[HN Gopher] Wearable Microphone Jamming
___________________________________________________________________
Wearable Microphone Jamming
Author : graderjs
Score : 308 points
Date : 2021-10-16 05:20 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu)
| buzzwords wrote:
| Interesting trial. But I'm sure there will be techniques to clean
| the noise out.
| pzo wrote:
| I'm wondering too. I had a glimpse at a paper and it seems it
| works because even though ultrasound is "inaudible to humans,
| still leaks into the recorded speech due to non-linear
| amplification of the microphone's circuit". The chart thought
| shows the leakage has small dB (-20) in audible spectrum.
|
| Too bad researches didn't leave any samples of recording in the
| repo. Curious how it would be effective after: 1) filtering
| frequencies to 0-16kHz 2) getting 1-2sec sample duration of
| noise profile while nobody speaks and using noise reduction
| filter from audacity
| grandinj wrote:
| lots of circuits will fold higher frequencies down into lower
| frequencies (but at lower energy).
|
| If you can generate enough energy, you can push enough energy
| into other circuits that they saturate (reach the end of
| their working range) and will output noise.
| Johnythree wrote:
| Non-linear circuits lots of circuits will fold higher
| frequencies down into lower frequencies
| grandinj wrote:
| Pretty much most circuits are non-linear, for real-world
| circuits "linear" just means "linear within normal
| operating range"
| lvturner wrote:
| Download the audio from the YouTube video at the top of the
| page - it has a sample in it
| snovv_crash wrote:
| The idea is that the analogue components are saturated
| already so there's no available margin for the lower
| frequencies to further actuate the diaphragm or amplifier.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| >It prevents [...] our camera from eavesdropping on the
| conversation
|
| How does it prevent the camera from filming speakers' lip
| movements?
| justshowpost wrote:
| > * denotes equal contribution
|
| Wow, this otherwise typical four-student team was that equity-
| stuffed to maintain some level of equal outcome.
|
| But... they completely forgot what emitting loud noise is
| illegal.
| Zenst wrote:
| Fascinating and I like how cheap it can be made - those
| ultrasonic emitters are right of a HC-SR04 by looks of it and
| those are cheap as (got half dozen for PS1 each few months back).
|
| I did start a project to jam gopro's (audio and visual recording)
| - was combination of IRDA emitters and resonance inducing the
| housing - but this is less niche and focused. My design was to
| use a hat with sensor emitters attached. Though canned progress
| after friend asked if it could disable a police body-cam, of
| which I said no and yet it probably would and morally weighed up
| the pro's and con's and canned that.
| ris wrote:
| Are they not able to just use phase shifts and beamforming on the
| transducer array instead of the odd keep-moving-your-bracelet
| design?
| pepoluan wrote:
| The case would be if someone is recording you with a microphone
| placed somewhere unknown in the room. With the bracelet, and
| humans' tendency to move their arms while speaking, microphones
| around the room will be jammed at least part of the time.
| ris wrote:
| But you could surely just randomly vary the beamforming to
| get the same effect, right?
| Raidion wrote:
| Beam still has to be in the direction of the mic, which
| wouldn't help if your body is blocking most of the direct
| waves. You get some scattering, sure, but I think
| ultrasonic is pretty absorbable, right?
| antattack wrote:
| Now we know a possible cause of the Havana Syndrome...microphone
| jamming.
| jataget wrote:
| No person shall make, continue, or cause to be made or continued
| any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either
| annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose,
| health, peace, or safety of others, within the limits of the
| city.
|
| For more information, visit the "Noise Pollution" section of the
| City of Dayton's Municipal Code website.
| Goety wrote:
| How quickly are they going to go commercial with this?
| soylentnewsorg wrote:
| No one is going to buy this. It doesn't jam your voice at all.
| It introduces enough distortion and noise so that computer
| speech recognition software gets 4/5 words wrong.
|
| Let me make a comparison. Claim: Those capchas with "type in
| the word you see" have an error rate of 4/5 letters when read
| by a computer. Yet here we are, humans, reading them just fine.
|
| Now, if you're a conspiracy theory fake elected moon landing
| virus hoax person who is afraid of the government having
| microphones everywhere, running a keyword search on microphones
| placed around the park.... Still not a jammer - I'm sure
| whatever voice recognition software this thing confuses, the
| government has much better ones. Simply from the fact that most
| of the people they're interested in have accents so thick it's
| worse than some added "jammer" noise.
|
| But to answer your question, "sounds" like they're trying to go
| commercial soon, because their announcement of this dirt simple
| product sounds like a cheap advertisement for some dick
| enlarging pills. meanwhile, your phone speaker can make sonic
| sounds since they support a sample rate of over 44khz. So can
| your computer.
|
| here you go. you can google and download some files to play
| too.
| https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/audioJammerNoiseGenerator....
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| > Yet here we are, humans, reading them just fine.
|
| I've met a lot of captchas that I couldn't reliably solve. I
| guess that proves I'm a robot.
| oakfr wrote:
| Same here. My guess is that they constantly AB test/explore
| captchas to push the envelope of genuine humans users in
| order to make it as hard as possible for the bots.
| midasuni wrote:
| I'm not worried about the government spying on my
| individually, the resources to fight that would be impossible
|
| I am worried about large companies spying on me en mass (and
| selling or leaking that information). That requires
| automation (voice/face recognition), it's also reality, not a
| conspiracy theory, alas I do see it as inevitable and there
| only so much you can do to fight it.
| red0point wrote:
| So what is the effect in the first part of the video on the
| website then? Are you saying they've faked it?
| Johnythree wrote:
| It just relies on cheap microphones being fairly non-
| linear.
|
| A quality microphone, with a decent low-pass-filter would
| be immune to this kind of hack.
|
| Think about it, why aren't our ears affected?
| soylentnewsorg wrote:
| > why aren't our ears affected
|
| they're affected listening to the raw microphone capture.
| that's because the noise generated is much louder than
| the speech. so listening to raw microphone capture with
| this thing on, you can't make out words at all - just a
| few syllables here and there. the key is that the full
| voice signal is still captured by the microphone. you
| then filter out the additional noise (your conference
| software and laptop microphone does that at a shitty
| level, rtx voice is the top consumer product for this).
| once the noise is gone, you have only the original voice.
| due to the filtering, the original voice is very lightly
| garbled, which is enough to confuse voice recognition
| software, not your ears.
|
| notice how they're using voice recognition to measure
| success? that's misleading and on purpose. if they used a
| person to see if this product is effective, the result
| would be - the product is literally nothing but a loud
| noisemaker which in zero ways does what it says it does.
|
| now, I don't have an rtx. if you want to screw around,
| here's a very shitty two megabyte software version of
| what rtx voice does, it's open source and just a couple
| of meg. https://antlionaudio.com/blogs/news/free-active-
| noise-suppre...
|
| a low pass filter, or a nice microphone would not help
| you at all here - the white noise is in the vocal range
| and no simple frequency filter is going to remove it.
| their product makes ultrasonic noise, which (probably due
| to microphone resonance) makes the mic vibrate in the
| audible range. again, not affecting the original voice
| signal, so it's loud white noise overlaid on top of the
| voice.
|
| it does seem putting something in front of the mic that
| absorbs ultrasonic frequency but not lower voice
| frequencies works well to block this. which is why the
| thin plastic waterproofing film over the phone microphone
| completely blocks this product - no noise removal filter
| needed.
|
| So literally any smartphone with water resistance
| bypasses this thing and records fine. for the rest, just
| run a noise removal filter on the recording and listen to
| it. for governments, I'm sure their spy mics are
| waterproof and immune, and if not, their voice
| recognition is better than whatever consumer tech these
| guys tested it on.
| soylentnewsorg wrote:
| No, I'm saying that does literally nothing but add noise.
| It does not block or change the original signal in any
| significant way for human ears - only for consumer-level
| voice recognition software. Which is extremely crappy even
| without noise for anything more complex than "hey google
| play some ads in the middle of this song."
|
| Once you take the noise out, the voice recognition software
| has problems recognizing the words. People do not. You can
| take the noise out at home with lots of different software
| or hardware. Skype/teams/zoom do this on a very basic level
| by default - as do most microphone audio drivers in
| windows. Once it's taken out, distortion from the noise is
| just enough to make the voice recognition miss a bunch of
| words. Human ears do just fine though.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3zdGza5zeI
| jtbayly wrote:
| There is a short sample of audio in the YouTube link.
| Your video is not even remotely similar in sound. If you
| could take the audio from the original and extract easy
| (for humans) to understand speaking, your confidence that
| this won't work would be obviously justified. But so far
| you don't appear to have even understood how the device
| works.
| soylentnewsorg wrote:
| The device literally generates white noise. It's clearly
| stated in the article. It adds a white noise track on top
| of the existing sound. It does not change the original
| vocal track - it just lays noise on top of that.
|
| Are you telling me that the white noise in their link is
| dissimilar to the sound of the train blowing air into the
| microphone? You have to be kidding me - did you even
| watch the rtx video? Click some others too. It filters
| lawnmowers and all kinds of stuff.
|
| > Your video is not even remotely similar in sound. uh-
| uh. sure. sorry buddy, not going to bother having this
| conversation with a deaf person.
| Fnoord wrote:
| This is great for meetings. Don't have to ask everyone to put
| their smartphone off. Just be in a private room without
| cameras (against lipsync and other private details leaking
| such as notes).
|
| Re: Your computer/phone can make noise. They use an Arduino
| to power this thing, and it manages to block with natural
| body movement.
|
| I'm pretty sure this is going to ruin ANC headsets too
| though.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I've seen such devices openly sold years ago, and heard of them
| probably a decade ago (meaning you could buy them well before
| that if you had the right contacts, but unless either spying or
| preventing it is your job, you wouldn't have those).
| chrischen wrote:
| I can see the next paper being extracting jammed audio signals
| using deep learning.
| josephh wrote:
| Interesting to note that someone opened an issue in the linked
| GitHub repo mentioning that the system doesn't work with iPhone 8
| and above:
|
| https://github.com/y-x-c/wearable-microphone-jamming/issues/...
|
| edit: Looks like (from the reply) it's the waterproofing membrane
| over mic that's rendering the jammer useless.
| Zenst wrote:
| That may well be fixable, case of what is the resonant
| frequency of the water protection an tuning this to induce
| resonance to overload the sensor - may well work. Though
| inducing resonance in the glass screen may well achieve the
| results.
|
| I'd also be interested in testing this with contact mics as
| from my experiences - this may not work upon those at all.
| Semiapies wrote:
| So, if you're recording a cop in the next few years, make sure
| to use a waterproof phone.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Police wont't generally use something like this as it would
| interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > it would interfere with bodycam which includes a
| microphone.
|
| That's the point. Many cops do not like the fact that the
| bodycam also records them to a degree. At least the ones
| getting caught planting drugs in stopped cars or
| mistreating people because they forgot about the cam.
| ohazi wrote:
| That would likely be seen as a feature
| oreilles wrote:
| That is unless they use waterproof body cam.
| worik wrote:
| How sweet!
| sitic wrote:
| "Police officers in Beverly Hills have been playing music
| while being filmed, seemingly in an effort to trigger
| Instagram's copyright filters."
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvxb94/is-this-beverly-
| hills...
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Apparently numerous jurisdictions.
|
| Alamdeda County, California:
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/of
| fic...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28546242
| FractalParadigm wrote:
| What I find ironic, is the police are doing a copyright
| infringement (unauthorized public performance of these
| songs) in order to infringe on citizens' rights. Why are
| record companies not more pissed about this?
| concordDance wrote:
| It's not performance as there's the lack of intent to
| have others hear it and few will. You can play music for
| yourself in public even if others overhear.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Doesn't playing a song with the explicit intention of
| having it be recorded count as having intent to perform?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's really curious in this case though, the intent is
| for the music to trigger automated software that prevents
| performance. Hard to classify that as 'intent to perform'
| especially with USA's Fair Use.
|
| My understanding is in UK causing a recording to be made
| (whether viewed or not) would be infringing. We have Fair
| Dealing but it's extremely restrictive compared to Fair
| Use.
|
| _Just my personal, private opinion._
| Tenoke wrote:
| Because they don't lose money over it the way they do
| over other types of unauthorized public performances.
| _jal wrote:
| I think I'd phrase that a bit differently.
|
| Extracting cash by threatening mom and pop restaurants
| for playing the radio is old hat, nobody cares.
|
| Threatening cops over it is going to attract attention.
| jMyles wrote:
| Does it suggest that system of IP is genuinely designed
| and deployed to protect art? Or capricious exercise of
| state power?
| randombits0 wrote:
| I will double down with, no, the system of IP is not
| intended to protect art. The whole concept of IP is
| antithetical to the intent of copyright.
|
| "Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States
| Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power "To
| promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
| securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
| exclusive right to their respective writings and
| discoveries.""
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_cla
| use
| labcomputer wrote:
| Because it doesn't have any impact on sales, and the
| executives of those companies don't want to pick a fight
| with the local police (who could practically, if not
| legally, retaliate though various means)
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| Why can't instagram distinguish between a public
| performance vs a cop playing music. Should be pretty easy
| to do.
| spicybright wrote:
| Doubt it. Copyright violation detected is fully automated
| for the most part, and very good at detection regardless
| of background noise.
|
| You would need a human viewing footage and listening for
| every single post to determine this.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| The challenge is determining between music playing in the
| background of a real-life arrest, vs the same for a
| fictional arrest where they would want to claim copyright
| usage fees.
|
| That's a hard job for most people, nevermind an automated
| system where the copyright holder doesn't care about
| false positives.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The cops are not trying to post their footage to the
| socials. They want you to not be able to do it. If they
| need their footage, it's to prove you were being an
| asshat and deserved whatever happened to you. If you need
| their footage, it'll mysteriously not be available for
| some technical or clerical error.
| Fnoord wrote:
| Its to provide a PoV from the police officer, yes.
| Because the PoV of the other side (whatever it might be)
| may omit details, or could've been tampered with. You're
| right that it is in the interest of the police (in
| general, not necessarily the police officer), but if
| details like sound are not available that only hurts
| their case.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > if details like sound are not available that only hurts
| their case.
|
| Unless the cop is saying things they shouldn't be saying.
| I think you are missing the point of the comment you are
| replying to. They are saying that cops only use that
| footage when it benefits them (that's assuming the
| footage exists and they didn't "forget to turn on their
| camera") and when it doesn't benefit them then they won't
| release it or the footage might get "lost". Also the
| police have been known to edit or post misleading footage
| to their own gain.
| Fnoord wrote:
| 'Their own gain', the police work for the public
| interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with
| your police force.
|
| I get such point is popular with people who are cynical
| to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism
| in USA.
|
| Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and
| when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute
| before the cop pushed the button as well, for context.
|
| The police are not allowed to tamper with evidence in a
| court of law. Nowhere in the world is this allowed.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > 'Their own gain', the police work for the public
| interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with
| your police force.
|
| I agree. Something is very wrong with our police force.
| Also, it might not be allowed anywhere in the world but
| it absolutely happens in most of not all places (police
| getting away with tampering with evidence).
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why depend on their footage? We need to record them
| ourselves. Counter their surveillance with our own
| sousveillance.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's almost like you missed the point. The cops are
| playing music because someone else is recording them.
| That is the counter surveillance.
| speedybird wrote:
| Copyrighted music won't prevent video of cops breaking
| the law from being used in court, so don't let that
| tactic dissuade you from recording the police.
| hulitu wrote:
| In many countries this is unauthorised broadcasting.
| malka wrote:
| That is exactly why they would use something like this.
| justshowpost wrote:
| Maybe just don't commit street crimes.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| This is very problematic to our democracy comrade, and
| borderline racist.
| Zenst wrote:
| You may find a small bit of capstan tape over the mic will,
| whilst reduce the mic's sensitivity a little - equally
| achieve the same results against this.
| triactual wrote:
| *Kapton tape, presumably. A capstan is an interesting thing
| though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capstan_(nautical)
| zoomablemind wrote:
| Slightly more recent reference to capstan use is in the
| context of cassette players/recorders. Same idea, a
| driven ridged head pulling the tape [1].
|
| [1]:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_transport#Capstan
| Zenst wrote:
| yes, thank you for clarifying and dispelling the
| confusion my spelling opps did there.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Say goodbye to your cat...nevertheless, it could be a useful
| device under certain circumstances.
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| Wouldn't it be easy to build a microphone that was immune to
| this? Up to now, there was little need to do so.
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| I wonder how portable these could be made to use when visiting
| someone who owns an Amazon Alexa device?
| 0xdeadb00f wrote:
| This is surprisingly simple tech!
|
| Those signal emitters look very similar to ultrasonic distance
| measuring modules you can get at component/DIY shops.
| egberts1 wrote:
| As a long-time hearing aid wearer, I too notice the absence of
| background noise whenever I flipped on my ultrasonic transducers
| ... back in 1976.
| franky47 wrote:
| I wonder how sensitive dogs would be to such a jamming system.
| severino wrote:
| So this system would serve two purposes and not just one.
| franky47 wrote:
| It's more that the jammer could easily be detected by a
| change of pet behaviour.
| afarviral wrote:
| At a guess, they wouldn't notice the sound after identifying it
| as not requiring their attention. They have very pronounced
| adaptive habituation to our noises.
| samstave wrote:
| Can confirm. Building a large metal qwanzit-hut and pounding
| and drilling etc, and the dogs were unphased.
| malwarebytess wrote:
| Dogs can perhaps hear up to 45,000hz. This emits tones within
| that range.
|
| Article says at 1 meter the sound is mostly less than 70dB and
| less than 80dB in hot spots.
|
| So probably not too bad unless I'm missing something.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| 70-80dB is really very audible. I'd imagine much worse for
| dogs given how sensitive their hearing is.
|
| edit: Must confess I'd not thought of the potential effect of
| the device on animals.
| [deleted]
| Johnythree wrote:
| > 70-80dB is really very audible.
|
| Not at ultrasonic frequencies it isn't (eg at 45KHz)
|
| Plus unless it's dbm (or similar) the statement is
| meaningless.
| afro88 wrote:
| I wonder if a de-jammer ML model could be built to restore the
| original audio?
| foreigner wrote:
| It's illegal for movie theaters to jam cell phones. If this
| actually works and becomes popular, I don't imagine it would take
| too long before this became illegal too.
| Zenst wrote:
| It is Illegal to jam the phone signal in case of emergencies
| AFAIK. Not aware of it being illegal to jam recording devices
| in such an environment in which they do outline (somewhere) no
| recording allowed in the theatre.
|
| Audio is an odd thing in law - in the UK I can record many
| things audio more than you would legaly be allowed to video.
|
| But privacy laws are the ones that curtail video recordings
| mostly and with that - this kinda sits on the other side of the
| fence.
|
| However - public nuisance may prove an area and pets may well
| dislike this, so if anything it may be classed as an assault
| upon an animal. Depending upon the impact upon animals like
| dogs.
|
| So my main concern would be public area's with people using
| guide dogs - will this cause the dog distress and what would be
| the impact.
|
| So I'd imagine already laws that may see this fall foul of -
| but like many things it will be how it is used and not
| ownership.
| vdfs wrote:
| jamming recording devices will make phones useless for
| emergencies, no one can hear you
| Zenst wrote:
| Sound levels in movie complex's - you would struggle anyhow
| and why people leave to the foyer or toilets to make calls
| when movie playing.
| dtgriscom wrote:
| It is illegal to jam a cell phone's EM signals, and it isn't
| because of the jamming's effects on the specific phones, but
| because of the jammer's unauthorized transmissions in regulated
| radio frequencies. The FCC takes their job fairly seriously,
| especially when someone makes a product that is designed to
| break their regulations. But, the FCC has no jurisdiction over
| sound.
| visskiss wrote:
| That is awesome e
| gillytech wrote:
| It's a great idea and I would be interested in something like
| this for myself. Except they would need to figure out how to
| reduce the size of that device. It's technically wearable but
| still quite huge.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| How about camera jamming with UV (for example, on your car's
| license plate)?
|
| I imagine this has been discussed on HN before (if so, just send
| me the link),
| ruined wrote:
| that could be defeated with a simple UV filter over the camera
| lens, likely already in place
|
| ir camera jamming is doable and well-known enough to appear in
| media like crime dramas
|
| none of it is very practical because you're still extremely
| identifiable as "that one with all the lights" and presumably
| still visible in the visible spectrum
|
| when police jam cameras at protests they just use bright
| visible strobes
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| Glass and plastic typically used in camera lenses already
| blocks UV. Enough UV to upset a camera would be enough to
| give you cataracts.
|
| Infrared is a different story but most cameras have IR
| filters. Security cameras sometimes have one that only drops
| in during the day to enable daytime color and nighttime IR.
| mcbits wrote:
| > when police jam cameras at protests they just use bright
| visible strobes
|
| Ironically then the story just goes from "here police are
| brutalizing the people protesting brutality" to "and also
| being childish with their flashlights." Bright lights aren't
| nearly as blinding to large-sensor cameras with good lenses
| as they are to cheap cell phone cameras.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why not active countermeasures? Camera detection device coupled
| with lasers.
| ibaikov wrote:
| It's harmful to constantly hear sound, I wonder if it's our
| perception that makes it harmful even if we don't realize that we
| hear something? Is it harmful to hear sound threats outside of
| our range? Is it harmful to constantly use active noise
| cancelling?
| 4k4ndr wrote:
| I am curious about ANC as well. I used to wear headphones with
| ANC 8h+ a day and started to hear noise in my ear.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I don't see why that would happen. ANC plays an inverted
| signal to counter noises. It's not just perception that it
| makes sound quieter. When the original sound wave and counter
| sound wave collide they physically cancel out.
| haneefmubarak wrote:
| If im understanding GP correctly, I think what's happening
| for them is that the extended quiet daily makes their
| hearing a bit more sensitive (as their brain and ears work
| in tandem to amplify the sound and be more receptive to it,
| respectively). Now when they take off the headphones, since
| their hearing is more sensitive, they pick up more of the
| actual background noise that exists around them.
| aemreunal wrote:
| > It's harmful to constantly hear sound, [...]
|
| Hmm I'm not so sure about that; do you have any source for
| that? My intuition says that it's nigh impossible to find
| completely quiet places in daily life; there's always some
| noise, though it could be imperceptably quiet.
|
| If constant sound is harmful, I'd imagine we'd all have lost
| our hearing by now. I reckon any harm woulc come from volume,
| not just simple presence.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| > If constant sound is harmful, I'd imagine we'd all have
| lost our hearing by now. I reckon any harm woulc come from
| volume, not just simple presence.
|
| That's assuming it's physically harmful (to the ears). If it
| were instead mentally harmful, what you would expect is for
| the incidence of mental illness to increase as life got
| noisier and noisier (with a lag, of course, assuming this
| effect takes an appreciable amount of time).
| phantomathkg wrote:
| > It's harmful to constantly hear sound
|
| Are we saying our brain is not processing sound while we sleep?
| Ain't we hearing sound 24/7?
| kgarten wrote:
| Cool research. Given that you are also jamming hearing aids and
| other microphones, don't think it's practical to be used in real
| life.
|
| Off topic: check out Pedro's other work http://plopes.org/
|
| Definitely thought provoking research :)
| jataget wrote:
| Given such brute approach to microphones, I almost expected to
| see _new pipe bomb design_ there.
| nine_k wrote:
| Depends of what real life scenario is.
|
| A cafe, maybe not. A meeting room, likely yes. There at least
| you can declare that a hearing aid is used. The very point of
| the device is to jam other microphones.
|
| Not going to last very long, though; ultrasound filters will
| soon appear on all relevant gear, including mobile phones.
| spicybright wrote:
| If I have a relationship that gets me into a conference room
| with some people, I'm not going to run a fucking microphone
| jammer there.
|
| If I had someone in my conference room do that I would be
| extremely sketched out.
| novok wrote:
| It's not about the people they see in the room, it's about
| the people they don't see in the room.
| Zenst wrote:
| If that meeting room also has remote attendee's then that may
| well prove the issue.
|
| However with ultrasonic filters - you could cone of using
| this.
|
| Then such approaches have often been used like vibrating
| windows to curtail laser microphones and yes the trick of
| taping a vibrator to the window does work - though not in
| keeping with your boardroom aesthetics unless your Anne
| Summers or the like.
| samstave wrote:
| The microphone's worst enemy is the pencil.
|
| ((Just wait until some scrappy thesis describes how to
| determine character being written by pencil based on the
| vibrations of sound being made from the friction between a
| carbon based utensil and a paper pulp based medium such that
| the intended letters can be derived based on the length,
| count and direction of the audio signals derived from the
| sounds of the writing utensil against the medium.
| dmd wrote:
| Careful, Mordechai Guri can hear you!
| AlbertCory wrote:
| You know, that sounds like language from a patent
| application.
|
| I actually AM licensed as a patent agent, but I'm not
| practicing so I can't get you that patent.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Also that's now prior disclosure and could be cited
| against the patent application.
| holonsphere wrote:
| yeah, then the ad tech is just moving onto the next best
| thing. SDR.
| deeplearning0 wrote:
| I think the parent refers to if a hearing impaired person
| with hearing aid is present in the meeting room ...
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Not going to last very long, though; ultrasound filters
| will soon appear on all relevant gear, including mobile
| phones.
|
| Only if this technique actually gains widespread use. Even
| then, it will most likely only appear on gear that must still
| record, such as body cams. For consumer tech, this would just
| be additional costs, which the manufacturers are not going to
| bother with.
| dylan604 wrote:
| To test the hearing aid, just walk into your local cafeteria at
| around 2pm (aka dinner rush), and see how many people start
| reaching for their ears.
| osobo wrote:
| Cool studies. He sure came a way from his earlier "human
| component motion platform" (AKA "have your buddies lift and
| shake you while in VR")
| nray wrote:
| This is the research inspiring Naomi "Sexy Cyborg" Wu's wearable
| microphone jammer (a choker), see
| https://youtu.be/H1rozZ7ebxQ?t=111 and later on at
| https://youtu.be/H1rozZ7ebxQ?t=1319 for live testing out in
| public.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-16 23:01 UTC)