Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. And most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, and also to add isolation between the input stages. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:21:08 -0800, "Dana"
wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, let alone recording. There is no one "sample clock" common to all MP3 players. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player, and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, the chip itself has a clock that can also vary per chip. It is certianly not something that remains constant over all MP3 players, and not a signal that appears only when set to recording mode. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, No, it does not. Clock rates are divisible or multiplied these days, and these rates are often common to process sizes, or current targets, not a specific functional requirement. In other words, it's a safe bet you cannot detect a recording MP3 player with a universal "sampling rate" detection scheme, even before considering they won't all necessaril record at the same rate, further lacking consideration for any possiblity of variable rate or spread spectrum. so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, Sufficient for hearing through earbuds, no, that'd be amp'd. Sufficient for a microchip DESIGNED to use a mic input to digitize MP3? It would be an incredibly poorly designed chip if it had to have a preamp tacked on after the mic. and also to add isolation between the input stages. You are thinking old-school multi-stage, possibly even discrete audio designs. All-integrated single chip MP3 players (recording) isn't directly applicable. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:21:08 -0800, "Dana" wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:32:39 -0500, "Ken Maltby" wrote: You made a suggestion that was not resolvable to a difference in operation of an MP3 player. With a constant current and constant bitrate output, you'd essentially be suggesting that from a distance you can discriminate which bits are flowing on the bus to the memory, in what is likely a shielded case. I find this highly unlikely. I was suggesting no such thing. I find your idea that an ungrounded MP3 recorder has any significant shielding, very unlikely. Define significant. Many have grounded copper foil in them. It's not as though this is a high powered device to begin with, though, and would commonly have to be detected at a distance. Still consumer electronics do not have very good shielding. Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. The recorder to be a threat and to respond to sound must let sound waves through, even if it is a contact microphone/sensor/transducer, and they require significant amplification in their operation. No, you are thinking of older devices. There needs be no amplification prior to the digitization chip which can run at constant current, very low voltage and no easily detectable response to room noise from a distance. You still have the sampling rate, which requires a clock at that rate, No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. so at a minimum that clock can be detected. And most designs would include an amplification stage prior to digitization, as the levels from most mics will not be sufficient, and also to add isolation between the input stages. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:31:16 -0800, "Dana"
wrote: Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. "Most" don't have any shield at all. MP3 players, commonly do. Further, "most" consumer devices have an order or two of magnitude, more active parts in them and use far more power, stronger emissions. Further, detecting a very faint signal is not the same thing as having a strong enough detection and valid discrimination method between recording MP3 players and all other consumer electronics. Remember that we are not just trying to detect that some "thing" using electricity is present, it has to be identifed in function and is not just one device buy a multitude of different MP3 player (or other digital recorders too if you want to consider all types) recorders. You will have to find a specific commonality, not just a vague generalization, to discriminate them. Even this much is premature- that commonality would have to exist which has not in itself been established. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, No it does not. Did you think nothing but MP3 players have clocks, or that all MP3 players have the same clock rate? Neither is true. and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. No, in some cases you might detect some devices, but it'd be random, you'd far more often detect non-recording or devices completely incapable of recording and wouldn't detect some actually recording. In other words, random and useless. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. You'll need ALL of the chips in existence, and you'd find some are not putting out enough noise to be detected in a typical scenario. Maybe if you put a scanner up against the device. Is that really useful? If you had the device out already, no further scanning is needed at all unless you have far-fetched idea like if the MP3 recorder were built into a shoe-heel or a clock, etc. Even then, it's a matter of scenario. If that scenario doesn't allow getting the scanner close enough to find the shoe is a source, you'll never even know it was suspicious there was a noisey shoe. I've gone off on a tangent though, for our purposes an MP3 player should be considered what is bought off the shelf. OEMs do not "list what the chip MFG states". Most often you have to tear open the specific player and examine it yourself, or rely on reports from someone else who has. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. Again you are thinking of older electronics, today's player/recorders are highly integrated. That doesn't mean ALL devices will have a different or undetectable, or indistinuishable clock signal, but it does mean you don't have a commonality that allows detection as an MP3 player, let alone one recording. No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. The existence of a sampling rate does not suggest it is always the same rate nor that it is measureable in any particular scenario. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. Yes, but this does not lead to any of the other conclusions. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
It all boils down to a weapon vs armor arms race.
Suppose one vendor produced a device that can detect some device which samples at 8 kHz. More likely it will detect frequencies that are multiple of 8 KHz. Then, an MP3 recorder doesn't have to use any external xtal frequency which is n*8000 - an on-chip PLL is commonplace. A mic is connected directly to the chip, so it won't give any EMI. Most reliable signature would be periodic access to the flash serial interface, though. Still, if someone wants to record a conversation, undetected, a custom shield may be manufactured for the recorder (like 1 mm of permalloy/copper sandwich), and bingo: no detection. "kony" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:31:16 -0800, "Dana" wrote: Doesn't have to be *very good*, only has to further reduce emissions which likely weren't at a level high enough to discriminate recording mode even without the shield. And most consumer electronics are not very well shielded, hence it is a snap to pick up their emissions with off the shelf test equipment. "Most" don't have any shield at all. MP3 players, commonly do. Further, "most" consumer devices have an order or two of magnitude, more active parts in them and use far more power, stronger emissions. Further, detecting a very faint signal is not the same thing as having a strong enough detection and valid discrimination method between recording MP3 players and all other consumer electronics. Remember that we are not just trying to detect that some "thing" using electricity is present, it has to be identifed in function and is not just one device buy a multitude of different MP3 player (or other digital recorders too if you want to consider all types) recorders. You will have to find a specific commonality, not just a vague generalization, to discriminate them. Even this much is premature- that commonality would have to exist which has not in itself been established. Hence it would be a very minor task to detect the sampling clock of the recorder in question. That does not indicate it is an MP3 player, So what. It still indicates the presence of a device that can record the persons converstaion, No it does not. Did you think nothing but MP3 players have clocks, or that all MP3 players have the same clock rate? Neither is true. and that is what is required. It can be a dictation device some other kind of recorder, it would still be detected. No, in some cases you might detect some devices, but it'd be random, you'd far more often detect non-recording or devices completely incapable of recording and wouldn't detect some actually recording. In other words, random and useless. most of the times the sampling rate is specified by the MFG. Manufacturer of the chip, yes, not the MP3 player All you need is the chip, and usually the OEM will list what the chip MFG states anyway. You'll need ALL of the chips in existence, and you'd find some are not putting out enough noise to be detected in a typical scenario. Maybe if you put a scanner up against the device. Is that really useful? If you had the device out already, no further scanning is needed at all unless you have far-fetched idea like if the MP3 recorder were built into a shoe-heel or a clock, etc. Even then, it's a matter of scenario. If that scenario doesn't allow getting the scanner close enough to find the shoe is a source, you'll never even know it was suspicious there was a noisey shoe. I've gone off on a tangent though, for our purposes an MP3 player should be considered what is bought off the shelf. OEMs do not "list what the chip MFG states". Most often you have to tear open the specific player and examine it yourself, or rely on reports from someone else who has. and "spec" really means, hardware support as it can't be selected at random like with most computers running soft codecs. Even so, this rate is not usually a separate oscillator, Usually you have an external clock needed to feed the codec. That clock can be detected as well. Again you are thinking of older electronics, today's player/recorders are highly integrated. That doesn't mean ALL devices will have a different or undetectable, or indistinuishable clock signal, but it does mean you don't have a commonality that allows detection as an MP3 player, let alone one recording. No, it does not. Without a sampling rate, there will be no conversion of analog to digital. The existence of a sampling rate does not suggest it is always the same rate nor that it is measureable in any particular scenario. You have to take so many samples of the analog signal. Yes, but this does not lead to any of the other conclusions. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
"Alexander Grigoriev" wrote in message ink.net... It all boils down to a weapon vs armor arms race. Suppose one vendor produced a device that can detect some device which samples at 8 kHz. More likely it will detect frequencies that are multiple of 8 KHz. Then, an MP3 recorder doesn't have to use any external xtal frequency which is n*8000 - an on-chip PLL is commonplace. A mic is connected directly to the chip, so it won't give any EMI. Most reliable signature would be periodic access to the flash serial interface, though. Still, if someone wants to record a conversation, undetected, a custom shield may be manufactured for the recorder (like 1 mm of permalloy/copper sandwich), and bingo: no detection. Right it's a secret part of an "arms race", but the same lab(s) are developing surveillance equipment and counter- surveillance equipment. With unlimited funding, you can have your "Undetectable Device" and you can have a Device to detect the undetectable. It becomes what you can have at what cost and in what numbers. The more expensive and rare devices are reserved for the most sensitive and vital situations. It is in the interest of those working the counter-surveillance side, that those thinking of using a surveillance device, not know the likelihood of their being an effective detection device in play or not. Things electronic get cheaper all the time, last year's rare laboratory sensor may well be in next year's field unit. Luck; Ken |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
Aly wrote:
Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage chrisv wrote:
Aly wrote: Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) With the size these things are getting today, some Xt-ray imaging will also be necessary.... Arno |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:19:33 -0500, chrisv
wrote: Aly wrote: Joey wrote in message ... Suppose someone visited your office or home and tried to make a voice recording using a hidden recorder. Your only real option is to hold your meetings in the middle of field, and for everyone to be naked. Don't forget the full cavity search before and after. 8) .... and the two layers of sound insulating walls so directional mics can't pick anything up. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
How detect if MP3 player is recording in your room? [OT]
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Recording the back of my scanner ... weird voices | Shortwave | |||
Roger Wiseman's Greyhound Men's Room Band | General |