6 ms·
This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video, but I can't justify that feeling. There's something so wonderfully disobedient about neutralizin
by jswrenn 11y ago
This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video, but I can't justify that feeling. There's something so wonderfully disobedient about neutralizing cameras with lasers that I'm tempted to ask: is this legal? Does the potential for damaging the camera carry any liability?
Lastly, just because you could use lasers to neutralize cameras doesn't mean you can. In trying to to make a point about the ubiquity of cameras, the author reveals a challenge in fighting them:
> Video cameras the size of postage stamps can be procured for under $100, and will certainly become even smaller and cheaper.
Blocking cameras is one thing; finding them is another!
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ugexe 11y agoObligatory "this isn't reddit"
- brk 11y agoThis would be kind of impractical. It might work with older cameras, especially in indoor scenes. But modern cctv cameras have pretty good WDR (wide dynamic range) by default, and you'd likely find that your face gets better exposure than you think. It some cases, especially indoors, this hat could actually HELP the camera if the light from it bounces off nearby walls and then illuminates your face. Not to mention the battery pack and heat generation issues from such a hat would make it rather cumbersome to wear anyway.
- itcmcgrath 11y agoThat concept is used in Daniel Suarez's book 'Influx' to avoid AI systems doing facial recognition.
- amelius 11y ago> Makes a lot of sense to make a hat with a very bright LED light source. Until you walk into that elevator with a mirror mounted inside. Or until you bump into other people.
- DanBC 11y agoYou'd be wearing an illuminated hat. You might as well just yell "HERE I AM". It would do nothing to stop your image being recorded. It may well just improve the quality of your image on the recording.
- snowpanda 11y ago>This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video This idea is shifting though, we've steadily been leaving behind a place of having cameras predominantly being used to prevent theft, towards a situation of mass government surveillance on the street level (think license plate scanners etc). To me personally, that is more offensive at this point.
- dheera 11y ago> This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video On this note I've been thinking about whether there's anything actually offensive about capturing video in a public location. You're just capturing photons thrown at you. If someone doesn't want to be captured, too bad, they shouldn't be throwing photons at you (read: if they want privacy, they shouldn't be in a public location). The human eye is a camera; the only real difference between your eye and your Canon is in material composition. One is made of organic material, another made of silicon and glass. In the future, I see this boundary blurring, whether in the form of digital prosthetic eyes for the blind (which inevitably would possess the hardware ability to capture video to a file) or in being able to understand, capture, and save neural signals out of our biological eyes directly. It will happen and is just a matter of time. So we might as well create a unified ethical framework now, built around the fact that the human eye is a camera; the act of seeing is videography; the act of remembering is data storage.
- zdkl 11y ago> they shouldn't be in a public place... I beg your pardon?
- drdaeman 11y agoPrivacy is conceptually incompatible with public places. If one doesn't want that the fact they've been at some public location, doing something, they shouldn't be there. Forcing bystanding observers to not remember or not disclose the facts they have observed is somewhat odd idea.