> I would normally feel a bit bad, since this *is* off topic, but....as this
> list may as well be called OSX-Talk lately, I figured what the hey! Debunk
> while you have the chance, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the
> list topic. ;-)
This list (and OE-Talk) are infamous for roaming far afield.
> I took a look at the sites recommended as argument that the above "capturing
> of the monitor flux" COULD be done. Firstly, as a former physics teacher (5
> years), I am not sure what the word "flux" means in this context (...the "flux
> capacitor" from Back to the Future comes to mind.) Flux is a shortened
> version of "fluctuations"..."fluc-s"...and every light source fluctuates.
> Flux is not a specific anything...it just means "this changes over time".
Correct. Monitors, televisions, and just about every electronic device
introduce fluctuation in the local electromagnetic fields.
> Secondly, and more importantly, I am happy to report (as earlier) that this
> is incorrect -- it is not possible.
Um, I disagree; but there's little that I can offer as proof.
I previously mentioned bouncing lasers off of windows to eavesdrop on
conversations within because the concept is similar.
You can calculate what inputs are necessary to induce the diffractions that
make the "bounced" laser slightly out of phase. With a bit of mathematical
genius, you can derive the sounds on the other side of the pane of glass.
I know that this information is publicly available because it was taught to
undergrads circa 15 years ago.
The theory behind electronic eavesdropping is similar, but much more
interesting since you're only passively listening and you have to figure out
how to remove lots of sources of potential interference.
> The sites offered as rebuttal were regarding a company called Tempest. The
> two products they sell are designed to reduce Electromagnetic Radiation and
> to dampen noise volume between rooms (its an architectural glass company.)
TEMPEST was many things.
Most things on the web that talk about TEMPEST have nothing to do with it
aside from being a cool buzz phrase.
I'm not sure what you looked at, but start here:
<http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempest.html>
Or, if you truly want information only from the horse's mouth, file a FOIA
request with the NSA for information regarding TEMPEST. It was their baby
and they've declassified quite a bit of material.
> Again, pa shaw! Pa shaw to the paranoiacs who think that some white van
> outside is "reading the flux" on their monitors.
Personally, I doubt that anyone is reading my monitor. As I said, I've no
data worth stealing and even if I did it'd be far easier to simply break
into my apartment/office while I was elsewhere.
> Only in James Bond movies can ambient EMR be "read" and "converted" into a
> screen shot (as this thread previously suggested.)
I disagree. I'm unable to offer any in-depth explanations of the
technology; however, the information is readily available if you understand
the material and can separate the wheat from the chaff.
> And only in America would people make money off of the fears of others, by
> offering a product that purports to do the impossible. [weight loss,
> bodybuilding, steroids, hair tonic, religion...why not monitor flux!]
Hardly only in America. It's the story of the human race. We're always
looking for something for nothing.
> Just because someone can find a reference on the web does not make it any
> more than Snake Oil.
Most things for sale on the web are snake oil. But not everything on the
web is for sale.
mikel
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
