5 Mar
2013
5 Mar
'13
3:25 p.m.
This conversation reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1eUIK9CihA
-steve
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Heh, we're on the same track here, funny though it may seem. I have a
couple of other things up my sleeve...
First, I was just thinking (as you were sending your comment): envision
a hoodie with a hood that's big enough to cover two peoples' heads at
conversational distance. It would block cameras from reading their
faces & lips, and it would attenuate their conversation enough that
nearby casual mics couldn't pick it up. So in effect whoever's wearing
this can provide a "tent" for themselves and one other person to have a
private conversation while sitting in a public place. This wouldn't
block highly targeted mics, only casual ones nearby, but it's a start.
(Keep in mind that the New Surveillance Paradigm is not to spend
inordinate labor targeting anyone, but to use mass methods and
statistical probabilities to harvest everyone most of the time.)
Second, a device:
A small metal box with a hinged lid and built-in audio masking and RF
jamming of user-selectable bands inside the box. It might also have a
mic inside and a speaker outside. Put your mobile device in the box and
flip a couple of switches on the outside to select the mode of operation:
= Audio masked so the mobile device's microphones are saturated with
noise, but if you get an incoming call you'll hear it ring via the
external speaker on the box. This would be successful because the box
itself would also attenuate your voice outside of it: by analogy think
of sitting in a room with music playing and the door closed, while
someone has a conversation in the hallway. The closed door muffles
their conversation and all you hear is the music on your radio.
= GPS band jammed so the device can't stalk your whereabouts.
= Cellphone band jammed so the device can't talk to towers at all.
Thus if you can't take the battery out of the mobile device (Apple), you
can jam the hell out of it when you want privacy.
This could be turned into a "product" sold by SudoRoom or any of our
friendly electronics geeks. I'd bet there'd be pretty decent demand for
it.
Arguably it would not violate FCC regs about cellphone jamming if the
jamming signals were not detectable to any significant degree outside
the box. (And .gov would tip its hand if it argued that you're not even
allowed to jam cellphones within a few cubic inches of space inside a
metal box.)
-G.
=====
On 13-03-05-Tue 2:14 PM, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
-steve
meetings in underwater bubble domes! only heads
sticking above the
artificial waterline - now that's security! "fishsong
our walls"...
Mar 5, 2013 01:51:46 PM, anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net wrote:
Re. Rachel, "Or we could hold all of our meetings without devices,
in the fields and mountains, with birdsong our walls and the sky as
our roof."
YES. Good reminder and well-said. There are times and places where
it's liberating to not have any devices along. For example when
going for a swim.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-05-Tue 11:34 AM, rachel lyra
hospodar wrote:
What if everyone carried a device that captured what they were
saying and replayed it, layered along with other recordings of
their own voice?
Or we could hold all of our meetings without devices, in the
fields and mountains, with birdsong our walls and the sky as our
roof.
On Mar 5, 2013 11:22 AM, "Matthew D.
Howell" matthewdhowell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
@Rachel The state of the technology for recognizing and
separating
patterns in audio is advanced enough to overcome that sort of
thing.
Every person's voice has a distinct signature that can be
recognized.
I would venture a guess that some kind of encrypted digital
signal
transmission would be the best way to keep any sonic
communication
private in the most extreme of situations. (most interested
party with
the best technology at their disposal)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – >8
/V\ /-\ + + |–| ø \/\/ ∂ £ £;
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––;
Matthew D. Howell
misterinterrupt, tHe M4d swiTcH, the RuinMechanic
cell: (617)
755-1481
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––;
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM, rachel lyra hospodar
rachelyra(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net>
Wouldn't it need to be non-commercially
available music,
so they couldn't
just find the audio data of the track, invert its
wave,
and cancel it out of
the recording?
CACOPHONY FOR THE REVOLUTION!
mediumreality.com
On Mar 5, 2013 10:23 AM, "Steve Berl" steveberl(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> You could carry a boombox around playing loud music
where ever you
go.
> Perhaps this would be the end of earbuds.
:-)
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anthony Di Franco
di.franco(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> People have rendered surveillance cameras useless
with very
bright IR
>> LEDs in their fields of view.
>> Could something similar be done for sound
recording devices?
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2013 6:17 AM, "Anon195714" wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/gps-drug-dealer-retrial/
>>>
>>>
>>> Yo's-
>>>
>>> Something I forgot to add re. DARPA's desire
for
universal recording of
>>> face-to-face conversations.
>>>
>>> What's the ideal device for doing all that
recording?
>>>
>>> How'bout something you wear? How'bout
something
that "everyone" wears?,
>>> or even a significant fraction of
"everyone"?
>>>
>>> Like maybe Google Glasses.
>>>
>>> Always on, camera and mic always "connected"
to
"the cloud." Orwell's
>>> telescreen gone mobile.
>>>
>>> Everyone who wears them will become, in
effect, _unpaid
surveillance
>>> drones_ watching their family and
friends,
not from up in the sky, but
>>> from up close where every word can be
heard.
>>>
>>> Some will say "oh, there's no stopping
technology." People said that
>>> about the atomic bomb and the
hydrogen bomb.
But public outcry led
>>> first to treaties and then to
progressive
degrees of nuclear
>>> disarmament. We haven't used
that technology
since it was first used in
>>> WW2.
>>>
>>> We can stop pernicious tech if we choose. We
can refuse, we
can
>>> withdraw consent, we do not have to
press the
Buy button.
>>>
>>> Technology should liberate and empower
people.
"Conveniences with a few
>>> strings attached" are not
liberation, they're
puppet-strings.
>>>
>>> It's all about control: technology that you
can control,
vs. technology
>>> that can control you.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-03-05-Tue 1:50 AM, Anon195714 wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Yo's-
>>> >
>>> > This just in:
>>> >
>>> > "DARPA wants to make [voice
recognition/transcription] systems so
>>> > accurate, you’ll be able to
easily
record, transcribe and recall all
>>> > the
>>> > conversations you ever have. ... Imagine
living in a
world where every
>>> > errant utterance you make is
preserved
forever. ... DARPA [awarded
>>> > U.Texas comp sci researcher Matt
Lease]... $300,000... over two years
>>> > to
>>> > study the new project, called “Blending
Crowdsourcing
with Automation
>>> > for Fast, Cheap, and Accurate
Analysis
of Spontaneous Speech.”"
>>> >
>>> > "The idea is that business meetings or
even
conversations with your
>>> > friends and family could be
stored in
archives and easily searched.
>>> > The
>>> > stored recordings could be held in
servers, owned
either by
>>> > individuals
>>> > or their employers. ... The answer,
Lease says, is in
widespread use
>>> > of
>>> > recording technologies like smartphones,
cameras and
audio
>>> > recorders...
>>> > [A] memorandum from the Congressional
Research Service
described [an
>>> > earlier DARPA project of this
type known
as] EARS, as focusing on
>>> > speech
>>> > picked up from broadcasts and telephone
conversations,
“as well as
>>> > extract clues about the identity
of
speakers” for “the military,
>>> > intelligence and law enforcement
communities.”"
(Yes, "real
>>> > geeks
>>> > don't read Wired," but nonetheless its
news
pages are useful for
>>> > keeping
>>> > a finger on the pulse of Big Brother and
his corporate
Brethren.)
>>> >
>>> > In short:
>>> >
>>> > DARPA is researching the means by which
every
conversation you have,
>>> > in-person, whether at work or
with
family or friends, gets picked up
>>> > by
>>> > the mic in your smartphone or other
portable device,
and stored on a
>>> > server, where DARPA's
algorithms and
human editors turn all of it into
>>> > fast-searchable text, that could
be used
by your employer, the
>>> > military,
>>> > law enforcement, and intel agencies.
Presumably the
credit bureaus,
>>> > insurance companies, and
financial
institutions will want "in" on the
>>> > data as well.
>>> >
>>> > Now connect that with this, about
cell-site tracking
and call detail
>>> > records:
>>> >
>>> > "The government maintained [that]
Americans have
no expectation of
>>> > privacy of such cell-site
records [call
detail records or CDR] because
>>> > they are in the possession of a
third
party — the mobile phone
>>>> > companies."
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The key point is that the gov's current
position is
that data stored
>>> > on
>>> > a third party's servers have "no
expectation
of privacy." What begins
>>> > with CDR will eventually include
voicemail messages stored on the
>>> > mobile
>>> > phone companies' servers, and then
eventually all
of your live
>>> > in-person
>>> > conversations that are stored "in the
cloud."
>>> >
>>> > "Anything you say can and will be used
against
you..." Mark my words.
>>> >
>>> > Meanwhile people keep using gmail and
Google Voice, and
smartphones
>>> > from
>>> > which they can't remove the batteries.
Because
nothing is more
>>> > important
>>> > than "convenience," right?
>>> >
>>> > As a character in a sci-fi piece I wrote
in the
mid-1980s said, "Why
>>> > put
>>> > a person in prison, when you can put
prison in the
person instead?"
>>> >
>>> > -G.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
_______________________________________________
>>> > sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>>
sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
--
-steve
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss