Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161230

Re: enigma

From	Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.folklore.computers
Subject	Re: enigma
Date	2016-03-19 16:17 +0100
Organization	Me, Myself and I
Message-ID	<q570sc-rh2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> (permalink)
References	<slrnneld8m.24a.mausg@Smaus.org> <5d9pebdhvhf05dj0r4b3pkvvmmh7mhgqk4@4ax.com> <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org> <MPG.315726d52e6ba22e98a035@news.eternal-september.org>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <MPG.315726d52e6ba22e98a035@news.eternal-september.org>,
J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnneqcbb.19l.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says...
>> 
>> On 2016-03-19, JimP <blue@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> ><peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >><mausg@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I am told that couples that work in GCHQ or with the NSA (really, same
>> >>> place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>
>> >>It would be pretty easy for the Jennings to bug their home, or today pick
>> >>up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
>> >
>> > Decades ago when I was reading the Peopular Electronics mag, they
>> > mentikoned that an infrared laser aimed at a window could be used to
>> > hear a conversation in a building. It used the window as a microphone.
>> 
>> I have read that the radiation used is both bad for the people inside
>> th window, and the ones using the equipment.
>> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
>> (triple glazed?)
>
>How is a low powered IR laser "bad" for anyone?  Are you one of these 
>people who hears the word "radiation" and immediately assumes neutron 
>bombardment?
>
>And there isn't any "treatment" that prevents a window from vibrating.  
>If you can stand outside the window and hear the conversation then it 
>can be picked up by measuring the vibration of the window.

Even the 4-way vacuum-filled windows used to really block sound are
subseptible to this method, you just need to get a reflection of the
inner surface. Which you can do if you can reflect at an internal reflection
angle. Yes, this needs a receiver at a wide separation from the transmitter, 
but it has been done a lot of times, even in hostile territory.

You also have a lot of frequencies to work with.

>Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however 
>they produce a visible beam.

Likewise, you can use deep IR, which is not seen on a standard "IR camera".
Or you can use some UW frequencies, but glass tends to be opaque to a
lot of these.

UW can be sensed if you are directly in the beam though. You will feel
irriration in the eyes if you look at it.

Low-powered lasers are totally harmless if you just don't look directly
into the beam,

-- mrr

Thread

enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 13:46 +0000
  Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-17 14:07 +0000
    Re: enigma philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-03-17 10:00 -0500
    Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-17 15:29 +0000
    Re: enigma Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-17 22:23 +0000
      Re: enigma Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-17 21:12 -0500
      Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:39 +0000
        Re: enigma scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 13:15 +0000
          Re: enigma Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-18 13:30 +0000
            Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-18 15:39 +0000
        Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 08:26 -0600
          Re: enigma Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-18 18:26 +0000
          Re: enigma "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-18 19:00 -0400
            Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:19 -0700
              Re: enigma Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-18 17:27 -0700
            Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
              Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:04 -0500
                Re: enigma Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-18 21:28 -0600
            Re: enigma hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-19 11:14 -0700
              Re: enigma Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-03-20 09:02 +0000
        Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-18 17:47 -0700
          Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-18 20:06 -0500
            Re: enigma mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-19 11:01 +0000
              Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:06 -0400
                Re: enigma Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-19 16:17 +0100
                Re: enigma greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2016-03-19 17:45 +0000
                Re: enigma "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:00 -0400
                Re: enigma sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-03-19 15:48 -0400
              Re: enigma Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-19 15:10 +0000
              Re: enigma Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-19 12:31 -0500
            Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-19 07:28 -0700
            Re: enigma cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-03-19 18:05 +0000
              Re: enigma Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-21 13:56 -0500
                Re: enigma Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:47 +0000
  Re: enigma "capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek>" <peter.capek@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 23:16 -0700
    Re: enigma Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
      Re: enigma JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> - 2016-03-21 12:07 -0500
        Re: enigma Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 13:51 -0700

csiph-web