Beta
×

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!

New System to Counter Photo and Video Devices

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 9 years ago | from the movie-studios-rejoice dept.

Privacy 401

Incongruity writes "News.com is reporting that a team from Georgia Tech has developed and demoed a system that actively searches for and effectively blinds cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius." From the article: "In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light. When an intense retroreflection indicates the presence of a digital camera lens, the device then fires a localized beam of light directly at that point. Thus, the picture gets washed out."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I can just see it now... (4, Funny)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599700)

Paparazzi Shields for famous celebrities. It's like a force field!

Re:I can just see it now... (4, Interesting)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599758)

Better yet, protection from police speed cameras.

Re:I can just see it now... (1, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599766)

Paparazzi Shields for famous celebrities. It's like a force field!

Ah, just a few years too late.

Dodi Fayed: "Paparazzi shields to maximum!"
Chauffeur: "*Hic* no problem! (gee, I'm soused, I think I can slow down and drive at a safer speed now)"
Dodi Fayed: "Now, where were we, my little princess?"

Re:I can just see it now... (4, Funny)

tambo (310170) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599886)

Paparazzi Shields for famous celebrities. It's like a force field!

And also, fertile grounds for the class-action lawsuit craze of 2008. At least the court reporters will have some fun transcribing "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

- David Stein

Re:I can just see it now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599897)

Since when has a celebrity ever complained that they were in the news or photographed too much?

Celebrities are nothing more than professional attention whores (some of whom occasionally try to act or sing). Being in the public eye makes them stronger. For every A-list celebrity who sues a tabloid over unauthorized vacation photos, there are hundreds of B-list and thousands of C-list celebrities who wish they were popular enough that anybody wanted to take unauthorized photos of them.

What about glasses ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599702)

Can't wait to see how many people will go blind with this contraption!

I thought the same thing... (2, Interesting)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599741)

I was thinking the exact same thing. I'm not a biology major by any stretch (boy, could that phrase be misconstrued!), so I don't know what kind of effect such infrared beams would have on the eyes. But if the beam is going to be strong enough to completely blind a camera, I'd be really concerned about what it could do for the eyes.

Maybe I'm just slightly paranoid and it will have no effect at all. But since the article doesn't state anything about impact to human eyes and most eyewear protection is meant to filter out UV radiation, this should be cause for concern until we're told otherwise. Anyone more knowledgable about ocular physiology care to educate us?

Re:I thought the same thing... (4, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599780)

A remote control will blind a camera in night shot mode, but it won't blind anybody. It can actually make a pretty cool looking lens flare, depending on the remote and the camera... I wouldn't be too worried.

Re:I thought the same thing... (2, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599817)

But if the beam is going to be strong enough to completely blind a camera, I'd be really concerned about what it could do for the eyes.

It isn't the IR that blinds the camera - the IR is simply to look for reflections, like those given off by lenses (and, of course, eyeglasses). When the IR gets a "hit", a directed beam of light (flashlight on a servo?) is aimed at the lens. Pretty low tech really. Given that we've had "lens detection" devices for years (decades? The military is a big fan), the real story seems to be the rather lame application. I guess the "amorous couple" (per the article) is going to carry around some sort of detection/light device with them? Give me a break.

Lame.

Re:I thought the same thing... (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599875)

I should note that the article claims that it detects the special properties of camera lenses. I'd guess that they must be using a certain wavelength of IR, and detecting the magnesium flouride that is often used an an antireflective coating on lenses. Of course they claim it's some sort retroreflective counting, so who knows.

Re:I thought the same thing... (0, Redundant)

Compholio (770966) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599906)

... and detecting the magnesium flouride that is often used an an antireflective coating on lenses.

Most eyeglasses have antireflective coatings these days too, I imagine that such a technology would blind anyone with glasses within its range.

Re:What about glasses ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599762)

Well if you can think of that sitting there on your fat, ignorant arse, I'm sure the professional engineers working on this might just think of it too. You're fucking arrogant, you know that.

Re:What about glasses ? (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599822)

"Can't wait to see how many people will go blind with this contraption!"

If they use IR for the flash, nobody will go blind.

What about (2, Insightful)

idonthack (883680) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599703)

People with glasses?

I don't want to get blinded every time I walk up to a trade show display.
---
(\(\
(-.-) Give me back my damn feet!
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]

Re:What about (1)

funny-jack (741994) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599745)

So, an infrared light would blind you? Are you some kind of X-man?

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599771)

Read page 2 they are looking into using lasers. Laser in the eye is not my idea of a goodtime even if it is only a laser pointer

Re:What about (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599804)

Doesn't matter if it's not in a frequency that your rods and cones will react to. A CCD will react to infrared- unless you are some kind of mutant, your eyes simply won't.

Re:What about (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599883)

So slap an IR filter on the end of your lens?

Or generally, make your lens have the same frequency response as a human eye?

Re:What about (2, Funny)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599911)

Exactly- those are the two choices for defeating this technology. Of course, then you won't get those neat night-vision see-through-clothes pictures....

Re:What about (0, Offtopic)

RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599753)

You can't see infrared light, so you'd be just fine.

In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599813)

Even MORE dangerous, because your iris doesn't know to contract your pupil.

Re:What about (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599824)

I don't know about you, but my pupils are happy to dilate based on IR light and I get a "warm sunshine" feeling when hit by strong IR light sources such as IR camera illuminators and IR lasers commonly used along highways.
The other interesting thing is strong IR light wipes out my night vision for about the same amount of time as a visible light of the same intensity would.

Re:What about (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599800)

If I read this correctly, they use infrared to detect cameras, but then blind them with the range the cameras record, that is, visible light.

Re:What about (1)

RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599829)

hen an intense retroreflection indicates the presence of a digital camera lens, the device then fires a localized beam of light directly at that point.

It doesn't really say what kind of light... hmm.. But in either case glasses don't have the same reflectivity as camera lenses, so there would be no 'detection' and a beam of light would not be shot into someone's eyes.

Re:What about (1)

Pete Brubaker (35550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599882)

Actually, they use a video projector to blast the offending area with light. Since when did video projectors start using infra-red bulbs?

Glasses reflectivity (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599884)

My wife used to use 9dioptra Coke bottles :-) Her glasses were certainly MORE reflective than the lens on my Nokia phone. Pity she made laser surgery.

Re:What about (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599872)

No, it's all infra-red, because CCD and CMOS cameras are sensitive to infra-red as visible light. you can verify this for yourself by pointing your TV remote at your LCD equipped digital camera (video or still) in a darkish room. You should be able to see the white glow from the TV remote on the LCD viewfinder.

That's why this idea is useless for preventing photography with a plain old film camera - it's a lot easier to spot someone using one of those, however.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599894)

No, if you RTFA'd you'd see it's not all infra-red. If it was you could just slap on an IR filter and be safe when it was triggered.

Re:What about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599938)

I'm a bit baffled by this too. I assume 'retro-reflection' is just speak for reflected back, in which case I guess it'd pick up on glasses. It'd certainly pick mine up as they have an achromatic coating that's similar to binoculars and camera lenses (I'm as blind as a bat and the coating means thinner lens).

So I assume that it would fire a beam of IR light at the offending spectacles/camera, which wouldn't do much as most - if not all - devices out there have IR filters. They have to otherwise stuff like sunlight lends a nasty red/pink tinge to everything. In fact, in most cases you'll find that camera IR filters block all IR, not jus ta bit of it.

So if it's not IR, what is it?

blah blah blah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599704)

first post blah blah blah

FP? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599705)

Wouldn't this blind people with glasses?

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599709)

fp by meeeeeeeee
Anyone know how to circumvent this measure?

Re:fp (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599828)

Duh- it's obvious. An IR filter over your Charge Coupled Device. Already exists on lots of video cameras- not so common on digital cameras yet but will be given this "advance".

A Tale. (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599711)

It was the coldest winter on record and the poor little match girl found she could find no buyers for her wares and she began to shivver.

She lit a match and felt the warm glow of its meager heat before it burned down to her fingers and she dropped it in the snow. Then she lit another and another until all her matches were gone and she began to feel icy fingers of winter clutching at her tiny frail frame.

She moved along the street looking for an open door, shelter, any shelter. Then she thought, what's this? She felt a deep warmth the likes of which she had not felt since her mother's embrace. It was glorious. She sat down to rest and soon fell asleep.

And thus it came to pass, she was found roast to a golden brown, like a Thanksgiving turkey, before the offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Re:A Tale. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599810)

Funny you got modded offtopic. I thought so too, until I read "Central Intelligence Agency". Funny.

Re:A Tale. (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599826)

OMG! This got modded offtopic! Now, clearly my comment on the modding *IS* offtopic and will soon be modded thus, but perhaps the moderators need to actually READ the post before moderating?

A big fuck-you to big-government (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599714)

and a special fuck-you to the police state currently being built.

Re:A big fuck-you to big-government (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599836)

I'd like to point out that big-government isn't the only entity aiming cameras at you. A long time ago it was established that it was perfectly legal to photograph people in public places, otherwise we'd have no photo journalism and it might be very difficult to even take vacation photos.

On the other hand, I most certainly do agree that we need to be watching government use of public surveillance very, very closely. Not that this has much to do with the current topic, really.

Re:A big fuck-you to big-government (3, Insightful)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599842)

Or a potential fuck you *from* anyone who doesn't want the public to be able to document them. Immagine if these were used to keep any non-approved journalists from taking pictures/recording events? Or used to cover an entire area where a protesters are demonstrating to make covering the event harder?

Not exactly new (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599715)

Re:Not exactly new (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599729)

Are you accusing the editors of duping a story?

Re:Not exactly new (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599903)

What? Of course not, that would never happen! I mean, they don't call them editors for nothing, right?

Re:Not exactly new (1)

Safe Sex Goddess (910415) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599789)

I agree, this is not new. I saw something on DW TV's Tomorrow Today show a while back about two German high school students who were doing something similar to prevent bootlegging of movies shown at the cinema.

theater (2, Interesting)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599716)

I would guess the MPAA & Co. would love this, but would multiple units be required for a theater (line-of-sight...) or would they be useful mounted on ceilings, what with the angles?

Re:theater (2, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599756)

The real question is whether or not these people got a grant from MPAA & Co to develop it...

Re:theater (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599819)

I was thinking exactly the same thing, but you beat me to it. Maybe a screen that bathes the viewers in IR (either from rear projection pass through, or just projected along with the movie). Or, four of these, one mounted at each corner of the screen.

Re:theater (1)

Martix (722774) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599908)

Then they will also want 30mm vulcan canons as well

Old news already (1)

lilmouse (310335) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599718)

This device was already described in SciFi. Unfortunately, I have the brain of a 2 year old cow after a long day of work, so I can't remember the book.

There was this dream amusment park, and a little kid runs away to the park, and then aliens come.

Oh, right.

Free Lunch, by Spider Robinson. The creater of the dream park got his money making this sorta thing to counter paparrattzi. Guess Spider didn't think of the other uses cameras are being put...

--LWM

Re:Old news already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599823)

Unfortunately, I have the brain of a 2 year old cow after a long day of work, so I can't remember the book.

You might want to cut back on the Happy Meals.

NASA was way ahead on this one. (2, Funny)

Crixus (97721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599719)

Heck, didn't Alan Bean discover a way to do this in 1969 while on an Apollo 12 EVA? (he says tongue firmly in cheek).

Lawsuits here we come! (2, Interesting)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599721)

I would sure hope that the localized beam of light doesn't do any damage to any camera at all... otherwise it would be pretty easy for the person with the cam to file suit for damage, despite what they may or may not have been doing at the time.

On a related thought... I wonder what it would take to trick the system into shooting the beam at ones eyes... heck, with a system like this you could just claim that you were blinded by the system for a few moments and now you suffer from crippling migraines and what not... ka-ching!

Counter camera devices (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599725)

Big deal. International Rescue had them already, 30 years ago, to protect strangers from photographing the Thunderbirds.

Re:Counter camera devices (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599893)

That was an alarm that detected someone trying to use a camera.

Infrared filters! (2, Insightful)

RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599726)

In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light.

Are there any infrared filters that can be made easily? If so, I see a counter to this!

Re:Infrared filters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599814)


In this system, a device bathes the region in front of it with infrared light.

Are there any infrared filters that can be made easily? If so, I see a counter to this!


This potentially could be considered an insightful comment. Unfortunately, as happens regularly on /., you didn't RTFA.

Fast shutter speeds might also present some challenges, as do filters, though it turns out that the camera detector can spot lenses cloaked with infrared filters.

Re:Infrared filters! (2, Interesting)

RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599866)

I did read the article! I was confused on what was going on though. I thought the infrared light was actually being shot into the camera causing the blur, but the infrared light is just used for detection.

So in this case I guess we wouldn't need infrared filters, but something that obsorbs infrared light so it doesn't get reflected easily. Or even maybe something that bounces incoming light in another direction.

Re:Infrared filters! (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599827)

It filters it, doesn't stop it from reflecting it. The infrared doesn't search the inside of the lense, it looks for a reflection of light from the face of the lens. A filter would not stop that to my knowledge (which is limited)

Re:Infrared filters! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599840)

Actually, most video cameras already have an infrared filter. Vidicon tubes and CCD images don't have exactly the same spectral response as the human eye, and both extend into the near infrared. The filter is there to prevent the visible light image from being blurred by incident IR. I've removed the filters from cameras in order to make them into crude night-vision devices.

Those cheap camera modules you can buy from the likes of Marlin P. Jones don't have infrared filters, which is why they will "see in total darkness" if you have an IR light source handy. I got one that had six infrared LEDs mounted right on the circuit board, around the CCD. Worked surprisingly well. I was even able to walk around my house at night using the glow from a TV remote.

The advance of technology (4, Insightful)

RobNich (85522) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599730)

The next step is a video/still camera that detects an infrared source and closes an iris to keep the light from bouncing back. Or better yet, a coating that keeps the infrared from bouncing out of the lens.

Re:The advance of technology (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599857)

Better yet, attach a servo-controlled .38 to the camera, and have it shoot back at the jammer.

Definitely a dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599731)

A dupe from last year? (but I can't find it - bring back the old slashdot search!). Although it may have been about "blinding" camcorders in public movie theaters to prevent piracy.
ahhh...here it is
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/18 46259 [slashdot.org]

TDz.

Time for new laws banning such systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599734)

When systems that actively search for and effectively blind cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius are outlawed only outlaws will have systems that actively search for and effectively blind cameras and camcorders within a 10 meter radius.

Re:Time for new laws banning such systems (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599876)

Absolutely. I'm sure that the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a variety of similar organizations will buy these by the thousands.

Movies Theaters... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599735)

I bet the first place you see this technology is in the movie theaters. To prevent people from recording the movie and sharing it. This is going to ruin the lives of the DAY 0 1173 crowd.

Why would you need to demo something like this? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599738)

Just find an early adopter and sell the god damn thing. Why do inventors have so much trouble making a business these days?

Not exactly mind blowing (1)

gomoX (618462) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599739)

Ok, a few major flaws:
1) The obvious glass person problem
2) 33ft range?? Utterly useless, there's a reason paparazzis use long lenses
3) Unless the person is standing right next to this "lighting pole" thing, a good ole' lens hood will prevent the beam from entering the lens and ruining the picture. The pole would have to be *in* the picture for this to be a problem. In order to solve this, get a 400mm lens and attach a properly sized hood, get just what you want in the picture.

Really, no paparazzi is worrying about this.

Re:Not exactly mind blowing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599769)

what about an IR filter

Re:Not exactly mind blowing (1)

B747SP (179471) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599907)

Ok, a few major flaws:

I can see just one major flaw: You didn't read TFA, so you're babbling on about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Re:Not exactly mind blowing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599909)

I remember the first computer. Friggin thing took up an entire room. Utterly useless it was. Good thing they listened to me and scrapped that horrible idea of a project.

What About Shielding? (1)

soniCron88 (870042) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599743)

And what happens if you shield the lense from the detector?

Re:What About Shielding? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599784)

And what happens if you shield the lense from the detector?

You mean like with a lens cap? Hm, that oughta work.

Great fun! (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599748)

Put two of these in a room, and let them fight it out...

overengineered (2, Insightful)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599751)

This seems to be seriously overengineered, as you could do the same thing with a passive IR system.

They're using an IR emitter to generate a reflection that is sensed with the camera to trigger an ambient light source to overwhelm the offending camera. Not to mention the modulated light attack that would launch on the eyeballs of anyone happening to be looking in that direction.

seems like since CCD's are IR responsive in the first place (which is how they are detecting them), why not just continuously bathe the area in an overdose of IR and skip the detection and visible light altogether?

Ha! Take that G-Men! (3, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599755)

I'm gonna get like 10 for every room 'cause I know you're watching and trying to keep me from talking about the Alie^H^H ...mmmmpppph

[Remote Peer Quit Unexpectedly]

non-event (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599757)

Using infrared to block cameras was patented by Sony some time ago.

Nothing a good infrared filter can't handle, anyways....

The eye is a camera. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599759)

At least, that's what every photography book and physiology text says.

And, of course, the eyes of some animals (cats, alligators) are strong and precise retroreflectors. It's probably OK if they blind someone's pet alligator, but someone's pet cat could be a problem.

The eye is a camera. (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599779)

At least, that's what every photography book and physiology text says.

And, of course, the eyes of some animals (cats, alligators) are strong and precise retroreflectors. It's probably OK if they blind some stray alligator, but someone's beloved pet cat could be a problem.

Re:The eye is a camera. (1)

B747SP (179471) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599927)

but someone's beloved pet cat could be a problem.

Are you in the habit of taking your pet cat to tradeshows and product planning meetings? (I know *I* am, but this isn't about me!)

Re:The eye is a camera. (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599801)

Aye, me hardy. Blinding a scurvy alligator is near to me heart, but what of my Parrot, Old Reliable Joe?

This only works if (1)

BattleRat (536161) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599763)

the device can actually detect a camera lens...I can diffuse the light enough to prevent that reflection and subsequent detection...Just like I can do on a scope of a sniper rifle.

If not, heaven help the poor bastard who's wearing glasses...

this is great (5, Funny)

drfrog (145882) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599764)

now the police can give the beat downs without any fear of being caught

works everywhere (2, Insightful)

SebNukem (188921) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599772)

Did they mention that you brain also gets deleted if you're wearing glasses?

Does it fit.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599774)

under the windshield of a car?
And does it still work if it's moving let's say... really fast (basically well above the reglementary 65mph)?

If so, I can see a nice application for that thing...

interesting idea but (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599781)

Does it need to be directional? Or else someone will need to stick very many of them to cover all angles. BTW, does digital camera / video cam always uses an infra-red beam?

oh man (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599782)

talk about getting the red eye out

cat's eyes are highly evolved to function at night via internal reflection

so anyone with a cat should get used to having a blind cat

certianly this would not be eye safe? (1)

kartel1 (444641) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599787)

certianly this would not be eye safe?

Filters (4, Insightful)

ChaosMt (84630) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599793)

Thanks goodness, no one has invented the infrared filter!

Am I wrong, or does this seem too easy to defeat?

This sucks (1)

robertjw (728654) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599798)

Damn!!! No more voyer pron.

Countermeasure to the "Eye in the Sky" at casinos? (2, Interesting)

apenzott (821513) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599806)

How long before someone takes this technology to "blind" the security cameras at a casino or other location that handles large sums of cash?

IR Filter? (1)

Sandman1971 (516283) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599825)

I'm just starting to get into photography, but isnt this something a good IR filter would block out?

Theres still room for old tech. (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599843)

If you're a papparazzi, you don't want to get rid of that 35mm film camera just yet then. This device won't affect those, unless the photographer is using infra-red film.

Rush Delivery to Abu Ghraib (1)

mathmathrevolution (813581) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599850)

How soon can we rush these to Abu Ghraib? As a true Patriot (USA #1), I want to ensure that information that might damage our government is never ever released.

Am I Wrong? (5, Funny)

Snorpus (566772) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599852)

... or wouldn't a portable one of these be a great way to take out all the cameras in, say, a bank?

There's still other details to work out, like the armed guards, the exploding ink in the money packets, etc., but I'm glad those Georgia engineers solved one of my problems.

Hopefully my cat has no glases ;) (2, Funny)

Mike Zilva (785109) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599878)

What about an identical system to flood the sensor with IR light and take the shot ? ;)

decoy lenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599879)

what about decoy lenses and ir reflective paint.

Ahh! My eyes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599901)

My God, man, my eyes!

So if I attach one of these things to my car... (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599912)

Once the tech has matured.. and I bathe my license plate in infrared, would that therefore block the speed camera from taking the picture of my license plate?

There was something called chameleon plates a little while ago that did a similar thing. They reflected the light of the speed camera's flash so that they couldn't take photos of your license plate.

This is another step in that it is an active device in that it shines light into the camera.

Alert for stuff worth recording? (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599918)

So I filter this crap out and have the camera set to record when it detects a blocking attempt.. an easy way to know when it might be worth recording.

use personal one in London? (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 9 years ago | (#13599929)

so if people had a personal version, they could avoid getting photographed repeatedly in city streets?

they will have to license such a device as to prevent terrorists from being able to use them to avoid being identified.

just think, you are a wedding photographer, and a number of people forget to turn off their personal photo-obsfucators (Apples iNoPhoto). the horror.

Denial of service (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13599930)

So businesses are going to spend thousands of dollars on this technology so that they have an automated means to blind camera phones. It works by detecting the reflection of infrared light off a camera's lens and directing a 'blinding' beam back to the point of reflection. It probably has one detector and one blinding beam.

Let's think. Two people set 10-20 feet apart create independent sources of reflected infrared light that cannot be covered by the same beam -- the interposed populace will not be pleased with inadvertent 'blinding', unless it is also comparatively low intensity infrared that can be defeated by a simple filter. So we can use two cameras. $200 and I have defeated you, Georgia Tech!

Better yet, let's assume that I'm a cheapskate. I can spray paint my shoes with infrared reflective paint [ntt-at.com] . Now I have three sources of infrared reflectance for the cost of a can of paint. If I'm a social cheapskate, my girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/compadre/co-conspirato r can act as an even more distant and separate dummy source. $10 and I have again defeated you, Georgia Tech!

I would pat myself on the back, but there is a serious drawback if the blinding system uses visible light -- I'm going to walk around convention halls looking like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever from time to time. *cue disco music*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?