Fuji makes you sign bizarre EULA to buy a camera

Discuss

129 Responses to “Fuji makes you sign bizarre EULA to buy a camera”

  1. Skep says:

    BTW, I was ready to chastise JAKE0748 for suggesting you are a troll. The troll accusation is a bit like Goodwin’s law. However, I think that closing a post with “(idot.)”–for the sole reason that you disagree on the definition of “normal”–combined with your additional liberal use of ad hominem attacks in this thread, definitely elevates you to an increasingly clear qualification for trollhood.

  2. Skep says:

    “125 POSTED BY SPROING3 , APRIL 2, 2008 10:52 PM
    Hounskull @123 – IR, as you might know, will “see through” to the same extent as visible light. The main difference that the body glows with heat, and this shine out through shear fabrics. So you might be able to pick up the body glow. But the body glow is nothing like reflected light – it is more amorphous (less morphous?).”

    Close. Near IR is just a little past the visible spectrum and is very similar in a lot of ways. It is similar to putting a dark red filter over your camera and taking B&W photos–only more so. You do not see the heat glow of bodies in near IR and you can’t take images in total darkness without an IR source (bodies don’t show up as glowing as they do in thermal IR like you see when watching a FLIR camera shot from a police helicopter. This camera requires “light” to take pictures, but it may not be visible “light.”

  3. sproing3 says:

    Oh, and Mr. H – I’m not surprised that you picked up on the fact me pointing out that you pointing out my character flaws makes you stupid is an ad hominem.

    I am surprised that you thought it enlightening to explain to me the inconsistency that was involved in creating my witticism. Kinda makes you seem a little slowish.

  4. Skep says:

    “#128 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 10:58 PM
    #125 sproing3

    You don’t know what you’re talking about and are an idiot. I’ve already told you that as have others.”

    Sproing3 is at least willing to try to learn, unlike you, who’s main talent seems to be the rapidity with which you can type the word “idiot.”.

  5. Takuan says:

    Dear Sproing

    Why do EULA’s like this one exist? What social/political/legal climate creates the need for them? What is Fuji seeking protection from? I hope that is responsive.

  6. sproing3 says:

    “This camera requires “light” to take pictures, but it may not be visible “light.”

    Ok, so it acts like a fancy filter. It sees “through” clothes exactly to the extent that the clothes are transparent to visible light.

    Bathing suits are close to opaque to near IR then, are most fabrics. Only very sheer womens dresses would be an issue, and then only in the best lighting conditions.

  7. Skep says:

    “Ok, so it acts like a fancy filter. It sees “through” clothes exactly to the extent that the clothes are transparent to visible light.”

    Very close. Near IR is not actually visble, its litterally a shade past red, light that you can’t see. But you have the general idea.

    Most clothes do not show anything by using an IR camera–which is what I meant by normal. Many consumer cameras have a special “night” mode and built in IR LED “light” source. They can take pictures with light you can’t see. You can play with this feature and you’ll discover that it does not magically make clothes see-through. (BTW, surely the ability to see in total darkness has more privacy implications than the occasionally IR translucent swimsuit, yet no EULA is required to by the numerous consumer cameras that come with that feature, or the many, many in-expensive concealable security cameras with that feature–but I’m sure Mr. Super Genius (Helmet Head) has an explanation of why we are all “idiots” for thinking so.)

  8. Cowicide says:

    I feel left out, Hounskull hasn’t called me an idiot yet. Or, maybe he implied it earlier somehow and I fricken’ missed it? rats….

  9. Takuan says:

    ITT fined $100 million for illegal tech exports

    George Leopold
    EE Times
    (03/27/2007 5:10 PM EDT)

    WASHINGTON — ITT Corp. has confessed to exporting military night vision technology to China and other countries without an export license and has agreed to pay fines totaling $100 million, the Justice Department said Tuesday (March 27).

    ITT, the leading producer of night vision equipment for the U.S. military, agreed to plead guilty to separate counts of exporting military equipment without an export license and omitting information from arms export control reports. The government said the plea agreement is the first conviction of a major U.S. military contractor under the Arms Export Control Act.

  10. guan says:

    “They are saying that you can’t even sell this camera, ever, because the license to use the firmware is not transferable.”

    Skep, IANAL, but is it clear that a second-hand buyer of the camera needs a license to use the firmware? Obviously the first buyer has agreed to the license. But the second-hand buyer does not make any copies of the firmware, and he should not need a license just to use it.

  11. kenmce says:

    Despite all the fuss, this thing appears to have no UV capability.

  12. Skep says:

    #133 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 11:16 PM
    Skep, “idiot” goes for you too.

    Now you are just repeating yourself. Reminds me of Anime. “Baka! Baka! Baka!”

    Now if I was truly predictable you would have predicted my dissection of your arguments and, in anticipation, also included the counter arguments. Strangely, in spite of your psychic powers of prediction, you did not.

    Your logic as run out, but your bluster has remained. Sort of like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It seems Dr. Jekyll has lost the battle, leaving only Mr. Hyde here to call people idiots.

    As much as I enjoy a proper rational dustup, there is not much point to arguing with someone who’s main counter argument is “idiot.” And it is not that you are mean–though you are–it is that your **arguments** are ad hominems rather than rational discourse. You started out with arrogant but fact-inspired arguments but soon dispensed with the need to support your arguments when you could, instead, simply call people “idiot.”

    If you are going troll with ad hominems rather than rational discourse you could at least attempt some panache and be entertaining rather than just dull boor.

  13. sproing3 says:

    Equivocate?

    It’s so cute when you try to use grownup words!

  14. Takuan says:

    whatever, anyone putting to it evil use will anyway, the most that will happen is some money will be wasted and perhaps some total innocents will be fined or jailed or killed depending if they are enemy combatant-coloured

  15. Skep says:

    #136 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 But don’t worry. Your skull seems to be highly opaque and like a “fancy filter” prevents any illumination from dawning upon you.

    Remarkably, that was apparently stated “irony-free,” in spite of the fact that HOUNSKULL’s handle is named after a type of medieval helm with a full-face visor with tiny eye slits–all the better to call down from one’s high horse with epithets while ignoring any need for rational argument.

  16. jenjen says:

    When this one and the S3 Pro UVIR came out you couldn’t even buy them through consumer camera outlets, only via law enforcement suppliers.

    BTW, I got a point & shoot digital camera converted to IR and you can definitely not see through clothes with it. I think these purpose-built ones have quite a bit more sensitivity. (My IR-converted camera does make people look oddly bloated and waxy, so I can see why celebrities might object)

  17. Skep says:

    “Anyways, please resume ignorant but highly passionate debate.”

    Not really possible with out you. Kind of need the main protagonist to continue.

  18. sproing3 says:

    Well, back on track – this EULA smells to me very much like Aircraft Securith Theater. A distraction, meant to aclimatize people to a climate of Big Brother.

    And I back this up by the actions of the major inkjet printer companies, telcom companies, oil companies, etc, etc. Big government is playing a part in the growing fascism. If that seems like an insanely strange proposition – it is. And the insanely strange evidence is discussed daily on Boingboing.

  19. hoffmanbike says:

    what camera is this EULA for?

  20. sproing3 says:

    Sorry – that should read; Big business is playing a part in the growing fascism.

  21. Cowicide says:

    Whut Phuji Phears (NSFW, but you’ll click it anyway)

  22. kenmce says:

    >ITT fined $100 million for illegal tech exports

    I don’t see the part where they compare the size of the fine to the amount ITT brought in in sales, or how big that fine is relative to their yearly earnings.

  23. Takuan says:

    Dear Cowicide: That is so irretrievably jejune and pathetically immature that I find it hysterically funny (note the triple entendre), you should be ashamed of us.

  24. crenelle says:

    This is absolutely marvelous! A step in the right direction!

    I wrote in my blog last week that I think license agreements must be clearly disclosed before or at the time of purchase, not when you open the box well after purch…er, license.

    Yes, I think the EULA is terrible. Particularly that one. I nevertheless *commend* Fujifilm for not just making it very clear that it exists, but also for allowing the customer to opt out of buying the product before customer actually buys the product (!) because they are presented with the license agreement for the product before purchase!

    Now, imagine what happens in a few months when more and more products require customers to sign license agreements before or at purchase: the big box stores and the web stores all display the EULAS where customer inspects product, so reading the EULA won’t slow point of sale throughput.

    Dozens and dozens of EULAS for software and hardware products appear all over the stores, cluttering up displays and obscuring merchandise.

    So the next step of course will be for the big box stores figure out how to move the EULAs to a kiosk in a distant corner of the store, and have customers always sign during purchase. Customers will be confronted with a concurrent credit card and EULA signature and they’ll have a right to see the EULA. The store will say that you sign for your purchase, insisting that you had your chance to see the license agreement.

    At that point, local, state and federal government will need to insist by law that licenses need to be displayed near merchandise before purchase for it to be legally binding, just forcing someone to sign for it at the POS will not suffice. Big box stores will make it their mission to hide those EULAs as best they can.

    And then there will be the wonderful folks who will display the EULA on screen at POS. Go ahead, TRY to read the whole darn thing! For each product you purchase! I know few people who will ignore peer pressure strong enough to not just read it, but attempt to understand what it says.

    Ah, progress.

  25. Skep says:

    #29 POSTED BY GUAN , APRIL 2, 2008 3:10 PM
    Skep, IANAL, but is it clear that a second-hand buyer of the camera needs a license to use the firmware? Obviously the first buyer has agreed to the license. But the second-hand buyer does not make any copies of the firmware, and he should not need a license just to use it.

    IANAL, either, however I believe you are right that the contract obligations of the initial purchaser are not binding on the second hand owner, thus the second owner has no obligation to use the camera for Fuji-authorized business or government use. But, just as the obligations of the contract do not transfer, neither do the benefits, i.e., a license to use the firmware.

    The issue of the transferability of licensing for the firmware is not so clear from a legal stand point and is, unfortunately, not as cut and dried as one would hope. One can argue that copyright law and the doctrine of first sale applies, however, the there are exceptions to the doctrine of first sale for computer software and they may or may not apply to the firmware. I’d say not, but that is my opinion and I don’t think it is settled law.

  26. Skep says:

    “#34 POSTED BY COWICIDE , APRIL 2, 2008 3:25 PM
    Whut Phuji Phears (NSFW, but you’ll click it anyway)”

    Indeed I did. I think the photos displayed there, being for commercial purposes, are not typical of IR and the swim suits chosen were most likely chosen to give dramatic results. In fact, I think at least one of them is one of those super thin “Tan through your swimsuit” suits.

  27. Takuan says:

    @17

    I know this isn’t the time or place, but: Have you EVER been paid?

  28. manicbassman says:

    do you actually have to agree to the EULA before you can walk out of the shop with it???

  29. djam says:

    what’s to stop people from filling in fake information? and if they’re so worried about who they sell it to, why put it in mainstreet shops? just sell them to the CIA!

  30. hassan-i-sabbah says:

    Houndskull.-what seems to be your problem?Please, enough. we are all in you debt.you are very clever and have enlightened us on numerous topics.Your thoughts are like gold to us mere “idiots”.Truly pearls before swine.
    Although this wisdom does not make you happy.You are angry at those who are less “Houndskully” than yourself.This I can understand.Tell us how to be better .Share.

  31. sproing3 says:

    I think those that suspect Fuji is trying to cover it’s ass are missing the bigger picture. Big Corporations are in bed with Big Government, and Big Government likes to be able to track pictures back to the individual. The cameras are likely to embed codes into individual pictures.

    Plus, it is social conditioning. A trend, another little baby step, another increment of heat in the pot for us toads. The impetus for this can’t be about liability.

    Don’t blame Fuji for overprotecting their but – blame whoever Fuji is sucking off in the corporate-government orgy.

  32. pinup57 says:

    Hi, I didn’t read all comments, but I’m must say I’m puzzled by what I read until now: are you all so obsessed with “see-through-swimming-suits” issues that you don’t see that there’s much more to it, especially security issues? I mean, here you have a 500$ IR camera with a 300mm lens and superior optics looking like an ordinary SLR! A burglars dream!!!

  33. Takuan says:

    what’s to stop people from filling in fake information?

    why, why,that would be WRONG!

  34. Antinous says:

    what’s to stop people from filling in fake information?

    Fraud? Did you just conspire to commit fraud? Accessory before the fact?

    Seriously, when I bought the wrong razor blades and took them back to the supermarket for an exchange, they wanted my name, address, phone number and license number. They got Bruce Wayne’s info instead.

  35. purefog says:

    Um — this is a bit off-topic, perhaps, but who shops at B & H Photo, anyway? Full MSRP on all their inventory! Bleeah!

  36. Village Idiot says:

    This is part of a trend where you are more than encouraged to pay full retail for a consumer item, but you don’t actually ever own it. Or you only own part of it, but if you pay extra they’ll unlock the Platinum features or some such BS.

    Applied to cars, the EULA would be “Who will you be driving around with? What will you put in the trunk? Where else besides between work and your residence will you be driving it? Would you ever take it to Mexico? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Now please sign here to promise you’ll be a good citizen and never open the hood, remove or replace any parts by yourself, obey all speed limits and traffic laws and not allow this car to become a bigger threat to the National Security of The Unraveling States of America than the Government itself.”

    If I can’t sell it or take it apart or basically do whatever the hell I want with it, then what exactly did I pay for? I know people have crafted all sorts of clever arguments to justify this kind of thing, but Big Brother is as Big Brother does. It’s hard to whip up a big consumer backlash against intrusive stupidity when all manufacturers are forced to do it by law (if in fact they are or will be), so the question is: Who then to smite?

  37. Antinous says:

    Spam reported.

  38. Takuan says:

    thanks Antinous. One day, I hope to gouge a spammers’s eyes out with my thumbs.

  39. icky2000 says:

    @45: 1) it’s a very cool store – those baskets on the overhead rail and all that is neat, 2) they know cameras and sometimes you just really do want some real customer support, 3) fun to look at the pro gear they have there (at least for an amateur like me). That having been said, twice I’ve looked at things there and then bought them online cheaper.

  40. Thinkerer says:

    The EULA hardly matters since they won’t sell it to you on the web anyway:

    “This item cannot be sold on the web. Please call 800.606.6969.”

    I’m not flying to NYC to fill out a form like that, much less talking to one of their schmucks.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If you check out this thing on Fuji’s site, apparently it’ll find your face in a photograph in the dark and read a magnetic stripe on the fly to boot — big brother in a box.

    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductIS-Pro.jsp

  41. Mitch says:

    The $500 price of this camera would buy
    me a lot of naked pictures of people who are
    good at posing for naked pictures.

    I’d still like an ir and uv sensitive camera
    to photograph things like nocturnal wildlife
    and flowers.

    I don’t mind this EULA so much if it’s token
    and not sincerely enforced.

  42. Village Idiot says:

    Humans are so weird, designing neat stuff like this camera but then not selling it to the public for some reason (the real one) but justifying the action with BS fears of exposing someone’s nipples at the beach or that some perv might create underage and vague vagina-esque or proto-penis imagery as seen by otherwise invisible wavelengths of light. So what? Actually, the EULA never talks about kids or swimsuits, but some here are arguing that point for them anyway because at heart we all know how silly humans still are about stuff like this.

    Where I live, I can buy a 12 gauge shotgun much more easily than this camera (cheaper, too!) but no one makes me sign a promise to not to do bad things with it first, since if I did it wouldn’t matter what I thought, or knew, or signed; I’m still gonna be in big trouble.

    Kiddie porn filmed in any wavelength of light is illegal. Shooting them with any gauge of shotgun is also illegal.

    This issue is most likely not about protecting kids or penetrating the opacity of swimsuits.

  43. Moon says:

    Fuji is concerned that you may see some blurry tits, I guess. OMGWTFBBQ!

    Thank you, Fuji, for your concern!

  44. sproing3 says:

    Since when can a camera seller be liable for the pictures that the cameras take? What does IR or UV have to do with it? A telephoto lens and an open window will expose a lot more.

    And IR is nothing like x-ray, and it doesn’t see beneath clothes. You get a heat signature. Any IR picture I’ve seen hardly “seeing through clothes”. Globy and low def.

  45. Antinous says:

    Yeah, but Hounskull,

    The EULA might prevent somebody from discovering hidden white supremacist images.

    Oh, I’m going to hell. I’m so going to hell.

  46. sproing3 says:

    Printer companies now embed images into all printed pages. The government wants documents traceable back to the owner. I can’t see any liability issue here, therefore…

  47. Takuan says:

    I use IR cameras to record the DHS and CIA agents hiding in my hedges

  48. techdeviant says:

    #31 Takuan

    perhaps some total innocents will be fined or jailed or killed depending if they are enemy combatant-coloured

    I lol’ed and then I was sad because its sorta true :(

  49. Antinous says:

    Your refrigerator box has hedges? Don’t be so fancy.

  50. sproing3 says:

    Sony was sued. Did they lose the lawsuit? What is the precedent now?

    The pressure on Fuji did not come from internal lawyers protecting from civil lawsuits. Because there simply not enough legal threat to justify the decrease in sales that the EULA will cause. There is no legal threat at all.

    You have to consider the context of this new type of EULA. Microsoft installed backdoors into Windows for the feds. Printers leave hidden traceable identifying marks on documents. The phone companies comply with warrantless wiretapping. The government knows the location of all cell phones at all times. The banks make it difficult to use money anonymously. At every turn, anonymity is more difficult – this is obviously very much a part of that context. Even the airport security theater is part of the context of this issue. This is no lawyers liability issue. Because there is no liability threat.

    The pressures that led Fuji to make this decision were not internal.

  51. Skep says:

    #52 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 5:19 PM
    Come on people. Think. Use the brain.

    This particular EULA, despite being a minute of hassle, isn’t anything to get alarmed about. It doesn’t actually constrict user’s rights in any way that wasn’t already illegal. It’s not even enforcable. It’s just FUJI covering thier ass in case of a lawsuit.

    By people reacting hysterically to this EULA it muddies the waters with other EULA issues where usage rights are actually being unreasonably burdened.

    Nothing to see here, sheeple, sign the ELUA and move along.

    A minute hassle? You can’t even buy the camera online because of it. That’s no minute hassle. You can buy a frick’n thermal camera on line but a stupid near IR camera requires a sworn oath? Yes, its a big deal. They even go so far as to dictate what **kind of person** is allowed to use the camera (only government or business professionals), what kind of photos you can take (no hobby photos) and whether you can sell it ( firmware license is not transferable). That’s a big deal.

    If its not a big deal then Fuji would take the “not a big deal” ELUUA and **not ask you to sign it**, ergo it is a big deal.

    Not enforceable? This ain’t no shrinkwrap or click wrap license, this is a signed before you get to buy it enforceable contract–with the exact degree of enforceability decidable in a court of law.

    And to the why is this such a big deal when the camera has been out for a year crowd, what a stupid argument. How about, “Hey honey. I just noticed a clause in the contract with the car dealer that says we aren’t allowed to drive the car for anything but business, I’m the only person allowed to drive it and we can’t ever sell it. Oh, never mind. That contract is a year old…” Just because we just found out about it doesn’t mean it isn’t a big deal. It is.

  52. OM says:

    …Just on a lark, I called five of the major camera shops here in CenTex. Every one of them had the same exact two things to say:

    1) Fuji had told them the same load of crap.

    2) They told Fuji that such EULAs don’t apply in the State of Texas, and if they wanted them to hawk their cameras, they’d cram their EULA.

    …So far, all five shops have been selling Fuji cameras with no problems.

  53. Takuan says:

    Men with ‘highly sensitive’ cameras arrested at airport

    * Story Highlights
    * Ten of the cameras were found in the men’s checked luggage, officials say
    * The thermal imaging cameras have potential military use
    * The men had been in the United States for about a week, officials say
    * They were arrested for trying to take the cameras without the proper export licenses

    LOS ANGELES, California (AP) — Two men attempting to board a plane to China with nearly a dozen sensitive infrared cameras in their luggage were arrested on Saturday, a federal official said.
    art.lax.gi.jpg

    The men were preparing to board a flight to Beijing at the Los Angeles International Airport.

    Federal agents stopped the pair on the jetway as they were preparing to board the flight to Beijing.

    The men had been in the United States for about a week, said Rick Weir, assistant special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office of the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Yong Guo Zhi, a Chinese national, and Tah Wei Chao, a naturalized U.S. citizen, were arrested for investigation of trying to take thermal imaging cameras with potential military use to China without the proper export licenses, Weir said.

    Julie Salcido, a supervising agent with the Bureau of Industry and Security, said one of the men purchased the cameras, assuring the seller repeatedly that they were only for domestic use.

    “He repeatedly said he wouldn’t export,” she said.

    Ten of the cameras, which measure about 2 inches square and cost about $5,000 each, were found in the men’s checked luggage, Weir said.

  54. Orky says:

    Can’t a retailer (a legitimate business no less, with a legitimate business purpose for these cameras) fill out tons of those EULAs, and then transfer the cameras to its customers, and notify Fuji about it?

    Seriously, this seems a crazy way to be customer-unfriendly.

    Maybe the cameras produce photos with an embedded serial number in them, so any photos made by them are traceable to the camera’s owner?

  55. Antinous says:

    Sorry Hounskull, but when you spend so much time tattooing a bullseye on your own forehead…

  56. Takuan says:

    well, painted hedges

  57. Takuan says:

    OK, crayoned hedges

  58. Takuan says:

    I always found Holden Caulfield really, really annoying.

  59. Antinous says:

    crayoned hedges

    Why use a drawing implement that you can’t sniff?

  60. cycle23 says:

    Good to see the moderation here keeping people from abusing others in what really could easily be a simple discourse on cameras, EULAs, increasing technology, and the scrambling of people to attempt desperately to cover their own asses. I agree with Hounskull this isn’t really a big deal in itself or a reason to hate Fuji passionately.

    Perhaps if you find the same camera without the EULA, buy it from the other party. I stopped going to one dentist when they requested I sign an arbitration agreement and instead went with another dentist. Not that I never sign those agreements, just that I had seen this dentist for 3 years with no agreement and then it was sprung upon me. 3 months after I changed dentists, that office closed down.

  61. sproing3 says:

    Goofy analogy?

    Hows about I take a photo of a political protest demonstration being roughly put down by cops and undercover army personel, and upload it to a popular blog.

    Hows about there is some identifying marker in the photo.

    Hows about I get a little re-educational visit the next day?

    Registering cameras is not a big deal?! Wtf!

  62. Takuan says:

    lead

  63. Antinous says:

    I’ve purchased several Dell computers for tech-challenged friends or volunteer groups. I do it by phone because you can scrounge up more rebates with a live person on the line. The phone calls to Dell always involve me answering a lot of questions about who’s going to be using the computer and for what. They were frank about it being an anti-terrorist measure.

  64. Antinous says:

    A souvenir of your last PRC visit, no doubt. That’s their major export, ne?

  65. TootsNYC says:

    (2) End User will make its best efforts to safeguard the camera from being used by others,

    You mean, I can’t loan it to my sister?

  66. Jeff says:

    Oh, just tell them it’s for personal terrorist activity and be done with it!

  67. Falcon_Seven says:

    Check out the EULA on the page for the camera:

    http://tinyurl.com/2b8mm3

    scroll to the bottom to read.

    Obviously this is NOT your average brownie box camera.

  68. jdunphy says:

    You can open almost any digital camera and remove the IR filter to get IR sensitivity in the 800-900 nm range.

    Now I’m probably on some FBI watch list!

  69. morcheeba says:

    This is an infrared-capable camera: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/PRNewsDetail.jsp?DBID=NEWS_862613

    I think Fuji is trying to avoid the fiasco that Sony got in to where their Nightshot camcorders were associated with see-through-clothes pictures. But, it’s pointless to try and regulate your customers “bad” use of this camera, especially when most people would rather make beautiful IR photos: http://images.google.com/images?q=ir+photography

    I wonder if they have the same EULA for privacy-invading super-telephoto lens?

  70. sproing3 says:

    It isn’t hysteria to point out that digital cameras are prone to watermarkings, and that big corporations already have a track record of using such markings.

    Cameras that may leave identifyable watermarkings should not be registered, if you want democracy.

    I’m sure you are already educated at how government officials infiltrate and try to subvert political gatherings that are deemed anti status quo. There is a huge history of that, and of course not only in the U.S. In some countries the governments are much less covert.

    You say I’m making a hysterical big deal, as if this is something to do with my emotion and judgment being askew.

    Sometimes when my girlfriend is asleep, I’ll nudge her. If it’s a fire, and she is just too sleepy, maybe I’ll yell. Not everything is just a small deal.

  71. Antinous says:

    Sproing,

    I’m with you.

    But if you want to feed something, get a goldfish.

  72. Nick D says:

    Looks to me as if they are trying to cover themselves in the event of a lawsuit, insurance claim, or criminal prosecution.

    Craven behavior like this is the reason that lawyers and insurance agents are the real decisionmakers in our society. Not to mention fear-mongering security freaks.

  73. cbarreto says:

    Infra-red/Ultra-violet…

    They assume that you can sell that to a terrorist :)

    Sometimes I ask myself… “is people eating shit to be soooo stupid????”

  74. doggo says:

    God. Dammit. I hate when people use the word “sheeple”.

  75. styrofoam says:

    The full EULA gives a bit more detail on “Business use”. I’m guessing that selling IR/UV cameras falls under different legislation in certain locales, and thus the “only for business purposes.” Their primary markets for these cameras is Legal and scientific use.

    This is protecting them from future claims of pervo photography at the mall, I’m guessing.

    ===
    By breaking the packaging seal you acknowledge your understanding and acceptance of Fujifilm’s Ultraviolet (UV) and/or Infrared (IR) sensitive digital camera firmware End User License Agreement. The camera firmware contained in each system package is fully activated to engage the camera’s UV and/or IR capabilities and ready for use. No other firmware modifications are necessary in order to activate the camera’s UV and/or IR wavelength sensitive CCD. THIS LICENSE IS NON-TRANSFERABLE.

    You hereby acknowledge and agree that your use of the camera’s UV and/or IR light energy sensitive capabilities, as enabled by Fujifilm’s camera firmware, will be purely to accomplish a legitimate business purpose in the medical, forensic, fire investigative, law enforcement, scientific, systems integrators, museum/antiquity, aerial photographic survey, astronomy, professional nature and fine art photography, photographic education and local and federal government markets.

  76. Takuan says:

    yeah, but it’s a valid term when used properly

  77. Dead Air says:

    I see what they’re scared of, but I don’t see why the whole agreement couldn’t read:

    User accepts all liability for use of this camera after purchase and company will not be held responsible for any ethical or illegal misuse.

    As it is, they’re setting themselves up to have to be the police should anyone violate some small portion of their asinine agreement.

  78. Skep says:

    OT
    @Doggo,

    How about the word “Shero?” as in when Maya Angelou says “Heros and Sheros” apparently because there’s not enough “she” in “he-ros.” Gotta say “shero” bugs me.

  79. Moon says:

    Not to be used for “Papparazzi-like activities”??

    So, if Cameron Diaz is in town, you can’t photograph her with this camera? WTF?

    There’s no way this holds up in a court of law.

  80. rorschah says:

    This seems like legalesed-up version of the usual ass-covering – in the same spirit as a head shop with a big sign over the bongs that says “For use with tobacco products only”.

  81. Takuan says:

    “One example where CoComm has failed in its mission to control the export of critical technology came to light in the mass media in 1987. It was discovered that certain corporations were selling computer controlled milling equipment to the Soviet Union for the grinding of high tolerance parts. Toshiba Corporation of Japan and Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk of Norway sold computer controlled, multi-axis milling machines to the Soviet Union since the mid-1970′s. [46] These machines were used to grind high tolerance propellers that could help make a submarine very quiet underwater. [47] Almost overnight the Soviet nuclear submarine fleet went from being noisy and easily trackable by U.S. hunter-killer submarines to quiet and nearly undetectable. [4″

  82. bwcbwc says:

    Interesting, the license says it’s for UV/IR capabilities enabled in the firmware. That sounds like it’s possible to hack the firmware of one of their regular cameras to provide the same capability. Or do they have a EULA for their regular cameras that prohibits modifications? Is reverse-engineering a legitimate business use? :)

  83. groovehouse says:

    I love EULA Mad Libs!

  84. The Unusual Suspect says:

    The final paragraph in the EULA linked to above by Falcon_Seven reads:

    “In addition, you further agree not to use the camera’s hardware and firmware enabled capabilities to engage in unethical photographic conduct involving the violation of personal privacy, child endangerment, lewd photography, and or paparazzi like activities.”

    Of the four activities Fuji forbids, the first two don’t require any camera, and the second two are not illegal.

  85. Takuan says:

    anyone who cares can continue mining for hacks, the web is big.

    Hounskull: Are you aware that you come across as a deliberately ill-mannered and arrogant person?

    Please answer the question.

  86. Jake0748 says:

    Also would like the answer to the question – “Hounskull: Are you aware that you come across as a deliberately ill-mannered and arrogant person?”

    Just want to know if you are a troll or pain in the ass who doesn’t ever want to admit that someone else might be right… even on the smallest point.

  87. Takuan says:

    very well, as you wish it.

  88. Jake0748 says:

    @96 – “I come across as someone who responds to lame posts with derision.”

    Since when is derision a way to conduct a civil discussion?

  89. Takuan says:

    For those who wish to experiment with IR photography using the equipment they likely already have at hand.I have found the Instructables website full of useful projects and tips. I haven’t myself looked in to UV photography, but I’ll bet they cover that as well. No need to spend a lot of money you might not have.

  90. danegeld says:

    This is a case of cover-your-behind, so if one of these things turns up in the hands of a “terrrist group or nation” then Fuji have someone identified as the fall-guy who did the re-exporting, separate from them.

    I think it’s a federal crime with five years in jail if you sell something that gets re-exported to a “terrist” blacklisted group or nation. Gotta love GW.

  91. springbreakisover says:

    Obviously this camera uses the same technology as Rowdy Roddy Piper’s glasses in They Live.

  92. Skep says:

    This is ridiculous. Most digital cameras are IR sensitive. You can even pay 3D parties to remove the IR filter so you can use your DSLR for IR photography.

    Fujifilm UVIR Digital Camera USA End User License Agreement:

    By breaking the packaging seal you acknowledge your understanding and acceptance of Fujifilm’s Ultraviolet (UV) and/or Infrared (IR) sensitive digital camera firmware End User License Agreement. The camera firmware contained in each system package is fully activated to engage the camera’s UV and/or IR capabilities and ready for use. No other firmware modifications are necessary in order to activate the camera’s UV and/or IR wavelength sensitive CCD. THIS LICENSE IS NON-TRANSFERABLE.

    You hereby acknowledge and agree that your use of the camera’s UV and/or IR light energy sensitive capabilities, as enabled by Fujifilm’s camera firmware, will be purely to accomplish a legitimate business purpose in the medical, forensic, fire investigative, law enforcement, scientific, systems integrators, museum/antiquity, aerial photographic survey, astronomy, professional nature and fine art photography, photographic education and local and federal government markets.

    In addition, you further agree not to use the camera’s hardware and firmware enabled capabilities to engage in unethical photographic conduct involving the violation of personal privacy, child endangerment, lewd photography, and or paparazzi like activities.

    They are saying that you can’t even sell this camera, ever, because the license to use the firmware is not transferable. Further, hobbyists may not use the camera because it is only licensed for **business** use.

    EULA’s suck. And this one sucks more than most. But, on the plus side of bad, at least it isn’t hidden in the box.

  93. Cowicide says:

    #38 posted by Skep , April 2, 2008 3:56 PM:

    “#34 Whut Phuji Phears (NSFW, but you’ll click it anyway)”

    Indeed I did. I think the photos displayed there, being for commercial purposes, are not typical of IR and the swim suits chosen were most likely chosen to give dramatic results. In fact, I think at least one of them is one of those super thin “Tan through your swimsuit” suits.

    CONSPIRACY !!!

    I never should have trusted this guy.

  94. sproing3 says:

    I’ve been known to call someone an idiot, if they outright refuse the Greater Logic of His Saucy Goodness. But barring pointing out an inability to be use reason, personal attacks make you look stupid. And they make you smell.

  95. zuvembi says:

    Yup, I’m going to agree with commenter (#7). This is probably about the capability to basically *see-through* certain light clothing because of the near-IR and IR capabilities of the camera. i.e., taking nekkid pictures of unsuspecting beach-goers.

  96. Jake0748 says:

    I’m giving up. Hounskull, you are no fun. Derision is not a civil response, no matter who you are responding to. (Especially when the person you are responding to is wise, learned and a ball of fun). There is no good response to someone who is “always right” and no fun at all. So, I’ll go on to better things right now and maybe we can tangle again some other day.

    Ciao.

  97. Takuan says:

    be patient Jake, he is not ready to talk

  98. Takuan says:

    but Cowie? you don’t trust Hunter S. Thompson?

  99. hedztalez says:

    But what’s the worst that could happen to you if you buy it as a hobbyist? No Fuji death squads descending on your house? I’m getting one then.

  100. sproing3 says:

    Hey – I think you’re switching on a lightbulb. Interesting communication style, by the way. Say just enough, but not all, so that when I make the connection it will seem like my idea.

    Seems you are saying that this is near military equipment that could be used domestically in a civil war or other civil disturbance. Seems one reason to control the technology is that it has military value.

    If so, that motivation would go alongside with one to register digital imaging devices. It is of civil disobedience control interest to track down photographers of the wrong sorts of pictures.

  101. sproing3 says:

    Hey – I think you’re switching on a lightbulb. Interesting communication style, by the way. Say just enough, but not all, so that when I make the connection it will seem like my idea.

    Seems you are saying that this is near military equipment that could be used domestically in a civil war or other civil disturbance. Seems one reason to control the technology is that it has military value.

    If so, that motivation would go alongside with one to register digital imaging devices. It is of civil disobedience control interest to track down photographers of the wrong sorts of pictures.

  102. Pres says:

    Makes me wonder whether the camera embeds a unique id in the digital images, so that subjects of see-through-clothes pictures can find out who they have to sue…

  103. Antinous says:

    Say just enough, but not all

    If only we could get more people to adopt this communication style! Sometimes I wonder if commenters are getting paid by the word.

  104. Nick D says:

    @ #20:

    The problem is that EULA’s like this are part of a cascading structure of instruments that puts in place precedents, legal frameworks, and insurance policy clauses that basically make the end user the scapegoat and the repository for the downhill flow of crap.

    God, I hate insurance companies. Even more than I do ambulance chasing lawyers and opportunistic politicians.

  105. Skep says:

    “But what’s the worst that could happen to you if you buy it as a hobbyist? No Fuji death squads descending on your house? I’m getting one then.”

    Maybe not, but you could get an **AA-style copyright infringement lawsuit for using their copyrighted firmware without a license.

  106. Skep says:

    HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 7:49 PM
    #92 Takuan

    “Hounskull: Are you aware that you come across as a deliberately ill-mannered and arrogant person?”

    No, I come across as someone who responds to lame posts with derision. way.

    You seem to mistake the mistake of thinking they are mutually exclusive. They are not. So much for you always being right.

  107. Stefan Jones says:

    I’d like to take a picture of Dick Cheney with one of these, to see what hideous alien creature manipulates his bloated human shell.

  108. Skep says:

    Pervs can photograph kids, stalk people, do some really illegal and uncool things. The sort of things people tend to have alarmist and visceral responses to, that make the evening news, and prompt law suits.

    Yes, apparently you need to buy any of Fuji’s other products if you want to take pervy photos. The lack of an ELUA for those cameras implies it’s ok to use them, especially since neither IR or UV are necessary to taking Perry photos and because all cameras are capable of invading privacy. Fuji should have considered that when implementing the ELUA.

    And unlike a telephoto lens, which still requires someone to voluntarily make themselves visible, it’s hard to prevent against this unless a person wears a lead coat all the time. (another distinction goof balls seem incapable of understanding.)

    Yes, because anyone who disagrees wit hyour god-like reasoning ability must be a “goof ball.” In fact, telephoto lenses allow photographers to take photos of people who reasonably believe they are in private–contradicting your false statement that such people are “voluntarily mak[ing] themselves visible.” That is why using extraordinary means to take photos (including telephoto lenses) is an invasion of privacy.

    This EULA is perfectly understandable, and basically just an unenforceable CYA maneuver. As someone said, equivalent to a head shop posting a disclaimer over the door.

    Understandable != reasonable. If it’s truly unenforceable then there is no reason to ask for it in the first place (if Fuji knows it to be unenforceable then it isn’t a meaningful measure and it won’t give them legal cover.) Second, it is enforceable. It is an explicit contract required as part of the purchase. Name the “un-enforceable” part of the contract.

    The people alarmed over this (OMG!! AN EULA!!!) are the sort of people who are always in hysterics about something. They’re unhelpful and frankly, rather stupid.

    That isn’t an argument, it is merely a general ad hominem.

  109. Moon says:

    You may have hit on the reason, STEFAN JONES!

    HA!

  110. Skep says:

    Take a look at this
    #110 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 8:53 PM
    Ok, troll kiddies. I’m big bad meanie for commenting on your nonsense. Happy now?

    It’s not a mea culpa if you are still calling their arguments nonsense just because you disagree with them.

    Mod parent -1

  111. Takuan says:

    hey, hey… do I come down and tell you how to make licence plates?

  112. sproing3 says:

    Infrared doesn’t pass through clothes any better than does visible light. You can’t “see through” clothes with it.

    The link to the joke porn site has nothing to do with IR.

    Infrared will show heat gradations. So if you are wearing a tight fitting shear garment, like a swimsuit, you could pick up on temperature differences on the outside of the fabric. You aren’t going to pick up on temperature diffences underneath the fabric.

    I would like to be educated as to the successful litigation for selling devices that could be used to compromise privacy. I’m aware that spy devices are sold openly, when they are not restricted to police and government use.

    And need I remind that regardless of if the cameras currently have digital signatures, future ones could. The weak and dangerous thing to have is a database of owners and future owners. If the seriousness of that possibility misses you, it probably always will.

  113. LostInTX says:

    This camera, complete with EULA, has been on sale for about a year now. Why is this all of a sudden an issue?

    If you were the manufacturer of something that, when used improperly, has the potential of ruining someone’s life (how would you like your boss/SO/etc) finding nude/semi-nude pictures of you?), wouldn’t you have purchasers sign some legal booty-covering paperwork?

    This seems like a non-issue to me. I’d find bigger things to protest about. I hear there’s a war somewhere in the Middle East, and our credibility with the rest of the world is disintegrating…

  114. Skep says:

    “#113 POSTED BY SPROING3 , APRIL 2, 2008 9:07 PM
    Infrared doesn’t pass through clothes any better than does visible light. You can’t “see through” clothes with it.

    The link to the joke porn site has nothing to do with IR.”

    Sorry, Sproing3, but there are different wavelengths of IR, including near and far IR. The “near” IR is near visible wavelegth. It is the kind of IR used in the photos of swim suits and in photos of plants that show the leaves as brilliant white–because the leaves reflect so much near IR. The kind of IR you are thinking of is far, or thermal, IR imaging.

    However, near IR isn’t really that effective at seeing through clothes. In a few cases, some thin fabrics are more transparent to near IR than to visible light, but the swim suit photos in the website are **worst case examples** especially chosen for the site and are not representative of clothing or swimsuits in general. Heck, many swim suits are more transparent when wet and any camera can see that difference.

    Many spy devices are sold openly, partially due to poor enforcement of existing wiretapping laws and because there many legal applications for gear that can also be used to invade privacy–legal hallway security cam/illegal bathroom cam, etc.

  115. Takuan says:

    and how is someone’s privacy violated if a grainy, black and white image of vague body parts that could belong to anyone is the issue?

    I would be more interested in, say, the use of FLIR cameras to uncover marijuana grow operations in private dwellings.

  116. sproing3 says:

    Skep, I’m pretty sure that the porn website doesn’t use an IR camera at all. Those are just regular light pictures of models in sheer clothing.

    As for near and far IR, I’m not quite getting your point, as regards to seeing though clothes. Neither can, correct? You see infrared of the clothing itself, the heat of the clothing – you don’t see through clothing.

    As for enforcement being the reason spy devices are openly sold, that may be – I’m not clear on the law. My question was more along the lines of what examples of successful lawsuits have their been. I’m trying to establish if there is a credible legal threat. Without any prior successful lawsuits, I am inclined to believe there are other motivations at work.

    It’s all about money and power. The EULA doesn’t seem designed to make more money – I’m pretty sure it would hamper sales. Does it credibly protect the money that it loses? If not…

  117. Registrado says:

    Fuji Retailer must complete the following questions before endorsing Customer’s check:

    (1.) How many goats have you sacrificed to any god(s) in the past month:
    a. 1 to 2
    b. 3 to 4
    c. 5 or more

    (2.) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?
    a. Yes
    b. No

    (3.) Are you a member of Al-Qaeda or the Republican Party?
    a. Yes
    b. No

    In addition, endorsing Customer’s check constitutes a legally binding agreement that Fuji Retailer will use its full value to purchase clown pornography in which at least three different clowns are represented.

  118. Takuan says:

    does the executive staff of a company that sells restricted technology to “terrorists” stand a chance of landing in jail for it? (oh yeah)

  119. Takuan says:

    Home from U.S. jail, B.C. businessman offers warning
    Last Updated: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 | 11:02 AM ET
    CBC News

    A Vancouver businessman is warning Canadian businesses to beware of working with countries the U.S. considers enemies, pointing to his time in a Texas jail as a cautionary tale.

    Farshid Rohani, also known as Seyed Abolghassem Rohani Eftekhari, spent more than a year behind bars after pleading guilty to a charge of conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Iranian Transaction Regulations, which forbid trade with Iran.

    The Iranian-born engineer maintains his innocence and says he agreed to the guilty plea in exchange for authorities dropping more serious charges on the advice of his lawyer — and out of fear he could face up to 55 years in prison.

    “I was very scared — 55 years. For what? For what? What did I do?” he said in an exclusive interview with CBC News, now back home in B.C.
    Tried to purchase high-tech equipment

    Rohani, a management executive at a Vancouver-based company called Sutcast Foundry Technologies, arrived in San Antonio, Texas, on Sept. 18, 2006, to buy a magnetostrictive sensor, a machine worth $72,000 that uses ultrasonic waves to look for cracks and other flaws in metal pipes.

    As he was signing documents for the purchase from the Southwest Research Institute, FBI agents swarmed the building.

    “As soon as I sign it, FBI from window and door. Five people came and arrested me. At first I couldn’t talk. What’s going on, what’s happened?” he recalled.

    According to the institute’s website, the equipment can be used to inspect large structures such as the steel liners in containment buildings of nuclear power plants.

    In a sworn affidavit, a U.S. Customs special agent cites e-mail correspondence to support allegations that Rohani planned to ship the equipment to an engineering company in Tehran.

    Rohani said the e-mail exchange was with business partners in Iran who had tried unsuccessfully tried to buy a similar piece of equipment.

    But he denies allegations he was going to act as a middleman. He says he already owned a similar device, purchased in Quebec, and was looking to use the new one for contracts to examine oil pipelines in Alberta and China.
    Accused of being a terrorist by cellmates

    When Rohani was arrested, he says, he was put behind bars alongside drug dealers and violent offenders with ties to the Mexican mafia who demanded protection money and called him a terrorist.

    His court-appointed lawyer convinced him to take the plea deal.

    “The trial is going to maybe take two or three years … and if you lose, lifetime in prison,” he said the lawyer told him.

    “So I am a logical person,” Rohani said.

    Since returning to Canada nearly two weeks ago, Rohani says he still wakes up thinking he’s in the U.S. jail.

    He says he hopes others don’t also end up behind bars because of what he describes as overzealous prosecutors, and that Canadians should know that even innocent ties to countries such as Iran, North Korea and Syria could land them behind bars in the U.S.

  120. Skep says:

    “As for near and far IR, I’m not quite getting your point, as regards to seeing though clothes. Neither can, correct? You see infrared of the clothing itself, the heat of the clothing – you don’t see through clothing.”

    We see through clothing all the time. Black panties under white pants? Red bra under a white blouse? Certain fabrics are more transparent than others.

    Near IR doesn’t magically see through clothing, but some fabric is more transparent to near IR than visible light. Let’s go back to the Red bra under a white blouse. Could you see the same red bra under a red blouse of the same kind of fabric? Maybe a little, but not so much. I’m not giving you a very good analogy, but the idea with the near IR is that when you filter out the visible light it can be like turing the red blouse white but leaving the bra a contrasting color, taking the reflecting color of the blouse down making it easier to see through the fabric to the bra underneath, but not a miracle and it only works with thin fabrics with a high IR transparency relative to the visible light reflectivity. And, as you noticed, many of the “IR” photos on the website were not very different from the full spectrum photos–if anything they are mostly just shots of extraordinarily thin fabric swimsuits.

    The reason the Sony fiasco died down is because near IR is not a big deal and it doesn’t live up to the hype. It doesn’t see through normal fabrics.

  121. jahknow says:

    As this is the “Fujifilm UVIR Digital Camera USA End User License Agreement,” I wonder if customers in other countries must agree to similar EULAs… but then, considering the (ahem) “post-9/11 world” that we’re living in, I could also imagine that it might be illegal to import this technology into the states, even if I could buy it legally abroad…

    Guess I’ll just stick with my Pentax K1000 for a little while longer.

  122. sproing3 says:

    Takuan @118 – That’s a frightening tale of Massively Multiplayer Parental Overly-concerned Rightous Grotesquery. Can you tie it into the EULA thread?

  123. sproing3 says:

    I get it, if you have a very shear outer garment that is highly reflective, infrared will filter out the glare of it, inas much, and only inasmuch, as the fabric is also transparent.

    And Sony face some noise about IR. But no big company seems to be at any actual legal risk. Risk of noise, maybe.

    So is someone saying that these cameras make people out in public seriously erotically exposed, unless they are dressing for the IR camera? Any examples to share about this? I highly doubt it I’d wager anything sheer enough to be transparent to IR is going to be sheer enough to be vulnerable to the right visible light conditions.

    And patterns of nipple heat on someones swimsuit? Fuji’s lawyers can’t fight off a lawsuit from Swimsuit Sue, while the Paparazzi can fight off lawsuits by British Royalty?

    I’m not swallowing that load.

  124. Skep says:

    122 POSTED BY HOUNSKULL , APRIL 2, 2008 10:29 PM
    #111
    Genius, you’re equivocating a telephoto lens to an IR camera. What kind of an idiot you must be to even conceive that equivalence…

    It would seem you are giving up all pretense of making honest arguments in favor of ad hominems. That’s too bad since you aren’t an idiot, but you can sometimes be functionally identical to one.

    One can, in fact, pool various privacy threats together when making a rational analysis of the actual legal implications. You seem to be unfamiliar with how invasion of privacy laws work, and indeed, taking extraordinary measures to see what could not ordinarily be seen by eye is part of invasion of privacy laws. Both telephoto lenses and IR can, depending on the circumstances, meet that standard. The “kind of idiot” who would “conceive that equivalence” of IR and telephoto lenses includes law makers across the 50 states, judges and prosecutors.

    Your rather obvious ignorance on the matter of privacy laws–whether real or feigned–and the arrogance with which you wield it suggests that your further comments are likely of the same ilk and really aren’t worth considering based on the credibility of the source.

  125. sproing3 says:

    Hounskull @123 – IR, as you might know, will “see through” to the same extent as visible light. The main difference that the body glows with heat, and this shine out through shear fabrics. So you might be able to pick up the body glow. But the body glow is nothing like reflected light – it is more amorphous (less morphous?).

    As the camera has been out for a year, there ought to be some pics out there of us to use in our discussion. If not, well, maybe IR is not quite so riske a technology. And I wanted my see through specs! Guess I’ll have to wait for the T-Ray camera to come out.

    So, Mr. H, we are waiting for two things from you, for a credible argument. 1) examples of companies with big budget lawyers having lost lawsuits in related cases, and 2) examples that this technology is substantially more intrusive than similar technology that is freely sold.

  126. Hounskull says:

    btw, on the light transmissability of fabrics:

    Anybody who wears technical clothing for outdoor activities, may have noticed a “UV block” rating. It might be UV 20 to 50 or so. That indicates they’re specially treated with UV absorbent coatings to block UV light, for skin protection.

    That’s necessary because many materials are highly transparent to UV. A garment which blocks over 95% of visible light may still be very “see-through” and transparent to UV. Many synthetic fibers are initially transparent, to a wide range of the spectrum, before being dyed for color by blocking/reflecting in the visible light spectrum. Silk is also highly transparent. Thin cotton and many other natural fibers are fairly transparent.

    None of which I’d worry about ordinarily.

    But, if you see a creep photographing kids using a UV/IR camera, or some stalker or other loser, it’s a good idea to call the police.

    Oh, and if they’re using a UV/IR camera and signed a EULA, they won’t be able to deny knowledge or intent.