Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Displays Patents

Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes" 140

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the fighting-back-against-the-thousand-eyes dept.
theodp (442580) writes "As Google Glass goes on sale [ed: or rather, went on sale] to the general public, GeekWire reports that Bill Gates has already snagged one patent for 'detecting and responding to an intruding camera' and has another in the works. The invention proposes to equip computer and device displays with technology for detecting and responding to any cameras in the vicinity by editing or blurring the content on the screen, or alerting the user to the presence of the camera. Gates and Nathan Myhrvold are among the 16 co-inventors of the so-called Unauthorized Viewer Detection System and Method, which the patent application notes is useful 'while a user is taking public transportation, where intruding cameras are likely to be present.' So, is Bill's patent muse none other than NYC subway rider Sergey Brin?" A more cynical interpretation: closing the analog hole. Vaguely related, mpicpp pointed out that Google filed a patent for cameras embedded in contact lenses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Gates Patents Detecting, Responding To "Glassholes"

Comments Filter:
  • Like an Onion headline.

  • But how the hell did he get a patent so fast?

    • But how the hell did he get a patent so fast?

      He didn't. This is a patent application that was just published. Subby can't even blame the article - the headline notes that it's pending, and the article continuously refers to it as a patent filing.

  • So ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by drpimp (900837) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @10:13AM (#46767179) Journal
    So this glasshole walks into a bar. I don't know what happened after that. It was either the intruding camera detection blur or the alcohol but all I then remember is talking about closing the analog hole and I soon realized I might be in a situation not to my liking.
  • What's needed is a technology to blur the camera's picture.
    • by Viol8 (599362)

      Chuck some water over the Glasshole.

      • Spraying hairspray at the camera would blur it. And have the fringe benefit of being very painful for the glasshole wearer's eyes.

        But then again I prefer the complete blackout possible with car spray paint.

  • This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are plenty of presently available technologies that completely conceal cameras from view, making this irrelevant to someone really intent on snooping your private information (or posting about you on facebook/google+/etc). Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

    • Like trying to use your laptop in a public area (airport perhaps) that has cameras virtually everywhere. Which then would cause the user to either override the blur to cancel or not use their machine. What we need is a glasshole app that works with a blurring technology to decode the blurred screen. That way only the user with the glasses can read their screen. This could be allow customization to the user with some sort of private key shared with the glasses or also another type of public key shared among
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What the anti-anti-glasshole movement don't seem to get is that people are reacting because there is a substantial difference. Yes, you can record someone with your smartphone, but usually there are not a lot of people going around with their phone constantly vertical in front of their face, scanning their surroundings. Some of the publicized reactions glassholes have gotten in bars etc. they most likely would have gotten if they were doing this with their phone and did not respond to requests to stop. And
      • by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @02:27PM (#46771205)

        But people are reacting because the Google glasses bring another dimension to this, when you get a lot of people that are potentially constantly filming you and uploading it to a massive data-aggregator with immense capabilities to correlate data and track people.

        that keeps being repeted but it is bullshit, it does not have enough battery life to be constantly filming and the bandwidth requirements needed to upload hd video to google data centers would cost far to much to be doable even if anyone wanted to.

    • This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are

      However nothing. Most people aren't worried about hidden cameras because recent history shows they're not a problem: you have to go out of your way to use them and most people aren't interested enough to do that and most people aren't interesting enough to do it to. Basically the risk is small.

      The covertness isn't the problem. The casualness is, and also the fact that once the photo is taken, it's going to be up

      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are

        However nothing. Most people aren't worried about hidden cameras because recent history shows they're not a problem: you have to go out of your way to use them and most people aren't interested enough to do that and most people aren't interesting enough to do it to. Basically the risk is small.

        The covertness isn't the problem. The casualness is, and also the fact that once the photo is taken, it's going to be uploaded to google who are interested in tracking everything about everyone for the purpose of pushing ads.

        That's the difference.

        So to summarize, you (or the hypothetical "you") are not worried that someone would covertly record you without your knowledge, but you are worried that someone with a casual camera will point it at you with only the slightest possible chance of intending to attempt to capture images/video of you? If Google Glass (or just about any other casual camera) were constantly recording/uploading, its tiny battery would wither in minutes. To perform surveillance with it would require dedicated effort, much like th

    • Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

      Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

        Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

        That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...

        • Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

          Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

          That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...

          Which, in turn, reminds me to ask - do we know if Glass has an IR filter built into it? IF so, then my high-powered IR LED system won't be very effective against them (although, it will still be highly effective against traditional security cameras).

          Hmmm.... maybe some sort of pocket-sized EMF pump? [ghoststop.com]

          I can't imagine any issues with carrying something like that in close proximity to your genitals...

          Side note, RE: EMF pumps - I love how a Google search of that term brings up nothing but "ghost" sucker, er, I

          • by jeffmeden (135043)

            Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

            Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.

            That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...

            Which, in turn, reminds me to ask - do we know if Glass has an IR filter built into it? IF so, then my high-powered IR LED system won't be very effective against them (although, it will still be highly effective against traditional security cameras).

            Hmmm.... maybe some sort of pocket-sized EMF pump? [ghoststop.com]

            I can't imagine any issues with carrying something like that in close proximity to your genitals...

            Side note, RE: EMF pumps - I love how a Google search of that term brings up nothing but "ghost" sucker, er, I mean hunter, equipment sales sites. Nothing funnier to me than droves of people doing their damnedest to prove P.T. Barnum right.

            Outdoor photos (and even some indoor ones) tend to look like complete trash if a camera has no IR filter, so I would venture a guess that it does indeed have a decent IR filter in place.

  • The difference... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @10:18AM (#46767251) Journal

    The thing that glass advocates don't seem to realise is that people don't like the surveillance potential.

    The thing is people don't worry about hidden cameras. We know they exist and anyone can buy them, but frankly most people don't. Mostly people know they aren't interesting enough to be targeted by some private investigator, and most people aren't interested in covertly filming everyone they encounter. We know there's a small risk and so are not worried about covert surveillance. Covert stuff has been available for ages and isn't a problem, in practice.

    The thing is glass isn't covert, so clearly the covertness isn't the problem. The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time. They're not interesting enough to be targeted so that's not the problem, the problem is the casualness of the thing. Not the problem with cell phones since its an effort to take photos and obvious when it's happening. It's the causalness where people wind up being photographed and catalogued by one of the world's largest companies where previously there wasa uninteresting enough to be anonymous that bothers people.

    This doesn't mean glass is inherently bad, and the HUD has useful applications. But waving a camera in someones face does have a tendency to piss people off.

    PS

    The other sort of advocates claiming we're "post privacy" can pull their heads out of their asses. Lack of privacy is literally worse than torture for some people: it was reported as being the single hardest thing to cope with long term in concentration camps by some of the surviors.

    • Re:The difference... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BobMcD (601576) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @10:30AM (#46767379)

      So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

      No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget. Brains have an unreliable nature to them, which people over the millennia have learned to exploit. There's value in that, which people do not want to lose, so they resist. Plain and simple.

      I wonder, though, what people will do once science eventually finds a way to play back memory? Will your very eyes and ears be as offensive as Glass?

      Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.

      • So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

        No, I'm saying why people don't like it. I'm not suggesting anything in particular as to what one should do with glass.

        Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.

        And the recording. Yes, I dare say it will be a problem if (not when---it's not clear that the brain records all things for all time

        • by BobMcD (601576)

          Basically people like privacy and glass threatens that.

          This is emotional and illogical. 'Glass' does not 'threaten that', being observed 'threatens that'.

          Tell me, if you're not being observed, what threat does a recording pose?

          • Re:The difference... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @11:24AM (#46768211)

            It's the difference between: "hey, Jenny was so drunk last night she showed me her boobs!" and "hey, look at this picture of Jenny's boobs." As someone who likes boobs, I try to minimize the incentives for girls to keep them hidden.

            • by BobMcD (601576)

              Right, and I get that, but that difference is an emotional one, mostly.

              The boobs were observed.

              Playback allows the observation of the boobs by others, which largely is not desired. This is understood.

              But humans are capable of playback as well. Description, depiction, etc.

              "Jenny's pads her boobs, I know because she showed me last night" gets into the exact same privacy issues as Glass, does it not?

              • "Jenny's pads her boobs, I know because she showed me last night" gets into the exact same privacy issues as Glass, does it not?

                "Pics or it didn't happen."

              • Well, if she's padding her boobs, I can see that she wouldn't want that information becoming public, but as the sister comment alluded to, it could just be a baseless accusation without some form of evidence.

                Also, seeing a picture of something is completely different than hearing a description. I assume you probably visit the bathroom a few times a day. I have a reasonable idea what you do in there and I could form a decent description of what you do, but you would be upset if someone showed me a picture wo

          • This is emotional and illogical. 'Glass' does not 'threaten that', being observed 'threatens that'.

            Nope, your premise is false, so your conclusion is invalid. There's a difference between being observed (hearsay) and having your actions recorded in perpetuity, possibly publicly.

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            The recording functionality of glass threatens that.

            Yes in theory some day a technology may be developed that turns a human into a camera. When that day comes, I imagine there will be the same kind of as there is to Google Glass.

            When I'm hanging out at a bar talking with friends, as has been said, I have a reasonable expectation that unless someone is making a specific effort to listen in and memorize what I am saying, or using a covert recording device, that conversation is only relevant in my life for tha

        • by Sloppy (14984)

          So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

          No, I'm saying why people don't like it.

          So you're saying people would dislike it less, if it were more covert. Whether Google or their competitors should take that as a product design suggestion, is left to the reader. Understood.

      • by Yakasha (42321)

        So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

        No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.

        The real issue is context. What you see me doing, is not what I'm doing. It is what you think I'm doing. If you record it, and then play it for somebody else, then what they see is not only not what I'm doing, it is not what you think I'm doing. You are not recording my thoughts & emotions, nor does your recording include my entire life history. So, I don't want you slandering me to Google, et. all, by telling them I'm doing something that I'm not. And I definitely don't want the context to be dis

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        Science will never be able to play back memory because it doesn't work like video. It works by association. When you remember seeing that car it's actually just a reference that says something like "blue sedan, modern shape" and your brain fills that in. If you like Subaru's modern shape it will tend to look more like a Subaru if the memory is positive, or more like a crappy Ford if it's negative.

        The thing is we already reached the point where almost everything that happens in public is on tape somewhere, a

      • No, I think you're covering up the real issue - people like the freedom to lie and/or forget.

        As a cyborg with many artificial body parts already, I would like to point out that the real problem is one of expectation: One need not lie about acceptable behavior. The overly harsh laws were written assuming they would not be applied in a totalitarian zero-tolerance manner, they assumed not all criminals would be caught. Humans would have crafted different laws had they been aware of and willing to admit the true prevalence of certain behaviors, and acknowledged the true severity of consequence (or lack thereof) that actions have. We will soon have the power of mathematics to wield in the arena of ethics through application of information theory to verifiable cybernetic social models. We'll be able to determine the degree of harm actions incur as well as acceptable risk levels of our rehabilitation scenarios. Humans will resist this, as they have stupidly resisted all change regardless of benefit.

        Society has changed much, but the human laws are resistant to change. Fundamentally this is because all their legal systems are truly barbaric. Humans do not apply the scientific method to their laws and remove all restrictions which limit freedoms needlessly. Selective enforcement of the law is the right arm of all Police State. It is self evident that freedom is the default state of being: In the absence of all rules there is absolute freedom of action. Artificial laws are made to prevent actions from limiting the freedom of others, but many laws needlessly restrict freedoms. The fundamental problem humanity faces is that they do not harness and wield their whole minds, thus instinctual biases and emotions cause even the rational to fall victim to their flawed awareness of reality, and they produce unrealistic expectations thereby. This is reflected in their legal systems and unwritten social rules based on said expectations.

        No engineer or scientist should agree to be ruled the way humans currently are -- None would dare operate their lab in the recklessly way governing policies are now applied. However, requiring unequivocal evidence of a rule's benefit before applying it, or simply rolling out things like health care programs in controlled testing areas, would prevent ideological hucksters from manipulating pork into their pockets: Thus greed plays a secondary role reinforcing their self deceptions. The cognitive biases of even the most primitive humans can now be self corrected through application of science. It is folly to ignore this fact and fail to acknowledge humanity's current commitment to barbaric corruption. You needn't vote for or against guesses about which poison to take; If humans used the tools available to them they could determine which vial has the disease or cure before forcing the medicine down everyone's throats. That they remain in such a backwards state is evidence of their species' mental immaturity.

        The erasure of lies through playback is a problem because of the unrealistic facade humans maintain to meet unrealistic expectations, and the unequal access to the playbacks. It is the shaming of others for their normal behaviors that has led to this situation. No one feels shame about running a comb through their hair in public, and thus if other gestures, appearances, language, tool-use, etc. were considered as mundane, as acceptable and as legal, then the issue of recording said action would not be a problem. Security cameras are already watching you from businesses and government agencies. The logical thing to do would be to have your own recording too so that selective playback could not be used against you. Were you to hand a portion of the populace a smart phone w/ camera in the 1800s you would hear the same guttural cries of dismay as the technophobic primitives who buy into MS marketing of "Glasshole". The same sensational fear of the different and unknown was used by opponents of railways, electricity, telegraphs, etc. Suc

    • The thing is glass isn't covert, so clearly the covertness isn't the problem. The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time. They're not interesting enough to be targeted so that's not the problem, the problem is the casualness of the thing.

      It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked? That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

      Not the problem with cell phones since its an effort to take photos and obvious when it's happening.

      Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

      It's the causalness where people wind up being photographed and catalogued by one of the world's largest companies where previously there wasa uninteresting enough to be anonymous that bothers people.

      This is the real issue... Glass costs $1500, and many of the people wearing them are in places with huge economic inequality, like SF or NYC, where gentrification and high rents are pushing out

      • It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked?

        I seem to remember that the problem was some patron was aggressively annoyed that the glass-user might be filming them so the glass-users response was to start filming them. The problem was bery much idiots in that case.

        That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

        No, they are qualatatively different. The cameras go o

        • It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked?

          I seem to remember that the problem was some patron was aggressively annoyed that the glass-user might be filming them so the glass-users response was to start filming them. The problem was bery much idiots in that case.

          The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked. And frankly, filming people committing a crime is quite a reasonable response.

          That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

          No, they are qualatatively different. The cameras go on a loop, old data is discarded...

          Unless you own the bar, you don't know that for sure.

          ... and no one looks at it unless something happens. Most of it is forgotten, not uploaded to a company which rather creepily claimed to want go right up to the border of being creepy (Schmidt's words, not mine), or be plasteres on the persons blog in perpetuity.

          That's also true for most people's blogs - no one looks at them unless something happens like, say, some idiot attacks the person with the camera and blog.

          Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

          If you're taking a picture of the floor, or a selfie from a very strange angle, then sure. To take a photograph of anything interesting, you need to hold the phone up and that's obvious.

          Here [typepad.com] is literally the first result for a Google Image Search for "people texting" [google.com]. The three on the l

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            Unless you own the bar, you don't know that for sure.

            Sure, the bar owner or some employee could be keeping copies of the recordings for their own amusement, but a bar that became known for publishing embarrassing security camera footage of it's patrons would probably not stay in business very long.

          • by LurkerXXX (667952)

            >The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked.

            Unless she easily clipped out the inital part of the filming that would have made her look bad.

            • >The video starts with the patrons already attacking the Glasshole, so no, she started filming them after she was attacked.

              Unless she easily clipped out the inital part of the filming that would have made her look bad.

              Unlikely. The video is exactly 10 seconds long, which is the default recording length for Glass. Now, is it possible she recorded for minutes and cut it to exactly 10 seconds? And those were the particular 10 seconds where she told them she was filming, rather than saying it during any other time during the recording? Sure... But Occam's Razor would tend to disagree.

    • "The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time."

      Good theory, but does it match the data? Are the people being assaulted for wearing google glasses being assaulted when they have been pointing the glasses at someone for an extended period of time in an environment when they expect to not be recorded? Or have the attacks occurred in public places which are likely already under video surveillance and full of people snapping photos of friends and by

      • by ToddInSF (765534)
        Your Geek Persecution Theory has as much merit as "Christians" saying that they are being persecuted because gays can marry in some places now.

        And you must be joking, calling a Google Glass wearer a "Geek Hobbyist".
    • An alternative is to make CCTV into a public utility.

    • by ClintJCL (264898)
      You mean, the single-most thing reported by those that survived.
  • So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?

    • So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it...

      The writer "invents" devices that serve the purpose of his stories --- and is free to ignore any real-world constraints that might get in his way.

    • So, if something has been published 1000 times in works of fiction, can I still get a patent on it if I write it up in a thoughtful way and define specific details that are only hinted at in the work of fiction? Ex: Contact lenses with cameras aren't new, but maybe nobody ever described how the camera tracks eye movement to adjust the image or focus. Does including such detail make it patentable?

      Fiction novels are relevant prior art that can be used to reject a patent application, but can only be used for the material they teach. H.G. Wells' story describes traveling to the moon by cannon: accordingly, it would invalidate a patent claim that recited "A method for traveling to the moon, comprising: being fired at the moon by a giant cannon." But it wouldn't invalidate a patent claim to, say, the space shuttle's main engines; or a method of calculating Lagrange points; or the timing sequence for your

    • It makes the detail patentable.

      This is a crucial point most posters here miss. Just because there's a patent on a widget, it doesn't mean it covers the whole of that widget. And it doesn't mean the mention of that widget in other patents or elsewhere disqualifies the patent as prior art.

      It's the detail that's added that's being patented.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        sure, but there isn't actual detail about methods how the magic happens - just a vague mention that the detection&obstruction magic happens.

  • Which detected when an International Rescue craft was being filmed - though it didn't do anything about it...
  • This increases my desire to make a faux Google Glass. It would look just like one, except when someone asks if they can try it, it squirts water in their eye when they put it on.

    "Ok glass take a picture"
    *splort*
    *laughter*

  • Anybody remember this guy? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... [wikimedia.org]
  • All those years selling Windows and security was an after thought... Probably just doesn't wnat anyone taking pictures of that godawful Metro GUI.
  • There doesn't seem to be a lot of $ in this, so did Mr. Bill's patent just make it harder for consumers to acquire 'glasshole' protection solutions?
  • I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."

    More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson [wikipedia.org] was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it

    • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

      I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."

      More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson [wikipedia.org] was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it. On numerous occasions he actually sued, and prevailed, against the people who actually invented the technology that he incorporated in revised patent applications because his application predated their invention.

      What technology would that be? Using a built in webcam to scan the surroundings trying to detect the presence of another camera? Wouldn't that process simply trigger all the other computers in the room to also blur their screens? So much for internet cafes! You are right, however, that this is a vapor patent. It used to be to file a patent, you had to have an invention, not just the idea that someday we might be able to do this somehow.

    • More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves.

      No, he's patenting the idea of using the output unspecified camera detecting algorithms to blur a display.

  • I guess, if implemented, this patent will be the end of the personal computer as we know it. Since the patent is about blurring the screen or providing a privacy popup in the presence of cameras, then it will be virtually impossible to use one. Think of how many webcams are on devices from tablets to full size desktops (would they detect themselves and blur their own screen?) What about all of the phones with cameras? Will it detect traffic cameras, ATM cameras and the like? If so, using an in-dash GPS wi

    • by Sloppy (14984)

      This will only harm computers that make use of the patent. If you don't run Bill's software, your computer will be fine.

      Hmm. That sounds familiar, somehow.

  • I cant see a use for this technology. The human brain has an inherent ability to detect and respond to a glasshole even in crowded environments and insufficient light. the revulsion, the rage, its practically an autonomic function. What we need is some sort of future technology to kick someone in the dick from many meters across a room.
    • The vague "respond to detection" in the patent application is intended to cover all possible responses, including a remote kick to the dick. So, you'd have to license Mr. Bill's patent.
  • We are quickly leaving the era when technology actually solved real world problems and are now entering the time when new era robber barons use technology to solve the technological problems they created. There must be a phrase that describes the epoch a field reaches when it is only solving problems that it created itself.
    • by Arker (91948)
      It's called the epoch of Bureaucracy.

      http://miriadic.wikia.com/wiki/The_Five_Stages_of_Chaos
  • Envy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onkelonkel (560274) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @11:08AM (#46767879)
    I see a lot of envy fueling the hate. I can't afford a $1500 pair of uber-nerd glasses so I will hate on the select few who can.

    If (when) the tech catches on (it may or may not) then the price will inevitably drop, and a lot more people will have them. When "glass" type displays are as common as headphones, I hope people will at least be embarrassed about the rage they were spewing. The tech is at such an early stage that the possible applications haven't even begun to be explored. I see so many people walking heads down and texting, I can certainly see a way to walk and text and see what's in front of you at the same time catching on.
    • No, envy is an emotion reserved for things that are actually desirable.

      The fact that Google Glass is not desirable is evidenced by the fact that they have to do marketing tricks like permanent "beta" status and one day sales.

      You re confusing your minority desire for a product you can't afford for a general desirability.

    • I see a lot of envy fueling the hate. I can't afford a $1500 pair of uber-nerd glasses so I will hate on the select few who can.

      Starting with a false premise does not help your argument. I think most people on slashdot CAN afford one if they wanted it. The low adoption rate is showing that there is currently no real utility to the device beyond what you can get with a smart phone, albeit with a lot more flash. Therefor, it is assumed that it is no more than the current Rolex watch or Coach bag.

    • by LurkerXXX (667952)

      I could afford one. Most folks working in good tech jobs could.

      I have no desire to wear one. I've got a smartphone when I want to do those types of things. I have no need to have a camera always recording things, and when I want to look at a screen, I generally want to be able to type into it, not speak into it. That just disturbs people near by. I'm more of the opinon of folks using mass transit in Japan. I don't want to hear your conversations. Even if it's a conversation with your tech.

      Not many

    • When headphones first came out, they looked like hearing aids. They were uncomfortable and absolutely hideous. Yet everybody loved them because they could listen to their music in private. That Google Glass of yours? It's the equivalent of a ghetto blaster.

  • It is truly amazing how broken the US patent system is...

  • Bill's parent isn't on how to detect cameras, it's on what to do if a camera is detected. It leaves the entire issue of camera detection undefined...

    However, there are other patents and methods on how to perform the actual camera detection. For instance, there's a technique called optical augmentation. In a nutshell, it uses the "red eye" effect to detect optical systems aimed at a specified target. Basically, you shine a light and look for retro reflections. And even if a camera is hidden or concealed, if

  • This device detects a flash and then overcomes the image with and LED [photoxels.com]. I don't know if it every made it to market,but this is the only way I can think of to detect a camera. Detect the infrared from the active sensor, and flash a high intensity LED back. I assume that the camera using the Google Glasses uses such an active sensor.
  • there are a number of misconceptions here.

    From the description it sounds like your screen with blur if i wave my cell phone around...obviously an annoyance when it gets false positives. Yes, I could snap a quick photo, but how likely is that?

    As much as people like to say it, Glass does not take constant video. The battery is tiny, it wouldn't last long if it did. By default I believe it takes 8 second videos, that you can extend. You have to instruct it to take photos or videos, it doesn't just randomly

    • by Shados (741919)

      Risk getting broken more than stolen. Its not much harder to steal than any ol engagement ring that half the girls in their 20s or 30s prance around, and those are frequently worth a LOT more than $1500. But diamond and rare metals are a lot harder to break than a fragile piece of technology in your face. I can "pretend" to bump into someone wearing them and if they're shorter than me, there goes the glasses!

  • People busting out cell phones at parties is bad enough (hey maybe I don't want MY face sucking down a beer bong on your Facebook page). Now, people don't even have to "bust out the camera." It's like a spy cam tucked behind Quagmire's bookcase.

    I'm waiting for the moment the first people figure out that there's a "bug" in Google Glass that allows them to stream content in the background back to HQ with no indicator lights on; an old test mode they forgot to disable of course.

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @02:37PM (#46771349)
    I have an idea. Just hire the laughing man to hack an overlay on top of your face into their glasses in realtime. Come on, who got that reference? :-P
    • by Nyder (754090)

      I have an idea. Just hire the laughing man to hack an overlay on top of your face into their glasses in realtime.

      Come on, who got that reference? :-P

      I did but you gave a very easy hint to it in your title.

  • but can we bring it back just for this one story?
  • How can they possibly detect a camera in all or even most circumstances without getting a bunch of false positives? The whole patent reads like a bunch of speculative, base covering horseshit to be honest.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...