Russian Billionaire Installs Anti-Photo Shield on Giant Yacht

Man, I should get into the business of selling useless things to billionaires.

I believe that the system is actually detecting the lasers that the cameras use for range-finding, and then using a laser to blind the sensor.

I'm curious as to how a second-hand private yacht ($1,200 mil) can be worth more than the build cost of the largest cruise ship in the world ($700 mil). Don't watercrafts depreciate like crazy?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2</a>

This sounds like complete nonsense:<p>"Lasers sweep the surroundings and when they detect a CCD, they fire a bolt of light right at the camera to obliterate any photograph"

&#62;"intermeddling with goods belonging to someone else, or altering their condition, is a trespass to goods and will entitle the photographer to claim compensation without having to prove loss."<p>The goods belonging to someone else (paparazzi) ARE photographs with a bolt of light. How can a photographer's photo be altered with a bolt of light if it was created with a bolt of light in it in the first place.

This same technology was supposed to be installed in movie theaters to stop people from filming the screen. I don't think it ever happened, though.

Could you counteract this by taking a photograph from behind a one way mirror?<p>You could still get photos, but the raft's light would be reflected back. Or so I presume...<p>EDIT: Two way mirror is the technically correct term.

Original Times article: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841380.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article68...</a>

Dust off the film camera. Take that, Roman.

I bet he also has a small army onboard.

can't the paparazzi just switch to video?