House Bill Would Restrict Camera-Enabled ‘Spy’ Set-Tops

[Tesclo]

Citing privacy concerns, a U.S. representative has introduced legislation that would force video providers to display the message “We are watching you” if they use devices with cameras that monitor the activity of viewers.

The “We Are Watching You Act of 2013” bill also would require video providers to provide a camera-free set-top box and service if at a customer’s request. Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) and co-sponsor Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) introduced the bill, House Resolution 2356, on Thursday.

Source

I guess these congressmen are Sony trolls too?

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm ok with this.

[N-7]

"We are watching you, your every move!"

[Kathandira]

Source

I guess these congressmen are Sony trolls too?

Why do they have to be trolls?

[Landin55]

While were at it we should have all congressmen wear a "I'm stupid" shirt.

[N-7]

So does that mean they have to tell the world "Were watching you"?

At the very least they should post a comment on their targets' walls in Facebook with "We're watching you." :P

[Skroe]

Interesting proposal, but it's the kind that will get overturned before long even if it does pass. Because the only way "Minority Report" or "Star Trek" style human computer interaction can "sense" is by always-on sensors.

And I highly doubt when the technology comes to market to make it as ubiquitous as tablet touch screens, this law will stay on the books. Reminds me a lot of the bizarre anti-google glass legislation.

[Deleted]

I like the sentiment, but we should not be getting watched in the first place.

[Deleted]

While were at it we should have all congressmen wear a "I'm stupid" shirt.

Well they are likely smarter than you; getting paid a good salary apparently without having to use their brain

[Landin55]

Well they are likely smarter than you; getting paid a good salary apparently without having to use their brain

Didn't say they couldn't use their brains. Because obviously this bill is the epitome of these congressman's combined intelligence.

[Eviscero]

I like the sentiment, but we should not be getting watched in the first place.

I don't think you understand these technologies or their applications. This is not some government conspiracy to invade your privacy, this applies primarily to entertainment technologies which people voluntarily purchase to make their lives better and/or more interesting. Kinect watches you because ... that's the point of it.

[Deleted]

Interesting proposal, but it's the kind that will get overturned before long even if it does pass. Because the only way "Minority Report" or "Star Trek" style human computer interaction can "sense" is by always-on sensors.

And I highly doubt when the technology comes to market to make it as ubiquitous as tablet touch screens, this law will stay on the books. Reminds me a lot of the bizarre anti-google glass legislation.

Privacy is the big issue we need to deal with, unless you want to surrender all rights to it. I dont so i dont label such laws bizzare, but part of a necessary debate

[Sunseeker]

I don't think you understand these technologies or their applications. This is not some government conspiracy to invade your privacy, this applies primarily to entertainment technologies which people voluntarily purchase to make their lives better and/or more interesting. Kinect watches you because ... that's the point of it.

But do private companies, even if you purchase a product designed to interact with you as Kinect is, have a right to monitor our activities while not utilizing their product? IE: if the TV isn't on, does Comcast have a right to know I'm doing the dishes or vacuuming or having sex? Does Sony? Does anyone?

The point of camera-enabled products like Kinect is to better interact with the consumer, so that you hands can do what your controller used to. I don't believe there's any reasonable purpose to simply having an always-on camera watching my day-to-day activities. Collecting data from my USE of the machine, not from my non-use is going to provide much more useful data.

Buying a product does not give a company the right to monitor anything about you. That requires a legal document, signed, witnessed and dated to waive your legal rights to privacy.

[Kaleredar]

But do private companies, even if you purchase a product designed to interact with you as Kinect is, have a right to monitor our activities while not utilizing their product? IE: if the TV isn't on, does Comcast have a right to know I'm doing the dishes or vacuuming or having sex? Does Sony? Does anyone?

Ultimately, if you know that's what it does, and you buy it anyway... yeah, why not? No one is forcing you to buy any of these technologies.

[Sunseeker]

Ultimately, if you know that's what it does, and you buy it anyway... yeah, why not? No one is forcing you to buy any of these technologies.

Realistically, there are some devices that one cannot fully function in the modern world without.

No TV, okay sure, I don't own one. No Xbox? Sure, don't need one of those either. No cell phone? I'm sure you'll get by though reasonably a lot of things will be more difficult unless you hand around a landline all the time. No computer? Well libraries are an option, but what you can do on them, how regularly you can access them, how reliably they operate is entirely out of your control. No car? Try finding a decent job within walking distance, or biking distance, or a US city with a useful public transport system. Even if you do, there's still inclimate weather to consider. You can (though you probably shouldn't) walk during -20 weather, but you've got about half an hour before you body starts dying. And most employers don't accept "it's cold" as a reason not to come to work.

There are some devices you can reasonably live without. There are others that living without them is an unreasonable prospect to living a successful life. But hey if your only goal is to live in a giant, rundown apartment complex in the middle of the city just so you can be right next door to the McDonalds you flip burgers for....well...that's the kind of life you're going to get without technology. Even the Amish have computers.

[Zangeiti]

Ok I think we all know that were being watched I think I heard in 2010 that in the update menu thing for apple products says that they can look threw your camera and see you.

[The Dwarf]

Any regular person should be supportive of this I think.

[Kaleredar]

Realistically, there are some devices that one cannot fully function in the modern world without.

No TV, okay sure, I don't own one. No Xbox? Sure, don't need one of those either. No cell phone? I'm sure you'll get by though reasonably a lot of things will be more difficult unless you hand around a landline all the time. No computer? Well libraries are an option, but what you can do on them, how regularly you can access them, how reliably they operate is entirely out of your control. No car? Try finding a decent job within walking distance, or biking distance, or a US city with a useful public transport system. Even if you do, there's still inclimate weather to consider. You can (though you probably shouldn't) walk during -20 weather, but you've got about half an hour before you body starts dying. And most employers don't accept "it's cold" as a reason not to come to work.

There are some devices you can reasonably live without. There are others that living without them is an unreasonable prospect to living a successful life. But hey if your only goal is to live in a giant, rundown apartment complex in the middle of the city just so you can be right next door to the McDonalds you flip burgers for....well...that's the kind of life you're going to get without technology. Even the Amish have computers.

First, you're positing a slippery slope argument.


Second, this bill wouldn't stop any of those things from becoming "big-brother'd," they'd simply be putting what would, in essence, be a "caution- Coffee may be hot" sticker on the things that were monitoring you regardless of if you wanted them to or not.

[obdigore]

Would this effect something like a Galaxy S4, that watches with the camera facing the same way as the display to see if you are watching the video, and if you look away it pauses it?

[Sunseeker]

First, you're positing a slippery slope argument.

No, it's really not. A "slippery slope" needs to be a descent from A(like a phone) to Z(like your toilet) usually moving from something that can often be considered sensible(like breathalizers in all cars) to something ridiculous, like again, a toilet.

All the devices I mentioned already have some form of monitoring in them. TVs and digital receivers track what shows you watch, phones collect "usage data", software sends back the same and there's a dozen different things in new cars that record whats going on while you drive them.

Second, this bill wouldn't stop any of those things from becoming "big-brother'd," they'd simply be putting what would, in essence, be a "caution- Coffee may be hot" sticker on the things that were monitoring you regardless of if you wanted them to or not.

It is better than nothing. I'd rather at least be told a device I want to buy monitors me, so that way I could be informed enough to choose a different product if I didn't want it(assuming any are available).