Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus?

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the only-we-control-the-blackmail dept.

Privacy 478

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?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Just shit in the camera users mouths (-1, Troll)

slashdot is sht (3508181) | about 2 months ago | (#46277031)

Slashdot users love eating shit.

Re:Just shit in the camera users mouths (-1, Offtopic)

buswolley (591500) | about 2 months ago | (#46277275)

You won't get this kind of shit article on http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Re:Just shit in the camera users mouths (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277303)

Not to mention that the trolls are all named differently, because I took the liberty of "pre-registering" them to uh.. "reserve their spot". Helpful, eh? ;)

Re:Just shit in the camera users mouths (-1, Offtopic)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46277435)

If Soylent News didn't allow ACs, I'd move there right now. As it is, I'll adopt a wait and see approach. See whether Slashdot persists on enforcing beta, and wait and see whether SN gets quality news and sufficient comments.

Re:Just shit in the camera users mouths (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 months ago | (#46277443)

I don't see why such an obviously-for-personal-profit question should even be allowed on Slashdot...just sayin'.

Makes no sense. (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46277035)

What are the paparazzi doing on-board in the first place? Paps are invariably outside the limo, i.e. off-board.

Re:Makes no sense. (4, Informative)

krisyan (2812943) | about 2 months ago | (#46277115)

I think they want to keep the passengers from taking pictures of one another.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 months ago | (#46277231)

To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.

Re:Makes no sense. (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 2 months ago | (#46277581)

It's some rock stars who want to be able to tape the orgies for their own viewing, but don't want pictures of themselves showing up on the Internet.

Confiscate cameras (5, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 months ago | (#46277037)

Just confiscate cameras before they get on the Girls Gone Wild bus. Rich People/First World Problems.

Re:Confiscate cameras (2)

sizzlinkitty (1199479) | about 2 months ago | (#46277105)

Bingo... Set up on board video cameras and monitor for people using cameras. If you catch someone, bust down the door and drag them out kicking. Dispose of the body in water 200+ ft deep.

Re:Confiscate cameras (1)

krisyan (2812943) | about 2 months ago | (#46277139)

Yeah, if these people are that concerned with having their picture taken, they should be willing to give up any cameras. They might complain when they have to give up a cell phone, but it's the most practical approach.

Re:Confiscate cameras (5, Insightful)

Omega Hacker (6676) | about 2 months ago | (#46277243)

I think you misunderstand. This has nothing to do with the passengers not wanting their picture taken. This has *everything* to do with the jackass owner trying to ensure that nobody can take their own pictures, because I guarantee he's got a photographer onboard who's taking "professional" pictures which are sold at ludicrous prices. Have you *been* to a themepark?

Re:Confiscate cameras (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 months ago | (#46277281)

and they want their own cameras to continue to work.

presumably they also want to continue the people inside be able to use their mobile phones as usual.. if not, make a box that you put your phone into when you get in.

call the tsa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277043)

your going to need pat downs and body scanners

Some requests should be ignored (5, Insightful)

janeuner (815461) | about 2 months ago | (#46277065)

Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?

Re:Some requests should be ignored (1, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#46277149)

Sensible, no.

It sounds like they want to be able to monitor the bus, and maybe they consider the decor to be copyrighted or something.

Essentially they want to be able to record you, while not allowing you to take pics.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 2 months ago | (#46277271)

Some people are just control freaks. Did you ever have a teacher like that in grade school?

Re:Some requests should be ignored (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277411)

Some people are just control freaks. Did you ever have a teacher like that in grade school?

No, when my gradeschool teacher put us onto the Fuck Bus we were allowed to video tape it ourselves.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277329)

Dickish but, maybe they want to $ell pictures/videos to the riders/customers?

If they can prevent the use of personal cameras, then the riders/customers will have to purchase their memories.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277389)

Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?

It's for a "limousine bus"

They want to be able to host orgies and be the only ones who have the ability to upload photos/video to the Internet.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277407)

Photo's of Justin Bieber, I'd like to block those....

Re:Some requests should be ignored (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277429)

Suspect it is likely some sort of stripper bus / limo. They have them in some areas as a dodge for monitoring and rules in the private dance areas. Likely the owner wants to prevent having the patrons take pictures of the talent, but would like to have evidence in case a drunk fool takes things too far.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (1, Insightful)

Rosyna (80334) | about 2 months ago | (#46277433)

Or they should be better worded.

"I want to stop all electronic devices from passively collecting visible light but still desire riders' eyes to passively collect visible light."

Re:Some requests should be ignored (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277465)

I agree. This is just such a stupid idea, that ignoring it is probably the best thing we can do as a community!

Bachelor parties (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277527)

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.

Re:Some requests should be ignored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277541)

I feel like replying to this guy, "You came to the wrong neighborhood, motherfucka"
This is slashdot.

Isn't it obvious? (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about 2 months ago | (#46277069)

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

Advice? give up. (5, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about 2 months ago | (#46277085)

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.

Re:Advice? give up. (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277437)

I would wager another poster is correct in assuming this is some sort of "Girls Gone Wild" skit bus.

They want to make their porno without allowing other partygoers from snapping pics.


Re:Advice? give up. (2)

dAzED1 (33635) | about 2 months ago | (#46277461)

I don't know why you're the only poster that seems to understand why the subby wants this. He's basically trying to get slashdot to crowd-think for him, to solve a technical "problem" - allowing them to charge $10 each for crappy pictures instead of letting passengers take their own damn pictures. Just drive the damn limo and stop being a dick. If people want the photo service, offer it - but don't break their cameras just to force them to buy your pictures. And I hope the passengers of the limo are all made very well aware of the presence of your cameras is well - else you're in for some serious issues.

Re:Advice? give up. (1)

DaveGod (703167) | about 2 months ago | (#46277563)

You assert an argument based on your assumption. Perhaps the built-in camera footage is controlled by the customer, this might even be a common requirement set out by security staff of some famous person hiring the limo for a night out, or some event.

Stag parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277573)

Your'e thinking this is for wedding. *Before* the wedding comes another event. One where cameras are almost always banned. For good reason.

Post a Sign (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277087)

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.

Slashdot continues to get worse (5, Insightful)

cide1 (126814) | about 2 months ago | (#46277103)

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.

Re:Slashdot continues to get worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277327)

I agree. How many more Ask Slashdot articles need to be from some guy too lazy to do his own job. He didn't even ask about the ethics of doing such a thing.

No cameras allowed Please turn off your devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277119)

Just post a sign???

Dark (4, Funny)

Lorens (597774) | about 2 months ago | (#46277121)

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) $$$PROFIT$$$

The only way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277127)

The only way is to strip search everyone. Confiscate all electronic devices. Also, should probably include someone to monitor all activity.

Problems (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 months ago | (#46277143)

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.

Re:Problems (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#46277365)

Maybe some kind of pulsing light would work, similar to how Macrovision tryies to fuck up VCRs by throwing off their tracking. It would have to be outside the visible spectrum to avoid causing epileptic fits... Maybe pulsing IR.

I basically agree though, this is probably a lost cause. Camera manufacturers try hard to make sure you get some kind of viewable image in extreme lighting conditions.

Re:Problems (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 months ago | (#46277471)

Not only that but a quick look over at autofocus shows that there are several ways that cameras do it, and many cheap ones like are on phones, are fixed focus anyway. Overall, I think this is a lost cause, regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

I agree with the guy who said pat downs and scans for electronic devices. No serious other way.

Re:Problems (4, Informative)

jd659 (2730387) | about 2 months ago | (#46277545)

1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,

Detection of the camera pointed in the unknown direction on the bus will be impossible.

2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?

Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording. And almost no camera today (still or video) is using IR to autofocus. Illuminating the area with a powerful IR light is damaging to the eyes -- yes it is like regular light except in the dark when the pupils are be dilated any powerful light can cause a damage. I was working on a device that had 3W IR LEDs and after a few minutes the eyes begin to hurt even when I was not looking at the lights directly.

How about you just tell them not to snort Coke? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277147)

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.

flash bombs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277181)

may do the trick.

you mean behavior control device? (5, Insightful)

AndroSyn (89960) | about 2 months ago | (#46277183)

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.

Re:you mean behavior control device? (1)

SinisterEVIL (2661381) | about 2 months ago | (#46277451)

can already see law enforcement loving this, they can record you but you cant record them. lol this question should indeed get fucked.

Heil Hitler (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277189)

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!

Thinking Outside The Box (4, Funny)

ComputerGeek01 (1182793) | about 2 months ago | (#46277199)

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"?

Black hole (5, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 months ago | (#46277213)

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.

Re:Black hole (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 months ago | (#46277485)

Your black hole solution is impractical and borders on fantasy. Furthermore it does not discriminate between the guest's cameras and the bus owner's cameras.

A much better solution IMO would be to use a light source which produces photons that, even when reflected, will not go into a guest's camera lens.

There. Doesn't that seem like a much better idea?

(And please don't suggest a black hole that only sucks in photons that were headed toward a guest's camera. But I bet the USPTO could grant a patent on any of these great ideas!)

Not Possible (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277219)

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?

Technical solution for a social problem (4, Insightful)

wired_parrot (768394) | about 2 months ago | (#46277241)

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.

Re:Technical solution for a social problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277481)

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.

He's obviously running some type of celebrity Fuck Bus, and like in a strip club doesn't want people filming the hookers and blow. But wants his own cameras, he'll claim it's for "security" but in reality it's a combination of blackmail fodder and stuff to spank his monkey to up front in the driver's seat.

Low light + no electronics (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | about 2 months ago | (#46277255)

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.

Blind and lobotomize all passengers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277259)

After all, rules are rules.

No Lights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277263)

Blackout the windows and shut off all lights. Switch your cameras over to night vision. I think this is your only option.
(I wish I was being sarcastic)

No Cell phones then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277269)

I agree with the confiscation idea, but to do that, you need to pull not just camera's but also smart phones. If you are busing around the kind of clientele that would worry about "paparazzi" they may be resistant to giving up their binkies...er...I mean cell phones. I think Policy is the best plan in the case. Also you could have them sign a really scary looking non-disclosure agreement.

Rewriting the summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277287)

"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?"

Re:Rewriting the summary... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277553)

"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.

why wouldn't you let cameras on the bus? (1)

madmatty (3468483) | about 2 months ago | (#46277291)

plan on making indias gang rape on bus problem look like a walk in the park?

Threats (2)

jythie (914043) | about 2 months ago | (#46277307)

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.

Nope (1)

goodmanj (234846) | about 2 months ago | (#46277309)

Cameras work on the same principles, and at the same wavelengths, as the human eye. Anything that disables a camera will blind a human.

Re:Nope (3, Funny)

mandark1967 (630856) | about 2 months ago | (#46277503)

This is an excellent idea!

Just blind everyone so they can't find their cameras! Even if they do manage to find their camera, they can't see shit so their photographs will suck.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277583)

Nope, you can fry the electronics in the cameras while leaving the customers relatively intact.

There's some ubicomp work on this... (2)

toupsz (882584) | about 2 months ago | (#46277321)

See below:

http://ubicomplab.cs.washingto... [washington.edu]

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.

My owners are the same! (4, Funny)

jd659 (2730387) | about 2 months ago | (#46277335)

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!

Flash Slave (1)

bobbagum (556152) | about 2 months ago | (#46277339)

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

Poor and unworkable request (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277343)

So, you want something which will allow your cameras to work but prevent the functioning of other cameras in the same area? I'm afraid this is probably an impossible task. Optical tricks like flooding the area with IR or UV can prevent cameras from getting a good picture but are easily defeated with the proper filters. Any other methods will cause damage to digital cameras/phones but can also be easily defeated with proper shielding. Your best bet is to confiscate recording devices from people as they get on this bus, good luck with that.

Difficult (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277353)

What your asking to do has a a few Issues:
Most systems are still in prototype phase or just don't work, like IR blocking its too dependent on angle and has very limited range, it is possible to reliably block a small area (there's a few gadgets out there) but medium range all devices blocking hasn't reached production yet. For example, The MOVIES/FBI/CIA's offices still confiscate your camera, there's no magical devices to block them.

You need to Block
Cellphone camera's - There are a few devices out there but nothing universal, the ability to block and camera involves having software/hardware on the cellphone but you can block most popular phones with a jammer.

Digital camera's - Again there are a few blocking devices but the universal ones are still in prototype phase, with the way the camera are developing I don't think anyone has found a reliable medium range solution for Cmos blocking that doesn't damage the camera.

Analog camera's - Can't

Building a limo bus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277375)

BS on first sentence. BS on the rest.

Look at the designs of most cameras: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277379)

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.


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.

I forgot - red mood light (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277507)

And with the red light (like in aircraft cockpits for night flying) the camera wouldn't be able to focus because there is hardly any contrast.

Red light: people can see, cameras can't focus or get a decent exposure.

Like I Said Before (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46277409)

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 [canhasdiy.com] .

Don't bitch; 50 bucks is a hell of a lot less than what my usual consulting fee runs. You're welcome.

These questions are always phishy (1)

SinisterEVIL (2661381) | about 2 months ago | (#46277421)

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.

Fabulous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277455)

It will make any pictures with flash turn out terrible.
If you could get a fine glitter added to a window tint, it will add a little sparkle, but reflect back any flash.

UV and vibration (1)

trajano (220061) | about 2 months ago | (#46277459)

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.

Hi-power IR Laser Hologram Projectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277463)

Would be invisible to the eye, but would show a hologram of your choice to any camera in the near area. The onboard security camera would have to use a special filter to see through the hologram.

terrible request/idea (1)

itzdandy (183397) | about 2 months ago | (#46277473)

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.

Pushback (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#46277475)

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.

Security Deposit (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 months ago | (#46277483)

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.

wrong idea (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about 2 months ago | (#46277491)

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.

Radiation (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about 2 months ago | (#46277517)

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.

Computer Vision system with camera countermeasure? (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 months ago | (#46277561)

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.

Who the fuck cares about this shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46277569)

Ask the NSA, they probably know. Next story!

Do you need hand warmers for your bicycle too? (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 2 months ago | (#46277579)

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.

IR LEDs and IR Filters (1)

masterofthumbs (2881445) | about 2 months ago | (#46277587)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account