Skip to comments.
Sending secret messages over public internet lines can take place with new technique
Eurekalert ^
| 10-Oct-2006
| Colleen Morrison
Posted on 10/10/2006 11:15:52 AM PDT by Teflonic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
To: Izzy Dunne
21
posted on
10/10/2006 11:54:43 AM PDT
by
NY Attitude
(You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
To: Izzy Dunne
"
This is old stuff. For instance, properly trained observers can detect the tower in this picture:"
Hmmm...for some of us, finding the tower is as difficult as trying to figure Skanamaru out.
The inside of old Toshiba COCOM Affair (Troll reads a book)
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/1634861/posts
22
posted on
10/10/2006 11:55:40 AM PDT
by
familyop
("he died for rodeo horse on Jul 25, 1987." - - skanamaru)
To: Izzy Dunne
is this "spread spectrum"?
23
posted on
10/10/2006 11:59:52 AM PDT
by
Mark Felton
("Wisdom is supreme...and though it cost all you have, get understanding" -- Proverbs 4)
To: taxcontrol
In short, only works in the lab.No, I dont get that read. You need a form of matched filter but that's software. You use a pseudo random code to encode the signal and at the other end a matched filter (can be hardware or just software depending of the speed/bandwidth needs) which is properly seeded with the same pseudo random code sequence can pluck out the correct signal componenets from where they were buried. This is done all the time with spread spectrum radios, radars, etc. I admit I havent read the paper but from the article description this sounds like basic spread spectrum technology applied to a fiber optic channel. Different noise characteristics than the atmosphere, which is probably why this is considered novel, but the technique is well established and in use all over.
Interestingly, Spread Spectrum was first patented by Hedy Lamarr (the actress!) in the early 1940s.
24
posted on
10/10/2006 12:01:30 PM PDT
by
pepsi_junkie
(Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
To: Teflonic
YAWWWWWN!
I built an equivalent system 20 years ago that used LEDs. I demonstrated it to several appropropriate potential customers but for a variety of reasons (some valid), it never got past the "interesting but..." stage.
25
posted on
10/10/2006 12:03:15 PM PDT
by
nevergiveup
(Locals say "puh-TUCK-it")
To: Izzy Dunne
Wasting massive amounts of bandwidth.
Is this a great country or what?
I know that nice clean looking wholesome HEALTHY gal just HAS to vote Conservative, right? ;
26
posted on
10/10/2006 12:03:57 PM PDT
by
mkjessup
(The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
To: pepsi_junkie
You need a form of matched filter but that's software. You use a pseudo random code to encode the signal and at the other end a matched filter I used truly random noise and a little hardware. No software or careful filtering needed.
27
posted on
10/10/2006 12:07:17 PM PDT
by
nevergiveup
(Locals say "puh-TUCK-it")
To: Izzy Dunne
Thanks for the trip down Mammary Lane....
28
posted on
10/10/2006 12:11:27 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: Dracian
You think all messages into America from S.A., Jordan, Syria, and Iran are by word of mouth?
29
posted on
10/10/2006 12:12:37 PM PDT
by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: nevergiveup
I used truly random noiseIf it's pseudo random, both sides can generate the same sequence and thus stay synchronized. How do you randomly encode the signal (really randomly) and get it back? If it is true random data, by definition it would be impossible for both sender and receiver to have the same sequence. I suppose you could use truly random data to encode a signal for recording as a rudimentary form of encryption as long as you saved the random sequence to later reconstruct (as the key) but I dont know how you could do it in a comms system unless perhaps you use static random data which each side has recorded.
30
posted on
10/10/2006 12:15:27 PM PDT
by
pepsi_junkie
(Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
To: mkjessup
Wasting massive amounts of bandwidth. Actually, I think the opposite is true. In radar theory, if you use signals encoded appropriately you can greatly decrease the power you transmit. The reason is that it is a lot easier to extract the signal from the noise in the returns due to what is called the integration imprvement factor which results from the use of a known code in the system. In fact it is so much easier that the signal can be made much smaller and still be found. I would think that in a fiber channel with fixed capacity, the use of smaller signals which utilize this same integration improvement to pull them out would allow much more efficient use of the bandwidth.
31
posted on
10/10/2006 12:21:35 PM PDT
by
pepsi_junkie
(Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
To: pepsi_junkie
The only problem is that in my experience in building DWDM networks, most optical filters are hardware based and designed to perform only one or two functions. Either they filter as a straight db filter (an attempt to eliminate the noise level) or they are "frequency" filters (only allowing a specific chromatic range through... or both. From my read on the article, it would appear that either type of filter is very likely to inhibit the proper operation of the optical network. Further, in optical repeating devices or devices that provide the translation from optical to electrical and then regen the signal out the optical interface, would also require special changes to allow for these signals to pass.
But... I have not tested this at all so it might work. But the disclaimer about the filters would have me on the pessimistic side.
To: BIGLOOK; Grampa Dave
Interesting discussion
by folks wishing they were able to do this.
of one secret writing method.
Reading between the lines in white doesn't add a bit of protection from us though.
33
posted on
10/10/2006 12:35:21 PM PDT
by
ASA Vet
(Everyone keep clam!)
To: Izzy Dunne
Maybe we can ask if she could give directions to the nearest bar?
34
posted on
10/10/2006 12:40:25 PM PDT
by
ASA Vet
(Everyone keep clam!)
To: Izzy Dunne
Tower?
What "Tower?"
Have you got another test that I could try?
35
posted on
10/10/2006 12:50:28 PM PDT
by
Redbob
To: Izzy Dunne
Tower?
What "Tower?"
Have you got another test I could try?
This one is too hard.
36
posted on
10/10/2006 12:51:26 PM PDT
by
Redbob
To: Teflonic
37
posted on
10/10/2006 12:53:51 PM PDT
by
Alia
To: Redbob
Dang Verizon wireless connection!
38
posted on
10/10/2006 12:54:30 PM PDT
by
Redbob
To: pepsi_junkie
You didn't say anything wrong but that's not how I did it. Sorry and don't take it personnel, but since it has been so long and since I have already talked all I want to talk about it (to people with $'s) I am of the age that I'd rather concentrate on reply's from IzzyDunne and ASA Vet.
39
posted on
10/10/2006 1:31:40 PM PDT
by
nevergiveup
(Locals say "puh-TUCK-it")
To: ASA Vet
Could she even stand up without her hand on that tree?
40
posted on
10/10/2006 2:04:00 PM PDT
by
arthurus
(Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-44 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson