‘Researchers develop prototype system to thwart unwanted video and still photography’

A boot stamping on a camera... forever. Yes, I know this is an SLR. But I was using the digital camera to take the photo!

Via Boing Boing, ‘Researchers develop prototype system to thwart unwanted video and still photography’, news from Georgia Tech of a system that scans and finds the CCDs of digital imaging equipment and shines bright light (or a laser) into them in order to flood them with light and prevent usable images being recorded.

“Commercial versions of the technology could be used to stymie unwanted use of video or still cameras. A Georgia Tech camera-neutralizing prototype could soon be used to stop movie piracy and other forms of unwanted digital-camera photography…

The prototype device, produced by a team in the Interactive and Intelligent Computing division of the Georgia Tech College of Computing (COC), uses off-the-shelf equipment — camera-mounted sensors, lighting equipment, a projector and a computer — to scan for, find and neutralize digital cameras. The system works by looking for the reflectivity and shape of the image-producing sensors used in digital cameras…

…the small-area product could prevent espionage photography in government buildings, industrial settings or trade shows. It could also be used in business settings — for instance, to stop amateur photography where shopping-mall-Santa pictures are being taken

Once a scanning laser and photodetector located a video camera, the system would flash a thin beam of visible white light directly at the CCD. This beam — possibly a laser in a commercial version — would overwhelm the target camera with light, rendering recorded video unusable. Researchers say that energy levels used to neutralize cameras would be low enough to preclude any health risks to the operator.*”

Luckily for those of use who still value our freedom to use technology,

“Current camera-neutralizing technology may never work against single-lens-reflex cameras, which use a folding-mirror viewing system that effectively masks its CCD except when a photo is actually being taken. Moreover, anti-digital techniques don’t work on conventional film cameras because they have no image sensor.”

Regular readers of this blog will be able to guess how I feel about the prospect of the device described in the article, and indeed the moral motivation of the engineers and designers working on it.

This technology is designed expressly to remove the rights of the public by imposing arbitrary control architectures on public space. If something is being publicly displayed, I believe I should be free to photograph it, whether that be with a film camera, a digital camera, or eidetic memory.

Just because someone wants to prevent amateur photographers (read: everyday members of the public) getting a snapshot of their kids with Santa in a shopping mall, in order to sell them an overpriced ‘official’ photo, it doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do so. If it is permissible to operate a device in public which interferes with the operation of lawful imaging equipment, then presumably it will be permissible for a member of the public to shine lasers into the cameras used in the detection system?**

I really cannot mask my distaste for this device, and for the mindset that has created and funded it. It is the thin end of a wedge which has the potential to destroy so many of the freedoms technology has brought us. If I’m wrong, please let me know, but just think for a minute: what might a couple of the consequences be, ultimately, if this kind of technology becomes widespread?

  • Beauty spots: you can no longer photograph your family standing overlooking the waterfall, the seaside, the mountain, etc, without paying the ‘photo’ tax. Once you’ve driven 200 miles to get there, you’re not going to refuse a few quid. Or more. Pay per photo? But the first one went wrong? Pay again, bozo.
  • Events: Going to a concert? Or a sports game? Want to capture the atmosphere? Not till you pay us. We OWN your memories, after all, we provided the event, didn’t we? It’s not fair if you have a memento without paying.
  • Citizen journalists/photobloggers: No, you can’t photograph what’s going on. No, you can’t photograph the riot or the police brutality. No, this New Year’s Eve fireworks display is brought to you exclusively by GloboCorp and you can’t photograph it. No, it is not permitted to photograph the carnival, you awful pirate.
  • Overall, the distasteful corollary following from widespread use and legitimisation of this kind of device is, simply, the death of amateur photography, as both a recreation and an artform. When arbitrary bodies can extract rent from me for photographing whatever they decide, I’m not going to bother recording the world around me any more, and neither will hundreds of millions of others. The next generation of kids will grow up not knowing the right to photograph what you want, just as the next generation of kids may well believe that music has to be bought over and over again for every device you want to play it on.

    It is this embedding of arbitrary controls in the architecture of our society, working outside the law to enforce ‘rights’ with little legal basis, and intentions which are in no way in the public interest, which scares me a great deal.

    Norms can be changed by technology without any law needing to change. We need to keep an eye on that, and the eye had better be wearing protective goggles.

    *Wouldn’t it be awful if, say, I took a whole load of CCDs with sticky pads on the back into a cinema and scattered them all over the place? I can’t believe the system can dazzle 100 cameras at once. Or if I just happened to be wearing retroreflective sunglasses with similar characteristics to the CCD, and after being “almost blinded” by the device shining into my eyes (not really, of course), was able to make damn sure the device could never be used anywhere again?

    **Oooh, what about all those CCTV cameras that film me everyday? Am I allowed to shine a laser into them? What if I live across the street from one? Can I train a laser on it permanently?

    EDIT: There are some parallels here with the ‘analogue hole prevention’ mechanisms I looked at in Architectures of control in the digital environment, most notably Hewlett-Packard’s patented ‘paparazzi-proof’ camera-phone image inhibitor system.

    EDIT (20.vi): The BBC has now picked up on the story – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5097774.stm – no new details but – oh look! – the claim about potential use to stop amateur photographers of shopping-mall-Santas has been left out. The story focuses on the uses to stop ‘pirates’ in cinemas, and not the potential uses ‘in the wild’. Remember, when presenting a potentially distasteful idea as something positive, leave out the bits that relate to everyday life. Make it seem as if you’re only targeting extremes, and then gradually shift the boundaries of what’s ‘extreme’. Martin Niemöller taught us that pretty well.


    1. Dan

      Comments on this at Digg – http://www.digg.com/technology/Camera_blocking:_how_to_thwart_the_oppressors

      #by andresfb

      If these people are looking for funding they may want to talk to Hollywood celebrities. Time to un-dust that old film camera.

      #by atroxodisse

      The only legitimate reason to use these devices would be for people to avoid the paparazi. Otherwise I think companies will find it is not a viable idea because people with sharpies will easily thwart their laser by coloring over the lense or covering the lense with something. You may find people buying these devices to aid in committing crimes. For now it won’t be an issue because most security cameras are probably not digital. The thing about blocking my digital camera is that I’ll be able to see right away if the picture didn’t come out. If the laser is somewhere I can reach I can easily cover it or have someone stand in front of it. If it’s located up high I can cover my camera and block the laser. A boycott of locations with these kind of devices would probably be a good way of getting rid of them too. I really don’t think they’ll see a lot of use though.

    2. Bob

      Outside of protecting a location from espionage, there is no legitimate reason to damage someone’s property or person to protect “your” property.

      Damage my camera in a non-governmental security environment (I would not be using it if it were one) and you will be sued. And, if it is an SLR, there is always the possibility that the camera is up to my eye. A laser will permanently damage someone’s eye… I would not want to be the person responsible for that… If it were my eye, financial considerations would not be reparations enough.

    3. David Gerkins

      It sounds like the people behind this system are trying to drum up some more cash. On the sparse details available, I don’t think it is going to work very well – there seem to be many ways to defeat it and many ways it can go wrong. For example, can it handle 10 cameras? Can it handle cameras with large lens hoods (to block the laser)? If the search is using an invisible IR laser, is it possible to use an IR blocking filter? How easy is it to fool – be made to think there is a camera when there is not? I can totally see people glueing CCD chips to their foreheads when they go to the cinema, so the laser catches their forehead while they take photos with their cameras. Technically, i don’t think it is going to work any time soon.

    4. Dan

      Interesting that one of the comments on this blog post about a movie screening mentions that:

      You can now purchase an ultraviolet strobe to place above the screen – you can’t see it with your eyes, but it blinds 99% of camcorders and makes bootlegs unwatchable.

      If that’s effective, it’s surely a less egregious architecture of control than the Georgia Tech system.

      There’s always this, of course!

    5. sheridan

      question: is this kind of product legtimate when upholding the law? I am thinking in particular about copyright law in the way it relates to artists. Unlike musicians, artists do not make a commission each time their work is sold or displayed. Copyright fees are their only way of a continued income. When a photograph is taken of an artwork on public display, it infringes copyright.

    6. Dan

      I understand what you’re saying, but do you believe art would have thrived in the age of the camera if no-one were allowed to photograph it (for personal use) without paying arbitrary fees? Either the artist wants his/her work to become better known, to inspire others, to cause them to think and ponder, to spread the artist’s mindset, or not. If not, why bother showing the piece at all?

      An architect doesn’t receive a fee every time a building is viewed or photographed by a member of the public. A product designer doesn’t get anything from people photographing products he/she’s designed. A writer doesn’t receive any royalty every time someone in a library picks up his/her book. It’s probably, in fact, the music industry where the anomaly is, rather than the art world.

      It might not be a popular view among (some) artists, but I’m currently of the opinion that as long as they don’t use it commercially, members of the public should be allowed to photograph whatever they want if it’s on public display. If the artist wants to extract extra money from that, he/she’ll have to provide some added value – e.g. postcards with extra information on them, or signed postcards, or extra-special prints.

      It won’t be too long (20 years?) before photographic (eidetic) memory and computers start to overlap (or even interface), to some extent, even if it’s only a refinement of something like the Sensecam. What’s going to happen then? If I can ‘print out’ anything I’ve ever seen, on a whim, why will I worry about what anyone else thinks?

    7. Pingback: No photography allowed at fulminate // Architectures of Control

    8. Pingback: Smile, you’re on Countermanded Camera at fulminate // Architectures of Control

    Comments are closed.