Discussion on:

Comcast considers creepy new addition to the set top box

Comcast discussed adding a camera to its set top box to either serve
content and advertising to the individual subscriber or as a gesture
recognition device depending on which day you ask, apparently. In an
interview with Gerard Kunkel, VP of customer experience at Comcast,
the camera would identify a watcher by body type and serve content
based on that person's favorites. Later, Mr. Kunkel stated that the
camera would provide gesture based response.

I personally don't care what they want to use the camera for, I don't
want it in my set top box. I find the thought of such a thing invasive
and don't think that Comcast really needs to see the gestures that I
make to the TV. Comcast's second statement to reporter Chris
Albrecht implies that the device is similar to the camera in the Wii
gaming system. I don't have one of those either.

It seems s if we are being asked to allow others to stand in our privacy
space every day. In some cases it is perfectly reasonable. But
intrusion into my living room is a step too far.

What do you think? Would you consider a camera in your set top box
acceptable? Or are you like me and prefer to not go there?

or maybe a photograph of someone else's living room

That would be my reaction. Tape Or thick black paint!

What if they stick the camera in with the remote sensor? Might not be able to cover the camera without interfering with the remote operation.

This is ridiculous. It is IN NO WAY about the customer. Did you catch it? They can tailor ADS to the customer. It's about selling more ads for higher prices.

If it was a utility like water, electricity, or sewage there may be a problem. We don't need tv so close the account. They already know that someone in the house is watching specific programs; although they may be fooled, because there is a tendency in my house for the tv to be on all day saturday even though no one may be watching it.

I believe that Comcast knows now that they lose customers if they put cameras in their box.

IR bounces all over the place. Youcan point your remote at the back of your room (or the side) and it will likely hit your box....if you put something in front of it that blocks direct view, but not reflected signals, you could still have privacy....of course why use cable. Satellite is better.

Actually, I have a permanent solution:



A SLEDGEHAMMER!!!!!!

I was working at Dish network as a CSR. Someone called in complaining their remote wasn't working. Turns out they had put tape over the IR sensor on their reciever because they thought it was a camera. That was a fun one to troubleshoot. Maybe they weren't so crazy after all.

Since when does the Wii have a built in camera? It doesn't. It uses IR and another wireless technology in combination with the Wiimote and it's accelerometers. Sounds like Comcast is using some FUD to make their new tech seem "ok".

I couldn't find anything definitive about the way that Wii uses
gestures but thought that the official "gesture technology"
statement by Comcast might be FUD. Thanks for clarifying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

About one minute into this video he gives a quick explanation of how the Wii remote works with the sensor bar. The rest of it is cool, too.

You're right- that was good!

Never thought to look at YouTube when I was looking for
information this morning. Doh!

All Comcast would have to do is lobby government officials to make blocking cameras with tape a felony. Big brother will find away into your personal life.

I added the picture reference. Maybe a picture of a big hairy butt!

(but then I'd probably be targeted with Preparation H ads )

I doubt they could make that happen. Comcast isn't in the national defense business, they're in the entertainment-delivery business. They'd have a hard case getting that one by the Supremes.

The day Comcast puts a camera in my cable box is the day I cease to be their customer (unless they do something equally as stupid between now and then). I have no need for a camera to capture gestures I make towards my television. My remote control works just fine. I have a gesture I'd like to show Comcast, but I don't think they'd appreciate it much.

...thank you for your cooperation.


Holy 1984 Batman!

...thank you for your cooperation.

Holy 1984 Batman!

How about Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 ?

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949

who would have access to the video. How far fetched is it for someone to walk naked past their TV? How about teen kids on the couch when mom/dad aren't home? If captured, that would be illegal video.

It is a watchers paradise though....

I wonder, does it only have the camera on while the TV is on, or all the time?

Will police be able to log in with a court order?

Court order?? Who needs a court order anymore? The Patriot Act will cover it, and if it doesn't they'll do it anyway ... national security, you know ..

If Comcast wants gestures, I have a few for them at the ready ...

The Patriot Act does NOT cover this. Grow up and buy a clue.

...but do you think that maybe he was implying that with the government's proven track record of abusing its powers this would be a likely target for more of the same?

He's not being a retard, and certainly seems to have a better grasp of government behavior than...say...for example...you.

showing where an american citizen, that is in the US, that is NOT in contact with a known terrorist organization, has been spied upon using authorizations from the Patriot Act.

Not "could have" or "might have".

Show me who it is that is being paranoid (you) or clueless (me). Ball is in your court, hit it where you may.

Since that information is not available due to it's sensitive nature as a "threat to national security"...

So, you're right -- despite the best efforts of the ACLU, I can't prove that it's happened.

However -- if you believe illegal spying on US citizens by our own government hasn't happened, then pray tell why is the administration so intent on providing litigation protection to the telephone companies who assisted in warrantless wiretaps on American citizens?

[edited to correct spelling]

you make an assertion, and pass it off as fact, even though you are unable to back it up with ANYTHING?

Thank you for answering my question. Clearly paranoid wins out today.

Sure, there are people that are in contact with suspected terrorists in other countries that have/may have been listened to and are trying to bring cases up in court.

I haven't heard of ANY of the cases brought by the ACLU regarding communications of Americans to Americans, here in the states. Such would be the case as the lunitic rantings that the Patriot Act would give the police access to the Comcast cameras to look in on the common citizen.

There's not just one. There are thousands. And one was denied by FISA as it would violate someone's First Amendment rights - and the FBI went ahead and did it anyway. So ridiculous.

Just 2006 and 2007:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/fbi.nsl/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080316-progress-on-national-security-letters-has-been-slow.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-28-fbi-security-letters_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html

That should be 2003-2006. Doh!

Thanks Leslie for pointing out some excellent examples...

As noted in the other similar thread, below...

My favorite, though is the decision by the 6th circuit (recently upheld by the SC) in the case of ACLU vs NSA, that says the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge because the program under which they would have been wiretapped is secret, therefore they cannot prove they were wiretapped, because that would reveal the secret wiretapping that, as you know didn't happen because they can't prove it... because it's secret... oh, sorry... I'm being paranoid again... silly me...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

The letters have been in use since the 1980s, but their use was dramatically expanded by the Patriot Act in 2001. The Patriot Act allows the government to threaten recipients of the letters with criminal prosecution if they reveal to anyone that they have received the letters.

Hmm, don't WARN people that they are being spied upon sounds like common sence, huh? The only thing that I was in the articles that has changed on the process that has been in use for three decades now.

Even the NSA vs ACLU was a case brought about by people that WERE in contact with people outside the nation, and THINK they were monitored because of their activity.

But in July 2007, the 6th Circuit overturned that decision. The ACLU asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the ruling, but in February 2008, the Court declined to review the challenge

It leads me to a simple question, how can you claim damages if you don't know if you have been damaged or not? Something you should remember as a basic point in law, if YOU take someone to court, YOU have to prove your case. Something ACLU lawers should know by now.

Yeah, site the ACLU website. Nothing unbiased there.... At least you didn't link to moveon.org... yet.

You certainly are clueless. Do you actually think the average citizen would have access to the huge amount of data about who is being spied on using the Patriot Act? What would make you even dream that the government would make that information available? Even if the information were available, one person could never sort through it all in their lifetime. The government will never willingly make their spying information available to the masses. They pretty much do as they please, especially when you are referring to the Bush administration, who feel they are above the laws.

Sorry -- but if you really believe that you're the one being naive.

Please site a specific case then showing where an american citizen, that is in the US, that is NOT in contact with a known terrorist organization, has been spied upon using authorizations from the Patriot Act.

Not "could have" or "might have".

Show me who it is that is being paranoid (you) or clueless (me). Ball is in your court, hit it where you may.

Just 2006 and 2007:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/fbi.nsl/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080316-progress-on-national-security-letters-has-been-slow.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-28-fbi-security-letters_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032000921.html

Thanks to the others who pointed out several examples...

My favorite, though is the decision by the 6th circuit (recently upheld by the SC) that says the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge because the program under which they would have been wiretapped is secret, therefore they cannot prove they were wiretapped, because that would reveal the secret wiretapping that, as you know didn't happen... because they can't prove it... because it's secret... oh, sorry... I'm being paranoid again... silly me...

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html

You're welcome! And I want to say sorry for the years, it should be 2003-2006.

As for the secretive nature of the courts, it creates a huge problem for anyone to prove they've been spied on without a warrant. One law firm was accidentally sent proof, and can't even use the document in court!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/washington/17nsa.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/haramain_appeal
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72811?currentPage=all

Here's a very plausible, non-paranoid scenario of sliding down this slippery slope...

1. Comcast implements their home camera scheme. Thousands of these units are deployed to households across America.
2. Initial strict security policies at Comcast mollify the users. Nothing happens, people relax.
3. Someone at Comcast happens to observe a criminal act through a home camera. It's a truly heinous crime - maybe it's child abuse, maybe it's a murder, but it's something that is clearly unacceptable.
4. A debate ensues at Comcast over what should be done with this video information. Maybe they decide it's their civic duty to report these events to the authorities and they do so. Maybe they decide they can't report it, and instead an offended Comcast employee leaks the story to the press.
5. Nancy Grace gets hold of the story, and takes the stance that Privacy concerns are overruled by Civic Protection.
6. A precedent is set, and suddenly images beamed in from home cameras are no longer protected..."In the Public Good."

It could totally, totally happen, in gradual stages...

...and if audio ever gets added to the mix, the list of possible slope scenarios goes through the roof. There would never again be a safe hypothetical conversation on any controversial topic in your own home...unless, of course, you built a space you used to hide from your TV.

Sounds like a super business plan. I'm going into the " Clue Selling Business" Investments welcomed. -d

...a home kit to build a Cone of Silence?

Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't meant they're not out to get you...

I want to work for the government! Sheesh, they really DON'T have anything to do, do they? I mean, where I work, I have so many jobs to do I couldn't begin to think about snooping or gossiping, I don't have the energy!

have you ever actually read the Patriot Act or even ONE judicial opinion applying it, jerkenheimer?

Tell me the sections of the US Code where the Act can be found.

As you like to say, ball is in your court.

regarding your China comments on:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=255469&messageID=2452973

Care to take back your snarky remark:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=255469&messageID=2438229

????????

The ball is in your court!

have you actually READ the patriot act legislation, in it's entirety ?....i am not a u.s. citizen, but what YOU guys do affects my country, so it is in my interest to know. frankly, it is not nice. it would appear that, in in the name of fighting terrorism, you have given up many of the checks, balances and "freedoms " you are fighting terrorists to maintain. it certainly is "catch 22" in action. as an outside observer, with no axe to grind( and, no, i don't hate america either) my observation is that your present government observes the "whatever it takes" methodology and you would be naive to think otherwise.

The checks are leading to investigations and calls for legislation, and suits to bring issues to the Supreme Court to make decisions on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the act.

Definitely, but cash under the table is probably working better.

Anyone familiar with Clinton's Banking Privacy Act, which gives your information to any "affiliate" of your bank at no extra charge to you? The use of "certain other" in the agreements are a source of bemusement.

How about HIPAA? The only one protected from your information is you, yourself. You sign away all rights in order to get medical treatment.

If the Supremes act at all, I doubt it will be in favor of the people. Government and Big Business are too intertwined.

far in one direction. It could all go too far if things don't balance soon. I think we will see some rebalancing after the next election if the Dems win.

Not that I'm a Democrat but the feeling that the political swingarm is stuck too the far right is compelling. I just wish the candidates were more moderate instead of less.

I don't care what they say their purpose is. The moment it happens is the moment I cancel my service.

What makes them think they have the right to invade my home, my privacy? Because they're Comcast.

I'm already unhappy with Comcast. I think they charge an exorbitant price for their service. Their customer service is anything but customer service. This would be all the motivation I need to go elsewhere.

I don't want anyone to know how badly my living room carpet needs to be swept.