The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
PhotoBlocker Spray
image The makers of PhotoBlocker spray claim that their product will make your license plate invisible to photo radar, red light cameras, and infrared and laster cameras. Special crystals in the spray will reflect back the flash (or light source) used by these cameras, making your license look like a bright blur. Would this actually work? Would it be legal if it did? They say that the spray is invisible to the naked eye, which means that it won't be of much use if a cop pulls you over. Personally, I've always thought someone should make a stealth car, made out of the same material as the stealth airplanes. That would be cool. (via Red Ferret)
Categories: Law/Police/CrimeTechnology
Posted by The Curator on Tue Dec 07, 2004
From what I
Posted by Bobo Henkins  on  Tue Mar 29, 2005  at  05:31 PM
http://www.laserjammer.citymax.com/page/page/1124915.htm

down at the bottom, the Photo STOPPER, same as photoblocker, except pricer, these guys to all the tests take a look.
The new digital cameras MIGHT be able to beat the spray but would it be worth it for the police to messe around wiht a picture to catch u? If you did something REALLY stupid then they should bust your ass. but 11k over on an open 4 lane STRIGHT divided highway that the speed limt is 90KM, driving the most boring drive east going to Manitoba from Calgary getting busted.....use something radar spray cover anything, just don't see the reason for 90.
Posted by Flashman.....lol  in  Earts  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  01:36 AM
To all those people who seem intent on breaking the law - have any of you been in accidents (or seen the aftermath) which was caused by someone else speeding or running a red light? The law's there for a reason, people. Mainly to keep us safe! Drive carefully people. cool smile
Posted by Smerk  in  to mischief  on  Thu Mar 31, 2005  at  02:24 AM
The photo spray 'works' only in camera's that have flash bulbs that are around 350 watts.

Photoblocker doesn't work with infra red camera's.

And yes, viewing the photo's negative will allow you to see the number. However, it is not legally correct to use this method of image reversal(negative photo), because both the plate and the car/driver must be cleanly/clearly seen in the one photo.

Police cannot use negative's in court; unless the precedant has been approved/tried in a higher court elsewhere beforehand... then set into law/legislation.
Posted by jonk  in  Adelaide, Australia  on  Sat Apr 16, 2005  at  10:06 AM
I'm happy. I've been driving for 25 years in Australia and I've never been booked by any type of police camera. There doesn't seem to be any excuse for speeding or running red lights!
BTW: in Australia the photo doesn't have to include you in the picture as the owner is always responsible for whoever drives the car anyway. I won't buy the stuff and therefore I'm saving money!
Posted by RoddQLD  on  Sat Jun 04, 2005  at  08:15 AM
The state of Illinois is thinking of banning the sale and use of Photoblocker,photo-stopper and fhotofog type sprays because some are so effective agaist red light cameras and toll roads.I bought a can through a Canadian outlet at http://www.photoblockerCanada.com just for the added insurance I do get flashed, if it works I saved money,if it doesn't I will try to let you know.
Posted by julius  in  illinois  on  Sat Jun 11, 2005  at  11:24 PM
"Police cannot use negative's in court; unless the precedant has been approved/tried in a higher court elsewhere beforehand... then set into law/legislation."


Since the photos never have to go to court, that doesn't really make a difference, now, does it? Here, it's just a company that sends you a bill. You don't have to pay it, but if you don't, they'll file with credit reporting agencies, claiming that you owe them money...
Posted by Jason  on  Fri Jul 01, 2005  at  06:59 PM
this stuff works, there is a loop hole in the law that states number plates need to be legible to read, and of a correct standard, it does not specify they need to be photogenic. Its very good stuff,
Posted by Jamie  in  Boston  on  Sun Aug 07, 2005  at  03:05 PM
Hey everyone, maybe we should focus our energy on the culprit here, the actual speed and red light cameras.

What do these things do?

Make money for the county and make police lazier

That is unacceptable

What if I run a red light and I get my cars pic taken etc. but meanwhile I run the next red light and kill someone?

If there was an actual human being to pull me over and issue a ticket, it would have a much greater effect than me having a ticket sent to me or whoever owned the car i was driving two weeks after the fact.

An awful system that needs to be abolished, as it has in some places.

Dont mean to sound like a sci fi nerd, but dont let modern technology pwn you!!! Rise up, we are humans, not fucking cattle being herded thru life.

Im sick of paying taxes to police that fund these projects. I shouldnt have to pay to get raped by the government.
Posted by FCUKTHAPOLICE  on  Wed Aug 31, 2005  at  01:51 AM
I read through all of these comments and let me tell you--IT DOESNT WORK.
Luckily all four of the tickets I received in Washington, DC, at different locations happened during DC's "warning" period.
My solution has been to reroute my travel path and I dont have to worry about their stupid cameras, although I do agree with the last poster. Unless an officer pulls me over and I sign for a ticket, it should not count. Police need to get off of their lazy behinds and do some real work. If these cameras were allowing officers to focus on higher priority work, I might be able to see this automatic speed patroling, however, it doesnt. These lazy idiots in DC still have a ridiculous crime rate, you still see them sitting in their cars talking on cell phones and not doing a darn thing!
I.D.W.
Posted by It Doesnt Work  in  Washington DC  on  Sun Sep 04, 2005  at  08:34 AM
Where do I purchase photo block in Australia? Prefer not to give my credit card over the net.

Thanks
Posted by Klaus Tamm  in  Canberra, Australia  on  Wed Nov 30, 2005  at  07:56 PM
i am a visitor to this site who came here after doing a search for "Photoblocker" and it's quite silly that some people here are so intent to prove that this thing does not work whilst there are so many who have actually used it and have shared from personal experience that it does indeed work. The person(s) that is arguing that it is a hoax probably never even tried out the product and (for some strange reason) is asserting that it does not work. i have not tried the product so i won't comment on whether it works or it doesn't. it is annoying when a person mouths off without having personally tested or tried something. it shows the person to be a fool and an insecure one at that, no matter how eloquent his/her arguments.
these are the opinionated ones that you meet on occasion who enjoy a verbal sparring, and who think that their well-constructed reasoning is based on justifiable reasons and pure motives, while they fail to recognize that their need to do all this stems from a deep need to compensate for some inner insecurity.
they are driven (and even revell in the "challenge" of every conflicting opinion, no matter how objective nor experiential), and they will argue to the very end.

whoever is arguing against this product could very well be working with legislative bodies who are out to discredit or discourage use of this product... like the ones who infiltrate file-sharing sites and upload bogus files to disrupt and discourage new users from fully discovering the benefits of a broadband-integrated pirate life.

In any case, i was just looking for more info about this product and (because it is unavailable in my country) i was thinking of importing it.

i just had to say something after seeing this back and forth of assertions, and noting the ridiculous posturing from certain person(s) who are so doggedly commenting on something that they have not even had firsthand experience with!

i am gonna go look through the rest of the "results" of my search.

goodbye.

Lee Wong Heng, Kelvin
Singapore
Dec 7, 2005
Posted by Kelvin  in  Singapore  on  Mon Dec 12, 2005  at  08:03 AM
Kelvin said:

"i am a visitor to this site who came here after doing a search for "Photoblocker" and it's quite silly that some people here are so intent to prove that this thing does not work whilst there are so many who have actually used it and have shared from personal experience that it does indeed work."

Well, Kelvin, I'm one of the people here who hasn't used the product but has said that it doesn't work. If you read the early postings, you'd see that I referenced a wholesaler of the stuff here in Oregon who said on the local Fox TV affiliate's news show (KPTV, Portland) that the stuff doesn't work. I have no idea why a person who was selling it would admit such a thing but I saw him say it with my own eyes.

Should I disregard a statement of a man who actually SELLS the stuff to the effect that the product is worthless?

You (understandably) want to believe that the product works because you want to make money by selling it. I have no dog in this fight, as it were; I'm just telling you what a distributor of the stuff admitted to on television.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Dec 12, 2005  at  04:20 PM
well the stuff does work so well it is now banned in NY. here is the link to The New York Post .
read it and email the editor if you like It is a PDF

http://photoblockercanada.com/Graphics/nypost_collage.gif
Posted by Andy  in  Nw York  on  Sat Mar 04, 2006  at  12:24 AM
There's a big problem with stealthing a car--much of the stealthing comes merely from the shape. Make your car up to look like a F-117 and you won't even need radar absorbing paint. I think you'll have a big problem with the various lights the law requires a car to have, though.
Posted by Loren  in  Las Vegas, Nevada  on  Sun May 14, 2006  at  10:47 PM
I'd heard a lot about photoblocker spray in the U.K. and even read some good stuff about the product on The Mail. Those who live or have lived in the U.K. will tell you that London is basically a 'camera city'. But guess what? I didn't get a single ticket until I moved to America. What pissed me off was that I know the light was yellow not red! I am thankful for the manufacturer of photoblocker spray >>2nd year and no ticket. My crazy bro tried it out and got flashed (he'd agreed to pay if sent a ticket..even after reading all good stuff, I was sceptical)and I am glad to say it works! After that, I got flashed once (again, it was yellow)but this time the last laugh was mine..No Ticket!
Posted by nidia  on  Mon Sep 25, 2006  at  12:43 AM
Hey, nidia, I hope you realize that your personal experience in no way constitutes evidence that the stuff actually works.

Consider: you drove for some time and didn't get a ticket. Then you got one, so you put some spray on your license plate. Then you didn't get any more tickets. You credit the spray with not getting any tickets from that point on. Um, you didn't get any for years BEFORE you put the spray on, also. See my point?

Anyway, here's my question for all you folks who think that the spray works. How can anything make a license plate invisible to a camera even though it remains perfectly VISIBLE to the naked eye?

If you think it has something to do with angle, go get a license plate, put some spray on it, then view it and photograph it from different angles, like from the top of a ladder, to simulate where a camera might be placed. This really isn't a hard experiment to perform--or do you not want to really know if the spray works or not?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Sep 25, 2006  at  03:44 AM
Alex,
Read it again...I say it works not just because I didn't get a ticket after I used photoblocker spray but BECAUSE I got flashed by the camera twice (once when I drove through a yellow light, and once when my brother decided to test the product and we did see the flash but no ticket!) Actually, my bro's test is an evidence that these cameras are there for revenue purpose and not safety. All he did was make a legal right turn on red. I believe the money spent on installing cameras can be better spent on recruiting more cops. I'm sure no cop would've given me a ticket for driving through a yellow light!

Are you saying it doesn't work just because it is visible to the naked eye? hahha..technology, baby! Also, I saw many tests done by different news media such as Fox news on the manufacturers' website...not to mention The Mail, my fav. and reliable newspaper in London. They all said it works. check it out..I bought it from photoblocker.com All I know is that I had two flashes and no ticket! B.T.W. Say I got a ticket now, I only paid $30.00 for the spray....don't you think it has already paid for itslef by saving me that one ticket I got flashed for??
Posted by nidia  on  Mon Sep 25, 2006  at  11:33 AM
nidia said:

"Alex,
Read it again...I say it works not just because I didn't get a ticket after I used photoblocker spray but BECAUSE I got flashed by the camera twice (once when I drove through a yellow light, and once when my brother decided to test the product and we did see the flash but no ticket!)"

For starters, I'm not Alex. No harm, though. Anyway, the fact that you happened not to get a ticket after you used the spray does NOT prove that the stuff works.

I'll ask you again: how is it possible for the spray to block a CAMERA from seeing your license plate but not block your EYE from seeing it? I'll mention again what I personally witnessed some time back: a guy who sells the stuff who admitted on KPTV, channel 12 in Portland, OR that it doesn't work.

"Actually, my bro's test is an evidence that these cameras are there for revenue purpose and not safety. All he did was make a legal right turn on red. I believe the money spent on installing cameras can be better spent on recruiting more cops. I'm sure no cop would've given me a ticket for driving through a yellow light!"

Well, you and I are in agreement that the traffic cameras are there to raise revenue as opposed to safety.

"Are you saying it doesn't work just because it is visible to the naked eye? hahha..technology, baby!"

What technology are you referring to? If light reflected off a surface can be seen by the human eye, it can be seen by a camera. I'm not aware of any "technology" that can change that simple fact. Are you?

"All I know is that I had two flashes and no ticket!"

Boy, I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard someuse that logic to justify the unjustifiable.

"B.T.W. Say I got a ticket now, I only paid $30.00 for the spray....don't you think it has already paid for itslef by saving me that one ticket I got flashed for??"

Yes, it would be worth it if it worked, but I'm far from convinced that it does.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Sep 25, 2006  at  02:09 PM
Alex,

This is what I got from the website. If it doesn't work for you, all I can say is you or your car plate must be special:)

The latest independent test

Video Minneapolis , Minnesota

http://www.phantomplate.com/kare/kare.html
Posted by nidia  on  Mon Sep 25, 2006  at  10:42 PM
nidia said:

"Alex,

This is what I got from the website. If it doesn't work for you, all I can say is you or your car plate must be special."

OK, again, I'M NOT ALEX! No harm, no foul, but I DID tell you that once already.

I'll ask you again: how is it possible for a spray to change the physical nature of light waves so that they are visible to the human eye but NOT visible to a camera? Please don't tell me it's some kind of special super-magical technology. Tell me WHAT kind of special super-magical technology it is, if you can. I don't believe that there is any such substance that can do that under normal real world conditions. We know that the plates must be visible to the human eye or the police would be pulling users of the spray over all the time for not having legible plates.

Generally speaking, if you can see it, you can photograph it. As I've also said recently, if you think it has something to do with the angle at which the camera is observing the license plate, why don't you just get a ladder and try to duplicate it? I'm guessing that you'll see (and photograph) the license plate just fine.

Before you suggest that *I* conduct this test instead of you, let me point out that YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on YOU. The seeming physical impossibility of what is claimed for the spray combined with my having seen a guy who sells it saying on TV that the stuff doesn't work causes me to call "bullshit" on this one.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Sep 26, 2006  at  03:18 AM
Geeze Alex, you're not getting just a wee bit Cranky now, are you?
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Tue Sep 26, 2006  at  10:25 AM
Cranky media guy,
sorry, I see alex is the moderator who sends the notification e-mails. Anyways, before u get real cranky, I went to the website to copy 'how it works'. I think they should pay me! here it is:

How does PhotoBlocker Spray work?
A majority of red light & speed cameras utilize a strong flash to photograph the license plate on your car. Once sprayed on your license plate, PhotoBlocker
Posted by nidia  on  Tue Sep 26, 2006  at  10:48 AM
nidia quoted:

"Once sprayed on your license plate, PhotoBlocker
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Sep 26, 2006  at  04:08 PM
Cranky media,
I hope you are not as skeptical about matters in life!
From what I understand, the red light cameras utilize a STRONG FLASH...that's why some ppl try it with ordinary cameras and cry 'it doesn't workkk!' There were cases, I saw it on TV, (don't remember what station it was)where it even worked with some cameras. In those cases, I believe those particular cameras must have flash as strong, or at least nearly as strong, as that of red light and speed cameras. Believe me, I had to bombard them with questions and check all the links with Tv recordings about photoblocker spray before I let go of my $29.99. That was one of the best products I have bought. If you are still not convinced, wait until I sell my car and I'll give you my plates (you know that once you spray it, the spray works for life...not a bad deal..huh?) Anyway, I'll post you a link for the Tv recordings if I can get one.
Posted by nidia  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  01:58 AM
nidia said:

"Cranky media,
I hope you are not as skeptical about matters in life!"

Actually, yes, I AM that skeptical about matters in life. Unfortunately, there are many people who want to separate you from your money via various means.

"From what I understand, the red light cameras utilize a STRONG FLASH...that's why some ppl try it with ordinary cameras and cry 'it doesn't workkk!"

That seems dubious to me. How strong could the traffic camera flashes be? Also, remember that traffic cameras operate during daylight hours as well. The flash wouldn't be much of a factor (or not a factor at all) during daylight, right? So the spray shouldn't make any difference when the sun is out at all. Any spray that could block a camera during daylight would also keep the human eye from seeing the license plate, which would get you a fine, also.

I'm just not buying this whole thing (but I've said that before, haven't I?)
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  02:57 AM
400 Watts power 'camera flash' is the minimum needed threshold for PB to work, anything under this will cause the spray to become ineffective. And even Pro camera flash setups don't go anywhere near that high hence so many web sites showing PB 'not' working.
Posted by John Kirkham  in  Adelaide, Australia  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  04:11 AM
A quick Googling brings up several reports of wattage used in flashes with red-light-cameras.

According to this PDF (admittedly very localised in coverage) of all the wattages listed, only one wasn't using a 250 watt flash, but rather a 500 watt flash. Other reports and sites support the idea that most flash bulbs used seem to be far less than the 400 watt minimum needed to trigger Photoblocker. And that's only for those cameras that that use a visible flash. Many use an infrared flash to avoid blinding drivers, which might still be blocked. I haven't bothered to check their claims.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  10:38 AM
So photo blocking sprays only work at night? Traffic cameras don't produce any tickets during the daylight hours?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  04:04 PM
I don't see how the spray would work during the day. The camera shouldn't trigger, and even if it did the reflection couldn't be any brighter than other reflected light.
Posted by Charybdis  in  Hell  on  Wed Sep 27, 2006  at  06:17 PM
Comments: Page 3 of 8 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.