4 ms·

People normally do this by scanning a 10mW 832nm laser with a mirror, according to Dan Gelbart in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MtRxX0crjU https://www.youtub

by kragen 16d ago

People normally do this by scanning a 10mW 832nm laser with a mirror, according to Dan Gelbart in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MtRxX0crjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MtRxX0crjU. The lecture is 77 minutes, covering nonlinear junction detectors, digital calipers, the US-embassy bug in Russia, laser microphones bounced off windows, and geometric errors from material relaxation. The bit about camera detectors is close to the end. Works for eyeballs too. Lensless sensors (for example, using compressed sensing, or Hadamard shadow masks) can presumably defeat this, but also, watching from far enough away should defeat it. Hard to do that inside a pervert's AirBNB, though.

burnt-resistor 15d ago
Don't forget his semi-recent shop tips and machining tricks videos: https://www.youtube.com/@dgelbart https://www.youtube.com/@dgelbart
mitthrowaway2 16d ago
The junction detector is a truly brilliant idea that, unfortunately, is probably rendered nearly useless now that everything in the world has embedded electronics in it.
- mitthrowaway2 16d ago
  Also, thinking about it, you could probably defeat the optical retroreflection detector by putting the camera behind a Faraday rotator (optical isolator). But those are quite expensive and you'd need to be really paranoid to use one, plus it'll only really work well if you match the wavelength of the laser.
  - amluto 15d ago
    You could also put the camera behind a laser safety goggle lens that blocks the laser in question :)
    - mitthrowaway2 15d ago
      Oh yeah... that's much simpler.
paul7986 16d ago
For Meta they need to detect people giving wearers the finger to stop the glasses from recording or taking pics ha I do wear my Metas frequently though would never get the finger cause Im not a creep.
- testfoobar 16d ago
  Our culture has definitely changed from when Google Glass wearers were referred to as Glassholes. It appears that more people have just accepted that they will be filmed anywhere and everywhere. I miss the old days.
  - gruntled-worker 16d ago
    We went from opt-in zones to opt-out zones. Living spaces with curtains drawn and the inside of your vehicle should really be opt-in though.
    - tdeck 14d ago
      Your comment reminds me of the old Google Opt Out Village video from The Onion https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY
    - b112 16d ago
      If you sneak up to a house and peer in the windows, there might be trouble. I haven't looked at court decisions, and those'd be regional/country based, but if a house is 200M away on a hill, and you need a pair of binoculars to see in it, is there 'public nudity' if they walk around without the shades drawn? I'd say no. Yet conversely, it's not illegal(criminal) to use binoculars to peer. Still, you can get an injunction(civil) if it's a common thing, because then it moves into harassment. Restraining orders have been given. So then the question is, why is this a thing for your neighbour peering at your house with binoculars some of the day, but not for a camera doing the same 24x7? EG, a Ring camera pointed at your house, with sufficient resolution to act as binoculars? I really wish 'viewing someone with a camera' remotely, was looked at more from the frame of 'is it the same as using binoculars'. EG, is there a zoom lens on the camera, or just as important, is it of sufficient high resolution that it can act as a zoom lens in software. I'd like to see a court case push back against that. I've found with technology, that everyone from judges to lawyers seem incapable, at the start, of considering it with an analog, uh, analogue. Almost all cameras are as binoculars today.

by kragen 16d ago

burnt-resistor 15d ago

Don't forget his semi-recent shop tips and machining tricks videos: https://www.youtube.com/@dgelbart https://www.youtube.com/@dgelbart

mitthrowaway2 16d ago

The junction detector is a truly brilliant idea that, unfortunately, is probably rendered nearly useless now that everything in the world has embedded electronics in it.

mitthrowaway2 16d ago
Also, thinking about it, you could probably defeat the optical retroreflection detector by putting the camera behind a Faraday rotator (optical isolator). But those are quite expensive and you'd need to be really paranoid to use one, plus it'll only really work well if you match the wavelength of the laser.
- amluto 15d ago
  You could also put the camera behind a laser safety goggle lens that blocks the laser in question :)
  - mitthrowaway2 15d ago
    Oh yeah... that's much simpler.

paul7986 16d ago

For Meta they need to detect people giving wearers the finger to stop the glasses from recording or taking pics ha I do wear my Metas frequently though would never get the finger cause Im not a creep.

testfoobar 16d ago
Our culture has definitely changed from when Google Glass wearers were referred to as Glassholes. It appears that more people have just accepted that they will be filmed anywhere and everywhere. I miss the old days.
- gruntled-worker 16d ago
  We went from opt-in zones to opt-out zones. Living spaces with curtains drawn and the inside of your vehicle should really be opt-in though.
  - tdeck 14d ago
    Your comment reminds me of the old Google Opt Out Village video from The Onion https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY
  - b112 16d ago
    If you sneak up to a house and peer in the windows, there might be trouble. I haven't looked at court decisions, and those'd be regional/country based, but if a house is 200M away on a hill, and you need a pair of binoculars to see in it, is there 'public nudity' if they walk around without the shades drawn? I'd say no. Yet conversely, it's not illegal(criminal) to use binoculars to peer. Still, you can get an injunction(civil) if it's a common thing, because then it moves into harassment. Restraining orders have been given. So then the question is, why is this a thing for your neighbour peering at your house with binoculars some of the day, but not for a camera doing the same 24x7? EG, a Ring camera pointed at your house, with sufficient resolution to act as binoculars? I really wish 'viewing someone with a camera' remotely, was looked at more from the frame of 'is it the same as using binoculars'. EG, is there a zoom lens on the camera, or just as important, is it of sufficient high resolution that it can act as a zoom lens in software. I'd like to see a court case push back against that. I've found with technology, that everyone from judges to lawyers seem incapable, at the start, of considering it with an analog, uh, analogue. Almost all cameras are as binoculars today.