Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   don't take my picture

   

   steve, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 11:44am

   
   

   this digital camera foiling technilogy, could it be used to prevent traffic cameras from taking the picture of autos that run red lights? That would be useful technology!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: don't take my picture

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 12:30pm

   
   

   I don't see why not..... but I'm guessing a mirror would be less obvious and probably more effective ;)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Stopping camera's will only hurt us.

   

   Chizl, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 12:30pm

   
   

   What about all the people caught on camera doing things they shouldn't.. What if police put it in their cars so people can't record them beating someone else. On the other side, what's to say someone putting something like this in their car, so police recorders can't record them drive off. I'll take this out of cars, what's to say drug a house puts this on the outside of their house so police can't record their actions. What are these people thinking. Some technology is just bad!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Whosawhat?, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 1:46pm

   
   

   This only effects digital cameras.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Paul, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 3:15pm

   
   

   celebs can use them to get the damn papprazzi off their back

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Camera Phone Jamming

   

   Etchy, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 3:52pm

   
   

   This technology, if cost-effective coould prove to be a real use in lockerrooms, bathrooms, and other areas where privacy is expected.
   All those weirdo porn sites will have to find something better to do.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Stopping camera's will only hurt us.

   

   Etchy, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 4:01pm

   
   

   Most police surveillance is done from a much further range than 33 feet. Also, they would need to set up these all around the perimeter of the house for it to be a "shield."
   
   This CRE technology seems like it'd be best for an environment where disabling it would arouse suspicion. If a drug dealer sets one up to block police surveillance, all the police need is a sharpshooter to disable it. After all, what is the drugdealer going to do? Call the police?
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Stopping camera's will only hurt us.

   

   mt, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 4:23pm

   
   

   
   Seems like this would be foiled pretty easily anyway. How hard could it be to overwhelm such a system with false postives?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Stopping camera's will only hurt us.

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 4:42pm

   
   

   So... You are suggesting that teh police start to destroy private propperty without even so much as a warrent now?
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    No Subject Given

    

    Jens, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 5:22pm

    
    

    this would be useful in Saudi Arabia where, until only a year ago, camera phones were still technically illegal. Camera phones are still frowned upon many there as being "too easily abused" -- I'm sure every father is now happy that there is technology to prevent his family's honor from being tarnished by hooligans snapping photos of his daughter's uncovered face.
    

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: don't take my picture

    

    Anonymous of Course, Sep 19th, 2005 @ 6:22pm

    
    

    There are a slew of patents on IR jamming
    technology for prevention of movie piracy. I
    studied this approach about five years ago. An
    idea that was a couple of years too late for me.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment