
Camera Zapping: Using Lasers to Temporarily Neutralize Cameras - rfreytag
http://www.naimark.net/projects/zap/howto.html
======
vdnkh
> not a single instance of permanent eye damage from laser pointers has been
> recorded anywhere

The study referenced is from 2000, before the time when high-power lasers were
available on the internet. There's a study here which states that green lasers
can cause lasting retinal damage [0]. As much as I want a sweet laser I'd
probably zap myself playing around with it.

[0]
[http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2982.full](http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2982.full)

~~~
learc83
Yeah, of course you can get eye damage from a 1W laser. That article was
specifically talking about class IIIa lasers which are 5mW or less.

Anything sold legally in the US as a "laser pointer" is going to be class
IIIa.

~~~
bri3d
Please be VERY wary of "legal class IIIa" laser pointers purchased in the US.

A few years ago, ICE and the FDA started cracking down on the importation of
high-powered laser pointers. Instead of fixing the problem, it meant that
every single imported laser is marked "Class IIIa" regardless of its actual
output power, since the border agents rarely (if ever) test the actual output
of the devices.

I had a friend test a green laser pointer purchased online in 2010 with a
"<5mW" warning label on it using a ThorLabs optical power meter. It measured
41mW. A basic diffraction grating test also revealed a massive amount of
dangerous IR leakage.

------
drostie
I think people here will be _really_ interested to know that this is an active
technique in the "quantum hacking" world as well. As you probably know,
quantum mechanics very often offers _100% security_ about creating shared keys
which nobody else knows -- but there is a very active physics subfield called
"quantum hacking" which says "well, but you're assuming that your device
perfectly embodies these equations and the reality is it doesn't, so let's see
what happens if we drive up the parameters to a non-ideal regime, can we run a
Man-in-the-Middle attack then without you both knowing about it?"

Here's for example a pop-science article about using camera zapping on Vice
Motherboard:

[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-new-quantum-hack-just-
bur...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-new-quantum-hack-just-burns-a-hole-
right)

The solution to this was to include a filter which prevented oversaturation at
the target wavelengths, but it turns out you could just blast it with some
other wavelengths...

[http://www.technologyreview.com/view/530181/the-next-
battleg...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/530181/the-next-battleground-
in-the-war-against-quantum-hacking/)

So it's a really fun-looking discipline, lots of groups hiring postdocs for it
etc.

~~~
JadeNB
I had never heard of quantum hacking, so went looking for more information. A
!wiki search turned up
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution#Quantu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution#Quantum_Hacking)
. Do you know of any better / more comprehensive, layperson-accessible
discussion?

~~~
abdullahkhalids
This for example
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.256.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100520/full/news.2010.256.html)

This guy is really good. Some of the links here might be informative
[http://www.vad1.com/lab/](http://www.vad1.com/lab/)

I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

~~~
JadeNB
> I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

I don't have time to learn about this now, unfortunately, but I'll put these
resources on my list. Thanks for the reply!

------
olefoo
A slightly more practical system for defeating surveillance cameras
specifically.

[http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/02/21/ir-leds-used-to-
defeat-s...](http://hackedgadgets.com/2008/02/21/ir-leds-used-to-defeat-
security-cameras/)

Not as noticeable to bystanders. Much more passive approach that can be
maintained for as long as necessary.

Not as likely to get the police called on you.

Combining the two approaches could work
[http://www.digikey.com/catalog/en/partgroup/ir-laser-
module/...](http://www.digikey.com/catalog/en/partgroup/ir-laser-module/17892)

~~~
ams6110
Small drone with a paint gun. Fly up to the camera and paint over the lens.

~~~
JadeNB
I don't think that meets any of the three criteria:

> Not as noticeable to bystanders. Much more passive approach that can be
> maintained for as long as necessary.

> Not as likely to get the police called on you.

------
jswrenn
This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video, but I can't
justify that feeling. There's something so wonderfully disobedient about
neutralizing cameras with lasers that I'm tempted to ask: is this legal? Does
the potential for damaging the camera carry any liability?

Lastly, just because you _could_ use lasers to neutralize cameras doesn't mean
you _can_. In trying to to make a point about the ubiquity of cameras, the
author reveals a challenge in fighting them:

> Video cameras the size of postage stamps can be procured for under $100, and
> will certainly become even smaller and cheaper.

Blocking cameras is one thing; finding them is another!

~~~
dheera
> This feels much more offensive than the act of capturing video

On this note I've been thinking about whether there's anything actually
offensive about capturing video in a public location. You're just capturing
photons thrown at you. If someone doesn't want to be captured, too bad, they
shouldn't be throwing photons at you (read: if they want privacy, they
shouldn't be in a public location).

The human eye is a camera; the only real difference between your eye and your
Canon is in material composition. One is made of organic material, another
made of silicon and glass. In the future, I see this boundary blurring,
whether in the form of digital prosthetic eyes for the blind (which inevitably
would possess the hardware ability to capture video to a file) or in being
able to understand, capture, and save neural signals out of our biological
eyes directly. It will happen and is just a matter of time. So we might as
well create a unified ethical framework now, built around the fact that the
human eye is a camera; the act of seeing is videography; the act of
remembering is data storage.

~~~
sn6uv
Following your argument, it seems like there's nothing wrong with throwing a
few more photons out (albeit in a coherent beam).

~~~
logfromblammo
As a thought experiment, imagine three masks. The first is matte black, with
0% specular and 0% diffuse reflection. The second has a mirror finish, with
100% specular reflection. The third glows, as an omnidirectional light source.

Would it be acceptable for a person in public to wear one of these, but not
one of the others?

My sense is that if you want privacy in public, you should wear the matte
black mask.

~~~
hobs
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
mask_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws) You might not be able
to.

------
gist
Article dates to 2002 that should be in the subject line.

------
philwelch
Roman Abramovich supposedly has a system like this on his yacht:
[http://www.wired.com/2009/09/russian-billionaire-installs-
an...](http://www.wired.com/2009/09/russian-billionaire-installs-anti-photo-
shield-on-giant-yacht/)

~~~
rosege
Yes he did - although I never heard of him turning it on. Also the photo in
that article is of Pelorus which he sold quite a long time ago - I guess in
2009 Eclipse was still being built in Germany so they couldnt get a picture

------
brokentone
Once while messing with a laser pointer, my brother and I pointed it at a
camera in the entry to the grocery store with a monitor up. The monitor
immediately went to snow which was quite unexpected for us. We switched the
laser pointer off and the screen came back.

This is quite different than the effect noted here, assumedly the sensor
observed a signal out of range and passed that downstream.

I have also heard of people getting permanent banding on their point and shoot
sensors from sun-focused time lapses [0]. So my question becomes, while this
may be interesting from a privacy perspective, to be able to stop cameras from
being able to see you temporarily, what is the potential to permanently damage
a camera?

[0] [http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?potential-ccd-
im...](http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?potential-ccd-imager-
burnout-&forum=153&topic_id=2324&mesg_id=2327&page=)

------
discreditable
Lasers which are strong enough can permanently damage cameras. There are a few
videos of this phenomenon on YouTube.

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T0j5azGVmw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T0j5azGVmw)

2\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzyKLoEDb64](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzyKLoEDb64)

------
hammock
Does anyone make a system for license plates? And is it legal?

~~~
gist
That's an interesting question actually. My guess, and I hate to guess, is
that laws state the a license plate needs to be readable but most likely don't
say that have to be able to be read by a camera since the laws were written
before those were commmonplace and most likely have not been adopted as
technology has changed.

~~~
Phlarp
Many states have pretty broad laws in this regard. For example in Minnesota
the relevant law reads:

"The person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the plate legible and
unobstructed and free from grease, dust, or other blurring material so that
the lettering is plainly visible at all times. It is unlawful to cover any
assigned letters and numbers or the name of the state of origin of a license
plate with any material whatever, including any clear or colorless material
that affects the plate's visibility or reflectivity."

------
thunderstorm
Camera Zapping, I saw this on an episode from Burn Notice and I thought it was
more like science fiction. Guess that was pretty accurate!

------
strictnein
"draft - not for distribution"

------
mschuster91
Guess this is where the intro scene of Tron: Legacy was inspired ;)

------
growt
Reminds me of pirate cinema by Cory Doctorow.

