1251: "Anti-Glass"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Image

'Why don't you just point it at their eye directly?' 'What is this, 2007?'

I wouldn't do this. It's dangerous to irk cyborgs.

gormster
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:43 am UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby gormster » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:40 am UTC

I saw a bunch of people wearing Google Glass at WWDC. When I tweeted about it, someone replied "Take a picture!" I couldn't do it. It's just too impolite to take a photo of a random stranger.

I couldn't take a photo of someone wearing Google Glass, even though that's exactly what they were doing.
Eddie Izzard wrote:And poetry! Poetry is a lot like music, only less notes and more words.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby keithl » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:41 am UTC

Peephole lenses are divergent. A laser shining out through one will be defocused, lighting up far more than the cop's pupil. I hope Black Hat guy has a kilowatt laser, or a bullet is coming back in through that peephole.

User avatar
Goggalor
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:04 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Goggalor » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:41 am UTC

I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?
Keeper Of The Bags, Protector Of Puns
A Timewaiter from the very beginning to the bitter end.1
1but not from beginning to end to beginning since I'm not a loopist

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:44 am UTC

keithl wrote:Peephole lenses are divergent. A laser shining out through one will be defocused, lighting up far more than the cop's pupil. I hope Black Hat guy has a kilowatt laser, or a bullet is coming back in through that peephole.
It's BHG, he probably altered his peephole for this purpose. Never change, BHG.
I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?
Ask pilots.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby keithl » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:00 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:
keithl wrote:Peephole lenses are divergent. A laser shining out through one will be defocused, lighting up far more than the cop's pupil. I hope Black Hat guy has a kilowatt laser, or a bullet is coming back in through that peephole.
It's BHG, he probably altered his peephole for this purpose. Never change, BHG.
Of course! BHG is an inspiration to us all. I don't have a peephole in the front door, but I think I will put a kilowatt laser there, properly focused, under a sign saying "door to door salepeople, look through here".

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Fire Brns » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:03 am UTC

Quicksilver wrote:Ask pilots.
Planes aren't delicate.

And then there's this.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Quicksilver
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:21 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Quicksilver » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:15 am UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Quicksilver wrote:Ask pilots.
Planes aren't delicate.

And then there's this.
No, but the people who fly them are.

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby StClair » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:25 am UTC

What's that phrase?
"It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye."

SomeoneSomewhere
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 4:51 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby SomeoneSomewhere » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:29 am UTC

Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

TranquilFury
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:24 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby TranquilFury » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:33 am UTC

SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

How would it determine where the cameras are? Would it shine a laser at every object that absorbs light?

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:37 am UTC

Goggalor wrote:I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?


When the delicate equipment in question is the property of someone else? Pretty much since the beginning of the existence of laws.

And then of course there is the matter of distributing potentially very dangerous weapons to random people, including children.

squonk
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby squonk » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:37 am UTC

Can we attach these to sharks?

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby jpk » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:41 am UTC

TranquilFury wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

How would it determine where the cameras are? Would it shine a laser at every object that absorbs light?



If you can develop facial recognition, presumably you can also develop camera recognition.

I want the anti-glass. Anyone wearing google goggles is someone who's willing to turn their disregard for their own privacy against me - to me, their device is fair game. Be a part of the the borg if you want to, but leave me out of it.

(and while we're at it - is there any reason the pathetic dweebs have to occupy space in the world? If you want to waste your life staring at screens, why not just stay at home? Why go out in the world, if all you're going to see is your facebook page?)

squonk
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby squonk » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:48 am UTC

jpk wrote:
TranquilFury wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

How would it determine where the cameras are? Would it shine a laser at every object that absorbs light?



If you can develop facial recognition, presumably you can also develop camera recognition.

I want the anti-glass. Anyone wearing google goggles is someone who's willing to turn their disregard for their own privacy against me - to me, their device is fair game. Be a part of the the borg if you want to, but leave me out of it.


All that will do is facilitate development of Google Contact Lens. Then the enemy will hide among us.

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby StClair » Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:56 am UTC

Someone wearing a laser, head-mounted co-axially with the eyes, hardly has room to accuse others of being Borg.

Evilduck
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Evilduck » Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:24 am UTC

squonk wrote:All that will do is facilitate development of Google Contact Lens. Then the enemy will hide among us.



Too late, already being developed!

NotAllThere
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:54 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby NotAllThere » Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:39 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
Goggalor wrote:I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?


When the delicate equipment in question is the property of someone else? Pretty much since the beginning of the existence of laws....
Yep - it's called criminal damage.
yangosplat wrote:So many amazing quotes, so little room in 300 characters!

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Kit. » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:59 am UTC

TranquilFury wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

How would it determine where the cameras are? Would it shine a laser at every object that absorbs light?

No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.

Basically. the principle of detecting cameras is about the same as the principle of detecting cats. You shine the area with a point source and then look for reflected light beams directed straight back to your point source. Most probably, they will be from some optical reception devices having you in focus. They can also be from corner reflectors, but those will be much brighter than reflections from a camera sensor.

Yes, it's that simple.

Spoiler:
Of course, there can be a camera behind a (semi-transparent) corner reflector...
Last edited by Kit. on Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:04 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby snowyowl » Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:01 am UTC

keithl wrote:Peephole lenses are divergent. A laser shining out through one will be defocused, lighting up far more than the cop's pupil. I hope Black Hat guy has a kilowatt laser, or a bullet is coming back in through that peephole.

If there's one thing I've learned from optics, it's that with enough lenses you can focus anything on anything.

Surely you could make a beam of light that converges on a point, then put the peephole slightly before or slightly after that point so that the light emerging rom the pephole is focused at infinity again.
The preceding comment is an automated response.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Kit. » Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:16 am UTC

snowyowl wrote:
keithl wrote:Peephole lenses are divergent. A laser shining out through one will be defocused, lighting up far more than the cop's pupil. I hope Black Hat guy has a kilowatt laser, or a bullet is coming back in through that peephole.

If there's one thing I've learned from optics, it's that with enough lenses you can focus anything on anything.

Surely you could make a beam of light that converges on a point, then put the peephole slightly before or slightly after that point so that the light emerging rom the pephole is focused at infinity again.

As long as peephole lens physics is T-symmetric, you can just replace the BHG's eye with an equivalent scheme containing a laser.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 876
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby da Doctah » Wed Aug 14, 2013 9:32 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
Goggalor wrote:I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?


When the delicate equipment in question is the property of someone else? Pretty much since the beginning of the existence of laws.

Do you have any idea how much you sound like Ming the Merciless right now?

User avatar
TimXCampbell
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:26 am UTC
Location: Very Eastern Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby TimXCampbell » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:47 am UTC

Given a very low power laser with a stabilization unit (like they use on those air-borne lasers, but much smaller) could you not

(A) detect Google Glass the old-fashioned way ("Oh, I see that guy's wearing one") and then
(B) aim your device (head-mounted?) at the Glass?

Why? Read on.

First, we use a VERY low power laser because we don't want to hurt anything — not the Glass and not the person. Instead, we simply vector-scan the following text onto the Google Glass lens: "This image Copyright (C) [year] by [name]. All rights reserved."

Or you could simply write a rude word. Whatever. The basic idea is that whenever somebody tries to take a Google Glass picture of you, they find that the resulting image includes a faint but legible watermark.

I realize this wouldn't be EASY to to do, but I expect there are at least 10 people on this forum who could work out the details.

squonk
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:25 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby squonk » Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:56 am UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:I realize this wouldn't be EASY to to do, but I expect there are at least 10 people on this forum who could work out the details.

Ah, yes. "If I don't know how to do it, then it must be easy." How very Scott Adams of you. :roll:

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:45 pm UTC

StClair wrote:What's that phrase?
"It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye."

Then it's all fun and games, but in 2D.

You can thank one of those OTTers for that one. I forget who it is.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Coyoty » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

Maybe an upcoming Star Trek movie will feature the Borg. There's the movie tie-in. They'll make one eventually, probably. Good enough excuse.

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Barstro » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:12 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.


Could you not simply have some UV LEDs constantly projecting from your person? It shouldn't bother people too much (although, people are easily offended), but would make things too bright for the camera.

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Barstro » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:14 pm UTC

Coyoty wrote:Maybe an upcoming Star Trek movie will feature the Borg. There's the movie tie-in. They'll make one eventually, probably. Good enough excuse.


I'm stunned that there was never an episode (or ten) of the Borg vs. the Founders. I don't think that changelings could be assimilated, so the Borg might want to try to destroy them, and the Borg would never bow down to the Founders.

User avatar
willpellmn
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:05 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby willpellmn » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:47 pm UTC

I guess I'm going to have to be the guy who says "Google glasses are awesome and you should all quit overreacting". Privacy is not that important in the grand scheme of things, compared to the upsides of wearable computing. You might as well complain about the "borg-like-ness" of cell phones, or even claim that the automobile has ruined western civilization by making it possible to intrude on the residences of people farther away than a day's walk. I have no particular fear of being photo-Glassed at random in public, any more than I currently fear being snapped with a smartphone; at worst it might be embarassing, and I'm not so juvenile as to think that my minor personal discomfort is worth arresting the march of progress to avoid.

Barstro wrote:I'm stunned that there was never an episode (or ten) of the Borg vs. the Founders. I don't think that changelings could be assimilated, so the Borg might want to try to destroy them, and the Borg would never bow down to the Founders.


Species 8472 was not entirely unlike the Founders in that regard, apart from not having a Dominion to boss around (and that wouldn't be an advantage versus the Borg, who would just assimilate the Jem'Hadar...they'd die for lack of Ketrosel White a little while later, but still, they could do a lot of damage in the interim). I agree that it'd be sort of neat to see these two arch-villains go head to head, but ultimately it'd be kind of a waste of storytelling potential - each one is as much antagonist as any story needs, in and of itself.

Kit.
Posts: 1049
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Kit. » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:58 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:
Kit. wrote:No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.

Could you not simply have some UV LEDs constantly projecting from your person? It shouldn't bother people too much (although, people are easily offended), but would make things too bright for the camera.

Someone has already marketed a similar anti security camera solution with IR LEDs.

UV LEDs may be too offensive in some environments (due to luminescence). Besides, UV filters are too common on lenses of cameras expected to work in daylight.

huangho
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:43 am UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby huangho » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:32 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
TranquilFury wrote:
SomeoneSomewhere wrote:Interesting idea. Does a 20mW laser targeting any security/facial recognition cameras count as a crime? It would at least block you out, and probably damage the sensor. Plus working out who did it would be difficult.

How would it determine where the cameras are? Would it shine a laser at every object that absorbs light?

No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.

Basically. the principle of detecting cameras is about the same as the principle of detecting cats.

Poor cats.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Whizbang » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:41 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Basically. the principle of detecting cameras is about the same as the principle of detecting cats. You shine the area with a point source and then look for reflected light beams directed straight back to your point source. Most probably, they will be from some optical reception devices having you in focus. They can also be from corner reflectors, but those will be much brighter than reflections from a camera sensor.

Yes, it's that simple.

Spoiler:
Of course, there can be a camera behind a (semi-transparent) corner reflector...


Would that work, really? What about store cameras that are just pointed in a fixed direction? Unless you are right in the focus point, your technique (I assume) wouldn't work. If the camera is pointed at the register, and you're in aisle #3 but still in-frame, would your device detect the camera?

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:
Kit. wrote:No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.


Could you not simply have some UV LEDs constantly projecting from your person? It shouldn't bother people too much (although, people are easily offended), but would make things too bright for the camera.


IR LEDs are easier, and more effective.... and it's been done already
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

hamjudo
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:56 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby hamjudo » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:45 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:No need to shoot a laser to detect a camera. Any point source of light will do.

Basically. the principle of detecting cameras is about the same as the principle of detecting cats. You shine the area with a point source and then look for reflected light beams directed straight back to your point source. Most probably, they will be from some optical reception devices having you in focus. They can also be from corner reflectors, but those will be much brighter than reflections from a camera sensor.

Yes, it's that simple.


With a pinhole camera, only the center of the frame is aligned so it will bounce back to the source. If you put something nonreflective over that part of the sensor, your camera will have a blind spot, but otherwise it will be fine. It also won't be detected by these camera detectors.

cphite
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby cphite » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:49 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
Goggalor wrote:I don't see what's illegal about this? Since when was it a crime to shoot lasers at delicate equipment!?


When the delicate equipment in question is the property of someone else? Pretty much since the beginning of the existence of laws.

Do you have any idea how much you sound like Ming the Merciless right now?


I don't believe Ming would offer any objection to destroying... well, anything...

rmsgrey
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:31 pm UTC

Cory Doctorow's novel, Pirate Cinema has hat-mounted mosquito-zapping lasers that can be repurposed to also zap cameras (and to hack into and reprogram other anti-mosquito hats to do the same)...

cphite
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby cphite » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:36 pm UTC

willpellmn wrote:I guess I'm going to have to be the guy who says "Google glasses are awesome and you should all quit overreacting". Privacy is not that important in the grand scheme of things, compared to the upsides of wearable computing. You might as well complain about the "borg-like-ness" of cell phones, or even claim that the automobile has ruined western civilization by making it possible to intrude on the residences of people farther away than a day's walk. I have no particular fear of being photo-Glassed at random in public, any more than I currently fear being snapped with a smartphone; at worst it might be embarassing, and I'm not so juvenile as to think that my minor personal discomfort is worth arresting the march of progress to avoid.


What you mean to say is that privacy is not that important to you in the grand scheme of things. And that's fine.

And I suppose that most people do accept the fact that privacy really isn't an option in the public world... walk down the street in any major city and there is a good chance that you are on camera, probably multiple cameras. We accept that, in part, because we realize that it isn't about us personally. Everyone is being watched. The same is true in bars, restaurants, shopping malls; basically wherever people congregate. Most people realize they're being filmed in those places, but as with the street, they set it aside because it's not personal.

But suppose you're sitting in a bar with some friends, or in a restaurant with your family, and you notice that some guy has his smartphone pointed at you the whole time. You may not find that particularly disturbing, but I believe that most people would. I certainly would. And that is the issue that folks have with Google Glasses. You essentially have people pointing their recording devices at you whenever they're looking at you; and you really have no way of knowing whether or not they are recording you (it's not difficult to disable a LED).

There is a difference between being filmed as part of the background, and being filmed specifically. And again, you may not believe that difference is significant, but clearly a lot of people do, to the point where a lot of folks are asking that these devices simply not be allowed. There is a difference between being on the camera that sits near the ceiling in a far corner of the room, and being on a camera that is at the next table and actively pointed at you; focused on your activities and your conversation, as opposed to just passively filming the entire room.

People - most people, even if not you - don't like the idea of being actively recorded by people they may not even know.

Personally, I suspect the annoyance these devices create will go far beyond the ability to record. Ever try having a conversation with someone who can't stop playing with their phone? Or get stuck in line behind someone who can't pull themselves away from it long enough to actually finish their transaction and let you get on with your day? Almost daily I see people coming very close to killing other people because they can't stop messing with their phone while driving. Actually saw one idiot cause an accident on a bike path because he was texting while riding his bike.

I imagine this will only get worse when the device is strapped to their head and constantly in sight. I foresee a whole lot of car accidents and other accidents caused by people who are distracted by these things.

And what progress are we marching towards, exactly? To a society where people are so addicted to online content that they cannot be without it for any length of time, to the point where they endanger themselves and others, and are unable to interact effectively with the people around them?

User avatar
SteveMB
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:48 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby SteveMB » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:45 pm UTC

TimXCampbell wrote:Given a very low power laser with a stabilization unit (like they use on those air-borne lasers, but much smaller) could you not

(A) detect Google Glass the old-fashioned way ("Oh, I see that guy's wearing one") and then
(B) aim your device (head-mounted?) at the Glass?

Why? Read on.

First, we use a VERY low power laser because we don't want to hurt anything — not the Glass and not the person. Instead, we simply vector-scan the following text onto the Google Glass lens: "This image Copyright (C) [year] by [name]. All rights reserved."

Or you could simply write a rude word. Whatever. The basic idea is that whenever somebody tries to take a Google Glass picture of you, they find that the resulting image includes a faint but legible watermark.

I realize this wouldn't be EASY to to do, but I expect there are at least 10 people on this forum who could work out the details.


That wouldn't work -- by definition, the lens of the spycam focuses any light from the anti-spycam laser onto the portion of the spycam sensor that produces the portion of the image where the anti-spycam laser appears. Thus, the anti-spycam laser beam won't mark other portions of the spycam image unless it's bright enough to generate a bloom (washing out some or all of the spycam image). The technical question is whether the "bloom" threshold is safely below the "permanent damage" threshold (from what I know of solid-state sensors, I'd say it probably is, but don't quote me as a definitive authority).

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby Klear » Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:58 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:Basically. the principle of detecting cameras is about the same as the principle of detecting cats. You shine the area with a point source and then look for reflected light beams directed straight back to your point source. Most probably, they will be from some optical reception devices having you in focus. They can also be from corner reflectors, but those will be much brighter than reflections from a camera sensor.


I've found that to find a cat in darkness, you have to point a flashlight into your own eyes. That's when their start to shine really brightly. If you point it at the cat, you'll just make it run away.

User avatar
SteveMB
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:48 pm UTC

Re: 1251: "Anti-Glass"

Postby SteveMB » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:32 pm UTC

cphite wrote:But suppose you're sitting in a bar with some friends, or in a restaurant with your family, and you notice that some guy has his smartphone pointed at you the whole time. You may not find that particularly disturbing, but I believe that most people would. I certainly would. And that is the issue that folks have with Google Glasses. You essentially have people pointing their recording devices at you whenever they're looking at you; and you really have no way of knowing whether or not they are recording you (it's not difficult to disable a LED).

There is a difference between being filmed as part of the background, and being filmed specifically. And again, you may not believe that difference is significant, but clearly a lot of people do, to the point where a lot of folks are asking that these devices simply not be allowed. There is a difference between being on the camera that sits near the ceiling in a far corner of the room, and being on a camera that is at the next table and actively pointed at you; focused on your activities and your conversation, as opposed to just passively filming the entire room.

People - most people, even if not you - don't like the idea of being actively recorded by people they may not even know.


Ultimately, this is a cultural problem. My preferred solution would be a general consensus that "person who insist on wearing spyglasses outside of special-use circumstances" = "sad sack awaiting opportunities to record short-skirted women or tight-pantsed men (as the case may be) on the up escalator".


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jc and 46 guests