Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Security Software

Gaze-Tracking Software Protects Computer Privacy 134

Posted by kdawson
from the shoulder-surfer-wipeout dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "Two years ago computer security expert Bill Anderson read about scientific research on how the human eye moves as it reads and processes text and images. 'This obscure characteristic... suddenly struck me as (a solution to) a security problem,' says Anderson. With the help of a couple of software developers, Anderson developed a software program called Chameleon that tracks a viewer's gaze patterns and only allows an authorized user to read text on the screen, while everyone else sees gibberish. Chameleon uses gaze-tracking software and camera equipment to track an authorized reader's eyes to show only that one person the correct text. After a 15-second calibration period in which the software learns the viewer's gaze patterns, anyone looking over that user's shoulder sees dummy text that randomly and constantly changes. To tap the broader consumer market, Anderson built a more consumer-friendly version called PrivateEye, which can work with a simple Webcam to blur a user's monitor when he or she turns away. It also detects other faces in the background, and a small video screen pops up to alert the user that someone is looking at the screen. 'There have been inventions in the space of gaze-tracking. There have been inventions in the space of security,' says Anderson. 'But nobody has put the two ideas together, as far as we know.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaze-Tracking Software Protects Computer Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by NineNine (235196)

    I thought we already had this technology, and it was called "flat screen" technology. I swear I'm not a crotchety old man, but I can't stand flat screen monitors/TV's/laptops. All of them have this same effect, when compared to the bright, clear, viewable-from-any-direction CRT's. I don't care much for saving a few inches in depth, so I try to use CRT's whenever I can, because unless you're sitting directly in front and center of a flat screen anything, it's very difficult to read.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wow, did you base that all on the flat monitors you saw in 1989?

    • Re:Flat screens! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Enleth (947766) <enleth@enleth.com> on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:04PM (#28614851) Homepage

      Does this still bother you, even with today's LCDs? I'm currently sitting at the side of my desk, typing this on a laptop, and I can read the text just fine on either of the two Dell 1905FP LCDs at the center of my desk, with one about 40cm away at a 45deg angle and the other about 80cm away at a 70deg angle. Both are displaying 12pt black-on-white antialiased text (PDFs) at 90dpi.

      • by Kazin (3499)

        I've got some 1905FP's also, and they're great. But all of the new stuff we're buying lately have the viewing angle problem, some WAY worse than others.

        My company does visual effects too, so the color-shifting effect is really frustrating for the artists.

      • Try using most types of laptop display. They have some very narrow viewing angles if you want things to look okay.

        Side to side isn't nearly as bad as up and down. The laptop I'm using (HP Pavilion dv9572) has a decent side to side angle, but if I reposition myself in the chair (moving it up/down or slumping/straightening my back) I have to readjust the display to get the proper look.

        And from what I understand, others are desperately seeking quality displays as well [anandtech.com].

      • by citizenr (871508)

        Does this still bother you, even with today's LCDs? I'm currently sitting at the side of my desk, typing this on a laptop, and I can read the text just fine on either of the two Dell 1905FP LCDs at the center of my desk, with one about 40cm away at a 45deg angle and the other about 80cm away at a 70deg angle. Both are displaying 12pt black-on-white antialiased text (PDFs) at 90dpi.

        today YES. You are using old LCDs with Samsung PVA panels. Great angles on those. Today almost EVERYTHING is TN and sucks. Only top of the line stuff at 2-3x the price is SPVA/SMVA/SIPS.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Get an IPS panel LCD instead of a cheap TN panel LCD. Costs more, but looks much better.

    • Maybe that was the case 5 or so years ago, but I can read my LCDs both at work (Dell 19") and at home (Samsung 24") from distance and from quite good angles. I'd suggest getting an eye test, and not just for long or short sightedness. You might have a degenerative condition that can be solved with laser therapy [slashdot.org].

      In all seriousness, there is no reason to use a CRT in this day and age. The size, energy efficiency, contrast ratios, etc, of CRT monitors makes for a less than practical display.

    • Re:Flat screens! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @06:23PM (#28615673)
      It's all about the quality of the monitor. Cheap LCDs are lousy just like cheap CRTs were lousy - they just fail in different ways. Shop around and you can find a flat panel with a good viewing angle as well as decent color reproduction.
    • Just goes to show, one man's big is another man's feature.
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most LCDs use cheap TN panels with comparatively awful color reproduction and viewing angles. It can be a bit more difficult to find a nice display (the non-TN type), but the quality is certainly much nicer and more comparable to "classic" CRTs.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      I thought we already had this technology, and it was called "flat screen" technology. I swear I'm not a crotchety old man, but I can't stand flat screen monitors/TV's/laptops. All of them have this same effect, when compared to the bright, clear, viewable-from-any-direction CRT's.

      Try some newer models.

      I'm sitting in front of an Acer 23" LCD with a contrast of 40000:1, with 160 degree horizontal and 160 degree vertical viewing angles, and a 5ms response time.

      It's a pretty sweet monitor, and doesn't suffer f

  • Ok? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @04:53PM (#28614681)

    So what happens when you are typing and listening to music, you head is swinging back and forth to the beat? Will the gaze thingy be able to follow or will you pass in and out of it's "verified" zone?

    Perhaps it would do better to map your face like they do at gambling casinos. Then if it sees anyone other than your face, it takes corrective action.

    • Re:Ok? (Score:5, Funny)

      by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:06PM (#28614885)

      typing and listening to music, you head is swinging back and forth to the beat

      Exactly! This is gonna be a big problem for Stevie Wonder - oh wait...

      • by memnock (466995)

        what if i've perfected sleeping with my head up and eyes up at my desk to fool my boss? how does it identify the dull gaze?

    • by JobyOne (1578377)
      -Gaze- tracking, not head tracking.

      It's watching your pupils, not your whole head.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "Hey, could you help me find the bug in my code?"

      "Ummmm....it looks like you just have gibberish."

      • by Starlon (1492461)
        This reminds me of a fellow student in one of my programming classes. I was working on my homework in the computer lab, left to use the restroom, came back and got back to work. Shortly after the other student asked if I could help him with his homework. I took one look at it and I knew without a doubt it was my homework, which he had mutilated in an attempt to make it his own (gibberish). Needless to say, I grabbed my things and went straight to the CS department's chair about the issue. If he hadn't asked
    • by Annorax (242484)

      This works until someone makes a mask of your face, puts it on, and then browses your bank account information.

      Worse yet, someone cuts off your head and props it up on your joystick while they browse...

      I prefer the idea of measuring something that isn't so easily duplicated like gaze-tracking!

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      Perhaps it would do better to map your face like they do at gambling casinos. Then if it sees anyone other than your face, it takes corrective action.

      You have 10 seconds to comply ... :-P

      Cheers

  • That sounds pretty cool, it would be a bit like "reading" the matrix. I guess you would get over the distraction of text you're not looking at turning into garbage and start to tune it out.

    Does anyone know of a video of this software in action, I'd love to see what it looks like.

    • I don't even see the code anymore, all I see are blondes, brunettes, redheads...

      • I don't even see the code anymore, all I see are blondes, brunettes, redheads...

        That's what happens when you stop using Lynx as your porn browser!

    • Here's the Video (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:06PM (#28614883)
      • What the... I could implement that in some hours in Linux. Just make a Compiz plugin, read the eye position from standard eye-tracking library, giving it images from the webcam API, and then blur the screen, as soon as the eyes move outside a specific range (with a configurable radius). A bit of tweaking for this perhaps, and we're good.

        On the other hand, if you want to read that, you just have to get behind him, or look trough the window, without him noticing.
        What you would do anyway, when wanting to read

      • Interesting that the "demonstrations" in the video are not only faked, but really unconvincingly faked. The only part which looks like it might be a genuine live demo is when they demonstrate that holding a hand over the webcam causes the software to activate, albeit with considerable lag. Pretty impressive technology!

  • am I the only one that did a double take thinking we were geezer-tracking?
    • am I the only one that did a double take thinking we were geezer-tracking?

      Why would you do a double-take? We ARE geezer-tracking [slashdot.org].

      Furthermore, how did you continue to read the title/summary if you did a double-take? Wouldn't that have thrown off your gaze-tracking security software and scrambled the page for you?

  • I don't know. Just seems simpler to me.

    Perhaps this technology might be useful elsewhere.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:02PM (#28614827)

      Have you actually, say, worked with a privacy screen? The ones which have been foisted upon me suck. That and, oh, yeah, they don't work with laptops. However, an even sweeter rendition would be focus follows gaze, particularly for X11 and the random desktop environments. Then instead of wiggling the mouse every time I switch screens, I could just type where I'm looking. Obviously, it should hold the focus and let me keep typing if I'm still typing when I look away.

      • Look away where? Off the screen? elsewhere on the screen? What happens when you're reading reference docs and typing code at the same time? It's a neat idea but there are some edge cases that will be really frustrating if you don't handle them properly. I'm frequently looking at other things on my screen and I only rarely want them to have focus.
        • by fizzding (1171839)

          That sounds like an actual use for the CAPSLOCK key to me... A simple toggle switch to turn focus tracking on or off.

  • by Reason58 (775044) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @04:58PM (#28614757)
    If your workers are handling sensitive material maybe you shouldn't have them in a cubicle with their back to the entrance.
    • by PitaBred (632671)
      Yes. And they should never be on an airplane and try to get work done, or in a coffee shop, or anything like that. I mean, it's never critical to send an email before the deadline, is it?

      Hell... what if you just want to read some shitty porn or do your taxes or banking or something and don't want people shoulder surfing? Isn't that a good enough reason to protect your privacy?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Actually, if they're working on sensitive material, they should never work on an airplane or in a coffee shop. This has been known for a long time by people who work with sensitive material on paper. You don't get it out in a public area, and you don't talk about it in a public place. Nor do you rely on odd technological measures that might fail.

        The other reasons make a good deal more sense, but I don't know that it's worth the price and inconvenience just to read porn in public or do your taxes.

    • Yeah. With their back to the large windows we can spy on him much better.

      Sincerely,

      your competition.

  • thought they were picking on Clay and the boys . . .
  • Just kidding

    I think this is actually going to be a REALLY big deal. Especially if they can prove that the eye signatures are truly one of a kind in regards to individuals specific patterns. If this is along the same vain as fingerprints in relation to scarcity, then you may now be reading of what could eventually make things like the need for encryption, or even some forms of basic information security obsolete. That is a BIG frickin deal, and may in fact be of such importance that you may see security/encr

  • by davek (18465) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:00PM (#28614781) Homepage Journal

    With regard to over-the-shoulder power, I bought by first CHIMP in 98. Can't work without it.

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/accessories/2940/ [thinkgeek.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by OzPeter (195038)
      You do know that if you go to an auto parts store you can get almost the exact same thing for a hell of a lot less don't you?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ScoLgo (458010)

      "Resurrect the Cult of VI"

      I don't get it. Is this 'VI' you refer to some minor demon that is 0.009009 as evil as the beast?

      Oh, what's that? You're not 'Roman' Catholic?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)

      With regard to over-the-shoulder power, I bought by first CHIMP in 98. Can't work without it.

      I use a clear piece of plastic, like half of a CD case with the insert removed. Stick it on a shelf near the monitor and with the right angle it is just as good for detecting someone behind your back, but since it is not an obvious mirror, they won't know that you know they are there. I've freaked out a number of people with my 'psychic' ability to detect someone standing at the door to my office while looking the other way and with the music blasting on my headphones.

      • by jafiwam (310805)
        Start telling them "i can smell your ass-breath".

        On the general topic, just re-arrange your office to make the desk face the door. Or, maybe, don't do crap at work that you can't have other people see.
  • by Reason58 (775044) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:00PM (#28614799)
    This gaze-tracking software will hurt the US military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.
  • by idontgno (624372) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:01PM (#28614811) Journal
    TFA's description of the technology contains a bit of hand-waving:

    Chameleon uses gaze-tracking software and camera equipment to track an authorized reader's eyes

    Check, that's doable now.

    to show only that one person the correct text.

    How? Elfin magic? If a screen region under the "authorized reader's" field of view is displaying the protected content to the authorized reader, it's also displaying exactly the same thing to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area.

    So far as I can tell, this is the part of the proof labeled "Magic happens here". Also known as the part of the technology that needs more investment. So invest now!

    Where's my flying car, dammit?

    • it's also displaying exactly the same thing to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area.

      That's why it pops up a screen alerting you that it sees another pair of eyes behind you as you are reading.

      This prevents other people from looking at your monitor while you are away, not while you are there reading it.

      And I only read the summary. :)

    • Read the part where it shows random text everywhere else. It's probably just meant to buy you time to tell any shoulder-surfers to fuck off.
    • I guess the important part of your argument is "to anyone else who happens to be looking at the same area."

      Because the screen shows constantly changing random words, it would be difficult for someone approaching your screen to figure out exactly which point on the screen you were looking at. Plus, if you moved your eyes at all, the unauthorized viewer would have to figure out which new point on the screen to watch. Because of this, it would be extremely difficult (although not impossible) for anyone to figu

      • and if I'm looking at boobies, it will show constantly changing, random boobies, so it would difficult for someone approaching the screen to figure out exactly which boobies on the screen I was looking at.
        • by Cryacin (657549)

          and if I'm looking at boobies, it will show constantly changing, random boobies, so it would difficult for someone approaching the screen to figure out exactly which boobies on the screen I was looking at.

          My eyes are up here!

      • by idontgno (624372) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:27PM (#28615125) Journal

        Because the screen shows constantly changing random words, it would be difficult for someone approaching your screen to figure out exactly which point on the screen you were looking at.

        Not that difficult, if the shoulder-surfer could watch for more than a few seconds. Especially if part of the screen seemed to show a consistent typeface, flowing sentences, coherent subject matter... i.e., anything not obviously random. Humans are damn good at pattern recognition. Moreso, if the shoulder-surfer has some idea what he's looking for, and the "authorized reader" is unaware he's being monitored. And don't deny that can happen. Anyone capable of concentrating sufficiently to work well is going to lose some environmental awareness, and a sufficiently sneaky voyeur would be able to benefit from that.

        Overall, though, it would probably make more sense, and be cheaper, to avoid working on your private material where other people can see your screen

        Yup. This smells like a solution looking to shoulder out existing and simpler solutions.

        Paradoxically, the "consumer-grade" idea in TFA actually seems more valuable: The display is normal, but when your eyes leave it the whole thing blanks. This helps solve the very-real and not-well-solved problem of leaving terminals unattended.

        • by PitaBred (632671)
          I can't even read on a normal screen at the same speed as my wife when we're both reading some quote site or something on the same screen... one of us is always slower or faster. This would be damn near impossible to figure out.
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The problem will be when someone applies this to force the focused eyes to look at an advertisement (and probably also the real goal of the research, not some semi-useful shoulder-security application).

    • by hacksoncode (239847) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @06:01PM (#28615439)
      It doesn't say specifically, but I'm guessing it makes use of the saccade effect. Your brain literally doesn't see changes in the visual field while your eyes are moving from one spot to another (this motion is called a saccade).

      So, basically, the text is only "correct" in the exact spot you're looking at any instant... as soon as your eyes move to the next word, the gibberish that's there before the saccade is changed to the "correct" word for that new spot. And you don't notice.

      Anyone that the camera is not tracking would just see random gibberish because the words they are looking at usually haven't been changed to be the "correct" ones for that spot at the instant they are looking at them.

      It's a well known process... just never applied to the field of security before. Also, it would take a very high-speed, very high-resolution camera, so I doubt it's applicability to general purpose computers any time soon.

      And, of course, if someone watching you has the same high-speed, high-resolution camera that you have, they could just record the whole video stream and perform an analysis on it... so it's not terribly good security either.

      • by swilver (617741)

        GIF anims stuck in side bars when TRYING to read an article are so annoying for me that I've got any form of animation turned off. I think I would notice if text started changing the whole time. Periferal vision is highly attuned to seeing changes/movement, although you can't tell exactly what until you focus on it again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by timeOday (582209)

      Chameleon uses gaze-tracking software and camera equipment to track an authorized reader's eyes... "Check, that's doable now."

      Well, sort of. A decent eye tracker (example 1 [smarteye.se], example 2 [tobii.com]) costs $15,000 to $30,000 (please do not request a link to a price quote - the fact that they don't list prices on their pages should be a good clue). And this scrambling system would be worse than useless with a bad eye tracker. (PS, please, please prove me wrong by posting a link to a cheap, robust, accurate eye-trackin

  • by ubrgeek (679399)
    I can't seem to see a link for a demo (no pun intended). Anyone able to help, pls?
  • by thewils (463314) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:03PM (#28614837) Journal

    I could have used this when I was playing Prince of Persia on one of my previous contracts!!!

  • This could be the answer Nielsen is looking for [slashdot.org].
  • Loony Bin (Score:3, Funny)

    by JobyOne (1578377) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:12PM (#28614951) Homepage Journal
    Now things really will wiggle around when I'm not looking right at them.

    How am I supposed to tell the difference between PrivateEye and gremlins?
  • Where a guy working for some TLA (three letter agency) was working out of a 'net cafe using a custom boot CD/DVD. The software on it would somehow figure out that there was someone else that could see his screen - gaze tracking, hax0ring the security cam in the establishment, etc - and throw up all sorts of porn. So to the waitress, etc. it seemed he was just a run of the mill perv...

    • by slummy (887268)
      hax0ring the security cam? so this "three letter" agent was able to infiltrate the CCTV and overlay some porn where his screen would be? I call bullshit.
  • Eye strain (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slummy (887268) <shawnuthNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @05:22PM (#28615071) Homepage
    What about eye strain from the constant blurring/clarification process?
    I would think a person using this technology would have to train themselves not to try and focus on an area of the screen that would normally be in focus until the "gaze" sensor figures out what they're trying to look at.
    • by Drive42 (444835)

      Nope. It's already been done. For nearly 25 years, I think (it's referenced in Dennett's "Elbow Room"). The computer can track the position of your pupils in relation to the screen, and since eye movement is made up of tiny ballistic trajectories, the computer can figure out where your focus is going to land next, and can "clear" the data at that point, and then "garbage" the data at the point that your eye is no longer looking at. People take in groups of symbols in chunks when they read and then hop over

      • I think the key point about these types of programs is the assumptions that they can change the information on the screen faster than humans can read. Given Window's amazing reliability to jerk and spasm around, I wouldn't put too much stock in that assumption. This would become a very annoying program pretty quickly. Even very minor delays in the program would cause headaches (literally and figuratively) for the reader.
        • by cheros (223479)

          It doesn't have a demo version which always makes a me a bit suspicious. However, the private version is cheap, so rather than throw up assumptions that are based on thin air I'm going to buy a copy and see what it does.

          Who knows, it may actually do what it says, and I think the idea stacks up. Just don't know just how much processing power this will take, and Windows is pretty crap at whole screen manipulation but that's exactly what testing is for :-).

    • by PitaBred (632671)
      That depends entirely on how fast the machine reacts. If it goes faster than you can refocus (not out of the question), then you're good to go. If not, then it's pretty much a useless product. I really doubt that it'd be this far in development if it were completely useless.
  • ...it will be like the scramble suit from Philip K. Dick's "A Scanner Darkly", but for computer monitors.

    (ie. no one will know exactly what kind of porn your looking at)
  • by stokessd (89903) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @06:07PM (#28615511) Homepage

    Screw privacy, I want my window manager to focus the window I'm looking at. Now that would be useful.

    Sheldon

  • This means if I my monitor faces my cubicle entrance and my cubicle happens to be on the way to the bathroom or cafeteria then this software will totally screw my eyes.
  • Problem 1: Suppose the gaze-tracking works perfectly under static conditions (during training before the scrambling). Now the scramble kicks in and you've got crap changing all over the screen. You're going to notice that; it's going to be irritating. And when you catch something changing, you're going to look at it. Thus screwing up the algorithm.

    Problem 2: The algorithm isn't going to be 100% perfect. And it doesn't have to be camo far off to make melvin unreliable.

  • Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kheldan (1460303) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @06:23PM (#28615671) Journal
    This sounds like an awesome development in the area of personal security alright -- especially for looking at porn in your cubicle at work. Your boss or co-worker peers over the wall to try to catch you? No problem, it blurs the screen!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ArsenneLupin (766289)

      especially for looking at porn in your cubicle at work.

      Careful there. What if your boss notices that only the guys in the porn flicks stay in focus, while the chicks are blurred...

  • Yet another piece of biometric technology that means if I'm having an off day, get a twitch in my eye etc. I get locked out of my own data. Yippee!!! Yay!

  • by eatvegetables (914186) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @06:36PM (#28615781)
    Crap! Soon we'll get T.V.s that know that their being watched, who is watching, and exactly what viewers are looking at. ...Coming soon to a T.V. near you.

    Viewer: (thinking to himself) Oh great, a commercial. Time for a potty break. la, la, la (walks away from T.V.)

    T.V.: (in loud voice) Alert, Alert, Alert. Viewer, you have been away from the television for 2 minutes and 30 seconds. You now risk violating your television and cable provider's ULA and risk violating section 5, paragraph 10, subsection a of the 2010 DMCA redux and expansion act.

    Viewer: Coming, coming...just have to give a quick shake....O.K., I'm here. Whew, that was close.

    T.V.: Alert, Alert, Alert!!

    Viewer: Wha!, I'm here. I'm watching again for God's sake.

    T.V.: Viewer, you twice failed to take visual notice of the coke can product placement in this episode of Friends. You have now violated your television and cable provider's ULA and thus also violated the aforementioned DCMA act. Please place your hands on your head and wait for the authorities to arrive....a little higher please...there you go.

  • This is really interesting, and would solve casual observing to a large extent, but I wouldn't consider it a high security solution as it could be fairly trivially defeated by a video camera.

    I could see where it could be useful for a doctor's office/hospital though to keep medical records secure, or a reception area to automatically screen out snoopers.

    • Or by, erm, I dunno, wearing a pair of dark glasses? And if the system can recognise shades then simply wear a pair of crazy Dame Edna Everage style dark-glasses!

  • Line-of-sight security is not difficult. just don't face the monitor to the door.

    If you're working on something that really is sensitive, then it's worth it to arrange for physical security.
  • In this paper from the 2005 ACM UIST ( http://www.acm.org/uist/archive/index.html [acm.org]) conference a system is described that knew when more than one set of eyes were looking at a screen and then tinting the screen red to indicate a possible breech of security. Moreover this system was implemented on a mobile device, thus placing it in public situations where unauthorized eyes were likely to be a problem.

    PAPER

    "eyeLook:Âusing attention to facilitate mobile media consumption" http://portal.acm.org/citatio [acm.org]

  • Uh-oh (Score:3, Funny)

    by brusk (135896) on Tuesday July 07, 2009 @08:40PM (#28616713)
    Sunglasses will be considered a DMCA violation.
  • The web site doesn't clearly explain the difference between "Chameleon" versus "PrivateEye". I found the answers in this PDF:

    http://oculislabs.com/Oculis_Whitepaper_1.pdf [oculislabs.com]

    It sounds like PrivateEye is the $19.95 edition for consumers using a simple web cam. Whereas Chameleon is the "high end" version using a special "Gazetracker" hardware device that probably has a much better reaction time. There's no price listing for Chameleon, i.e. it's intended for someone spending taxpayer's money rather than their o

  • wefwefrweqrdfweofj3rqogfefpbvjfiwdugcevj e90348t73527&O^*)^T*TB*T*GD&*TD*BSGDIYDNR I*&BOXDT&*WTbkgfsdkfgksdfgksdgfksdfdsf5y9 t55t(&*^&*%HJGFYR%^#TJFTFYFB&^%E^$VFBUFB&*^%%(BITKN*O%^^*%V YDDHFU^&^4yrfasukdytweifnwdfidysddy78678^T&T&*TBTIT8DGWDCSDKCSHDohdsvsdksdivhks ksdghfisdisdb sdifyiuyi wefwefrweqrdfweofj3rqogfefpbvjfiwdugcevj e90348t73527&O^*)^T*TB*T*GD&*TD*BSGDIYDNR I*&BOXDT&*WTbkgfsdkfgksdfgksdgfksdfdsf5y9 t55t(&*^&*%HJGFYR%^#TJFTFYFB

  • And now it's not a joke.

  • I can see the advertizing world jumping onboard this one, proposing new ad revenue models where an ad pays the website (or network) as long as the viewers are actually looking at the ad, rather than the page just being up or the channel turned on. Big corporations are probably starting to be fed up paying huge chunks of cash just so people without DVRs can get bathroom breaks without missing a single second of Lost or Monday Night Football.

"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight, The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine, But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy." -- Ernie Banks

Working...