6 ms·
Yikes, please don't do or encourage using these in public - there are many accessibility devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) which depend on MEMS mi
by justinjlynn 7y ago
Yikes, please don't do or encourage using these in public - there are many accessibility devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants, etc.) which depend on MEMS microphones to function. You could inadvertently make the world much worse for people who already have a difficult time of things. Imagine carting a cellular and WiFi and bluetooth jammer around outside of a Faraday cage - it's insanely irresponsible and inconsiderate.
- btbuildem 7y ago> Imagine carting a cellular and WiFi and bluetooth jammer around outside of a Faraday cage - it's insanely irresponsible and inconsiderate. Really? Causing temporary, localized connectivity outages, that's an inconvenience at best.
- kekebo 7y agoIt's also illegal in a lot of countries.
- closetohome 7y agoYes, blocking 911 calls is inconsiderate.
- paxys 7y ago> it's insanely irresponsible and inconsiderate It would also be incredibly illegal
- Freak_NL 7y agoAlso tempting. This is probably something that should be tested against. Critical systems should be able to handle connection loss, and society should be able to deal with situations where no cell signals are available with no more than a shrug. Anything that fails miserably because of some joker jamming signals is a liability.
- justinjlynn 7y ago> Critical systems should be able to handle connection loss When the whole point of the critical system is to connect things wirelessly... your point makes little sense. There are backups, of course, but why would you go out of your way to make things worse when there's no fix and people already know it's an issue? What about that is tempting? It's a fundamental technological limitation - there is no jam proof wireless communication system.
- Freak_NL 7y agoThings don't have to be jam-proof, but the processes that depend on them should have a sensible failure mode. If anyone with a small backpack filled with fairly cheap jamming equipment can disrupt hundreds of systems in a busy area, then society (emergency services in particular) should know how this disruption can be prevented or mitigated, and also what the cost of such disruption would be (i.e., is it merely economical, or are human lives at stake?). Preferably before we become too dependant on such technology.
- Nullabillity 7y agoSo.. don't use wireless comms for anything remotely critical?
- krisoft 7y agoUhm, this thing jams with ultra-sound and not with radio waves. Are you sure we have laws against that too? Wouldn't surprise me either way.
- buckminster 7y agoSimilarly high-pitched devices are sold to dissuade congregating teenagers. They are not illegal, in the UK anyway.
- justinjlynn 7y agoThey should be illegal when used for that purpose. They're extremely loud and damage hearing directly. It's like blasting an air horn in someone's ear.
- cheschire 7y agoI've heard of bluetooth enabled pacemakers as well. The functionality is obviously not tied to the bluetooth, but rather it's just a form of data collection to provide doctors with a more complete picture. Interfering with this picture unnecessarily seems like a bad idea.
- tomohawk 7y agoThe people making the world worse are the ones putting microphones everywhere and eavesdropping on everyone by streaming all that audio back to their server farms.
- stubish 7y agoI think deaf people might disagree, and would likely make the world much worse for people wearing these in public by beating the crap out of them.
- tyingq 7y agoMaybe dogs as well.
- toofy 7y agoIf this is an attempt to say one is bad therefor the other is good, I’d advise against seeing the world in such a simpleton and dualistic manner–both amazon and someone who willfully interferes with a hearing device are both bad. If the goal is to come up with something to defeat privacy invasion—and i think it should be–this isn’t the answer.
- mlang23 7y agoAgreed
- tareqak 7y agoThere is a good chance that if this technology already exists, then it is being used by intelligence agents to both foil hidden eavesdropping devices AND to interfere with necessary medical devices.
- Blackthorn 7y agoIt's pretty irritating to me that it's the little guy fighting back against ubiquitous surveillance that gets the blame for this externally rather than the surveillance. I can't bring myself to blame my fellow peasants for trying to take back some control.
- jmole 7y agoThis is like defending the use of indiscriminate radio jammers to prevent tracking via bluetooth, or wifi, or cell service. The air we breathe in and communicate with over radio waves and audio waves is a public commons. Don't piss in the well.
- krtong 7y ago>Don't piss in the well Is it a well, or is it a toilet with a surveillance system in it?
- Donckele 7y agoair we breathe? public commons? piss in the well? Ha Ha, nice one DH.
- Blackthorn 7y agoAgain, I can't really blame the peasantry for it even if it impacts others. I feel like ultimately the responsibility for the externality lies with the trackers, not the people trying to avoid the tracking. If the only way to drop out is by using these, they are gonna get used. Whose fault is that? I blame the people who made it the only way to drop out.
- lonelappde 7y agoLord Farquaad: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make." It's not cool to make the most vulnerable people pay the cost of your protest.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
- ilrwbwrkhv 7y agowell i am actively encouraging and doing the opposite, i.e. using them. this is the wrong level of abstraction you are thinking about this problem from.