Apple Tries To Patent A 'Solution' To The 'Analog Hole': Transmitters That Block Your Camera From Working

from the you'll-never-photograph-steve-jobs-again... dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2011 12:20pm — Mike Masnick

A few folks have sent over the news of an ongoing attempt by Apple to patent a sensor system that would allow people to set up transmitters that would send a signal to mobile phones that would prevent the camera from working.

By pairing an infrared sensor with the camera already on board, portable devices could receive data from transmitters placed, well, wherever. Beyond simply blasting out text and opening links like a glorified QR code, transmitters could disable certain features, such as the camera, to prevent recording at movie theaters and music venues. If completely shutting off the cam seems a bit heavy-handed, watermarks can also be applied to photos identifying businesses or copyrighted content.

The patent was filed in 2009, which seems pretty late. I remember having conversations about how such things were technically feasible back in 2003 or 2004, just as cameraphones were starting to catch on, and there were a few early moral panics about them. It's difficult to see how this should be patentable, considering how widespread the idea was (along with discussions on how it could be implemented) way before this patent application was filed. Of course, the bigger issues are that (1) there are always going to be easy ways around that kind of thing, and (2) for theaters it seems like a pretty expensive proposition for pissing off your customers. Of course, it's not worth reading too much info into patents like this as an indicator of where Apple is going. The company files lots of patents, many of which are never really touched.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: analog hole, cameras, mobile devices, patents, sensors
Companies: apple

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pickle Monger (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 11:46am

logical evolution
How long do you think before the police cars come equipped with this technology that would block all those pesky prying eyes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 7:26pm
  
  Re: logical evolution
  I doubt that they will officially come equipped with this technology, but cops could unofficially carry this technology on them and deny it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael S. (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:33pm

Police and government
I see police and governments buying into this rather quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Muir (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:36pm

Cell phones killed in theaters
I am not sure if people would be more pissed off at having their cell phones and cameras killed in a specific theater while and only while a movie is running than they are at people who hold up a camera, text, or talk on a cell during a movie. This may be one situation where, if properly implemented, customers would be happy that rude and arrogant technology users are shut down for a short time.

Of course, patenting it and actually implementing it properly without overreaching are two very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:42pm

Awesome, I can't wait until somebody hacks this thing before launch and we can have a remote controller that disables phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  Hack? Just copy the infrared signal and then use it wherever you like.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Programmable remote FTW!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cynyr (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re:
  it's called an IR filter.... they make them already, and I see a large iphone market for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:43pm

Only Phones
So this only block phone cameras? I know that they are getting better, but a regular camera still takes much better pictures and can have much more storage available for photos/video. Sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: Only Phones
  Yeah, but it's pretty difficult to sneak a full sized camera into a theater and not have anyone notice it being used. Cell phone cameras/portable cameras, not so much....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:46pm

infrared sensor?
I see why they went infrared, if they use a system that's not line of sight it risks bleeding over outside of where you want it and then it's a problem. But that kinda leaves a huge loophole. The infrared sensor is kinda noticeable and kinda easy to block. Just put a little peace of tape over it and it's not a problem any more. Or do they expect that the camera is already able to see IR and it's the software behind it that disables it? Easily circumventable ether way and just another way that it's going to piss of legitimate users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 12:50pm

the IR sensor is part of the chip that takes the photo, not an external external item.

Photo copiers already have this technology built in, when you copy money with them they will put water markets or simply refuse to copy the money.

All this system did was change the trigger from paper money to an IR signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cynyr (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re:
  so how will it thwart my IR filter?
  
  http://www.amazon.com/58MM-Quality-Optical-Infrared-Threaded/dp/B003U68DZK
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:09pm

Theaters already blast IR signals from behind the screen to prevent recording. Seems like a much easier and elegant solution. Total crap, but better total crap.

http://www.fareastgizmos.com/other_stuff/ir_light_from_behind_the_cinema_screen_prevents_pi rates_from_recording_films_at_movie_theaters.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  "The damage caused by bootleg film recordings is estimated at around 3 billion dollars a year, according to the American Film Institute."
  
  Heh, totally forgot about that last quote in the article. Makes sense that Apple would want to cash in on that number I guess; the MPAA thinks they are losing 3 Billion, we can charge them 6 Billion and claim a 2 year ROI. Now I'm sad I didn't file the patent :P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bengie, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They also claimed that Limewire caused 80 trillion in damages.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      $75 Trillion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Qritiqal (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:26pm

Mr. Invisible
You're telling me I could just have a bunch of infrared transmitters all over my body sending out the correct signals and no one would be able to take my photo?

Can we have traffic cameras abide by this rule, too?

I'm starting to like this idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re: Mr. Invisible
  My old Palm handheld could record and retransmit any infrared signal it detected with its "universal remote" application. I'm sure a lot of other devices can do that too. Shouldn't be that hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ASR, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm

And film makes a comeback! Where's that old polaroid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griff (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:44pm

Who'd want this camera ?
for theaters it seems like a pretty expensive proposition for pissing off your customers

And for phone manufacturers. Or will it be illegal to sell a camera that doesn't have this (thus forcing everyone to license Apple's IP ?).

Hardly a selling point for a new camera that it can be disabled. Or will people just find some jailbreak code to "fix" the phone when they get it home. In which case you are just punishing the innocent.

Will UK prominent soccer players be able to get "IR injunctions" to prevent the Paprazzi from photographing them with their mistresses ?".

My suggestion for a better technology ? Continuously (randomly) varying frame rate & interlacing. This means there will be a periodic interference with the camera's fixed frame sampling rate causing a poor end product noone will be able to watch. But the human eye won't be fazed by it in the theater.

Oops, should have patented it first...

Doesn't fix the ANALOG hole, but who is using analog video recorders in theaters these days ?

But I guess that would need new projectors and (maybe) cameras. Or could conventional digital recordings be post processed into this format ? In which case just new projectors.

Why not just mandate that all new build cameras must emit a signal when filming ? Then the police could run into the theater armed with a receiver and arrest the terrorists / sorry, bootleggers, without any change to theater infrastructure.

Or would that be overreacting ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nelsoncruz (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:47pm

I bet this will be mandatory somewhere
I bet some country will make this mandatory, and have not only movie theaters but the police use it to prevent people recording them!

Like those ridiculous arrests at the Jefferson Memorial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceboy (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:50pm

Or if you were so scared of having your photo taken you could carry around a bright infrared light and have it on all the time, blinding the digital cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rubberpants, 3 Jun 2011 @ 1:54pm

There is an enormous amount money to be made in technology that let's a government control and monitor it's citizens. Our brightest minds are hard a work. What a golden age we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:41pm

It's difficult to see how this should be patentable

LOL. It's the USA Mike, come on. They approve the most ridiculous patents. Why would it be different this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey, 3 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm

Uh oh
You know, why is Apple applying for patents to stuff it doesn't make? To me, it sounds like they just want control over stuff so you can't use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:29pm

blasting out text and opening links like a glorified QR code

Hungry? Why not have
lunch in our food court?

(Free internet cookie to anyone who recognizes this popup.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The MPAA, 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:31pm

An expensive way to piss off customers? Where do we sign up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greevar (profile), 3 Jun 2011 @ 6:57pm

Why bother?
If you're going to go that far to break other people's cameras, why do you just rip it out of their hands and smash them on the floor? Honestly, could this be anymore childishly pathetic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re: Why bother?
  Here's why.
  
  Because my mobile phone can be recording video that is uploaded to YouTube before you can smash it.
  
  Yeah, take the phone. Smash it. Beat me up. The video is already out there.
  
  Someone else (possibly halfway around the globe) can download it, and then re-upload it. Maybe even to different video "tube" websites. There's no putting the genie back in the tube of toothpaste.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 1:51am

Yet another reason to jailbreak your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:13pm

A way to not infringe the patent
So if I use a camera that is NOT paired with this receiver, then I'm not infringing the patent, and can also photograph whatever I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carl Barron_agpcuk (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 12:26pm

i Phone censored cameras
Now you have a very good reason' NOT' to buy an Apple i Phone censored cameras. Are they positively MAD sabotaging sales of their own products with such concepts?

Signed Carl Barron chairman of agpcuk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MetalSamurai, 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:45pm

Patent to prevent this
What this patent actually does is prevent this technology from being used.

Nobody else will bother implementing it as Apple has the (frankly shonky) patent.

Apple won't bother as only their phones would be affected.

Other manufacturers are not going to pay for a license to cripple their phones.

There is no way for anyone to make this work. Or make money off this idea.

Thankyou Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2011 @ 4:42pm

So let me get this straight, they've developed technology to stop people using a camera in a movie theatre, including cameras in phones, despite the fact that nowadays most "cams" of movies are done from inside the projection booth. And yet they still haven't found out a way to stop peoples phones ringing during movies?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]