this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
203 points (95.9% liked)

No Stupid Questions

42922 readers
1356 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was thinking about those outfits celebrities wear that mess with flash photography equipment, and I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera, and I wondered if there could ever be a pattern or material that, when filmed, caused the camera irreversible damage. And if that were physically possible, I wondered if intentionally showing up to camera-heavy events wearing said shirt would constitute a crime on my part.

It's just a shirt after all. It's not like I'm grabbing a camera and smashing it on the ground. But at the same time, I know it will have that effect, so I'm accountable. But it's not like my shirt is emitting damaging laser beams or anything, it's entirely passive.

Also, is there anything like this scenario in real life/law?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

ITT: People debating whether such a shirt is possible and not answering the actual question.

[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Im all for this. Im all for all the side discussions that emerge from a post like this

[–] phonics@lemmy.world 126 points 3 days ago (3 children)

if you invent some passive way to damage tech by just being in its vicinity. not only would it be illegal. it would be a super weapon.

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 75 points 3 days ago (2 children)

A weapon to surpass metal gear?

[–] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 days ago

Snake?!

Snaaaaaake!!!

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

A weapon to defeat metal gear

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 31 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How they gonna find out? No cameras to witness it

[–] hypnicjerk@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

bro's got the level 9 EMP aura

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 63 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Might not cause damage but there is the Camera Shy Hoodie: https://www.macpierce.com/the-camera-shy-hoodie

Instructions for how to DIY provided, so it doesn't have to be a hoodie.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Although that really only works as long as the camera doesn't have an IR filter in place.

[–] bathing_in_bismuth@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If the camera has an IR filter, how would IR be able to make night viewing possible?

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 3 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't, and I think the other responder, while saying a true fact, may have misunderstood this question's purpose.

The hoodie will only work with cameras that support IR night vision (most security cameras, no IR filter), but won't work for most others (phones, dash cams, SLRs (filtered)).

And the dork in me must say, Raspberry Pi offers their Camera Modules in both formats, because noyce.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

It works in the opposite. With the IR filter you get a nice colorful image in daytime, but not the IR lights at night

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

there was an x-file episode, where the guy emits radiation, which pratically jams cameras, which also gives him xray vision. and also posess the ability regenerate a whole body.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eronth@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Creating something that damages nearby electronics? Yeah, that's probably not going to fly. It really doesn't matter if it only damages things that actively film/photograph you. Like, it'd be illegal if I walked up and hammered every camera that photographed me too.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

It'd also be illegal to point a laser light into a camera to damage the sensor

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 86 points 3 days ago (4 children)

What you describe is simply not possible with a passive material. Funnily your example of something shooting lasers is probably the only thing that could come close to actual damage

The most you can do is one of those adversarial patterns that just confuses the white balance and autofocus. There is nothing you can do to affect someone shooting in manual mode

If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If you could damage a camera by pointing it at something, the manufacturer would fix the issue before selling it, because no one is buying a camera that does.

Recently, there were news about the LIDAR of Volvo cars destroying camera sensors when they were aimed into the direction of the IR laser beam. Yet, this is not a passive item.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Even that was debated. No one proved it continued when you took another video, just that it broke the video of the lidar itself.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tankfox@midwest.social 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Rick and Morty did this once, Rick simply put on a hat with a QR code that made a robot army recognize him as a high level commander.

A few days ago I read a short story, comp.basilisk.faq by David Langford, which sketched a world in which specific images could irreversibly crash the brain, leading to a full scale worldwide ban on images on the internet and many other places as well. The story postulated hundreds of potential info-hazards with many of them simple enough to be applied via stencil and spray paint. Two of them are branch families of the Mandelbrot set 'and no we won't tell you where, do not look'

Other examples;

  • Snow Crash — Neal Stephenson
  • Blit — David Langford
  • The Atrocity Archives — Charles Stross
  • Doctor Who — “Blink” / “The Time of the Doctor”
  • SCP Foundation — SCP-096
  • SCP-7387 (“The Mathematician’s Grin”)

"Keep your eyes peeled or we'll peel them for you wholesale!"

[–] Periodicchair@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am thinking if you could wear a mirror that would direct all the sunlight right at the camera. That would have to be an active tracking system, but wouldn't emit any light itself.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It would have to be parabolic and yeah as you suggest you would either need a big robotic rig to aim it or you would have to be very very obvious with your intent to damage given there's pretty much only one specific place a given parabolic mirror can be to damage something else.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cloudless@piefed.social 29 points 3 days ago (3 children)
  1. Create sentient AI
  2. Let AI take control of the internet upon receiving the QR code
  3. Wear your t-shirt containing the QR code, show it to a camera connected to the internet
  4. Now AI takes over the world

Black Mirror S7E4 - Plaything

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That was an episode that ended right where it started getting good. Not that the episode was bad before that, but it left me wanting more of that, not a jump to a new premise in the next episode.

The story of this episofe had enough potential for a 6 episode spinoff series. Or maybe 4. Anyway 1 was way too soon.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] remon@ani.social 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It's not possible to damage cameras passively, so there isn't an answer. But if it was possible it probably would be made illegal to wear those around cameras.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

More like illegal to wear anywhere in the USA considering that we're quickly becoming a surveillance state.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 10 points 3 days ago

Quickly?

Every country is already a surveillance state, and has been for multiple decades.

Just look at Britain with cameras everywhere since at least the 1980's.

Fucking Ring crap just doubled down on it, and idiot people don't even care they're providing the means. 1984 nailed it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dullbananas@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

A similar thing that might be possible is to create a shirt that shows something that exploits a vulnerability in software. Some hardware can be bricked by software (this used to be the case for MacBook batteries).

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

My dude is trying to create a shirt that just continuously recharges and fires EMPs lol

[–] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Strap a lidar emitter to yourself. Those car sensors have been shown to damage cameras.

If you want privacy from cameras, there are those hats with strong ir leds. Not sure how well they work.

[–] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pretty sure those devices that block cellphone and radio signals are illegal in public and people have gotten in legal trouble for that

[–] FlembleFabber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Yes you cannot start jamming common used frequencies, or any frequencies really

[–] MoonManKipper@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

I think it depends on whether it’s active or passive. Active - e.g. a laser that damages a camera sensor, then yes, your device is actively damaging someone else’s camera - deliberate property damage. Passive - e.g. reflective strips so the exposure is bad, a pattern that is hard to focus on or similar- that’s fine - camera owner is making a decision to expose their gear to the environment. Even if, say, it’s a changing pattern that deceives the autofocus into working constantly (no, I don’t know exactly how that would work, but it’s the best I can think of at short notice) so it wears out faster.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 6 points 3 days ago

OK you're going to need CO2 gas, 2 mirrors, a glass. Container and a high voltage capacitor.

...
Step 3454674) charge the capacitor to 60078V.

Step 5746678) now run!

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 13 points 3 days ago

It depends a lot where your story happens. Laws are quite different.

In my country, this little detail would save you ....

it's not like my shirt is emitting damaging laser beams or anything, it's entirely passive.

... unless you were deliberately wearing this for the purpose of doing such damage, and somebody could prove that.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

maybe if its wearing a shirt with radioactive elements, usually its lethal amounts.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I was watching a dude on TV just now whose shirt pattern was going apeshit because of the camera

Probably aliasing aka moiré effect. Harmless to the equipment.

Also, is there anything like this scenario in real life/law?

Speed bumps do something similar? Entirely passive, harmless, untill encountering certain equipment - a vehicle.

[–] four@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There, technically, hypothetically, could be a situation where such shirt is possible. But it would require a bug in the camera firmware, which would probably work on just one camera model. For example, a shirt with a pattern that tricks the camera into detecting more faces than it was designed to, causing a buffer overflow and a crash. Reasonable, although extremely unlikely

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlackLaZoR@fedia.io 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes it would be. You're wearing it with clear intent of damaging equipment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›