Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?
Paul server guy writes "I am building a limousine bus, and the owners want to prevent occupants from using cameras on board. (But they would like the cameras mounted on the bus to continue to operate; I think they would consider this optional.) They would also like to do it without having to wear any 'anti-paparazzi' clothing (because they also want to protect the other guests on board), and without destroying the cameras. (So no EMP generators, please). We've done some testing with high-power IR, but that proved ineffective. Does anyone have any ideas that they are willing to share?"
What are the paparazzi doing on-board in the first place? Paps are invariably outside the limo, i.e. off-board.
Just confiscate cameras before they get on the Girls Gone Wild bus. Rich People/First World Problems.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Just cover your head in tinfoil, hat shapes work best, and then they can take as many photos as they want but your brain waves remain safe
You want to have your own cameras capturing everything on board, but you want to prevent your guests from doing the same.
Best advice is to stop being a dick.
People use limousine buses for special events and parties. These are the times people most want to remember and are likely to want to take their own pictures. Preventing them from doing so (even if it were possible, which in your stated scenario seems dubious) would be a pretty dick move.
Post a sign inside saying "All photography in this bus is forbidden without prior consent of XYZ Associates". Counsult a lawyer for whatever exact wording you should use. Have your drivers enforce the policy.
Trunk Monkey!
This article is yet another confirmation that Slashdot just gets worse and worse. I hate to troll, but come on guys, up the quality some.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
1) Cover all the windows
2) Passengers on high-class limo travel in the dark
3) Install an infrared camera
4) Sell film to adult and/or paparazzi websites
5) $$$PROFIT$$$
Got a couple of problems. As you found IR is ineffective, I think you will find anything that allows normal human sight to work will be ineffective or inconsistently effective. Have to assume that total darkness is not acceptable as well (though would be somewhat effective)
I have heard that its possible to detect cameras by IR lasers that they use for autofocus. So that leaves some ideas:
1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,
2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nothing is perfect of course, but if those could be done for the majority of smart phones, then it may still be worth doing for some purposes.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Tell all the occupants not to use illegal drugs, hire prostitutes, or engage in homosexual activities while saying publicly that they are heterosexual.
Then it wont matter if people legally operate their cameras to document reality and protect themselves from frivolous libel lawsuits.
Just spray paint everyone and everything with matt black paint.
Really, what you want is a behavior control device, not a anti-camera device. Seriously, what the fuck? Why shouldn't people be allowed to take photos on the bus? What do they have to hide? If people want to take photos of each other on the bus, why shouldn't they?
I reject your fascist attempts at controlling others, as should others as well. In short fuck you and fuck beta.
Add obnoxious distractions is the best advice... Mirrors work nicely for reflecting flashes into the cameras, won't stop a cellphone camera/no flash camera shot but if you want to stop all cameras you're going to have to blind everyone or just mount a few obnoxious overpriced camera photo "charge per photo" sign showing the cost per photo for licensing purposes -- i.e. you're allowed to charge for any commercial shot "license" and distribution rights are a part of that -- make sure you have them posted on all sides of your buses and make it obnoxiously obvious that you will be charging per shot and a blanket license to shoot if a camera is seen on the person that will make anyone think twice about pulling out a camera. Depends on your clientele but something like $300 + $20 per photo or north of there should do the trick!
You could just constantly play a movie in each corner of the vehicle. This way anyone trying to film your clients would inevitably end up making an unlawful reproduction of the film and then you just sick the MPAA on them.
Have you done any research into "The Cone of Silence"?
The best solution that comes to mind is to create a small black hole in the center of the bus. If it is of sufficient mass it will draw in all the light gravitationally, thus preventing the cameras from capturing said light.
Better known as 318230.
Anti camera tech that blocks the taking of images, but allows the taking of images by certain cameras, but you can't be required to do or wear anything special/different. So, basically, we need a non-existent cloaking technology that we can see through with our own cameras.
Dude, it is clear that you work for complete fucking idiots. Unless you are also a complete fucking idiot, (which I think you might be since you posted this on Slashdot) you need to find another job with a better employer. What will you do when they demand that the limos be driven by Yetis and lead along the road by unicorns?
You're asking for a technical solution to a social/political problem. The only feasible solution is to make sure your policy is clearly explained and understood to all who board the limo-bus, and then strictly enforcing it by expelling anyone caught with a camera. Sure, you won't be able to monitor people 100% of the time, but if you're strict with enforcement people won't risk taking snapshots. It will probably be more effective than any technical solution which would be expensive and easily circumvented.
And if the owners of the limo-bus are really that worried about photos onboard, the simplest solution would be for everyone to deposit their electronic devices into a bag, and they can then recover their devices after leaving the limo-bus.
My guess though is that your policy is likely to lose your limo-bus company customers, so the owners better make sure whether enforcing it is worth the cost.
Assuming appropriate sensor technology exists, you could detect and confiscate all electronics. I don't know how you would distinguish between the limo's electronics and a camera in someone's pocket, though. I doubt you could make a party limo without any electromagnetic fields in the back. I suppose you could scan people before they get in the limo, but that's pretty invasive -- a little too much like airport security. Plus, neither of these techniques would do anything against non-electronic film cameras. I'm sure there are even plastic cameras that would get past a metal detector. Having very low-light conditions inside the limo would probably fix that problem though, since a non-digital camera is not going to have night vision mode. So, assuming it's feasible, try this:
1) Scan everyone for electronics before they get in, and confiscate every electronic camera found.
2) Make sure there is too little light inside the limo for an analog camera to function.
plan on making indias gang rape on bus problem look like a walk in the park?
Go buy a bunch of cheap digital cameras, or better yet, see if Goodwill has any.
Smash them up so their circuit boards are hanging out and they look like they are generally falling apart. Post a sign on the front of the buss indicating that photos are prohibited with the penalty of having cameras confiscated and destroyed. Hang disemboweled camera under the sign.
Cameras work on the same principles, and at the same wavelengths, as the human eye. Anything that disables a camera will blind a human.
See below:
http://ubicomplab.cs.washingto...
The basic premise before was to detect a camera's CCD (it is retro-reflective), then blind it with a rapidly-changing sequence of bright light from a projector to prevent the camera from compensating. Might not work with modern cameras, and might be in-feasible in your environment, but there's the info.
And my owners want the traffic to clear in front of the limousine as the bus rolls into a congested area, but they are ok to have the traffic pile up behind the bus. We've done some testing with really loud honking but it proved ineffective. We don’t want to destroy other cars either, so no shooting torpedoes, please!
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
get a flash slave, which is used to trigger big studio flash using a flash on the camera, basically it's a relay that will complete the circuit when it detects flash being fired, you could wire this to the interior light to produce bright lights when somebody tries to take a photo with a flash, which should overexposes Unfortunately, it doesn't help if the person taking a picture doesn't use flash, and good cameras can compensate or adjust overexposure Expensive systems on yacht uses infra-red camera to look for camera's ccd and fire lasers at the camera You could try to blast the whole area with IR with spinning IR laser like a discoball
just gas them like in the 5th element. When they wake up they'll be at their destination.
Most cameras are in phones and are point and shoot. But even the DSLRs use the same technology. They focus based on contrast and the light meter can be easily fooled for exposure - try getting a decent photo of a person (in auto mode) with a brightly lit (like a window) background or a very dark background. You have to take a spot reading (get in their face with the camera and lock the exposure).
There are whole books written about photographic exposure and why cameras - single use devices meant to be cameras - have a manual mode, usually because the computer in the camera can be fooled so easily.
OK.
Keeping everyone in the dark isn't an option - safety for one. BUT - either have dim mood lighting (maybe the red lighting you see in flight romms for night ops) or VERY bright lights in the roof. The exposure systems wouldn't have a chance - a skilled photographer could do it, but it be pretty obvious if someone were spending the time to get the exposure correct and then it'll be up to the driver or whoever to ask the person to stop.
How about a small sign that says "No Cameras". Why is that so hard?
As I said before this hit the front page (how did such a stupid question manage that?), my advice is to stop wasting your time.
Regarding the line about potential payment (that was removed by editors before posting this to the main page), you can send me $50 worth of Litecoins via the wallet address at the bottom of my homepage, CanHasDIY.com.
Don't bitch; 50 bucks is a hell of a lot less than what my usual consulting fee runs. You're welcome.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Does someone pay for these questions and then have a bunch of smart people answer? How much does this cost? I want to ask everyone on here for a great patent idea.
Paint goatse decor everywhere, then nobody will want to take any pictures.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I was thinking how about keeping it dark, while at the same have those UV light that they have in the bowling alleys to set the mood. Perhaps some constant vibration in tune with the music to prevent any stabilization of images.
Of course if you detect a flash you should take them out right away.
Archie - CIO-for-hire
Don't be a jerk! This is an absurd request. You get to record but your 'clients' cannot? I'm guessing the owners don't actually want to be in business. Even a no-camera policy is completely ridiculous for a fore-hire limo service.
How did this post get pass the sniff test?
Any self respecting geek will reject this and refuse to post anything helpful. troll away friends, troll away.
Tell them the costs of angry guests suing the company because photos they took in the limo didn't turn out will far outweigh whatever advantage they thought they were getting by disabling people from taking pictures of themselves having a good time.
If they are worried about cameras being planted then the solution is simple, have an armed guard watch over the limo 24x7 any time guests are not inside. What's that? Don't want to pay for 24x7 surveillance of your limo? Then you didn't really care.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think it is a stupid request, and a stupid rule, and really should get no legitimate responses... :(
That said, here is one
This jackass owner probably already has his clients pay some ludicrous security deposit to get in his magic car, so you let people know they won't be getting their ludicrous sum of money back if they are caught taking pictures in the vehicle. The security cameras they have would help enforcement.
Still as others have said, this is an awful practice, and hopefully (if there is any justice in the world [there isn't]) cause them to lose customers.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Don't bother trying to disable the cameras... just enable cloaking on all occupants. Then all those photos will be devoid of people. Better yet, hide your motives better next time you request something like this.
Gamma rays will obviate most photography. Concentrated radiation will wash out the CCDs in contemporary cameras. It also ruins traditional film.
Just be sure not to mention the Cobalt 60 paint you've used everywhere. Radiation sickness will probably not develop until after they've left the bus.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Seriously? Have none of you heard of a stag party? I'm guessing this bus has a pole in the middle, too. These things are not uncommon, and they all have the same rule/concern: no cameras.
"Hi- I have a limousine service that would like to be able to provide anti-paparazzi options for our clients. Which means we could charge a lot more for our services, and possibly even get a nice patent to keep others from providing similar services so we can make a lot of money. Can you nerds give us ideas on how to do this for free?"
Nope. The paparazzi won't be ON the bus, he's running some kind of orgy service or wants a place for celebs to fuck and snort coke. He wants to prevent people from filming from within the bus, just like in a strip club... you can easily keep the external paparazzi from seeing inside by blacking the windows on the bus and there's enough room to put a partition so you can't see in through the door when it opens.
Unlike a strip club, he doesn't want to pay a bouncer to stand inside and monitor, so he wants cameras. Probably so he can jerk off to the action and possibly blackmail the clients.
No, I'm not trolling, I'm 100% serious. The only option is no cameras at all, pat-downs at the door.
This is trying to fix a social problem with technology. Which cannot be done unless you through enough technology at it.
A computer vision system that watches all the passengers, all the time. When one uses a camera, the computerized nanny will activate lights / lasers that point into the camera lens -- or alternately tasers that point at the camera operator.
That would make the owners of the bus seem like nice guys instead of the pricks they seem to want to be.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Just have the bouncer politely inform all guests that they can't take pictures and need to keep their hands off the girls. If being polite doesn't work, they can be less polite until they get a response.
Install tons of super bright IR LEDs inside the bus. Most cameras will probably pickup the IR light and it will hopefully overexpose any shots they try to take [with their phone they smuggled in after you confiscated all devices before they got on]. In addition, install IR filters on your own cameras to try to filter out the IR light being blasted inside.
If it were anti-paparazzi they wouldn't be worried about cameras on the bus they'd be worried about cameras from the outside, this is easy, tinted windows. The combination of them looking to block cameras from their clients on the bus, combined with wanting to take their own pictures, tells me they just want to be jerks about the whole thing.
Isn't it easier to just have someone by the driver's seat as a watch?
If conditions would be perfect you could implement variable rate high accuracy stroboscopic lights which are synced to built-in cameras. Everybody else would record only partial or blurry images. On top of that the party would totally be sick.
With complementing waveforms and multiple cameras side by side, synced to different rates, the flickering may not be so problematic for the passengers.
Or maybe have visitors install an app which would be location aware and block cameras from operating. An app could at least report back if a photo has been taken at the position of the bus etc.
So basically you want to treat your customers like dirt. I'm sure your business will find all the success it deserves.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
You need a 200kW strobe light with high speed electronics and triggers.
Simply lower the light so that everyone will end up using flash on the limo. Upon detecting a flash signature, instantly trigger the anti-camera device.
Now everyone have a suntan, and the photo taking was effectively prevented by giving a pure white picture as the result.
Don't worry, the guests will be able to see again within 30 minutes
We live in an age where even Casino's have given up on not letting people take pictures in a casino.
I suspect the person wants to sell pictured from their own photographer to the patrons.
Just take better pictures.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Jamming makes the required frequencies unusable. Jam the required frequencies using the following methods,
1) Since cameras use visible light, I suggest jamming using a very annoying bright disco ball. Cameras will not be able to adjust, and only very festive people will come on the bus making for a very fun ride.
2) Turn off all the lights and cover the windows. No light means no pictures (except maybe those annoying flashes). You may end up attracting lots of goths and vampire wannabes.
Seriously though, eyes use the same frequencies as cameras, so you'll end up causing problems for everyone's eyeballs. May I suggest setting a rule of no cameras and enforcing it as most everyone else does.
Don't let anyone into the limo. The cameras aren't just going to walk themselves in. And just like that, your cameras will be the only working cameras in the limo. Tada.
I'm just kidding, you don't have to do anything. Nobody will want to get into your limo in a few months, and the above solution will materialise on its own.
*blinking cursor*
Give the passengers $20 bucks, or something if they surrender their equipment voluntarily.
Other than that, I think if you're traveling on public roads/property, your limo service shouldn't be able to restrict usage. In fact, I'd be surprised if you're allowed to restrict usage to begin with as I'm sure some law already exists for this!
Get a very high-powered flash unit (sometimes called an antipersonnel flash for its ability to temporarily blind people) and set it up as a slave flash so that any internal flashes firing will set it off. This will probably work but the occupants won't like it much. It could also be triggered by flashes coming in from outside, so may actually be counterproductive and assist the paparazzi outside.
You will have to ask Brains of International Rescue.
I know you specifically ruled this out, but it seems like the only reasonable way to me.
I know the camera I have does not really work well at all in the same room as my computer. I always assumed low levels of electrical interference were the issue here.
Assuming all digital cameras are the same level of magnitude susceptible to this interference it would be easy to create low level non-damaging electrical interference that would prevent any non static ridden photos from being taken, and this interference would be easy to block for your own cameras.
I would try taking pictures next to some running microwaves/ect. and see if you get consistently bad results without destroying the cameras.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1) Retract interior cameras
2) Rapidly spray interior of vehicle with paint
3) Extend interior camera
Repeat at 10 second intervals
[Insert pithy quote here]
Yeah, I was assuming the best-case scenario of a sex-party bus, with onboard cameras strictly for security/legal reasons. But I agree, most likely the poster is just working for asshats. Still, it gave me an excuse to think about a sex-party bus for a few minutes.
several Xenon strobes firing constantly.
Because what you are asking for is impossible unless you make a strobing super intensity light to overwhelm the cameras optics.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He is trying to do the impossible and doesnt want to tell the customer, "yeah, this is not Hollywood. That doesnt exist."
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
photography steals your soul, not your brainwaves, you secular materialist dumbass
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You've tried ultra bright IR but you really need flickering ultra-bright IR strobing at different rates and levels. A solid IR just sets things up for a better photo. Providing the camera didn't have an IR filter and did photograph IR a flickering IR would cause differing light needs within the exposure window which the camera would be unlikely to adapt to. If you are able to link the timing of the flickering in with your own cameras you'd be able to shut it off momentarily (electronically) and grab the photo.
How about telling people "no cameras allowed on board for any reason and you'll be put off at the next intersection if you break this rule"? Be nice and let them have their phones so long as they're kept in a pocket or purse, or at worst put a piece of electrical tape over the camera lens on their phones so they don't work?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
run as fast and far from the company as you can. They are EVIL!!!!
To allow officials to accept bribes without fear of being photographed in the act? To allow folks to get rowdy and/or affectionate without being photographed in the act? To allow... I think you're seeing the theme here: what happens on the limo-bus, stays on the limo-bus. Or as someone else mentioned, to drum up business for the officially sanctioned photographer.
I can only think of one way to implement it safely though, and that is unlikely to be acceptable: black out the windows and remove all interior lighting so that the cameras can't see.
The challenge is that you want to let human eyes see, while electronic eyes cannot (if we're talking film cameras then it becomes essentially impossible - those things are generally even more reliable and durable than human eyes). If you're not allowed to destroy the cameras then you're limited to a few options:
1) Applying enough light that the sensors saturate - which is likely to damage human eyes with prolonged exposure since cameras are intentionally filtered to only be able to see roughly the same spectrum as human eyes, and high-intensity IR is known to cause eye damage due to overheating of the cornea and lens - the only part of the human body without an active cooling system.
2) Disrupting the electronics so that a photo can't be taken - which is pretty much going to require either a camera-destroying EMP, or a sustained string of low-grade EMPs that are just strong enough to reliably disrupt all electronics in the area without actually damaging them, and frequent enough that the cameras don't have a chance to finish rebooting before the next pulse arrives. Unfortunately EMPs are not exactly gentle to living tissue either, not to mention the pulse that will reliably disrupt a piece of high quality electronics will likely do at least some damage to low-quality electronics. Multiply that by maybe a hundred pulses an hour and you're going to end up with some fried electronics (and probably damaged neurons as well). Plus passengers are unlikely to appreciate having all their electronics forcibly rebooted and their hard drives potentially scrambled. And heaven hep you if anyone has a pacemaker or other implant.
I can think of a few ways to make the camera take really *bad* photos, but that's only relevant to the "official photographer" scenario, and I will not willingly contribute to exploitation via artificial scarcity.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
On a "sex-party" bus, the clients would explicitly NOT want the bus to have cameras, and, depending on the crowd, may or may not, want their own pictures. The OP wants the reverse, which tells me he either wants a blackmail bus, or he doesn't really expect anything that exciting to happen in the first place and just wants to play extortion with memories of a fun evening.
Yes, a bucket. Get a little tub or a bucket, when people get in say, "For your safety we require all passengers to put their handheld electronic devices, including cameras, into the bucket. We will store it in the trunk and when you depart the vehicle we will give them back to you." When the passengers scream, "WWHYYYYY" you have a simple response: "We have had too many people lose their devices in between the seats and what not. You might not think you will, but it happens almost every night. Therefore, we have implemented this simple policy, because we can guarantee that we will give you back your phones."
That is all you need to do. Low tech, simple solution.
All true. I also proposed anti-personnel mines as an effective deterrent in another comment, but you've got me thinking that anti-tank mines might be better, because they would have the added benefit of destroying this shitty bus.
One of these 42 billion candela light systems should do the trick - pictures from every normal camera will be so overexposed that pictures will be useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Just illuminate the inside of the bus with one of those light systems, and put a lens from welder's goggles over your own cameras.
You'll probably need to tow a 300KW generator behind the bus to power the lighting system. And tell the driver to always keep the air conditioning on high so you don't accidentally broil your guests.
Use lasers with non-visible beams connected to actuated, high speed bases and working in tandem with the on-board video cameras. Pre-map the location - including relative distances between each camera (use laser as range-finder) - of all "legitimate" cameras on the bus, then use a filter to scan for the very specific and unique reflected light frequencies created by a camera lens, and whenever found, point any lasers with valid angles to see it at said camera lens: voila, no more unauthorized video.
You might also be able to accomplish this more easily, without having to map your "legitimate" cameras, by mounting said cams behind some sort of cover that would obscure their lenses from being sensed by the anti-camera-camera by dint of the covers by altering/filtering the frequency of the light reflected by the lens.
If you wanted to try something somewhat more COTS than trying to build and program a rig to do this (though a lot of the basic frameworks for things like high-speed visual target acquisition by sensing cameras and pattern recognition suites are already "out there", if you're willing to dig for them or do some legwork contacting the developers), you might try a LIDAR unit of some variety, though you'll almost certainly still have to do some modifications. I have no idea, however, whether or not the light freq's used by common LIDAR units will interfere with a camera the way more traditional lasers do.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Try a photo strobe of infra-red and visible light.. Vary the length between flashes. Make it difficult to get a picture in focus with the right white balance. http://www.policemag.com/chann...
Limo owner wants a defense in case something illegal happens or damage occurs.
Partiers want protection from each other - that no one will publish pictures so they can party freely.
Diffuse but relatively bright UV, implemented with either UV fluorescent tubes or UV LEDs should do the trick. Fit your own cameras with UV filters. Regular cameras will work, but will be affected by a strong 'white haze'.
The bright but diffuse UV should not be harmful to eyes for shorter intervals. Be careful about that, however.
UV??? wouldn't be my first choice. If it's bright enough to haze the image in a camera, it's bright enough to be dangerous if you look into the source-- and if you're doing this without clear warming, you can expect at random some people will be looking at the source.
The problem with UV is that, in any wavelength that's not absorbed by air, you're still only getting one electron per photon on the CCD detectors. So, since the photons are so energetic, it is terribly energy inefficient as a way to overexpose a CCD. You have to pump out a lot of UV to overload a CCD, and that's dangerous.
IR is much better choice-- the photons are low energy, so you're in the opposite regime. Use a wavelength of about 1 micrometer, and you can't see it, but the CCDs can.
Other than that solution, I think you're out of luck.
Beware of nicer cameras which might be fitted with a UV filter. They are common.
Yes, that's another flaw. Most professional-level photographers keep UV filters on their cameras just as a matter of course.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You want:
1: To allow some devices to record the visible light spectrum
2: To prevent all other devices from recording the visible light spectrum
3: To allow humans to record the visible light spectrum
I give you:
LOLNOPE
You could have a computer detect when ever it sees a lense (Camera, not glases) and have it shine a laser into it. Depending on the size of the bus and how fool proof you want the system to be I'm sure for a typical limousine you could have an array of say 100 camera's around the top sides and floors and an other 100 lasers that could be aimed at lenses when required. It would not be fool proof (maybe 80%?), but I'm sure that for around 10-30M$CAD (Only 9-27M$USD) of hardware (off the rack cameras, motors, lasers and computers that you could pull in a trailer behind the limo) and custom software you could have a pretty effective solution.
Tell him his idea is stupid and find another customer
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
Not necessarily--suppose the limo camera is basically there for security, and will only be examined in the event of the investigation of criminal activity, a lawsuit, or missing luggage, and otherwise it gets destroyed after, say, a year. Now the drunk pop star doing cocaine off the congressional aide is somewhat safe from photographs getting out (unless there is a criminal investigation for other reasons).
Implementing what you suggest will most definitely piss the hell out of the limo's customers. If you are absolutely sure that this is what you want, then here is my two cents: Smoke machine + IR camera. Dense fog will disrupt any attempt of your passengers to take pictures of themselves and flash photography will make things worse for them. Very close distance pictures may still work, but those will not be very desirable. On the other hand you will be prepared with IR camera that will be less affected by the fog. Sounds stupid? Well look at the question before complaining.
All you need to do is fill the back section with a nice mix of aerosolized drugs.
Use pot, some LSD, whatever you can get your hands on.
In short order the people will be too drugged to operate any camera, while your professional camera operator will have developed a high tolerance and can handle it.
In fact, you can probably convince the camera guy to work just for the free drugs!
[/ironic tag]
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
First off, as the subject says: beware of a customer/client who comes to you with "I've come up with this great solution that I'd like you to apply to this problem." Because, for one thing, they've already taken you out of the brainstorming, refining ideas and feasibility phases -- and since they've come to you, it's out of their area of expertise, so those steps probably weren't exactly done in an expert manner. There's a good chance that you won't get such a thing to work, then you're gonna have a problem getting paid for basically proving that it was a bad idea. Because workable or not, you're still gonna have spent your time and resources on it.
Secondly, this sounds like something way outside the core business of a party-bus sort of service. Because really, a selective photography-denial device would have a considerably bigger market than just protecting the interests of the owners of a rolling disco/bar/whorehouse/whatever. Who wouldn't want what is essentially a cloaking device? That business would dwarf whatever racket they're in now.
I'd tell them no, or direct them to a security device vendor instead. But if you really want to try anyway, maybe get them to pay for a "feasibility study" or something like that. It won't cost them nearly as much as a failed project, but you won't have to turn away business that you might need.
I am not a crackpot.
It's probably for the "Bang Bus", a nasty porn site that allegedly drives around picking up women, promises them money, boinks them on camera, then kics them off the bus without their clothes. Never could tell if these were pre-arranged porn actresses or actual "civilians" being picked up and boinked, but they used to show up on free porn sites a lot.
They even had Ron Jeremy ride the bus once, and he was very firm about actually paying the woman. It seemed to shock the jerks on the bus. (I like Ron: anyone that ugly and goofy who still manages to do porn gives hope to normal, ugly,l chubby men like me.)
Then every patron with a brain and a spine says "No thanks, I'll take my chances. I won't hold you liable if I lose it, which you wouldn't be anyway." Granted, there aren't many people these days with both, but I'll tell you where to shove your bus before I hand over my phone.
Passengers must place all possessions (clothing, jewelry, phones, wallets, purses, eye-glasses, etc) in the trunk.
How about a camera flash detector (possibly directional), which then triggers its own high-power flash that would over expose the images of the user. Of course this presumes they are using a flash and once other passengers realized it was the cameras that were triggering the large flashes causing them temporary disorientation / blindness, they'd probably beat the crap out of the offending photographer thus limit further infractions...
Rocco is effective at deterring people from taking pictures in strip clubs.
Answer: Have Rocco ride shotgun.
..don't panic
Hit the right frequency, and no one will be able to take pictures due to the seizures.
Might have to Scotchguard the seats, though.
Fill the limo floor to ceiling with balloons. It'll look more festive, be very hard to see who is inside or what they're doing, and they may even act as a kind of low-tech packing material in a car crash, which is a serious issue, as most limo passengers don't wear seat belts.
200 comments to say "NO"?
They're trying to limit legal liability to me. No cameras on the bus but if some shit goes down they have proof of what actually happened.
Of course it does - there are statistically no viewers and not many comments. Anyone can build a site under those parameters.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
This article is yet another confirmation that Slashdot just gets worse and worse. I hate to troll, but come on guys, up the quality some.
Actually the question begs a legitimate answer. However the majority here seem to be jerks. The question wasn't to gather as many jackasses to ask why, it was a technical question. So what are you ass holes griping about. His reason is his reason is none of you're fucking business. If you are too stupid to have the answer then why don't you shut up and go pick you're nose.
We are not obligated to help him. If he is trying to do something unethical, we are in fact obligated to not help him. And we will then have fun belittling him and tearing apart the question. And if he and you aren't alright with that then why don't you just shut up and go pick "you're" nose (that's the point at which I figured you're probably just a troll, but what the hell, sometimes it's fun to indulge in a little troll feeding).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Just tell the owner to pull out their wallet. Of course, it better be a really big wallet. World’s Largest Private Yacht Features a Laser-based Anti-Photo Shield
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Firstly, good cameras use two AF systems: phase detection (basically a beam splitter) and contrast detection (it looks for peak contrast, as moving out of focus lowers the image contrast).
So unless the lights are really dim, and everyone's flashes stop working, and you've filled the room with smoke or soap bubbles, people will be able to take pictures. This man's a dumbass.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
I don't think you'll win any style points for this but you could install a ton of reflective bands inside...In fact, maybe just make make the seats out of it. Keep the limo bus dark so you need to use a flash to get a decent photo. When the flash goes off, the reflective material will pretty much ruin any photo taken.
and the answer is... don't frickin' do that shit, and it won't matter.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Hire a man named Guildo to sit with passengers for "security". Post camera policy prominently. Tell Guildo to enforce policy, *strongy*. Have a bevy of lawyers on retainer for the lawsuits.
Keep a first run copyrighted movie rolling all the time on a TV. As soon as a customer attempts to use their camera, the MPAA S.W.A.T team will instantly parachute in to conduct cavity searches. Any remaining suspects attempting to flee will be taken out by Hollywood's low earth orbit ion cannon or private drones with machine guns.
My own solution to the problem would be a large, beefy individual wearing a tuxedo who rides in the bus. If anyone takes out a camera, he says to them very politely "Hey, sorry, no cameras on the bus." If they ignore him, he or she (we mustn't be sexist) gently reaches out and crushes the camera with one hand (tattoo of "HELL" across the knuckles optional) and repeats "I'm sorry, did you hear me say 'No cameras'?" If they persist and pull out a cell phone, the individual crushes in the screen with their teeth and spits out small fragments of glass into their laps and says "I'm so sorry, that goes for cell phone cameras too". If they start to whine about their broken hardware, then depending on whether they are rock star or groupie they can either say "The management would like to present this fine line of meth-and-heroin laced cocaine for your pleasure" and try to distract them as well as drug them to where they will forget that the incident ever occurred, or just throw them out of the bus. Optionally, stopping the bus first.
If that isn't going to work for you, you could experiment with flooding the cabin with IR and/or UV light bright enough to saturate the camera. I'm guessing that camera electronics are broader band than the human eye, so that the cabin could conceivably have light so bright that it at least washes out and ruins any pictures taken with unprotected electronics while still being invisible to the human eye, and MAYBE while not being physically dangerous or bright enough to give the cabin occupants a suntan while they ride. The built in cameras would simply be wrapped in a suitable filter. Of course this solution will only last as long as it takes for somebody to figure out out, and paparazzi disguised as groupies are probably not the idiots they are pretending to be -- at that point they'll tape a filter onto their own cameras and then you are back to camera-crunching "hosts" along for the ride.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
This is easy, and cheap to implement solution to this technical problem that completely meets requirements. Just seal over all the windows so no light can get in so that the interior is in pitch darkness and have no interior lighting.
You can even have your own cameras work by fitting out night vision ones. This solution is a vast improvement of depriving people of their vision for the trip with blindfolds, as that doesn't stop cameras from working if pointed randomly.
There is still a potential issue with flash photography, but you can't expect me to solve all your problems.
What is this autofocus thing of which you speak?
Have gnu, will travel.
Dice.com is currently outfitting a bus for their upcoming "Tech Trek" tour: Dice is hittin' the road!
Maybe Paul server guy works for them? Presumably they would not want anyone taking pictures of the people responsible for Beta.
Cameras can only work in a finite range of ambient light. All you have to do is have enough ambient light to saturate the sensors and people won't be able to take meaningful pictures.
A few tens of kilowatts or maybe just make it a nice, round 100kW of supplemental ambient lighting should do the trick.
You could even advertise it as a feature. Free Tan with a Limo Ride!
Put the limo out of the picture. Let's say you can have an infinite space to implement this. Is there such technology that will render all cameras useless except for the one(s) you have? One can suggest to have total darkness inside and have an IR camera for you to use but does your guest/client want to party inside in total darkness? What if someone brought an IR camera too? What if someone used the built-in flash on their cellphones?
Honestly I would like to mod the article as troll...
Step 1: Get congress to enact a law that requires all cameras to include a kill switch that can be triggered via Bluetooth message.
Step 2: Transmit said signal within contents of the bus.
viola.
I wish you no luck whatsoever in this endeavor.
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
I think you may wish to issue people a personal visibility limitation device.
These are commonly referred to by canines as the "Cone of Shame".
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Fill the limo with squid-ink.
Next question?
Your best bet would be to black out the cab and have the only lights me lacking the red, green and blue wavelengths used by the majority of cameras and then using custom filters and image processing on the cameras inside, however that means that no external light can get in without also being filtered to exclude the red green and blue spectrum used by a normal camera. This will most likely end up resulting in a weird and possibly uncomfortable color cast to the light and still won't be 100% effective.
Rolling down any windows would defeat this though, as would opening a door.
AJ Henderson
Supply Breathing apparatus, and fill the passenger cab with water. As long as they keep their phones turned off, they should continue to operate once they dry out! You could also provide opaque dry bags to protect sensitive items.
The answer to your problem is called the Rolling Shutter Effect.
You can simply make ALLl the lights in the cabin strobe at a frequency close to the rolling shutter speed of the cameras most people have. Or at 2, 3, 4, or more times that speed.
Much like old TVs digital cameras take pictures in strips. by picking the right frequency you can cause bands of lightness and darkness in the image, ruining the photo.
You can then choose a camera which is less or not susceptible or synced with the strobe effect to mitigate its effects.
The strobe would be rapid enough to go unnoticed by the human eye and really mess with electronic cameras.
But there are cameras that some people have that may not be effected by it, but most cameras have some issues with it, so your mileage will vary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Green lighting? Actually something like purposely misplaced spot lighting that screws up a picture taken because of the white imbalance, or low-amplitude LED bar/spot lighting. I'm looking at the picture, going "well if the rides are during the day light is going to get in the window so my idea is stupid," -- but aside from bombarding occupants with radiation the lighting could be well misplaced in a cabin that's highly reflective and makes all the pictures streaked and ugly -- very discouraging.
Cheapest solution ever.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Or an alternate suggestion - some guys with vaguely Italian-sounding names with shady backgrounds and baseball bats to ride along. Tell them they get $100 for every camera they whack, and $1000 for every camera user they whack, no questions asked. Since there won't be any functional cameras, the usual excuse of "I didn't see nothin', boss" actually holds up quite well. The problem will solve itself very quickly.
Time to haul my Pentax K-1000 & Vivitar 285 out of the attic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-1000
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61441-REG/Vivitar_233965_285HV_Flash.html
Tell your idiot bosses to stop watching too much TV and realize that what they are thinking of is science fiction and beyond the current capabilities of non-fictional creatures. We haven't gotten to invisibility cloaks yet and these guys want selective light emission and detection? Puh-lease. The clue bus will be along shortly, but be ready for a proper amount of ridicule while receiving your seat.
Its in Alpha test.
Try again.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Install a small black hole to suck all the light from the back of the bus!
Generally I-phone cameras use crappy compression schemes for color space. So, you could set up a pseudo random interval driver for red and blue LEDs, and throw in some green LEDs to make it look white, but only to the human eye. Remember, human sensitivity to green is higher to red and blue by about 2-3 times as much, so it will help mask out the red/blue variations.
The effect will be the color space compression for the i-phones will get glitched up. For better grade cameras doing less compression, it shouldn't be a problem, but they'll need to use of more megabits per second. Generally, for a 64GB SD card(running $50), you can still do 4-8 hours at 720p MP4 compression.
Paul server guy writes
"I am building a limousine bus, and the owners want to prevent occupants from using cameras on board. (They don't want any sex tapes leaked, but they would like the cameras mounted on the bus to continue to operate to record their exploits.) They would also like to do it without having to wear any 'anti-paparazzi' clothing (because they don't want to wear clothes), and without destroying the cameras. (So no EMP generators, please). We've done some testing with high-power IR, but that proved ineffective. Does anyone have any ideas that they are willing to share?"
Just add the following lines to your HOSTS file...
0.0.0.0 cameras.com
1. Fog Machines. You'll need to generate enough fog to completely eliminate visibility. Run the fog juice through the muffler, then route the exhaust into the passenger cabin, and you are good to go.
2. Anesthetics. Pump some "anesthizine gas" into the cabin, and knock everyone out. See Star Trek: TNG for the specifics.
3. Blinding Lights. Deploy lights so bright that the burn out any camera sensors and/or retinas. Optionally, provide shielding visors. See Star Trek: TOS "Operation: Annihilate!" for the specifics.
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
Please tell me the browser cache is screwing with me. Please tell me that my wife wants to have sex more often ( ok that isn't going to happen, I have a 12 and 15 year old) Do we really have Slashdot.org back?
Not all cameras need electronics, so any device that tries to make current digital cameras not take a picture can be subverted. You can record images on silver nitrate (i.e. film) with a purely mechanical camera. If you take time to learn it, you can even learn appropriate settings to use without using a photo meter of any kind. When you are in the darkroom developing the images, you can shorten or lengthen the time if your exposure was a bit off. The execution of murderess Ruth Snyder was captured with the aid of a miniature plate camera custom-strapped to the ankle of Tom Howard, a Chicago Tribune photographer working in cooperation with the Tribune-owned New York Daily News. http://historywired.si.edu/obj...
Loser boy is back! Hi loser boy! you still trying to pass yourself off as a "programmer"?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Signs first then a security guard if you want to do more than just stop the honest.
This appears to be a case of looking for a technological solution of some sort of "camera jammer" for a social problem.
The number of factors in play mean a dumb machine is unlikely to be able to cover the angles that a human can easily spot. Just off the top of my head there's laptop webcams, tablet cams, phones with cameras both fore and aft, digital cameras and still a few film cameras out there and I'll bet nearly every professional photographer on the planet has access to one even now. A person can spot them. A machine can't make the association yet. Making it dark doesn't help. Infra red is blocked very well by filters in most cameras (to the annoyance of people who want to do IR photography), so optical methods are ruled out. Since the desire is for electrical equipment to still run with the exception of the phone function that rules out any messing with hardware. Since dedicated cameras are rarely networked that rules out messing with some sort of hacking.
I could go on but I see it as a social thing - don't try to stop the devices but instead try to stop people bringing them along inside the passenger compartment or try to stop them using them
It's not just a very large number of DSLR lenses that can use manual focus, but even my phone can do it via the "fcamera" application from a few years back. There's probably apps for manual focus for every android or iphone out there by now.
I consider it immoral to limit the visual spectrum capacity and memory (recording) of visual input of cyborg passengers in any way. No, I do not consider this a humorous position although it is certainly and unfortunately not common yet.
As an avid amateur photographer... this sounds horrible. It sounds very much like what you are trying to do is make people pay to use your cameras mounted on the bus, and not allow them to use the plethora of camera equipment we normally carry on our persons in this day and age. Anything to make another dollar? How about not raping your consumers and instead focusing on making your service better than other ones. Stop making the world a worse place. Take that bit of advice to the owners. There is literally no good reason why you should want to do this. I can even think of several ways to frustrate camera users... but why would I want to make the world a crappier place by helping you to do this?
Make seats face each other.
Then leave it up to human nature.
Could be simple seating.or more of a communal lounge.
That plus the rolling shutter illumination by strobe.
You can blind a camera using lasers that produce near infrared light. Check out http://www.naimark.net/project... for some examples.
That leaves detecting the camera and pointing the laser at it. You can either detect the reflections from the lens or the light from the autofocus.
Overall, it's not an easy problem to solve. I don't know that I'd waste my time/money on it.
With the ubiquity of cameras it will be hard, but ask and warn, else take it up with the owners how to handle "violators".
Good luck finding and buying one as a civilian but what you want is an active sensing laser denial system... It's going to be expensive and I've only seen them in military gear but they work... Mostly. Link: http://www.naimark.net/project...
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
How cute you brought all your fake friends with you :-) it gives me joy to no end how you fake being multiple people.
Please continue, maybe someday your mom will buy you a puter.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Definitely would not be legal to do - and no waiver would save their asses from being sued over it.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Digital camera detection (based on the reflective properties of sensors) has been solved for movie theaters. One possible solution for your problem might be to install a generalized version of those systems (say, light sources in four corners of the room/bus, and reflection detectors distributed all around), coupled with steerable light beams (e.g. lasers) that get pointed at the detected locations.
Wand everyone getting on the bus. If they have cameras, they don't get on. Put really dark tint on all the windows so people outside can't see in.
OK, Obviously I wasn't clear enough...
And - I'm just as surprised as anyone that this hit the front page. (Seriously?! Wow - I've only done that once before! that's COOL!)
OK, No, the customers aren't being ass-hats, No, they aren't trying to sell pictures, no, there is not a sripper pole/orgy/druggie bus, and - No, they could care less about selfies, but, if you allow selfies, you have to accept all photos. There will be drinking. Lots of drinking...
What they don't want is pictures taken of them, nor of the other passengers riding along with them, in a - comprimising position. They are willing to lose their own cameras, because they prize their passengers privacy (NOTE PAX, NOT Customer people do NOT pay to ride, it is strictly by invitation only!) and they consider it rude to ask for phones. Not like it matters when you can hide a camera in a button, pen, whatever... The reason they /want/ to keep their own cameras is for no other reason than if some drunken ass-hat douch-bad, Beiber wanna-be decides to do something criminal to someone else on the bus. No more, no less. they not only have no intention of using the footage for anything else, they don't even plan to review it, unless there is a reported incident, and they'll probably just hand it to the cops.
People will be asked to not take pictures, but their may be some very famouse people riding along with some very attractive (non-professional) other passengers, and - well, people will be people. There is a "Guido" on board, but by then it's too late.
We have tried single source, high intensity (250W NIR and 125W IR LEDs) to the point where it was starting to become visible, and it works, only in the immediate area of the LED cluster. There are indeed mirrors all over the bus, and a white light (RGB, I know) LASER show device, and a fogger, but that won't be enough.
One (several) of the comments suggested strobing and varying the LEDs, We'll try that next. It seems to make sense. We also like the idea of selectively targeting the CCDs, but - well honestly, I have no clue how. I know in theory how, and that it does work in movie theaters, and on the occasional boat, but it's above my skill set. I'm that good, but, in other areas. (I'm good, not God.) I'm checking out a link that was posted.
They understand that they won't get every camera, but they obviously want as many as possible.
And for the losers who say "No, it can't be done, and you're an idiot for asking!" - well, let me quote Capt. Tagon "Never tell me what *you* can't do as if it's something *nobody* can do."
For the rest of you who are actually trying to help, one nerd to another, Thank you.
Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
got mine sorted, click the submit button a second or third time and it will register your account. they know of the bug and I had a response from one of the staff which gave the instruction I've just provided here.
...the Klingon or Romulan home world's and either steal a cloaking device in a covert mission or at least try to trade some precious gems for it?
We have basically the same problem at dog shows -- anyone with a digital camera can now take your win photo. So how do the pros make money?
The professional photographer brings along a nice setting where you can pose and have an attractive shot, instead of whatever background was available.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Have you considered a small black hole?
that is one horrible looking website -.-...there's no mobile version and its not responsive...the title of the post is not a link...the letter-spacing and line-spacing is all wrong making it difficult to read...the darker-gray to lighter-gray gradient belongs in 2007...the only thing going for the site is the way the comments are presented, not that theres that many comments on the site...overall, i'd much rather use beta than the site you are recommending -.-