the real cone of silence sounds boring compared to the very fallible cone of
silence in Get Smart-hilarious!

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sounds (sorry) impractical.
>
> Udhay
>
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227075.700-cone-of-silence-keeps-conversations-secret.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
>
>  'Cone of silence' keeps conversations secret
>
>    * 09 May 2009 by Paul Marks
>
>
> IN Get Smart, the 1960s TV spy comedy, secret agents wanting a private
> conversation would deploy the "cone of silence", a clear plastic
> contraption lowered over the agents' heads. It never worked - they
> couldn't hear each other, while eavesdroppers could pick up every word.
> Now a modern cone of silence that we are assured will work is being
> patented by engineers Joe Paradiso and Yasuhiro Ono of the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology.
>
> Their idea, revealed in US patent application 2009/0097671 on 16 April,
> is to make confidential conversations possible in open-plan offices and
> canteens. It will even let a conversing group move around a room and
> still remain in a secure sound bubble.
>
> "In increasingly common open-plan offices, the violation of employees'
> privacy can often become an issue, as third parties overhear their
> conversations intentionally or unintentionally," the inventors say in
> their patent. Their aim is to relieve people of that concern.
> In open-plan offices, the violation of employees' privacy can often
> become an issue
>
> Instead of plastic domes, they use a sensor network to work out where
> potential eavesdroppers are, and speakers to generate a subtle masking
> sound at just the right level.
>
> It sounds simple, but it needs quite a bit of infrastructure. The walls
> of the room must be peppered with light-switch-sized units that include
> a microphone, a speaker, an infrared location sensor and networking
> circuitry connected to a server. When somebody wants to activate what
> the MIT researchers call the "sound shield", they do so on their desktop
> computer. Knowing the position of the computer, the sensors identify the
> person and map out the locations of people around them. Software
> assesses who is so close that they must be participants in the
> conversation, and who might be a potential eavesdropper.
>
> The array of speakers then aims a mix of white noise and randomised
> office hubbub at the eavesdroppers. The subtle, confusing sound makes
> the conversation unintelligible.
>
> The ideas are not completely new - but what has gone before has big
> limitations, says Paradiso. "Current systems put sound out from one
> source. The sound isn't generally placed optimally between potential
> listeners and the people in conversation so there can often be too much
> or too little masking noise."
>
> For instance, the Babble, from Sonare Technologies, is a radio-sized
> machine with two speakers that emits white noise from your desk to mask
> what you are saying on the phone. But it is over-noisy, say the MIT
> team, and also fixed in place, whereas their system's sensors can track
> people as they move around, and shift the masking noise accordingly.
>
> If they decide to press ahead and exploit the idea, the system will also
> advise users whether there are other people too close by for it to
> assure secrecy. "With people often working in large open-plan spaces
> now, the time has come for ideas like this," says Paradiso.
>
> Klaus Moeller, founder of sound-masking systems maker Logison of
> Oakville, Ontario, Canada, is impressed with MIT's ambition but doubts
> its practicality. Logison uses a proprietary technology called Accumask
> that masks only speech frequencies to deaden voice transmission in
> offices - and it needs few fittings.
>
> "I wish MIT the best of luck with their idea," says Moeller. "It sounds
> very expensive and not very practical in an office environment." He
> thinks architects may object to the many wall or ceiling-mounted devices
> the system needs to follow people around the office.
>
>
> --
> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
>
>

Reply via email to