Comment

Comment on If I invented a shirt that caused cameras to be damaged when filmed/photographed, would I be committing a crime by wearing the shirt at events with cameras?

9point6@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

What you describe is simply not possible with a passive material. Funnily your example of something shooting lasers is probably the only thing that could come close to actual damage

The most you can do is one of those adversarial patterns that just confuses the white balance and autofocus. There is nothing you can do to affect someone shooting in manual mode

If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Successful_Try543@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

Recently, there were news about the LIDAR of Volvo cars destroying camera sensors when they were aimed into the direction of the IR laser beam.

source
- fishos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  Even that was debated. No one proved it continued when you took another video, just that it broke the video of the lidar itself.
  
  source
  - Skysurfer@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Here is a video demonstrating the lidar killing pixels in a phone camera sensor.
    
    They also tried cameras on other vehicles but those were not affected, only the cellphone aimed directly at the lidar suffered damage.
    
    source
    fishos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    So I tried watching it and never saw them close the camera app or restart the phone, so again, waiting on some actual proof with some science behind it rather than “dude totally said so”. That only proves that the software controlling the picture adjustments has been sent out of whack(as evidenced by the fact that it would show true colors eventually when pointed at something else). If the pixels were “dead”, they wouldn’t reset. We have a separate phrase for that. It’s “stuck pixel”.
    
    source
tankfox@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Rick and Morty did this once, Rick simply put on a hat with a QR code that made a robot army recognize him as a high level commander.

A few days ago I read a short story, comp.basilisk.faq by David Langford, which sketched a world in which specific images could irreversibly crash the brain, leading to a full scale worldwide ban on images on the internet and many other places as well. The story postulated hundreds of potential info-hazards with many of them simple enough to be applied via stencil and spray paint. Two of them are branch families of the Mandelbrot set ‘and no we won’t tell you where, do not look’

Other examples; Snow Crash — Neal Stephenson Blit — David Langford The Atrocity Archives — Charles Stross Doctor Who — “Blink” / “The Time of the Doctor” SCP Foundation — SCP-096 SCP-7387 (“The Mathematician’s Grin”)

“Keep your eyes peeled or we’ll peel them for your wholesale!”

source
Periodicchair@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
I am thinking if you could wear a mirror that would direct all the sunlight right at the camera. That would have to be an active tracking system, but wouldn’t emit any light itself.

source
- 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  It would have to be parabolic and yeah as you suggest you would either need a big robotic rig to aim it or you would have to be very very obvious with your intent to damage given there’s pretty much only one specific place a given parabolic mirror can be to damage something else.
  
  source
  - Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    Parabolic would only work if the camera is in the focal point, so you’d need a different part of the parabola or a different parabola depending on where you are standing relative to the camera. This is in addition to the aiming mechanism.
    
    And even then, I’m not convinced it will damage all camera techs instead of just overexposing the image or frame for some. If they just clamp the affected pixels instead of trying to maintain the relative brightness, they might be able to still see your face clearly.
    
    source
Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
You could maybe defeat LIDAR with retro reflectors or something. Probably not, but that’s the only case it’d be possible realistically, since it’s actively shooting lasers out that you could reflect back, without actually locating the camera. Anything else, yeah it’d require actively finding the camera and attacking it, since it is only receiving light. I guess if you wore something bright enough to damage any camera looking in your direction that would also work, but I don’t think it’d be considered passive, and you’d also blind everyone else who can see you, probably permanently, and it’d require huge amounts of energy.

source