Rendered at 21:44:32 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
layla5alive 5 hours ago [-]
I agree with the others: this is literally the perfect implementation of literal Big Brother "your TV watches you" tech - this WILL BE ABUSED by Tech Corps + Governments.
We need to stop building surveilance panopticons!
"it is even conceivable that Norris’s pixels could react to a captured image and, without going through a computer, produce corresponding light patterns."
Great, also they invented a digital mirror (and digital fun house mirror).
Cider9986 4 hours ago [-]
>In the future, this could lead to the development of devices that function as camera and display at the same time.
Anyone that says they don't value privacy and they have nothing to hide is never willing to install a livestreaming camera in their bedroom and bathroom.
The telescreen doesn't really add anything to what we have today, with camera and screen separated. Perhaps it will what finally removes the last place of privacy for regular people, their home. It's already happened with smart tvs and voice assistants but supposedly they don't record all the time.
Most phones seem to have working permissions, not to say that people won't allow microphone access, but it isn't the default. Pretty sure that there's no option for microphone all the time, unlike location.
I definitely could see a "scandal" when smart TV manufacturers start adding these to analyze peoples reactions to advertising.
Could you put it past them considering they already record your screen by default?
> Anyone that says they don't value privacy and they have nothing to hide is never willing to install a livestreaming camera in their bedroom and bathroom.
This company is testing that theory by giving a TV away for free, with built-in second screen for ads, and a camera: https://www.telly.com/
AlienRobot 2 hours ago [-]
It's really absurd that we've boiled the frog until "ads in smart TVs UIs are normal" and now the goalpost was moved to "recording the consumer to show more ads"
This reminds me of approximately 30 years ago. While dabbling in ham radio, I learned that speakers can work in reverse as microphones, and vice versa.
Vaslo 26 minutes ago [-]
Glad I’m not the only one who sees the potential issues with these things
emsign 5 hours ago [-]
A privacy nightmare, this WILL be misused systematically. I used to get excited about new technologies like that, but big tech ruined the future for me.
poly2it 5 hours ago [-]
Is this really as detrimental to privacy as other comments claim? There are already very small cameras which can be used for adversarial purposes. This technology could be useful for many utilitarian purposes.
WCSTombs 3 hours ago [-]
A small camera can easily be covered up. You can't cover something that's embedded into the screen itself.
poly2it 1 hours ago [-]
Can you be more precise about what scenario you are envisioning?
WCSTombs 28 minutes ago [-]
I think Cider9986's comment [1] on the OP covers it pretty well.
But first, could you name two of the many utilitarian purposes?
wartywhoa23 5 hours ago [-]
Beautiful! No prole will evade the stare of the Big Brother.
P.S. For the offended at "prole" and /s-agnostic parsers: yes that's who you are for the BB, like it or not. And of course there's nothing beautiful in that.
close04 6 hours ago [-]
Love the technological aspect, hate the practical implications. Any part of any screen can be a camera. Good luck covering that with a post-it.
wartywhoa23 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder if there is any way to counter that.
I can only imagine placing another matching camscreen face to face onto the source one and sending what it sees to a trusted camera-incapable display. But then there is a lot more practical questions and implications..
aeve890 2 hours ago [-]
>I wonder if there is any way to counter that.
Not buying invasive shit?
wartywhoa23 2 hours ago [-]
Sure, unless everything is invasive shit at some point.
Won't happen? Think smartphones. Even if you don't have one, everyone around does, with all the consequences.
close04 4 hours ago [-]
Would we even know if a screen is “camera-incapable”? One day the “think of the children” routine will come for your screen.
wartywhoa23 4 hours ago [-]
That's exactly one of the practical implications I mentioned!
nilamo 2 hours ago [-]
If only that group would consider that its the children being watched, maybe they would think of the children then...
We need to stop building surveilance panopticons!
"it is even conceivable that Norris’s pixels could react to a captured image and, without going through a computer, produce corresponding light patterns."
Great, also they invented a digital mirror (and digital fun house mirror).
So literally a telescreen from 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
Anyone that says they don't value privacy and they have nothing to hide is never willing to install a livestreaming camera in their bedroom and bathroom.
The telescreen doesn't really add anything to what we have today, with camera and screen separated. Perhaps it will what finally removes the last place of privacy for regular people, their home. It's already happened with smart tvs and voice assistants but supposedly they don't record all the time.
Most phones seem to have working permissions, not to say that people won't allow microphone access, but it isn't the default. Pretty sure that there's no option for microphone all the time, unlike location.
I definitely could see a "scandal" when smart TV manufacturers start adding these to analyze peoples reactions to advertising.
Could you put it past them considering they already record your screen by default?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_content_recognition
This company is testing that theory by giving a TV away for free, with built-in second screen for ads, and a camera: https://www.telly.com/
This could eventually be used for better in-display cameras where the pixels are used as a image sensors.
The researchers have published their results in Nature recently: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10681-7
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48700061
P.S. For the offended at "prole" and /s-agnostic parsers: yes that's who you are for the BB, like it or not. And of course there's nothing beautiful in that.
I can only imagine placing another matching camscreen face to face onto the source one and sending what it sees to a trusted camera-incapable display. But then there is a lot more practical questions and implications..
Not buying invasive shit?
Won't happen? Think smartphones. Even if you don't have one, everyone around does, with all the consequences.