Disrupting camera operations

On a sunny day (Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:31:30 +0000) it happened Nobody Special wrote in :

And you came to the aid? Always have video camera ready, where on youtube?

Pacemaker - kill - you jail.

Celebreties are celebrities because they WANT to be celebrities. If they beat up photographers is is because they are asking for attention :-)

Yes

Second, would it be techicly feasable assuming

Yes

Water gun ;-)

Very illegal. No physical contact is required and gadget doesn't even have to be effective. It's considered assualt if anyone "feels" threatened. If the nature of the weapon is indeterminite, then it's considered a deadly weapon by default and the charge becomes aggrivated assault. If someone gets hurt, add battery to the charge list. If anyone sustains a permanent injury, add mayhem or grievous bodily harm. If the photographer is of the opposite sex, sexual assualt might be included. If you panic the crowd, add terrorism, which puts you on the legal system fast track. In some states, using a weapon to commit a crime designates you as a "violent offender" and requires a minimum prison sentence. If you are charged with the same offense 3 times, we have the "3 strikes law" which means you go to jail and they throw away the key.

Like they say on Myth Busters, don't try this at home (or anywhere else).

Sure. Search Google for EMP and HERF weapons. For example:

Some products:

Anything that generates an electromagentic or radio frequency field suffiently large to vaporize semiconductor junctions. If you want a light show, add an electrostatic or high voltage field for lightning bolt and corona discharge visual effects.

Note that at science fiction conventions, futuristic weapons of any type are specifically banned, mostly because the security guards and police are easily tempted to shoot first and determine if it's a real or fake weapon later.

Ummmm.... yeah sure. Learn by Destroying(tm)? Hint: Don't wear an electronic wrist watch or carry an iPod, cell phone, or burglar alarm remote control.

I would imagine it would be pretty simple, and probably NOT contravene any FCC regulations. You'd need a modulated IR emitter; since it's not emitting any RF it's not going to mess with police radios, pacemakers, or the like. But since cameras use IR to autofocus (paparazzi aren't going to be using manual focus!) you should be able to build something with the size and power requirements of a TV remote control -- eminently portable. You might camouflage it as a necklace or belt, to get 360º coverage.

When a nearby camera tries to focus on you, your box confuzzles the DSP in the camera that's looking at the IR coming back, and the camera goes out of focus and/or refuses to trip the shutter. You could either ramp your frequency back and forth, or look for incoming modulated IR and retransmit it with random phase shifts. This wouldn't affect fixed-focus cameras like those used in redlight and speed enforcement systems, only the fancy gear used by photographers.

You might also need to include something ultrasonic (although this might run afoul of some law or another). I believe I've seen some cameras using green LEDs for focus so you might need to include a green emitter. (Or are the green LEDs just redeye killers?) But maybe the RX end in the camera would sill be sensitive to IR? 'Cause having a bunch of green lights hanging around your neck is gonna be a bit weird looking, except at certain clubs...

I'd be happy to build something like this, if someone were to give me a six-month loan of a dozen or so different high-end autofocus cameras to play with :-)

You are assuming that the paparazzi would perceive this sort of device as a weapon or even be aware of its presence. Perhaps all they would perceive is the fact that their cameras ceased to work, or wouldn't focus properly.

Anything that broadcasts any e.m. of sufficient power to shut down camera electronics would run one afoul of FCC regs and runs the risk of interfering with other equipment, such as cell phones, pacemakers, vehicle control systems.

One using such a gizmo could be found guilty of interfering with someone engaging in a legal activity, but I'd think that this would be a civil matter. Calling the cops to report 'That guy has a box that makes my camera loose focus" would just earn a hearty laugh.

Odds are, there isn't much one could do against a photographer working with a good telephoto at long range.

One problem: you are ASSuming only electronic (AKAdigital) cameras are used.

Yep. Look at the photograph of the "EMP/Shock Generator" at:

It's not a Buck Rogers disintegrator gun, but it certainly looks intimidating. However, you're right. I guess it could be disguised.

Depending on camera brand, that's a normal occurrence. Chances are good that any electronics they're carrying, will also cease functioning. Cell phone, wrist watch, pager, iPod, flash, etc. The one that seem to cause the most difficulties is the failure of the car and home burglar alarm remote control.

Not really. The basic idea is to use one big pulse, not a series of pulses, which would constitute serious interference. One big microsecond pulse, with potentially gigawatts of peak power, is sufficient to fuse semiconductor junctions. No need for more than on pulse. That would certainly be heard by most radio devices, but would not interfere due to its short duration.

There is a lower limit to what the police and legal machinery find it necessary to get involved. Methinks such a report would fall below the threshold.

True. Inverse square law makes the long distance peak power requirements rather substantial. A van full of high voltage capacitors might be useful, but that's not exactly what the OP wanted.

I think body guards armed with maggapack super soaker guns would do the trick.

Cameras and water do not mix. :)

easy solution.

Even better would be sillystring!!

Who is going to stuff Bill into that spray can?

wear a nicklace around your neck with a cat's eye retroreflector . modulate the distance between the lens and the mirror in the cat's eye. passive jaming with their own IR signal :-)

Steve

Bicycle reflector? Wonder if the bounce-back flash would screw up the exposure?

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

The truth is incontrovertible Democrats may attack it Ignorant Liberals may deride it But in the end, there it is

- Winston Churchill (edited)

A slave photoflash would blind the camera, and may even damage the CCD sensor. At the very least, the photographer wouldn't be seeing much for a few seconds.

You're bringing back memories... when I was a kid I made a slave flash using a photo TOOB as the light receiver, then fire off a flash BULB... "Press" something or other bulb size. I could really light up a room ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Yes,

No.

Start with an Unobtanium Encabulator....

Good Luck! Rich

That may have been the press 25, big brother to the popular m25. Displaced by the Honeywell Strobonar 2500 and 2600 lines. I wish i could get one of those.

A very bright near-IR slave photoflash would be likely to blind the cameras without bothering any humans such as the person being protected -- but it would only stop flsh photography, not video recording. Perhaps pulsing it whenever X seconds of no incoming flash goes by would be effective against both.

What law do you believe would be broken?

Probably. Passive cube corner necklace and tiara would be fairly effective. The best quality lenses might still do OK though.

You have to be very careful not to get flash bounce back when photographing objects behind glass (and also pay attention to what may be illuminated in the background).

A fair number of cameras can operate in pure available light mode now with suitably fast professional lenses.

It would take a heck of a slave photoflash to damage a CCD screen. They are nowhere near as fragile as the old videcon tubes where the phosphor would burn at the slightest exposure to focussed sunlight. It would also be very easily beaten by the pre flash anti-red eye. I have used cheap CCD cameras in places where a human eye would be blinded. Lifetime is reduced mainly by them being slowly cooked.

One way to disrupt modern digicams is the application of high power swept radar beams. I have seen some strangely damaged images from the vicinity of operating transponders. But they were still recognisable.

I reckon the OP wants one of those antifilming gizmos fitted to Thunderbird 1.

Regards, Martin Brown

Unlicensed operation of a fairly powerful broadband radio transmitter.

And doing it by creating an EMP would break several more laws.

Regards, Martin Brown