Crave privacy? New tech knocks out digital cameras

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have come up with an inexpensive way to prevent digital cameras and digital video cameras from capturing that secret shot.

The technology they've devised detects the presence of a digital camera up to 33 feet away and can then shoot a targeted beam of light at the lens, according to Shwetak Patel, a grad student at the university and one of the lead researchers on the project.

That means that someone trying for a surreptitious snapshot of, say, a product prototype or an amorous couple gets something altogether less useful--a blurry picture (or a video) of what looks like a flashlight beam, seen head on. (A video of how the system works can be viewed here.)

The group has developed a lab prototype--which consists of a digital projector with a modified video camera mounted on top--but will soon design a device that could be manufactured and sold commercially. The group, which presented a paper on its work at Ubicomp (The Seventh International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing) in Tokyo last week, is also in contact with large consumer electronics manufacturers.

Though photo-foiling gadgets are one possibility, the technology might also eventually be incorporated into digital projectors and other devices as a feature.

The Georgia Tech researchers aren't alone in their pursuit. Tech giant Hewlett-Packard, for one, has applied for a patent on technology that could remotely cause blurry pictures in digital cameras, but it requires putting additional circuitry inside the camera. HP and others are also working on projection technology meant to stymie video piracy.

The technology is a stab at ameliorating the privacy problems that have arisen with the advent, quick ubiquity and tiny dimensions of digital cameras. Nearly 85 percent of cell phones in Japan come with built-in digital cameras, and the figure for North America and Western Europe is supposed to rise to 80 percent by the end of next year, according to market researcher Gartner.

"It certainly is a concern, and it has been a concern since cameras have gotten really small," said Steve Baker, an analyst at NPD Group. "It is a lab trick that has some real-world application."

Companies commonly confiscate digital cameras temporarily from visitors coming to their labs or confidential meetings. "But you can't confiscate a phone. Someone might be expecting an important call," Patel said.

Many companies also maintain strict no-photography policies in quasi public places. Someone trying to take pictures inside a Wal-Mart or an electronics boutique will immediately draw a warning, or expulsion. Conferences also have similar rules. Patel himself got in trouble trying to take a picture of a "No Photography" sign to illustrate where the

[donpro]

I don't think so

I don't think shining a very bright light into a crowd of people is a very good idea. What happens if the unit malfunctions and shines the light into someone's eyes based upon a reflection from their eyeglasses. This had better work 100% or its going to make a lot of lawyers very happy.

[taznar]

Which bright light?

You seem to be worried about the bright light to be focused on the
camera. I'm wondering if they've done a safety analysis on
continously bathing with infrared light. Granted, its the less
dangerous part of the spectrum, but IIRC its still pretty good at
warming up things that absorb it.

So, what intensity of infrared are they going to be shining
continously into the eyes of the people around the "celebrity"?
Could add new meaning to the term star-struck.

[Sam Papelbon]

this will just be annoying

could you imagine if a celebrity was wearing one of these while walking the red carpet at a movie premiere or something? with all the photographers it would make the celebrity look like a human disco ball. plus it wouldn't work if it was blocked by their clothes or something. they'd have to have a silly looking hat with this device mounted on top to block all directions. you could still get photos from the back and possibly the side. if they turn their heads you could still get their face. maybe they could mount it on the tip of their nose, that would make an interesting light show in the previously mentioned movie premiere example

[donpro]

I don't think so

I don't think shining a very bright light into a crowd of people is a very good idea. What happens if the unit malfunctions and shines the light into someone's eyes based upon a reflection from their eyeglasses. This had better work 100% or its going to make a lot of lawyers very happy.

[taznar]

Which bright light?

You seem to be worried about the bright light to be focused on the
camera. I'm wondering if they've done a safety analysis on
continously bathing with infrared light. Granted, its the less
dangerous part of the spectrum, but IIRC its still pretty good at
warming up things that absorb it.

So, what intensity of infrared are they going to be shining
continously into the eyes of the people around the "celebrity"?
Could add new meaning to the term star-struck.

[Sam Papelbon]

this will just be annoying

could you imagine if a celebrity was wearing one of these while walking the red carpet at a movie premiere or something? with all the photographers it would make the celebrity look like a human disco ball. plus it wouldn't work if it was blocked by their clothes or something. they'd have to have a silly looking hat with this device mounted on top to block all directions. you could still get photos from the back and possibly the side. if they turn their heads you could still get their face. maybe they could mount it on the tip of their nose, that would make an interesting light show in the previously mentioned movie premiere example

[jasonemanuelson1]

Good in concept, not real life

Another solution that is less obtrusive to others is infrared
lights. They can do the same job, but without being visible to
the naked eye. LED technologies are making some pretty cool
alternatives for ordinary incandescent light sources. I would love
to see them develop high-output infrared LEDs that would make
this all possible.

But, for those really wanting to avoid the eye, an EMP is about
the only solution for large open areas, but I don't think the local
authorities, nor the national would like this too much!

[jasonemanuelson1]

Good in concept, not real life

Another solution that is less obtrusive to others is infrared
lights. They can do the same job, but without being visible to
the naked eye. LED technologies are making some pretty cool
alternatives for ordinary incandescent light sources. I would love
to see them develop high-output infrared LEDs that would make
this all possible.

But, for those really wanting to avoid the eye, an EMP is about
the only solution for large open areas, but I don't think the local
authorities, nor the national would like this too much!

[jasonemanuelson1]

Sorry, dang news.com

Their submit page kept erring out, showing I had not posted a
comment, even though it was. My sincere apologies for the
waste and annoyance...

[Christopher Hall]

I think the site's broken

I seem to be getting a lot of page errors, slow loads, and "this page cannot be found" errors. What gives?

[pencoyd]

Cleaned up a bit

Sorry about the submit page errors. I cleared out the duplicate entries for you.

If there are problems, I'd very much like to know about them, with any/all details possible.

My email is my first name then a dot then my last name @ cnet.com.

Thanks for reading, and posting, and sorry for any glitches.

John Roberts
CNET News.com product development

[jasonemanuelson1]

Sorry, dang news.com

Their submit page kept erring out, showing I had not posted a
comment, even though it was. My sincere apologies for the
waste and annoyance...

[Christopher Hall]

I think the site's broken

I seem to be getting a lot of page errors, slow loads, and "this page cannot be found" errors. What gives?

[pencoyd]

Cleaned up a bit

Sorry about the submit page errors. I cleared out the duplicate entries for you.

If there are problems, I'd very much like to know about them, with any/all details possible.

My email is my first name then a dot then my last name @ cnet.com.

Thanks for reading, and posting, and sorry for any glitches.

John Roberts
CNET News.com product development

[Spimby]

What about conventional cameras?

Would a disposable 35mm camera still work? Sounds like it. So I can just scan the photo in later. Also, I wonder if a filter on a digital camera's lens would defeat this system.

[qazwiz]

yep

They were very specific... it only affects digital cameras (it detects the electronics that does the actual recording)

[Spimby]

What about conventional cameras?

Would a disposable 35mm camera still work? Sounds like it. So I can just scan the photo in later. Also, I wonder if a filter on a digital camera's lens would defeat this system.

[qazwiz]

yep

They were very specific... it only affects digital cameras (it detects the electronics that does the actual recording)

[walterwood]

Defeat this with a non-coated camera lens

This seems very easy to defeat. Since it relies on a coating found on camera lenses, simply use a non-coated lens -a very low tech solution.

[mahuti]

Or...

Or, use a reflective camera lens, with a piece of less-reflective film
over the lens.

Way to design something useless guys... Think of easy ways to
hack your inventions next time.

[Gabey8]

What if there's more than one camera

Can this device only detect and respond to one camera at a time pointing at it? In that case, a "tag team" of two cameras at once will probably produce one usable photo and one unusable one.

[walterwood]

Defeat this with a non-coated camera lens

This seems very easy to defeat. Since it relies on a coating found on camera lenses, simply use a non-coated lens -a very low tech solution.

[mahuti]

Or...

Or, use a reflective camera lens, with a piece of less-reflective film
over the lens.

Way to design something useless guys... Think of easy ways to
hack your inventions next time.

[Gabey8]

What if there's more than one camera

Can this device only detect and respond to one camera at a time pointing at it? In that case, a "tag team" of two cameras at once will probably produce one usable photo and one unusable one.

[heystoopid]

Question?

Question how effective is it, with a simple polarised lens filter?

[heystoopid]

Question?

Question how effective is it, with a simple polarised lens filter?

Nothing new here

TSCM technicians have known this for years and have used purpose built devices as well as devices of their own making (which are much cheaper I might add).

Nothing new here

TSCM technicians have known this for years and have used purpose built devices as well as devices of their own making (which are much cheaper I might add).

What about the sun?

I shoot landscapes with the sun in the frame all the time and my camera is far from blinded. So how bright is this light?

What about the sun?

I shoot landscapes with the sun in the frame all the time and my camera is far from blinded. So how bright is this light?

[zaznet]

What about Elis?

If Elvis enters the room, the device would be trying to blind all his rhine stones and unable to find the cameras.

This thing is likely easily defeated.

[zaznet]

What about Elis?

If Elvis enters the room, the device would be trying to blind all his rhine stones and unable to find the cameras.

This thing is likely easily defeated.

[walt9876]

could be fun...

I wonder if lens filters made specifically for digital cameras have the same coating. If so, you could attach a bunch to your clothes or jacket. What a light show you would create when you walked in!

[walt9876]

could be fun...

I wonder if lens filters made specifically for digital cameras have the same coating. If so, you could attach a bunch to your clothes or jacket. What a light show you would create when you walked in!