These glasses seem kind of pointless in that from what the article says, they pretty much have to be that big in order to actually work - the earlier model by the same company was even bigger. With something like this, the goal should be to make them as surreptitious as possible so that the person wearing them doesn't stand out in a crowd and thus draw attention from whatever security organization is likely monitoring the cameras. $250 (at current exchange rates anyway) is also far too high of a price tag for a pair of what are basically glorified sunglasses.
Now, if they looked like normal sunglasses (or better yet could be built into prescription glasses) and were under $100, I could see myself getting a pair of these if I planned to be in an area with heavy CCTV usage.
I've always felt that tiny infrared emitters installed on the frames of glasses would do a fine job of overloading cameras.
Exception to that rule:
A joke from Russia goes as follows;
Q: What do Russian women put behind their ears to attract men?
A: Their knees..
Hey, I'm just passing it along..
It is usually good business to do stuff that make customers want to continue using your services.
AT&T would do well to remember that there are other phone companies that actually incorporate customer service into their offerings. (To some degree at least) The most wretched award goes to metro pcs, however, and I could tell you stories about them that you wouldn't believe...I'm using Straight-talk now, and they are actually not too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
These glasses seem kind of pointless in that from what the article says, they pretty much have to be that big in order to actually work - the earlier model by the same company was even bigger. With something like this, the goal should be to make them as surreptitious as possible so that the person wearing them doesn't stand out in a crowd and thus draw attention from whatever security organization is likely monitoring the cameras. $250 (at current exchange rates anyway) is also far too high of a price tag for a pair of what are basically glorified sunglasses.
Now, if they looked like normal sunglasses (or better yet could be built into prescription glasses) and were under $100, I could see myself getting a pair of these if I planned to be in an area with heavy CCTV usage.
I've always felt that tiny infrared emitters installed on the frames of glasses would do a fine job of overloading cameras.
Exception to that rule: A joke from Russia goes as follows; Q: What do Russian women put behind their ears to attract men? A: Their knees.. Hey, I'm just passing it along..
Yes, too bad, for the AT&T.
It is usually good business to do stuff that make customers want to continue using your services.
AT&T would do well to remember that there are other phone companies that actually incorporate customer service into their offerings. (To some degree at least) The most wretched award goes to metro pcs, however, and I could tell you stories about them that you wouldn't believe...I'm using Straight-talk now, and they are actually not too bad.