Slashdot Mirror

I could not help myself, here is an example
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/voyuerism.shtml

The rule is that anything visible from public property is fair game. To me, this is a fairly sensible rule, and I wouldn't expect that others would allow me to unduly infringe on their rights by demanding they shield their eyes from things I emit into the public spectrum.

One exception to this rule, notably, is that the government (only, this doesn't apply to private citizens) may not sense and record non-visible parts of the spectrum without your permission...apparently the law holds that if you emit infrared or ultraviolet radiation into a public space, and the government detects and records that, it constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. A few years ago DEA agents used an infrared camera to detect the goings-on inside a meth lab and tried to include it as evidence in the case, and it was promptly thrown out.

In your example, if you sunbathe nude in your back yard, you should make sure that you are not visible to the public, pure and simple. Up until now, we didn't have technology (at least, not technology that was pervasive enough to make it an issue) to worry about being photographed from above, or from space, and now that's a problem. However, it poses an interesting problem. You might say that constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy, but I might say the value of being able to take high-res satellite photos from space and view them on the web outweighs that.

The future is fast coming, people, you'd best prepare for it. The day is soon approaching when many people will have eye implants that allow them to see, even to detect non-visible parts of the spectrum and see thru clothes, makeup, etc. Heck, right now anyone with a modified camera and the right optical filter can do that (warning: not necessarily safe for work). Someday soon thereafter those implants will be able to dump much of what someone sees to a personal HD or upload it to an off-site location. When the image falling on anyone's eyes becomes exportable, what happens to privacy?

As an amateur photographer myself, I'm occasionally accosted by someone trying to prevent me from taking pictures of their house, their kids, their observatory (yes, this happened to me at the top of Mauna Kea). It's ridiculous. For the most part, if I can see it, the law allows me to photograph it. If you don't want me photographing it, then you probably shouldn't let me see it. And this applies not just to public land, but also any situation in which I'm not trespassing—that is, if you invited me onto your property, provided I wasn't shooting a situation where the subject has an expectation of privacy, it's perfectly legal.

Now I had other questions as well, such as can I put a camera in her bedroom, where she sometimes brings the baby; what about in the bathroom, where she sometimes bathes the baby; can I hide it; do I have to tell her; and what do I do if I see something really bad -- can I turn it over to the police and will it be admissible evidence? The short answer? There is no short answer.
[source]

Anyone remember around 1999, when Sony camcorders were being recalled because their cameras could "see through clothing"?

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/see-thru-lens.html

http://www.kaya-optics.com/devices/sony_nightshot.shtml

http://www.spy.th.com/camcorders3.html

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H9/H9A.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/V3/V3A2.HTM

Would any of this Sony technology have any silent (via shadow investors/subsidiaries) part in resurrecting Sony income stream? Would this technology in the news today be very good for random and equidistant surveillance points for bridges, office towers and infrastructure.

I can imagine a whole new slew of patent-evading startups (not counting some failed or badly-focused ones in the SillyConJobAlley area just north of San Jose/Milpitas...). Might be JUST what Boston and Santa Clara need.

However, if:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88031211&ft=1&f=1001

is any indication, countries like the USA will have the hopeless task of putting such cameras EVERY WHERE (good for business income from DOD/DHLS contracts...) until policy or attitude toward people OUTside of the US changes.

Maybe it WILL be good for police to use. Now, they will have no reason to cavity or strip search people. It could reduce the number of unjustified shootings/killings of people. No more claims of "S/he had what appeared to be a firearm aimed at me/my partner/a civilian bystander...". It could even protect police when approaching vehicles. No more being shot just for trying to issue a traffic citation for a vehicle code violation.

Stores and offices could use them for silent reporting and logging of robberies or undesired proliferation of weapons in neighborhoods. I wouldn't be surprised if places like SF's Tenderloin and Bayview/Hunters Point and Fillmore district get these things.

But, the train stations/undergrounds will be clamoring for federal funds (matching?/challenge grants?) to get these new gadgets installed.

HEHEH.... Captcha: Positron (how coincidental...)

Lol. Dig their clown porn. Anyway, these sort of things worry me. I like my porn to be mutually consensual but I worry more about people who haven't managed to find ways to live comfortably or maybe even openly with their sexuality.

Granted, I'd have killed for one when I was a kid. (:

Anyone wondering what he's talking about should check out these examples.

* cough *

I imagine that in the not too distant future some perfectly healthy geek will have one of these implanted

And your X-ray glasses are here:
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/applications.s html

http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/applications.s html

A camera would be more subtle than a headset anyway, I suspect.

Why not have the camera in/on a pole, moving back and forth continuously at very high speed, and not processing any input that it gets while moving backwards?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/spec trum.html has the chart from which I'm making a half-educated guess, with some quick math and fading memories of high school physics, that you would need to move the camera forward about 3/4 the speed of light to make an almost-visible infrared wave appear purplish (almost ultraviolet) to your camera, and >140x the speed of light to make an almost-microwave infrared wave appear reddish.

Off-topic: I love the way this plays on guys' fantasies. Very creepy and disturbing, what with actually putting nipples on and all, and also for those who hide non-body parts (drugs, wires, weapons, etc.) taped to their chest or some other "concealed" part of their body. Maybe IR-blocking clothing will be big business when word gets out...

Gee, I wonder what the average slashdotter is going to use this for. (link probably not work-safe)

We all know the real point of this - to let you see through clothes like the infrared video cameras that came out a few years ago.

This was covered on slashdot a long time agao.

But yes, it can see through clothing to some extent.

This device can (NSFW)

Done and done

Done and done

I found this site about 6 years ago...

they sell the filters, and give a good run-down on the theory.

Here ya go, ya pervs

Unfortunatley for 3Dfx, they're going to have to rush their development cycle! It's already been done.