http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2 ... s-at-live/
Ostensibly, the purpose is to prevent people from recording live performances, such as plays, concerts, etc. My daughter and her husband are huge U2 fans, and attend as many U2 concerts as they can fit into their schedules. She says virtually everybody attending these concerts records at least portions of them with their cell phone cameras. I guess it's the "new normal" -- certainly not like the old days when security personnel would chase after and physically assault people who brought video cameras into theaters or concerts.
Personally, I would rather enjoy the "live" experience instead of making a sh*tty recording of it for posterity, but that's just me I guess. However, it seems that performers strenuously object to people making low-quality unsalable video clips of them on stage, and some venues have resorted to some rather extreme measures:
Based on information from my daughter and son-in-law, it would require about 100,000 lasers aimed at individual U2 fans in order to thwart them from recording videos at a typical U2 concert. So Apple came up with this clever patent that would take care of all 100,000 of them at once. Of course, as always, there are unintended consequences:Other initiatives include shining lasers on visitors who use mobile phones during performances, which has become a popular tactic in cinemas in China and was recently adopted by London’s Jermyn Street Theatre.
I'm not keen on appearing in the background of "selfies" taken by total strangers. I wonder if someone will market an infrared pendant I can wear around my neck to block cameras pointed in my direction?If Apple’s technology is introduced, however, it could lead to fears that it would be used by oppressive regimes and law enforcement to prevent citizens documenting oppression.