Protesters armed with Cameras push back Police in Madrid, Spain

[Joey Fuller]

at 38 seconds:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7spGtXJ-DOM

inspiring : )

[Origanalist]

Turn on the lights, and the cockroaches scatter for the shadows. :)

Nice.

[nobody's_hero]

Too bad the protestors don't realize they're chasing away the very thing they want more of:

government.

[Origanalist]

This is true, however I do like the method.

[Working Poor]

would that method work here?

[paulbot24]

Only one way to find out..........

[Uriah]

Europeans sure do know how to protest. I think Spain is coming close to completely loosing control of it's country. Catalonia will be independent within 2 years, de facto or de jure, it doesn't matter at this point. The Basque region will then push again for independence...

[paulbot24]

Can somebody tell us what the crowd was chanting? I of the public education system just speak lousy English.

[invisible]

This is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen in my life. Rate this one the full 5 stars. This is some of the best activism in action I've ever seen, if not the best. This should be circulated as widely as possible, everywhere, because it'll never be shown on tv.

edit: ultimately, it doesn't even matter what language is spoken (I would admit to also needing a translation myself). What happens is what's important, the technique is universally effective, and can so obviously be applied anywhere in the world.

[FrancisMarion]

This is true, however I do like the method.

was that a phalanx of cameramen in front?

[Mundane]

Can somebody tell us what the crowd was chanting? I of the public education system just speak lousy English.

It sounded like el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido. The people united will never be defeated.

[fr33]

If you like to see protesters pushing back against the police here's a good one:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uto3l7UxfY

[Henry Rogue]

would that method work here?
Better use an older camera, perhaps 35mm. Recently I bought my Wife a nice digital camera one of the first things I noticed in the operators manual. a paragraph stating that this device must allow outside interference. I took that as meaning the government can delete images remotely. I can't find the darn manual or I would post that paragraph verbatim.

[angelatc]

Better use an older camera, perhaps 35mm. Recently I bought my Wife a nice digital camera one of the first things I noticed in the operators manual. a paragraph stating that this device must allow outside interference. I took that as meaning the government can delete images remotely. I can't find the darn manual or I would post that paragraph verbatim.

Post the make and model number, and we can find the manual online.

[Henry Rogue]

Post the make and model number, and we can find the manual online.
I already looked and found a pdf of the manual. It did not have that statement. It's a sony SLT-A57

[Keith and stuff]

I am not sure that 1st video had anything to do with camera but cool. Maybe if I was in Spain I would protest for a much larger government also, Nah, likely not.

[idiom]

Better use an older camera, perhaps 35mm. Recently I bought my Wife a nice digital camera one of the first things I noticed in the operators manual. a paragraph stating that this device must allow outside interference. I took that as meaning the government can delete images remotely. I can't find the darn manual or I would post that paragraph verbatim.

That's just an FCC radio class.

A can interfere with anything
B is in the middle
C can't interfere and has to put up with interference.

If the Microwave is messing with your camera you can't sue the microwave manufacturer.

[Henry Rogue]

That's just an FCC radio class.

A can interfere with anything
B is in the middle
C can't interfere and has to put up with interference.

If the Microwave is messing with your camera you can't sue the microwave manufacturer.
My mistake then. I guess thats how rumours get started. I can understand why they would not want it to cause interference, but why must it have to accept interference?

[ghengis86]

Better use an older camera, perhaps 35mm. Recently I bought my Wife a nice digital camera one of the first things I noticed in the operators manual. a paragraph stating that this device must allow outside interference. I took that as meaning the government can delete images remotely. I can't find the darn manual or I would post that paragraph verbatim.

Lol!

You've got the right idea, just need to hone in on the correct method:
http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/

No need to be seripticious; they'll tell you how they'll do it. And the sheeple will cheer them on

[mello]

I don't think it was because of the cameras. I think it was because they were seriously outnumbered & surrounded.

[KMX]

Well done Spain!

[jmdrake]

Better use an older camera, perhaps 35mm. Recently I bought my Wife a nice digital camera one of the first things I noticed in the operators manual. a paragraph stating that this device must allow outside interference. I took that as meaning the government can delete images remotely. I can't find the darn manual or I would post that paragraph verbatim.

The iPhone already has this as a part of "digital rights management". A caller into Alex Jones the other day mentioned he was on a tour of some government facility, and the camera for his iPhone shut off. More info on the Apple technology:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/06/apple-live-music-drm

Apple has filed a patent that would prevent iPhone owners from capturing photos or movies of a specific area, using an infrared kill switch.

In US Patent #20110128384, filed in December 2009, Apple describes "using the camera to capture a second image that includes an infrared signal with encoded data". The phone would then ascertain whether that encoded data contains a disable command, and, if necessary, "disable a record function", or perhaps introduce a compulsory watermark.

That would allow concert owners to stop people recording videos of bands, for example, introducing the equivalent of DRM for live music -- preventing it from being copied. It could also be used in cinemas to stop camming, or in classified or security-sensitive areas.

The concept is a sinister one, but -- given the patent -- would likely be limited to Apple devices. You can bet, too, that it wouldn't long before someone figures out that an infrared cut-off filter would allow the system to be easily bypassed.

It could be used for good, too. Another part of the patent explains how infrared signals could be used to trigger augmented-reality-style overlays. For example, in a museum, you could point your camera at an Aztec water jug and get information about the object, or links to relevant extra content. Or in a shop, you could point your camera at an object and get some sort of voucher.

Then again, the same functionality has long been promised using QR codes, near-field-communications, or just simple image recognition algorithms, and hasn't made it too far into most people's lives just yet. Will this turn out any different?

[devil21]

Looks to me like the cameras had little to do with it. The fact that they were surrounded and probably could have been torn limb from limb by that large group of protestors is why they started backpeddling. Cops are lucky the protestors were relatively peaceful.

[idiom]

My mistake then. I guess thats how rumours get started. I can understand why they would not want it to cause interference, but why must it have to accept interference?

So that you accept that you can't force the local TV station and radio station and Cell sites to shut down if they are causing interference.

Class A devices are heavily licensed. Class C devices no licensing normally. Class C means the FCC doesn't have to worry about them because they don't reserve spectrum. They work on best effort. If you are receiving too much interference, well that unfortunate, but you didn't license the spectrum so you don't have a right to an interference free life.

If I have Class A devices and Spectrum licenses then I don't have to accept interference. If someone is radiating in a way that is problematic, the FCC will shut them down.

The FCC has issues, but this is a pretty solid property rights solution, outside of whoever has the biggest transmitter wins.


The bit where you have to accept the manufacturer or carrier logging into your phone or camera and wiping or controlling things is in the EULA that nobody ever reads.

If people actually read EULA's nobody would buy any electronics ever.