Snooping TV.

[dennis]

You are wiskey-dave AICMFP.

[dennis]

Well do you?

Anyway I am going to ignore the rest of your none contributions. I no longer think you have a clue and think you are trolling.

[Tim Streater]

Actually that would account for a lot.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

No. The entertainment craft unions normally grab new technology and sort out a deal afterwards.

You've been learning from Trump. Deny what you've been shown to have said, then try and cover it up by changing the subject.

And rather typical - full of 'it would be so easy to do' type of thing without ever having attempted it. So sad on what is meant to be a DIY group.

[John Rumm]

I would have thought that for a TV with a built in mic, excising the TVs own audio output would be a standard part of the software - its going to need it for every occasion the mic is used.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It does sound oh so easy in theory. You simply remove the signal to the speakers from the mic output. And I'm sure can be made to work quite well in an anechoic room. And to be able to recognise clearly spoken commands.

But what it is being asked to do is somewhat different. To snoop on a conversation being held in the room.

I'd love to actually hear the results of this. And some proof of where it has actually been used with success.

[dennis]

And if they are like you and can't work out how to use the technology?

Its you that has made lots of claims that its impossible and then just tried to divert the thread when someone posts saying it has been done. Not once have you said "sorry I was wrong you can do that".

Quite the opposite of what I actually said! I said the technicians wouldn't be able to do it but if you want to read that as easy then that's your problem.

However I didn't claim it was impossible for someone clever to do it only that the unions wouldn't be very happy with sacking their members and letting someone else do the job.

Its all very well the members embracing technology but they don't do it when they don't understand it as you have demonstrated. They certainly don't want people that do know how to do it taking their jobs.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Have you *ever* worked in anything which could even remotely be called industry?

[dennis]

Have you ever worked where they design and make technology?

[Andy Burns]

ISTR it was you that asked if the reported snooping stuff with TVs was feasible, several here gave answers that yes, given deep pockets it could be done, because TVs are mainly linux boxes in disguise now.

You seem to have wanted to hear that is wasn't feasible at at all, and must all be a scare story, and have argued the toss over every point that people have said can be done to some extent or other ...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Many things are feasible on paper.

However, what most have been saying on here seems to have gone much further than what has been reported as happening.

I'd want to see a decent example given. A transcript of something recorded in this way would do. After all, if it has worked, it must have resulted in stopping some heinous crime or other?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You think they design and make technology in the average theatre?

If something like you've described - a method of using fixed mics mounted some way off to cover a stage performance for that audience - came along, it would first be demonstrated to interested parties. If it looked promising it would go on to trials in the field. If those were successful it would then be introduced.

Only an idiot like you would expect anyone to buy something untried and untested because you *just know* it will work.

[Andy Burns]

"they" are reluctant to use such intercept evidence in course, so they're hardly likely to show it to you or me ...

[Andy Burns]

"in courts" ...

[dennis]

I think you are just arguing for nothing so I will be blunt.. the sound technicians wouldn't have a clue how to set it up and use it and there is no need to reinvent the wheel as nobody is spying on stage productions. Mics fitted to performers have other uses too, its harder to mime when they don't have a mic to hide their lips.

You do recall this is about spying and not stage performances?

Its already proven that the array mic technology works, why it is used for some stuff and not others is nothing to do with spying.

Just accept that if the CIA/GCHQ wanted to hack your smart TV they could and with your knowledge you wouldn't know.

[tim...]

the whole idea is that there isn't a secure communications channel

but you said that there were places that would create dodgy certificates

thanks

but how do you tell the device that you are communication with, the new key in a secure way? What stops someone cloning this process?

Remember, this is a download being broadcast to 100,000 (or 1 million) separate devices all at the same time

This isn't a point to point communications link

tim

[John Rumm]

In practice it seems to work quite well. Have you never tried having a skype conversation without using a headset - i.e. with a web cam type setup where the mic can "hear" the computer's speaker output? I have done it many times and not had any difficulty making out what was being said.

Likewise the voice recognition on my phone seems quite able to take dictation in the noisy environment of my car, and that actually requires digital voice recognition.

Its does not even need to do that - all we are talking about is recording the ambient audio - any interpretation of it could be done later (if if that is pre-scanned by a computer for key words etc).

Which is obviously far simpler...

If you have a laptop, lob it in the corner of the room, turn the TV on, and then have a conversation. See what you can recognise of the conversation. I would expect that for "normal" TV volume levels you will have no difficulty making out every word without any echo cancellation or other processing.

I don't expect your average CIA/NSA operative is going to spell out chapter and verse how they obtained a covert recording.

Personally I can't see any technical limitation to stop a TV making an audio recording if it has a mic and an internet connection. Even without the sophisticated signal processing I expect it would work quite well. The more difficult bit is getting your spyware onto the TV in the first place. Even if there is no easy[1] way to do this remotely, its almost certain to be vulnerable if you have physical access to the hardware - and in all likelihood that will be the case, given the nature of your adversary.

[1] also given deep pockets, "easy" is not a pre-requirement either. Exceedingly hard and expensive is also acceptable if it yields valuable enough intelligence.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I merely mentioned it as a way for you to make your fortune. Since you believe it feasible. I can absolutely assure you if you could make it work there'd be a queue at your door.

I'm sure that makes sense to you. Perhaps you'd try again in English?

Then why did you say the technique would work perfectly there?

[John Rumm]

That is also why there is a revocation mechanism. If a certificate itself is compromised it can be revoked, and the same applies to a certification authority as well (in fact one was recently removed).

Because the security certificate is tied to a particular domain name and IP address as well.

Which "this" are you referring to in particular?

True multipoint comms (e.g. multicast) on the internet is still fairly rare - so frequently single source to multiple hosts will still typically be a point to point link (even in things like iplayer etc). Multicast also has the disadvantage that you can't so easily establish a reliable channel over it. This may not matter for the streaming applications it was intended for (where the timelyness of the data are as or more important than their absolute correctness), but it will be a big obstacle for doing things like software updates to multiple devices. So you have to rely on Forward Error Correction (FEC) to correct errors. (There are some slightly more obscure protocols that layer on top of UDP to give some error protection)

[tim...]

the way that updates are downloaded to TVs etc

the one that is currently insecure, that we need to make secure, to stop the spooks using it to download their dodgy software.

It's already been suggested that if the spooks have access to a specific TV so that they can download the code manually, they can just as easily plant some normal bugs and not have to engage in the expensive task of re-engineering the TV's software

but these devices are not always "on the internet"

the devices that I worked with were not

And I'm still interested in how I make that download of new software secure, without having to resort to "keeping the key secret" (as will my ex-employer and his clients - world leading in their sector, though not internet security obviously)

tim