If you are implementing a privacy mode, shouldn't you at least do a wireshark dump and inspect it? Before releasing it? This is really not rocket science...

As someone working every day with high sensitivity electronics and signal processing, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that intercepting mega/gigabit-per-second data packets using a microphone(!) is never going to work. Try calculating a) the background audio noise density compared to reasonable signal levels and b) path attenuation loss of a 100 MHz sound wave in air It is far easier sneaking a wire with a tiny antenna at each end through the cage. Also, a Faraday cage is actually far more complicated to build than simple copper wall paper. Usually you will want electrical power (and Internet connection?) inside because running all of your hardware on batteries gets rather annoying quite quickly, so you need to build filtering on the power lines, and that even before you start wondering where to ground your cage in relation to both power and signal lines.

I wish i could mod that up :-)

IAAP too, although in experimental LOW-Tc superconductivity. I agree, although with even more reservations. Not only is the data noisy, but the author claims, that microvolts is "extremely low voltage". This is absolutely rubbish from an experimentalist point of view. It has (obviously from the plots) not been filtered, and the authors claim of a "homebuilt amplifier built on an AD620" is not confidence inspiring. Although the AD620 is not horrible, noise-wise it is used at DC (20 Hz is close enough), which means that 1/f noise will kill his signal no matter what he does. This is especially silly considering, that nothing in the setup should require this low frequency sweeps. Hook up a lock-in amplifier and run ia at a few kHz at least to get decent noise characteristics. Also, all the experimental details of the setup are missing - this alone will get the paper rejected from any peer-reviewed journal. The author might be on to something interesting - superconductivity or not - but the experiment is done like a theorist would, not like an experimental physicist would. Back to the lab, and get some better results - I would love to see this with better measurements. PS: I'm not trying to re-ignite ye olde theorist vs. experimentalist battle, btw - I believe it is possible to be both. Just saying, that the author of this article is not. Seems he has a decent grasp of the theory though, hence my comment to theorists ;-)