Slashdot Mirror
New System to Counter Photo and Video Devices
Incongruity writes "News.com is reporting that a team from Georgia Tech has developed and demoed a system that actively searches for and effectively blinds cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius." From the article: "In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light. When an intense retroreflection indicates the presence of a digital camera lens, the device then fires a localized beam of light directly at that point. Thus, the picture gets washed out."
Paparazzi Shields for famous celebrities. It's like a force field!
Can't wait to see how many people will go blind with this contraption!
People with glasses?
I don't want to get blinded every time I walk up to a trade show display.
---
(\(\
(-.-) Give me back my damn feet!
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Wouldn't this blind people with glasses?
She lit a match and felt the warm glow of its meager heat before it burned down to her fingers and she dropped it in the snow. Then she lit another and another until all her matches were gone and she began to feel icy fingers of winter clutching at her tiny frail frame.
She moved along the street looking for an open door, shelter, any shelter. Then she thought, what's this? She felt a deep warmth the likes of which she had not felt since her mother's embrace. It was glorious. She sat down to rest and soon fell asleep.
And thus it came to pass, she was found roast to a golden brown, like a Thanksgiving turkey, before the offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
and a special fuck-you to the police state currently being built.
Similar stuff has already been on slashdot
I would guess the MPAA & Co. would love this, but would multiple units be required for a theater (line-of-sight...) or would they be useful mounted on ceilings, what with the angles?
This device was already described in SciFi. Unfortunately, I have the brain of a 2 year old cow after a long day of work, so I can't remember the book.
There was this dream amusment park, and a little kid runs away to the park, and then aliens come.
Oh, right.
Free Lunch, by Spider Robinson. The creater of the dream park got his money making this sorta thing to counter paparrattzi. Guess Spider didn't think of the other uses cameras are being put...
--LWM
Heck, didn't Alan Bean discover a way to do this in 1969 while on an Apollo 12 EVA? (he says tongue firmly in cheek).
Ignore Alien Orders
I would sure hope that the localized beam of light doesn't do any damage to any camera at all... otherwise it would be pretty easy for the person with the cam to file suit for damage, despite what they may or may not have been doing at the time.
On a related thought... I wonder what it would take to trick the system into shooting the beam at ones eyes... heck, with a system like this you could just claim that you were blinded by the system for a few moments and now you suffer from crippling migraines and what not... ka-ching!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Big deal. International Rescue had them already, 30 years ago, to protect strangers from photographing the Thunderbirds.
In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light.
Are there any infrared filters that can be made easily? If so, I see a counter to this!
The next step is a video/still camera that detects an infrared source and closes an iris to keep the light from bouncing back. Or better yet, a coating that keeps the infrared from bouncing out of the lens.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
A dupe from last year? (but I can't find it - bring back the old slashdot search!). Although it may have been about "blinding" camcorders in public movie theaters to prevent piracy.8 46259
ahhh...here it is
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1
TDz.
When systems that actively search for and effectively blind cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius are outlawed only outlaws will have systems that actively search for and effectively blind cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius.
I bet the first place you see this technology is in the movie theaters. To prevent people from recording the movie and sharing it. This is going to ruin the lives of the DAY 0 1173 crowd.
Just find an early adopter and sell the god damn thing. Why do inventors have so much trouble making a business these days?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ok, a few major flaws:
1) The obvious glass person problem
2) 33ft range?? Utterly useless, there's a reason paparazzis use long lenses
3) Unless the person is standing right next to this "lighting pole" thing, a good ole' lens hood will prevent the beam from entering the lens and ruining the picture. The pole would have to be *in* the picture for this to be a problem. In order to solve this, get a 400mm lens and attach a properly sized hood, get just what you want in the picture.
Really, no paparazzi is worrying about this.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm not a biology major by any stretch (boy, could that phrase be misconstrued!), so I don't know what kind of effect such infrared beams would have on the eyes. But if the beam is going to be strong enough to completely blind a camera, I'd be really concerned about what it could do for the eyes.
Maybe I'm just slightly paranoid and it will have no effect at all. But since the article doesn't state anything about impact to human eyes and most eyewear protection is meant to filter out UV radiation, this should be cause for concern until we're told otherwise. Anyone more knowledgable about ocular physiology care to educate us?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
And what happens if you shield the lense from the detector?
Digital Sailor
Put two of these in a room, and let them fight it out...
They're using an IR emitter to generate a reflection that is sensed with the camera to trigger an ambient light source to overwhelm the offending camera. Not to mention the modulated light attack that would launch on the eyeballs of anyone happening to be looking in that direction.
seems like since CCD's are IR responsive in the first place (which is how they are detecting them), why not just continuously bathe the area in an overdose of IR and skip the detection and visible light altogether?
I'm gonna get like 10 for every room 'cause I know you're watching and trying to keep me from talking about the Alie^H^H ...mmmmpppph
[Remote Peer Quit Unexpectedly]
Using infrared to block cameras was patented by Sony some time ago.
Nothing a good infrared filter can't handle, anyways....
At least, that's what every photography book and physiology text says.
And, of course, the eyes of some animals (cats, alligators) are strong and precise retroreflectors. It's probably OK if they blind someone's pet alligator, but someone's pet cat could be a problem.
the device can actually detect a camera lens...I can diffuse the light enough to prevent that reflection and subsequent detection...Just like I can do on a scope of a sniper rifle.
If not, heaven help the poor bastard who's wearing glasses...
now the police can give the beat downs without any fear of being caught
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Did they mention that you brain also gets deleted if you're wearing glasses?
under the windshield of a car?
And does it still work if it's moving let's say... really fast (basically well above the reglementary 65mph)?
If so, I can see a nice application for that thing...
At least, that's what every photography book and physiology text says.
And, of course, the eyes of some animals (cats, alligators) are strong and precise retroreflectors. It's probably OK if they blind some stray alligator, but someone's beloved pet cat could be a problem.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Does it need to be directional? Or else someone will need to stick very many of them to cover all angles. BTW, does digital camera / video cam always uses an infra-red beam?
talk about getting the red eye out
cat's eyes are highly evolved to function at night via internal reflection
so anyone with a cat should get used to having a blind cat
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
certianly this would not be eye safe?
Thanks goodness, no one has invented the infrared filter!
Am I wrong, or does this seem too easy to defeat?
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
Damn!!! No more voyer pron.
Find coupons in Greeley
How long before someone takes this technology to "blind" the security cameras at a casino or other location that handles large sums of cash?
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
I'm just starting to get into photography, but isnt this something a good IR filter would block out?
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Duh- it's obvious. An IR filter over your Charge Coupled Device. Already exists on lots of video cameras- not so common on digital cameras yet but will be given this "advance".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If you're a papparazzi, you don't want to get rid of that 35mm film camera just yet then. This device won't affect those, unless the photographer is using infra-red film.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
How soon can we rush these to Abu Ghraib? As a true Patriot (USA #1), I want to ensure that information that might damage our government is never ever released.
There's still other details to work out, like the armed guards, the exploding ink in the money packets, etc., but I'm glad those Georgia engineers solved one of my problems.
What about an identical system to flood the sensor with IR light and take the shot ? ;)
what about decoy lenses and ir reflective paint.
My wife used to use 9dioptra Coke bottles :-) Her glasses were certainly MORE reflective than the lens on my Nokia phone. Pity she made laser surgery.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
My God, man, my eyes!
Once the tech has matured.. and I bathe my license plate in infrared, would that therefore block the speed camera from taking the picture of my license plate?
There was something called chameleon plates a little while ago that did a similar thing. They reflected the light of the speed camera's flash so that they couldn't take photos of your license plate.
This is another step in that it is an active device in that it shines light into the camera.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
So I filter this crap out and have the camera set to record when it detects a blocking attempt.. an easy way to know when it might be worth recording.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
so if people had a personal version, they could avoid getting photographed repeatedly in city streets?
they will have to license such a device as to prevent terrorists from being able to use them to avoid being identified.
just think, you are a wedding photographer, and a number of people forget to turn off their personal photo-obsfucators (Apples iNoPhoto). the horror.
So businesses are going to spend thousands of dollars on this technology so that they have an automated means to blind camera phones. It works by detecting the reflection of infrared light off a camera's lens and directing a 'blinding' beam back to the point of reflection. It probably has one detector and one blinding beam.
o r can act as an even more distant and separate dummy source. $10 and I have again defeated you, Georgia Tech!
Let's think. Two people set 10-20 feet apart create independent sources of reflected infrared light that cannot be covered by the same beam -- the interposed populace will not be pleased with inadvertent 'blinding', unless it is also comparatively low intensity infrared that can be defeated by a simple filter. So we can use two cameras. $200 and I have defeated you, Georgia Tech!
Better yet, let's assume that I'm a cheapskate. I can spray paint my shoes with infrared reflective paint. Now I have three sources of infrared reflectance for the cost of a can of paint. If I'm a social cheapskate, my girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/compadre/co-conspirat
I would pat myself on the back, but there is a serious drawback if the blinding system uses visible light -- I'm going to walk around convention halls looking like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever from time to time. *cue disco music*
Also in the article is reference to a scheme where signals would be sent to disable or blur photos, and electronics in the camera would support this.
It may seem too outrageous to be implemented, but I can easily imagine the likes of **AA and Homeland Security jumping on this idea and getting it required in new cameras. On the pretext of protecting IP rights (not only movies, but buildings, etc.), and "national security", they'll try to prevent us from recording police and corporate misconduct, and charge for photography rights, etc.. The analogies with macrovision, identifying dots in printers, etc. are obvious. Never underestimate the evil that can be done when businessmen get a chance to "monetize" something or government sees an opportunity to tighten control of citizens.
Yes, I know this will be followed by "tin foil hat" comments. Please, *this time*, try to remember how wrong those comments were when it happens.
Yeah that was my first thought too. First unlucky guy that walks by one of these wearing old style contact lenses is screwed.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What about listening assistant devices currently in use by many theatres? Most of these (including the product manufactured by my employer), operates via an IR transmitter and a reciever on the earphone device worn by the listener. I could imagine it playing havoc with those things.
I would imagine that anything which caused a lot of the security cameras to get blanked out at a casino or any similar place would cause a massive security sweep until they found out who was causing it & threw them out (maybe with a little discreet beating out back).
This kind of thing will only be useful if the person running the cameras don't want to identify themselves.
You mean just throw a petrol bomb at the camera!!??
Since they specifically mentioned digital cameras, what about non-digital cameras?
;) My old 35mm don't seem to have anymore lens coating than a pair of glasses. The new digital is quite shiny alright. Time to go back to the old spy cams from the back of Boy's Life :)
While not as easy to hide as some new cameras, a old 35mm isn't impossible to hide either. Don't ask, i just know
Ouch, it's gonna be expensive to sneak in that instamatic instead...cheap 126 film is now gonna be a buck a shot! Ahh, a 110 camera is still doable tho and many of those are palmable.
hehe, i wonder what it would think of this silver can of root beer?
And, of course, the eyes of some animals (cats, alligators) are strong and precise retroreflectors.
People, too.
That's why you get "red eye" in the picture if the flash is too close to the lens.
For people it's probably a vestigial remmanant.
For animals it's a night-vision adaptation. The retro-reflector is behind the light-sensitive part of the retina. Any light that makes it through the sensors is sent back (nearly) the way it came in, giving the retina a second chance to catch it and thus a tad under a 3db increase in sensitivity - at a slight cost to focus. The shine you see is what made two passes without being caught.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My eyes...the goggles do nothing!
...almost never. All those cameras are centrally and manually controlled (pan, tilt, zoom, focus, etc), not by built-in autofocus like your digital camera, etc. Plus, in a casino, do you realize that at any given spot on the gaming floor, there are probably multiple cameras that can zoom in on you, at different angles?
Does it fit.... under the windshield of a car?
And does it still work if it's moving let's say... really fast (basically well above the reglementary 65mph)?
There are already laser speed-trap jammers. And they don't have to be this fancy: "Laser Radar" equipment emits easy-to-detect light signatures already.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A device that bathes the region in front of it with infrared light. When an intense retroreflection indicates the presence of a human retina, the device then fires a localized flurry of bee stingers directly at that point. Thus, the human goes blind.
Maybe we could also come up with a device that detects the presence of a video camera, and pitches a high-speed baseball at the person holding it, thus causing much pain and probably breaking their expensive antipiracy-repellant camera.
I guess you missed the from the movie-studios-rejoice dept. part below the story headline, huh?
The US Army has had technology like this for a while: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stingray.h tm
A good article to read about blinding cameras is here:
http://www.naimark.net/projects/zap/howto.html
We all pay butt loads in tolls...well, maybe not anymore!
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
In my version, lots of radioshack "super-bright" infrared LEDs mounted in a pair in sunglasses. No one knows you've got em unless they happen to be looking at a video monitor.
Total cost about $50 for the shades and $20 for lithium battery and LEDs. Simple, effective, and low budget. Only problem, they are only really effective when looking directly at the camera so, they'll still get your profile.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
... an intense retroreflection ...
But what happens if it gives back just a regular reflection? Sounds like a loophole...
They're specifically designed to cut out IR and to pass visible light.
What is an IR cut filter
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Build a portable version and bring it along to knock out any nasty cameras that would have documented your activity.
Read the article. The device works with visible light, using only infrared to identify the location of a camera lense. Once located, a strong focused beam of visible light washes out any picture taken, and as the article said, works both when there is an IR filter on the lense, and when not.
Anyone wanna rob a bank?
With remote control drones becoming increasingly common, such a device will probably be popular with the military as a way to help secure areas from infiltration by enemy spy drones. Sure it wouldn't be an end all measure as many of these devices also use GPS or something similar. But, it would certainly help.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
for every method there is a counter...
if this thing beams infrared light , then how hard will it be for people to figure out to use a filter on thier lense to reflect infrared light, but let normal light through? how soon will we see a huge upmarket for these lense attachments.. thus negating the tons of money spent on setting up these contraptions.
"Joe's theater is not responsible for any loss of vision, headaches, cancer, or conditions of the eye due to exposure to infrared, laser, or other light sources. View at your own risk."
Reading at high threshold levels is group-think.
Would it work on speed cameras?
This seems like a complicated system, in spite of the claims of simplicity. I can't imagine this working in a cell phone since the tracking problems are tremendous. BUT... I'm expecting to see these (or something similar) in movie theatres in ~2 years.
720x480 15.7MB divx AVI
320x240 2.4MB divx AVI
The project page is here
So what - put this before your lens, problem solved:
t art.html#IRSperrfilter
:)
http://www.telescope-service.com/atik/start/atiks
Remember: Astronomers do it in the dark!
Seems it can be "tuned" to detect the retro-reflectivity of CCD Cameras. Also, the authors did say that there are many ways the system can be fooled. Personally, I would just attach a paper tube to the camera, long enough to allow a photo to be taken while blocking out the IR beam from the detector. For those worried about getting IR beams in their eyes, remember that they are just using your standard IR LEDs, not LASER LEDs. From the paper: In summary: 1) It is harmless if a false positive (camera-like device) is detected. It cannot damage cameras. 2) This probably won't work on CMOS cameras, which are likely to be the next generation technology used in digital cameras. 3) Limited angle of detection, range of detection (based on resolution of sensing camera) and numerous counter measures makes this system an interesting prototype at best. Its still a ways off being used by the 3-letter government agencies.
If I can do it, its probably not worth doing... probably
While sometimes the comments posted are of good humour, I cannot understand why anyone had not yet drawn attention to the fact that the device *needs* to find a camera lens, hence it is only a matter of time for someone to develop a camera completely immune to such attacks. Plus I am sure some camera's do not need to see infrared waves. If the wavelength monitored is kept to what the human eye can see then there would be no effect surely?!
Will that system burn the eyes of my cat, too?
And how hard would it be to blind this scanner? One person blinds it from a few seats away, while the second runs the camcorder.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Point a remote control at your digital camera. You can see the infared light. Now point it at a regular film camera and see if you can see it.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
so....would a descent polarizing filter work against this? i mean, the light is comming from one direction right? so if a filter blocked light from that specific direction then no light would blind the camera right? how about a decoy IR light(s)? who if you had an IR light and you focused it right on the censor, would the projector try to blind the whole world?
what im saying is that 'technology' like this HELPS the pirates. It helps by giving false confidence to theaters or companies and pirates can easily circumvent the system.
things must be 100% secure, or not secure at all. if something is 98% secure, pirates learn and it makes it so much harder to GET TOO 100% because the pirates are smarter, they have evolved with your copy protection.
the solution is to have a sensor for detecting the chemicals in battery acids to find cameras, and then confiscating and smashing the camera to tiny bits in front of everyone before calling the police and pressing charges(after taking the media like memorycard or videotape).
Unless you're trying to take a picture of the jamming pod itself, you won't have any problems.
You know, like Men In Black, erase our very experience when we leave the park/watch the video/listen to the Lion King!
Then, we have no option but to pay through the node *every* time!
Do most people like the idea of technology, like cameras, as a brain/memory enhancement and archival device, and the likes of RIAA/MPAA want a pay-per-view world? Kinda like today's wage slaves?
Am I the only one that can see the government using this to censor stuff? Imagine if they had this at the Utah Rave.
If this type of technology can be applied for cars in areas with photoradar and red light cameras...ticket this!!
Casinos?
Not a good idea, but I guess someone might actually be stupid enough to do it.
I mean, what do you expect them to do when suddenly all the vid screens get this bright glare on them. They also have _people_ on the floor with radios you know...
Those friendly touchy-feely big burly people usually aren't far away too.
And what's the point in the first place?
I'd think those people using the cameras on their phones to help with roulette had a much better idea.
If anything, the casino might be the one using this against unauthorized cameras. And not the other way round.
Film.
I'm betting that if you scattered half a dozen 10 cent bicycle retro-reflectors around the area, you could have it dazzling more independent sources than it could cope with.
www.sjbaker.org
Why not just put a filter that blocks IR light on the digital camera. If no IR light hits the CCD sensor than how can it spoil the picture. I thought that Canon DSLRs already had this type of filter built in because they are not good for IR photography.
-weld
and i mean that in the nicest way possible
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
I know I sugested that about a year ago here on slashdot. //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137379&threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=158&tid=126&tid=153&tid=173& tid=155&tid=137&mode=thread&cid=11485581
Part of "No Pictures, Thanks" from 1/26/05
It's actualy easier, you just need a high powered IR source, such as a bunch of LED's,
the Cameras AGC automaticly adjusts so you turn totaly dark.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Retroreflective tape is retroreflective. Retroreflective armbands and running vests are retroreflective. Traffic signs are retroreflective. Retroreflective markers used for motion capture are retroreflective. But camera lenses are not retroreflective.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
yep your right....
Soon riot police everywhere will have the steadycam version of this on their helmets and they'll be as brutal as they like.
They had this 35 years ago (or will have it 55 years from now, depending on your perspective) on the Thunderbirds puppet show. I noticed that this disappeared in the recent (lousy) live action film. This of course begs the question, does art immitate life or vice versa.
And I hope my Aibo doesn't get blinded!
The article only mentions digital, and lenses used by digital cameras and such. What about regular, film cameras? Does it not detect them?
Designed by people who don't know what a polarizing filter is.
It's called a Ski Mask. 100% protection from snooping cameras. Plus, you should see how much fun it is to go into the liquor store wearing it.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
If you put an Infrared Filter over your camera lens, wouldn't it stop the reflection of the infrared light projected by this device from coming back out of your lens?
Also, this wouldn't work on a pinhole camera.
Also, couldn't you use a similar device to negate this device? That is, block the camera that is watching for infrared reflections.
Perhaps a beam of infrared light would work better against this device.
Anyone who has read The Free Lunch by Spider Robinson should recognize this invention. The character who invented the theme park that is the focus of the story made his first billions with this invention. They called it the "pap-zapper"
Speaking is NOT communication
Implimenting a technology such as this is not going to stop people from electronically distributing movies.
Why not address the real issue: "Why do people download movies?"
Convenience? It's easier for me to watch the movie in my own home at my own time, then it is for me to wait for the scheduled time and travel to the cinema. I don't even watch TV at the scheduled time anymore, I watch it when I choose to.
Cinema is a technology that is no longer in line with the demands people make from todays technology. We are in an "on demand" society. I don't want to have to wait. I want it now. I don't want to change my routine to fit into your schedule.
What would get you to go to the cinema?
Advanced screening? I don't live in the States, so some movie releases don't arrive until weeks or even months later and may be even available on DVD in the States before the movie is showing here in the cinemas. Again I don't want to have to wait, if the movie is available for others to see, why should I wait?
Cost? Legally I can rent a DVD and watch it with a group of friends for $5. I go to the cinema and it costs $15 per person.
The Big Screen Experience is no longer enough to get people out of their homes. As people's homes become more like the big screen.
Cinema must change or it will die.
What other reasons can you think of?
I remember thunderbirds having ability to detect(!) if someone was shooting them and then erase the film (with I guess something like really powerful magnet).. could of been useful tech for them!
by mounting a Hoya HA-30 in front of my lens? The curve isn't perfect, but it would probably absorb enough IR to eliminate the "ooh! ooh! shiny thing!" detectors :)
In Neuromancer, they had suits that were designed to blend in perfectly with the background to hide their wearers. This isn't much of a different concept.
Just substitute a jacket lined with IR LEDs that are on continuously, then screw any special sensing software, you can keep hidden anytime you want. You don't need the software, you just need enough IR light to overload the cameras spying on you.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
...even a fairly inexpensive medium range telephoto lens would allow one to stand outside the 10 meter range of the sensor that is 'looking' for cameras and still have enough pull to get a close crop.
Mods? You marked this as funny? M2 will get you.
These cameras are not installed anywhere, a live policemen (or, in the case of private enterprise, a security guard) could not stand and watch in person.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Just put a cardboard tube around the lens. If the detector is not right in front of the camera (i.e. you are taking a picture of the detector) it wont be able to see the lens.
A mask doesn't conceal your height or your build and depending on how much skin you may or may not cover up, other details such as your complexion/hair may get caught on screen.
Same goes for other details, like shoes, guns and knives you happen to be holding.
But it only renders the cameras ineffective, it doesn't render what the eye witnesses see or don't see.
So it's not useless as an aide for evading cameras at potential crime scenes but it is no panacae either.
What I find more potentially interesting is whether or not this technology will have an impact on public space cameras. For example, what about the video camera in the ATM machine? Or the one on the street corner for "public safety"? What about those in the airports? What if I carry one into Wal-Mart with me?
Or will this become a restricted sale and implementation technology?
Can it be used to defeat the video cameras in trains on the London underground and if so, does this make it a terrorists best friend?
In light of that, does this mean that the only people in "public" that would use them would be a terrorist, so if you used one to protect your own face from the many cameras in public spaces, does that imply you are a terrorist?
The big question I have regarding public space cameras (and those in places like Wal-Mart) is what impact does the plastic shielding around the camera have on the detection capabilities of this device? Does the curved surface defeat them and if so, does that mean defeat is as simple as putting your lens behind a sufficiently curved surface?
All these questions and more...and I'm sure I'll stay a 0 (or paltry 1) because I'm anonymous.
How difficult would it be to put an anti-IR filter on your lens?
IANPB (I Am No Photo Buff), but I don't believe it would be that difficult to acquire.
Perhaps you could make a cap that mounts the filter in an off angle, so as to DEflect rather than REflect the incoming IR light.
... to carry a pinhole camera with you at all times
Right, there are governments around the world (China, Iran, Zimbabwe, etc) who would all love to use this to stop photographers being able to report what goes on inside their country.
The point of protesting is to be seen to be there, to add your body to the count making a stand on something. If you're protesting and don't want your face to be seen then you don't belong at the protest.
Hands up if you've been told by police to not take any photos of protestors....anyone else?
The article states that it can detect digital cameras at up to 33 feet. Can it detect film cameras at all?
In my (not so) humble opinion the law should treat tail-gaters as harshly as drunk drivers. There's no excuse for either and both are incredibly dangerous to other road users.
</rant></offtopic>
Actually, strong IR light is bad for your eyes.
Which has exactly what to do with anything? It uses a weak IR light for detection, and a bright VISIBLE LIGHT for neutralization. RTFA.
Think about it a little more, are glass or plastic eyeglass lenses really going to be made out of THAT different a material than glass or plastic camera lenses?
Yes, because the lenses are COATED with a reflective material. RTFA.
It might appear bright, but you don't necessarily know what the spectra of the light actually looked like and therefore how much power was contained total.
Of course I know the specter of WHITE LIGHT. It's a pretty good mix of VISIBLE LIGHT, which is what they're using. RTFA.
As for the power, I know how much brighter it is than a cinema screen. That means the CCD would have to cut off that much sooner to avoid oversaturating. I don't need a watt measure to tell the screen will look terrible with extremely short exposure, since it is all in the VISIBLE spectrum. RTFA.
Furthermore, it's not only about raw power:
"We use a rotating color pattern to overwhelm the camera's auto exposure and white-balance algorithms, in addition to over-saturating the CCD to produce the best effect." But of course you already knew that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most digital cameras (unsure about camera phones) have an infrared and UV filter in them. This is a large reason why you cannot perform infrared photography with most digital cameras except for a select few. I am not sure how well this will work.
The system is easy to neutralize. Sub-millisecond shutters have long been developed for military optics (e.g. battle tank periscopes) to protect against the flash of tactical nuclear bombs. It is necessary because the extreme UV intensity of atomic flashes would turn all glass permanently opaque, effectively blinding the tank.
Now this is great opportunity for the military-industrial complex to flood the security CCTV market with rapid-shutter protected cameras for a premium price.
There are also some specialty multi-coated glasses, which have no reflection in the IR or visible or UV spectra as you wish, so the system described in the article will not notice them at all. The german firm Zeiss knows everything about optics and glass. They can ask big premium price.
Since pinhole cameras do not have lenses how does this system is supposed to work?
Many surveillance cameras this days are pinhole.
Like this
Ha :-) They realy didn't think of that, now did they ? Yeah, sure you can prevent people from taking pictures and stuff, but once installed, they render their own surveillance system useless.
What if you blind the detector camera with an IR flashlight beam while you take your shot? If they can blind my camera why shouldn't I blind theirs?
And how do you propose I avoid it ? The road network is designed to handle the amount of traffick it gets and no more; that means that as soon as there is enough space to fit a car between you and whoever goes in front of you, someone will either pass you, move there from another line, or come to road from a side road in front of you. This, in turn, means that there is always someone right in front of me, no matter how I drive.
Furthermore, I don't know about Britain but here in Finland we have these lovely phenomenons known as snowstorms. It means that strong wind will pick up powdery snow from the ground while more rains from the sky. This reduces visibility to about 10 meters (using lights; less if some idiot drives without them on). This, then, leaves me with two choices:
I'm all for staying in bed rather than risking my life, but unfortunately most employers don't share this view.
Now, if you have only 10 meters of visibility, what is the smarter thing to do - drive 10 meters behind the car in front of you, so you can see the instant it starts to brake, or drive further back, so that when you see the car braking, the difference in your speeds is already great ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The short answer is simple: Drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. If people tail-end you, it's their friggin' problem.
If you drive 10m behind the car in front of you, at 80 km/h, then you're utterly stupid, irresponsible and reckless. If the car in front of you starts to brake, you'll run into it simply because of your reaction time. Simple physics will tell you that you're going to hit the other car about 2 to 3 seconds after it started decelerating, unless you have big-time better brakes.
I usually drive 3m (ten feet) from the car in front of me when in a congested avenue. Not exactly "safety distance", but I tend to keep the same speed as the front car, and then it's enough so I can figure out some emergency exit if needed, and not big enough to fit a car. If people try to fit themselves into that space I usually make them come to their senses with a long and loud honk.
:-) We don't have snowstorms down here but we *do* have severe rainstorms. And hail. It's not funny to be driving while 10cm-wide rocks of ice fall from the sky :-)
Now, if you are driving at 80km/h in snowstorms, all I can offer you is prayer.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
> Which has exactly what to do with anything? It uses a weak IR light for detection, and a bright VISIBLE LIGHT for neutralization. RTFA.
Don't be such a pedant. It does not matter whether the light is infra-red, visible or otherwise. The point is that bright light is dangerous to eyes. An ordinary visible light source which is bright enough will readily cause eye damage; it does not require a laser.
It can now counter the mobile phone scanner that NEC developer a week prior to this news.
As a followup to your offtopic ranting, in Canada we have the exact same system where the rear-ender is automatically responsible.
And i applaude such a move.
Would a couple of these devices work for the surveilance cameras in e.g. a bank?
;-)
Am I just plain bad for thinking this?
I've heard this argument before. It's bullshit. I drive on congested roads (M1, M25) and manage to maintain a safe distance from the car in front. There is never a constant stream of people cutting in front of me. Perhaps once every couple of minutes. If you can't deal with that then perhaps you should deal with your feelings of inferiority before getting back into a car.
Despite the sound-bites, speed doesn't kill. Ever. It's all about gaps. If you can stop in time it doesn't matter if you're doing 130mph or 5mph as far as I'm concerned. Of course, I exercise prudence when there's a good chance of being caught as sadly the law works on the illogical blanket speed-limit system. If you can't stop in time you're a liability.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I don't think this will stop my digital SLR. The sensor isn't exposed except when the mirror flips up for a very short period during exposure. I doubt if it's possible (or at least simple) to seek out and blind the camera in this short interval.
Since most pro photographers (who are using digital) use this kind of a camera, it won't stop many of them. It'll just stop the amateurs who compose their picture while staring at the LCD screen on their point-and-shoot digitals. And, of course, it will stop video cameras.
In my (not so) humble opinion the law should treat tail-gaters as harshly as drunk drivers.
:)
Let's not forget about the scourge of my existence: slow people in the fast lane. They're just asking to be tailgated.
Now all we need is a device the searches for slow people and blinds them with a focused ray of light, forcing them off the road.
At what speed can you stop a 1500kg car in less than 10m when the highway is covered with ice and snow?
Driving below 70km/h on a 100km/h highway for any reason is basically suicidal if what I see is any indication. Even in snowstorms, quite a few people still go at 100+km/h and zoom right past me.
Could governments now use this to keep reporters cameras from showing a peaceful protest being broken up by riot police? Could police cars be equipped with these devices so that there is never another Rodney King video?
I dont like the sound of this.
-- Does anybody know where the 'any' key is on the keyboard?
In any case, a good IR filter might circumvent it.
Correct, and in the UK, that's actually the offence. I once ran into a car from behind (well, 4 people collided, all in a row because someone 4 cars ahead decided to slow down suddenly to turn off without indicating).
As it happened, a police car passed by a minute later, and stopped. The policeman told me that I'd committed an offence, which was "Driving at a speed from which you could not stop in the distance you could see to be clear." (It rolled off his tongue like he'd said it many times before)
Unlike seemingly many people, I didn't get annoyed with him - I accepted it was my fault, and learned the lesson. I now drive far enough behind other cars to stop.
As mentioned, the "how the hell else am I supposed to drive really fast in driving snow" argument is bullshit. Reminds me of the time during bad weather in the UK with torrential rain, some random motorist was on the TV news blaming the police for accidents because they hadn't turned on the temporary (slower) speed limit signs. The guy actually said, and I quote, "How the hell do they expect me to drive at 70mph in this weather?"
Sometimes people's arrogance and stupidity is overwhelming.
The short answer is simple: Drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. If people tail-end you, it's their friggin' problem.
You mean that any injuries and damage to your car are automatically undone and applied to the other driver/car? Wow, what magical land do you live in? Any accident that you are in is your problem, regardless of who was at fault.
I agree. The first thing I thought of when I saw this was, "holy crap, there goes photojournalism." It might not be put to evil use in the U.S., but this technology could be powerful in the hands of tyrants.
Of course it would also create a cat-and-mouse equipment escalation, where they have anti-camera devices, and we have cameras they can't detect, etc etc. But in places like North Korea, the average person's ability to get such specialized equipment would be nil.
I'd be glad to see an end to paparazzi, but let's hope it doesn't hurt free speech, too.
Coming soon to Japanese women's panties!
"In the UK the rear car is always liable in rear-ending incidents."
I am from the Bahamas and we have the same rule. (owever, if the party in the rear has the right connections, I think the party in front can be charged.)
It makes sense, but I have an issue with it when proper road rules are not enforced. In heavy two way traffic on a two lane road, if you observe a proper following distance, cars to your rear will be constantly overtaking you in dangerous spots where they should not do so putting you in danger. Cars on side streets will be pulling out in front of you where there really is not enough room causing you to hit the brakes. This too is dangerous. In fact, it can seem that the least dangerous of the three choices would be to follow too closely and try to remain hyper alert. This is certainly not a good choice. You could of course get off the road until traffic is not so heavy.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/58805
The Beat Meet
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
If I could get one of those along with a device to stop cell phones in movie theatres and symphony concerts I'd be happy. They're currently illegal in the US, nominally for safety reasons, but you can find them on the underground.
ouch.... every time you open your eyes you get a little laser eye surgery!!!
I'm not sure how drivers are in the UK, but here in the US, and specifically the NY area, practically NO ONE obeys the rule of "keep right, pass left". What that causes is major traffic jams on already congested highways. I DO tailgate, however, I only tailgate drivers in the left lane that should move right and get out of the way. In fact, there are even drivers who purposely pull into the left lane to slow others down because they feel they should police speed limits themselves - which is extremely dangerous. There is no way to end road rage (including tailgating), but if the cops enforced the keep right, pass left law, road rage could be reduced enormously and traffic could flow a lot better.
People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
God I wish I was a millionaire. Then every time somebody did tailgate me, I'd slam on the brakes, and it would teach them a fucking lesson.
Has it occured to you that there may be other reasons for going slow in the left-hand lane? Like your engine isn't strong enough to handle that hill the highway is climbing? Or your car is having difficulties? Or you're trying to make that ramp on the left side of the highway? Or (as has happened to me) there just aren't any spaces in the right hand lane to move into, and some jackass is up my ass trying to go 90 in a 65 zone?
I mean, do you honestly think that people drive that way just to piss *you* off? Road rage? If you're upset by somebody driving too slow, you need therapy, my friend. Take a few deep breaths. Turn the radio on, sing along. Tell yourself that you may be going slower, but if your tire blows out, at least you'll be able to stop more safely.
There's no reason to tailgate. None. Ever.
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
As a side note, perhaps Georgia Tech's new theme song will be "She Blinded me With Science."
In Australia, if you are the rear car, but you are stationary when you hit the car in front (yes yes, keep reading), then the car behind you is charged (i.e. the one that hit you so hard that they pushed you forward).
This has the amusing (Well I think it's amusing but I am an ex-cop) effect that when drivers see a pileup in front of them, instead of trying to brake carefully and stop smoothly, they slam on the brake, and hope that the motorist right behind will hit them before they hit the car in front, thus saving their insurance bonus.
Tell it to the judge.
Oh? Try this scenario. Happens far, FAR too frequently here in the Twin Cities during rush hour.
:)
* Traffic in the right two lanes moving at 10 miles or more below the speed limit
* Some jerk driving the same 10 miles or more below the speed limit in the left lane with no one ahead of him or her for well over a mile. This effectively prevents anyone from passing in the right lanes.
* S/he does this for more than 10 miles while a long, long string of increasingly irate drivers builds up.
I can't understand the mentality of these assholes. Are they really that blind to how much traffic they are holding up? Most of us would prefer getting home before we have to turn around and go back to work, after all.
Tailgate? Sometimes I wish I owned a one of MnDOT's snowplows.
But yes - if people in the US would learn to follow the rules, it would help so much. Maybe every US driver should have to drive in Italy or Germany for at least one week in order to renew their license in the US after their first one expires. Once you see "keep right, pass left" in action, you see how well it works.
The first time I drove in Europe (Italy) many years ago, it was quite a shock to see the headlights of a big Mercedes getting bigger really, really quickly until I could only see the tops of them over my trunk. My second thought (I won't share my first thought) was "I'm going over 90 mph [sorry, wasn't thinking in km], the right lane has big trucks trundling along at 50 mph - why shouldn't I drive in the left lane even if this guy in the Mercedes wants to go 110 mph?". However, since I figured the court proceedings would probably be in Italian which was somewhere beyond my tourist grasp, I pulled over. Then I watched and realized how it really worked. Most notable, it seemed to be acceptable to pull over to PASS even if it meant some high speed driver might have to slow down a little (as long as he had plenty of room to do so) but you'd better get your slow butt over in the right ASAP. I figured "When in Rome..." and had no more problems carefully following the rule - although, admittedly, it probably doesn't work as well on congested highways of more than two lanes.
Now, if Italians would have only obeyed stop signs outside of the major cities...
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
FYI, there is no such law in California. I guess it doesn't matter though if NY has it but doesn't enforce it.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Won't this work?
a) Take out your camera
b) Aim with your view-finder
c) Block the blinding light source with your hand or some other object
d) Click!!!
I would imagine it is the same their as in the states.
a few cases of people who have slammed on their brakes, or throw it in reverse to cause a rear-end accident. They are liable, if you can prove that car in front performed a un-reasonable act. But it is usually to difficult to overcome the evidence at the scene, and the reasonable conclusion of causation such that the insurance company of the car behind pays up immediately.
I thought that I had stated the reason I had to drive at 80 km/h clearly enough in my message. Apparently I was mistaken. I apologize for expressing myself in a way that was too difficult for you to understand, and reiterate my reason here:
The traffick is moving at 80 km/h. That means that the car behind me is moving at 80 km/h. The visibility is about 10 meters, so if I move slower than that, the car behind me won't know it until it's 10 meters behind me, and cannot start dropping his own speed before that.
This means that if I drive at 60 km/h, I'd better hope that whoever comes behind me will be able to slow his speed by 20 km/h in then meters.
In short, if I drive slower than the traffick flow in very bad visibility, the people behind me will collide with my car, because they are going faster than me and won't see me until it's much too late.
The key point here is visibility; the maximum possible effective distance between two cars in a line is the same as the maximum visible distance, since you won't be able to react to things before you see, hear, or otherwise perceive them, and the overwhelming majority of information about your surroundings comes through the vision while driving.
Indeed.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I believe in Ireland we have the same law. If a child jumps out in front of your car the safe stopping distance immediatly drops to the distance from your bumber to the child.
Either the roads are less congested than the ones I drive, or the people drive safer there than here, but when I said "as soons as", I meant it - as soon as there's a big enough distance to fit a car between me and the car in front of me, someone will get there.
I have no feelings of inferiority that would affect my driving. And even if I did, what would they have to do with the impossibility of maintaining distance when every large enough opening in the traffick stream is immediately taken by a car ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
This means that if I drive at 60 km/h, I'd better hope that whoever comes behind me will be able to slow his speed by 20 km/h in then meters.
Yes. They should probably pass a law or something, just to make sure everyone does the same thing in this scenario. Oh, wait... like the grandparent said, in the UK, they already have!
In short, if I drive slower than the traffick flow in very bad visibility, the people behind me will collide with my car, because they are going faster than me and won't see me until it's much too late.
They're also not allowed to drive faster than they can see! So they're NOT going faster than you; they're driving at the speed at which they can safely stop without hitting you. So if their maximum visiblity is only 10m, they can't be driving 80 km/h, because it's unsafe for them to do so. So you can safely drive at speed at which you can stop, and not be rear ended except by someone who's total idiot.
The key point here is visibility; the maximum possible effective distance between two cars in a line is the same as the maximum visible distance, since you won't be able to react to things before you see, hear, or otherwise perceive them, and the overwhelming majority of information about your surroundings comes through the vision while driving.
And that's why the law in the UK states the same thing as common sense: never drive so close to something that you can't stop if you have to, and prepare for emergencies, by assuming that if you can't see, there may well be a car in your way.
If everyone drives sanely, there's little risk of anyone being hit, even in poor visibility. If someone is recklessly overdriving his visibility, and endangering his fellow man, the right answer is to arrest him for unsafe driving, not to emulate the bad driver.
--
AC
Well, well, Mr. Grumpy... You can try flashing your highs at them once... Maybe they've zoned out. (we've all done that, especially on long trips). Are you really ready to possibly kill them and yourself and possibly three cars behind you for slowing you down by 10 or so minutes in your commute?
And if this happens every day to you, maybe it's the road? Of you could try leaving at different times? There are many ways around the problem, and tailgating is about the least useful of them all.
"If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
And that works out so lovely when a truck behind you pushes you further than any reasonable following distance into the car in front of you, or the driver in front of you decides to put the car in reverse and floor it.
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
Well yeah, but you miss the point: you cannot do anything about tailgaters except set a good example. You can however prevent half the tailgating related accidents you could be in by not tailgating yourself. By leaving a gap in front of you, you can ensure that you at least are not going to get into accidents where the front end of your car hits the rear end of the next car. It is still bad when you are rear-ended, but not as bad as being rear-ended, while at the same time rear-ending someone yourself.
Of course not tailgating won't prevent 100% of accidents. It will greatly reduce the number of them though, and many of the rest would be less serious. Therefore I maintain a large following distance.
I drive in the twin cities every day. I've been forced to do what you say more than once. Well not quite, I always drive the speed limit (when safe, when it isn't safe I'll go slower). All too often I'll pull into the left lane to pass, only to have the other lane accelerate to the speed limit. However in the other lane everyone is following so close that I cannot safely move my car into their lane! Thus I'm stuck going slow in the fast lane. (I refuse to get a speeding ticket)
It doesn't help that I often have to take left exists (35w to cross town, 94->694, the tunnel), where I have no choice but to leave the right lane where I'm more comfortable, to get to the lane I need to be in.
Sorry for getting in your way. I try to stick to the right, but reality often mean I cannot do it. Just sit back and relax. Even if you could pass me instantly, the difference between 55 and 85 on any commute only works out to a few minutes difference in your total commute.
Most of your commute time is wasted at a dead stop on the freeway. Doesn't matter which lane you are in, every freeway (Except 94 north of Minneapolis where there is always plenty of room for you to pass) is stop and go, during rush hour. That is where you are wasting your time.
You might wish to look into the bus. Though if your commute is like mine, that can't be done.
When you have better brakes & tires...and better reaction times!
Has it occured to you that there may be other reasons for going slow in the left-hand lane?
some...
Like your engine isn't strong enough to handle that hill the highway is climbing? Or your car is having difficulties?
no, no... move over
Or you're trying to make that ramp
Fair enough
some jackass is up my ass trying to go 90 in a 65 zone?
Yes, that is a jackass... but my point is the just-as-jackassy idiot doing 65 in a 90 zone with no reason...
I have no problem having to react (and cop the penalty) in an accident situation, but i am sure going to get very irate at 'one' if 'one' is the cause of the accident by driving erratically. Such as slamming on you breaks for a freaking speed camera when you are already driving under the speed limit. Which was my inital point
And there are always going to be accidents. Cars are huge chunks of metal that can kill. You can play numbers all you want... yes if i was going slower i may not have hit, but if it was 10m closer i would have hit it anyway, so i should have driven slower, but if it was closer... how many accidents are there a year caused by *rolling* cars? stationary cars? The only perfectly safe speed is to not have a car. The next safest thing is to drive it properly, consistantly and considerately.
You have a very valid point, but that wasnt what i was making...
If someone rear-ends someone becasue they were going to fast (for the situation/limit whatever) then yes its their bad.
*I* am saying that if 'one' slams on one's breaks for no reason and causes an accident then it should not be the rear-ender's fault.
I specifically refer to the idiots who (eg) are driving at 75 in an 80 zone, slam on their breaks while passing a speed camera, slowing down to 50, while the following car (doing the speed limit even) then has to react to their stupidity putting all sorts of things in danger. To emergency break, possibly losing control, to swerve and hope i dont hit anything else... Yes I would have to do the same in an accident situation, but then i have a good reason to make those choices.
And on the other replies, i agree that in the places i drive, you defend the little place you do have infront of your car, lest someone halve that distance by pulling in front of you. It doesnt matter how slow you go there is still going to be a car just in front of you, so he better not drive erratically because i might hit him... not to mention you piss of the people behind you who become more likely to tail gate you because you wont move with the flow of traffic.
Whats the answer? maybe they need to give out sedatives with Fuel. Shortly the downers will cost less than the fuel too...
Yes, that is a jackass... but my point is the just-as-jackassy idiot doing 65 in a 90 zone with no reason...
You do realise that 90 is the speed limit and not a speed requirement..?
It amazes me the number of people who get p*ssed off because someone is driving slightly slower than the limit. They're supposed to! It's a limit!
I have no sig yet I must scream.
I totally agree with you.
The problem here is that everyone believes themselves to be a good driver, and has implicit faith in their ability to handle whatever is thrown at them on the roads. Just reading through some other replies here various people are saying things like "I tailgate, but I always plan an escape route" or "I'll always be able to stop in time" .
That's just wrong.
C'mon people. No-one plans to have an accident. All the self confidence in the world will not protect you.
I have no sig yet I must scream.
You do realise that 90 is the speed limit and not a speed requirement..?
And i completely agree with that... but dont expect *anyone* to react nicely when you impose that upon them by doing that it the 'fast' lane, or for your own enjoyment in heavy traffic such that you cant be overtaken.
And especially when you impose your low speed suddenly, abruptly, without warning and without reason when approaching a speed camera, which you (exercising your right to drive driving slowly) would have safely passed without penalty (and i would have too). Which was my original point.
or throw it in reverse to cause a rear-end accident
Someone did this to my grandfather. Reversed into him at a petrol station and then tried to sue him for driving into her. The police admitted something sounded fish with her story, but wouldnt (couldnt?) act appropriately. The petrol station refused to help when *asked nicely*. It took actually asking the court to get the survalience tapes for her to drop it. I dont know if the tapes still existed at that point in time, but it didnt have to go that far...
If you really like "keep right, pass left" now, what were you doing before you found out about it?
Based on this tale. http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=poor%20little%20match%20girl