New System to Counter Photo and Video Devices

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."

What about

[idonthack]

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]

FP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this blind people with glasses?

A big fuck-you to big-government

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Infrared filters!

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

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!

The advance of technology

[RobNich]

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.

Movies Theaters...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

overengineered

[RapmasterT]

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?

Re:theater

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

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

works everywhere

[SebNukem]

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

Filters

[ChaosMt]

Thanks goodness, no one has invented the infrared filter!

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

Re:A big fuck-you to big-government

[hungrygrue]

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?

Denial of service

[Anonymous Coward]

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*

Re:So if I attach one of these things to my car...

[karnal]

There was an episode of Mythbusters on this. They didn't have an anti-reflective plate cover though. What they did do is solder 300 or so infrared LED's around the plate.

Didn't affect the speed gun in the slightest. In my travels, I use a RADAR detector on long journeys, but in most cases, staying within 5-10mph of the speed limit (and driving an old man car! Grand Marquis) helps lots.

Re:I can just see it now...

[jfdawes]

Er, no.

Even if speed cameras were using visible light, they are usually way more than 33 feet away.

And for those that use radar (or indeed any sort of recording device that does not involve a lens [with standard coating]), this invention is useless.

Re:I thought the same thing...

[andreMA]

It might beam directed, visible light right into someone's eyes if by chance the person's glasses are mistakes as camera lenses.

That's how I read it, and there's the problem. Even if there's no risk to the eyes themselves, it opens up a huge potential for liability from people being suddenly (temporarily) blinded and/or startled while engaged in something risky - using power tools, pouring a cup of scalding hot coffee, handling then dropping fragile/expensive equipment...

Re:I can just see it now...

[uncqual]

Off topic, but I'm waiting for the first lawsuit where the flash of a speed camera distracted a law abiding driver momentarily which results in a fatal accident. Somehow, I think the general public's dislike for the cameras might not make the city attorney's defense job any easier when the jury retires to deliberate.

Re:Am I Wrong?

[Lehk228]

well a radio operated bomb (or a fake radio operated bomb) will take care of the dye packets, make sure the teller knows that if any dye packets go off or anyone runs out of the building while you are still in sight the building will be ripped apart by shrapnel... they won't put the dye packets in.

not that i would know anything about robbing banks

My cat's eyes reflect light, too

[Ray Alloc]

Will that system burn the eyes of my cat, too?

Re:I thought the same thing...

[theLOUDroom]

In short, I doubt there's any deterimental health effects from this system.

Actually, strong IR light is bad for your eyes.

link 1 [weizmann.ac.il]
link 2 [enamelguild.org]
link 3 [potterymaking.org]

2. Your glasses don't reflect IR, your camera lens does (actually, they all have an IR filter to prevent it reaching the CCD/CMOS).

Many types of glass do reflect IR light.
Think about it a little more, are glass or plastic eyeglass lenses really going to be made out of THAT different a material than glass or plastic camera lenses?

3. My optician is using some pretty bright light at my check-up. Enough to make a recording useless (read: saturate the CCD/CMOS), not enough to harm anyone.

It might appear bright, but you don't necessarily know what the spectra of the light actually looked like and therefore how much power was contained total.

Re:Filters

[bjbyrne]

I would think that an IR filter would increse the chance of getting picked up by the detector. The filter prevents the ir light from getting to the lens so the ir light must be reflected back out again. Some kind of IR difuser that could absorbe the IR light and not reflect it back out would needed. I am sure there is a way to do it, but an IR filter seems to me to be the opposite approach.

Screw that

[fredistheking]

Just put a cardboard tube around the lens. If the detector is not right in front of the camera (i.e. you are taking a picture of the detector) it wont be able to see the lens.

Re:I can just see it now...

[carsamba]

Smearing some mud, partially obscuring the license plate will do that just fine. Better yet, for total authenticity, you can refrain from washing your car, like me..

Re:I can just see it now... [OT]

[Tim Browse]

The short answer is simple: Drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. If people tail-end you, it's their friggin' problem.

Correct, and in the UK, that's actually the offence. I once ran into a car from behind (well, 4 people collided, all in a row because someone 4 cars ahead decided to slow down suddenly to turn off without indicating).

As it happened, a police car passed by a minute later, and stopped. The policeman told me that I'd committed an offence, which was "Driving at a speed from which you could not stop in the distance you could see to be clear." (It rolled off his tongue like he'd said it many times before)

Unlike seemingly many people, I didn't get annoyed with him - I accepted it was my fault, and learned the lesson. I now drive far enough behind other cars to stop.

As mentioned, the "how the hell else am I supposed to drive really fast in driving snow" argument is bullshit. Reminds me of the time during bad weather in the UK with torrential rain, some random motorist was on the TV news blaming the police for accidents because they hadn't turned on the temporary (slower) speed limit signs. The guy actually said, and I quote, "How the hell do they expect me to drive at 70mph in this weather?"

Sometimes people's arrogance and stupidity is overwhelming.