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. 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.
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.
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.
In my personal opinion, you're normalising technology that has overwhelmingly more benefit to creeps than to non creeps. So even if you're not a creep yourself, you are helping them.
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.
I think this Creepy Robert Scoble Google Glass High School Girls Recording is even creepier than his sharing naked shower selfies, because it involved subjecting teenaged girls to his classic brand of braggadocious self-aggrandizing behavior which he is so well known for, not just his own wet naked grinning body. That he lacks shame and self-awareness and still hasn't taken it down after all these years is just frosting on the cake.
Why Google Glass Will Be A Hit. The High School Girls Love Them.
Really, in Scoble's big head, that's what actually makes creepy surveillance technologies successful and worth all the costs and downsides: that high school girls love them??! They must really love Flock cameras then! Well at least their corrupt cop ex-boyfriends do.
Considering the shower photo, his personality, his entire career of being a shallow vapid yapping technology cheerleader and wanna-be gatekeeper who never accomplished anything himself beyond manufacturing the attention he is so starved for, and his sexual harassment scandal where he plugged his own new "LightPitch" Attention Manufacturing Startup in his horrible non-apology apology (actually a denial and counterattack) after his previous colleague Shel Israel parted ways in disgust, this "The High School Girls Love Them" recording sure didn't age well.
The aging dot-com-era digerati in his old-boys' network still circle the wagons around him, pretending none of this ever happened. (You know who you are!)
Non Apology Apology, Denial, Counterattack, and Gratuitous Startup Plug titled "No, of that I’m innocent.":
LightPitch: Helping startups get attention:
I, Robert Scoble, have a passion for products, and have spent the last 20 years helping others tell the story of their products. Now you can benefit from my experience.
> though would never get the finger cause Im not a creep.
Wearing them out in public is definitely enough to get the finger and be called a creep, because many people think they're always recording. I think you're underestimating the hatred of modern tech.
Until someone develops hidden cameras with AI that will be auto turned on couple of hours later after detecting presence at that time a scan was already performed and nothing was found.....
this works by looking at the physical characteristics of the lens, so on or off should work regardless, you could have something with some kind of internal shutter to cover the lens maybe
Tapo C125 has a built-in physical shutter. Also, every PTZ camera can just turn to face the wall, that would maybe defeat this too (not sure).
For the typical indoor WiFi cameras without battery backup, a simple way to detect them could be to turn all breakers off and on, and listen for their motors rotating on startup. Or make the room dark and listen for the click of the IR cut filter switching to night mode or back.
But then you would need an IR camera instead of using the phone's camera. An IR camera should be able to find some hidden cameras passively by detecting a heat source.
There are SWIR, MWIR, and LWIR cameras among IR cameras. SW is just regular camera with the filter removed and they can't see heat. Somewhere between SWIR and MWIR are uncooled IR cameras that use MEMS heat sensor ish arrays built on top of a camera sensor that can actually see heat by differentiating between previous and current frames, with the caveat that they cannot do it indefinitely but must use a mechanical shutter to periodically cool down to operational conditions.
MWIR and LWIR cameras are often cooled and uses more exotic sensing mechanisms, sometimes even vacuum tube based, nowadays usually semiconductor based but not regular CMOS. Some require mechanical shutters obscuring view every other frame(that, I think, is where BHOT/WHOT switch came from; it must be switching whether to show odd or even frames).
You need the MEMS types or better to see heat; they're more often referred to as thermal cameras than IR cameras. They are also unable to see through regular soda-lime glasses, that might pose its own challenge as well.
not really, no. It'll happily show you IR (just point it at your remote control with the camera active, and press some buttons. Enjoy the light show on your screen that your eyes don't see).
Yes and no. The IR filter is pretty strong. If you have an intense IR source, then it overwhelms the filter, but it would blow out the sensor, without it. The sensor is biased towards IR.
I've converted cameras (DSLRs) to IR, and you use a replacement IR-pass filter. The IR-blocking (default) filter looks like a piece of blue glass. The IR-pass filter looks like a piece of black glass.
NOTE: It's not perfect. The DSLR image processors and calibration systems are calibrated to the IR-blocking filter. Stuff doesn't work the same, once you convert.
It sees it poorly. IR is deliberately (though imperfectly) filtered in the optical path.
The dim purpleish glow from a remote that is seen through [many] digital cameras would be quite bright if this IR filter weren't in place.
It doesn't have to be that way, but it usually is that way anyway -- as a design intent.
Cameras used for surveillance, meanwhile, often lack these filters. They're designed with more of a focus on getting any kind of image at all, including when working with infrared illuminators in the absence of visible light. Some even have mechanical elements that move filters out of the optical path for night mode.
This differs tremendously in comparison to a camera that is designed to produce very beautiful visible-light photographs.
(This all conspires to mean that IR is kind of a non-starter for this sort of cell phone camera hack.)
That was true years ago, but I haven't been able to use an iPhone camera to pick up an IR signal in a long time. Just tested it to be sure they hadn't reverted to an unfiltered lens (17 pro) and nope, no IR visible.
I pointed at the remote of my fan and I can see it. I am on 15 Pro. However, as the sibling comment said, it is very faint so I'd guess not very realistic.
Depends on how cheap you go - most of the cheap ones that take images where the blacks look grey likely do not have an IR filter on them. Most quality phones will use a camera with IR filters on them - blacks look like blacks.
Perhaps to avoid tipping off the entity recording you by blasting their hidden cameras with bright lights. Granted, the PoC device in the article is not exactly subtly looking, but if you could turn it into a sleek device it would be more useful. Not playing your hand while you're under surveillance lets you control the information they're receiving.
Though the bigger issue with my theory is that while most cell phone and webcam devices have IR filters, many surveillance cameras intentionally do not.
If you're being surveilled in a way that you don't want to tip the observers is one thing, but if you're in an AirBnB type place, fuck 'em. I'd even be fine with running some lasers in the place that ruins the sensor.
That's actually much easier to detect, any camera without an IR filter would show an LED emitting where your eyes did not, no complicated solution necessary.
For now, but there's really no point in detecting them anyway, since there are plenty of truly concealed options for those that really want to be pervs.
Strongly disagree. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity. Most 'pervs' don't start out that way either. Detecting increasingly easy to conceal sousveillance devices is probably essential for any kind of normative public sphere to continue to exist.
this is an old trick and works with any digital camera units. the flash reflects on the silicon behind lens or something. the operator is normally supposed to look across the area of interest through a special glass like a witch doctor to spot cameras using their skill and training, rather than letting an AI do the fun part.
Another strategy that's often used is to cause motion then detect the resulting transmission spike. That's also defeatable of course (cache+burst, CBR, etc).
The ideal detector should incorporate multiple methods. Someone should make a site that rates these for each detection method then adds them into an overall score.
Can't a thermal camera can do this? It should be able to detect any difference in ambient temp, even a few degrees, and a CMOS sensor gets warm, not to mention any wireless transmitters, power sources, and ICs. Turn off everything in the room and walk around with a ~$100 ali express handheld thermal camera.
LED clocks, alarm motion sensors, bluetooth speakers and whatever other appliances also get a bit warm. How would you tell a legit device from one with a milliwatt camera?
Yeah I don’t think this will be effective, cameras can be put in certain angles that it can see with being seen, or how police do it, entirely behind clothes or similar fabric where it can see through and identify but not seen even if you’re looking straight at it.
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.
reply