Why should commenters be constrained to only comment on the stated objective of the hoodie, and not all of its pros and cons?

> If you have tested positive for switcheroo fever, you should start your comment by stating out loud that you understand this is the objective and you understand that it does indeed achieve the objective before proceeding elaborate on your own personal variation of the switcheroo.

I don't think this is necessary. If someone doesn't make any mention of whether or not it succeeds preventing facial recognition, then they are simply not offering an opinion on the matter. Not mentioning it, or bringing up a different concern, should not be taken as disagreement. In fact, I would interpret silence on the matter as a sort of implicit agreement.

> And perhaps, if you dare, proceed to challenge mode, where you acknowledge that this might be a trade-off that was consciously chosen, and does not come as a surprise to the people who designed the product.

So commenters here are obligated to acknowledge a bunch of considerations about the designer's objective and state of mind when creating the hoodie, but the designer is not obligated to point out these trade-offs in their product listing? Isn't this a double standard?

Equally - perhaps the product should have a disclaimer that it is only suited to people with a 1 dimensional threat model?

> The objective is to prevent a camera from recognizing your face

Not just "a camera", but one that's in night-vision mode. The camera may not be using IR, or it may switch to normal mode at any time. You spent too much time telling people off for pointing out this hoody makes your head glow and may draw attention as a consequence.

It's still a very specific scenario.

All digital cameras are in "ir mode" point your TV remote at your cell phone camera and press a button on your remote it will light up on your screen.

Not necessarily for either point, much as I want to avoid being pedantic.

My LG CX's remote uses IR for turning on, but beyond that it uses Bluetooth or some similar protocol.

Even if a remote is IR, rear cameras are often shielded against it. Front cameras, usually not. This is much easier to notice on IR-powered PC mice of course. Not sure if modern ones use IR as well - haven't checked.

That used to to be the case, but most modern cameras have a pretty good IR cut filters. If you remove the filter, outdoor photos will look pinkish.

Maybe the name "camera-shy" is not the best description of something that actively goes out and targets cameras specifically, floods them with signals of its own, and therefore stands out.

Camera-jamming or IR-glare or something on those lines may convey the function better without setting wrong expectations.

Sort of breaks the "hide in plain site" concept, and may not even be technically capable of doing what it claims.

https://www.wikihow.com/Hide-in-Plain-Sight

I think there's a misconception here: most security setups aren't like in the movies where there's a guy sitting in a room with 20 screens, watching all the security camera feeds intently for something out of the ordinary. Yes, in high-security facilities, that's probably the case, but for the vast majority of security cameras, no one is monitoring them in real-time. They're just there so that when something does happen, someone can go look at the recorded footage to see if there are any clues or evidence.

The "camera-shy hoodie" defeats this latter type of security camera setup. Perhaps the article should explicitly say that this hoodie will be counter-productive in a high-security facility, as you'll be immediately noticeable to someone watching those cameras in real-time. But most cameras in the real world will not be monitored in real-time.

This is an art project. The point has never been to defeat any security system or facility.

I think most of the people talking about how it makes you more recognizable don't understand how security cameras actually work. Most of the time, nobody is actually watching the camera. It's there to have a recording of any incident after it happens.

The IR hats that were going around the internet 10 years ago, and this modern version (in a hoodie) are about defeating that security model. The wearer's face becomes completely unrecognizable in recordings, and the wearer has plausible deniability about being at the location if questioned after the fact.

When security personnel are actively watching the cameras, like at a high-security facility, this makes you stand out. But if you're at a convenience store, it completely defeats their camera recordings.

> But if you're at a convenience store, it completely defeats their camera recordings.

Not if the camera has an IR-cut filter. And don't security camera feeds frequently get displayed to employees behind the counter (contrary to your assertion that nobody is watching)?

Most security cameras would not have an IR filter, for the sake of the ability to record at night with IR illumination.

Even for those that do, IR filters are rarely perfect, so a bright enough IR light would still do the trick.

A quick search for "IR cut security camera" on Amazon returns hundreds of results. Some cost as little as $20 [1], so not uncommon at all from what I can tell.

> Even for those that do, IR filters are rarely perfect, so a bright enough IR light would still do the trick.

Do you have a source for this? I've never tested it, so I can't say, but I would want to want to see some proof first.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Tonton-Outdoor-Infrared-Suitable-Secu...

> A quick search for "IR cut security camera" on Amazon returns hundreds of results. Some cost as little as $20 [1], so not uncommon at all from what I can tell.

https://www.amazon.com/Tonton-Outdoor-Infrared-Suitable-Secu...

That's the very opposite. That's a camera that uses IR illumination to record at night. That's what all those LEDs around the lens are for. And due to this it lacks any IR filtering. This particular camera is more IR sensitive than most cameras like DSLRs or cell phones.

> Do you have a source for this? I've never tested it, so I can't say, but I would want to want to see some proof first.

You can test it by pointing a remote at a camera. Normal cameras like cell phones and DSLRs have IR filters. They still can see the blinking LED on an IR remote, because the filter isn't perfect.

> That's the very opposite. That's a camera that uses IR illumination to record at night. That's what all those LEDs around the lens are for. And due to this it lacks any IR filtering. This particular camera is more IR sensitive than most cameras like DSLRs or cell phones.

No, the camera also has IR cut - it lists the feature right in the product title, and the customer-provided samples in the reviews clearly have an IR cut filter applied (you can tell by the "natural" colors in the daytime photos). Is has two modes of operation, daytime mode and nighttime mode. During daytime mode it employs an IR cut filter, and during nighttime mode it removes the filter and adds additional IR lighting for "night vision".

For more info on how IR-cut works in security cameras, see this support article from Annke (another seller of cheap security cameras on Amazon): https://help.annke.com/hc/en-us/articles/4403980153497-What-...

> They still can see the blinking LED on an IR remote, because the filter isn't perfect.

Being able to see a faint blinking LED from a remote is not sufficient to prove that the effect is strong enough to completely obscure a person's face when an IR cut filter is applied, in my opinion.

> During daytime mode it employs an IR cut filter, and during nighttime mode it removes the filter and adds additional IR lighting for "night vision".

Ah, I see

> Being able to see a faint blinking LED from a remote is not sufficient to prove that the effect is strong enough to completely obscure a person's face when an IR cut filter is applied, in my opinion.

It's just a matter of intensity. An IR filter is going to block some percentage. If it blocks 90%, you just need a 10X stronger light. At some point this gets impractical of course, but you can buy some really powerful LEDs. Most security cameras are cheap and the IR filter is there to improve the image in the daytime, not to counteract intentional attacks.

Most employees don't give a fuck anyway or are only at the counter when there is a customer so too busy to check.

If I'm working at a convenience store, and I notice that someone walked in wearing a camera jamming device, I am going to be pretty suspicious. Almost as suspicious as if they came in wearing a ski mask. Not sure what I'd do about it, but I would definitely give a fuck.

Having worked retail I can tell you the video feed is interesting for all of about 10 minutes. After that, there is a job to do. The only time it gets looked at is if a hot girl or some sketchy AF walks into the store and down tall isles. In practical terms, no one is watching the camera feed after their first day on the job.

>Mayor Adams to New York City Shoppers: Drop That Mask

https://archive.ph/qjycV

Almost every camera has an IR filter and can still see high-intensity IR light. Point your phone camera at a TV remote and you can see this. That camera has a strong IR filter, but the little LED in the remote overwhelms it still.