I agree with the others: this is literally the perfect implementation of literal Big Brother "your TV watches you" tech - this WILL BE ABUSED by Tech Corps + Governments.
We need to stop building surveilance panopticons!
"it is even conceivable that Norris’s pixels could react to a captured image and, without going through a computer, produce corresponding light patterns."
Great, also they invented a digital mirror (and digital fun house mirror).
Anyone that says they don't value privacy and they have nothing to hide is never willing to install a livestreaming camera in their bedroom and bathroom.
The telescreen doesn't really add anything to what we have today, with camera and screen separated. Perhaps it will what finally removes the last place of privacy for regular people, their home. It's already happened with smart tvs and voice assistants but supposedly they don't record all the time.
Most phones seem to have working permissions, not to say that people won't allow microphone access, but it isn't the default. Pretty sure that there's no option for microphone all the time, unlike location.
I definitely could see a "scandal" when smart TV manufacturers start adding these to analyze peoples reactions to advertising.
Could you put it past them considering they already record your screen by default?
This reminds me of approximately 30 years ago. While dabbling in ham radio, I learned that speakers can work in reverse as microphones, and vice versa.
Is this really as detrimental to privacy as other comments claim? There are already very small cameras which can be used for adversarial purposes. This technology could be useful for many utilitarian purposes.
A privacy nightmare, this WILL be misused systematically. I used to get excited about new technologies like that, but big tech ruined the future for me.
Beautiful! No prole will evade the stare of the Big Brother.
P.S. For the offended at "prole" and /s-agnostic parsers: yes that's who you are for the BB, like it or not. And of course there's nothing beautiful in that.
I can only imagine placing another matching camscreen face to face onto the source one and sending what it sees to a trusted camera-incapable display. But then there is a lot more practical questions and implications..
I agree with the others: this is literally the perfect implementation of literal Big Brother "your TV watches you" tech - this WILL BE ABUSED by Tech Corps + Governments.
We need to stop building surveilance panopticons!
"it is even conceivable that Norris’s pixels could react to a captured image and, without going through a computer, produce corresponding light patterns."
Great, also they invented a digital mirror (and digital fun house mirror).
>In the future, this could lead to the development of devices that function as camera and display at the same time.
So literally a telescreen from 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
Anyone that says they don't value privacy and they have nothing to hide is never willing to install a livestreaming camera in their bedroom and bathroom.
The telescreen doesn't really add anything to what we have today, with camera and screen separated. Perhaps it will what finally removes the last place of privacy for regular people, their home. It's already happened with smart tvs and voice assistants but supposedly they don't record all the time.
Most phones seem to have working permissions, not to say that people won't allow microphone access, but it isn't the default. Pretty sure that there's no option for microphone all the time, unlike location.
I definitely could see a "scandal" when smart TV manufacturers start adding these to analyze peoples reactions to advertising.
Could you put it past them considering they already record your screen by default?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_content_recognition
This reminds me of approximately 30 years ago. While dabbling in ham radio, I learned that speakers can work in reverse as microphones, and vice versa.
Researchers at ETH Zurich have developed a new type of pixel that can not only be used to create images, but also to analyse them.
This could eventually be used for better in-display cameras where the pixels are used as a image sensors.
The researchers have published their results in Nature recently: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10681-7
Is this really as detrimental to privacy as other comments claim? There are already very small cameras which can be used for adversarial purposes. This technology could be useful for many utilitarian purposes.
A small camera can easily be covered up. You can't cover something that's embedded into the screen itself.
A privacy nightmare, this WILL be misused systematically. I used to get excited about new technologies like that, but big tech ruined the future for me.
Beautiful! No prole will evade the stare of the Big Brother.
P.S. For the offended at "prole" and /s-agnostic parsers: yes that's who you are for the BB, like it or not. And of course there's nothing beautiful in that.
Love the technological aspect, hate the practical implications. Any part of any screen can be a camera. Good luck covering that with a post-it.
I wonder if there is any way to counter that.
I can only imagine placing another matching camscreen face to face onto the source one and sending what it sees to a trusted camera-incapable display. But then there is a lot more practical questions and implications..
Would we even know if a screen is “camera-incapable”? One day the “think of the children” routine will come for your screen.
That's exactly one of the practical implications I mentioned!