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.
Does it just "block" the cameras, or does it destroy them?
Either way, I hope this comes in a personal unit. It'd be a nice way to avoid being photographed at family gatherings.
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
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.
Nothing to see here, move along...
My other sig is funny.
I can't wait until they blind a few people testing this. I might want to go to concerts without my contacts or glasses.
Honestly, I know they will try to make sure that they don't accidently get someone's glasses. However, when some boffins tried to create an active cellphone jammer for planes, it coded a guy by stopping his pacemaker during the tests. Doesn't make me feel real snazzy about the idea.
In God we trust, all others require data.
"The system works by looking for the reflectivity and shape of the image-producing sensors used in digital cameras."
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?
As usual, this kind of systems can only block the legitimate public (which tries not to break any laws), while the truly dangerous people just use more advanced technology.
Expect to see this system installed at EVERY amusement park, and every landmark, and every tourist attraction.
The Powers That Be are determined to make sure that ANY information the masses have access to is paid for.
So... SLR-style cameras and cameras using CMOS sensors are invisible to the detector. Nice.
After seeing a lady manhandled and her camera destroyed at a prince concert. I can now see something like this being very profitable. Most concerts don't allow cameras. But people sneek them in all the time. especially camera phones.
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
So basically, if you still want to be a photographic snoop, use a box camera.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
This might be practical for simply preventing happy snappers from taking photos of things you'd rather not, but I fail to see how this will prevent determined people from getting the pictures. For starters, a long tight baffle attached to the lens of a conceiled camera would be very difficult for the system to pick up on, *and* it would be very difficult for the light beam to get to the lense as well.
The more practical and up-front approach would be to x-ray everybody and take their cameras off them.
The countermeasure: film.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
If this system is used to disable digital cameras, and this system becomes widespread, then will we see a resurgence and acceleration in the development of film cameras.
Don't throw away your old Canon/Mamiya/Nikon yet!
Of course, this will work until owning analog cameras is made illegal.
when CCDs die.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
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
I'm guessing that I could hide a camera from this device the same way I hide it from people. A fine mesh (like nylon stocking) in front of the lens renders it non-shiny enough that someone can stare at quite a large lens without realizing that it is a lens.
... call the lawyers. Don't try to tell me that the system is designed not to do that. All kinds of things happen that aren't supposed to be able to happen. At some point, it just boils down to who has the best lawyer.
If the device has enough power to saturate a ccd, it has enough power to saturate someones eyeball. So, someone is temporarily blinded or startled. They trip
-
SLR Camera (that's acknowledged in the article) --- the sensor isn't revealed except during the actual taking of the picture, the rest of the time there's a mirror in the way.
-
Ordinary digicam, but use the optical viewfinder and keep your hand over the lens until you take the picture.
-
If they're using wavelength X for the detection process, just use a filter that blocks that wavelength and work in black and white (perfectly acceptable for most trade show spying)
-
Polarising filter will probably screw things up.
-
Lens Hood would mean the detection system would need to be on-axis.
-
Wear old CCDs as jewelery.
ianNew System to Counter Photo and Video Devices
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 19:01 19th September, 2005
from the movie-studios-rejoice dept.
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."
If it's not a dupe, it's certainly a very close article, which should occur in the "Related Links section". Yay! for my l33t search skillz.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Not always. A digital SRL doesn't have to have a mirror between the lens and the sensor.
If an electronic viewfinder is used instead of an optical one the sensor
is in play all the time.
More distracting than the unimaginative hollywood plot, hyperbolic acting, and unrealistic exploding cars/buildings/animated cats?
Come to think of it, that's the best anti-piracy technology to come out of Hollywood--the movies themselves.
Might also work as a countermeasure against the increasing permanent surveilance we're coming under.
If there were a device that disables CCTV, and it's cheap enough to buy and light enough to carry, I know I would have one with me and switched on all the time. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a (potential) criminal "for my own protection".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As described, this system will not work against *serious* digital cameras -- digital SLRs. In these cameras the CCD sensor (or, nowadays, more often the CMOS sensor) is hidden behind a mirror till the moment of the shot when the mirror flips away for a fraction of a second.
Not to mention that in order to work the system will need to constantly scan everything with, presumably, beams of visible light. I doubt this will work out well at most places...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
1: Person 1 aims digital camera at 'forbidden' target.
2: Blocking device directs beam at camera.
3: Person 1 sees bright light in viewfinder, gives thumbs-up.
4: Person 2, standing a few feet away, whips up second camera and takes picture.
5: Profit!
And I'm sure somebody smart enough could devise a simple device to cover up a camera's CCD until an instant before the picture was taken. It could be called something like a 'shutter'...
You must think in Russian.
Finally a countermeasure for those pesky speeding-ticket cameras that plague my city!!!! Down with the 60km/h (~37mph) limit!!!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Place it at the back of a 6" tube and unless the blocker is in a very narrow apeture, it is not going to see the camera nor is it going to do anything but shine on the outside of the tube if it did.
And then there are....
multiple cameras- which one is real.
telescopes
this idea is a waste of money and time.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This one ranks pretty high up on the "PhD idiot" scale. What I mean is that it continually amazes me, working in higher education, how people can be so educated yet know so little. The quote "An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everythig about nothing" really rings true. You see plenty of soltuions developed that completely and totally fail to account for the realities of the world.
In this case, the problem is the way that a CCD is detected. They say they do it by checking it's reflection propreties. According to the article CCDs are retroflective, meaning they send light back to it's source, they don't scatter it. Ok fine but you think that will work reliably? Even if you get it so a system doesn't generate false positives (which will be a big problem, it's not like CCDs are unique in this property) what do you do when someone sticks a filter on their lense that changes the properties? I'm sure teh sense works fine when it's just a glass lense that does nothing but focus the light. I'm sure it doesn't work at all if you put the equivilant of mirror glass on the lense.
I don't see this going anywhere on a large scale, espically since it would be hell to make it pick up and deal with long range lenses. It's not hard (if a little expensive) to get a lense that gets good shots at 500+ metres. How do you deal with that?
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
"Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem," Clawson maintains -- a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. "If someone videotapes a movie in a theater and then puts it up on the web that night or burns half a million copies to sell on the street - then the movie industry has lost a lot of in-theater revenue.
Will someone please explain the Accounting here? This kind of statement really bothers me because it assumes a few things. 1. That consumers of pirated content have the dispossable income to purchase the 'legit' consumable. 2. That if piracy were to go away they would buy the 'legit' stuff.
So, I would argue that their actual lost revenue is quite a bit less. For example, I'm semi-interested in watching the new X-Men movie. When presented with a choice, I can spend $16 to go to a theater and watch it with a significant other (plus $6 for popcorn), or I can purchase a semi-decent bootleg for $5. Which do I choose. Hmm.. A bootleg sounds really nice. However, in the absence of a bootleg do I go to the theater? No. Because the interest is not sufficient to justify the cost. When presented with the theater and a P2P acquired copy, which do I choose? Hmmm...Not to difficult either. But in the absence of P2P copy, do I go to the theater? No.
So, I again ask, how in the heck do they reconcile the lost revenue???
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
this threw me off at first...
t a,0,2245506.photogallery?index=7),
Now I get it, it's $10 to get a photo of your kid frightened by Santa
(http://www.southflorida.com/events/sfl-scaredsan
but only if you're not taking the picture yourself...
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.
Got a source for that one?
I'd like to point out that there is a reason the light turns yellow for several seconds before it turns red. Sure, you can always speed up when it would be better to stop so you can make it through the intersection before it technically becomes illegal, but if the guy in front of you doesn't do the same, don't expect blame to fall on him.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
One of these days blind people will see through the use of some implants connected to a digital camera, early prototypes are on the work (just search for it in /.)... will it means that blind people will have to suffer this stupid invention?
In the industry, we call them "cigarette burns."
(splices single frame of male genitalia into slashdot)
It kinda irritates me that there are no pictures of this thing
Sigs are bad for your health
Retroreflective means the surface reflects light back to the source. Stop Signs, taillights, and some fire hydrants are retroreflective. So are to a lesser extent, disco-balls, diamonds, and ball-bearings. But CCD sensors? Why? And since when? I've never seen one behave that way. And in a photosensor you want one that COLLECTS and absorbs light, not reflects it or even worse, retroreflects it.
Now at some angles, CCD sensors are going to show a diffraction pattern, due to the spacing of the sensor elements, but only if they're out in the open, without a lens. Are these "Reasearchers" seeing this effect?
This article sure sounds like high-grade snake-oil!
A couple years ago, movie theaters started offering a bounty for alerting them to bootleggers in the act. For the first time, I saw two security agents standing on either side of the movie screen - not so discreetly looking at the audience with their night vision/IR goggles.
So I decided I'd give them a show and told my Nokia to send all contacts via IR. I did it about every ten minutes and I knew it was getting security's attention. But I just didn't appreciate them watching me watch a movie. Kinda creepy, you know?
If it matters, the movie was Spiderman 1, and I haven't been watched since, but I just wanted to relay my little civil disobedience story.
We said the same thing. :-)
The only thing I added that was different is that the process we described is a lot more movement than is currently done to expose a single frame. I'm not sure if the mechanism can do all of this quickly. The shutter is very quick in both directions and dontrolled very precisely. The other stuff.. I'm not sure.
Clearly the one rule that has changed that motivated the SLR designs we have today is the film (CCD in this case) cannot be touched by any light at all other than the exposure of the frame. This rule has changed since the CCD can be hit with light all of the time. Hmm.. there is another snag here. You can't hit the CCD with too bright of light. They can be damaged by too bright of light too frequently. Or at least some can. This would work for a small aperature, but not a big one. I wonder how P&S handle this? Guess the answer is out there and I just don't know enough about it.
There are a ton of Rebel hacks out there. It might be worth hitting the community for hacking the Rebel to see what control they have. I know they've made a lot of great improvements to annoyances. Unfortunately for me the annoyances of all Digital SLRs cannot be changed with firmware. What bugs me most with all Digital SLRs is from a user interface perspective they are high tech P&S cameras and not SLRs. I'd prefer to have the user controls optimized for manual control with deep menu options for automated "idiot modes" as I like to call them. It only makes sense to bury the automated modes in the menus because people set the mode they'll be using for a long time and leave them. Where people that like the full manual control want to keep the object framed and just twitch a few fingers to set the camera where it should be. The only *extra* I care about with my Digital Rebel that's anything beyond a pure manual is the HUD and built in meter display on the HUD.
Anyway... I'm digressing from the main thread here.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
Think about Rodney King? The man had unnecessary force used against him in an extremely obvious way. Of course, all the officers involved still basically got away with it, and the L.A. Riots were completely justified. (Specific incidents that happened within the riots, such as racial violence, were not.)
But think about police abuse, and the abuse of the state in general. Think about Tiannamen Square in China. Think about Guantanimo, and especially think about Abu Ghraib.
Do you think we would even know about such abuses, if CameraBusting technology was ubiquitous? Hell no. Just like most of China's citizens do not know about Tiannamen square, most Americans would not know about Rodney King. Nobody would know about Abu Ghraib. (Which I admit I can't spell.)
Technology is good. The advent of digital cameras, camera phones, camcorders, and all that jazz are a check in balance, by the people, against their oppressive government. We are living in a rare time in which we have tools that can actually be used to "fight the power", so to speak.
It wont be long before this rare opportunity is over. Once they perfect this type of technology, good luck capturing abuse. Good luck knowing what is really happening.
Imagine the police being able to beat anyone in broad daylight, knowing that it would be impossible to be filmed. Far-fetched? I seriously doubt it. Technology is moving at what seems like an exponential rate, and I fear things are only going to get worse.
Were the Cyberpunk visionaries really that far off?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com