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."
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?
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
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.
Better yet, protection from police speed cameras.
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 did read the article! I was confused on what was going on though. I thought the infrared light was actually being shot into the camera causing the blur, but the infrared light is just used for detection.
So in this case I guess we wouldn't need infrared filters, but something that obsorbs infrared light so it doesn't get reflected easily. Or even maybe something that bounces incoming light in another direction.
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?
you better patent that quick...
I should think the best approach would be a _planar_ filter with an antireflective coating optimized for near-IR: the coating would help minimize reflection and a flat/planar filter mounted off-normal from the optical axis would (for the most part) prevent retroreflection to the sensor.
A good reflective coating optimized for near-IR on the filter would be another way too - any TRANSMISSIVE filters you stick in the optical path may have an overall negative effect on the image.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
Did you forget all the Mark I Eyeballs in the bank? Unless you want to try breaking in when the bank is closed, with all the cash locked in vaults and alarms all around. Also, I really shouldn't be helping you out but I doubt you'll make it very far anyway - there's a very low tech solution, used for centuries which they call masks. Sometimes people want to find an absurdly complex and technological solutions to simple problems.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Well, I don't know about your state, but the ones they use (at least in the past) here had polarized filters on them to assist in cutting down on ambient light/reflection issues.
.. marks the angle on the film in hand... then covers the front plate with a cover with said film.
That may help in some situations... Until someone smart enough drives by the camera with *another* piece of polarized film and matches the angle at 180 degrees, making it *black*
A 50% film (such as polarized) is ususally acceptable enough by most standards as to not get you pulled over, but appears opaque to the camera because of the line up of the films.
Unless they change the angle of the film on the camera shielding, but it has worked in most applications I umm.. know of.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
Since pinhole cameras do not have lenses how does this system is supposed to work?
Many surveillance cameras this days are pinhole.
Like this
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.
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 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.