Prototype System Blocks Digital Cameras 494
lee1 writes "Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have completed a prototype
device that can block digital
cameras. The team in the Interactive and Intelligent Computing division of
the Georgia Tech College of Computing used off-the-shelf equipment
(camera-mounted sensors, lighting equipment, a projector and a computer) to
scan for, find and neutralize digital cameras. The system works by looking for
the reflectivity and shape of the image sensors and saturating them with a
thin beam of visible white light.
The principal applications are expected to be protecting areas such as
government buildings and trade shows against clandestine photography, stopping
unauthorized amateur photography of, for example, shopping-mall Santas
(really!) and defeating video copying in theaters.
The countermeasure: film." Sounds perfect for copyrighted public spaces.
My question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Does it just "block" the cameras, or does it destroy them?
Either way, I hope this comes in a personal unit. It'd be a nice way to avoid being photographed at family gatherings.
-:sigma.SB
Re:My question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I'd rather see cell phone jammers become more common--in restaurants and theaters, especially.
Re:My question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
More and more I think the Monty Python "How not to be seen" skit is less of a skit these days, and more of a reality.
Re:My question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah... but it is for this very reason that owning one will be immeidately illegal for common citizens, but perfectly fine for government agencies.
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Interesting)
I won't spell it out for you, but here is a hint.
They use polarized film over the lens to cut back on windscreen glare.
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't you need to know the "angle" of the polarisation filter for that to be effective ?
Re:My question is... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can block the signal, but you can't actively jam it. If you want your movie theater to block cell phone signals, you make it into a faraday cage (which is probably going to be difficult when you need to block microwaves -- just a few inches open is all you need for a signal to get in) and then cell phones won't work.
If you wanted some extra flexibility in that setup, you could set up some dipole antennas for the various cell phone bands in and out of the shielded movie theater, and set up circuits to connect them inbetween movies and break the connections when the movie starts. That way you could turn it on and off ...
I'm not saying that this is a good idea, only that it would be legal. (But being able to turn it on and off like that? I'd say it qualifies as clever if nothing else.)
Personally, I think that technological solutions (jammers, faraday cages) to etiquette problems (talking on your cell phone and disturbing others) are a mistake, and I feel that people who advocate such drastic measures just to prevent themselves from being inconvenienced are more rude than the people they complain about. You don't like the person next to you talking on his cell phone? Don't ask the owners/government to make it so it won't work -- instead, ask the guy to stop, and remind him how rude he's being.
I'd be mighty angry if I was at the movies, and the babysitter couldn't call me and let me know that my children had hurt themselves and was in ICU at the hospital. Sure, I set the phone to vibrate, but beyond that, if somebody calls me, I want to know about it.
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, nothing makes a movie-going experience pleasant for everyone more than a fight breaking out.
Telling people to shut up doesn't work. I've been in plenty of theaters where multiple people are yelling at someone to shut up and just getting ignored or a "fuck off" in response.
This is all the sort of thing that usher
Re:My question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll say that an usher would be much more affective and would not need to be there for the entire movie. A single usher could easily monitor multiple screens and at 7/hour I don't imagine would be very costly in the grand scheme of things.
I'm with the grand parent here. Technology problems to solve cultural or etiquette issues will always fail. They are never a good idea and worse yet, they can be very destructive at the cost of a quiet theater. I don't see the ends justifying those means at all.Re:My question is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Go ahead, don't go to the theater any more. We won't miss you.
There's a new business opportunity here: you could start a new theater chain called "theater for assholes", where talking on cellphones is allowed. Of course, no one would actually go there because they don't want to admit that they're the asshole, and th
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Interesting)
It used to be part of the reason we went to theaters - to get away from our life for
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right that there is an overreliance on staying connected but the whole point isn't the number of times you've heard it. It's the possibility that it could occur. All of these people I'm sure go to theaters and I'm fairly certain most of them don't have an issue with this. The whole point is that someone spouting off on a cell phone in a theater is not a problem but
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is a technological one and really didn't exist before 2000 or so. I think that is why people are drawn to technological solutions.
Perhaps etiquette will catch up with technology, but I have my doubts. From what I see on the roads these days, consideration for others is a lost art.
I think con
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for mentioning my treatment, you too seem much more reasonable on the issue and bring up a lot of good points. I see this whole issue as a common trend and I do not blame cell phones for this trend. People in general are more anonymous these days, they can hold a private conversation in a public place essentially meaning they aren't required to interact with their surroundings to the same level. I have no idea the number of accidents caused by cell phone use and I do believe firemen do stay at the fi
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but for every person talking on their cell phone in the theater there are usually a hundred that aren't. You get a call in a theater you pickup, say hold on, then walk outsi
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ten years ago, you could call a theater in an emergency, and they'd go find the person you were looking for.
Theaters won't do that now. Hell, they don't even bother to kick out the people talking in the theater. Why would they spend any effort finding someone in a theater?
Re:My question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, my point was that jammers are illegal, and for good reason. If you want to block the signal legally, you'll have to do it another way. Though really, I don't understand what the big deal is. I've been to the movies perhaps ten times in the last year, and I don't recall being disturbed by anybody talking on the phone or even by a ringing phone. As for people taking in restaurants, well, they're already full of people talking, so who cares if they're talking to somebody who's not actually there? (Unless they're there with me but that's another issue.)
What bugs me are people walking around with headsets on, especially ones that are tricky to see, and it looks like they're just talking to themselves, and when they get close to me, I tend to think they're talking to me. But it's only mildly annoying, and even if it was really annoying, I'd not want to ban it or somehow break their phones.
Re:My question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been dealing with that just fine since pagers first started coming out.
When you go to the theater, you leave your pager with an attendant, and he records where you're sitting
And lets' face it - it's s SHITLOAD more likely that you're gonna get called by some wanker who wants to know if you've picked up the cheese dip for friday's big game thatn to get a call that a close relative just died in a car crash.
And a partially aborted rant
Re:My question is... (Score:4, Interesting)
yes he leaves everything on
yes it's set to vibrate
yes he says "hello, officer
-nB
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps have different types of signal, so one disables the ringer but leaves vibrate on, one forces the backlight to turn off (So no glare), one disables the camera (good for schools) etc.
Obviously these would only be 'hints' to the phone and in special cases, such as on-call surgeons, they could be disabled
Re:My question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
Self defeating... (Score:2)
A friend of mine has a camera with a few pixels shot out by a laser. Wasn't particularly powerful, but was a bit more than needed to temporarily blind a camera.
Re:My question is... (Score:2)
I wonder if in ground testing the missile achieved its target and removed the offensive camera capabilities as well as the camera-man and whether it was extra successfull in clearing out the room.
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Funny)
SLRs (Score:2, Interesting)
Won't help you if your family picture takers use SLRs. No destruction, and not even blocking!
FTA:
"There are some caveats, according to Summet. Current camera-neutralizing technology may never work against single-lens-reflex cameras, which use a folding-mirror viewing system that effectively masks its CCD except when a photo is actually being taken."
Seems to make the technology a little useless. SLRs are cheap nowadays (um, relatively speaking) and many amateur photographers use them. I guess it only pr
Re:My question is... (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. This system detects the CCD in a camera, not the lens. That's why it doesn't work with SLRs.
Misuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Misuse? (Score:5, Funny)
And just what does the utility company in Budapest have to do with it?
Re:Misuse? (Score:3, Interesting)
To Quote Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To Quote Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
Yay! Misuse! (Score:2, Funny)
Oh I wouldn't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the problem is the way that a CCD is detected. They say they do it by checking it's reflection propreties. According to the article CCDs are retroflective, meaning they send light back to it's source, they don't scatter it. Ok fine but you think that will work reliably? Even if you get it so a system doesn't generate false positives (which will be a big problem, it's not like CCDs are unique in this property) what do you do when someone sticks a filter on their lense that changes the properties? I'm sure teh sense works fine when it's just a glass lense that does nothing but focus the light. I'm sure it doesn't work at all if you put the equivilant of mirror glass on the lense.
I don't see this going anywhere on a large scale, espically since it would be hell to make it pick up and deal with long range lenses. It's not hard (if a little expensive) to get a lense that gets good shots at 500+ metres. How do you deal with that?
Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:2)
Neat! When can I get one, then?
Note the sarcasm impaired: I do not recommend the action implied above, nor do I intend to carry it out.
Re:Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Note - since the rise of cameras at intersections accidents have nearly doubled in some cases as people slam on the brakes in time for the person behind them to collide with them. But remember - it's safety - not revenue.
Brought to you by your local police and proection agency: To Serve - and Collect.
Re:Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
I whole heartedly agree!! I would venture to guess, if you took out the direct revenue to the system from speeding infractions, that the overly eager enforcement of them would drop.
I think we should take the fines from speeding and other minor infractions, pool it, and at the end of the year, redistribute it back to the licensed drivers who did not commit (or get caught) for an infraction that year.
I'd much rather see th
Re:Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:2, Insightful)
Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Got a source for that one?
I'd like to point out that there is a reason the light turns yellow for several seconds before it turns red. Sure, you can always speed up when it would be better to stop so you can make it through the intersection before it technically becomes illegal, but if the guy in front of you doesn't do the same, don't expect blame to fall on him.
Re:Source? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell it's downright unamerican of you if you follow at a safe distance from the car in front of you.
Drive Safely? Phhhht!
Re:Source? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/687.asp [thenewspaper.com]
http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp ?lbid=776666 [trb.org]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/technology/circu its/06came.html?en=8bc6df38e1042a40&ex=1262667600& amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;am p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ei=5090&partner= rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position= [nytimes.com]
Re:Source? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I do.
several in fact.
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11185/fish-sto ries-from-the-operators-of-traffic-scameras.html [caranddriver.com]
http://thenewspaper.com/news/11/1189.asp [thenewspaper.com]
http://thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp [thenewspaper.com]
and that took me 10 minutes to dig up.
Re:Sounds perfect for speed cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember reading this was true with an incredibly important caveat: the number of injuries and fatalities from red light running is way down. You're getting more fender benders as people belatedly obey the fscking law instead of body bags when they flagrantly flaunt it.
Personally, I think the fine for running a red light should be a 90 day license suspension on the first offense, increasing exponentionally with each subsequent. Then again, I was nearly run down at the intersection of Vermont and K by a SUV last week, so I may be a bit biased in this respect.
Slashdot to Paparazzi: (Score:5, Funny)
My Eyes My Eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait until they blind a few people testing this. I might want to go to concerts without my contacts or glasses.
Honestly, I know they will try to make sure that they don't accidently get someone's glasses. However, when some boffins tried to create an active cellphone jammer for planes, it coded a guy by stopping his pacemaker during the tests. Doesn't make me feel real snazzy about the idea.
Re:My Eyes My Eyes (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens when retinal implant-type bionic eyes [popsci.com], take off?
I suppose "Mr. Smith, here are your new eyes; just watch out for movie theaters and the government." will be the standard disclaimer, huh?
Re:My Eyes My Eyes (Score:3, Informative)
I suspect that the angle of effective retroreflection for a human eye would be at least equal to the retroreflection angle of a CCD with a reasonably long lens in front of it.
So again, we come down to shape (as you mentioned from TFA), which is going to require some pretty high resolution (ie expensive) cameras if they want to be able to zap the guy sitting in the l
Again, won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that spies could just design and use cameras which look non-suspicious by the sensors. And then again, what will happen when common glasses have integrated cameras in them?
As usual, this kind of systems can only block the legitimate public (which tries not to break any laws), while the truly dangerous people just use more advanced technology.
Re:Again, won't work. (Score:4, Interesting)
This means that spies could just design and use cameras which look non-suspicious by the sensors. And then again, what will happen when common glasses have integrated cameras in them?
Even easier: since this system will eventually work off infrared frequecise, you merely cover you lens with a substance the reflects or absorbs infrared light. Shouldn't matter to the camera and then you've neutralized the scanning portion, rendering the rest obsolete.
Re:Again, won't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Again, won't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like a digital SLR with a mechanical mirror shutter? The CCD is completely blocked off until you take the picture.
Re:Again, won't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
The Powers That Be are determined to make sure that ANY information the masses have access to is paid for.
Only detects always-active CCDs (Score:5, Insightful)
prince concert (Score:3, Informative)
After seeing a lady manhandled and her camera destroyed at a prince concert. I can now see something like this being very profitable. Most concerts don't allow cameras. But people sneek them in all the time. especially camera phones.
This is what is sounds like... (Score:3, Funny)
It's all nice and well (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine that based on the description of the detection system it should be possible to come up with a lens filter for digital cameras, that will let the light onto the CCD, but will scatter the light that is reflected back, thus negating this detector technology.
Re:It's all nice and well (Score:3, Informative)
if you have a polarizer then the light they are sending out woln't be able to see the ccd unless you are trying to take a picture OF the light emiter.. and even then the reciver would more than likly not see the reflection let alone be able to tell the shape of the reflection as it would more than likly be dist
Re:It's all nice and well (Score:3, Funny)
Q: what about CMOS (Score:2)
Way too dangerous. (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing seems way too dangerous and impractical to even think about commercial use yet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tyler Durden (Score:3, Funny)
(splices single frame of male genitalia into slashdot)
Old School (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically, if you still want to be a photographic snoop, use a box camera.
Easily defeated fortunately. (Score:4, Informative)
The more practical and up-front approach would be to x-ray everybody and take their cameras off them.
Blocking the blocker (Score:2)
Operative word = digital (Score:2, Insightful)
If this system is used to disable digital cameras, and this system becomes widespread, then will we see a resurgence and acceleration in the development of film cameras.
Don't throw away your old Canon/Mamiya/Nikon yet!
Of course, this will work until owning analog cameras is made illegal.
Re:Operative word = digital (Score:2)
And we already have the phrase for this: "plugging the analog hole."
Please note that the scatalogical jokes have already been made and re-made for this phrase. Don't bother.
Trivial and inexpensive countermeasures: (Score:5, Insightful)
counter-counter attacks (Score:2)
You just need to buy one of these and use it against itself to neutralize the digital cameras dectector.
Thunderbirds are go (Score:2)
I always thought that the idea of a camera detector required a little more suspension of disbelief than usual.
I guess Gerry Anderson is now vindicated.
Easily defeated: (Score:2, Interesting)
If the light is visible, just take two pictures:
This method may require multiple pictures in order to facilitate secondary image processing to remove images of your hand.
Alternate method: Substitute raised middle finger for hand
Trivial to defeat. Dangerous to use. (Score:2, Insightful)
If the device has enough power to saturate a ccd, it has enough power to saturate someones eyeball. So, someone is temporarily blinded or startled. They trip
So, let's think of the countermeasures... (Score:5, Funny)
Dupe... (Score:3, Informative)
New System to Counter Photo and Video Devices
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 19:01 19th September, 2005
from the movie-studios-rejoice dept.
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."
If it's not a dupe, it's certainly a very close article, which should occur in the "Related Links section". Yay! for my l33t search skillz.
Speed cameras (Score:2)
I can see these being mounted on the front and rear dashboards of every car.
yes, please (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were a device that disables CCTV, and it's cheap enough to buy and light enough to carry, I know I would have one with me and switched on all the time. I'm sick and tired of being treated like a (potential) criminal "for my own protection".
Digital SLRs (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that in order to work the system will need to constantly scan everything with, presumably, beams of visible light. I doubt this will work out well at most places...
So how fast... (Score:3, Insightful)
1: Person 1 aims digital camera at 'forbidden' target.
2: Blocking device directs beam at camera.
3: Person 1 sees bright light in viewfinder, gives thumbs-up.
4: Person 2, standing a few feet away, whips up second camera and takes picture.
5: Profit!
And I'm sure somebody smart enough could devise a simple device to cover up a camera's CCD until an instant before the picture was taken. It could be called something like a 'shutter'...
Film Anyone? (Score:2)
but.. this says "DIGITAL CAMERAS"
uhh... FILM!
they still exist right?!?!
LONG LIVE THE ANALOG HOLE
Bean not "copyrighted public space" (Score:2)
Hmmm place camera in a tube (Score:3, Insightful)
And then there are....
multiple cameras- which one is real.
telescopes
this idea is a waste of money and time.
Obligatory anti-MPAA comment... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Movie piracy is a $3 billion-a-year problem," Clawson maintains -- a problem said to be especially acute in Asia. "If someone videotapes a movie in a theater and then puts it up on the web that night or burns half a million copies to sell on the street - then the movie industry has lost a lot of in-theater revenue.
Will someone please explain the Accounting here? This kind of statement really bothers me because it assumes a few things. 1. That consumers of pirated content have the dispossable income t
Shopping mall Santas? (Score:2, Funny)
Now I get it, it's $10 to get a photo of your kid frightened by Santa
(http://www.southflorida.com/events/sfl-scaredsan
but only if you're not taking the picture yourself...
Whats wrong with Film ? (Score:4, Interesting)
For those NON--Film guys a Minox is a very high quality german SPY camera , the ones used in all those old movies.
Small , clandestine, and very good optics, far better than any small Digitals sport,
Makes this technology and all its research useless and a waste of money in my opinion.
And the way to defeat it is painfully obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
False positives.
It's looking for "the reflectivity and shape of the image sensors", right? Well, just put a couple dozen of them on your hat. The system won't know what to target.
And that's that. Simple.
What if.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean... seems like you have a great test case to know if you can rob a place. Try you cell phone camera, if it doesn't work you know the "Smile, you're on camera" sign is bogus.
Timothy's subnote is idiotic (Score:5, Informative)
And what about the future for blind people? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when are CCD's "retroreflective"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Retroreflective means the surface reflects light back to the source. Stop Signs, taillights, and some fire hydrants are retroreflective. So are to a lesser extent, disco-balls, diamonds, and ball-bearings. But CCD sensors? Why? And since when? I've never seen one behave that way. And in a photosensor you want one that COLLECTS and absorbs light, not reflects it or even worse, retroreflects it.
Now at some angles, CCD sensors are going to show a diffraction pattern, due to the spacing of the sensor elements, but only if they're out in the open, without a lens. Are these "Reasearchers" seeing this effect?
This article sure sounds like high-grade snake-oil!
Movie Theater Piracy story (Score:3, Funny)
So I decided I'd give them a show and told my Nokia to send all contacts via IR. I did it about every ten minutes and I knew it was getting security's attention. But I just didn't appreciate them watching me watch a movie. Kinda creepy, you know?
If it matters, the movie was Spiderman 1, and I haven't been watched since, but I just wanted to relay my little civil disobedience story.
Re:Not Digital SLRs... (Score:3, Insightful)
If an electronic viewfinder is used instead of an optical one the sensor
is in play all the time.
Re:Not Digital SLRs... (Score:2)
From article:
Re:Not Digital SLRs... (Score:3, Informative)
The only thing I added that was different is that the process we described is a lot more movement than is currently done to expose a single frame. I'm not sure if the mechanism can do all of this quickly. The shutter is very quick in both directions and dontrolled very precisely. The other stuff.. I'm not sure.
Clearly the one rule that has changed that motivated the SLR designs we have today is the film (CCD in this case) cannot be touched by any light at all other than the exp
Re:Impractical in a theater (Score:3, Funny)
More distracting than the unimaginative hollywood plot, hyperbolic acting, and unrealistic exploding cars/buildings/animated cats?
Come to think of it, that's the best anti-piracy technology to come out of Hollywood--the movies themselves.
Re:Actually, this is not news (Score:2)
Re:OK and after you do this..... (Score:2)