Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#91

Post by partyboat1586 »

djaychela wrote: post #19

If you think this is just bunk, and you'd like a laugh, read the FAQs on the website [1]... My favourite: >Does the device remove the EMF from the environment? If so can I use a meter to measure EMF? >>The 'electro magnetic meter' can only measure the intensity of radiation which is not changed by our technology nor does it change the quality of connection and speed of data transfer. Well, that's convenient, isn't it…

>your senses are the only way to interface with reality

This is technically true.

>and if you can't sense it it's not there

This is where it gets crazy.

What I find interesting about this is that you never actually have direct access to your senses. For example things in the corners of your vision are fabricated by your mind based on assumptions. See optical illusions. So anyone suggesting that things outside of your senses are not real should first accept that your senses as presented to your conscious mind are not even necessarily 'real'.

In fact your entire reality is fabricated by your mind which is making an internal model of the external world at all times (except when you are sleeping). You only ever see the model never the material world directly.

This is why science is so important. By observing things in controlled environments over and over from many perspectives we can build a more accurate picture of the material world than our senses would normally allow. In addition through the process of replication we can find a model of reality that we can all agree on.

Your senses in the most raw form your body will allow are usually only useful for tasks you evolved to do. Things like reading social cues, catching moving objects and sensing immediate danger.

When people take these senses and intuitions and apply them to complicated things derived from science like electromagnetic radiation (e.g 5G) they break down. But people keep doing it because it feels right, it feels natural. And it is natural just not useful.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#92

Post by [deleted] »

numlock86 wrote: post #49
pb82 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think so. Quantum is often used as a convenient explanation for why things work in those circles (at least from what i've seen). How does it protect me from evil radiation? It's quantum, you wouldn't understand.

Hm, I was always under the impression that not understanding a physical system is the root cause for such technological fears. Clearly quantum mechanics are in the same realm. But maybe this can be used as a cure for many fears? I mean multiple studies have shown that the root cause for fear of flying comes from not knowing or understanding how a plane flies. I mean sure, it clearly does not flap its wings, so it mig…

[deleted]

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#93

Post by rmrfstar »

acqq wrote: post #87
rmrfstar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety that new technologies do not further their interests, because every time a new one comes out it is used to depress wages or surveil people. They don't know enough about technology to formulate a sane objection, so they latch on to "5G is evil black magic." Remembe…

> there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G Not there. The claim is not supported by the article you cite. The article uses a lot of words about "security" but the truth is 5G has no worse security compared to 2G 3G etc. The claims about 5G in China "used for surveillance" from the article are also false, as China started installing 5G equipment just very recently, like a few months ago, and the number of 5G-capabl…

Is your point that the New Yorker missed risks you do find meaningful, or that everything they pointed out is not meaningful to you and therefore 5G must be loved by all?

Either way, it misses the point of my comment.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#94

Post by Avamander »

romwell wrote: post #78
timrichard wrote: post #8

This item is based on no science and horribly overpriced, but cosmetically attractive and sneakily marketed. Shocking. They should diversify into premium Hifi. Edit.

>They should diversify into premium Hifi. All they need to do is make that plug golden, and sell it for $1K.

Yeah, you can even sell gold-plated TOSLINK cables.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#95

Post by bambataa »

microcolonel wrote: post #55
bambataa wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people actually believe this nonsense? Yes. I have moved past thinking we need to protect people from this kind of thing. If they believe it, let them buy it. The only harm their ignorance is doing is to themselves. They might even get some kind of placebo reassurance from it.

I'm not advocating for eradicating stupid ideas to protect fools; but sometimes fools do very stupid things, and they don't just hurt themselves. See: the 5G arsons in the UK.

Well, prosecute them for arson. If they want to spend hundreds of pounds on a stick that's their business. All we can try and do is contain stupidity.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#96

Post by matthewheath »

acqq wrote: post #61
inscartwheelies wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment respectively. Also: Sorry you went through that decline at the end. :'(

> table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment But it's often not in dangerous quantities, because homeopathy believes that the less of something is present somewhere it works better, and it's called "dynamization" or "potentization" by the producers, diluting the material sometimes to the point that in thousands of sold pills, counted together, there can't be more than one single molecule! The process then practic…

> the 5G USB "solution" was mentioned by "Non-Councillor Advisory Committee Member" (I have no idea what that means)

I understand that the Council set up a 5G Advisory Committee, and the person mentioning these anti-5G USB sticks is a member of the advisory committee but isn't an elected councillor.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#97

Post by simonh »

rmrfstar wrote: post #85
simonh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is this came up because this device was recommended at a town council meeting. The representative even argued for the town getting a device to protect the whole area, so this is far beyond just a private issue. Also there have been several cases of these people damaging or destroying 5G equipment, which is infrastructure the public rely on and ultimately pay for (through fees, regulatory costs, etc).

In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety that new technologies do not further their interests, because every time a new one comes out it is used to depress wages or surveil people. They don't know enough about technology to formulate a sane objection, so they latch on to "5G is evil black magic." Remembe…

I don’t think that stands up. If they are distrustful of technology in general, how come they are ok with quantum nano time dilation beneficial frequency mumbo jumbo?

Some people have always been susceptible to quackery, there seems to be something seductive about the idea that you’ve found a wonderful solution the mainstream have rejected or don’t understand. I don’t think fringe claptrap is somewhere faulty logic leads them to, I think it’s the destination they are attracted to and the pretext they latch on to doesn’t matter that much.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#98

Post by matthewheath »

gambiting wrote: post #48
Faaak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not; it's a sticker on an USB stick

So I wonder about legality of it - devices that interfere with wireless communications are illegal....so what about a device that says that it does, but in fact it does not? I guess the description is crafted in such a way that it doesn't actually say it interferes, just that it "harmonizes" the fields, whatever that means.

It may potentially be illegal, given that "deliberate interference" is a criminal offence contrary to section 68 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. [0]

~~~

(1) A person commits an offence if he uses apparatus for the purpose of interfering with wireless telegraphy.

(2) This section applies—

(a) whether or not the apparatus in question is wireless telegraphy apparatus;

...

~~~

Obviously, the "purpose" of the person using the anti-5G USB stick would need to be established. Given the law doesn't mention anything about having any effect on wireless telegraphy, presumably as long as mens rea is established the offence is made out.

There are also other potential offences around consumer misselling, false advertising, etc.

---

[0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/part/3/crosshead...

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#99

Post by dhsysusbsjsi »

speedgoose wrote: post #72
dhsysusbsjsi wrote: post #44

The most worrying thing I found about this article is the seriousness of the review - as if the pseudoscience is real and the review is checking if the fake device works against the fake science. This is very worrying it made it into the BBC.

I think the article makes a lot of fun about the product and is obviously described as a funny and expensive scam between the lines : "So what's different between it and a virtually identical 'crystal' USB key available from various suppliers in Shenzhen, China, for around £5 per key?" asks Ken Munro, whose company, Pen Test Partners, specialises in taking apart consumer electronic products to spot security vulnerabi…

Oh I totally missed the humour here. I guess we are bombarded with so much idiocracy now that it’s hard to tell spoof comedy from real news.

Re: Pulling apart a £339 anti-5G USB stick

#100

Post by titzer »

partyboat1586 wrote: post #91
djaychela wrote: post #19

If you think this is just bunk, and you'd like a laugh, read the FAQs on the website [1]... My favourite: >Does the device remove the EMF from the environment? If so can I use a meter to measure EMF? >>The 'electro magnetic meter' can only measure the intensity of radiation which is not changed by our technology nor does it change the quality of connection and speed of data transfer. Well, that's convenient, isn't it…

>your senses are the only way to interface with reality This is technically true. >and if you can't sense it it's not there This is where it gets crazy. What I find interesting about this is that you never actually have direct access to your senses. For example things in the corners of your vision are fabricated by your mind based on assumptions. See optical illusions. So anyone suggesting that things outside of your…

For sure these people are quacks, but if you're curious to take the next turn down the rabbit hole, let me seed you.

Even the concept of senses and reality are concepts in your mind and consequences of the model you have accepted as reality. So the problem recurses on itself, too. Can you directly experience your mind? Is the feeling of your mind delivered to you through a sense you haven't realized is a sense yet? Can you trust that sense? Total radical skepticism lies below that. But it's only logical. You can't escape that tarpit at the bottom. Or maybe it's the screen isn't there for anything to be projected onto?

So we have to rebuild from what we can sense, sure. What is repeatable. We must develop an axiom that what is repeatable is real. That what we can understand, the system, the model, the prediction, is real. We believe the planets and stars are real because we can draw maps and pass them between us and furthermore make predictions about where the stars and planets will go based on our mathematical models. But even our models tell us that the world is too huge of a system to compute even the slightest more than the tiniest fraction of a smidgen of it all. We don't even have computers big enough to fold proteins. Yet they do. And what we don't have models for--we can't predict. Is it unreal, then? Where did our axiom go? What is real and isn't? I'm not so sure it's logic that decides that, after all. Because you gotta have faith that them there proteins are getting folded right, because you can't. fucking. check it!

Post reply on HN