edit: Looks like (from the reply) it's the waterproofing membrane over mic that's rendering the jammer useless.
Extracting cash by threatening mom and pop restaurants for playing the radio is old hat, nobody cares.
Threatening cops over it is going to attract attention.
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.
“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."”
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 footage might get "lost". Also the police have been known to edit or post misleading footage to their own gain.
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.
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).
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.
Alamdeda County, California:
You would need a human viewing footage and listening for every single post to determine this.
That's a hard job for most people, nevermind an automated system where the copyright holder doesn't care about false positives.
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.
I'd also be interested in testing this with contact mics as from my experiences - this may not work upon those at all.
Off topic: check out Pedro's other work http://plopes.org/
Definitely thought provoking research :)
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.
((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.
I actually AM licensed as a patent agent, but I'm not practicing so I can't get you that patent.
However with ultrasonic filters - you could cone of using this.
Then such approaches have often been used like vibrating windows to curtail laser microphones and yes the trick of taping a vibrator to the window does work - though not in keeping with your boardroom aesthetics unless your Anne Summers or the like.
Only if this technique actually gains widespread use. Even then, it will most likely only appear on gear that must still record, such as body cams. For consumer tech, this would just be additional costs, which the manufacturers are not going to bother with.
If I had someone in my conference room do that I would be extremely sketched out.
Hmm I'm not so sure about that; do you have any source for that? My intuition says that it's nigh impossible to find completely quiet places in daily life; there's always some noise, though it could be imperceptably quiet.
If constant sound is harmful, I'd imagine we'd all have lost our hearing by now. I reckon any harm woulc come from volume, not just simple presence.
That's assuming it's physically harmful (to the ears). If it were instead mentally harmful, what you would expect is for the incidence of mental illness to increase as life got noisier and noisier (with a lag, of course, assuming this effect takes an appreciable amount of time).
Are we saying our brain is not processing sound while we sleep? Ain't we hearing sound 24/7?
I did start a project to jam gopro's (audio and visual recording) - was combination of IRDA emitters and resonance inducing the housing - but this is less niche and focused. My design was to use a hat with sensor emitters attached. Though canned progress after friend asked if it could disable a police body-cam, of which I said no and yet it probably would and morally weighed up the pro's and con's and canned that.
Those signal emitters look very similar to ultrasonic distance measuring modules you can get at component/DIY shops.
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.
edit: Must confess I'd not thought of the potential effect of the device on animals.
Not at ultrasonic frequencies it isn't (eg at 45KHz)
Plus unless it's dbm (or similar) the statement is meaningless.
I imagine this has been discussed on HN before (if so, just send me the link),
ir camera jamming is doable and well-known enough to appear in media like crime dramas
none of it is very practical because you're still extremely identifiable as "that one with all the lights" and presumably still visible in the visible spectrum
when police jam cameras at protests they just use bright visible strobes
Infrared is a different story but most cameras have IR filters. Security cameras sometimes have one that only drops in during the day to enable daytime color and nighttime IR.
Ironically then the story just goes from "here police are brutalizing the people protesting brutality" to "and also being childish with their flashlights." Bright lights aren't nearly as blinding to large-sensor cameras with good lenses as they are to cheap cell phone cameras.
Too bad researches didn't leave any samples of recording in the repo. Curious how it would be effective after:
1) filtering frequencies to 0-16kHz
2) getting 1-2sec sample duration of noise profile while nobody speaks and using noise reduction filter from audacity
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.
Until they need to.
Audio is an odd thing in law - in the UK I can record many things audio more than you would legaly be allowed to video.
But privacy laws are the ones that curtail video recordings mostly and with that - this kinda sits on the other side of the fence.
However - public nuisance may prove an area and pets may well dislike this, so if anything it may be classed as an assault upon an animal. Depending upon the impact upon animals like dogs.
So my main concern would be public area's with people using guide dogs - will this cause the dog distress and what would be the impact.
So I'd imagine already laws that may see this fall foul of - but like many things it will be how it is used and not ownership.
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 virus hoax person who is afraid of the government having microphones everywhere, running a keyword search on microphones placed around the park.... Still not a jammer - I'm sure whatever voice recognition software this thing confuses, the government has much better ones. Simply from the fact that most of the people they're interested in have accents so thick it's worse than some added "jammer" noise.
But to answer your question, "sounds" like they're trying to go commercial soon, because their announcement of this dirt simple product sounds like a cheap advertisement for some dick enlarging pills. meanwhile, your phone speaker can make sonic sounds since they support a sample rate of over 44khz. So can your computer.
here you go. you can google and download some files to play too.
I am worried about large companies spying on me en mass (and selling or leaking that information). That requires automation (voice/face recognition), it’s also reality, not a conspiracy theory, alas I do see it as inevitable and there only so much you can do to fight it.
I've met a lot of captchas that I couldn't reliably solve. I guess that proves I'm a robot.
Re: Your computer/phone can make noise. They use an Arduino to power this thing, and it manages to block with natural body movement.
I'm pretty sure this is going to ruin ANC headsets too though.
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?
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.
Well, of course.
But I was talking about listening directly, not via a microphone.
The whole point of the device that the white noise is not evident to listeners in the vicinity. If it was, people would not be able to speak to each other.
Which means that it's caused by intermodulation in the crappy microphone. Therefore a better quality mike (and a LPF) would remove it.
Once you take the noise out, the voice recognition software has problems recognizing the words. People do not. You can take the noise out at home with lots of different software or hardware. Skype/teams/zoom do this on a very basic level by default - as do most microphone audio drivers in windows. Once it's taken out, distortion from the noise is just enough to make the voice recognition miss a bunch of words. Human ears do just fine though.
How does it prevent the camera from filming speakers' lip movements?
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.