Prototype device detects, disables digital cameras

Proving once again that "outdated technology" still has its place among today's high-tech products, old-school film cameras may soon be the only shooters not rendered ineffective in the face of a new device that promises to identify and disable their digital counterparts in secure environments. Currently still in the prototype phase, the device developed by researchers at the Georgia Tech College of Computing's Interactive and Intelligent Computing Division uses its own set of digital cameras along with a scanning laser to inspect a given area for telltale signs of CCD imagers (shape, size, reflectivity), and subsequently shoots out concentrated beams of light to overwhelm the sensors of offending gadgets. Although the device is still unable to accurately detect camcorders whose CCDs are set farther back from the lens than regular still cameras, once that obstacle is overcome, this technology is expected to be deployed by governments and businesses as an anti-espionage technique or in movie theaters as a way of combating piracy. See, you thought you were ahead of the game with your ten megapixel cameraphone, but it's actually the spies and pirates equipped with those old medium-format Pentaxes who will soon rise to the top of their respective professions.

[Via Dvorak Uncensored]

[Octavus @ Jun 18th 2006 5:41PM]

If this was in a movie theater would people be able to see the beam especially if there is a good amount of dust in the air? This thing could get very annoying if it is too sensitive ans interrupts non CCD objects as CCDs and shots light out at it.

[Charles Taylor @ Jun 18th 2006 6:22PM]

Considering the number of cell-phones with cameras in them out there, and that it is nearly impossible to find a good phone that doesn't have one, I see a lot of people getting very annoyed that someone destroyed their new fangled phone.

[Shmoe @ Jun 18th 2006 6:43PM]

How are they going to keep from blinding people?

[iomatic @ Jun 18th 2006 6:57PM]

So what happens when you roll in with an Canon EOS 20D or 30D CMOS camera?


:

[ghostpuppy @ Jun 18th 2006 7:02PM]

i don't think this would work with DSLR's. That CCD is only exposed for a fraction of a second. Their system would have to find it, decide it's a CCD and blast it in like 1/60 of a second (depending on ambient light, f/stop etc.). Not saying it's impossible but it would have to be a darn good system.
Also I bet it's going to be shooting out infrared beams not visible light. Every digital camera I have is able to see infrared, just hold a remote control up to the lens and you can see the pulses of light. This would solve the annoyance problem.

[DesolataX @ Jun 18th 2006 7:10PM]

"Also I bet it's going to be shooting out infrared beams not visible light. Every digital camera I have is able to see infrared, just hold a remote control up to the lens and you can see the pulses of light. This would solve the annoyance problem."

You know that you can buy IR filters... stack 2 or 3 and no IR light gets through, but it also affects the color of the image.
It would be rather funny if they used Ultraviolet light, blind everyone in the theater. :P

[Ryan @ Jun 18th 2006 7:21PM]

I dismantled a Sony Cybershot DCS-T and found the CCD was oriented facing skyward and a periscopic assembly redirected it out. I wonder if this would have any effect on the usability of this system.

[billybob_jcv @ Jun 18th 2006 7:34PM]

I doubt this would work against the super slim cameras that use "folded optics" where there is no direct path throught the lens to the sensor. A solution without a problem...

[matt @ Jun 18th 2006 7:39PM]

yeah this is kinda a cool idea but, being a photographer myself, i know my rights and it wouldn't be long before someone uses this to violate them. besides, this thing- as ghostpuppy pointed out- prob won't work on DSLRs so whats the point?

[blakamin @ Jun 18th 2006 7:57PM]

One-way glass/mirror in front of the lens maybe??

[DT @ Jun 18th 2006 8:11PM]

You guys commenting about periscope optics and the like...you do realize that if photons can get to the CCD to form an image, then the beam (also composed of photons, incredibly), will do exactly the same thing, and knock out the CCD.

Oh, it's also temporary, so no one's cameraphones are going to be destroyed space laser-like.

[daniel @ Jun 18th 2006 8:19PM]

lol i saw this on THE THUNDERBIRDS forty years ago :) not kidding
there was a "camera alarm" when someone tried to photograph the thunderbirds' machines

[Kelly @ Jun 18th 2006 8:27PM]

I video blog a lot and, as such, carry my camcorder with me in a bag. Sometimes I've went into a theatre with camera in my bag as I've been out shooting stuff beforehand. If someone destroys my $600 camera, someone's going to get a chunk taken out of their ass.

[Demando @ Jun 18th 2006 8:31PM]

"You guys commenting about periscope optics and the like...you do realize that if photons can get to the CCD to form an image, then the beam (also composed of photons, incredibly), will do exactly the same thing, and knock out the CCD."

I guess what they wanted to say is: since the CCD isn't directly exposed, will this system be able to notice it? maybe it can't detect the CCD's image reflected by the periscope, so it won't even shot.

[Chris McDowell @ Jun 18th 2006 8:50PM]

I dont think it detects and destroys I think it just sends out a light at a certain wave length that over exposes the image basically and makes it unusable.

[Neal Saferstein @ Jun 18th 2006 9:21PM]

There is a wise saying "For every action there is a reaction"

Neal Saferstein

[Fred Thompson @ Jun 18th 2006 10:13PM]

Riiiight. Movie theaters are going to friggin' shoot lasers at the audience. (Is there any other form of "concentrated beam of light" which is directional? Nope.)

Yeah...that's realistic.

Is there still time for me to get through law school before the lunatics actually try this?

"Sorry about your eyes. The combination of your contact lens and the reflective quality of your body's lubrication of that lens just happened to look like a camera."

Go to a movie, get blinded when the theater shoots a laser in your eyes.

[Iggy @ Jun 18th 2006 10:18PM]

So what happens if the thing mistakes your eyes or someone wearing glasses for a camera, are they all of a sudden blind now? Smells a lot like a law suit in waiting to me.

Iggy ;)

[Brian @ Jun 18th 2006 10:38PM]

One can only await the lawsuits in the news for the first person driving by and having this "concentrated beam of light" fix on their car and cause a traffic accident. You can say it won't be a factor, but then again we have people suing because they spilled coffee and "didn't know it was hot" and winning.

One also has to question the reliability of the system. What elements might trigger a false detection? Bifocals at just the right angle? Binoculars? Telescopes? When captured by these light concentrating devices, one can only imagine what may occur to the viewers eye. As with anything else, there will always be ways to circumvent this system. I look forward to the hackers of the world putting together their wits to provide workarounds for these systems. It may be as simple as one commenter already suggested, "using IR filters". Time will tell.

[Simon @ Jun 18th 2006 11:06PM]

It's amazing how many tech-challenged people there are on a "tech" blog.
And by the way, read the actual article before imagining any sci-fi stuff.

First price goes to Kelly. A camera in your bag will be safe, so keep on blogging and stop thinking altogether.

[GR Kelly @ Jun 19th 2006 12:22AM]

The plaintiff who was scalded most likely knew that coffee was hot, but didn't anticipate that the coffee was artificially hot enough to burn them as severely as it did. Look!
http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

[Too Fast @ Jun 19th 2006 12:22AM]

Most Speed Camera's now use digital camera's to take photo's of speeding cars. A system mounted on a car that works with this quickly enough could avoid a whole lotta tickets

[Ryan @ Jun 19th 2006 12:30AM]

You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

[BBOCK @ Jun 19th 2006 1:18AM]

This is just evil. Like other people on this site, I have to wonder what the effect of these laser beams will be on our eyes. So there we sit in a darkened theater, our pupils large because of the dark room, and they go shooting lasers at our retinas. Of course we will be told about the safeguards that are in place. Technology. What could go wrong! Anyone with any experience in modern consumer electronics can tell you what a freaking bad idea this is.

[Eli @ Jun 19th 2006 3:04AM]

Put a polarizing filter over the lens. Problem solved.

Also, who the hell pirates movies by taking a video camera into a theater? I know some people who used to do that, and they were just friends with a theater manager. They'd go in after the last shows were over, set up their camera in the best possible position in the theater, and plug directly into the sound system. That's pretty much the same way it's done now.

[LostToys @ Jun 19th 2006 3:32AM]

You may plug it into the theater's sound system, but you still need to capture the video some how. TC is still the most common form of movie piracy, and requires someone to film the video as it is being projected. In this instance, such a system would be effective.

And the rest of the comments make my head spin a little, especially those who are commenting on how they will be pissed when they equipement is "destroyed". Please read the articles before posting, as it will soundly stop all the paranois in your head.

[Atanas Boev @ Jun 19th 2006 4:10AM]

@Eli
Or, put many false targets around, the system should have some maximum resolution. And at least it should be fun, to secretly stick a target on the back of a random guy(s) in the cinema. We should name it "Copy Prevention Mechanisms Counterfighting by Spatial Oversampling". "A Method and Aparatus for Sticking False Targets On Random Observers" ;)

[chaoticset @ Jun 19th 2006 8:37AM]

The really hilarious part will be when someone builds their own, brings it to movie theaters with them, and runs it concurrently with their camera. The MPAA's cameras would get knocked out before they'd get a chance to knock out offending cameras.

Of course, if someone would only steal Sam Fisher's friggin' pistol, they could just point it at the thing and keep firing the electronics disabler... :D

[oshean @ Jun 19th 2006 11:50AM]

"...uses its own set of digital cameras along with a scanning laser to inspect a given area for telltale signs of CCD imagers "

Couldn't you just use a mirror to defeat this system? It detects a CCD in the reflection and shoots its beams of lights and blinds itself.

[Rob @ Jun 19th 2006 12:15PM]

"There is a wise saying "For every action there is a reaction"
Neal Saferstein"

Neal,
That's not a wise 'saying',.. That's Newton's third law of motion: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

[Eric @ Jun 19th 2006 12:43PM]

Bogus, it won't work with DSLRs. Who cares about the toy cameras? :-P

[Horse N. Buggy @ Jun 19th 2006 12:54PM]

Actually, it will work with toy cameras - Holgas shouldn't be affected. :-) Finally, a good argument for why I won't go digital - my camera can't be remotely controlled.

[Mark @ Jun 19th 2006 4:25PM]

Will it work mounted to my car so I can blow through every red light and toll booth I want?

[Chris @ Jun 19th 2006 4:48PM]

This seems like an overly complicated way to go about it and I think there are many potential countermeasures which would render it useless. If the only worry is cellphone photographers then this will probably work alright but if someone is determined they will find a way around it. For people videoing new movie releases, a well crafted hood could block out almost all direct light sources except for that of the screen.

[justDIY @ Jun 19th 2006 9:07PM]

hmm ... I smell burning retinas and juicy lawsuits ;)

oh, if it really as an IR laser, a simple ir-block lens filter should solve that pesky problem... and maybe some ir blocking sunglasses for the operator too

[Washington DC Photographer @ Jun 20th 2006 12:55AM]

I think this isn't going to work very well. I think that in some very limited circumstances it might, but it's not going to be able to blanket eliminate all photography, especially of large buildings, etc, the purported security concerns they're talking about.

John

[Garth Bock @ Sep 5th 2006 3:08PM]

So they are going to do the "Star Wars" thing to knock out cameras. Seems like a waste of time. I am surprised that the motion picture industry hasn't required a chip in the CCD's of camcorders and digital cameras that will cause them to be disabled when a digital radio signal is sent. Just think of it. You try to sneak in to a movie theater with your CCD lapbel pin connected to your digital recorder in your pocket to pirate the hot new movie only to discover it is disabled due to the "dampening field" being broadcast in the room. You're a paparazzi chasing pop stars when you spot Brittiny with child. You get ready to capture her latest "babby bobble" for your sleezy tabloid when you spot her bodyguard pressing a button on a remote control and your DSLR suddenly goes blind. It's CCD has been disabled ! Think about it. We have the RIAA chasing song downloarders, we have the Sony rootkit, we have some DVD copy protection, there is the V chip....why not the "No C" chip built into the CCD's so they will not see when told to.

[Miles @ Jun 2nd 2007 2:18AM]

Re: Garth

Because no one would buy the camera/electronics in that case. I know i certainly wouldn't.


I can see this working on a limited scale as well, but in reality, CMOS sensors and DSLRs would defeat the system. It would certainly defeat camera phones.

[L2Think @ Aug 18th 2008 9:30PM]

I highly doubt they would ever employ this kind of tech in a movie theater. The costs to put one or more of these in every theater would be astronomical. Most likely cops are going to start carrying these to stop the wave people that won't talk to a cop without a video camera rolling. Just last week we've had two police brutality videos that have made the major airwaves. If law enforcement were to get their hands on tech like this they could easily hide any wrong doing on their part. I really don't see any positive merit to this system at all.

[Phil E. Drifter @ Dec 25th 2008 8:01PM]

Shmoe @ Jun 18th 2006 6:43PM: "How are they going to keep from blinding people?"

You're an idiot, and you took all the fun out of reading this INTELLIGENT article, something which you are not.