I was thinking about those outfits celebrities wear that mess with flash photography equipment, and I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera, and I wondered if there could ever be a pattern or material that, when filmed, caused the camera irreversible damage. And if that were physically possible, I wondered if intentionally showing up to camera-heavy events wearing said shirt would constitute a crime on my part.

It’s just a shirt after all. It’s not like I’m grabbing a camera and smashing it on the ground. But at the same time, I know it will have that effect, so I’m accountable. But it’s not like my shirt is emitting damaging laser beams or anything, it’s entirely passive.

Also, is there anything like this scenario in real life/law?

  • phonics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    if you invent some passive way to damage tech by just being in its vicinity. not only would it be illegal. it would be a super weapon.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    What you describe is simply not possible with a passive material. Funnily your example of something shooting lasers is probably the only thing that could come close to actual damage

    The most you can do is one of those adversarial patterns that just confuses the white balance and autofocus. There is nothing you can do to affect someone shooting in manual mode

    If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

      Recently, there were news about the LIDAR of Volvo cars destroying camera sensors when they were aimed into the direction of the IR laser beam. Yet, this is not a passive item.

      • fishos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Even that was debated. No one proved it continued when you took another video, just that it broke the video of the lidar itself.

          • fishos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            So I tried watching it and never saw them close the camera app or restart the phone, so again, waiting on some actual proof with some science behind it rather than “dude totally said so”. That only proves that the software controlling the picture adjustments has been sent out of whack(as evidenced by the fact that it would show true colors eventually when pointed at something else). If the pixels were “dead”, they wouldn’t reset. We have a separate phrase for that. It’s “stuck pixel”.

            It’s the same effect as being in a truely white lit room and everything looks orange in a camera. It’s the color correction when you shine a crazy bright light at the sensor. It assumes you’re on the sun and adjusts accordingly.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      You could maybe defeat LIDAR with retro reflectors or something. Probably not, but that’s the only case it’d be possible realistically, since it’s actively shooting lasers out that you could reflect back, without actually locating the camera. Anything else, yeah it’d require actively finding the camera and attacking it, since it is only receiving light. I guess if you wore something bright enough to damage any camera looking in your direction that would also work, but I don’t think it’d be considered passive, and you’d also blind everyone else who can see you, probably permanently, and it’d require huge amounts of energy.

  • hddsx@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    My dude is trying to create a shirt that just continuously recharges and fires EMPs lol

  • dev_null@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    30 days ago

    ITT: People debating whether such a shirt is possible and not answering the actual question.

  • xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Strap a lidar emitter to yourself. Those car sensors have been shown to damage cameras.

    If you want privacy from cameras, there are those hats with strong ir leds. Not sure how well they work.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    OK you’re going to need CO2 gas, 2 mirrors, a glass. Container and a high voltage capacitor.


    Step 3454674) charge the capacitor to 60078V.

    Step 5746678) now run!

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    Creating something that damages nearby electronics? Yeah, that’s probably not going to fly. It really doesn’t matter if it only damages things that actively film/photograph you. Like, it’d be illegal if I walked up and hammered every camera that photographed me too.

  • cloudless@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago
    1. Create sentient AI
    2. Let AI take control of the internet upon receiving the QR code
    3. Wear your t-shirt containing the QR code, show it to a camera connected to the internet
    4. Now AI takes over the world

    Black Mirror S7E4 - Plaything

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      That was an episode that ended right where it started getting good. Not that the episode was bad before that, but it left me wanting more of that, not a jump to a new premise in the next episode.

  • remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s not possible to damage cameras passively, so there isn’t an answer. But if it was possible it probably would be made illegal to wear those around cameras.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      More like illegal to wear anywhere in the USA considering that we’re quickly becoming a surveillance state.

      • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Quickly?

        Every country is already a surveillance state, and has been for multiple decades.

        Just look at Britain with cameras everywhere since at least the 1980’s.

        Fucking Ring crap just doubled down on it, and idiot people don’t even care they’re providing the means. 1984 nailed it.

  • dullbananas (Joseph Silva)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    A similar thing that might be possible is to create a shirt that shows something that exploits a vulnerability in software. Some hardware can be bricked by software (this used to be the case for MacBook batteries).