Finally we know why Apple ditched the minijack on the iPhone 7...
I'd say USB only makes things worse in this case.
Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
151–158 of 158 posts
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a pair of shitty Sennheizer headphones. Apparently they dilluted their brand a lot.
Which model, and could you be specific about what is so crappy about them?
Pretty sure they are the Sennheiser hd 202 . But mine are gray, not black.
They have no base and sound very muffled. Sure, for 50 $ they are cheapish, but I expected better.
I had 2 pairs of philips before that were even cheaper, but sounded pretty good.
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used this before in a pinch too, speaker as a microphone in reverse. that got me wondering... would it be possible to use the same principle with another type of listening device. Focusing a laser beam on a window allows you to hear a conversation in the room. so could the same principle be applied and allow a laser beam to transmit audio?
I'm not 100% sure of the math involved, but I think any laser that impacts a window enough to vibrate it would probably just melt it instead.
You can actually make music with a laser cutter.
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's nice. But if you decide to run for high office 30 years from now it will become known that drew pony porn in college and never really stopped. That's the meaning of kompromat .
Not if your record is better than their's.
Like Trump, where the worst impropriety they could come up with was that he slapped women's arses? Everyone has something they'd rather not talk about.
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if your record is better than their's.
Like Trump, where the worst impropriety they could come up with was that he slapped women's arses? Everyone has something they'd rather not talk about.
Worst?
I hadn't even heard that one.
We just learned about charity self dealing.
For the last few decades we have been hearing about Trump's 'improprieties'.
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#156Here's a neat party trick for you. I had a MacGyver moment in the past where I made a phone call with only are pair of old earbuds and a phone cord (no switches, no dial pad). A speaker is basically the same thing as a microphone in reverse. Normally it takes an electrical signal to move a physical element that creates the sound waves. But you can also move the element and it will generate an electrical signal. To di…
How do you dial a zero? Edit: Just realized why a zero is in the '10' position on a rotary phone. Huh.
I'll be danged. Never thought about that myself. A little embarrassed too
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which model, and could you be specific about what is so crappy about them?
Pretty sure they are the Sennheiser hd 202 . But mine are gray, not black. They have no base and sound very muffled. Sure, for 50 $ they are cheapish, but I expected better. I had 2 pairs of philips before that were even cheaper, but sounded pretty good.
Well, they’re advertised as "cheap DJ headphones".
They have a lot of focus on bass (with having far overpowered bass compared to what high-quality headphones would have), and not much on detail.
Sennheiser produces products for many different categories, if you want accurate sound reproduction, better not buy those marketed for DJs.
These https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-518-Headphones-Black/dp... or https://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-4-30i-White-Headphones/... would have been better for that use case.
Re: Headphones can be hijacked to surreptitiously record audio
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the US, ex post facto laws cannot be made. That fact has been so inconvenient for the government that the entire system has been redesigned to thwart it. Can't prove Al Capone is a mobster? Prosecute for tax evasion. Keep passing broad overlapping laws and they can charge anyone with something. Then they don't have to change the law, only who they decide to prosecute.
Are you saying Capone didn't evade taxes?
I'm saying nobody would have been looking at him for tax evasion if he wasn't a mobster, even if he was doing it.
And after Capone the mobsters started paying their taxes, so now they charge them with money laundering, which is essentially a law against paying your taxes on unexplained income.