Devices for blinding CCTV security cameras

A German exibition recently showcased bright infrared LED devices that overwhelm the CCDs in security cameras, allowing the wearer to move through modern society in relative privacy.

I-R A.S.C. - Infrarotlicht Gegen Überwachungskameras




Related topic: CCTV deployments in Munich

I want one.

Your going to have to make it yourself.. Its only about 10 Eur in parts.

Now I may not know much about cameras, infra-red or LED devices, but it struck me... almost instantaneously, barring the odd picosecond... that we're looking for a bloke with a fireball for a head. The cunning method would be a damn site more logical: mainsfed NIR. 100mW should do the trick. Direct and fixed. A permanent block that could be phased so the CCTV operator had minimal chance of location, even with camera movement. Probably cost en masse about the same as the LEDs, but you'd have the advantage of not being easily nickable out in the open for wearing the daftest 'stands-out-like-a-sore-thumb' headgear going.

I have no problem with CCTV as I'm not out to hide or commit crimes. If the control centre want to watch a drunken Englishman staggering home and have a laugh, then I'm glad I've made them smile. On the other hand, should I get mugged/robbed (in said drunken state,) I'd very much like the CCTV evidence used in court, your Honour.

But you're fucked if the police ever open another warrant to arrest jesus.

I think the point is that the LED is infra-red, so it barely registers to human eyes but blinds the cameras. Easy for operators to circumvent I'd have thought.

So... Wheel... when can we expect to see you walking down the street with this on your head?

Doesn't have to be on your head though - looks like it'd work equally well on a lapel or collar. The battery could be elsewhere, fed by wires. Still a daft idea IMO. How to get arrested lesson 1.

What are you planning and do you need anyone else on the team?

Won't all the dogs in the neighbourhood be chasing you down the road if you wear one of those?

Why, does it issue a high pitched whistling sound?

I'm sure you can be easily traced/followed wearing one of these - beep beep

Is that a speed camera on fire? This does bring up an interesting application... are speed cameras digital? I've only ever seen one older (non-digital) printout. Wearing one on your person is impractical, but they'd go perfectly well on a car and be invisible to the naked eye.

hmm... I am not clear on this, but are all CCTV camera's infra-red based?
And I am pretty sure they can't arrest you for wearing one of these contraptions, although I am sure you would probably get a bit more attention from the popo.

Consider this...

This guy was caught by the clever application and interpretation of CCTV. I shall rant here now if you please.

I'm sure if you had your way this guy would still be on the streets and the families of a couple of girls would still not know who killed their daughters. If you'd like to whinge about CCTV why not have the balls to write the parents an e-mail and post it here.
Oh I hear the retorts now already. "But me. Personal. Government Bad. Big brother. Tin foil".

Stop, shut up, and grow up.

CCTV is a tool. An essential tool to detective work as DNA. The very fact that you block yourself out makes any police work related to it more of a problem. I'm not suggesting that any of you are a pshycopathic murderer, although... But, that isn't the point. You may have seen something, something which may have been unimportant to you but vital to a crime's solution. How are the police to get in touch with you? Worse still, they may spend millions of money tracing you in order to question you to delete you from possible suspects. And all the police I have met would be quiet happy to whack a charge of obstruction on you because lets face it your wasting time, resources which could easily have been spent chasing the other xx leads that have been seen.

Today proves the advantage and necessity of CCTV in todays society. Is it perfect? Nope but its better than nothing. In fact two girls were raped in London this week in an underpass where the CCTV hadn't been switched on. Is that a good thing? Because "Our" civil liberties were being preserved in that underpass, a singular stand against the evils of the state.

I'm sure if I look hard enough I'll find clippings in Victorian papers protesting as such..

"Sirs, this new confangeled fingerprinting is a despicaple infringement of a British man's right to walk and wander as he sees fit within her Majesty's realm. Whatever next, votes for women I dare say!"

Oh I removed the swearing ;-)

ok gideon... you walk into a bathroom. One toilet stall has a CCTV camera inside, one doesn't... which one do you use.

Er it's illegal to install them in Toilet stalls. Anyway just write the letter to the girl's parents. Or alternativley. Shut up.

Gonna have to go with gideon on this. And if someone wants to put a CCTV camera in a toilet stall to watch me drop a load, more power to them. I may even make little toilet paper animals to show to the camera while I do my business

I think you're well aware of the circular logic there: The government won't put toilet seats in stalls because the government says the government can't. The point still stands, plenty of crimes can be and are committed in toilet stalls, so would you support being filmed in order to prevent crime?

You might dismiss the question as absurd.. but the reason it isn't is because the line of reasoning you have used to justify these cameras can be used to justify any level of intrusion. Should the government be allowed to place cameras in our homes? It would certainly eliminate a huge amount of crime and domestic abuse. Since the argument can be made for any increasing level of intrusion, I'm curious what logic you use against it when you finally decide to draw a border.

Have you posted the letter yet?

Or are you just waffeling off another load of patronising bleeding heart liberal bullshit. It may come as schock to you and your obviously over inflated ego. The government doesnt give a shit about where you personal were or are and havent installed them to watch only you because your so important. If the wanted, and needed, to track you, you already willingly carry a tracking device on your own accord.

Now until youpost the letter, chose which victim you like, again shut up.

Whether I want to talk to a particular set of parents is irrelevant to the issue at large. You might also note: I am against requiring child safety seats in planes. Requiring this would make air travel for families more expensive, which means more people will drive... which is by far more dangerous. So overall it is the right policy... however I still don't feel like being the one to tell this to an individual mother who's child was seriously injured by clear air turbulence.

Would you? Does my not wanting to talk to someone with obvious irrational bias invalidate my point? No, it does not.

Again, I'm simply curious where you decide to draw the line, and what logic you use to do so.

edit: also, did I miss something? Where in the article that you linked did it say the CCTV was the reason he was caught... there are CCTV images of the crime, but it doesn't say if that was actually useful in the solving of the murders. Am I missing something? I didn't click the link to watch the video, so perhaps its explained there?

Sunshine, you tell me the derranged logic of a fucking psychopath who is so fucked switched on he switches off his mobile so not to be traced, follows young girls after night buses and smacks them in the head three times and kills them. If you would be so kind, and then I might just pleasure you're teenage rebelious mind with some more insights in the grown up world.

UNtil then Mr Libertine, when your daughter is lying in a bloodbath, and no body has a fucking clue which sick bastard did it are you going to declare the CCTV evidence as non acceptable? Because its against your royal fluffy ethics? In fact I'll be horribly mean here and say I hope it happens. Then ask me again about logic.

edit: yes you did miss something, obviously because you wanted to miss something. There was a tip off one off a couple of hundred, the only evidence linking was CCTV. There are hundreds of cases where CCTV has proved it's point from multiple murder to making sure violent ex-husbands keep to their restraining orders.

And what the fuck has air travel got to do with murder, stop trying to prove your oh so cleverness. Pathetic.

I'm not trying to "prove my cleverness" I'm just actually curious. Crime prevention seems to be an end-all goal to your philosophy, so I'm simply curious if you think there should be any limit to government surveillance, and if so, how you settled on this limit.

You've obviously gone through this debate before, with people with a much bigger chip on their shoulder, and it's coloring your interpretation of what I'm writing here... so I'll be clear: I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking you for your view.

Stop worrying and start loving the surveillance camera. 'Surveillance camera players' show how-

"The surveillance camera Players are not watching you. They are watching the cameras, because we have forgotten to. The cameras can't understand what the SCP are doing, but we can. The cameras don't smile but you might"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RILTl8mxEnE

Surveillance Camera Players

OK Mr Libertine my view.

Stop Crime. Get the scum off the streets. Make them safe again. Make people safe again.

Make people feel safe again.

Where do I draw the line? I'm actualy coming to the point of view where attatching jump cables to asbo's testicles is a good thing, otherwise within the law. But changing the law or accepting the contradiction when the public good is being served. (And before the fluffy ones go Ahh but as Plato said who is controlling the controllers, well, Plato is dead and I'm going to trust the Police forces because they are not the ones commiting the crimes on the streets)

CCTV is serving the public. I know so many people my mum included who love it. Me too. Anybody who hates it needs a good raping or mugging for them to realise it benefits.

Its the question of the german policeman who got sacked for torturing a suspect. One who had a teenage girl hidden down a hole and refused to tell them where even though they all knew he was guilty and the girl had very little time to live. The policeman in my mind is a hero. Girl lves on as the suspect squeeled when put under a little pressure.

Civil Liberties sod them, a false construct to hide illegal doings and hedious deads. Stop all this bullshit fluffyness. Start allowing policemen to give you a thick ear for being cheeky as a kid. Bring back a quick slap and a good hiding. Bring back fear of authority.

And make you the President while we are at it too?

No my presidential speech was something like keeping out the riff raff, non-smokers and tourists.

I am just angered at the fluffiness of these Libertines. We ask so much of our police forces but deny them the tools which will make them more effective. Police are leaving the force in the UK because they are spending less and less time fighting crime and more filling out fluffy forms. We exclaim horror at Tax evasion then scream cibillibertrwees!! When they accept an offer for information leading to nearly 4 Billion euros in lost taxes. That's our money folks. At least two Transrapids.

CCTV and compulsory DNA catalogues? More so.

They just take you down to the police staion and do it there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rx3-cuNayA

Hi Gideon -

Do you have their e-mail address? Happy to write them, if that's what you want. I'm not sure, but I believe police were solving these kinds of murders long before CCTV came around and I see nowhere that it says the cameras were able to prevent their deaths.

I believe we all live in a country that proved rather extensively the dangers of 24-hour surveillance of the entire populace. How soon we forget.

Oh right yes forgot how it was before, the nazis blah blah blah. Your so right. [adminabuse]Knob. [/adminabuse]Go and find out the adresses yourself and tell them. Your unhappy that CCTV exists. You haven't the balls. So stop being a keyboard hero.

CCTV is a crime detecion tool which may prevent crime. And it's a bloody good one. A great one. BUt it will never stop crime, and I havent said that anywhere. And for your info remember Peter Sutcliffe? I do. Remember James Blugar? I do apart from how to spell his surname. The list goes on and on and on and on. In fact I don't know off anyone in the UK who sees a problem with it anymore the benefits. Other such stupid immature irrational Big Brother rubbish piped up by leftie loonies all over the world.

I meant the DDR, not the nazis, just for clarificaton.

Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to resort to an ad hominem attack.

I did not attack anyone ad hominem.

In fact if you knew how to use those wee little Latin words in their real meaning I haven't appealed to any body's personal considerations. In fact one could say quiet the opposite. Now I presume as you've just thrown those words in in a rather sloppy but pretentious modern usage of latin, ergo, and I pray for forgiveness to a million scholars of Latin, a bit of a verpa minor.

Indeed I pointed out the weakness in people's character, inter alia, the lack of stiffness in their spina and will do so ad infinitum ad nauseum as the legionnaire said on a long sea journey. Because it is de facto a weakness in a man's character to consider his personal self above the safety of others and society as a whole. Although prima facie CCTV is a surveillance system, it is non sequitur that it means it will be used to oppress the miserabile vulgus. It is not surveillenace qua surveillance, but summum bonum! Any ex post facto removal would be detrimental, in actu the reduction in crimes solved and safety on the street. Quod erat
demonstrandum.

As they say Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Or as the caped crime fighter of Gothic Civitas said "Sacra Bos!"

Knock it off with the French Gid.
And while we are at it : O praeclarum custodem ovium lupum!*

CCTV does little to bring down crime. For it to do so, people would have to 1. know there's a cam, 2. Care that there is a cam 3. Behave non-criminally because of the cam OR just wear a baseball cap.

What the CCTV does do is satisfy the public demand for the politicians to do something, anything, no matter how useless. it feels like it will do something, it is expensive, shiny, no one understands it but everyone thinks they do, there is huge public support for them, so you keep getting more and more of them. And they are also a replacement for the bobbie, not an additional tool to help him do a better job.

Surveillance cams helps victims right? wrong it just helps the bloodthirsty public satisfy its thirst for vengeance after reading The Sun. The James Bulger that you mention, was seen by the cams, many of them. He was also seen by people, many of them. This kid was being taken along by two teenagers, who were cuffing him all the time, no one really bothered, and they went on and killed him. Did the cams help him, NO! the cams were good for the idiots who ignored what was going on in front of their noses, and who now wanted revenge. the cam images weren't even good enough to identify the teenagers, they were identified by people.

I know of only one study that looked at whether the cams were worth the money, and that was in glasgow (its online, google it if you like). The weedgies found out that it had done nothing for the crime level or the conviction rate, as the evidence of these cams is inadmissible by itself, can only be used to supplement other kind of info.

the cams are, at best a waste of money, worst they are a bloody nuisance used to target poor areas and move the 'wrong' kind of people(blacks/asians/poor/teenagers, etc) out of shopping malls so radges like you can go to marks and spencers

*An excellent protector of sheep, the wolf!----Cicero

Finally! A reason to ban the wearing of baseball caps. WOO-HOO!

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Jefferson?

Franklin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759)

One study oh my god such an extensive report...And it's online too, which means it must be true. Wow I bow to your supiour knowledge. Well I would but I too busy laughing at how sublimly stupid it is. I really dont not whats worse. The scum on the streets or those like yourself who try to help them get away for free all they time.

Oh god they're all coming out of the woodwork now arn't they. Shake any liberty tree and you'll find small little libertine bugs all brave and snarling.

Actually not.
This is very old, current and common way of thinking.
You do not need to agree nor try to disqualify by name calling it.

I do not agree, nor probably would he if her were alive today and had bunch of chvas trying to steel his wig powder. He was also someone who agree on the right to bare arms. Time has shown a lot of the so called wisdom created by a bunch of politicaly frustrated slave owners seems to have not been based in any reality of today.


Oh but you all so deserve it.

I thought you were trying to discuss ideas.
Mea culpa, Errare humanum est.
But now I know you better,

You know jack shit apparently, and that's not just refering to my persona. Now I'm sure you mugger-huggers will have plenty to discuss about, but I am done.

You keep proving there is absolutely nothing to discuss about, and disqualifying yourself.
How sad.

Get mugged, robbed at gun-point, assaulted, ass-raped, or otherwise harmed or traumatized, then come back and tell us all how important it is to ban CCTV and all other security measures that may be a minor infringement to normal law abiding citizens.

That is a fallacy.

Get mugged, robbed at gun-point, assaulted, ass-raped, or otherwise harmed or traumatized, then come back and tell us all how important it is to:
-use the capital punishment.
-ban criminals from even leave prison.
-forbid woman to walk alone on the streets.
-forbid anybody except law order agents to learn how to use firearms.
-forbid anybody to speak against CCTV since it can create momentum
-arrest those who did talk against it.
-fingerprint everybody and attach to them a GPS chip for easy tracking and a microphne/recorder.
-castrate every man to eliminate rape
-any yaddah yaddah you want.

That type of reasoning is flawed.

I was indeed mugged and robbed at knife-point, and I still do not want CCTV. Maybe I need that ass-rape to see the light?