Anti-Photo Shield
 

There is an article here on Wired Magazine about a Russian billionaire installing an "anti-photography" device on his yacht to keep the press at bay. Rather than quote the entire article, I'll sum it up by basically saying that the device sweeps the area around the yacht in a constant laser sphere until it detects electronic light sensors in a nearby camera. At that point, it fires a beam of light at the camera and disables it from recording a digital image.

Is this dangerous to the eys of the person looking through the camera? What are your thoughts? Have paparazzi brought this on themselves?

The sensor on the yacht seeks out CCDs (wish they would have expanded on how it works in the article). In a digital SLR the CCD is not exposed until the image is captured, otherwise it is covered by a mirror reflecting the scene being viewed into the viewfinder. Therefore the photographer is not viewing the scene through the camera since the mirror would have flipped out of the way of the CCD when the image is captured. However, the scanning laser could possibly be harmful. I would have thought any possible health effects would have been covered in the article.

Depending on the delay between detection and response, an SLR with a sufficiently high shutter speed could probably defeat this, but whoever is looking through the lens could easily be blinded after the mirror sets back into place.

What's going to be funny is when some guy with a 35mm SLR and a huge telephoto lens with an IR filter starts snapping pictures.

My first thought!

Sounds more like an automated laser pointer device. I'm sure the lasers they're using are not mad scientist grade and aren't going to hurt the photographer. You don't need much extra light to ruin a photo.

But if it seeks CCD it will be thrown off by film, and if it seeks IR it will be thrown off by distance/manual focus

It doesn't take much to damage an eye, especially if a laser is focused through an SLR's lens.

I don't know. I've heard of it happening but I've been hit with handheld (strong though) laser pointers in the eye several times. Like direct hits where I'm blinded for several minutes. But my vision has always returned to normal. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Why is it wrong to blind someone then?

This is rather shaky area for me. I have a right to privacy. Understand that not all that can be seen is fair game. I have a right for you not to be taking photos of me just the way I can put barbed wire over my fence to prevent burglars.

I feel it beats reason, I'm not walking down the street naked and I am ok with people having their picture taken while on the street, there is no privacy there. But in their own secluded home if someone goes through the trouble of climbing over hedges and perching precariously on a branch to take a naked picture of me then they do deserve to be blinded by the fail safes placed to prevent that.

How does one detect a CCD with a laser since it is a passive device ?
Could it be a low power IR laser that constantly sweeps a sphere around the yacht that could interfer with CCD but would be invisible to naked eye ?

Trivia of the day: Digital cameras can be used to see if IR remotes are transmitting.

i didnt read the article..its too early to think here..

what if you didnt use the flash?