> * 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.
Wearable Microphone Jamming
101–110 of 129 posts
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#102Interesting 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.
So, if you're recording a cop in the next few years, make sure to use a waterproof phone.
Maybe just don't commit street crimes.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#103Cool 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.
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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#104Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#105Wouldn't it be easy to build a microphone that was immune to this? Up to now, there was little need to do so.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> 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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#107No 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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Doesn't playing a song with the explicit intention of having it be recorded count as having intent to perform?
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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
Why can’t instagram distinguish between a public performance vs a cop playing music. Should be pretty easy to do.
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.
Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why depend on their footage? We need to record them ourselves. Counter their surveillance with our own sousveillance.
It's almost like you missed the point. The cops are playing music because someone else is recording them. That is the counter surveillance.
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.