94
When Eyes in the Sky Start Looking Right at You
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
94 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
32165 readers
718 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Honey, the REAL question you're going to have to answer is how the fuck you're going to target an object around the size of your face from 400km away while it's moving at thousands of miles per hour. Not only THAT, you also have to shoot it within a very narrow angle to ensure the power of the laser hits the sensor directly. Not only THAT THAT, but you also have to be completely certain the camera doesn't have some sort of aperture that's closed whenever you're FIRIN YUR LAZOR.
So if you have inside information about the exact times that the aperture will be open, the exact angle it will be photographing at, precisely what trajectory it's on and where it's going (this one's actually easy, most space objects are tracked rather precisely and publicly), then maybe... MAYBE, IF YOU CAN TRACK IT, you'll get off a zap or two.
And even then it would only work as long as the internal filters aren't designed to block common laser wavelengths. They're probably not, because everything else is so astonishingly stupid that it's not going to happen.
Honey, the REAL answer is such tech ALREADY EXISTS! Your cynical snark doesn't make you smart or right. It just makes you one ignorant fellow. I'm not even going to bother answering you, because you aren't here for answers. You are here to insult, annoy and pick a fight with strangers. Go look for it elsewhere.
I do astrophotography, dingus. I'm well aware such mounts exist. I'm also aware of NASA's history of shooting lasers at the moon to track changes in its distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments
Have a look at that table. See all those specific wavelengths? If your dumbass idea is even remotely feasible then every single photographic satellite in orbit will ABSOLUTELY have filters that will carve out those narrow bands and others that could be realistically used to damage a camera. Lasers operate at specific wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laser_types
I do, however, doubt that any satellite has this type of filtration because this idea is inherently stupid. Say you do somehow manage this. Guess what? You've put a few pixels out of commission. What happens then? It's pretty fuckin' simple. The satellite moves slightly and another picture gets taken with the obscured area now in view.
Because that's how satellite imaging works.
If you laser is powerful, accurate, and fast tracking enough to destroy an entire imaging sensor from 400km away you're better off just using it to ransom passing aircraft.
Which is just as stupid.
If that's is the case, how do you explain this?
That's why I just create a nuclear explosion that is brighter than the sun