CowboysNickster Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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 Youby Chris Albrecht posted on 3/18/08 newteevee.com 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 No way anyone regulating cable in the goverment would go for this. This is an invasion of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veretax Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 "don't attempt to adjust your set, we are in control of the video..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DButz65 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'll just take the box apart and cut the wires to said camera, f*** that mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 It's not the government I worry about becoming big brother. It's the corporations. :2cents: There's a difference? :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Great one more thing to worry/laugh about while I watch Showtime late night specials. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 There's a difference? :whoknows: Heh, your boy Paul would hand everything over to corporations when he removes the government from the loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 "I was home watching television at the time of the murder, officer" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Nothing a little duct tape won't fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Great one more thing to worry/laugh about while I watch Showtime late night specials. :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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Gut Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Corny, useless feature. Comcast (I have DirecTV) should focus on getting NFL Network not this bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drop Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Comcast does have the NFL Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.