Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
enigma
90 views
Skip to first unread message
ma...@mail.com
Mar 17, 2016, 9:46:02 AM3/17/16
to
t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
thing, Good book.
--
greymaus
.
.
...
realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
thing, Good book.
--
greymaus
.
.
...
Stephen Wolstenholme
Mar 17, 2016, 10:07:53 AM3/17/16
to
paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not
talk about the work.
She was quite happy to tell me what a good time she had there.
Steve
--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
philo
Mar 17, 2016, 11:00:10 AM3/17/16
to
On 03/17/2016 09:07 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
<snipped>
most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing!
In other words, just a typical job
>
<snipped>
most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing!
ma...@mail.com
Mar 17, 2016, 11:30:01 AM3/17/16
to
to be 'someone' to be hired. England at that time, even that a
man called 'Flowers' was downplayed in some of the early histories
because he had a Cockney accent, in spite of him being able to make
the machines.
Bob Eager
Mar 17, 2016, 6:23:54 PM3/17/16
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>thing, Good book.
>
> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
> about the work.
I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and
> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>
>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>thing, Good book.
>
> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
> about the work.
the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one
item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one
component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a
'bombe'.
The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of
said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being
challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me",
he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
"I worked here, too", he said.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Jon Elson
Mar 17, 2016, 10:12:07 PM3/17/16
to
Jon
ma...@mail.com
Mar 18, 2016, 8:39:55 AM3/18/16
to
On 2016-03-17, Bob Eager <news...@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>thing, Good book.
>>
>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>> about the work.
>
> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and
> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>
> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one
> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one
> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a
> 'bombe'.
>
> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of
> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being
> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>
> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me",
^^^^ :) Babbage?
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:07:17 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
>> On 17 Mar 2016 13:46:00 GMT, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>>t downloaded "Colossus: Bletchley Park's Greatest Secret", (and since
>>>realized that its 9 years old), fairly good explanation of the
>>>codebreakers, and how the operation was more than an Enigma breaking
>>>thing, Good book.
>>
>> My mother in law worked at Bletchley park, mainly punching holes in
>> paper tape. The work was so secure that most of the people who worked
>> there didn't know what they were doing! Decades later, when all the
>> secrets were in the public domain, my mother in law still would not talk
>> about the work.
>
> I visited Bletchley Park a littel while ago (I've been several times, and
> the National Museum of Computing is on the same site).
>
> I was told of an elderly couple who'd been doing their 'bucket list', one
> item on which was a visit to Bletchley Park. They did 'the tour', one
> component of which was a visit to Hut 11 to see a (working) replica of a
> 'bombe'.
>
> The volunteer gave her usual talk, but was interrupted by the wife of
> said couple who basically said she was explaining it wrongly. On being
> challenged, she said that she'd worked there!
>
> Her husband was dumbfounded. "But we met in 1846 and you never told me",
> he said". She replied "Of course not, it was a secret".
>
> "I worked here, too", he said.
>
>
>
place) aare forbidden to talk of their work, even at home
Scott Lurndal
Mar 18, 2016, 9:15:40 AM3/18/16
to
ma...@mail.com writes:
>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
>
OBSF: _The Laundry Files_.
>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
>
Joe Pfeiffer
Mar 18, 2016, 10:26:32 AM3/18/16
to
ma...@mail.com writes:
>
> 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
Absolutely true. All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
>
> 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
addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Mar 18, 2016, 12:00:02 PM3/18/16
to
On 18 Mar 2016 13:30:53 GMT
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> The protagonist has a dispensation.
Which can be overridden. I don't like their security enforcement -
at least I don't wish to be under it.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
Which can be overridden. I don't like their security enforcement -
at least I don't wish to be under it.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Charlie Gibbs
Mar 18, 2016, 2:27:30 PM3/18/16
to
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Joe Morris
Mar 18, 2016, 7:00:39 PM3/18/16
to
where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
telephone into a listening device).
That restriction can be frustrating. A good example of that comes from the
early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was
leaking from the US embassy in Moscow. NSA swapped out every device that
touched classified information, including everything from computers and
radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for
the bug they believed to be be there. One of the NSA engineers, working by
himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!)
but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the
investigation) about it until Monday morning. (For details, Google "Project
GUNMAN" and download the redacted report from the NSA website.) **
A few years back there was a directive to <appropriate people> to avoid
discussing classified material when in an auto equipped with OnStar or a
similar 2-way audio system. The directive was issued when auto rental firms
began to offer autos with OnStar.
I may have posted this previously - but several years ago I had the
opportunity to discuss the work at Bletchley with one of the hut leaders. He
noted that for years many of the people who had worked there got together
from time to time to have dinner, but would never discuss Bletchley or the
work there because the material was still classified somewhere north of Most
Secret.
Eventually the Powers That Be decided that the cat was out of the bag and
released the people from their oath of secrecy, but somehow missed the
gentleman with whom I was discussing Bletchley. At the next dinner all the
other people at the table were talking about their work, but my aquaintance,
who had never received the release letter, did not. (His wife claimed that
he turned green upon hearing material that he still considered to be highly
classified.)
Joe
** For extra credit, download *both* the redacted report (with large areas
blanked out) and the "clean" version that's been edited to avoid the rough
spots left by redaction. I find it very interesting to see which
now-unclassified paragraphs of the original (very highly classified) report
were clasified as "Unclassified," "Secret," or "Top Secret;" these marking
are absent from the cleaned-up document.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Mar 18, 2016, 8:19:50 PM3/18/16
to
"Joe Morris" <j.c.m...@verizon.net> writes:
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
> telephone into a listening device).
booth and one of the people we were with, turned and went the other
direction. later they said that their clearance required them to report
any reference to the site (hosting the booth) ... even though the site
had been declassified, their clearance hadn't been updated (and they
were still required to report any reference).
we were interested in the booth because they were one of the first IBM
supercomputer installations.
I've mentioned before working on cluster scale-up for ha/cmp
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
... both commercial and scientific/technical with national
labs. reference to commerical scale-up meeting in ellison's conference
room Jan1992
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13
within a month of the meeting, the scaleup work was transferred,
announced as IBM supercomputer for scientific and technical *ONLY* and
we were told we couldn't work on anything with more than four processors
(contributing to decision to leave IBM) ... some old cluster scaleup
email around that time
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/lhwemail.html#medusa
and then 17feb1992, IBM press, announced for scientific and technical
*only*
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters1
and 11may1992, national lab interest in cluster scaleup caught IBM by
*surprise*
http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#6000clusters2
other trivia ... two of the Oracle people in the Ellison meeting, later
leave Oracle and show up at small client/server startup responsible for
something called "commerce server". We get brought in as consultants
because they want to do payment transactions on the server; the startup
had also invented this technology they call "SLL"; the result is
now frequently called "electronic commerce".
cryptologic museum has enigma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cryptologic_Museum
The NCM collection contains thousands of artifacts, including numerous
working World War II German Enigma machines (2 of them are available for
visitors to try out), and a Navy Bombe used to break it.
... snip ...
they also have an IBM Harvest display
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7950_Harvest
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HARVEST-tape.jpg
--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Mar 18, 2016, 8:27:10 PM3/18/16
to
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> had also invented this technology they call "SLL"; the result is
finger slip
> had also invented this technology they call "SLL"; the result is
had also invented this technology they call "SSL"; the result is
Peter Flass
Mar 18, 2016, 8:47:08 PM3/18/16
to
up their conversation with a parabolic mike.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Mar 18, 2016, 8:47:10 PM3/18/16
to
Joe Morris <j.c.m...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>
>>> 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
>
>> Absolutely true. All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
>> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
>> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.
>
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
> telephone into a listening device).
>
> That restriction can be frustrating. A good example of that comes from the
> early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was
> leaking from the US embassy in Moscow. NSA swapped out every device that
> touched classified information, including everything from computers and
> radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for
> the bug they believed to be be there. One of the NSA engineers, working by
> himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!)
> but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the
> investigation) about it until Monday morning.
It would seem that he could have called someone and just said "you need to
> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>> ma...@mail.com writes:
>
>>> 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
>
>> Absolutely true. All classified material is on a need-to-know basis in
>> addition to whatever their classification level is; if your spouse
>> doesn't have a need to know, you can't discuss it with him or her.
>
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
> telephone into a listening device).
>
> That restriction can be frustrating. A good example of that comes from the
> early 1980s when the gov'mt discovered that classified information was
> leaking from the US embassy in Moscow. NSA swapped out every device that
> touched classified information, including everything from computers and
> radio equipment down to non-data IBM Selectric typewriters and searched for
> the bug they believed to be be there. One of the NSA engineers, working by
> himself on a weekend found the bug (it *was* in the Selectric typewriters!)
> but had no way to tell *anyone* (including other NSA people involved in the
> investigation) about it until Monday morning.
come into work."
--
Pete
JimP.
Mar 18, 2016, 9:03:15 PM3/18/16
to
think outside the box.
JimP.
Mar 18, 2016, 9:05:16 PM3/18/16
to
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.
Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.
Joe Pfeiffer
Mar 18, 2016, 11:28:32 PM3/18/16
to
ma...@mail.com
Mar 19, 2016, 7:01:04 AM3/19/16
to
th window, and the ones using the equipment.
Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
(triple glazed?)
>
> Of course, there is the US Embassy in Moscow with a carved wooden
> plaque 'from the Soviet children' which had a bug in it.
J. Clarke
Mar 19, 2016, 10:06:13 AM3/19/16
to
In article <slrnneqcbb...@Smaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
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.
Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however
they produce a visible beam.
>
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><ma...@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
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><ma...@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?)
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.
Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however
they produce a visible beam.
Peter Flass
Mar 19, 2016, 10:28:55 AM3/19/16
to
had to be town down and rebuilt (with American labor).
--
Pete
Morten Reistad
Mar 19, 2016, 11:23:38 AM3/19/16
to
In article <MPG.315726d52...@news.eternal-september.org>,
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
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.
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
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Mar 19, 2016, 11:30:03 AM3/19/16
to
On 19 Mar 2016 11:01:01 GMT
it's more likely to be noticed) light is harmless.
> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)
Standard dodge AIUI is to attach a noise generator to the window,
probably the kind of noise that resembles thousands of conversations
overlayed.
ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><ma...@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.
I don't see why, low power infrared (you can use visible or UV but
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >><ma...@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.
it's more likely to be noticed) light is harmless.
> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)
probably the kind of noise that resembles thousands of conversations
overlayed.
Dave Garland
Mar 19, 2016, 1:31:36 PM3/19/16
to
On 3/19/2016 6:01 AM, ma...@mail.com wrote:
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <ma...@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.
You might be thinking of the microwave radiation used to power the
> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <ma...@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.
"Great Seal" type bugs. I think that required a fairly powerful
microwave beam. Though it seems like it would be safe for the spy so
long as he kept away from the front of the antenna/waveguide and the
equipment was well designed for safety (not a given in the USSR).
OTOH, actually looking out the window at where the laser is might be
dangerous to your eyesight (and looking at the reflected laser from
the spy's viewpoint could do the same).
> Also, that most sensative windows haave long been treated for it.
> (triple glazed?)
outside window. Various window films on the outside glass might either
absorb the laser or reflect it, either of which could make it less
effective.
greymaus
Mar 19, 2016, 1:46:01 PM3/19/16
to
On 2016-03-19, J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnneqcbb...@Smaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
>>
>> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >><ma...@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?
Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?
> In article <slrnneqcbb...@Smaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
>>
>> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
>> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >><ma...@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.
>
> Incidentally, red or green or blue laser works fine for this, however
> they produce a visible beam.
>
J. Clarke
Mar 19, 2016, 2:00:20 PM3/19/16
to
In article <slrnner42l...@dmaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
> > 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.
>
> Triple glazed?
Google it, you can buy them at Home Depot.
>
> On 2016-03-19, J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnneqcbb...@Smaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> >> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >><ma...@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?
>
> Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?
Who said anything about x-rays?
> On 2016-03-19, J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnneqcbb...@Smaus.org>, ma...@mail.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2016-03-19, JimP <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 17:47:06 -0700, Peter Flass
> >> ><peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >><ma...@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?
>
> Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?
> > 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.
>
> Triple glazed?
Christian Brunschen
Mar 19, 2016, 2:08:26 PM3/19/16
to
In article <5d9pebdhvhf05dj0r...@4ax.com>,
clear line of sight:
[quote src="http://news.mit.edu/2014/alrogithm-recovers-speech-from-vibrations-0804"]
Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
[/quote]
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
// Christian
JimP. <bl...@cwahi.net> wrote:
>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.
Of course, these days no fancy laser equiment may be necessary - just a
>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.
clear line of sight:
[quote src="http://news.mit.edu/2014/alrogithm-recovers-speech-from-vibrations-0804"]
Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
[/quote]
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8
// Christian
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Mar 19, 2016, 2:14:31 PM3/19/16
to
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 7:00:39 PM UTC-4, Joe Morris wrote:
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
> telephone into a listening device).
During WW II, at Los Alamos, Gen. Groves planted microphones
> Even more, one does *not* discuss classified information in an environment
> where others, not possessing both the appropriate clearance *and*
> need-to-know, might overhear the discussion. Most residential occupancies
> fail to meet this requirement (think of how easy it would be to turn your
> telephone into a listening device).
in the residential quarters to ensure scientists weren't
discussing classified materials with their spouse. This
monitoring was not appreciated.
sidd
Mar 19, 2016, 3:48:28 PM3/19/16
to
In article <slrnner42l...@dmaus.org>, greymaus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?
i recall a semi serious proposal for xray lasers pumped by nuclear explosions,
>Low powered IR laser would be OK, but X-ray?
the photons arrive slightly before the explosion residue
so those lasers would definitely be dangerous to health
these days with free electron lasers i think they are using less drastic
measures, but hi energy radiation is not a nice thing to shine at a window
sidd
Stephen Wolstenholme
Mar 20, 2016, 5:03:16 AM3/20/16
to
Steve
--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com
capek@ieee.org <Peter Capek>
Mar 21, 2016, 2:16:39 AM3/21/16
to
A couple of posts here have mentioned the Great Seal of the United States which was a gift to the Ambassador from the children of the Soviet Union, and which hung in the embassy for about 7 years before it was discovered that it embodied a resonant cavity listening device which could be monitor from afar with microwaves. It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also invented the musical instrument that bears his name, and is also credit for inventing interlacing for video signals. See his Wikipedia article for a little more information.
Peter Capek
Peter Capek
Quadibloc
Mar 21, 2016, 8:55:05 AM3/21/16
to
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:16:39 AM UTC-6, ca...@ieee.org <Peter Capek> wrote:
> It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also
> invented the musical instrument that bears his name
Checking the Wikipedia article, I found the most important fact concerning this:
> It is not widely known that this device was invented by Leon Theremin, who also
> invented the musical instrument that bears his name
he was under duress in a Soviet labor camp at the time he was involved in this
evil scheme.
John Savard
JimP.
Mar 21, 2016, 1:05:49 PM3/21/16
to
this.
Jon Elson
Mar 21, 2016, 2:56:03 PM3/21/16
to
to understand how they can get the upper voice frequencies back with only 60
images/second.
Jon
Andy Burns
Mar 21, 2016, 3:47:02 PM3/21/16
to
Jon Elson wrote:
> Christian Brunschen wrote:
>
>> Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
>> can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
>> depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
>> intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
>> from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
>
line separately and get 1080x60 = 64k samples/sec ...
Nothing actually said they get the upper frequencies anyway, just that
it was intelligible.
> Christian Brunschen wrote:
>
>> Researchers at MIT, Microsoft, and Adobe have developed an algorithm that
>> can reconstruct an audio signal by analyzing minute vibrations of objects
>> depicted in video. In one set of experiments, they were able to recover
>> intelligible speech from the vibrations of a potato-chip bag photographe
>> from 15 feet away through soundproof glass.
>
> typical video is 60 frames/second, seems hard
> to understand how they can get the upper voice frequencies back with only 60
> images/second.
If the crisp-bag was more or less full frame, then they could take each
> to understand how they can get the upper voice frequencies back with only 60
> images/second.
line separately and get 1080x60 = 64k samples/sec ...
Nothing actually said they get the upper frequencies anyway, just that
it was intelligible.
Peter Flass
Mar 21, 2016, 4:52:01 PM3/21/16
to
--
Pete
0 new messages