Slashdot Mirror
Prototype System Blocks Digital Cameras
lee1 writes "Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have completed a prototype
device that can block digital
cameras. The team in the Interactive and Intelligent Computing division of
the Georgia Tech College of Computing used off-the-shelf equipment
(camera-mounted sensors, lighting equipment, a projector and a computer) to
scan for, find and neutralize digital cameras. The system works by looking for
the reflectivity and shape of the image sensors and saturating them with a
thin beam of visible white light.
The principal applications are expected to be protecting areas such as
government buildings and trade shows against clandestine photography, stopping
unauthorized amateur photography of, for example, shopping-mall Santas
(really!) and defeating video copying in theaters.
The countermeasure: film." Sounds perfect for copyrighted public spaces.
Couldn't this have terrible issues of misusage? Government could block off any area they desire ... no pictures allowed (we could never uncover conspiracies then). It sounds like it's a technology for the power hungary.
In the UK many fixed speed cameras are digital - as are the automatic number plate (license plate for you americans) recognition for the congestion charging zone in London.
Sounds like a burglar's best friend to me. No more looping video.
(end of post)
until they send a white laser beam into your eye glasses.
I imagine that based on the description of the detection system it should be possible to come up with a lens filter for digital cameras, that will let the light onto the CCD, but will scatter the light that is reflected back, thus negating this detector technology.
You can't handle the truth.
This whole thing seems way too dangerous and impractical to even think about commercial use yet.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Right, because someone willing to settle for a grainy, shaky copy of the movie with theater sounds and all to watch on their (at best) home theater was really going to see the movie in-theater in the first place.
I know this guy wants to sell the technology to theaters, but his statement isn't even plausible.
This means that spies could just design and use cameras which look non-suspicious by the sensors. And then again, what will happen when common glasses have integrated cameras in them?
Even easier: since this system will eventually work off infrared frequecise, you merely cover you lens with a substance the reflects or absorbs infrared light. Shouldn't matter to the camera and then you've neutralized the scanning portion, rendering the rest obsolete.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
If the light is visible, just take two pictures:
This method may require multiple pictures in order to facilitate secondary image processing to remove images of your hand.
Alternate method: Substitute raised middle finger for hand
More and more I think the Monty Python "How not to be seen" skit is less of a skit these days, and more of a reality.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You can block the signal, but you can't actively jam it. If you want your movie theater to block cell phone signals, you make it into a faraday cage (which is probably going to be difficult when you need to block microwaves -- just a few inches open is all you need for a signal to get in) and then cell phones won't work.
If you wanted some extra flexibility in that setup, you could set up some dipole antennas for the various cell phone bands in and out of the shielded movie theater, and set up circuits to connect them inbetween movies and break the connections when the movie starts. That way you could turn it on and off ...
I'm not saying that this is a good idea, only that it would be legal. (But being able to turn it on and off like that? I'd say it qualifies as clever if nothing else.)
Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. You don't like the person next to you talking on his cell phone? Don't ask the owners/government to make it so it won't work -- instead, ask the guy to stop, and remind him how rude he's being.
I'd be mighty angry if I was at the movies, and the babysitter couldn't call me and let me know that my children had hurt themselves and was in ICU at the hospital. Sure, I set the phone to vibrate, but beyond that, if somebody calls me, I want to know about it.
Another countermeasure -- slap a filter on your lens. If you had to you could go with one way glass, but I doubt you'd have to go that far. If these things can't recognize your sensor they won't try to block it. If they turn them up to super paranoid they'll start zapping people in the eyes. I'd be happy to sue if the MPAA's camcorder countermeasures shot me in the eye in a dark movie theatre.
Won't help you if your family picture takers use SLRs. No destruction, and not even blocking!
FTA:
"There are some caveats, according to Summet. Current camera-neutralizing technology may never work against single-lens-reflex cameras, which use a folding-mirror viewing system that effectively masks its CCD except when a photo is actually being taken."
Seems to make the technology a little useless. SLRs are cheap nowadays (um, relatively speaking) and many amateur photographers use them. I guess it only protects against small hidden digital cams.
-Oliver / TreasureTunes.com
A Minox B will only set you back about a C Note , look on Ebay for Minox , and film is fairly cheap.
For those NON--Film guys a Minox is a very high quality german SPY camera , the ones used in all those old movies.
Small , clandestine, and very good optics, far better than any small Digitals sport,
Makes this technology and all its research useless and a waste of money in my opinion.
False positives.
It's looking for "the reflectivity and shape of the image sensors", right? Well, just put a couple dozen of them on your hat. The system won't know what to target.
And that's that. Simple.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What if the system is turned on and it starts hitting the security cameras? Seems like this could backfire.
:-)
I mean... seems like you have a great test case to know if you can rob a place. Try you cell phone camera, if it doesn't work you know the "Smile, you're on camera" sign is bogus.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. You don't like the person next to you talking on his cell phone? Don't ask the owners/government to make it so it won't work -- instead, ask the guy to stop, and remind him how rude he's being.
In that case, its really an avoidance of confrontation. Many people don't want to go up to somebodys face and ask them not to use the phone or stop being an asshat. Especially since you don't know if the person is going to blow up at you or worse. A passive-aggressive approach like this heads it off at the pass. Phone doesn't get a signal, oh well.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Most photoradar boxes are (were at least) easy to defeat.
I won't spell it out for you, but here is a hint.
They use polarized film over the lens to cut back on windscreen glare.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
Apparently Vancorps here is one of the self-important assholes who thinks his calls are so important that everyone in the theater should be disturbed because maybe his stupid kid might be hurt.
Go ahead, don't go to the theater any more. We won't miss you.
There's a new business opportunity here: you could start a new theater chain called "theater for assholes", where talking on cellphones is allowed. Of course, no one would actually go there because they don't want to admit that they're the asshole, and they don't want to hear anyone else's cellphones, just their own because they're so much more important than everyone else.
My father in law is an on-call police officer... ..." while still in the theater. If it's a real call he then leaves, if not he says "I'm busy" and hangs up.
yes he leaves everything on
yes it's set to vibrate
yes he says "hello, officer
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
It used to be part of the reason we went to theaters - to get away from our life for 2 hours.
I think it's sad that people think they have to be connected, reachable 24/7. It makes their lives more distracted. I've had friends destroyed by their cellphone. They can't concentrate anymore. Can't talk to one person anymore. Can't even watch a frickin movie without getting interrupted.
And, to top it all off, 99%+ of all the calls that I've seen interfere with real life have been completely pointless. I've never heard someone say "OK I'll be at the firehouse in 20 mins" and rush off. Never "I'll be in surgery ASAP." It's always "I can't believe she said that, what a bitch!" or "No, you can't eat any ice cream. Put your sister on the phone." And every time the subject comes up, it's all about the poor doctors, firemen and crucial IT projects.
Maybe it's a generational thing, but a lot of people get miffed by the attitude that constant cellphone availibility is a right, or even a good thing. A lot of people are going to think of those 10,000 pointless calls that have interrupted things every time you say you really really need your phone. Some of them will get angry about it and flame you, I hope I haven't given that impression.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Thanks for mentioning my treatment, you too seem much more reasonable on the issue and bring up a lot of good points. I see this whole issue as a common trend and I do not blame cell phones for this trend. People in general are more anonymous these days, they can hold a private conversation in a public place essentially meaning they aren't required to interact with their surroundings to the same level. I have no idea the number of accidents caused by cell phone use and I do believe firemen do stay at the firehouse assuming your in a city which has professional firefighters. I know the town I grew up in was 100% volunteer. The pager goes off and they run out the door. It works well for them.
A common problem with technology is figuring out what to do with it. Obviously cell phones are new to our culture and so our culture needs time to adapt. Think about the times when you couldn't even say the word pregnancy over the phone. Times have changed obviously and now people talk about whatever they like. You need people confronting them when they are doing it at inappropriate times much like when a kid learns to fight. Shouldn't teach him not to fight and shouldn't teach him to always fight, but there is a time and a place and you get punished for doing it at an inappropriate time. There are plenty of examples but when it comes to this I just think zero tolerance is a bad idea. I think zero tolerance is just a bad idea alltogether though.
You are correct that cell phones are often a crutch for bad policy. For instance in my world I'm on call 24/7. If they hired another guy to do my job the two of us could share this responsibility and then this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. Of course that's not my reality whether cell phones exist or not. So I'll counter your argument saying that cell phones don't make people more rude, people are just more rude in general. There are less physical consequences these days and I think thats why. 50 years ago someone acting inappropriately getting slugged would result in effectively letting someone know they were acting inappropriately. Today if you do that you could end up in jail or in a civil suit. People in general are afraid to step up because they don't understand the consequences that may or may not happen.
Sorry I like to jump around a bit but referring to the problem not being around before 2000; there have always been rude people in theaters, throwing popcorn, talking to the people around them, laughing obnoxiously, anything you can think of really. Now most of the time I see people in their seats and on a bad day you'll hear a cell phone go off followed by intense hatred beams of energy from the rest of the audience. I think people are starting to get the picture. Two years ago it was a much larger issue I think. Every experience I've had in the last year has been a great one. Anecdotal though so I could be way off base.
P.S. I figured out the paragraph tag problem. They want every paragraph to be enclosed instead of alternating like I used to.