Does anyone know if this sort of Faraday cage technology for large buildings is easily available for me to install in my own home? If so, what's it called, what does it cost and where do I get it?
I know that the FCC is kind of regarded as a joke lately, but this is a law they take pretty seriously as jammers can interfere with E911 calls. It would just take one emergency that 911 couldn't respond to for the FCC to realize what was going on, and no large store is going to take those odds. It's likely something else.
That said, if you really believe that they are blocking cell signals, you should probably file a tipoff, as they could honestly be putting lives at risk (go to https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us and click "phone"). As far as I know there's no penalty if you are wrong (as long as you honestly believe there might be an active jammer in the area and you aren't abusing their system somehow), worst case you'll get a call confirming they don't use one.
That kind of contradicts the OP... since they said that it was only recently that the signal stopped working, and that the building was not being remodeled during that time. So if the building is now impenetrable then something changed. Maybe modern phones just have a horrible time falling back from LTE to 4G/3G.. But if that’s the case then I feel like the OP would have checked for that since he seems to have already been tracking his connection strength over different locations and over time.
I noticed this recently, but cell towers get upgraded/replaced at intervals unrelated to "nationwide rollout of LTE!" from carriers.
I see this in the Targets in my town. I just expect signal to drop to zero.
Seems like a sound investment!
Most businesses use metal studs to support interior walls, though I doubt their ~2 foot spacing would block wifi or cellular RF.
In terms of active cellular jamming, that should be pretty easy to detect -- by standing in an outside doorway where you'd be exposed to inside AND outside signals, and then checking if your cellular bars fade out. That should indicate that you've been exposed to an internal jamming signal, since the external signal should still remain.
It's hard to imagine that the advantage to a corporation of isolating the customer's phone would be worth the risk of FCC prosecution.
I can confirm that. I've had a shed in the past where I've used chicken wire to secure insulation and it seems to work well, albeit unintentionally at the time.
It should work, as long as it all has electrical continuity and is grounded. I think that's where a lot of normal mesh in stucco or plaster falls short; nobody is going to bother to connect it all up with copper strips or whatever if that's not their explicit goal.
Even if it's not, it should attenuate radio waves somewhat. Just not as a full-coverage Faraday cage.
I can't make my iPhone NOT auto-join it, no matter how many steps, guides, hop-on-one-foot voodoo that I've tried.
The wireless network is terrible at everything except signal strength.
1. Go to Settings > WiFi and turn Ask to Join Networks ON.
2. Any time you are auto-connected to a network and don’t want to do that again, go to Settings > WiFi, tap the blue info icon next to the currently active wifi network, and then tap Forget this Network when the details show up.
Ask to Join Networks is usually off by default. That means your phone will always attempt to join any public wifi without asking you first. Apple thinks this is friendlier for people. All known networks, once joined, will forever be auto rejoined in the future unless you turn Ask ON and forget each network you connect to (except those you trust and want to auto-join).
It’s possible that it’s been “fixed” in subsequent iOS updates. I haven’t tried recently.
Back in college the engineering building used metal plates as the outside facade, combined with concrete construction. It had a side effect of getting rid of any cell phone reception as a result, unless you were beside a window. The building was built before 2G cell phone service was a thing, so it wasn't an intentional thing.
Maybe even chicken wire in the walls.
Speaking of, I was halfway expecting to see a couple stick figures banging each other behind a wall somewhere in that video. I really think that would have been the frosting on top; they should consider this for the next video when it's time for another round of funding.
I wonder if it was made intentionally that way to make them look less serious.
I suspect the articulated pose and motion of their animated stick figures were extrapolated from progressions of articulations of limb poses that were learned from the light-based training videos, and then they were overlaid onto the wifi-based signal of only the moving trunk.
All that animation does look cool, though.
Edit: Kolpa makes a really good point! This seems like a really good counter to SWATting, where the claim is that someone is holding hostages or something -- this could pretty effectively demonstrate that to be false if they see one person in an apartment sitting at a computer.
How would a stick figure images help a SWAT team validate that they're at the right house?
This could only help them by giving them a clue about where to point their guns once they bust down the door.
Other than bolting crap down wouldn't that basically consist of making sure it won't tip over?
Given how much information is out there that we can’t sense I wonder if this area will be a main source of AI advancements. Another example of something like this is using videos of plants that vibrate slightly with sound waves to recreate the original sound.
Not to say that it can't be done, but the maths exists to definitively prove whether it can be, so no need for speculation and tinfoil. My gut feeling is that you could scan a small volume from afar, but not a whole block. No, I haven't done the maths.
But let's do the math, I'm curious!
What's the range?
It might be useful if you wanted to count people in a crowd going in and out through a big opening, like a subway station or mall.
- Machines that see through walls are coming
- Microscopic drones are coming
- Mind-reading machines are coming
- Private key cryptography will become obsolete
Fighting for privacy is backward. It's unsustainable. We must work toward a post-privacy world. The sooner we do it, the smoother the transition will be.
A world where people freely share knowledge and resources.
ignorance is strength
> I've heard quite a lot of people that talk about post-privacy, and they talk about it in terms of feeling like, you know, it's too late, we're done for, there's just no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it. And this is a pretty fascinating thing, because it seems to me that you never hear a feminist say that we're post-consent because there is rape. And why is that? The reason is that it's bullshit.
> We can't have a post-privacy world until we're post-privilege. So when we cave in our autonomy, then we can sort of say, "well, okay, we don't need privacy anymore, in fact we don't have privacy anymore, and I'm okay with that." Realistically though people are not comfortable with that. Because, if you only look at it from a position of privilege, like, say, white man on a stage, then yeah, maybe post-privacy works out okay for those people. But if you have ever not been, or if you are currently not, a white man with a passport from one of the five good nations in the world, it might not really work out well for you, and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you, because the structures themselves produce these inequalities.
> So when you hear someone talk about post-privacy, I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is they are actually arguing for.
-- Jacob Appelbaum
In 2015, the tracker person was just shown as an amorphous blob on the screen. In the recent paper, they display a stick figure modelling the movements of the person’s limbs.
This isn’t always clear from the press release. For example, they mention that the technology works at “WiFi frequencies.” That’s true, but they’re sending a radar signal using two huge antennas, not a Wi-Fi router.
EDIT: I see from section 3 that they created their own FMCW antenna array that is somehow similar to a Walabot.
In layman's terms this system is more like a conventional camera but working in the radio spectrum whereas Wisee is like a microphone that can pick up changes in frequencies around it.
You clearly didn't read the manual.
A building that doesn't block radio and IR (and others) is essentially transparent. Putting an emitter like a WiFi point inside is like turning on a light.
What we need is more attention put to building better walls.
Existing and exist in a state you can deploy are two totally different things that often happen many years apart. Usually something exists as an impractical wish list item for a long time before some other development pushes it into the realm of being practical to use.
Would someone kindly point me towards it?
It's not a bad place to start. And cheap if you want to build your own too (some third party even sells the "cantennas" so you don't have to fiddle with tuning that part (which is kind of infeasible without a network analyzer anyway)).
Will go through references too :)
The radio signals are absorbed by wet salty meatbags, so you can find them using radio signals, but you can't see thru them. If you raise the power to compensate the absorption, you will cook the meatbags, like a microwave oven.
If you were lucky to get a signal at the other end, the radio signal can distinguish between meat-bone-air-water, but not between tissues like meat and tumors that have a somewhat similar composition. A tomography use contrast to try to distinguish them. A magnetic resonance is better, but it use a huge magnet (and in some cases it use contrast too).
And also, the radio frequency that they are using has a wavelength of an inch approximately. So roughly it can resolve things that are an inch long, so it must be a big tumor to be visible. Perhaps you can try with a higher frequency that has a smaller wavelength.
And if I understand correctly, this device needs a lot of calibration, so you need version of the part of the body without the tumor and a version with tumors of different sizes and positions to calibrate the device and then try to use it in the real subject.
Many Americans choose not to go into academia (at every level) because the other options are much more lucrative. It is true that many of America's best minds do not pursue a PhD in large part because of the paltry stipend.
It is also absolutely true that the one top CS PhD program I know of does not compromise in admissions and does not suffer from a lack of highly qualified applicants.
> Americans don't have a monopoly on intelligence.
I think it's possible to agree with this point while still believing that American CS Ph.D. programs -- especially those outside the top N -- are not as attractive to domestic applicants as they probably should be.
Sadly, we seem to be quite deficient in that department compared to other first world countries...
Immigrants get "paid" more than citizens to do a PhD in the U.S. because there's a green card "stapled" to each degree, which is of no value to citizens but of significant value to immigrants.
I called the argument "Devil's Advocate" because it is more than a little thankless to complain about someone working hard to obtain a privilege you were born into. It still hurts to have your dream job undercut by someone else, though.
What an absolutely atrocious way to think of your fellow man...
If someone else is getting the job you want instead of you, they worked harder for it than you did. If you want your dream job, you need to be prepared to compete for it, regardless of what color skin the competition happens to have.
That's sick, it's an atrocious way to think of your fellow man, and it's the very attitude that put Donald Trump in office.
> If you want your dream job, you need to be prepared to compete...
Your post history suggests you are an American. Unless you are an American PhD student, you are almost certainly benefiting immensely from much stronger protectionism at this very moment, so take your self-righteousness, and stuff it.
No, that's not a valid generalization. They may have worked less hard and been more talented. They may have worked less hard, been less talented, but had the good fortune to have better social connections. They may have worked less hard, been less talented, but benefit from non-germane status-based discrimination. Or, well, lots of other possibilities.
I want you to understand that your mind created this mirage in order to protect you from the cognitive dissonance of telling someone to enjoy ruin at the hands of competition while simultaneously enjoying stringent protections from the very same kind of competition.
Literally everyone credited in this paper could have been born and raised in the USA with birthright citizenship. I know that, realistically, that's not the case, but jumping to assumptions about individuals based on how ethnic their names sound is a form for casual racism that has absolutely no place in academia.
More importantly, if non-citizens are so much more likely to get admitted to MIT than citizens, it's not the immigration system we should be worried about. We should be worried about our education system that fails to produce highly-educated and motivated adults that qualify for admittance into MIT.
I also need to call you out for even bringing "descendants of immigrants" into this conversation. The children of immigrants have a name in this country: American citizens. We ought not judge people for the national origins of their parents, we should judge them for their academic and professional merits.
It's pretty bad form to look at names and assume that someone isn't an American.