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

Wearable Microphone Jamming

sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#111

Post by pbhjpbhj »

AlbertCory wrote: post #77
samstave wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know, that sounds like language from a patent application. I actually AM licensed as a patent agent, but I'm not practicing so I can't get you that patent.

Also that's now prior disclosure and could be cited against the patent application.

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#112

Post by novok »

spicybright wrote: post #103
nine_k wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not about the people they see in the room, it's about the people they don't see in the room.

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#113

Post by worik »

Fnoord wrote: post #22
Semiapies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if you're recording a cop in the next few years, make sure to use a waterproof phone.

Police wont't generally use something like this as it would interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone.

How sweet!

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#115

Post by alpaca128 »

Fnoord wrote: post #22
Semiapies wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if you're recording a cop in the next few years, make sure to use a waterproof phone.

Police wont't generally use something like this as it would interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone.

> it would interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone.

That's the point. Many cops do not like the fact that the bodycam also records them to a degree. At least the ones getting caught planting drugs in stopped cars or mistreating people because they forgot about the cam.

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#116

Post by randombits0 »

jMyles wrote: post #53
FractalParadigm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find ironic, is the police are doing a copyright infringement (unauthorized public performance of these songs) in order to infringe on citizens' rights. Why are record companies not more pissed about this?

Does it suggest that system of IP is genuinely designed and deployed to protect art? Or capricious exercise of state power?

I will double down with, no, the system of IP is not intended to protect art. The whole concept of IP is antithetical to the intent of copyright.

“Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the enumerated power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intellectual_property_clause

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#117

Post by Fnoord »

joshstrange wrote: post #75
Fnoord wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its to provide a PoV from the police officer, yes. Because the PoV of the other side (whatever it might be) may omit details, or could've been tampered with. You're right that it is in the interest of the police (in general, not necessarily the police officer), but if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case.

> if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case. Unless the cop is saying things they shouldn't be saying. I think you are missing the point of the comment you are replying to. They are saying that cops only use that footage when it benefits them (that's assuming the footage exists and they didn't "forget to turn on their camera") and when it doesn't benefit them then they won't release it or the…

'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force.

I get such point is popular with people who are cynical to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism in USA.

Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute before the cop pushed the button as well, for context.

The police are not allowed to tamper with evidence in a court of law. Nowhere in the world is this allowed.

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#118

Post by joshstrange »

Fnoord wrote: post #117
joshstrange wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if details like sound are not available that only hurts their case. Unless the cop is saying things they shouldn't be saying. I think you are missing the point of the comment you are replying to. They are saying that cops only use that footage when it benefits them (that's assuming the footage exists and they didn't "forget to turn on their camera") and when it doesn't benefit them then they won't release it or the…

'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force. I get such point is popular with people who are cynical to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism in USA. Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute before the cop pushed the button as well, for context. The police a…

> 'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force.

I agree. Something is very wrong with our police force. Also, it might not be allowed anywhere in the world but it absolutely happens in most of not all places (police getting away with tampering with evidence).

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#119

Post by jataget »

kgarten wrote: post #8

Cool 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 :)

Given such brute approach to microphones, I almost expected to see new pipe bomb design there.

Re: Wearable Microphone Jamming

#120

Post by Fnoord »

joshstrange wrote: post #118
Fnoord wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force. I get such point is popular with people who are cynical to authorities, and I get that in the context of racism in USA. Here in The Netherlands they are always recording, and when the cop pushes it on, it saves the last minute before the cop pushed the button as well, for context. The police a…

> 'Their own gain', the police work for the public interest. If that isn't the case, something is wrong with your police force. I agree. Something is very wrong with our police force. Also, it might not be allowed anywhere in the world but it absolutely happens in most of not all places (police getting away with tampering with evidence).

If we cannot keep people who are supposed to protect us accountable (even via a trusted third party like internal affairs [1]) we as society have a problem. And we do have a problem: a problem of trust, at the very least.

I'd like to think they do get caught, and I'd also like to think most cops in society can be trusted. There's dirty (and I use that word liberally) cops everywhere in the world, yes, also in The Netherlands, but the rotten apples are in a minority.

Mind you, my original quote was: "Police wont't generally use something like this as it would interfere with bodycam which includes a microphone." I said generally; I was already aware -in a world-wide context- some dirty cops might do such, or that I could think of exceptional situations where such might be warranted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcem...

Post reply on HN