Obscuring your face....
In this day and age, we have cameras set up throughout our cities, monitoring intersections,toll booths, ATMS, and store interiors. At some intersections and toll booths, if you run them, two cameras are usually set up to photograph the area around the windshield and the licence plate of the car. On the market currently are two products used to obscure the licence plate, make it difficult if not impossible to photograph clearly but the licence can still be read and seen by a police officer driving behind. One is a simple plastic cover with refractive properties, scattering the reflected light at any angle but 90 degrees. The other is a spray which only scatters light when a camera attempts to photograph it.
Returning to the drivers seat, and any pedestrian caught in the lens of a cctv camera. What if there was a product or device which could provide the same effect? Either a some sort of targeted "noise generator" to disrupt camera as you walk by them, beads of refractive material embedded in clothing and a spray for open skin(which would only work on being photographed I would think), or even a dash mounted laser guided device set at the most common angle of traffic camera....Have to be careful not to catch people, helos or planes with it.
OOO. A device, small.. with a sensor capable of detecting certain signals (sort of like a radar detector) which then automatically emits a burst of the appropriate scrambling signal to disrupt the electronic recording. Sheesh, it could be the civilian equivalent of a radar threat warning system used on fighter aircraft... used to mask a person as they traversed a city. A person could travel a town, the law enforcement would be unhappy but wouldn't be able to pinpoint the person unless they had eyes on the ground to coordinate with.
Heck, make them cheap enough and small enough and you could stash them all over the place, sort of like video "tagging". If you set it up with random bursts, you probably couldn't even use a bug detector to locate them unless they were emitting. Use three or four at the same intersection going off at random overlapping times or that can detect when law enforcement is close, maybe something that senses specific frequencies of radio or some sort of emission directly tied to law enforcement and shuts them down... no, that wouldn't work then the cops would reverse "tag" until they could track them down.
Crap, it could be used against any type of camera. Any non-passive scope mounted on a weapon or camera on a helmet.
Or we could just return to the old fashioned veil (remember, America spent millions on a pen that could write in space, the Russians used a pencil).. not presumably as way of gender based control but more as an advocate of UV protection. Course if any of this existed, I would think that celebraties would have done it already.
This is all theorectical anyways, I wouldn't know how to do the chemical version (my chemistry was definitely not my strong suit), and my electronics is so dead I probably couldn't even read a resistor code now.
Of course if this existed the cops would simply try to extend the codes prohibiting certain level of tinting and obscuring licence plates against this. It is a fine line, with these codes if not an outright invasion of privacy though. With the licence plates, they should only be able to fine you if you are caught in the commission of another crime as in running a red light or something but cops shouldn't be able to just record you for the random sweep. Of course they already do that at crime scenes, panning the crowd for possible suspects.. recording the licence plates of vehicles in the area... not sure that should be legal no matter how absolutely useful it is. With window tinting, is it really a safety issue (for the driver I mean) or is it just so cops can see who is in the car? If it is just the latter, couldn't that be considered the same thing as invading privacy? When dealing with a house, you can enter without a warrent or permission if you think a crime is being committed but you have to back that up. Simply refusing to allow them in or to search you is perfectly legal so why is being able to be seen, to be photographed and scanned allowed then?
Returning to the drivers seat, and any pedestrian caught in the lens of a cctv camera. What if there was a product or device which could provide the same effect? Either a some sort of targeted "noise generator" to disrupt camera as you walk by them, beads of refractive material embedded in clothing and a spray for open skin(which would only work on being photographed I would think), or even a dash mounted laser guided device set at the most common angle of traffic camera....Have to be careful not to catch people, helos or planes with it.
OOO. A device, small.. with a sensor capable of detecting certain signals (sort of like a radar detector) which then automatically emits a burst of the appropriate scrambling signal to disrupt the electronic recording. Sheesh, it could be the civilian equivalent of a radar threat warning system used on fighter aircraft... used to mask a person as they traversed a city. A person could travel a town, the law enforcement would be unhappy but wouldn't be able to pinpoint the person unless they had eyes on the ground to coordinate with.
Heck, make them cheap enough and small enough and you could stash them all over the place, sort of like video "tagging". If you set it up with random bursts, you probably couldn't even use a bug detector to locate them unless they were emitting. Use three or four at the same intersection going off at random overlapping times or that can detect when law enforcement is close, maybe something that senses specific frequencies of radio or some sort of emission directly tied to law enforcement and shuts them down... no, that wouldn't work then the cops would reverse "tag" until they could track them down.
Crap, it could be used against any type of camera. Any non-passive scope mounted on a weapon or camera on a helmet.
Or we could just return to the old fashioned veil (remember, America spent millions on a pen that could write in space, the Russians used a pencil).. not presumably as way of gender based control but more as an advocate of UV protection. Course if any of this existed, I would think that celebraties would have done it already.
This is all theorectical anyways, I wouldn't know how to do the chemical version (my chemistry was definitely not my strong suit), and my electronics is so dead I probably couldn't even read a resistor code now.
Of course if this existed the cops would simply try to extend the codes prohibiting certain level of tinting and obscuring licence plates against this. It is a fine line, with these codes if not an outright invasion of privacy though. With the licence plates, they should only be able to fine you if you are caught in the commission of another crime as in running a red light or something but cops shouldn't be able to just record you for the random sweep. Of course they already do that at crime scenes, panning the crowd for possible suspects.. recording the licence plates of vehicles in the area... not sure that should be legal no matter how absolutely useful it is. With window tinting, is it really a safety issue (for the driver I mean) or is it just so cops can see who is in the car? If it is just the latter, couldn't that be considered the same thing as invading privacy? When dealing with a house, you can enter without a warrent or permission if you think a crime is being committed but you have to back that up. Simply refusing to allow them in or to search you is perfectly legal so why is being able to be seen, to be photographed and scanned allowed then?