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?

  • @MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1415 days ago

    I think it depends on whether it’s active or passive. Active - e.g. a laser that damages a camera sensor, then yes, your device is actively damaging someone else’s camera - deliberate property damage. Passive - e.g. reflective strips so the exposure is bad, a pattern that is hard to focus on or similar- that’s fine - camera owner is making a decision to expose their gear to the environment. Even if, say, it’s a changing pattern that deceives the autofocus into working constantly (no, I don’t know exactly how that would work, but it’s the best I can think of at short notice) so it wears out faster.

  • themeatbridge
    link
    fedilink
    315 days ago

    This reminds me of a movie or a tv show where people were sneaking into a compound and disabled the security cameras with a laser pointer.

  • cloudless
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2915 days 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

  • snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    Damaging a camera is very different from something that makes taking a picture impossible. It doesn’t matter if it is passive or active, only the end result is important.

    A celebrity might get away with it when just trying to get home but would probably be required to pay for damage to the camera. Anyone at a large venue is going to be ruining everyone’s cameras and that would be a huge deal.

  • @sir_pronoun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -615 days ago

    To those saying it’s not possible - modern cameras are highly complicated devices, constantly using little motors to change focus and exposure, driven by AI informed algorithms. Leave it up to some nerd to device a pattern and/or material that could maybe drive those sensors and motors nuts, or something like that.

    • @remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Unless they invent some kind of new force of physics all you can do here is reflect ambient light.

      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 then 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.

      A even worse option would be wearing a shirt made from a radioactive material. (but is it still passive when you’re using something radioactive?). And of course this wouldn’t just damage the camera but also very much the cameraman, the wearer and anyone else that is around.

  • @altphoto@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    615 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!

  • phonics
    link
    fedilink
    12715 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.

  • @dev_null@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    2815 days ago

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

  • @eronth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1214 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.