Comcast Wants To Install Cameras In Cable Boxes

[CowboysNickster]

Just when you thought you had run out of reasons to hate Comcast and switch to DirectTV, Comcast has given you another one. Comcast is cooking up a brilliant plan to put cameras in their cable boxes in order to see you better, my dear. However, don't fret. It's not your face Comcast needs to see, just your body. (A premise men should be very familiar with.;))


Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You
by Chris Albrecht posted on 3/18/08
newteevee.com (http://newteevee.com/2008/03/18/comcast-cameras-to-start-watching-you/)

The idea being that if you turn on your cable box, it recognizes you and pulls up shows already in your profile or makes recommendations. If parents are watching TV with their children, for example, parental controls could appear to block certain content from appearing on the screen. [John] Kunkel [senior VP of User Experience] also said this type of monitoring is the “holy grail” because it could help serve up specifically tailored ads. Yikes.

Kunkel said the system wouldn’t be based on facial recognition, so there wouldn’t be a picture of you on file (we hope). Instead, it would distinguish between different members of your household by recognizing body forms. He stressed that the system is still in the experimental phase, that there hasn’t been consumer testing, and that any rollout “must add value” to the viewing experience beyond serving ads. "Smile, you're on Comcast Camera" will be the new catch phrase as it captures you sitting there naked on your couch watching Golden Girls. Don't be surprised when the video clip of this makes its way onto YouTube. :D

I am sure there are some naive people who think in-home surveillance cameras are a good idea; suckers are born everyday, don't you know. But on the whole, why in the world does Comcast think people are going to acquiesce to the notion that Big Brother watching them in their own home is a good thing? It's bad enough being watched in public (damn red light/speed cameras) but Comcast is smoking some serious weed if they think the general public would willingly allow 3rd party cameras to invade their privacy in such a way. The notion is so laughable I swear this has to be an April Fool's joke two weeks too soon.

It appears that Comcast is striving with diligent effort and speed to take the title of Evil Empire away from Microsoft. From my perspective, Comcast is already close enough to at least share the title with them.

[SkinsGuy]

No way anyone regulating cable in the goverment would go for this.

This is an invasion of privacy.

[Sarge]

How embarrasssing would it be to have you rkids in the room, turn on the box and have it switch right to all porn channel when it sees you:laugh:

[Teller]

How embarrasssing would it be to have you rkids in the room, turn on the box and have it switch right to all porn channel when it sees you:laugh:

Cable Box: "Woops. Sorry about that, Timmy. Thought you were your dad. Back to cartoons, buckaroo!" :laugh:

[Veretax]

Actually, I'm surprised this idea hasn't come up before. Anyone remember Back to the Future? Video conferencing phones? Caable is probably uniquely positioned to offer that service if they can only find a way to tie them in correctly.

[DeanCollins]

"don't attempt to adjust your set, we are in control of the video..."

[frommd]

How embarrasssing would it be to have you rkids in the room, turn on the box and have it switch right to all porn channel when it sees you:laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[DButz65]

I'll just take the box apart and cut the wires to said camera, f*** that mess

[RedlightG20]

There's a hidden agenda with this. There's no point in having a camera just to see who is in front of the tv. There are many more less-evasive options for parental control. You could have a fingerprint reader on the remote control so you can "log-in" and the viewing settings can be changed accordingly. You could also have a numbered password on the remote to do the same thing.

I think the camera bit is bogus, even if it can offer the ability to change settings "on-the-fly" when a child walks into the room, or when the child is too young to operate the remote. It still takes away the responsibilities of a parent being... you know, a parent.

[Mad Mike]

It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents:

[GibbsFactor]

It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents:

There's a difference? :whoknows:

[SkinsGuy]

There's a hidden agenda with this. There's no point in having a camera just to see who is in front of the tv. There are many more less-evasive options for parental control. You could have a fingerprint reader on the remote control so you can "log-in" and the viewing settings can be changed accordingly. You could also have a numbered password on the remote to do the same thing.


True.

Just like the internet. You put in a password, your home screen comes up with all you fav sites.

Why would they need to see us? Heck,if you want to make it wireless, just have it work
by recognizing voice commands.

This camera thing pointing at you is just creepy.

[gbear]

Great one more thing to worry/laugh about while I watch Showtime late night specials. :silly: :cool: ;)

[Mad Mike]

There's a difference? :whoknows:

Heh, your boy Paul would hand everything over to corporations when he removes the government from the loop.

[wysknz1]

Actually, I'm surprised this idea hasn't come up before. Anyone remember Back to the Future? Video conferencing phones? Caable is probably uniquely positioned to offer that service if they can only find a way to tie them in correctly.


I remember Orwells 1984

[Larry]

It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents:

"But if corporations already have this information, then why shouldn't the government have it, too?"

[Larry]

"I was home watching television at the time of the murder, officer"

[Henry]

Nothing a little duct tape won't fix.

[laurent]

It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents:

Actually it is a combination of both. I worry about the corporations just rolling over the second the government has the glorious idea to use said technology for their own gain.

[Mad Mike]

Great one more thing to worry/laugh about while I watch Showtime late night specials. :silly: :cool: ;)

Can you imagine? You're sitting there watching and just as you get busy a commercial comes on for some sort of "helper" product! :paranoid: :laugh:

[Drop]

Comcast can't even get it right when to put the Caps in HD and the Wizards on Comcast Plus......they'll never get this to work. You'll have a tech out at your house every other day because your "camera won't adjust your channels properly".

Comcast, pull your head outta your ***** and stop trying to come up with inventions that are unecessary.

[Mad Mike]

"But if corporations already have this information, then why shouldn't the government have it, too?"

Corporations already have more information on you than the government and they sell it to each other for profit.

[GibbsFactor]

Heh, your boy Paul would hand everything over to corporations when he removes the government from the loop.

Poor guy. Just can't wrap your mind around it.

It's a shame we citizens are too stupid and lazy to govern ourselves.

:(

[Fifty Gut]

Corny, useless feature. Comcast (I have DirecTV) should focus on getting NFL Network not this bull****.

[Drop]

Comcast does have the NFL Network.

[GoSkinsGo]

Comcast does have the NFL Network.

Yeah but its part of a tier that you have to pay for.

I'm very close to switching to Direct TV I'm tired of Comcast jacking with my bill then telling me I can't renogiate yet. The only thing they have going for them is the Internet.

[Drop]

Comcast is weird with people's service.....usually if you b*tch enough you'll get what you want.

I get HBO, Showtime, and NFL Network all for the price of regular Digital Cable. I also use their internet...and that pisses me off a LOT more than my TV service. At first some of Comcasts HD Channels had some problems, but everything works fine now and the picture is spectacular.

[SkinsOrlando]

Nothing good could come from this.......................

[Mad Mike]

Poor guy. Just can't wrap your mind around it.

It's a shame we citizens are too stupid and lazy to govern ourselves.

:(

Yeah, you're right. I cant wrap my mind around the stupidity of giving corporations to much power by removing regulations, I cant wrap my mind around the idiocy of expecting the airlines to be in charge of air safety. Because we all know how well they do WITH government oversight. :rolleyes:

[ECU-ALUM]

To quote Jeff Goldblum from "The Lost world"...."The worst idea in the long sad history of bad ideas."

(Okay maybe not as bad as when we signed Deion...but it ranks up there).

[NoCalMike]

Why not just have multi-watcher software like a computer has multi-user setups? When you turn on the tv and program guide you have a "Mom, Dad, General, Kids" option.....this is either bogus or there is something a lot more devious behind the camera talk.

[CowboysNickster]

There's a hidden agenda with this. There's no point in having a camera just to see who is in front of the tv. There are many more less-evasive options for parental control. You could have a fingerprint reader on the remote control so you can "log-in" and the viewing settings can be changed accordingly. You could also have a numbered password on the remote to do the same thing. I agree. Passwords perform the same service without the video intrusion of a camera. TVs already incorporate password controls to block out channels. This is sucker bait and only time will tell how many will allow it.

First they limit file sharing access and now this. Comcast is really pushing the limits on how much a corp should be able to access and control our private lives.

[Fieldy]

Actually, I'm surprised this idea hasn't come up before. Anyone remember Back to the Future? Video conferencing phones? Caable is probably uniquely positioned to offer that service if they can only find a way to tie them in correctly.

I think at this point that Verizon may be better suited to do so with their fiber optic network.:2cents: Admittedly though, I don't know much about it.