It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cameras in TVs/mandatory digital sets

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
newteevee.com...

"Kunkel said the system wouldn’t be based on facial recognition, so there wouldn’t be a picture of you on file (we hope). Instead, it would distinguish between different members of your household by recognizing body forms."

www.prisonplanet.com...

I know (or at least have been told by a lot of places, including specific radio/tv commercials) that by sometime in 2009 all tv sets have to be digital or at least upgraded.

I'm not 100% if there's a box or a button or whatever added, but now that it's public that they're at least thinking about putting cameras in it, I'm getting a little paranoid.

And before I get the 'just stop watching tv altogether' stuff, shut up. I understand your position, but it's my choice not to stop.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
surely you'll just be able to put something in the cameras lens. (parcel tape,blue tack,gum) Then we can all go back to sleep.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Well, we're moving along at a nice fast clip.

The George Orwell wheels are in motion and plowing full speed ahead.

I'm sure out of the speaker a voice will go off every morning: "Citizen _______, your job detail for today is___________.

I too wonder how many will come here and say well, stop watching tv, there are other modes of entertainment.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 
And have a banging at the door and black helicopters

flying overhead with death rays? Are you sure you want to defy this?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by alaskan
 


The crossover to digital doesn't require a camera in the TV. Heck, I can't think of a digital TV that does have a camera in it. This technology Comcast is working on is not about identifying a person, but identifying a person's shape, and customising their TV experience based on that particular user. We don't scream about big brother when we log into our computers, and this is just what Comcast is talking about doing - identifying different users of their computer (the set top box, which is a computer).

This is nothing even slightly 1984-related. The camera is not for surveillance.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Well, I believe infrared cams exist in the small number of volunteer-based TV rating systems out there. The boxes in people's homes not only record what they watch and for how long, but also take in infrared images of the people sitting on the couch and where so that they get anonymous data on the show-watching habits of a household.

These people are volunteers or paid of course, this isn't something in every TV on the market.

I'm paranoid a little about the statistic stuff myself, having cable with a digital set top box that has a HDD and access to the internet in some form or another.

I wouldn't worry though, I think that there'll be a backlash and people won't buy them if they contain cameras, they'll just be hacked/blocked out or it won't happen at all. Privacy is hard enough to come by now without our TVs being invaded too.

In other words, I don't think this is a real concern. The tech already exists but hasn't been put in and I don't see why anyone would agree to taking it on in the future. That's my 2c!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
surely you'll just be able to put something in the cameras lens. (parcel tape,blue tack,gum) Then we can all go back to sleep.


That depends. If they combine the lens of the camera with the lens of the IR receiver for the remote, blocking it could block use of your remote as well.

I don't believe for a minute that it won't be using software to identify someone either.

Going by height and body shape will lead to similar people being recognized as one.

My brother and I are the same shape, same height, and weight. Doing it the way the article describes would lead to us being confused as one another. The same goes for my mom and 3 sisters, as they're all practically clones of one another they're so identical. The only way to tell them apart is their face and hair.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Yeah I had considered that IR reciever thing myself. It'd only be a problem if they omitted box-side controls though, which is of course possible.

I guess I'm just a big believer in there always being a way around things like this, even if it's on a less-than-legal road.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dgtempe
 


yeah man,bring it all on.

I'm looking forward to running round dodging the black helicoters and special ops spooks. It'll make my life way more interesting.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join