Disabling digital imaging for corporate privacy

From: http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1387

"
There are
currently at least two major companies working on a new technology
which
temporarily deactivates camera phones' and digital cameras' imaging
systems
within a localized area.23 Called "Safe Haven," the technology relies
on two key
components in order to work properly, according to the company which
created
it, Iceberg Systems (http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/index.html).

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought
within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are
immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.
"

The Mage

On 29 Jun 2004 17:39:40 -0700, (TheMage) wrote:

From: http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1387

"
There are
currently at least two major companies working on a new technology
which
temporarily deactivates camera phones' and digital cameras' imaging
systems
within a localized area.23 Called "Safe Haven," the technology relies
on two key
components in order to work properly, according to the company which
created
it, Iceberg Systems (http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/index.html).

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought

It's not quite that all encoumpasing. I seriously doubt it could
affect digital cameras, but cell phones/cameras and other wireless
devices with the ability to receive the signal could be blocked wi
thin the area. A cell phone only has to be convinced it has lost
service to prevent it from transmitting.

within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are

They = cell phones and PDAs.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.
"

The Mage

(TheMage) writes:

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought
within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are
immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.

And what if the camera isn't listening?

This sounds like a system that will inform cameras that contain the
appropriate firmware and possibly hardware that this is an area where
photography is forbidden. But this isn't going to work with older
cameras/phones that predate the system, or newer cameras that have been
deliberately modified to ignore the signal (e.g. black tape over the
infrared receiver).

Dave

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought

It's not quite that all encoumpasing. I seriously doubt it could
affect digital cameras, but cell phones/cameras and other wireless
devices with the ability to receive the signal could be blocked wi
thin the area. A cell phone only has to be convinced it has lost
service to prevent it from transmitting.

True - but it won't stop it taking pictures if it is a camera phone
though....

adm wrote:

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...


First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought

It's not quite that all encoumpasing. I seriously doubt it could
affect digital cameras, but cell phones/cameras and other wireless
devices with the ability to receive the signal could be blocked wi
thin the area. A cell phone only has to be convinced it has lost
service to prevent it from transmitting.


True - but it won't stop it taking pictures if it is a camera phone
though....


No, but if it uses IR for focusing, it might mess with the focus a bit.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 01:40:22 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On 29 Jun 2004 17:39:40 -0700, (TheMage) wrote:

From: http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1387

"
There are
currently at least two major companies working on a new technology
which
temporarily deactivates camera phones' and digital cameras' imaging
systems
within a localized area.23 Called "Safe Haven," the technology relies
on two key
components in order to work properly, according to the company which
created
it, Iceberg Systems (http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/index.html).

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought

It's not quite that all encoumpasing. I seriously doubt it could
affect digital cameras, but cell phones/cameras and other wireless
devices with the ability to receive the signal could be blocked wi
thin the area. A cell phone only has to be convinced it has lost
service to prevent it from transmitting.

It's not *transmitting* that's the p[roblem.
It's taking pictures.
"Safe Haven" will instruct devices that are equipped to comply with it
to *not* take pictures; it won't affect transmissions at all.

within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are

They = cell phones and PDAs.

That is the implied idea; however, as usually happens, it will
probably be expanded to include *all* easily concealable cameras.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.
"

The Mage

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

(TheMage) wrote in message . com...
From: http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1387

"
There are
currently at least two major companies working on a new technology
which
temporarily deactivates camera phones' and digital cameras' imaging
systems
within a localized area.23 Called "Safe Haven," the technology relies
on two key
components in order to work properly, according to the company which
created
it, Iceberg Systems (http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/index.html).

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought
within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are
immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.
"

The Mage

Yet another invasion of privacy. I'm not too crazy about a government
or business having control of electronic devices I own. I'm sure those
anti-terror paranoia factions will use Safe Haven to the largest
extent they can, while individual liberties dwindle.
Sadly, this seems to be a worldwide problem NOT limited to the United
States.
Such a system as Safe Haven should be ruled ILLEGAL as an invasion of
personal rights and space.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:56:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:


That is the implied idea; however, as usually happens, it will
probably be expanded to include *all* easily concealable cameras.

It will only be really workable if there was legislation requiring all
devices to be fitted with it... even then theres the older devices to
think about....

Sounds very much like the V-Chip idea that no one ever hears about
now.

Besides, its still fecked because someone could just bring a £2.50
disposable point and shoot film in, take the pics and walk out...
develop, scan, sorted....

the only posible ways to prevent such photography is to demand that
everyone is aware that walking into the "safe area" means walking
through a high power x-ray scanner, followed buy a high electro-static
discarge... aka EMP... Then finally strip search, assuming they are
still alive, lol.
--
Jonathan Wilson.
www.somethingerotic.com

On 30 Jun 2004 19:00:53 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

(TheMage) wrote in message . com...
From: http://www.sans.org/rr/papers/index.php?id=1387

"
There are
currently at least two major companies working on a new technology
which
temporarily deactivates camera phones' and digital cameras' imaging
systems
within a localized area.23 Called "Safe Haven," the technology relies
on two key
components in order to work properly, according to the company which
created
it, Iceberg Systems (http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/index.html).

First are the
hardware transmitters which are strategically positioned within a
building or other structure, and whose job is to intermittently send
out infrared signals announcing that a particular area is designated
as a "Safe Haven." Once a camera phone ordigital camera is brought
within the perimeter outlined by the transmitters, they are
immediately and silently instructed to disengage their imaging
systems.
"

The Mage

Yet another invasion of privacy.

Interesting.
What about the invasion of privacy that occurs when these cameras are
used in locker rooms?
I'm not too crazy about a government
or business having control of electronic devices I own. I'm sure those
anti-terror paranoia factions will use Safe Haven to the largest
extent they can, while individual liberties dwindle.

This is more geared to such devicezs used in locker rooms, as at gyms
or in schools.
Sadly, this seems to be a worldwide problem NOT limited to the United
States.
Such a system as Safe Haven should be ruled ILLEGAL as an invasion of
personal rights and space.

Are you saying that the owner of a building should have their rights
limited so that you can enjoy your rights?
What about in a school where, possibly, your young children use the
restroom facilities; is it the right of someone to use such cameras
there to take pictures of these children and post them to the web?

Rights are not absolute; with rights go responsibilities.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

(Dave Martindale) wrote in message ...
And what if the camera isn't listening?

Yes, you're right. The complete article talks about how in the
future, the imaging devices might contain such firmware, it did not
discuss plans for legislation to force device makers to use it though.

The Mage