My first thought is that this kind of technology would increase the amount of product placement in movies & series, but I'm wondering...
If that technology can replace a product placement made during production with anything else, the fee for product placement during production might go down. Instead of making product placements, producers might be interested in putting in no-brand objects in the movie, then let MirriAd switch in branded stuff on a customer by customer basis.
The market models intruduced by that technology might be quite interesting.
Yes, Junko, there is definitely a creep factor, but there is also an opportunity here for some fun. I would be tempted to mess with it a bit. For example, watch TV with a can of Coke on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and Pepsi on Tuesday and Thursday. Over the weekend maybe go with a juicebox. There are also possibilities for some creative anarchy. For example, set up an IR blaster that would blind the sensor.
"But you cannot do such things to , say , the vending machine in a shopping mall, or a huge LCD display installed on the roadside."
Perhaps, but since you're already on "candid camera" the minute you step outside your house anyway, I guess I don't see why this vending machine or electronic billboard vision processing is any different.
I would agree that video taken in your home should not be allowed to go elsewhere, without your specific approval.
Junko, in my post, I did say that it would be okay if the transmission included transmitting a set of ads to all receivers, and the PVR at home chose the ad to show, during the ad break. There would be no security issue at all. The ad placement decision is only done locally, at the PVR, based on what audience it sees. I don't find any privacy issue involved in such a scheme, because the image is not going upstream.
Shopping mall, parking lot, etc are all public places. On the other hands, they are private, being owned by someone. In order to protect the business and your cars, a survelliance camera shall be installed.
It may sound convincing. However, I believe there is a fine line between security and privacy. I can understand CCTV will help to capture the suspect of a burglary. Before the introduction of machine vision, a 24 hours of film requires someone to watch it for 24 hours to identify all people getting in and out of the store. With machine vision and powerful computer, 24 hours of film properly requires less than an hour to identify all people in and out of the store. So, the data will be out there and what can be done with it?
In general, if you behaves, you shouldn't need to worry about picture being taken. It sounds right. However, I am not too keen to having my daily activiity being log somewhere even though I haven't known anyone "stalking" me. Maybe, it is just me. The new generation doesn't seem to concern too much about it. In the world of social media, people are voluntarily logging every moves - checking in a location, posting picture of foods and of activity, writing down thought. All these information are being used to customize the ad. No one seems to have too much complaint about it. I can sort of understand it. Since advertisement is going to push to me, I might as well get something relevant. Nonetheless, I still feel some kind of creepiness grow around me.
But you cannot do such things to , say , the vending machine in a shopping mall, or a huge LCD display installed on the roadside. That would be treated as a criminal act whereas the act, of camera snooping on you, may not.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.