Ask Slashdot: Anti-Camera Device For Use In a Small Bus? 478
Paul server guy writes "I am building a limousine bus, and the owners want to prevent occupants from using cameras on board. (But they would like the cameras mounted on the bus to continue to operate; I think they would consider this optional.) They would also like to do it without having to wear any 'anti-paparazzi' clothing (because they also want to protect the other guests on board), and without destroying the cameras. (So no EMP generators, please). We've done some testing with high-power IR, but that proved ineffective. Does anyone have any ideas that they are willing to share?"
Makes no sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the paparazzi doing on-board in the first place? Paps are invariably outside the limo, i.e. off-board.
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Keeping the limo's own camera working is probably the easiest part, as just about any scheme you come up with to stop cameras from working has a way to defeat it. And it isn't that difficult to come up with schemes that, while having easy ways to keep a specially designed camera working, stop some generic cameras. The hard part is finding something that will affect a majority of cameras, especially non-cheap ones, while not impacting the passengers' eyes or other devices around they may want to use.
Some cheap cameras can be defeated with enough IR of the right wavelengths, while not being dangerous to eyes, and it would be really easy to filter out in your own camera. But a lot of cameras are have much better IR filters than they used to, and with better light sensitivity means shorter exposures (and hence more difficult to use an IR strobe light). I've had unintentionally caused problems with various digital cameras before by having a near by spark gap firing that tends to cause a lot static to show up on sensors. But that is going to depend on the housing of the camera is built, and some cameras are fine off the shelf. Of course if the lighting inside the limo is bad, so longer exposures are needed, the cameras may become more sensitive to such issues, assuming the intended customer base sees bad lighting as a feature and not a fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Any type of electrical interference that would hamper a camera will also likely impact cell phone use while in the limo.
Depends on Motive (Score:3)
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
Not necessarily--suppose the limo camera is basically there for security, and will only be examined in the event of the investigation of criminal activity, a lawsuit, or missing luggage, and otherwise it gets destroyed after, say, a year. Now the drunk pop star doing cocaine off the congressional aide is somewhat safe from photographs getting out (unless there is a criminal investigation for other reasons).
Re:Depends on Motive (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if this sort of technology was within reason to implement. Police of all kinds would jump on the chance to forbid others from taking pictures and allowing their own pictures. Riot squads would love it. There would be one of these devices on the front of every cop car.
Re: (Score:3)
"To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions."
This.
AND, though they said they tried IR, I'd be willing to bet they didn't do it right. It needs to be strobed at a high rate. But it will affect the vehicle cameras as much as others, unless they have good IR filters.
No IR, however, is going to block a camera with a good IR filter. High power UV might, but you don't want to burn or blind your passengers.
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet they didn't do it right. It needs to be strobed at a high rate. But it will affect the vehicle cameras as much as others, unless they have good IR filters.
Strobed high intensity NIR is the right track. Sync the vehicle camera shutters with the strobe dead time. Use a shuttered camera so the IR doesn't leave lingering effects on the focal plane. Heck, you can even use the NIR for camera illumination and use very fast shutter speeds.
I'd be willing to bet they explored this and found that either a) the necessary intensity of the NIR was beyond safe limits, or 2) the cameras necessary to work in this scheme would be prohibitively expensive. Or both.
My solution: confiscate the passengers' cameras and enforce the no photos policy strictly.
Alternately, make them ride in the dark. Naked.
Re: (Score:3)
"Strobed high intensity NIR is the right track. Sync the vehicle camera shutters with the strobe dead time. Use a shuttered camera so the IR doesn't leave lingering effects on the focal plane. Heck, you can even use the NIR for camera illumination and use very fast shutter speeds."
Yeah, I hadn't thought of syncing. That's a good idea.
"My solution: confiscate the passengers' cameras and enforce the no photos policy strictly."
Well, I wouldn't use the word "confiscate". I'd just say all cell phones must be put in a repository (metal can) when they board the bus, and they get them back when they leave.
But I agree: that would probably be the best approach. Enforce it with a decent EM detector(cheap on Ebay). That would take only a quick once-over of the bus once everybody was onboard, and maybe again halfway through the trip. Say 2 minutes total.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's why they want to prevent pictures, to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Actually, yes. That is exactly why they want it. And yes, they only intend to use their own cameras if there is a criminal investication, and the disc cycles every four days, and the passengers know this.
Re: (Score:3)
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
You could arrange several directional high-intensity gamma ray emitters into a pattern that would ruin hand-held photographs while allowing any fixed cameras outside the beams to work normally.
Fortunately, OP didn't specify that the passengers needed to survive, so this easily meets his criteria.
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not UV [Re:Sure it makes sense] (Score:5, Informative)
Limo owner wants a defense in case something illegal happens or damage occurs.
Partiers want protection from each other - that no one will publish pictures so they can party freely.
Diffuse but relatively bright UV, implemented with either UV fluorescent tubes or UV LEDs should do the trick. Fit your own cameras with UV filters. Regular cameras will work, but will be affected by a strong 'white haze'.
The bright but diffuse UV should not be harmful to eyes for shorter intervals. Be careful about that, however.
UV??? wouldn't be my first choice. If it's bright enough to haze the image in a camera, it's bright enough to be dangerous if you look into the source-- and if you're doing this without clear warming, you can expect at random some people will be looking at the source.
The problem with UV is that, in any wavelength that's not absorbed by air, you're still only getting one electron per photon on the CCD detectors. So, since the photons are so energetic, it is terribly energy inefficient as a way to overexpose a CCD. You have to pump out a lot of UV to overload a CCD, and that's dangerous.
IR is much better choice-- the photons are low energy, so you're in the opposite regime. Use a wavelength of about 1 micrometer, and you can't see it, but the CCDs can.
Other than that solution, I think you're out of luck.
Beware of nicer cameras which might be fitted with a UV filter. They are common.
Yes, that's another flaw. Most professional-level photographers keep UV filters on their cameras just as a matter of course.
Re: (Score:3)
> Most professional-level photographers keep UV filters on their cameras just as a matter of course.
True. It is basically a no-brainer front-element protector. My UV filter is pretty much fused with the lens, I can't get it off anymore.
Confiscate cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo... Set up on board video cameras and monitor for people using cameras. If you catch someone, bust down the door and drag them out kicking. Dispose of the body in water 200+ ft deep.
Re: (Score:2)
and they want their own cameras to continue to work.
presumably they also want to continue the people inside be able to use their mobile phones as usual.. if not, make a box that you put your phone into when you get in.
Re:Confiscate cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people's cameras today are in their phones. Can't confiscate those without cutting the same people from their communications. And that may not be as agreeable as giving up cameras.
Yes, we used to live without portable phones only 20 years ago, but that's not going to convince many guests today — and next time they might pick a different limo-company.
And in a few more years, people's eyewear will have a camera in it too... No, confiscation of the devices is not the way to go.
Re:Confiscate cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Confiscate cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Having any exclusive pictures is not really a thing anymore (buggy whips as you say), as well as anything involving film, but taking a very good quality picture with a good camera is still a profession.
Re:Confiscate cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, anyone can push a button to take a picture.
I find very few people know how to set up lighting, posing, get the white balance right, have the proper aperture and/or shutter speed (if they have cameras that can control all these features) to take a properly exposed image for a pro look.
Once that is done, how many avg. folks know how to or would even bother to learn the software out there needed to post process the images to get what would generally be considered a professional image?
Sure, everyone on earth has cameras with them leaps ahead of what used to be available only to pros, however....they still don't know how to use them to get the images that are of quality that is on the level that people make a living taking and selling.
Re: (Score:3)
And most people just want a picture to document that the day happened and have a memento. And I'm sure all the passengers are going to be drunk and not looking their best anyway. You won't get much out of professional photography at that point. There is a time and place for professional photography, but neither this nor a theme park are it. And they don't have pros at the theme parks anwyay.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say the answer is yes.
I was watching year before last a Wedding Photog Bootcamp by Sal Cincotta, based out of St. Louis.
This guy is first and foremost and business man.
He said that year they billed out about $1M.
You have to be very savvy about business and work towards the higher end of things, but if so, you can indeed make money.
You're NOT going to make it if you're just a shoot and burn person like you see for $
Re: (Score:3)
Then, those people are not your customers.
You don't usually make good money pandering to the dregs of the land.
You make money by selling to people with money. People with money are willing to spend it too. The more you charge, often the more they think you are worth and will seek you out to give you money.
Re:Confiscate cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
All that effort to protect what has become a job selling buggy whips.
Just drop the "professional" photog bullshit already. No one needs to pay to have their picture taken. Do you know why? Because it's not 1964 anymore, and every fucking person walks around with some kind of camera on them.
Like I said, selling fucking buggy whips.
Yes, and everyone walks around with some kind of writing tool on them and thinks they're an author too. The unreadable dreck that has turned the self-pub market into a steaming shit-pile makes it very clear that people like you are the ones doing it. Photography is art. Just because you have a tool that is capable of creating art, doesn't mean the person wielding it is, anymore than the billions of people with computers that can run a compiler are capable of writing a useful application.
Some requests should be ignored (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sensible, no.
It sounds like they want to be able to monitor the bus, and maybe they consider the decor to be copyrighted or something.
Essentially they want to be able to record you, while not allowing you to take pics.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are just control freaks. Did you ever have a teacher like that in grade school?
Re:Some requests should be ignored (Score:5, Funny)
Some people are just control freaks. Did you ever have a teacher like that in grade school?
No, when my gradeschool teacher put us onto the Fuck Bus we were allowed to video tape it ourselves.
Re:Some requests should be ignored (Score:5, Interesting)
Suspect it is likely some sort of stripper bus / limo. They have them in some areas as a dodge for monitoring and rules in the private dance areas. Likely the owner wants to prevent having the patrons take pictures of the talent, but would like to have evidence in case a drunk fool takes things too far.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or they should be better worded.
"I want to stop all electronic devices from passively collecting visible light but still desire riders' eyes to passively collect visible light."
Some requests are not productively possible. (Score:5, Interesting)
To allow officials to accept bribes without fear of being photographed in the act? To allow folks to get rowdy and/or affectionate without being photographed in the act? To allow... I think you're seeing the theme here: what happens on the limo-bus, stays on the limo-bus. Or as someone else mentioned, to drum up business for the officially sanctioned photographer.
I can only think of one way to implement it safely though, and that is unlikely to be acceptable: black out the windows and remove all interior lighting so that the cameras can't see.
The challenge is that you want to let human eyes see, while electronic eyes cannot (if we're talking film cameras then it becomes essentially impossible - those things are generally even more reliable and durable than human eyes). If you're not allowed to destroy the cameras then you're limited to a few options:
1) Applying enough light that the sensors saturate - which is likely to damage human eyes with prolonged exposure since cameras are intentionally filtered to only be able to see roughly the same spectrum as human eyes, and high-intensity IR is known to cause eye damage due to overheating of the cornea and lens - the only part of the human body without an active cooling system.
2) Disrupting the electronics so that a photo can't be taken - which is pretty much going to require either a camera-destroying EMP, or a sustained string of low-grade EMPs that are just strong enough to reliably disrupt all electronics in the area without actually damaging them, and frequent enough that the cameras don't have a chance to finish rebooting before the next pulse arrives. Unfortunately EMPs are not exactly gentle to living tissue either, not to mention the pulse that will reliably disrupt a piece of high quality electronics will likely do at least some damage to low-quality electronics. Multiply that by maybe a hundred pulses an hour and you're going to end up with some fried electronics (and probably damaged neurons as well). Plus passengers are unlikely to appreciate having all their electronics forcibly rebooted and their hard drives potentially scrambled. And heaven hep you if anyone has a pacemaker or other implant.
I can think of a few ways to make the camera take really *bad* photos, but that's only relevant to the "official photographer" scenario, and I will not willingly contribute to exploitation via artificial scarcity.
Re: (Score:3)
So the strippers or prostitutes don't get caught on video. This is a bachelor party fun bus it sounds like.Use a bouncer if that is the case.
Re: (Score:3)
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
A limo service catering to customers that do not want their (or their guests) picture taken by paparazzi or any other opportunists, but with security cameras that monitor what happens outside the car.
Of course, that's just a guess/assumption. I don't pretend to actually know, but I find it amazing that a bunch of folks who don't have a clue seem to be able to conclude what features the actual owner of the business may or may not have a use for.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Have none of you heard of a stag party? I'm guessing this bus has a pole in the middle, too. These things are not uncommon, and they all have the same rule/concern: no cameras.
If the rule is "no cameras", then problem solved, just enforce the rule when people get on the bus - put a big locked bin at the front and they can drop their cameras/phones off as they enter the bus.
Re: (Score:3)
Can anyone come up with a sensible reason to implement such a thing?
Sensibility seems to get lost when the submitter's question is rephrased in the following way: Is there a device that can selectively deactivate cameras of one's choosing? If not, can someone here invent such a method and tell me the solution?
However, imagining some of the possibilities, one would seem to be a paradise for the authorities — something they assuredly would feel to be very sensible.
Soooo... the CIA / NSA / military industrial complex are now crowd sourcing stuff out to Slashdot?
Isn't it obvious? (Score:3)
Just cover your head in tinfoil, hat shapes work best, and then they can take as many photos as they want but your brain waves remain safe
Advice? give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to have your own cameras capturing everything on board, but you want to prevent your guests from doing the same.
Best advice is to stop being a dick.
People use limousine buses for special events and parties. These are the times people most want to remember and are likely to want to take their own pictures. Preventing them from doing so (even if it were possible, which in your stated scenario seems dubious) would be a pretty dick move.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Advice? give up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Other possibilikty. The guests don't want party pics of themselves getting wasted and stupid showing up on Facebook, but the limo owner wants footage for liability in case of damages.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would the famous person want to stop themselves from taking their own pictures while allowing their driver to do so? sorry, doesn't make sense.
This is not about preventing paparazzi, they can't get on the bus, tinted windows stop them just fine. This is about screwing over their own customers, plain and simple. Either they expect illicit behaviour on the bus and want to be the only ones with blackmail footage ("girls gone wild" or "coke snorting senator" or whatnot), or they simply want to profit by sel
Re:Advice? give up. (Score:5, Funny)
Anyhow, what's different between that and restricting your WIFI to yourself?
And there's the solution: encrypt the photons so only the authorized cameras can decrypt them. Make sure you use WAP because it is too easy to collect a lot of photons and break WEP.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple (Score:5, Funny)
Trunk Monkey!
Slashdot continues to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is yet another confirmation that Slashdot just gets worse and worse. I hate to troll, but come on guys, up the quality some.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot runs off from stories submitted by readers. If you don't like what you see, submit one. I notice you have a low six digit ID but appear to have never submitted a story. That makes at least 10-12 years.
Re: (Score:3)
You are already at +5 but I wish that Slashdot went to 11 just for this comments.
1. Anti Camera device that lets other cameras work? Impossible.
2. Anti Camera device? Pretty much impossible in the bus. Maybe a fog machine?
3. For a rich party bus? On Slashdot? Go away.
Dark (Score:5, Funny)
1) Cover all the windows
2) Passengers on high-class limo travel in the dark
3) Install an infrared camera
4) Sell film to adult and/or paparazzi websites
5) $$$PROFIT$$$
Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Got a couple of problems. As you found IR is ineffective, I think you will find anything that allows normal human sight to work will be ineffective or inconsistently effective. Have to assume that total darkness is not acceptable as well (though would be somewhat effective)
I have heard that its possible to detect cameras by IR lasers that they use for autofocus. So that leaves some ideas:
1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,
2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nothing is perfect of course, but if those could be done for the majority of smart phones, then it may still be worth doing for some purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe some kind of pulsing light would work, similar to how Macrovision tryies to fuck up VCRs by throwing off their tracking. It would have to be outside the visible spectrum to avoid causing epileptic fits... Maybe pulsing IR.
I basically agree though, this is probably a lost cause. Camera manufacturers try hard to make sure you get some kind of viewable image in extreme lighting conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but a quick look over at autofocus shows that there are several ways that cameras do it, and many cheap ones like are on phones, are fixed focus anyway. Overall, I think this is a lost cause, regardless of whether its a good idea or not.
I agree with the guy who said pat downs and scans for electronic devices. No serious other way.
Re:Problems (Score:5, Informative)
1. Detection rather than nullification. Maybe you can't prevent but you can at least know when,
Detection of the camera pointed in the unknown direction on the bus will be impossible.
2. Maybe you can use IR to fool the autofocus to one extreme or another?
Nearly all SLRs are insensitive to IR light when recording. And almost no camera today (still or video) is using IR to autofocus. Illuminating the area with a powerful IR light is damaging to the eyes -- yes it is like regular light except in the dark when the pupils are be dilated any powerful light can cause a damage. I was working on a device that had 3W IR LEDs and after a few minutes the eyes begin to hurt even when I was not looking at the lights directly.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking disco ball + lasers. Have you seen the IR grid pattern projected by Kinect? Spray that same sort of pattern only with visible light, so everything is annoyingly speckled with very bright dots. Use multiple lasers. Reflect them off moving mirrors (a.k.a disco ball). Most cell phone cameras autoadjust to balance the contrast, and will end up with a scene that is simultaneously overexposed and underexposed.
If your riders are in a party mood, this is fine. If you're giving a lift to the Epile
you mean behavior control device? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, what you want is a behavior control device, not a anti-camera device. Seriously, what the fuck? Why shouldn't people be allowed to take photos on the bus? What do they have to hide? If people want to take photos of each other on the bus, why shouldn't they?
I reject your fascist attempts at controlling others, as should others as well. In short fuck you and fuck beta.
Re:you mean behavior control device? (Score:4, Funny)
At last, something to reject even more forcefully than beta!
Re: (Score:3)
this question should indeed get fucked.
I agree, but when you pose a problem to nerds, we can't help but propose solutions.
I live in a touristy area and I'm pretty sure his purpose is to charge costumers for photos (this is unbelievably profitable), as well as having them available for his own purposes. Here, we use those photos for advertising, but the OP is so vague as to make me think he's doing this for blackmail, porn or preventing customers from being able prove how bad his service actually is.
I know he wants to set up a expensive fix to bl
Heil Hitler (Score:2, Interesting)
Add obnoxious distractions is the best advice... Mirrors work nicely for reflecting flashes into the cameras, won't stop a cellphone camera/no flash camera shot but if you want to stop all cameras you're going to have to blind everyone or just mount a few obnoxious overpriced camera photo "charge per photo" sign showing the cost per photo for licensing purposes -- i.e. you're allowed to charge for any commercial shot "license" and distribution rights are a part of that -- make sure you have them posted on a
Re:Heil Hitler (Score:4, Insightful)
"charge per photo" sign showing the cost per photo for licensing purposes -- i.e. you're allowed to charge for any commercial shot "license" and distribution rights are a part of that -- make sure you have them posted on all sides of your buses
The licensing contract that was not signed by the photographer will be null and void. Puff! This suggestion is equivalent of printing a t-shirt that says "anyone who looks at it owns me $100". Right, try enforcing that in court.
Thinking Outside The Box (Score:5, Funny)
You could just constantly play a movie in each corner of the vehicle. This way anyone trying to film your clients would inevitably end up making an unlawful reproduction of the film and then you just sick the MPAA on them.
Have you done any research into "The Cone of Silence"?
Black hole (Score:5, Funny)
The best solution that comes to mind is to create a small black hole in the center of the bus. If it is of sufficient mass it will draw in all the light gravitationally, thus preventing the cameras from capturing said light.
Re: (Score:2)
A much better solution IMO would be to use a light source which produces photons that, even when reflected, will not go into a guest's camera lens.
There. Doesn't that seem like a much better idea?
(And please don't suggest a black hole that only sucks in photons that were headed toward a guest's camera. But I bet the USPTO could grant a paten
Re: (Score:3)
Why did I just have a mental image of Maxwell's Daemon playing the part of the "Breakout" paddle in front of the camera lenses?
Not Possible (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti camera tech that blocks the taking of images, but allows the taking of images by certain cameras, but you can't be required to do or wear anything special/different. So, basically, we need a non-existent cloaking technology that we can see through with our own cameras.
Dude, it is clear that you work for complete fucking idiots. Unless you are also a complete fucking idiot, (which I think you might be since you posted this on Slashdot) you need to find another job with a better employer. What will you d
Technical solution for a social problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You're asking for a technical solution to a social/political problem. The only feasible solution is to make sure your policy is clearly explained and understood to all who board the limo-bus, and then strictly enforcing it by expelling anyone caught with a camera. Sure, you won't be able to monitor people 100% of the time, but if you're strict with enforcement people won't risk taking snapshots. It will probably be more effective than any technical solution which would be expensive and easily circumvented.
And if the owners of the limo-bus are really that worried about photos onboard, the simplest solution would be for everyone to deposit their electronic devices into a bag, and they can then recover their devices after leaving the limo-bus.
My guess though is that your policy is likely to lose your limo-bus company customers, so the owners better make sure whether enforcing it is worth the cost.
Low light + no electronics (Score:2)
Assuming appropriate sensor technology exists, you could detect and confiscate all electronics. I don't know how you would distinguish between the limo's electronics and a camera in someone's pocket, though. I doubt you could make a party limo without any electromagnetic fields in the back. I suppose you could scan people before they get in the limo, but that's pretty invasive -- a little too much like airport security. Plus, neither of these techniques would do anything against non-electronic film cameras.
Threats (Score:3)
Smash them up so their circuit boards are hanging out and they look like they are generally falling apart. Post a sign on the front of the buss indicating that photos are prohibited with the penalty of having cameras confiscated and destroyed. Hang disemboweled camera under the sign.
Nope (Score:2)
Cameras work on the same principles, and at the same wavelengths, as the human eye. Anything that disables a camera will blind a human.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Funny)
This is an excellent idea!
Just blind everyone so they can't find their cameras! Even if they do manage to find their camera, they can't see shit so their photographs will suck.
Re: (Score:3)
Pity the IR idea didn't work.
There's some ubicomp work on this... (Score:2)
See below:
http://ubicomplab.cs.washingto... [washington.edu]
The basic premise before was to detect a camera's CCD (it is retro-reflective), then blind it with a rapidly-changing sequence of bright light from a projector to prevent the camera from compensating. Might not work with modern cameras, and might be in-feasible in your environment, but there's the info.
My owners are the same! (Score:5, Funny)
simply (Score:2)
just gas them like in the 5th element. When they wake up they'll be at their destination.
Like I Said Before (Score:2)
As I said before this hit the front page (how did such a stupid question manage that?), my advice is to stop wasting your time.
Regarding the line about potential payment (that was removed by editors before posting this to the main page), you can send me $50 worth of Litecoins via the wallet address at the bottom of my homepage, CanHasDIY.com [canhasdiy.com].
Don't bitch; 50 bucks is a hell of a lot less than what my usual consulting fee runs. You're welcome.
Goatse (Score:3, Funny)
UV and vibration (Score:2)
I was thinking how about keeping it dark, while at the same have those UV light that they have in the bowling alleys to set the mood. Perhaps some constant vibration in tune with the music to prevent any stabilization of images.
Of course if you detect a flash you should take them out right away.
terrible request/idea (Score:2)
Don't be a jerk! This is an absurd request. You get to record but your 'clients' cannot? I'm guessing the owners don't actually want to be in business. Even a no-camera policy is completely ridiculous for a fore-hire limo service.
How did this post get pass the sniff test?
Any self respecting geek will reject this and refuse to post anything helpful. troll away friends, troll away.
Pushback (Score:2)
Tell them the costs of angry guests suing the company because photos they took in the limo didn't turn out will far outweigh whatever advantage they thought they were getting by disabling people from taking pictures of themselves having a good time.
If they are worried about cameras being planted then the solution is simple, have an armed guard watch over the limo 24x7 any time guests are not inside. What's that? Don't want to pay for 24x7 surveillance of your limo? Then you didn't really care.
Security Deposit (Score:2)
I think it is a stupid request, and a stupid rule, and really should get no legitimate responses... :(
That said, here is one
This jackass owner probably already has his clients pay some ludicrous security deposit to get in his magic car, so you let people know they won't be getting their ludicrous sum of money back if they are caught taking pictures in the vehicle. The security cameras they have would help enforcement.
Still as others have said, this is an awful practice, and hopefully (if there is any justi
wrong idea (Score:2)
Radiation (Score:3)
Gamma rays will obviate most photography. Concentrated radiation will wash out the CCDs in contemporary cameras. It also ruins traditional film.
Just be sure not to mention the Cobalt 60 paint you've used everywhere. Radiation sickness will probably not develop until after they've left the bus.
Treat em like dirt (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically you want to treat your customers like dirt. I'm sure your business will find all the success it deserves.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they want to treat their customers like dirt, without telling them they are treating them like dirt. Because if they tell them they might book with someone that doesn't treat them like dirt.
See the simple way to solve this is to confiscate cameras on entry to the Bus. The problem is that by doing so and advertising that they will do so they will ensure no one books them. They want to be able to fuck their customers without telling them they've fucked them till after the ride. Much like the owners of pay
Can't be done. (Score:3)
We live in an age where even Casino's have given up on not letting people take pictures in a casino.
I suspect the person wants to sell pictured from their own photographer to the patrons.
Just take better pictures.
Duh (Score:3)
Don't let anyone into the limo. The cameras aren't just going to walk themselves in. And just like that, your cameras will be the only working cameras in the limo. Tada.
I'm just kidding, you don't have to do anything. Nobody will want to get into your limo in a few months, and the above solution will materialise on its own.
Re: (Score:3)
or let them into the limo only if they are naked.
That sounds like it could even be a business plan right there. The most sought after limo service in the world, as long as the people doing the hiring are rich, fat old persons who plan to be accompanied by poor, thin, young persons and as long as this isn't a service that is going to be run predominantly in Finland in the winter.
rgb
You are on the right track just not quite there (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You've tried ultra bright IR but you really need flickering ultra-bright IR strobing at different rates and levels. A solid IR just sets things up for a better photo. Providing the camera didn't have an IR filter and did photograph IR a flickering IR would cause differing light needs within the exposure window which the camera would be unlikely to adapt to.
If you are able to link the timing of the flickering in with your own cameras you'd be able to shut it off momentarily (electronically) and grab the photo.
If I had points I'd mod you up, simply because you actually offered a potential solution rather than just rushed to judge the OP based on the use case.
Beware the client with a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, as the subject says: beware of a customer/client who comes to you with "I've come up with this great solution that I'd like you to apply to this problem." Because, for one thing, they've already taken you out of the brainstorming, refining ideas and feasibility phases -- and since they've come to you, it's out of their area of expertise, so those steps probably weren't exactly done in an expert manner. There's a good chance that you won't get such a thing to work, then you're gonna have a problem getting paid for basically proving that it was a bad idea. Because workable or not, you're still gonna have spent your time and resources on it.
Secondly, this sounds like something way outside the core business of a party-bus sort of service. Because really, a selective photography-denial device would have a considerably bigger market than just protecting the interests of the owners of a rolling disco/bar/whorehouse/whatever. Who wouldn't want what is essentially a cloaking device? That business would dwarf whatever racket they're in now.
I'd tell them no, or direct them to a security device vendor instead. But if you really want to try anyway, maybe get them to pay for a "feasibility study" or something like that. It won't cost them nearly as much as a failed project, but you won't have to turn away business that you might need.
Dice.com is currently building a bus (Score:3)
Dice.com is currently outfitting a bus for their upcoming "Tech Trek" tour: Dice is hittin' the road! [hhttp]
Maybe Paul server guy works for them? Presumably they would not want anyone taking pictures of the people responsible for Beta.
Control the light spectrum (Score:4, Interesting)
Your best bet would be to black out the cab and have the only lights me lacking the red, green and blue wavelengths used by the majority of cameras and then using custom filters and image processing on the cameras inside, however that means that no external light can get in without also being filtered to exclude the red green and blue spectrum used by a normal camera. This will most likely end up resulting in a weird and possibly uncomfortable color cast to the light and still won't be 100% effective.
Rolling down any windows would defeat this though, as would opening a door.
Rolling Shutter (Score:3)
The answer to your problem is called the Rolling Shutter Effect.
You can simply make ALLl the lights in the cabin strobe at a frequency close to the rolling shutter speed of the cameras most people have. Or at 2, 3, 4, or more times that speed.
Much like old TVs digital cameras take pictures in strips. by picking the right frequency you can cause bands of lightness and darkness in the image, ruining the photo.
You can then choose a camera which is less or not susceptible or synced with the strobe effect to mitigate its effects.
The strobe would be rapid enough to go unnoticed by the human eye and really mess with electronic cameras.
But there are cameras that some people have that may not be effected by it, but most cameras have some issues with it, so your mileage will vary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about you just tell them not to snort Coke? (Score:5, Funny)
Distribute paper bags for them to put on their heads. Punch eyeholes.
Re:How about you just tell them not to snort Coke? (Score:5, Funny)
Shia LaBeouf, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, try an anti-personnel mine! Even a small one should disable all cameras onboard when triggered. You could use a directional mine like a M18 Claymore to direct the blast away from the cameras mounted on the bus.
Re: (Score:3)
On a "sex-party" bus, the clients would explicitly NOT want the bus to have cameras, and, depending on the crowd, may or may not, want their own pictures. The OP wants the reverse, which tells me he either wants a blackmail bus, or he doesn't really expect anything that exciting to happen in the first place and just wants to play extortion with memories of a fun evening.
Re: (Score:3)
All true. I also proposed anti-personnel mines as an effective deterrent in another comment, but you've got me thinking that anti-tank mines might be better, because they would have the added benefit of destroying this shitty bus.