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!
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
139 points (95.4% liked)
No Stupid Questions
42858 readers
1033 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
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.
Although that really only works as long as the camera doesn't have an IR filter in place.
this is really a stupid question
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.
The Camera Shy Hoodie works.
But what if I just want to buy one?
I don't have time to make my own; I have a job.
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.
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.
Even that was debated. No one proved it continued when you took another video, just that it broke the video of the lidar itself.
Here is a video demonstrating the lidar killing pixels in a phone camera sensor.
They also tried cameras on other vehicles but those were not affected, only the cellphone aimed directly at the lidar suffered damage.
So I tried watching it and never saw them close the camera app or restart the phone, so again, waiting on some actual proof with some science behind it rather than "dude totally said so". That only proves that the software controlling the picture adjustments has been sent out of whack(as evidenced by the fact that it would show true colors eventually when pointed at something else). If the pixels were "dead", they wouldn't reset. We have a separate phrase for that. It's "stuck pixel".
It's the same effect as being in a truely white lit room and everything looks orange in a camera. It's the color correction when you shine a crazy bright light at the sensor. It assumes you're on the sun and adjusts accordingly.
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.
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.
Parabolic would only work if the camera is in the focal point, so you'd need a different part of the parabola or a different parabola depending on where you are standing relative to the camera. This is in addition to the aiming mechanism.
And even then, I'm not convinced it will damage all camera techs instead of just overexposing the image or frame for some. If they just clamp the affected pixels instead of trying to maintain the relative brightness, they might be able to still see your face clearly.
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.
A weapon to surpass metal gear?
Snake?!
Snaaaaaake!!!
A weapon to defeat metal gear
How they gonna find out? No cameras to witness it
eyes
Eyes aren’t electric…… unless your a bird
bro's got the level 9 EMP aura
My dude is trying to create a shirt that just continuously recharges and fires EMPs lol
- Create sentient AI
- Let AI take control of the internet upon receiving the QR code
- Wear your t-shirt containing the QR code, show it to a camera connected to the internet
- Now AI takes over the world
Black Mirror S7E4 - Plaything
Is that Doctor Who?
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.
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.
More like illegal to wear anywhere in the USA considering that we're quickly becoming a surveillance state.
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
(2 replies)
No
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.
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.
Yes it would be. You're wearing it with clear intent of damaging equipment.
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
I rolled my eyes at your optimism that such a material would exist but I took it all back by the end. Despite it being incredibly niche and unrealistic, that is by far the most clever suggestion in the thread!
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.
Best i can do is an Elton John style jacket. Dazzle them to hell and back.
Invent?!? Bro, just use infrared LEDs 😂
Not passive. Won't damage cameras.
No, but you will basically look like a bloomed-out version of this:
This is my thought: unless everyone uses it, they just have to track the one glowing dude. Eventually you'll be in front of a camera or person who will identify you clearly, and it will be that much easier because you're glowing.
Damaging a camera is very different from something that makes taking a picture impossible. It doesn't matter if it is passive or active, only the end result is important.
A celebrity might get away with it when just trying to get home but would probably be required to pay for damage to the camera. Anyone at a large venue is going to be ruining everyone's cameras and that would be a huge deal.
view more: next ›