At 03:15 PM 7/17/03 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >I dunno...I'm thinking that optical tempest is probably bullshit 99% of the >time, but what do I know?
There was an article on optical tempest based on reading modem-LEDs, which are sometimes modulated with the data stream. For Mhz rates it works. >But I still don't believe that specular reflection of smallish type from a >monitor will have anything that is recoverable. Of course, this is going to >be dependent on the quality of the wall material, but for most not-so-even >plaster/drywall painted surfaces, I just can't believe the appopriate >spacial frequencies of the image are not scattered after that kind of >reflection. The idea of reading the *matte* reflection of the CRT beam is possible. But its not *spatial* frequency, its using intensity vs. time. At any one instant you have a single 1-D measurement. This exploits the fact, as stated, that the phosphor is brightest under the (scanning) beam. There is no spatial info present. You simply need a sensitive (contrast is low) and fast (raster rate) optical measurement. >The conspiracy theorist is telling me there's some reason they floated the >optical tempest story, though I can't quite figure out what that reason >is... Its the Windowshade division of the Anti-Illuminati ---- Irony: Jewish Zealots were famous for offing (Jewish) Roman collaborators. 100 generations later, Arabic Zealots whack (Arabic) ZionistCrusader collaborators. "Pro-American Mayor, Son Killed in Iraq" ---- Of course Iraq isn't another Vietnam. They don't know how to make good pho hoa.