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?

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨58008@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

I was thinking about those outfits celebrities wear that mess with flash photography equipment, and I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera, and I wondered if there could ever be a pattern or material that, when filmed, caused the camera irreversible damage. And if that were physically possible, I wondered if intentionally showing up to camera-heavy events wearing said shirt would constitute a crime on my part.

It’s just a shirt after all. It’s not like I’m grabbing a camera and smashing it on the ground. But at the same time, I know it will have that effect, so I’m accountable. But it’s not like my shirt is emitting damaging laser beams or anything, it’s entirely passive.

Also, is there anything like this scenario in real life/law?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

phonics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
if you invent some passive way to damage tech by just being in its vicinity. not only would it be illegal. it would be a super weapon.

source
- wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  A weapon to surpass metal gear?
  
  source
  - MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Snake?!
    
    Snaaaaaake!!!
    
    source
  - neidu3@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Å weapon to defeat metal gear
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  How they gonna find out? No cameras to witness it
  
  source
  - phonics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    eyes
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- hypnicjerk@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  bro’s got the level 9 EMP aura
  
  source
9point6@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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
- Successful_Try543@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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
    -> View More Comments
- Periodicchair@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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
    -> View More Comments
- tankfox@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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
- Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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
stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Might not cause damage but there is the Camera Shy Hoodie: www.macpierce.com/the-camera-shy-hoodie

Instructions for how to DIY provided, so it doesn’t have to be a hoodie.

Image

source
- T156@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Although that really only works as long as the camera doesn’t have an IR filter in place.
  
  source
  - bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    If the camera has an IR filter, how would IR be able to make night viewing possible?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  there was an x-file episode, where the guy emits radiation, which pratically jams cameras, which also gives him xray vision.
  
  source
- TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  happy cake day
  
  source
  - stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Thanks :)
    
    source
remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It’s not possible to damage cameras passively, so there isn’t an answer. But if it was possible it probably would be made illegal to wear those.

source
- Boddhisatva@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  More like illegal to wear anywhere in the USA considering that we’re quickly becoming a surveillance state.
  
  source
  - Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Quickly?
    
    Every country is already a surveillance state, and has been for multiple decades.
    
    Just look at Britain with cameras everywhere since at least the 1980’s.
    
    Fucking Ring crap just doubled down on it, and idiot people don’t even care they’re providing the means. 1984 nailed it.
    
    source
- awesomesauce309@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The sensors can definitely be damaged by too much light
  
  source
  - remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Right, I just mentioned that in another comment. I’m not quite sure it would count under OPs restrictions:
    
    The only pattern/material that comes close to what OP is looking for would be a parabolic mirror. If you attach one of these to your shirts and then stand at the exact right angle and distance to a camera, you could damage it. However that is already stretching “passive” because it would require a lot of deliberate actions to position yourself that way. And it pretty much only works when the sun is out.
    
    source
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  maybe if its emitting lots radiation
  
  source
dev_null@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
ITT: People debating whether such a shirt is possible and not answering the actual question.

source
- ReiRose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Im all for this. Im all for all the side discussions that emerge from a post like this
  
  source
cloudless@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That was an episode that ended right where it started getting good. Not that the episode was bad before that, but it left me wanting more of that, not a jump to a new premise in the next episode.
  
  source
  - bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The story of this episofe had enough potential for a 6 episode spinoff series. Or maybe 4. Anyway 1 was way too soon.
    
    source
- SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Is that Doctor Who?
  
  source
  - Pieisawesome@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Same actor, but it’s from the latest season of black mirror
    
    source
hddsx@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
My dude is trying to creating a shirt that just continuously recharges and fires EMPs lol

source
xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Strap a lidar emitter to yourself. Those car sensors have been shown to damage cameras.

source
- stringere@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The Camera Shy Hoodie works.
  
  source
  - Psythik@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    But what if I just want to buy one?
    
    I don’t have time to make my own; I have a job.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
MoonManKipper@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I think it depends on whether it’s active or passive. Active - e.g. a laser that damages a camera sensor, then yes, your device is actively damaging someone else’s camera - deliberate property damage. Passive - e.g. reflective strips so the exposure is bad, a pattern that is hard to focus on or similar- that’s fine - camera owner is making a decision to expose their gear to the environment. Even if, say, it’s a changing pattern that deceives the autofocus into working constantly (no, I don’t know exactly how that would work, but it’s the best I can think of at short notice) so it wears out faster.

source
eronth@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Creating something that damages nearby electronics? Yeah, that’s probably not going to fly. It really doesn’t matter if it only damages things that actively film/photograph you. Like, it’d be illegal if I walked up and hammered every camera that photographed me too.

source
- Bazoogle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  It’d also be illegal to point a laser light into a camera to damage the sensor
  
  source
iii@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera

Probably aliasing aka moiré effect. Harmless to the equipment.

Also, is there anything like this scenario in real life/law?

Speed bumps for cars do something similar? Entirely passive, harmless, unless when encountering certain equipment - a vehicle in that case.

source
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It depends a lot where your story happens. Laws are quite different.

In my country, this little detail would save you …

it’s not like my shirt is emitting damaging laser beams or anything, it’s entirely passive.

… unless you were deliberately wearing this for the purpose of doing such damage, and somebody could prove that.

source
four@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
There, technically, hypothetically, could be a situation where such shirt is possible. But it would require a bug in the camera firmware, which would probably work on just one camera model. For example, a shirt with a pattern that tricks the camera into detecting more faces than it was designed to, causing a buffer overflow and a crash. Reasonable, although extremely unlikely

source
- glimse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I rolled my eyes at your optimism that such a material would exist but I took it all back by the end. Despite it being incredibly niche and unrealistic, that is by far the most clever suggestion in the thread!
  
  source
EvilEdgelord@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Invent?!? Bro, just use infrared LEDs 😂

source
- remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Not passive. Won’t damage cameras.
  
  source
  - Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Yes not passive but you’re not thinking big enough.
    
    Image
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - EvilEdgelord@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    No, but you will basically look like a bloomed-out version of this:
    
    Image
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
slazer2au@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Looking to get an eicar QR code shirt?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIcbAMO6sxo

source
- Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  That’s incredible!
  
  source
dullbananas@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
A similar thing that might be possible is to create a shirt that shows something that exploits a vulnerability in software. Some hardware can be bricked by software (this used to be the case for MacBook batteries).

source
brokenlcd@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Best i can do is an Elton John style jacket. Dazzle them to.hell and back.

source
- Aggravationstation@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Now the kilt was only for day-to-day wear. In battle, we donned a full-length ballgown covered in sequins. The idea was to blind you opponent with luxury.
  
  source
altphoto@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
OK you’re going to need CO2 gas, 2 mirrors, a glass. Container and a high voltage capacitor.

…
Step 3454674) charge the capacitor to 60078V.

Step 5746678) now run!

source
spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Damaging a camera is very different from something that makes taking a picture impossible. It doesn’t matter if it is passove or active, only the end result is important.

A celebrity might get away with it when just trying to get home but would probably be required to pay for damage to the camera. Anyone at a large venue is going to be ruining everyone’s cameras and that would be a huge deal.

source
ODuffer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
No

source
Menschlicher_Fehler@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I think Lidar can do this in certain circumstances. Not really practical for a shirt though.

source
- remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Not passive.
  
  source
  - Menschlicher_Fehler@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    True. I seem to have skipped that requirement when reading the post.
    
    source
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
maybe if its wearing a shirt with radioactive elements.

source
Fizz@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yeah even if it wasnt ilegal i bet people would find a way to charge you for it or stop you from using it to protect yourself.

Take the simple option of putting on a balaclava and smashing the cameras.

source
sir_pronoun@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
To those saying it’s not possible - modern cameras are highly complicated devices, constantly using little motors to change focus and exposure, driven by AI informed algorithms. Leave it up to some nerd to device a pattern and/or material that could maybe drive those sensors and motors nuts, or something like that.

source
- remon@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Unless they invent some kind of new force of physics all you can do here is reflect ambient light.
  
  The only pattern/material that comes close to what OP is looking for would be a parabolic mirror. If you attach one of these to your shirts and then stand at the exact right angle and distance to a camera, you could damage it. And it pretty much only works when the sun is out.
  
  However that is already stretching “passive” because it would require a lot of deliberate actions to position yourself that way.
  
  A even worse option could maybe wearing a shirt made from a radioactive material. (but is it still passive when you’re using something radioactive?). And of course this wouldn’t just damage the camera but also very much the camera man … and the wearer.
  
  source
Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Pretty sure those devices that block cellphone and radio signals are illegal in public and people have gotten in legal trouble for that

source
- FlembleFabber@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Yes you cannot start jamming common used frequencies, or any frequencies really
  
  source
discosnails@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The FCC has (had? Do they still exist?) rules about this, very straightforward.

source
themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
This reminds me of a movie or a tv show where people were sneaking into a compound and disabled the security cameras with a laser pointer.

source
hperrin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
There are things that damage a camera when you point at them, but they aren’t passive. Things like x-ray sources could do that. Also the sun.

So no, even if you reflected 100% of the light from the flash back into the lens, there’s just not enough of it to do any damage.

If you were somehow able to focus all of it on one single pixel on the sensor, you might be able to damage that pixel, but that would require a large piece of optical equipment basically on top of the camera.

source
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I just recently read a short story with a similar concept, all pictures and videos have been banned since there was as found to be images that will kill anyone when they look at them.

When I get back to my anthology book I’ll look up what one it was, it’s in the Big Book of CyberPunk.

source