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?

  • xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    0·
    10 days 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.

    • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

      Although that really only works as long as the camera doesn’t have an IR filter in place.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
          0·
          9 days ago

          It wouldn’t, and I think the other responder, while saying a true fact, may have misunderstood this question’s purpose.

          The hoodie will only work with cameras that support IR night vision (most security cameras, no IR filter), but won’t work for most others (phones, dash cams, SLRs (filtered)).

          And the dork in me must say, Raspberry Pi offers their Camera Modules in both formats, because noyce.

        • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
          0·
          9 days ago

          It works in the opposite. With the IR filter you get a nice colorful image in daytime, but not the IR lights at night

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      0·
      9 days ago

      there was an x-file episode, where the guy emits radiation, which pratically jams cameras, which also gives him xray vision. and also posess the ability regenerate a whole body.

  • Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de
    0·
    9 days ago

    Pretty sure those devices that block cellphone and radio signals are illegal in public and people have gotten in legal trouble for that

  • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    There are things that damage a camera when you point at them, but they aren’t passive. Things like x-ray sources could do that. Also the sun.

    So no, even if you reflected 100% of the light from the flash back into the lens, there’s just not enough of it to do any damage.

    If you were somehow able to focus all of it on one single pixel on the sensor, you might be able to damage that pixel, but that would require a large piece of optical equipment basically on top of the camera.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    0·
    10 days 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!

  • dev_null@lemmy.ml
    0·
    9 days ago

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

  • dullbananas (Joseph Silva)@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    9 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).

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 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.

  • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    10 days ago

    I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera

    Probably aliasing aka moiré effect. Harmless to the equipment.

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

    Speed bumps do something similar? Entirely passive, harmless, untill encountering certain equipment - a vehicle.

  • remon@ani.social
    0·
    10 days 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.

      • remon@ani.social
        0·
        10 days ago

        Right, I just mentioned that in another comment. I’m not quite sure it would count under OPs restrictions:

        The only pattern/material that comes close to what OP is looking for would be a parabolic mirror. If you attach one of these to your shirts and than stand at the exact right angle and distance to a camera, you could damage it. However that is already stretching “passive” because it would require a lot of deliberate actions to position yourself that way. And it pretty much only works when the sun is out.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 days ago

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

      • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        0·
        10 days 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.

  • phonics@lemmy.world
    0·
    10 days 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.