Bluetooth: Disables Embedded Cameras (With Suitable Software Installed)

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://loosewire.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/using_bluetooth.html' target='_blank'>http://loosewire.typepad.com/blog/2..._bluetooth.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"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."</i><br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.asiaone.com.sg/streats/20040909_story3_1.html">AsiaOne article</a> is currently unavailable, so the Google cached version is <a href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:UQY2EKh1zyEJ:<a href="www.asiaone.com.sg/streats">here">www.asiaone.com.sg/streats]here</a>.</a><br /><br />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?

[ctitanic]

and what about if I have the BT off in my cellphone to save battery? ;)

[surur]

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

[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).

[dean_shan]

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.

[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).

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.jpg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/18/jetflash_dsc/

This is a USB pen/camera

http://www.iriver.com/images/product/ifp1000-3.jpg
http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20040730/

This is an mp3 player/camera

http://www.akibalive.com/archives/rwc1.jpg
http://portableaudio.engadget.com/entry/7707148624868015/

this is a mp3 player, camera and video camera,

http://www.i4u.com/images/wqv10hand.jpg
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

[RobertCF]

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.

[surur]

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

[Jonathon Watkins]

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.

[Jonathon Watkins]

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.

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:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Actually there is no solution.

Yes there is. Don't make so many devices with embedded cameras. If you are prohibited from having one in an area and you are caught - you face the penalties.

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.

Yes, but that just means that they are harder to detect. Rules are rules. If cameras are banned, it does not matter how small they are. If you are caught with one - you face the consequences.

These are devices that any person could quite innocently carry.

Folks know if they device they have contains a camera. They will have to hand over their phone or PDA before entering a changing room, work, school or wherever.

Cameras will show up in more and more places.

Not if we the public let it be known that we want decent devices - without cameras. You show me a major UK Mobile operator that stocks a phone available on contract that has Bluetooth - and no camera. There aren't any. You want BT but no camera with your contract? Tough. You can't have it. You can buy a separate inferior phone for a fortune, but where are the good phones with no cameras?

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.

Not a solution. Cameras can be stealthily held above or below changing lockers. Best solution = no camera.

This is not a tech that is going away.

True, but we can mitigate it's impact. Demand decent photos from your (real) camera. Embedded cameras - just say no! :wink:

[surur]

OK, I'm not going to harp too much on this point, but my logic is like this:

Low quality digital cameras are cheap to integrate into a device that already has a display and memory (pocketpc's, mp3 players, watches :) ). They add a lot more value for a lot of people, allowing bigger profit margins for device manufacturers. They are therefore more likely to include them than exclude them. Soon every device manufacturer will have to include them, to keep up with the competition. So camera-less devices will actually become less common.

Of course also the same competition will lead to an improvement in quality with some devices. I believe carl zeiss has already stated that 10 megapixel camera phones are possible in a few years. This will just make the devices more attractive to the general public.

So either people will give up their love affair with photos, or the public facilities will have to change their policies. Its not likely that they could restrict the devices much, but they can regulate behaviour, as you said. As the Americans would say, its not the gun that kills, its the man that pulls the trigger.

Surur

[Jonathon Watkins]

Soon every device manufacturer will have to include them, to keep up with the competition. So camera-less devices will actually become less common.

Or, folks will ask for devices without. We are already a sizable minority and growing. It would already be A Unique Selling Point to have a BT phone WITHOUT a camera on it. :?

I believe carl zeiss has already stated that 10 megapixel camera phones are possible in a few years. This will just make the devices more attractive to the general public.

Sure it's possible. Want to guess how much a 10Mp Carl Zeiss optics camera phone would be? 8O :lol:

So either people will give up their love affair with photos, or the public facilities will have to change their policies.

Or folks could not take cameras to work, to leisure facilities, etc. Or at least they could try not to if just about every new PDA or phone had a camera in it. :? It's asking for trouble.

Its not likely that they could restrict the devices much, but they can regulate behaviour, as you said. As the Americans would say, its not the gun that kills, its the man that pulls the trigger.

Well, here in the UK we ban every firearm larger than a cap gun. (NB, this is NOT an invitation to discuss gun control, OK :wink: ). So, companies, local authorities and just about anyone can restrict the use of cameras in certain areas, if they chose. And more are choosing to do so. The proliferation of cameras is forcing companies to set policies. The issue is being forced and public facilities are changing their policies - making them stricter with regard to cameras.

You make fair points Surur. It's just that all these cameras restrict choice for us who want smaller, cheaper, lighter, more battery efficient, more feature packed phones and PDAs that we can take with us everwhere. Embedded camera's take up space, cost, weight, power and circuit board space that can be better used elsewhere.