Comcast Wants To Use Cameras And Facial Recognition To Serve Ads In Your Living Room

Where’s my tinfoil? Comcast’s senior VP of user experience, Gerard Kunkel, apparently wants to put a camera in your cable box and use it to serve ads.

From NewTeeVee:

If you have some tinfoil handy, now might be a good time to fashion a hat. At the Digital Living Room conference today, Gerard Kunkel, Comcast’s senior VP of user experience, told me the cable company is experimenting with different camera technologies built into devices so it can know who’s in your living room.

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. Kunkel 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.

Do not want. New TeeVee also has a video interview with Mr. Kunkel in which he talks about the TiVo rollout in Boston and other cableriffic topics. Seems like a nice guy, but I wouldn’t let him put a camera in my living room.

Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You? [NewTeeVee] (Thanks, Graham!)
(Photo:cmorran123)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    OVER MY FUCKING DEAD BODY. (vomits)

  2. ionerox says:

    He just wants the Comcast goons to be able to spy on teenagers making out of the couces of America. Find your own excitement Kunkel!

  3. Bladefist says:

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

  4. Juliekins says:

    Oh helllllll noooooo. No effing way, thank you very much. On what planet does this seem like a good idea?

  5. ionerox says:

    That is, couches- not couces. Sofas, loveseats, settees, etc.

  6. jpx says:

    Horrible. We could probably manage to block the feed to disconnect the camera is we’re able to open our cable boxes… which I dunno if they’d let that happen easily. (without special screw driverz)

    I would never allow the camera.

  7. PHX602 says:

    Damn, which group is a greater scourge on this country — lawyers or marketing people?

  8. friendlynerd says:

    That’s so creepy. But solved easily by a piece of opaque tape. Until, I suppose, Comcast bribes some lawmaker into making it illegal to tape over their spycams.

  9. winstonthorne says:

    If this happens, I’m buying stock in a company which makes black electrical tape.

  10. SVreader says:

    So are companies’ plans based entirely on cynical speculative fiction now?

  11. picshereplz says:

    As if I needed yet another reason to keep being cable-less.

  12. chiieddy says:

    I do not need BBCAmerica that badly.

  13. Tallanvor says:

    Wow… That is quite possibly the stupidest idea ever.

  14. KenSPT says:

    Wow.

    Just wow.

  15. dragonfire81 says:

    Oh yeah, the invasion of privacy advocates will be all over this one in a hurry. 1) I wouldn’t want a camera in my living room, corporations have no right to look into my home to see what I am doing. 2) If this technology can recognize forms, could it not also reveal what these forms are doing in the living room. I’m not an exhibitionist comcast but thanks for the offer.

    The truly sad thing is these people are paid HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to come up with stuff like this. How could it have gotten this far before someone stopped and said: “Excuse me guys but do any of you realize how STUPID this is?”

  16. Underpants Gnome says:

    I say just tape up a goatse picture in front of the camera, but i’d be afraid of what targetted ads that would bring.

  17. EricaKane says:

    No thanks, if this happens, Comcast has finally broken the final straw

  18. johnva says:

    Comcast is really trying their hardest to morph from top contender for worst company in America to superevil corporation, aren’t they?

  19. GrandizerGo says:

    They just want to monitor the guy who jacks off to porn on their On Demand service…
    Or the woman…

  20. toddy33 says:

    @GrandizerGo:

    Oh, my god…can you imagine the possibilities there for tailoring the VOD services…

  21. mikemar42 says:

    Doesn’t my Telescreen already do this ?

  22. Mollyg says:

    I agree that this is a crazy idea, however this might fly if they design it so that all the “body type recognition” is done inside the box and no pictures are sent to Comcast.
    Given the other absurd violations of privacy that we have put up with, such as the Gmail ads based on the contents of your e-mail, or the proposed ads via cell phone based on your location, I fear that this Comcast imager may actually happen.

  23. Bladefist says:

    I know consumerist would never lie to me, but this just cant be true. I mean Bush monitors couple phone lines and there is mass hysteria. You put cameras in everyones homes?

    No one likes to be advertised to. No one likes to be monitored. There is no way this can be true. No one is dumb enough to think Americans, or anyone, would use their service.

    And you would think advertisers would stay away from it too.

  24. julia_k says:

    You know George Orwell had something like this is his novel 1984. It just went over sooo well then.

  25. Bladefist says:

    but on second though, it would be funny that midgets could never watch rated R movies because the camera would see them as kids.

  26. JStrulleh says:

    It’s like they’re just asking for someone to start wagging their junk in front of the camera nonstop…

  27. toddy33 says:

    @Bladefist: I dunno…with the possible exception of New Coke, when was the last time anyone really screwed up by betting on the stupidity of the American Consumer at large?

  28. stubblyhead says:

    Thank God I have a choice for cable that is not Comcast. Otherwise, time to get out the duct tape.

  29. selectman says:

    @mikemar42: my thoughts exactly.

  30. The camera will also be useful for the star of the fitness program you’re watching, so that they can scold you for not keeping up….

  31. bohemian says:

    No.No and NO.

    Getting a big dish, buying all our own equipment and just buying our 4DTV subscriptions from the sat dish middlemen is starting to actually sound like a good idea. Like these guys [skyvision.com]

    The outlay of equipment and maintenance is sounding like less hassle that some of the cable providers.

  32. noi56u says:

    @mikemar42: Are you questioning your loyalty to the Party?

  33. missyme says:

    Cool . . . anyone here read “1984”???

  34. Nighthawke says:

    “Please face the camera for facial recognition”

    *Drops his pants and moons the camera.*

    If screwing with our packets is good enough for them then this should be too!

  35. MPHinPgh says:

    BULL – FRICKIN – SHIT! That little camera would be rendered useless so fast, the cable box would think it fell off a truck.

    Why in the world would ANYONE think this is a good idea?

    Comcast, just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD. Put this idea where it belongs…in the garbage can, right there with your customer service.

  36. Edidid says:

    Recognize your house by body forms? Is there suddenly going to be additional charges based on the total number of body forms recognized a month? I wouldn’t put that sort of thing past Comcast.

  37. ViperBorg says:

    @chiieddy: And BBC America is on Dish Network. :)

  38. MPHinPgh says:

    @Underpants Gnome: Too funny!

  39. CityGuySailing says:

    Years ago, I worked for a large company (it rhymed with Feneral Goods). We used Nielsen’s for ratings of commercials. They planned to provide pendants that would be worn around the neck and a cable box attachment that would record who was watching the TV during the commercials. The participant families would, of course, be rewarded for their efforts. The pendants would detect body heat, so you just couldn’t leave the pendant in the room and leave the TV on and then go make snacks, or whatever. The joke going around, though, was how many pendants would Fido be wearing while chained in front of the TV. This current scenario would have to be an extension of that experiment :)

  40. HalOfBorg says:

    They’s just incorporate the lense in with the remote sensor so you HAVE to leave it uncovered.

  41. loueloui says:

    I can just see this now: You don’t pay your Comcast bill, and they use the cameras to see when you’re home to come collect. Or if you don’t pay they turn the cameras into live feeds available via pay-per-view for paying customers. I wouldn’t put it past Comcrap.

  42. Michael Belisle says:

    Next step: stream all knowledge directly to The Riddler.

  43. MPHinPgh says:

    @HalOfBorg: Good point. Damn you, HalOfBorg!

  44. Nytmare says:

    It couldn’t possibly work anyway. People aren’t robots who march into the living room and sit bolt-upright on official TV-watching furniture for the duration of a program.

  45. renilyn says:

    @mikemar42: Naw, I think its the remote ;)

  46. howie_in_az says:

    @Underpants Gnome: I would like to subscribe to yours newsletter.

  47. Trick says:

    How many seconds would that camera was active before it had tape or even better, colored out with Sharpie after the Comcast douche installed it?

    About .3 seconds…

    That is if I actually went with Comcast Cable in the first place… Which I won’t.

  48. jfischer says:

    “In Soviet Russia, TV Watches YOU!”

    (Someone had to say it, it is tradition!)

  49. FLConsumer says:

    DO NOT WANT.

  50. statnut says:

    Good thing I watch tv naked at all times. Makes watching Justice League a little awkward, but still.

    Oh, right, I dont have Comcast.

  51. Parting says:

    Over my dead body.

    Communist URSS wasn’t as bad. It’s true that USA became what communism wanted to be. Power thirsty government and total surveillance.

  52. Parting says:

    @CityGuySailing: Than you for the great idea. Must buy a Fido now!

  53. emona says:

    I’ve checked every calendar in a 20-mile radius. It isn’t April 1st yet.

    Someone must have released the April Fools story a week early by mistake. Please, God, let it be that someone released the story early.

  54. Parting says:

    @friendlynerd: Then people will stop buying the crap.

    By the way, more and more TV is available online.

    In Russia, several channels already have live feed. (More competition to classic providers).

    I dream about the day when I can get rid of cable to get all of my shows on the web.

  55. Xerloq says:

    I’m on digital basic cable. The box was filtering out HD channels, so I dumped it for an antenna – the rabbit ears type – and got all the channels I care about in HD. Out of curiosity, I plugged the cable directly into the TV, and got all the digital channels, AND all the HD channels.

    From the Comcast Website the only benefits to the box are Pay-Per-View, ON DEMAND and the Comcast On-Screen Program Guide. I don’t use those. The Comcast box now lives in a drawer.

  56. NoNamesLeft says:

    Wait for kids to figure out that all they need to do to get around the protection is to put a photograph in front of the camera.

  57. Michael Belisle says:

    @nytmare: Good. Very good. That’s just what the party wants you to think.

  58. Landru says:

    What’s the big deal. Everyone knows that the little people inside that glass box can already see out. They just pretend not to.

  59. IphtashuFitz says:

    If I agree to one of these newfangled cable boxes with a camera in it to display personalized ads and I cover the camera lens with a piece of duct tape does it mean I won’t get any annoying ads?

  60. scoosdad says:

    And how do we know for sure there aren’t cameras in the cable boxes now? (putting my tinfoil hat on as we speak, and hiding behind the couch)

    This will be quickly elevated into the top rankings of the hall of fame for the worst ideas of all time. Can Comcast go any lower? Makes one actually glad to have Charter for a cable company.

    And I love this guy’s title: “senior VP of user experience”, makes it sound like it’s his job to enhance our viewing experience or something. I guess not.

  61. picardia says:

    Oh, HELL no.

    Either I can cover up that camera with duct tape or I can stick to books, which do not spy on you.

  62. scoosdad says:

    @HalOfBorg: I wouldn’t put it past them to do it that way, but it’s surprisingly easy to fix that. A simple IR repeater system with a receiver within view of your remote, and the repeating IR emitter taped over the lens with opaque tape would get around that trick.

    Or an optical filter over the window, which passes IR light but little else might make the repeater unnecessary.

    I think there’s a cottage industry out there because of this.

  63. ? graffiksguru says:

    OH HELL NO, why would anyone ever think this is a good idea?
    @Underpants Gnome:now thats some funny shit!

  64. nightmage61 says:

    I just had to chime in here.

    My wife got new Apple Mac’s for her work. The new systems come with a built-in camera on the monitor.

    One time, out of the blue, her boss calls up and says “I can see you”, my wife being a bit of a geek quickly figured out he had used admin rights to start up her camera with out her knowing it.

    Shortly after is call she put a post it not over the camera.

    So the point to this, if your cable box gets a camera, use a little post-it-not to fix the problem.

  65. gnubian says:

    As long as the Comcast isn’t replaced by Directv in the topic, I’m not too worried. Even then, as long as the directv receivers are compatible with radio based remotes, you can put the receiver in a drawer and use it anyhow.

    Are the cable box remotes radio capable or just infrared?

    I was reading about this yesterday. Imagine the privacy invasion lawsuit that happens the first time a cable box with a camera is placed in someone’s residence without them being notified.

    Yeah right, it won’t be able to make out details .. look at how small cellphones are and the multi-megapixel capabilities .. I’m sure they could find a way to fit a full blown camera into the box .. They’d probably market it as “share family pics easily” .. they probably wouldn’t market the NSA backdoor though ..

    BTW, I traded in my tinfoil hat for a full bodysuit ….

  66. DrGirlfriend says:

    I remember reading an article in Time Magazine years ago, like around 1993, that predicted that this technology would be invented. I mentioned it to some media guy who came to talk at our school and he treated me like I was a moron.

    I AM NOW VINDICATED.

  67. Bauer22 says:

    Paging 1984, Paging 1984. To Comcast HQ At once please.

  68. Angryrider says:

    That’s gonna be a good reason why I don’t have cable.
    Cameras connected to a network that are constantly on. That sound kinda familiar…

  69. keith4298 says:

    @friendlynerd: Knowing Comcast, they’d put the camera behind the infra red sensor so if you put tape over it, the remote won’t work.

  70. trogam says:

    Comcast will implement a fingerprint scanner into their Remotes, onto the tv, while checking your information with a national register of known sex offenders.

    What happens if two people are getting intimate, and it starts pulling up tv shows they have set for the family dog when they are out of the house?

  71. Bryan Price says:

    Do. Not. Want.

    And I if I do get it, I will be putting the foil over the lens, not my head.

  72. MYarms says:

    I have to say shenanigans. Nobody would ever let this happen.

  73. tedyc03 says:

    Under No Circumstances!

  74. marsneedsrabbits says:

    Oh, jeeze. Bad time to be a psychiatrist.

    All those paranoid schizophrenic patients you finally managed to finally convince that there was no camera in the TV set are gonna want their money back.

    /have a friend with schizophrenia… funnier than and not as funny as you might think.

  75. Orngbliss says:

    There is no way on Earth that I would ever let a cable company install a camera in my home! Aren’t there anti-privacy laws that would prevent this from happening??

    This is absolutely ridiculous and outrageously intrusive!

  76. kimsama says:

    Oh my god, guys! This is a great opportunity!

    We should all get tiny pictures of Gerard Kunkel sitting on a couch and tape them directly to the lens of the camera!

    Then we’ll get the super cool ads meant only for Comcast VPs! And Comcast will get the ad numbers and be like “Damn! Kunkel watches a fuckload of TV! In many many houses at the same time!”

  77. jeremybwilson says:

    Can you say Minority Fr@cking Report…? Gotta echo the earlier Whiskey Tango Foxtrots…

  78. GearheadGeek says:

    @Orngbliss: That’s an interesting Freudian slip… “anti-privacy” laws. Those are the kind that the Comcasts and AT&Ts of this world like… amnesty for illegally tapping our phones, legal permission to put cameras in our cable boxes… We’ll all have to change our names to Winston Smith.

  79. reznicek111 says:

    @Orngbliss:

    Aren’t there anti-privacy laws that would prevent this from happening??

    IANAL, but anti-privacy laws would probably have little effect here, since subscribing to cable is still considered a choice. If you want cable TV, you have to agree to use their spycam in your living room (kind of like mandatory arbitration clauses).

    Taping over the sensor seems reasonable, but I’m sure Comcast would use a failsafe measure to prevent users bypassing the camera, such as blocking your cable service if no camera activity is detected for period of time.

  80. amoeba says:

    What a relief, I just terminated my contract with Comcast. But, I will completely freak out knowing that a camera is actually watching me. I have this paranoia since little. I still think that electronics have cameras…

  81. reznicek111 says:

    Ahem…make that “privacy laws.” ;)

  82. Jim says:

    Perhaps they could spin it:

    What if you were only billed for time you were actually in front of the TV?

    Sorry, just distracting myself from the horror that people with ideas like this make more money than me whilst my “Good Ideas” folder fills up.

  83. Imhotep says:

    Wow… and I thought warrantless wiretapping was a breach of our civil liberties. This takes the audacity cake.
    Although I do seem to recall an article about built-in cmeras on laptops using the technology. It uses your face as your login and tracks your eye movements to to send you targeted ads.
    They’re using “Security” and the “Sexy-tech, coolness” factors to implement spying. What’s next tracking devices?? oh yeah… everyone has a cell phone now.

  84. boxjockey68 says:

    um…..would that actually be legal? Uh…I really don’t think sticking a camera in someone’s living room would be legal. Note to self, Read the fine print when signing up for ANYTHING.

  85. Sam2k says:

    My first question is: How could this thing distinguish between twins and other persons with similar physical appearances?

    Second: Why would I want Comcast, or any other tv company, telling me what I want to watch?

  86. ClankBoomSteam says:

    Okay Comcast, this is very simple:

    If you decide that the best thing for your company is to PUT A CAMERA IN MY HOUSE, I will decide that the best thing for me is that COMCAST NEVER GETS MY BUSINESS AGAIN, ever, for anything.

    Are we clear on that?

    Good.

  87. JenniMoyer says:

    The newteevee.com article “Comcast Cameras to Start Watching You” portrayed some assumptions that require correction and clarification. I want to be clear that in no way are we exploring any camera devices that would monitor customer behavior.

    To gather information for this article, the blogger picked up on a conversation between Gerard Kunkel and another person at a recent conference. They were discussing the various input devices offered by a variety of vendors that Comcast is reviewing.

    The camera-based gesture recognition device is in no way designed to – or capable of – monitoring your living room. These technologies are designed to allow simple navigation on a television set just as the Wii remote uses a camera to manage its much heralded gesture-based interactivity.

    We are constantly exploring new technologies that better serve our customers. The goal is simple – a better user experience that allows the consumer to get ever increasing value out of their Comcast products.

    As with any new technology, we carefully consider the consumer benefits. In fact, we do an enormous amount of consumer testing in advance of making a product decision such as this. We’re confident that a new technology like gesture-based navigation will be fully explored with consumers to understand the product’s feature benefits – and of course, the value to the consumer.

    Jenni Moyer
    Comcast

  88. azntg says:

    I hope they enjoy looking at the adhesive of a silver duct tape. It’s arousing, isn’t it?

  89. consumerd says:

    yea, I think I will keep a few rolls of black duct tape around and electrical tape.

    Something tells me if they implement this, it might be the best investment I ever made.

  90. consumerd says:

    Either that or I would buy a cable box and pop it open and have the camera point in the other direction (inside the cable box) so when it burnt up they could get the trouble report right then and there.

    I could say “Well the camera was pointed in that direction, you not being able to see it burning is not an excuse!”

  91. PeanutButter says:

    mr. cablebox, meet mr. ductape.
    soon, you will become quite familiar with each other.

  92. magic8ball says:

    Many decades ago, when my mother-in-law was a little girl, her house was the first one on the block to have a television. Never having seen one before, she didn’t really understand how it worked, and at first thought that the people on the TV could see her just like she could see them. We laughed at her when she told us that story. Not laughing any more.

  93. Orngbliss says:

    @GearheadGeek: I am always being accused of Freudian-slips…. Jk.
    And, reznicek111 you are correct, Privacy laws. Sorry about that!

  94. Coles_Law says:

    Solution: Face the box towards the wall.

  95. TechnoDestructo says:

    I might be able to deal with this if they were likely to have any ads available to serve me which I actually gave a rat’s ass about. But no, it’ll be no better than targeted ads on the internet.

    No one (at least, no one who can afford TV advertising or who needs to advertise) is selling anything I want, so I won’t see any ads for anything I want.

    I would get absolutely nothing out of this loss of privacy, so I am opposed to such a loss of privacy.

  96. elijah_dukes_mayonnaise says:

    @JenniMoyer: If this thread is any
    indication, Comcast isn’t particularly trusted or liked. Perhaps the
    company should work on more reliably meeting its current expectations,
    before trying to forge a creepy and self-serving ‘interactivity’ with
    its customers. Most people just want their cable and internet to work
    more reliably. Most people would prefer not to be nickel and dimed by
    your company and its increasingly arbitrary fee structure. PLEASE
    please PLEEEASE work on customer service and improving your current
    product, rather than burdening us with a ‘gesture recognition device’.
    The illusion of privacy is an American right. God bless America,
    amirite?

  97. Buran says:

    Duct tape. It has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together.

  98. forgottenpassword says:

    I have a question… could this concievably be used by investigators to tell who was in the room at the time? You know… like if there was a murder in the room with said “body recognizing” camera equipped cablebox? Does it record who was where & when?

    So many other daily items are used by agencies to potentially track our movements (traffic cams, store security cameras, atms, cellphones, ezpass tollroad readers,phone records, gps enabled vehicles…. the list goes on & on).

  99. yikz says:

    Comcast is truly run by idiots. I can’t believe they would be so stupid as to even consider such a dumb waste of money.
    I bet their first idea was to put a barcode reader in the cable box and they would ask the viewer to scan a barcode for the viewer in the room.

    Clearly, the brainy types at Comcast left a long time ago. If Comcast put this kind of crap into my house, I’d let the dog take a dump on the thing, and then ship it back to Comcast and order satellite.

  100. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    Let’s all vote for COMmunismCAST one more time for Most Evilest Company in the Whole Wide World.

  101. XianZomby says:

    With this or similar technology, you’ll find yourself in a situation where you’re going to pay more money for cable if your home is not offering up the right demographic to advertisers. If your home is offering up the right “body type” during the right shows, and they do not leave the room, then you may be offered substantial discounts on cable. The other end of that is you only watch PBS and CSPAN and you’re single, and you leave the room during commercials when you do watch commercial TV. Then you’ll find that your cable bill does not get those discounts, but instead you are asked to pay more. It’ll all be in the new service agreements.

  102. dafountain says:

    If my cable company wants to watch me I’ll be more than happy to give them a show. I like being watched.

  103. rmz says:

    Now this is just plain unfair to all of the other companies who entered the “Worst Company in America” contest. Is Comcast going that far out of their way to try to win this thing?

  104. Shadowfire says:

    @friendlynerd: I was just going to say… there truly is no problem that duct tape can’t fix. ;)

  105. CyberSkull says:

    DO. NOT. EFFING. WANT.

    And if I am changing in my room and the cable box sees me naked after uh, being in cold water? Will the TV then show Extenz adds?

  106. DeafLEGO says:

    Mr. Kunkel can shove the fucking camera up his ass. Not that anyone would want to see what’s going up in there. Really I hope those Wimps at FCC hurt Comcast somehow.

  107. tomdude says:

    @SVreader: Very creepy, reminds me of Minority Report and also Batman Forever, if that’s what you were referring to. Frankly I’d rather take my chances in Iraq than ever live in a Philip K. Dick nightmare….

  108. LucyInTheSky says:

    @FitJulie: My thoughts exactly. This is as 1984 as i hope the world will ever get.

    “Ahem. And the winner of the worst company in america… errm, excuse me… the whole F#%&@*% world is (drumroll please)…

    COMCAST!!!”

  109. kimsama says:

    @Buran: Haha, I love that quote. It is indeed like the Force.

  110. TKWarrior says:

    I can’t believe nobody mentioned this yet!

    It was just months ago were Comcast talked about the possibility of having new movie releases available at the same time as theaters via on-demand. There was talk in these very comments (or gizmodo, can’t remember) about people saving money by having a bunch of friends over for ‘movie night’ at their place, since more people are enjoying home theaters rather then going to the ‘mega-plex’. So how could Comcast and the studios prevent this?

    Cameras!

    Granted, most of us here would find a way to circumvent this, but the public in general are idiots and will accept whatever Crapcast installs in their house. This all makes sense now. Want to order the fight or the next WWE event? You’ll get charged by the amount of people you have over your house watching!

    I’m loving my FiOS service more and more everyday.

  111. shmianco says:

    i call total bullshit, who the hell is this blogger?

  112. brandymb says:

    Kunkel would make a good Democrat candidate for President…

  113. chartrule says:

    ugg

    that is such a horrible idea

  114. polyeaster says:

    No more sex in front of late night tv:(

    Hell to the no there’s not gonna be a camera in my house. I would cancel my cable and buy more DVDs.

  115. HooFoot says:

    I am so happy that I canceled my Comcast subscription months ago. Don’t like it folks? Then stop giving these fools your money. Once you take the plunge and cancel your cable, you won’t regret it. In fact, you’ll kick yourself for not doing it earlier.

  116. DogTown says:

    I hope their facial recognition cameras and their like gesture-based navigation will be able to recognize the middle fingers and the asses of everybody in my living room when we moon the idiots at Comcast for even thinking of such a fucked up concept.

  117. RedSonSuperDave says:

    In the words of Will Smith,

    “Aww HELL naw!”

  118. Gooz2 says:

    Eeew…that’s soooo creepy!! What’s next? ElectroChips in the back of our necks that are programmed with our favorite TV shows?!?! That’s just not right…

  119. siriusluv says:

    Silly peeps, this is to help you…….
    ve vant to make sure you do not let children watch the wrong things…ve vant to make sure you behave…ve vant only vhat is good for us, ahem; you…
    just keep watching mind numbing tv…no worries,
    you just Consume & Conform, ve Control

    who knows , ve might have it in there already, hahahahahahahahaha

  120. Phunk says:

    Although this is really really unsettling, keeping a roll of painters tape around would really kind of nullify the camera and not mar the device at the same time (so they couldn’t charge you for ‘damaging’ it). The only thing that would really get me up in arms is if they decided to make it mandatory for service.

    Either way, this guy is a total nutbar if he thinks that’s gonna work.

  121. dirk1965 says:

    over my dead body!

  122. 366th use for duct tape . . .

  123. LionelEHutz says:

    I can’t wait for the NSA to tap into this technology.

    Big Brother will really be watching you!

  124. LionelEHutz says:

    @brandymb: No, he’s make a great Republitard.

  125. @JenniMoyer: I don’t know about the rest of the folks around here, but there’s really only one gesture I’m interested in giving to Comcast. Can you guess which single finger on my right hand is involved in that?

    I’ve unfortunately had to suffer through a Comcast takeover of an Adelphia cable system where I live. Years later we still don’t have digital phone service, still have worthless cable boxes, still have lousy customer service (it’s actually gotten worse since all we can do now is call the 1-800 number), still are paying too much, and now have terrible looking HD feeds to top it all off.

    I can hardly wait until Verizon runs FiOS out to me. There’s a reason we all feel that Comcast’s services are just comcrapstic!