Unlimited "you don't actually own your iPhone" thread

[Rumckle]

I think most phone cameras can pick up IR, intentionally or not.

[Triple Zero]

I've heard the ducttape suggestion in other discussions on this topic and they said it's the same camera/lens/receptor as the thing that takes the picture, that also picks up the IR. So it won't do much good

And yeah try it out, take your remote control (IR), go to the bathroom with lights out and shoot a picture of your remote pointed at the mirror (while pressing a button, of course). The remote IR LED looks just like a regular white LED. It also works in a not dark room BTW, but it's more fun if you don't actually see anything and you got a mirror to play with.

((Weird that the IR light is white, though. I'd expected it to be red. There's probably internal correction for that, otherwise a sunny outdoor scene would be flooded with red. Plus the lower (redder) frequency bands of light usually contain the most "interesting" contrast, so it makes sense to mix it through the luma channel. (try it out, take a nice outdoor photograph, split it into its RGB channels as three greyscale images, stretch the values so they are all equally bright and still the red channel will usually contain the most "vivid" details).))

[Bruno]

My understanding is that most modern CCDs (charged-coupled devices) pick up all the visible spectrum and IR, and most cameras fix this problem by using an IR filter. Each pixel in the CCD is filtered individually to block all light except red green or blue. I guess these filters don't block IR, which means an equal amount of light is picked up by the red, blue and green sensors equally, which is why it appears white.

An IR filter in place of the duct tape might work.

[AnnaMaeBollocks]

Yes, but the added value of features would have to significantly outweigh the disadvantages of having a phone with crippleable features, so it's interesting to wonder what, exactly, if anything, Apple is planning to use this patent for.

Not if they passed a law requiring those features.  You know, maybe like a law that's already been drafted, and is just waiting for the patent to come through before it comes out of some fat staffer's upper left drawer, and get's added as a rider to whatever feel-good, anti-nun-beating legislation that's up this week.

People would still have their old cell phones and cameras.

Ok, so they wouldn't allow them in, in a lot of cases. But a lot of bands don't have a problem with tapers. I mean the industry is fucked anyway as far as the old model of record sales = fat royalties, people make their money touring now and I can't see them keeping old cameras out.

So yeah, probably legislation.

I don't mind paying for a decent boot. It's their music, and I'm not buying it for crowd shots. Just don't want to be legislated into the shit.

If it does happen, I think people will come up with countermeasures. Always have.

[Gordon C]

Right now Google is building a virtual version of you
As time goes on you continually integrate your life with computers. By doing this you're unwittingly giving information about yourself to a collective set of machinery that is as we speak building a psych profile of your favorite places to go, and who you may be interested in on Facebook. Google is increasingly improving it's ability to know your choices before you even go about them. You see? Google not only knows what your choices are, but where you're going, who're you're talking to and eventually how you will choose in a particular circumstance per sey. If something knows the decisions you make in a certain set of circumstances then it can possibly affect your decision. In short what it will become is an inverse decision engine which will affect your destiny.

Right now Google is building a virtual version of you from the outside-in. At the "onset" - a simple psyhc profile of you and how you choose in certain given situations. If Google can accurately predict how you decided in a given situation it can present you with a preferable set of circumstances and thereby influence how you choose and decide. Google not only knows who you like on Facebook, what your favorite ice cream is, but It know's where you're going, where you've been and is using it's virtual version of you to attempt to guess at your decision trees.. The greater this virtual version of you "is" the better it can present you with said decisions so that it is able to accurately foretell your reaction sequences within a partial margin of a certain percentage. If a computer knows how you will choose it can (can) affect your actual destiny in effect.

[Triple Zero]

So, you think at some point Google will be done, having built the perfectly identical virtual world with an identical virtual version of me, and then big G can go about its own business violating its own damn virtual simulated privacy?

[Gordon C]

So, you think at some point Google will be done, having built the perfectly identical virtual world with an identical virtual version of me, and then big G can go about its own business violating its own damn virtual simulated privacy?

Since you didn't quote me I'm gonna go ahead and assume you were addressing somebody else's virtual utopian nightmare scenario..

[Triple Zero]

Should've added a smiley there, I thought it was an amusing idea

[maphdet]

Bah-People are going to find ways around this kind of stuff anyway. I think these companies create these 'protective' measures to ensure their profit margins. This creates hype and attention to said companies.

What gets me is that we (as a people) have allowed ourselves to be so reliant on these devises that when they pull this kind of shit (turning off a device, that you paid for, remotely-which on basic principal is absurd) there is little to nothing you can do to stop it or completely change what you have become reliant on.
Blah-so then I say a cliche-we have made the bed we sleep in. Or something like that.


Disclaimer-Maph's been drinking tonight.