the help of bluetooth technology and three savvy Temasek Polytechnic students, these problems may just be solved. Mr Soon Wei Kang, 23, one of the designers of software that can disable the camera function of such phones, explained: "An application is loaded into the cellphone and if the owner enters within the range of the bluetooth device, we can control its camera function." Theoretically, the range of control is up to 100 metres, depending on the power of the bluetooth device. "We can choose to restrict the activation of the camera or leave it alone within the range," he added. Other functions of the phone would work normally."
Now that is a nice idea with a lot of potential. It would get around the problem whereby many employers and leisure centres are banning cameras, but where more and more high-end PDAs and Phones come with embedded cameras. If every BT camera enabled device came with this software embedded, then your employer etc. could disable the onboard cameras according to the sensitivity of the area you are in. So far the software has been successfully tested with Nokia 6600 and 7210 phones, with a Nokia 7650 model not proving as co-operative. The original AsiaOne article is currently unavailable, so the Google cached version is here">www.asiaone.com.sg/streats]here.
One major problem is that I can't see every manufacture agreeing on a standard set of protocols etc. to enable this functionality in all phones. Also, this is just for Bluetooth enabled devices and what if your employer or leisure centre doe not want the expense of installing the BT controller? At the moment it is also possible to remove the controlling software that enables the camera control, so it's not foolproof. I still think the solution to this problem is to leave cameras off phones and PDAs altogether, or to offer to offer an additional, more expensive version with the extra phone functionality. But that's me. :wink: What about you?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 07:18 PM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 980
|
|
and what about if I have the BT off in my cellphone to save battery? 
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 07:37 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ctitanic
and what about if I have the BT off in my cellphone to save battery? |
err.. yes, exactly. As usual its only the people who did not actually intend to take a picture who are affected.
This is fine and good, as they did not want to take a picture in any case. However it provides NO protection, and a FALSE sense of security.
I guess it scratches the itch do " Do Something". We've got to think about the children......TM
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 07:56 PM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 980
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surur
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ctitanic
and what about if I have the BT off in my cellphone to save battery? |
err.. yes, exactly. As usual its only the people who did not actually intend to take a picture who are affected.
This is fine and good, as they did not want to take a picture in any case. However it provides NO protection, and a FALSE sense of security.
I guess it scratches the itch do " Do Something". We've got to think about the children......TM
Surur |
well, in my opinion this is a new technology and we will have to learn how to live with that. Today you can buy a cheap digital camera for around 100 dollars with the same quality or a little better than the one in your cellphone. But it�s a digital camera and everybody knows what you are doing with a camera in your hand. All this issues started because of the integration in a cellphone of a digital camera, because it�s impossible to say when you are making a call or you are taking a picture. And there is when the whole problem started because you are used to see people using cellphones in everywhere, in places where you wont allow a digital or any kind of camera.
what would be the solution? I really don�t know. I agree that a solution have to be found to keep the privacy of everyone safe (I read the other day about a guy in Miami that was taking pictures of a 12 year old girl while she was using a fitting room in a mall).
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 08:06 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,911
|
|
I don't like the idea of banning devices with embedded cameras. I like having a cheap camera on my phone. Am I going to use it to take pictures of women in compromising positions? No that's just creepy and wrong. By banning such devices you are only punishing the ones who don't abuse the technology. The thing is the people that really want to take pictures without anyone knowing still can. The will and the technology is there. Think of all those undercover video journalism pieces.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 08:28 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ctitanic
well, in my opinion this is a new technology and we will have to learn how to live with that. Today you can buy a cheap digital camera for around 100 dollars with the same quality or a little better than the one in your cellphone. But it�s a digital camera and everybody knows what you are doing with a camera in your hand. All this issues started because of the integration in a cellphone of a digital camera, because it�s impossible to say when you are making a call or you are taking a picture. And there is when the whole problem started because you are used to see people using cellphones in everywhere, in places where you wont allow a digital or any kind of camera.
what would be the solution? I really don�t know. I agree that a solution have to be found to keep the privacy of everyone safe (I read the other day about a guy in Miami that was taking pictures of a 12 year old girl while she was using a fitting room in a mall).
|
Actually there is no solution. Cameras are getting smaller, and they are not just being integrated with cellphones. You may have noticed their presence in pocketpc's and Palms. The fact is anything with an electrical supply and memory can have a camera. A few examples:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/18/jetflash_dsc/
This is a USB pen/camera
http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040730/
This is an mp3 player/camera
http://portableaudio.engadget.com/en...7148624868015/
this is a mp3 player, camera and video camera,
http://www.i4u.com/images/wqv10hand.jpg
and of course our old favourite the camera watch
These are devices that any person could quite innocently carry. Cameras will show up in more and more places. We will just have to adjust and accept that, in public places, we can be recorded, and behave ourselves appropriately. If that means making changing rooms with proper doors that lock, so be it. This is not a tech that is going away.
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 08:30 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 69
|
|
You're missing the point
Do you understand that there are a TREMENDOUS number of Department of Defense and other government agencies that have an obvious necessity to prohibit ANY kind of recording or wireless transmission capability? You can't even have infrared. The most extreme areas prohibit cell phones. Less extreme allow cellphones and PDAs, but voice recording/video recording and other, non-cellular transmission are prohibited. I could go on, but I'm sure that some corporations are in a similar situation. Maybe your average cubicle jungle doesn't need that kind of restriction, but you have a very limited idea of various work environments to not see the need for ability to block many features of these multi-capable devices. Having a way to "jam" devices by proximity is actually a great idea IF it can be executed consistently. The article describes a nice start, but the next logical step is to be able to remotely disable any feature deemed compromising given a specific proximity.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 08:35 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
Re: You're missing the point
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RobertCF
Do you understand that there are a TREMENDOUS number of Department of Defence and other government agencies that have an obvious necessity to prohibit ANY kind of recording or wireless transmission capability? You can't even have infrared.
|
Do you think they would trust a system such as this, with its obvious work arounds? And if they do, I would suggest you entrust your defence to another department.
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 10:29 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dean_shan
I don't like the idea of banning devices with embedded cameras. I like having a cheap camera on my phone.
|
Well, you like it, and I hate it. :wink: It means I can't take my PDA and camera everywhere. :cry: The bans will get more common and more stringent. The is a growing backlash against embedded cameras, like it or not - it's happening.
Sure, most folks use them responsibly. Sure it's not an issue for many folks, but more and more companies are cracking down because some folks abuse them - and the potential is there.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-13-2004, 10:42 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Re: You're missing the point
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Surur
Do you think they would trust a system such as this, with its obvious work arounds? And if they do, I would suggest you entrust your defence to another department.
|
Surur, that's unfair. RobertCF is clearly talking about this working well in the future - as was I.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RobertCF
Having a way to "jam" devices by proximity is actually a great idea IF it can be executed consistently. The article describes a nice start, but the next logical step is to be able to remotely disable any feature deemed compromising given a specific proximity.
|
I still believe that the best solutions is to make most devices without a camera. If it's any good then the extra associated cost will be significant. If it isn't any good - why bother? Life's too short for unfocused, blurry, low contrast photos. :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
