[feralimal]

I watched the video. I'm sorry, but its inane. This is the worst sort of science magic. In fact its just trickery.

Do you seriously think that you have been provided evidence in that video? All that happened is that I ended up looking at a leaf and packets of things that weren't moving at all. That's not evidence!

It says that they are picking up vibrations from a leaf or bag of crisps. But they don't show you those vibrations. They just give you a bunch of graphics and fuzzy sounds and tell you that they have done something.

You do see that this is could be very simple video trickery right? As with the initial article - there's a claim, but nothing to really be able to use to verify that claim. Just a graphic, and references to Shazam. Perhaps this is guerrilla marketing for Shazam? Its a more viable thesis anyway, given the evidence!

[phpnode]

They provide the matlab code and source inputs for their experiments, you could attempt to verify their results if you don't believe the video.

[feralimal]

Should we believe videos and articles?

I think we should demand more. We are being presented science right? We should be able to recognise that this article and the videos, etc are just presenting a claim. They are not providing any evidence. This is just a story.

[phpnode]

I'm not sure what you're asking, the tools are there for you to replicate their experiment.

[feralimal]

I'm saying, if someone writes an article and it is published, should we believe it?

You're saying that I should use tools to replicate the experiment. Great - this is what we should do before we accept something as true. Otherwise, we are in the realms of 'belief'.

So, do you believe this story? And did you do due diligence, and confirm with the tools that it is true? Or did you skip that bit and believe it despite the fact that NO evidence is presented at all? Be honest when you answer please!

Stepping back a bit, I'm not saying anything so drastic. I certainly don't see why I'm being downvoted. I'm really talking about applying the scientific method personally. I'm saying don't accept articles, videos by default, without even critically reading what is being presented. I really think its pretty obvious stuff, tbh!

[x2f10]

The video is a simple demonstration. If you want more details, there's an accompanying website and white paper published by MIT [1].

1. http://people.csail.mit.edu/mrub/VisualMic/

[luma]

You’ve been provided with links to an article from a credible source, a paper, and a video, and you say you don’t believe any of it. The physics of this effect are both well known and easily demonstrated. What level of evidence is required in your mind?

[thebean11]

You should discredit the Wired article

[feralimal]

Well, ok.

Firstly, note that it provides no evidence. It has a claim, and shows a fancy graphic. That's it. Its not evidence. Anyone can make that sort of thing up. How can one differentiate this from a story I just made up?

Digging in, it says: "LED bulbs also offer a signal-to-noise ratio that's about 6.3 times that of an incandescent bulb and 70 times a fluorescent one."

Why? Why are LEDs better for this noise reflection stuff, than incandescent or fluorescent ones? They're all in glass. The heat of the glass is stable. The LED itself surely can't help.

Why does Shazam feature in these tests, at all?!

It also says: "Researchers have known for years that a laser bounced off a target's window can allow spies to pick up the sounds inside. Another group of researchers showed in 2014 that the gyroscope of a compromised smartphone can pick up sounds even if the malware can't access its microphone."

Right. Are we meant to believe that this is what spies do? I mean, a spy just has to access whatever systems are already at his or her disposal and listen to your calls. They don't need to do any of that!

And: "Still, Nassi says the researchers are publishing their findings not to enable spies or law enforcement, but to make clear to those on both sides of surveillance what's possible. "We want to raise the awareness of this kind of attack vector," he says. "We’re not in the game of providing tools.""

So, they even say that this article is about raising awareness of this kind of attack vector. They are raising awareness. Thanks spies!

The article is a joke. At best this is a puff piece for a spy agency, or more likely just to increase paranoid awareness amongst those in tech. Be scared, danger everywhere! There are spy agencies listening to you everywhere - they're not using your phone, they use light bulbs and leaves!!

[getoffmyawn]

> I mean, a spy just has to access whatever systems are already at his or her disposal and listen to your calls. They don't need to do any of that!

perhaps domestically, but certainly not in a foreign country.

>So, they even say that this article is about raising awareness of this kind of attack vector. They are raising awareness. Thanks spies!

I'm not sure what you're are trying to say here. Does this discredit the article?