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.
Wearable Microphone Jamming
31–40 of 129 posts
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police wont't generally use something like this as it would interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone.
"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...
Apparently numerous jurisdictions.
Alamdeda County, California:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210911/21360647545/offic...
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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]
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
> 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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So what is the effect in the first part of the video on the website then? Are you saying they‘ve faked it?
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?
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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) filteri…
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.
Non-linear circuits l̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶i̶r̶c̶u̶i̶t̶s will fold higher frequencies down into lower frequencies
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#37I wonder how sensitive dogs would be to such a jamming system.
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.
Can confirm. Building a large metal qwanzit-hut and pounding and drilling etc, and the dogs were unphased.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#38Cool 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 :)
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.
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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#39Cool 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 :)
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")
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Non-linear circuits l̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶c̶i̶r̶c̶u̶i̶t̶s will fold higher frequencies down into lower frequencies
Pretty much most circuits are non-linear, for real-world circuits "linear" just means "linear within normal operating range"