The Brits allowed so many cameras to be placed they're likely to be on at least one for most of their day. Seems like if someone objected to these cameras it shouldn't be that hard to take them out faster than they could be replaced. Camera lenses tend to have either magnification or field of view. Shouldn't be too hard to be within effective shooting distance yet not be seen by the camera.
August 6, 2015 at 5:21 PM
Dr.D said...
it took cooperation from local government to install them....hint hint
August 7, 2015 at 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...
Paintballs, anyone? Or .22s. Either is good.
I think now would be a good time to look into more work on an IR LED hat/head band.
B Woodman III-per
August 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...
A decent laser will fry any camera. The laser diode from a DVD player is NOT eye safe but is exempt from restriction because it is used in a sealed application. Remove, install in a portable power source such as a Surefire type pocket flashlight where the diode replaces the bulb and away you go........always remember, safety first.
August 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...
Anon 11:56
You may want to bone up on the laser theory . Much testing has been done and a laser you or I could buy will not "fry" a cctv camera . It WILL blind it temporarily if you can keep the laser steady , but the camera will function as before once the laser is not aimed directly at the lens. IR LED on the other hand will blind a camera in the vicinity of the LED. Even the cameras with IR filtering . But you need a fairly powerful set up . Not a car battery set up , but more than a button battery . The headband idea or a hat with LEDs around it would block your face . That is all I would be shooting for .
"Smile for Big Brother. "ATF confirms surveillance cameras installed throughout Seattle.""
7 Comments -
So...stay the hell out of Seattle.
August 6, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Just because they can.
Who's going to tell them no?
Their judges?
August 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM
The Brits allowed so many cameras to be placed they're likely to be on at least one for most of their day. Seems like if someone objected to these cameras it shouldn't be that hard to take them out faster than they could be replaced. Camera lenses tend to have either magnification or field of view. Shouldn't be too hard to be within effective shooting distance yet not be seen by the camera.
August 6, 2015 at 5:21 PM
it took cooperation from local government to install them....hint hint
August 7, 2015 at 6:06 AM
Paintballs, anyone? Or .22s. Either is good.
I think now would be a good time to look into more work on an IR LED hat/head band.
B Woodman
III-per
August 7, 2015 at 8:52 AM
A decent laser will fry any camera. The laser diode from a DVD player is NOT eye safe but is exempt from restriction because it is used in a sealed application. Remove, install in a portable power source such as a Surefire type pocket flashlight where the diode replaces the bulb and away you go........always remember, safety first.
August 7, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Anon 11:56
You may want to bone up on the laser theory . Much testing has been done and a laser you or I could buy will not "fry" a cctv camera . It WILL blind it temporarily if you can keep the laser steady , but the camera will function as before once the laser is not aimed directly at the lens.
IR LED on the other hand will blind a camera in the vicinity of the LED. Even the cameras with IR filtering . But you need a fairly powerful set up . Not a car battery set up , but more than a button battery .
The headband idea or a hat with LEDs around it would block your face . That is all I would be shooting for .
August 7, 2015 at 7:49 PM