R5 Communication function OFF Service

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,592
1,909
Hamburg, Germany
As already stated, enhanced anonymity and privacy. With GPS on, a set of satellites have a reading and cipher where I am.
Nothing against your reasoning. But just FYI GPS doesn't work by having the sattelite know your location. Your device just picks up the signals sent from three different satellites around it to calculate its position based on the content of these signals (clock and coordinates of each sattelite). The device should not send anything out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
Nothing against your reasoning. But just FYI GPS doesn't work by having the sattelite know your location. Your device just picks up the signals sent from three different satellites around it to calculate its position based on the content of these signals (clock and coordinates of each sattelite). The device should not send anything out.
Anything with GPS can be tracked.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,973
4,728
Anything with GPS can be tracked.
That simply is not correct. GPS devices are receivers and not transmitters. The satellites do not know where the device is, the device knows where it is because it listens to the transmissions from the satellites.

You don’t need a reason to do anything as far as I can see, but basing your decisions on factual information will serve you better in the long run.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
That simply is not correct. GPS devices are receivers and not transmitters. The satellites do not know where the device is, the device knows where it is because it listens to the transmissions from the satellites.

You don’t need a reason to do anything as far as I can see, but basing your decisions on factual information will serve you better in the long run.
Receivers also have an i.d., otherwise, government agencies would not employ gps tracking tech. The idea that gps can't be used to track, and also the device itself not leaving a trail, is rather naive. Combine that with wifi and Bluetooth... https://www.techrepublic.com/articl...even-if-gps-location-services-are-turned-off/
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,973
4,728
Receivers also have an i.d., otherwise, government agencies would not employ gps tracking tech. The idea that gps can't be used to track, and also the device itself not leaving a trail, is rather naive.
Can you cite any authoritative or qualitative documentation anywhere that supports that opinion?

Tracking tech is two part technology, the GPS part that determines where something is, and then a transmission element to tell the looker where that position is. The GPS in and of itself cannot be used to locate anything.

Imagine GPS like this, you stand in a field between three villages, each has a church bell that is rung at exactly 12 noon. If you know the exact time and can measure the delay in the rings from the three bells you can triangulate your position. There is no way for the bell ringers to know where you are, or even if you are there at all. Similarly if there were 100 million people in the field they could all work out exactly where they were without any further input, power, or technology from those bell ringers. GPS satellites are like church bells, they send out a known signal at a known time, your GPS enabled device can work out from the signals it receives where it is.

Unless a device has a transmitter of sorts it cannot broadcast it’s position to anywhere else. Phones use the cell network, the new Apple AirTag uses Bluetooth, but if you turn transmissions off nothing can know where that GPS device is. Governments, disaffected spouses, concerned parents etc etc cannot track a GPS device, they can track a transmitter that incorporates a GPS chip that tells the transmitter where it is.

I don’t believe my understanding of the tech is naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
Receivers also have an i.d., otherwise, government agencies would not employ gps tracking tech. The idea that gps can't be used to track, and also the device itself not leaving a trail, is rather naive.

Can you cite any authoritative or qualitative documentation anywhere that supports that opinion?

Tracking tech is two part technology, the GPS part that determines where something is, and then a transmission element to tell the looker where that position is. The GPS in and of itself cannot be used to locate anything.

Imagine GPS like this, you stand in a field between three villages, each has a church bell that is rung at exactly 12 noon. If you know the exact time and can measure the delay in the rings from the three bells you can triangulate your position. There is no way for the bell ringers to know where you are, or even if you are there at all. Similarly if there were 100 million people in the field they could all work out exactly where they were without any further input, power, or technology from those bell ringers. GPS satellites are like church bells, they send out a known signal at a known time, your GPS enabled device can work out from the signals it receives where it is.

Unless a device has a transmitter of sorts it cannot broadcast it’s position to anywhere else. Phones use the cell network, the new Apple AirTag uses Bluetooth, but if you turn transmissions off nothing can know where that GPS device is. Governments, disaffected spouses, concerned parents etc etc cannot track a GPS device, they can track a transmitter that incorporates a GPS chip that tells the transmitter where it is.

I don’t believe my understanding of the tech is naive.
If the camera has wifi and Bluetooth and gps, it can be tracked. Besides that, there's also exif data that would give time and precise location embedded in each photo and video. Sorry, but I know where I have been. No sense in leaving breadcrumbs for anyone else. So, highly valuable to me to have all that removed. The only reason for removal is my own. That's the point of my previous fascination and lolz. I owe nobody an explanation, yet it seems others wish to pry as to why it is important to me. Canon obviously knows such a removal service is important to some of us. ;) Stingray, Kingfisher, Harpoon, etc. is enough reason for me. I have wonderful neighbors. On the other hand, we don't tell each other where we are going, what we are doing, nor who've we been near. Why? Ain't nobody's business. Sure isn't the business of people I don't even know. So, I prefer the tech be removed. Why anyone cares or wants to know why is fascinating to me. We have no idea what the full capabilities of spy tech is as much of that is classified. So yes, naive. What's the problem if I have nothing to hide? That's the whole point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bhf3737

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
642
1,376
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
Just to add a point that almost all current Covid-19 anonymous tracking apps use Bluetooth technology to track "who" is in the vicinity of who-else. If that who-else has a transmitter (or any other location recording device) then the location of "who" will be revealed. As I said earlier the BT on Canon R5 (and many other cameras) cannot be turned off permanently. One may unknowingly turn it on and unwantedly get tracked. This service is to remove this posibility for those who may be concerned.
 

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
642
1,376
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
The first part of what you stated is simply not true. When you turn off the WiFi & Bluetooth options in the camera, those devices are disabled. Same if you put it in airplane mode (which is the whole reason about unrestricted transmissions). They do not re-enable until you go back in and change the settings again. I can guarantee this 'service' is just a custom firmware that turns off the exact same settings, behind the scenes, ultimately doing the same exact thing, except it also removes/obscures the options so the user can not turn them back on again.

The rest of the things you mentioned, I also mentioned earlier in this post on why someone would buy this firmware to permanently disable those options (that part is just regurgitating what I already stated).

However, if you take my post in context to what I was quoting... if only doing it for privacy/anonymity. Turning the options off does accomplish the same thing.
I said BT cannot be turned off permanently. One can turn it on or off but some may simply want it always off. Although I mentioned that there are cases that indicate this BT transmission must be off, but generally there is no need to explain why someone may want it off or not. Canon has decided to grant a choice for those who want it always off.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,973
4,728
If the camera has wifi and Bluetooth and gps, it can be tracked. Besides that, there's also exif data that would give time and precise location embedded in each photo and video. Sorry, but I know where I have been. No sense in leaving breadcrumbs for anyone else. So, highly valuable to me to have all that removed. The only reason for removal is my own. That's the point of my previous fascination and lolz. I owe nobody an explanation, yet it seems others wish to pry as to why it is important to me. Canon obviously knows such a removal service is important to some of us. ;) Stingray, Kingfisher, Harpoon, etc. is enough reason for me. I have wonderful neighbors. On the other hand, we don't tell each other where we are going, what we are doing, nor who've we been near. Why? Ain't nobody's business. Sure isn't the business of people I don't even know. So, I prefer the tech be removed. Why anyone cares or wants to know why is fascinating to me. We have no idea what the full capabilities of spy tech is as much of that is classified. So yes, naive. What's the problem if I have nothing to hide? That's the whole point.
Not if it is turned off!

My question to you was, did you have a logical and fact based reason for having it removed over simply it being turned off? I was genuinely interested because I am always happy to learn and you normally offer different but logical opinions here, not because I care about your personal preferences.

Despite asking for any evidence at all that your opinion is based in fact you haven’t supplied any, like I already said, you don’t need a reason to want to do anything and even if your reasoning is above a feeling of ‘they can track me’ you don’t need to tell me what it is, that’s fine. But the answer to my question is you do not have any fact based information that supports your feeling.

Canon offer it because in some locations it is illegal to have, not because some people have non fact based ideas on the notion that ‘somebody, somewhere might be able to work out where the camera was when I took a picture of the Grand Canyon that is titled ‘Grand Canyon’.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
Not if it is turned off!

My question to you was, did you have a logical and fact based reason for having it removed over simply it being turned off? I was genuinely interested because I am always happy to learn and you normally offer different but logical opinions here, not because I care about your personal preferences.

Despite asking for any evidence at all that your opinion is based in fact you haven’t supplied any, like I already said, you don’t need a reason to want to do anything and even if your reasoning is above a feeling of ‘they can track me’ you don’t need to tell me what it is, that’s fine. But the answer to my question is you do not have any fact based information that supports your feeling.

Canon offer it because in some locations it is illegal to have, not because some people have non fact based ideas on the notion that ‘somebody, somewhere might be able to work out where the camera was when I took a picture of the Grand Canyon that is titled ‘Grand Canyon’.
The fact is... privacy. If you have a hard time with people wanting to protect their privacy as much as possible, that is not my problem. Privacy, and the lack of it, are real issues. That is a fact, and what I base my desire upon. I have no desire to check my phone, or my camera, everytime I take it out and make sure certain services are turned off. Obviously, if I take a photo of the Grand Canyon, and label it, I don't give a rats behind about that one on the net. You have no idea who I really am, who I have worked for, what capacity I have worked in, or anything else. All you know is what I reveal... and some could be disinformation too. You wouldn't be PBD without a concern for privacy. ;)

You say I don't need reasons, and then go on to say that my reasons (privacy and anonymity) are not fact based... implying that my reasons are frivolous. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me, what I need, what I know, what I want, or where I want it. It may be frivolous to you, it is a large concern for me.

Sorry you are having a hard time with my desire to pay for something to get removed. It does not make sense to YOU, but it does to me. That's all that really matters here. If you want all those things on your camera, have at it. I have no problem at all with that, and will not question your decision. Nor will I ask you why you want them. That's none of my business. I'm not playing this game anymore. Canon offers a service. Should I ever get a camera that offers to have it removed, I'll pay for it. Have a great day, my friend. :)

What? you don't care about this? Then quit acting as though you do by disparaging my reasons as "not fact based" (when you don't know what is important in my life, nor the extent of my knowledge) and keep asking me for more info (that I won't give).

I'd want it removed, for my own reasons.

You don't? No problem at all. See how that works? Live and let live.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
349
255
I said BT cannot be turned off permanently. One can turn it on or off but some may simply want it always off. Although I mentioned that there are cases that indicate this BT transmission must be off, but generally there is no need to explain why someone may want it off or not. Canon has decided to grant a choice for those who want it always off.

If I turn something off, never turn it back on, and it can't come on by itself, I effectively disabled it. By definition it is not permanently disabled, but effectively it is if I never turn it back on (and we could discuss/this back and forth and go no where so I'm a bit done on the topic).

Again, I am not arguing the reasons someone would do this if they were 'required' to do so or someone had a business where it was mission-critical to do so. Which again you are stating something I previously stated. You are also correct in no one needs to explain themselves... but if they are going to publicly state an opinion it is generally expected someone may ask why (again they don't have to give a reason). Also agree the choice is good... never said it wasn't.

I was trying to find out the reason why a consumer that does not have a requirement to disable it would want to pay to disable it with no clear undo path (although I'm sure you could pay to restore it). Edit: The rest of this paragraph is probably a non-issue once I re-read the announcement (leaving it in place so it could be read as originally written)... There is also the afterthought on doing this as once you go on the custom firmware path, you can't update with the rest of the consumers... until they patch the custom firmware (the mention they disabled the ability to flash non-custom firmware). (Insert Canon voice here...) So you want the new 'insert something cool here'... oh you have to wait until we patch the special firmware. Oh you got a new lens but we need to modify the firmware of the camera to really dial in the IS... too bad, you are stuck until we patch the custom firmware.

The answer was eventually given, I understand now the reason is pretty much tin-foil hat at this point (and that's wonderful, nothing wrong with that... I understand now). If those that want to cripple their hardware wants to do so, so be it. I don't "get it", but I don't need to...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
If I turn something off, never turn it back on, and it can't come on by itself, I effectively disabled it. By definition it is not permanently disable, but effectively it is if I never turn it back on (and we could discuss/this back and forth and go no where so I'm a bit done on the topic).

Again, I am not arguing the reasons someone would do this if they were 'required' to do so or someone had a business where it was mission-critical to do so. Which again you are stating something I previously stated. You are also correct in no one needs to explain themselves... but if they are going to publicly state an opinion it is generally expected someone may ask why (again they don't have to give a reason). Also agree the choice is good... never said it wasn't.

I was trying to find out the reason why a consumer that does not have a requirement to disable it would want to pay to disable it with no clear undo path (although I'm sure you could pay to restore it). There is also the afterthought on doing this as once you go on the custom firmware path, you can't update with the rest of the consumers... until they patch the custom firmware (the mention they disabled the ability to flash non-custom firmware). So you want the new 'insert something cool here'... oh you have to wait until we patch the special firmware. Oh you got a new lens but we need to modify the firmware of the camera to really dial in the IS... too bad, you are stuck until we patch the custom firmware.

The answer was eventually given, I understand now the reason is pretty much tin-foil hat at this point (and that's wonderful, nothing wrong with that... I understand now). If those that want to cripple their hardware wants to do so, so be it.
What does this have to do with lens firmware? How do you know that once the services are removed, that we would not be able to take future firmware updates? :) Unless the firmware is for those removed services, no problem. If the services have been removed, firmware for them is unneeded.
 

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
349
255
What does this have to do with lens firmware? How do you know that once the services are removed, that we would not be able to take future firmware updates? :) Unless the firmware is for those removed services, no problem. If the services have been removed, firmware for them is unneeded.

Nothing with lens firmware. However I have had body firmware that addressed issues with certain lenses

We don't know if it will effect future updates (that was the point). However I re-read the announcement (it's been a few days now) they do mention this... "The communication function OFF specification is possible with Firmware Version 1.2.0. Cameras with the communication function OFF specification cannot be changed to a previous firmware version."... so I was a bit quick to worry about that since they mention 'prior', so one could assume that anything after should be fine. So I take back my worry on firmware updates... that being said, caveat emptor.

I jumped the gun on this one, because in computer hardware I seen in where they offer custom firmware, and never update it and you are stuck with no upgrade path on it. Thinking about this more, they probably flip a bit not touched by firmware that makes the firmware behave differently. So it's probably a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,973
4,728
The fact is... privacy. If you have a hard time with people wanting to protect their privacy as much as possible, that is not my problem. Privacy, and the lack of it, are real issues. That is a fact, and what I base my desire upon. I have no desire to check my phone, or my camera, everytime I take it out and make sure certain services are turned off. Obviously, if I take a photo of the Grand Canyon, and label it, I don't give a rats behind about that one on the net. You have no idea who I really am, who I have worked for, what capacity I have worked in, or anything else. All you know is what I reveal... and some could be disinformation too. You wouldn't be PBD without a concern for privacy. ;)

You say I don't need reasons, and then go on to say that my reasons (privacy and anonymity) are not fact based... implying that my reasons are frivolous. You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me, what I need, what I know, what I want, or where I want it. It may be frivolous to you, it is a large concern for me.

Sorry you are having a hard time with my desire to pay for something to get removed. It does not make sense to YOU, but it does to me. That's all that really matters here. If you want all those things on your camera, have at it. I have no problem at all with that, and will not question your decision. Nor will I ask you why you want them. That's none of my business. I'm not playing this game anymore. Canon offers a service. Should I ever get a camera that offers to have it removed, I'll pay for it. Have a great day, my friend. :)

What? you don't care about this? Then quit acting as though you do by disparaging my reasons as "not fact based" (when you don't know what is important in my life, nor the extent of my knowledge) and keep asking me for more info (that I won't give).

I'd want it removed, for my own reasons.

You don't? No problem at all. See how that works? Live and let live.
I don’t have an issue with your desire, and I already stated that. I was merely interested in if that desire was brought about by knowledge or simply emotions, I also already said both are perfectly fine and I don’t care why I’d just like to know and understand the knowledge behind the choice if you have it.

You don’t have the knowledge, your opinion is entirely emotional, which we have all said is fine and your decision alone. Let’s move on....

We have had many threads here where you have supported knowledge based decision making over miseducation or emotional choices.

My PBD comes from the fact that my two previous forum names and emails, the first one was my actual name, were banned and this was the only email I had left and the only way I could remember it was to make the user name the email name. No mystery, my name, business name, and address have all been posted here.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,488
3,867
Irving, Texas
You don’t have the knowledge, your opinion is entirely emotional, which we have all said is fine and your decision alone. Let’s move on....
Actually, your assumption here is wrong. It has not a thing to do with emotion. Problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know... so your emotional response is that I must be barking up the wrong tree and that you, with your self perceived superior knowledge of the subject, must be right. Well, you are wrong.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,973
4,728
Actually, your assumption here is wrong. It has not a thing to do with emotion. Problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know... so your emotional response is that I must be barking up the wrong tree and that you, with your self perceived superior knowledge of the subject, must be right. Well, you are wrong.
But that was what I was keen to learn, please point me to a single authoritative document that 1, states GPS is two way, 2, that turning all wireless and GPS off in camera still enables that camera to be 'tracked'.

Again, I am not interested in your personal choice, I fully respect that choice for any reason or no reason at all. I am seeking to expand my knowledge, you are implying your understanding of the technology is greater than mine so I want to learn.
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,592
1,909
Hamburg, Germany
Receivers also have an i.d., otherwise, government agencies would not employ gps tracking tech. The idea that gps can't be used to track, and also the device itself not leaving a trail, is rather naive. Combine that with wifi and Bluetooth... https://www.techrepublic.com/articl...even-if-gps-location-services-are-turned-off/
Before reading all the posts below, just a quick reply to that article (which just quotes this one). That describes a method an app installed on a smartphone can use to estimate a position without access to the location data exposed by the OS itself (GPS, for example).

It certainly is interesting, but it does not have any implications for GPS. It has nothing to do with it. It would not work if your device didn't have an IMU or didn't connect to the internet. It also isn't tracking in the sense that somebody can access your position without having previously compromised your device. The device has to run malicious code that publishes the estimated position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa
<-- start Taboola -->