Anti-Camera Technology... I can see the lawsuits now!

[Gurm]

http://news.zdnet.com/Crave+privacy%3F+New+tech+knocks+out+digital+cameras/2100-9595_22-5869832.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn

I predict this will get ugly. I know that I, for one, wear "highly reflective" glasses all day, every day. They claim that the digital camera has "different" or "greater" reflectivity than glasses or coke bottles, but that's not only nearly impossible to tell from a distance, but just untrue. Advanced anti-glare coating on glasses produces nearly identical reflectivity to camera lenses. Additionally, sunglasses have been nearly perfect mirrors on the outside for quite a few years now.

The first time some fvcktarded ****at beams a blinding flash of light directly into someone's eyes... is the last time this technology will ever be used.

Edit: Just noted that the most recent comment on that page says nearly the same thing that I just said. Although he raises an interesting point about the use of deadly force in defense!

[TransformX]

Can they make something similar to blind the speeding cameras ?

[Paddy]

I imagine it would be very difficult to do this if the light source is moving.

[Liquid Snake]

What about film?

[Jon P. Inghram]

That article is complete garbage. Cameras don't have retroreflective coatings on their lenses, they have antireflective coatings. A lens and/or camera does retroreflect, but only directly back along the axis of the system. The attached picture of a telescope shows the effect, although somewhat poorly since the flash of the camera obviously wasn't directly in-line with the cameras lens.

[Wombat]

That article is complete garbage. Cameras don't have retroreflective coatings on their lenses, they have antireflective coatings. A lens and/or camera does retroreflect, but only directly back along the axis of the system. The attached picture of a telescope shows the effect, although somewhat poorly since the flash of the camera obviously wasn't directly in-line with the cameras lens.

Your picture would not prove or disprove the effect. Their argument (which I'm interested in, but haven't made my mind up about), is that cameras (especially CCDs) that are used for surveillance only care about visible light, and the lens filters they use have a retroreflective property in the IR spectrum to keep the IR from the CCD.

[Nowhere]

Ahh...yes, that reminds me, I must remove this IR filter of sorts from my Quickcam and get IR emitter lightbulb - better than pointing "normal" lightbulb in my eyes anyday... (the Quickcam express is quite shitty in low light...)

[Fat Tone]

Wasn't that a trick used with low-light video camera to 'see through' clothing? ISTR certain web sites selling optical filters for this 'application'

[Gurm]

Wasn't that a trick used with low-light video camera to 'see through' clothing? ISTR certain web sites selling optical filters for this 'application'

Yup. Sony pulled a whole bunch of product from their shelves after a rash of those videos hit Teh Intarweb.

[Fat Tone]

I guess it should be ok to post this example - someone remove if not please. NSW.

http://www.spy.th.com/through.html

[Nowhere]

I guess it should be ok to post this example - someone remove if not please. NSW.

http://www.spy.th.com/through.html

Hmm...now that's the idea.

Now only to organize pyjama party in dorms room

[DGhost]

see, they need to take this to the next level and just use a highly focused laser to blind recording devices...

hehe...

fire the laser!

[Gurm]

That would be a "lay-zer" (with air quotes, like Dr. Evil).

[VJ]

I highly doubt that my mobile has any kind of coating on its plastic lensthingy...



Jörg