Comments on: HP focuses on paparazzi-proof cameras

Patent application describes technology that would block cameras from taking your picture.

This would be bad

Just think....you go on vacation take in front of the Vatican, the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty....and then take a look at your picture to see your own face blurred because some prankster nearby is broadcasting that signal. What a waste! It would only be valuable if the papparazi were required to buy these cameras....no general citizen would want this feature.

[xmit30]

HP just lost me as a customer!

Anyone want a used wireless HP printer? This is the worst idea
of the decade. HP business I predict will now go way down hill.
Get rid of your stock now. The blogging campaign against this
company will cause this company's downfall. Hp is cutting their
own throats. Those that are wanting to take candid up skirt
photos and the like will get around this technology anyhow.
This could be the biggest threat to freedoom since chairman
Mao. Shame onHP!

Kidnappers get away?

I remember a recent high-profile case where a 15 year old in New Jersey caught the license plate of a would-be kidnapper with a cell-camera. Sure it wasn't a mug of the guy, but the police used it to catch the perp anyway.

If pic-fuzzing tech is implemented, there could very well be one less weapon in the arsenal for authorities who nab kidnappers, burglars, etcetera.

HP, a piece of advice... hold that patent and do nothing to implement it, and you'll be doing the world a favor. Presure to have this technology working and in the hands of felons and you're going to see MASSIVE retaliation from the public-at-large.

Just my humble opinion.

Not the way I read it

For the blurring to work, the camera would need to have a reciever built in. So this wouldn't affect those types of cameras.

I do agree that it is a bad idea. All this would do is cause another way to grief people, if someone was dumb enough to buy a camera equipped with this.

Since the invention of the camera, it has been possible to take someones picture without their knowledge or consent. No one has been hurt yet, as far as I know. So a stranger takes your photo, big deal. How is that going to affect the person unknowingly getting his photo taken?

Police, Not Felons

The idea is to place this - tricknology - in the hands of the
police, not felons. Presumably, a program blurs only the image
of the owners face, not every person photographed, but only
those possessing this weapon. The police, after all, have a
greater interest in keeping their public activities absolutely
sectret from the public. Statistics show that criminals generally
ignore all cameras - banks, shopping malls, etc., when
committing crimes. This is police state thinking for the great
Amercian Police State.

Police, Not Felons

The idea is to place this - tricknology - in the hands of the
police, not felons. Presumably, a program blurs only the image
of the owners face, not every person photographed, but only
those possessing this techno-weapon. The police, after all, have
a greater interest in keeping their public activities absolutely
secret from the public. Statistics show that criminals generally
ignore all cameras - banks, shopping malls, etc., when
committing crimes. This is police state thinking for the great
American Police State.

Police, Not Felons

The idea is to place this - tricknology - in the hands of the
police, not felons. Presumably, a program blurs only the image
of the owners face, not every person photographed, but only
those possessing this techno-weapon. The police, after all, have
a greater interest in keeping their public activities absolutely
secret from the public. Statistics show that criminals generally
ignore all cameras - banks, shopping malls, etc., when
committing crimes. This is police state thinking for the great
American Police State, see or hear something you don't like? Not
to worry, just criminalize it! HP needs to support the First
Amendment and the principal of Open Government.

The Eye Cannot Trespass

HP seeks a convenient way around the legal maximum that the
eye cannot trespass. Privacy requires reasonable measures on
the part of whomever wishes to maintain it. Your home, your
office, your doctor's waiting room are all reasonable measures.
Obvously, it cannot be made to apply to that which is public, as
in buildings, parks, beaches and inumerable other places where
no reasonable expectation of privacy may be had. Does HP
propose to freeze-up the artist's brush or pencil, or have they
just target photographers! This is ignorant police-state
mentality and a disappointment. I would have thought HP
leadership better educated or at least superficially informed.
Apparently, they are neither.

[volterwd]

What is the big deal...

about cameras on cell phones... who cares... i could use a normal camera... are they going to try and block all those... this is one stupid idea and has no real application except to use against papparazii... this is as lame as the remote that turns any tv off with one click

It's not the papparazii

Public concerns about papparazii are not driving this effort, HP
could care less. Intelligence and police services don't want their
faces shown the next time they beat some black into
submission. That's where the money AND enforcement is
because most of the general public (read witnesses) will not be
using "ordinary" cameras. Film is a dead medium.

[Eric.Carter]

Another reason...

Another reason for me to keep my old film cameras... :-) Remind me not to buy HP anymore. Not because I'm a serious photographer who is worried about this (I'm not worried, particularly) but because if this is the silly kind of idea that they're coming up with, then they're in for corporate trouble.