Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HP patent to block digital photos

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 29, 2005 4:23:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 29, 2005 11:22:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to
> block photos being taken of people by digital
> cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm
> and a wearable cloaking device according to news
> reports:

Isn't technology great? Just think how armed robbers will
rejoice, not to menion Iraqi insurgeants, potential air
plane hijackers, Al Qaeda, etc., etc.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
January 30, 2005 1:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:

>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...


We're all going to have to turn in our cameras for the device to be
implanted.
--
Charles

Does not play well with others.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 1:41:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...

IMO, I don't see anything especially objectionable about this.
It'd be nicer if it'd punch a 2m hole in the picture, rather than stopping
the picture altogether.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 1:52:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth aircraft
made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed that
the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
microchips in the cameras. Made sense. THis HP patent does sound like a
very big jump from a simple jamming device. Could drive the celebrity
photogs crazy, which would be fun to watch.

PSsquare


<sawlake-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107033791.287070.212880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 1:52:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JsUKd.12563$ZD1.6120@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
>aircraft
> made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
> All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
> that
> the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
> microchips in the cameras. Made sense.

Not to me.
January 30, 2005 2:13:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C'mon guy's - doncha ya know the Patent Office don't have a shopping
cart..........;-)


<sawlake-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107033791.287070.212880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 2:14:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...

Yea sure. And I suppose they will attach one of those on the Brooklyn
bridge I have for sale as well.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 2:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<sawlake-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107033791.287070.212880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>

beam me up scotty...
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 3:00:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:

> "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:JsUKd.12563$ZD1.6120@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
>>aircraft
>>made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>>All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
>>that
>>the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>>microchips in the cameras. Made sense.
>
>
> Not to me.

Hi...

One of them was in Winnipeg for the air show a couple of
years ago. I wasn't at the show, but live at the very
outskirts of the city. It seemed to do its turning around
here; I presume to "sneak up" on the folks at the show.

Anyway, I took a few pictures of it with my Olympus.
Camera worked just fine. Pictures no good, though, it
goes too fast.

Ken
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 4:30:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:52:25 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com>
wrote:

>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth aircraft
>made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed that
>the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>microchips in the cameras. Made sense. THis HP patent does sound like a
>very big jump from a simple jamming device. Could drive the celebrity
>photogs crazy, which would be fun to watch.
>

The F-117 doesn't use any active countermeasures. It's Stealth is a
product of the airframe geometry. interestingly, the Mathematics for
it were published in Soviet Mathematics Journal but they didn't see
their application.


***************************************************************

"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
January 30, 2005 4:30:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mrdov0hderhkkofuvh4h78osigb1jvvh69@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:52:25 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
aircraft
> >made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
> >All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
that
> >the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
> >microchips in the cameras. Made sense. THis HP patent does sound like a
> >very big jump from a simple jamming device. Could drive the celebrity
> >photogs crazy, which would be fun to watch.
> >
>
> The F-117 doesn't use any active countermeasures. It's Stealth is a
> product of the airframe geometry. interestingly, the Mathematics for
> it were published in Soviet Mathematics Journal but they didn't see
> their application.
>
I never had any problems photographing the F-117A or the B2B. There are
urban legends of people getting out-of-focus static line shots because there
little IR autofocus wouldn't reflect back, much like the radar won't bounce
back. John is correct the Stealth is based on the Radar Cross Section Thesis
by an obscure Russian physicist.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 4:32:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:00:03 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>
>Charles Schuler wrote:
>
>> "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:JsUKd.12563$ZD1.6120@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>>>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
>>>aircraft
>>>made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>>>All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
>>>that
>>>the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>>>microchips in the cameras. Made sense.
>>
>>
>> Not to me.
>
>Hi...
>
>One of them was in Winnipeg for the air show a couple of
>years ago. I wasn't at the show, but live at the very
>outskirts of the city. It seemed to do its turning around
>here; I presume to "sneak up" on the folks at the show.
>
>Anyway, I took a few pictures of it with my Olympus.
>Camera worked just fine. Pictures no good, though, it
>goes too fast.

Strange as all stealth aircraft are (B-2 and F-117) are subsonic and
rather slow. I've photographed both in flight and 1/1000 sec worked
just fine.


***************************************************************

"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 5:03:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:00:03 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Charles Schuler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:JsUKd.12563$ZD1.6120@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
>>>>aircraft
>>>>made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>>>>All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
>>>>that
>>>>the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>>>>microchips in the cameras. Made sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not to me.
>>
>>Hi...
>>
>>One of them was in Winnipeg for the air show a couple of
>>years ago. I wasn't at the show, but live at the very
>>outskirts of the city. It seemed to do its turning around
>>here; I presume to "sneak up" on the folks at the show.
>>
>>Anyway, I took a few pictures of it with my Olympus.
>>Camera worked just fine. Pictures no good, though, it
>>goes too fast.
>
>
> Strange as all stealth aircraft are (B-2 and F-117) are subsonic and
> rather slow. I've photographed both in flight and 1/1000 sec worked
> just fine.

Hi...

Ahh, perhaps I should have worded it differently... He was
"fast" because he was incredibly low. And so darned quiet that
I couldn't tell he was coming until he was here :) 

Ken
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 5:41:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:03:12 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>
>John A. Stovall wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:00:03 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
snipped
>
>Ahh, perhaps I should have worded it differently... He was
>"fast" because he was incredibly low. And so darned quiet that
>I couldn't tell he was coming until he was here :) 

You need to learn to hear the F-117's whistle...


************************************************************

"'Simplify, simplify.'....I wanted to simplify. No wants,
no needs, no hungers. Only rifles....I was at my best with
a rifle in my hand. I always loved rifles. So I decided to
live in such a way that the rifle would be all I needed.
And I succeeded."

Bob the Nailer
_Point of Impact_
by
Stephen Hunter
January 30, 2005 5:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'll be dipped..........!

But the patent is a fake....;-)


"Frank Vuotto" <deepthrob@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:458ov05pms0h97sjnj8rj1ostmo0n1lbl0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:13:01 GMT, "BobS" <spam@eliminator.com> wrote:
>
> >C'mon guy's - doncha ya know the Patent Office don't have a shopping
> >cart..........;-)
>
>
> Actually, they do.
>
> http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm
>
>
> Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
> @/
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 11:26:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
>
>
> We're all going to have to turn in our cameras for the device to be
> implanted.

Implanted? Retrofitting existing cameras might might be a little tough.
Sounds like they're hoping for a little governmental persuasion to assist
in the sales of the new cameras, if they ever come to market:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5550415.html
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 11:34:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:52:25 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com>
wrote:

>I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth aircraft
>made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed that
>the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>microchips in the cameras. Made sense.

No. it doesn't.
"Stealth" planes don't use jamming to become stealthy; they use design
characteristics, radar-absorbing coatings, slow speed, and exhaust
diffusers. Nothing that would "jam" a camera's autofocus.
>THis HP patent does sound like a
>very big jump from a simple jamming device. Could drive the celebrity
>photogs crazy, which would be fun to watch.

Hardly; the patent describes a system that uses *both* a device to
signal a camera, and a camera that can recognize the signal from the
device.
IOW, if the camera doesn't have the capability to recognize the
'cloaking' device, nothing happens to alter the pic taken.
>
>PSsquare
>
>
><sawlake-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1107033791.287070.212880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>
>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 11:41:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:41:41 -0500, "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:mrdov0hderhkkofuvh4h78osigb1jvvh69@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:52:25 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth
>aircraft
>> >made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>> >All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
>that
>> >the aircraft had its jamming pod activated and that was disabling the
>> >microchips in the cameras. Made sense. THis HP patent does sound like a
>> >very big jump from a simple jamming device. Could drive the celebrity
>> >photogs crazy, which would be fun to watch.
>> >
>>
>> The F-117 doesn't use any active countermeasures. It's Stealth is a
>> product of the airframe geometry. interestingly, the Mathematics for
>> it were published in Soviet Mathematics Journal but they didn't see
>> their application.
>>
>I never had any problems photographing the F-117A or the B2B. There are
>urban legends of people getting out-of-focus static line shots because there
>little IR autofocus wouldn't reflect back, much like the radar won't bounce
>back. John is correct the Stealth is based on the Radar Cross Section Thesis
>by an obscure Russian physicist.
>

I've got a video of one from an airshow (I was in the Pima Air & Space
Museum at the time) here:
http://www.asciigroup.org/gallery/my-best-pics?page=2
See the one titled "F-117 Stealth Fighter".
No problem focusing; since the focusing is optical in this camera,
there's no reason there would be.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 1:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:

> One thing about it is that a Patent does not have to work, alot of patents
> is for an Idea that could never work, proof is not needed.
>
>
Unfortunately, so true. Originally the patent office used to check the
theory behind patent applications. As number of patents submitted
greatly increased, office did not have the manpower to check every one
that carefully. Modern philosphy is that if it is obviously junk,
reject it. If it might work, grant patent and let courts determine
whether it is valid if someone challenges it. Or, if someone infringes
and patentee fights infringement.

To me, the courts are even less able to determine validity of a patent
than the patent examiners should be.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 5:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bernard P Rother wrote:
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> My first CD writer was a 7200i which failed just out of warranty. HP
> wanted my old drive + half the price of a new writer in return for a
> "reconditioned" writer. ! Even the user manual states that the NEW
> unit could consist of recycled parts !! I've still the book if anyone
> wants to see the scanned page. Have never touched a HP product since.
> Bernard

Sounds like you got a pretty good deal to me. You were out of warranty and they
were under NO obligation to do anything for you and yet they sold you a working
"similar" unit for half price.

Would you have felt bad if a car company gave you this same deal?
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 5:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

PSsquare wrote:
> I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth aircraft
> made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
> All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed that.....

>
Was this the same photographer who had earlier been abducted and under
went extensive anal probing aboard several UFOs?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 6:35:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or emitted
from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device is a very
positive laser type of device or a device to completely disable a the
electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is probably a hoax.

sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 6:35:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

keith_nuttle wrote:

> Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or emitted
> from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device is a very
> positive laser type of device or a device to completely disable a the
> electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is probably a hoax.
>
> sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>
>


Having worked extensively many years ago in low observable military
equipment (low observable in optical wavelengths) my guess is that this
is either a hoax or a very misunderstood statement of technology.

It IS possible to jam cameras with an intense enough light source, or to
build a device into a camera that would recognize a 'copyrighted
material' signal sent by some object. But the description of the patent
so far in this group's posting sounds like bunk to me.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 6:35:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:35:30 GMT, keith_nuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or emitted
>from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device is a very
>positive laser type of device or a device to completely disable a the
>electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is probably a hoax.
>

From the ZDNet article:

"The patent application covers technology that would have to be
incorporated both into cameras and the "image inhibitor modules" that
would signal "No photos of me, please," plus a system for
spontaneously registering inhibitors with cameras. The in-camera
technology includes sophisticated image-analysis software to
selectively identify faces so they can be obfuscated.

An HP representative said the company had no current plans to
commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption
by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially
practical"


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 6:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> keith_nuttle wrote:
>
>> Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or
>> emitted from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device
>> is a very positive laser type of device or a device to completely
>> disable a the electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is
>> probably a hoax.
>>
>> sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>>> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>>> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>>> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>>
>>
>
>
> Having worked extensively many years ago in low observable military
> equipment (low observable in optical wavelengths) my guess is that this
> is either a hoax or a very misunderstood statement of technology.
>
> It IS possible to jam cameras with an intense enough light source, or to
> build a device into a camera that would recognize a 'copyrighted
> material' signal sent by some object. But the description of the patent
> so far in this group's posting sounds like bunk to me.

If you read the patent application, you'll realize that it is the second
case. Transmitters activated by people who don't want their pictures taken
would signal electronics in the camera to obscure faces in the recorded
image. A little hole in the plan is that it requires everybody to buy
new cameras to make make this work. So is it a hoax? Not really, there's
an actual patent application. Is it a horrendously stupid idea that will
never fly? You won't get an argument from me on that one.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 6:48:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sounds like somebody trying to start an urban legend.


<sawlake-gg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107033791.287070.212880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 7:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

keith_nuttle wrote:
> Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or
> emitted from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device
> is a very positive laser type of device or a device to completely
> disable a the electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is
> probably a hoax.

Well considering there are a number of possible tools out there right
now that could be adapted to do the same thing, I hardly think anyone would
bother since there is no call for the product. Just how effective would it
be? My 50 year old 4X5 and my 40 year old 6X6 still function. If I had an
old Minox it would not stop that, so just what use would it be?

Sure it's a hoax, I am surprised that some people seem to have taken it
for real!

>
> sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being
>> taken of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition
>> algorithm and a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 30, 2005 7:32:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> keith_nuttle wrote:
>
>>Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or
>>emitted from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device
>>is a very positive laser type of device or a device to completely
>>disable a the electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is
>>probably a hoax.
>
>
> Well considering there are a number of possible tools out there right
> now that could be adapted to do the same thing, I hardly think anyone would
> bother since there is no call for the product. Just how effective would it
> be? My 50 year old 4X5 and my 40 year old 6X6 still function. If I had an
> old Minox it would not stop that, so just what use would it be?
>
> Sure it's a hoax, I am surprised that some people seem to have taken it
> for real!

Hi...

I'm sending in my new patent first thing in the morning.

Wear a little beanie cap on your head; the spinning propeller
powers it. Makes the wearer totally invisible to digital
cameras. See right through 'em :) 

Ken
January 30, 2005 11:07:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> One thing about it is that a Patent does not have to work, alot of patents
>> is for an Idea that could never work, proof is not needed.
>>
>>
> Unfortunately, so true. Originally the patent office used to check the theory behind patent applications. As number of patents submitted greatly increased, office did not have the manpower to check every one that carefully. Modern philosphy is that if it is obviously junk, reject it. If it might work, grant patent and let courts determine whether it is valid if someone challenges it. Or, if someone infringes and patentee fights infringement.
>
> To me, the courts are even less able to determine validity of a patent than the patent examiners should be.

And not only this. Today you can patent ideas and/or systems that exists
or not. The point is the money that you can obtain if anybody builds or
uses devices (or whatever) that coincide with the patented system, idea,
etc...
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 1:10:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rick Brandt wrote:
> Bernard P Rother wrote:
>
>>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>>
>>My first CD writer was a 7200i which failed just out of warranty. HP
>>wanted my old drive + half the price of a new writer in return for a
>>"reconditioned" writer. ! Even the user manual states that the NEW
>>unit could consist of recycled parts !! I've still the book if anyone
>>wants to see the scanned page. Have never touched a HP product since.
>>Bernard
>
>
> Sounds like you got a pretty good deal to me. You were out of warranty and they
> were under NO obligation to do anything for you and yet they sold you a working
> "similar" unit for half price.
>
> Would you have felt bad if a car company gave you this same deal?
>
>
There was actually a class action lawsuit in the US against HP. Latent
Defect. HP had massive failure rates with the 7200i so it wasn't really
a one-off problem. In South Africa we knew about the situation unfolding
in the US but our legal system here was a bit different. I ended up
buying a Richo 7060 for the same "reduced" price which is still burning
strong in my daughter's machine today.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 2:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 30 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Ken Weitzel wrote:

> I'm sending in my new patent first thing in the morning.
>
> Wear a little beanie cap on your head; the spinning propeller
> powers it. Makes the wearer totally invisible to digital
> cameras. See right through 'em :) 

Foil lined?

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 2:53:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:

>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>
Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 3:15:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <i4idnbD92ftLwWDcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> writes
>PSsquare wrote:
>> I recall a photographer telling me about an airshow where a Stealth aircraft
>> made a fly-by, and his manual Nikon was the only camera that would work.
>> All of the high-end autofocus cameras failed to function. He believed
>that.....
>
>Was this the same photographer who had earlier been abducted and under
>went extensive anal probing aboard several UFOs?
>
Considering that both ends of the photographer produced very similar
material, how did the aliens work out which end was which?
--
Roger Hunt
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 3:31:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41fd8145@news.iis.com.br>, gutto@iis.com.br says...
> Today you can patent ideas and/or systems that exists
> or not.

You could always do that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 4:00:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joe Makowiec wrote:

> On 30 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Ken Weitzel wrote:
>
>
>>I'm sending in my new patent first thing in the morning.
>>
>>Wear a little beanie cap on your head; the spinning propeller
>>powers it. Makes the wearer totally invisible to digital
>>cameras. See right through 'em :) 
>
>
> Foil lined?

Foil lined to make yourself invisible to digital cameras.

Silver lined if you wanna be invisible to film cameras. :) 

Ken
January 31, 2005 4:00:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ken Weitzel" <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:CqfLd.224206$6l.2732@pd7tw2no...
>
>
> Joe Makowiec wrote:
>
> > On 30 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Ken Weitzel wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm sending in my new patent first thing in the morning.
> >>
> >>Wear a little beanie cap on your head; the spinning propeller
> >>powers it. Makes the wearer totally invisible to digital
> >>cameras. See right through 'em :) 
> >
> >
> > Foil lined?
>
> Foil lined to make yourself invisible to digital cameras.
>
> Silver lined if you wanna be invisible to film cameras. :) 
>
> Ken
>
Bathing in Mercury perhaps?
January 31, 2005 4:53:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
news:41fd729d.365760165@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>
> Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
> In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
> people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
> banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?

Great Idea.

This would really stop the Paperazzi from annoying all those poor Celebs.
You see them on the Telly, using those big DSLRs with the huge White Lenses
on the front.

Only thing is I didn't know that HP made that kind of Camera. Perhaps HP
intend getting the laws changed so that Nikon and Canon will have to have
these Patented Devices built into their Cameras, but HP won't. How much did
they contribute to GWBs Re-election Fund?

Roy
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 4:53:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:54 GMT, "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
>news:41fd729d.365760165@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>>>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>>>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>>
>> Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
>> In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
>> people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
>> banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?
>
>Great Idea.
>
>This would really stop the Paperazzi from annoying all those poor Celebs.
>You see them on the Telly, using those big DSLRs with the huge White Lenses
>on the front.
>
>Only thing is I didn't know that HP made that kind of Camera. Perhaps HP
>intend getting the laws changed so that Nikon and Canon will have to have
>these Patented Devices built into their Cameras, but HP won't. How much did
>they contribute to GWBs Re-election Fund?
>
>Roy
>

The patent in question only works with *both* a device to send the
signal, *and* a camera that receives the signal.
Paperazzi wouldn't buy such cameras.
HP doesn't have to be the only company to make such cameras.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
January 31, 2005 4:53:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ScgLd.922$Yj.203@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
> news:41fd729d.365760165@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> >>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> >>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> >>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
> >>
> > Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
> > In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
> > people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
> > banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?
>
> Great Idea.
>
> This would really stop the Paperazzi from annoying all those poor Celebs.
> You see them on the Telly, using those big DSLRs with the huge White
Lenses
> on the front.
>
> Only thing is I didn't know that HP made that kind of Camera. Perhaps HP
> intend getting the laws changed so that Nikon and Canon will have to have
> these Patented Devices built into their Cameras, but HP won't. How much
did
> they contribute to GWBs Re-election Fund?
>
Papazzi would dig up their old analog 35mm film SLRs and shoot away.
January 31, 2005 4:53:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:v67rv01etc6auheigp6o6or1fro927s4ql@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:54 GMT, "Roy"
> <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
> >news:41fd729d.365760165@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> >> On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
> >>>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
> >>>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
> >>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
> >>>
> >> Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
> >> In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
> >> people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
> >> banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?
> >
> >Great Idea.
> >
> >This would really stop the Paperazzi from annoying all those poor Celebs.
> >You see them on the Telly, using those big DSLRs with the huge White
Lenses
> >on the front.
> >
> >Only thing is I didn't know that HP made that kind of Camera. Perhaps HP
> >intend getting the laws changed so that Nikon and Canon will have to have
> >these Patented Devices built into their Cameras, but HP won't. How much
did
> >they contribute to GWBs Re-election Fund?
> >
> >Roy
> >
>
> The patent in question only works with *both* a device to send the
> signal, *and* a camera that receives the signal.
> Paperazzi wouldn't buy such cameras.
> HP doesn't have to be the only company to make such cameras.
>
>
And why would Canon and Nikon buy into such a scheme? Most Paperazzi use
Canon or Nikon cameras. Besides they could always shoot film and mess up the
scheme.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 5:11:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:14:48 -0700, David Kinsell
<kinsell@poboxyz.com> wrote:

>Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>> keith_nuttle wrote:
>>
>>> Believe it or not digital cameras, record the light reflected or
>>> emitted from an object, just like film cameras. So unless the device
>>> is a very positive laser type of device or a device to completely
>>> disable a the electronics of a camera (Film or digital) this is
>>> probably a hoax.
>>>
>>> sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>>>> of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>>>> a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>>>> http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Having worked extensively many years ago in low observable military
>> equipment (low observable in optical wavelengths) my guess is that this
>> is either a hoax or a very misunderstood statement of technology.
>>
>> It IS possible to jam cameras with an intense enough light source, or to
>> build a device into a camera that would recognize a 'copyrighted
>> material' signal sent by some object. But the description of the patent
>> so far in this group's posting sounds like bunk to me.
>
>If you read the patent application, you'll realize that it is the second
>case. Transmitters activated by people who don't want their pictures taken
>would signal electronics in the camera to obscure faces in the recorded
>image. A little hole in the plan is that it requires everybody to buy
>new cameras to make make this work. So is it a hoax? Not really, there's
>an actual patent application. Is it a horrendously stupid idea that will
>never fly? You won't get an argument from me on that one.

And there would be firmware hacks to get around it a day after it hits
the street.


*********************************************************

"A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters.
Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its
mouth: "I, the state, am the people." "

_Thus Spake Zarathusttra_
by Friedrich Nietzsche
Chapter XI
The New Idol
January 31, 2005 5:11:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8p4rv099bbeuhs3ddlt3tk5n1ier8ruabe@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:14:48 -0700, David Kinsell
> <kinsell@poboxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >If you read the patent application, you'll realize that it is the second
> >case. Transmitters activated by people who don't want their pictures
taken
> >would signal electronics in the camera to obscure faces in the recorded
> >image. A little hole in the plan is that it requires everybody to buy
> >new cameras to make make this work. So is it a hoax? Not really,
there's
> >an actual patent application. Is it a horrendously stupid idea that will
> >never fly? You won't get an argument from me on that one.
>
> And there would be firmware hacks to get around it a day after it hits
> the street.
>
If this actually worked I bet some clever paparazzi would dig out his old
35mm film SLRs, and he's back in business.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 10:08:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DJ <dontemail@optusnet.com.au> writes:

>When I was a young man just getting into electronics HP was name uttered only
>with reverance. They made only the very finest in test equipment.

The company that makes test equipment is now called Agilent. It split
off a few years ago. Hewlett-Packard is now just consumer stuff.

Dave
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 10:28:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8p4rv099bbeuhs3ddlt3tk5n1ier8ruabe@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:14:48 -0700, David Kinsell
>><kinsell@poboxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you read the patent application, you'll realize that it is the second
>>>case. Transmitters activated by people who don't want their pictures
>
> taken
>
>>>would signal electronics in the camera to obscure faces in the recorded
>>>image. A little hole in the plan is that it requires everybody to buy
>>>new cameras to make make this work. So is it a hoax? Not really,
>
> there's
>
>>>an actual patent application. Is it a horrendously stupid idea that will
>>>never fly? You won't get an argument from me on that one.
>>
>>And there would be firmware hacks to get around it a day after it hits
>>the street.
>>
>
> If this actually worked I bet some clever paparazzi would dig out his old
> 35mm film SLRs, and he's back in business.
>
>

Nah. They'd be outlawed, just like all the current digital cameras, if Queen
Carly gets her way.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 10:37:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> DJ <dontemail@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
>
>>When I was a young man just getting into electronics HP was name uttered only
>>with reverance. They made only the very finest in test equipment.
>
>
> The company that makes test equipment is now called Agilent. It split
> off a few years ago. Hewlett-Packard is now just consumer stuff.
>
> Dave

Just consumer stuff?? Not really, they're still spending billions flogging
a dead horse called Itanium, and have large IT services operations. They
sell multi-processor servers based on AMD and Intel chips. Main difference
between the two companies is that they don't have a publicity-hound CEO looting
the company of hundreds of millions. Dennis Kozloski should have taken lessons
from her.
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 11:49:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank Vuotto wrote:
>
> An HP representative said the company had no current plans to
> commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption
> by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially
> practical"

I can see it now. Bootleg cameras which someone has hacked to disable
the feature :-)
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 3:09:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:04:58 -0500, "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8p4rv099bbeuhs3ddlt3tk5n1ier8ruabe@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:14:48 -0700, David Kinsell
>> <kinsell@poboxyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If you read the patent application, you'll realize that it is the second
>> >case. Transmitters activated by people who don't want their pictures
>taken
>> >would signal electronics in the camera to obscure faces in the recorded
>> >image. A little hole in the plan is that it requires everybody to buy
>> >new cameras to make make this work. So is it a hoax? Not really,
>there's
>> >an actual patent application. Is it a horrendously stupid idea that will
>> >never fly? You won't get an argument from me on that one.
>>
>> And there would be firmware hacks to get around it a day after it hits
>> the street.
>>
>If this actually worked I bet some clever paparazzi would dig out his old
>35mm film SLRs, and he's back in business.
>
>
Why would he have to?
Read the patent; it requires the camera to be equipped to receive and
act on the signal sent by the wearer's device.
Why would paparazzi buy these?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b α HP
January 31, 2005 3:38:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:09:14 -0500, "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:v67rv01etc6auheigp6o6or1fro927s4ql@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:53:54 GMT, "Roy"
>> <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
>> >news:41fd729d.365760165@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> >> On 29 Jan 2005 13:23:11 -0800, sawlake-gg@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Hewlett Packard filed a patent application to block photos being taken
>> >>>of people by digital cameras. Uses skin-tone recognition algorithm and
>> >>>a wearable cloaking device according to news reports:
>> >>>http://glikglik.blogspot.com/2005/01/hp-hide-people.htm...
>> >>>
>> >> Rather to add onto a hugely expanding thread I wonder....
>> >> In this age where full length movies are made digitally and many
>> >> people have digital movie cams.... How about security systems like
>> >> banks? Hmmmm.... are they ALL still tape?
>> >
>> >Great Idea.
>> >
>> >This would really stop the Paperazzi from annoying all those poor Celebs.
>> >You see them on the Telly, using those big DSLRs with the huge White
>Lenses
>> >on the front.
>> >
>> >Only thing is I didn't know that HP made that kind of Camera. Perhaps HP
>> >intend getting the laws changed so that Nikon and Canon will have to have
>> >these Patented Devices built into their Cameras, but HP won't. How much
>did
>> >they contribute to GWBs Re-election Fund?
>> >
>> >Roy
>> >
>>
>> The patent in question only works with *both* a device to send the
>> signal, *and* a camera that receives the signal.
>> Paperazzi wouldn't buy such cameras.
>> HP doesn't have to be the only company to make such cameras.
>>
>>
>And why would Canon and Nikon buy into such a scheme? Most Paperazzi use
>Canon or Nikon cameras. Besides they could always shoot film and mess up the
>scheme.
>
>
>
>
There are some situations where such a system could be useful.
In such cases, the cameras would be given to the user as part of the
entrance requirements.
Which situations? Well, think of situations where the people involved
might not want to be identified, but the environment is photo-friendly
otherwise. Lile casinos, for example (but certainly not limited to
casinos).
The current legal environment in the US would make this not workable
at present, but nothing is as constant as change.
The patent doesn't address the legality or practicality of the system,
only the operation.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
!