TEMPEST was a details-secret government requirement meant to defeat means of eavesdropping on classified computer data from its electromagnetic emissions. I guess they need to include audio too.
My impression is that the noise comes from the power supply, not the CPU. I can certainly hear it with some computers, and it is related to work on the video card in my experience. I'm astonished that you can actually pull data from that, and in fact I'd like to see independent confirmation before I believe it.
All of them, AFAIK. Cell connections are like potato chips to the FBI - they can't stop at just one.
Actually, that was the job of the old CARNIVORE system - to sniff all the data, but then to get rid of the data that didn't pertain to the target of the investigation. We all mocked it, but at least back then they were trying to respect the privacy of citizens. Nowadays, it's just easier to classify everything and not answer all those pesky questions.
A 70 bit asymmetric key is just as trivial as a 64 bit key - keylength.com won't even calculate an asymmetric key shorter than 384 bits, which it equates to 56 bit DES in 1981. I'm guessing based on the 24-graphics-card hash cracker's capabilities that he could factor this number in well under 1 second.
There are legitimate reasons for towers moving around. The cellular service might temporarily bring in a tower-on-a-truck to support a large event, such as a state fair. They might also use a portable tower to temporarily stand in for a non-functioning tower. Those may be uncommon scenarios, but they're still likely more common than a Stingray.
Also, consider that a Stingray lies about the signal strength it's receiving from your mobile phone. In order to monitor as much as possible, it baits your mobile phone with a tempting report of "hey, I get perfectly clear reception from you - even if you're using minimum transmit power. Therefore, you can run on very low battery power, and so you should have no need to switch away to another tower." So that might be a usable telltale: a new tower that reports perfect reception of your phone, even when your own reception of the tower is of poor quality.
So if you're doing some naughty stuff, and notice some new cell towers suddenly pop up around your house, yeah, you might want to think twice.
The original wiretap laws passed in 1968 were clear in that it was the use of devices to intercept a conversation with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" that was a violation, not simply owning them.
The current laws banning cell phone receivers were not created from logic. The laws were created in a poorly-thought-out reaction to some incident involving a VIP; I think some reporter recorded some congressman's cordless phone chat with his mistress, and published it. The wiretap laws passed in 1968 were very clear in that they protected wire based communications, but they did not include radio based communications, and so the reporter went unpunished.
This was another case where the average Joe Sixpack long had the ability to buy an off-the-shelf scanner, but he frequently demonstrated that he lacked the ethics required to prevent himself from using it to violate the law. There were other problems, too, where organized criminals would operate a scanner to listen for police responses to their activities. (At least that was the published story - we don't know how widespread this problem actually was.)
So Congress, applying all their legendary skills at doing the right thing, went to the dark side and banned the equipment, instead of strengthening the illegality of the act. A law was passed making possession of an unauthorized receiver illegal. Joe Sixpack didn't like being told no, so he began buying certain brands of scanners that had "blocking diodes" that could be easily clipped from the circuit. The FCC banned those as well, in 1997.
It's very much like the gun debate, but radios aren't protected by the second Amendment.
Can you build one yourself? Of course. Can you buy one from another country and use it here? Of course. But both of those acts take time, knowledge, and effort, and Joe Sixpack doesn't like to be bothered. So the law takes advantage of people's propensity towards laziness and self-doubt about their skills.
I don't think we need to go that far. If pesticides are truly the problem, it should be evident in fewer cases of CCD in regions that are mostly covered in organic farms. They might need to restrict local homeowner uses on flowers and gardens, just for a test. Plus, there is no evidence that removing one cause is sufficient to recover the populations. Mites could still be a significant factor.
I agree that it's far from proven. Pesticides, however, are still likely to be significant contributors.
Ummm...no. The current instance of Colony Collapse Disorder is a marked difference in bee colony behavior that began in about 2007-2008. The dieoffs are far larger than anything seen before.
Current theories are that neonicitinoids were introduced at about the same time that CCD began devastating bee colonies. Neonicitinoids, such as imidicloprin, are some of the latest and safest insecticides on the market, with very little harmful effects on mammals. But they have one huge drawback: it has been recently learned that they are extremely lethal to bees - up to 150X more lethal to bees than to other insects. They are neurotoxins. Even sub-lethal doses cause visible confusion in the bees, resulting in "incorrect" dances that the bees use to tell other bees about nearby sources of food.
Returning to topic, these are exactly the kinds of people I wouldn't want to accidentally hire.
My dog eats its own poop.
Not a ringing endorsement for the dog food metaphor.
The principles of safety and privacy do not require an accident before hand to be recognized.
Actually, most safety and security activities are the direct result of an attack or accident. For example, traffic signals are usually erected at unsafe intersections only after a certain number of severe accidents. Sony didn't encrypt their users' passwords in their database, even though hacking of it has been a very real possibility for many years (and I'm only presuming they've encrypted it since the leak.) The world (except for Israel) didn't get truly strong airline security until after the September 11th attacks.
It's biomechanics, not sexism. If you accept that women wear bras, it's in a perfect position to take an EKG reading. Men don't ordinarily wear a form-fitting piece of clothing in the same place.
If you want the same benefits for a man's physiology, think about the many chest-strap heart-rate monitors in the marketplace today. Can they comfortably carry the same amount of electronics and batteries? No. So in your world where this is "sexist", does that mean women should be denied this tool because it isn't equally available to both genders?
This device is no more or less sexist than the clothing that already exists.
I rue the day Paul became an improvement.